I have read the Heidegger though again I claim no expertise. On the matter of eternal return in my Neitzsche gloss "Abba's Way" in he section on Enigma and Myth I explicitly reject eternal return on grounds that turn out to be Peircean I think. Continuity for example. Progress. I think it would be interesting to see the linkages we have discussed examined in context of integrating an understanding of Peirce that contains his ethical and theological thought. Didn't he himself debunk science sufficiently to suggest that he had a wider view?
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Gary Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Sir, > MOORE: Now there is a fascinating topic! Nietzsche went mad because of the > fundamental incompleteness of ethics *per se* . . . This goes enormously > well with a number of possible semiotic investigations [since all > investigations are semiotic investigations by necessity]. But beyond John > Poinsot and Nietzsche’s exact contemporary Charles Sanders Pierce, > Nietzsche is the first to get behind the workings of language itself, and > making understanding him much more difficult, Nietzsche’s very process of > the investigation of language *employs* his insights into the workings of > language which then makes his writings in a way very much like James > Joyce’s *Finnegan’s Wake* which explicitly employs the philosophy of > Giambatista Vico, and undoubtedly Aquinas, in Joyce’s bête noir in *A > Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man*. Joyce writes in the dream > consciousness of a drunken character utilizing the ‘real’ chaos of the > dream state which everyone from Cro magnon to Sigmund Freud thought hide a > secret order behind it [people need to read Freud directly for themselves > because the literal Freud is a real scientist and his observations have > rational fundaments even if one finally rejects some in a fair trial]. It > is also a way to connect Peirce through Freud, as well as Lacan who never > thought he superseded Freud, directly to Nietzsche’s literal thought > process. It is precisely because Nietzsche lays out his thought as exactly > as he literally thought it < or as he saw himself thinking it > which is > necessarily linguistic, that makes him so difficult:: Nietzsche is > demonstrating language’s sober and natural, not dream or drunken, secrets. > What Poinsot and Peirce try to do logically and scientifically, Nietzsche > shows as he lives it self-consciously. If you start chronologically from > the earliest Nietzsche in the philological articles and notebooks and go > through to the ‘mad’ letters to Overbeck and Burckhardt among others, you > see an unbroken whole of an internal investigation of language as people > actually use it. You get to see the trinitarian process of internal > discussion I wrote about going on in what Nietzsche put on paper. Nothing > is sacred. > --------------------- > MOORE: Yes, there were a number of irresolvable [incompleatable] ethical > problems in his life that had to have irrupted, and not necessarily > unconsciously, into his writings. Some of these were irresolvable, “What do > you do when such is the case that nothing can change at all?” This > unchangeability of one’s personal situation is the explicit meaning and > Nietzsche’s intentional employment of the so-called theory of eternal > recurrence, that is, a recurring problem, for instance your death, that > cannot be solved or changed and yet your understanding of it determines the > whole shape of your life. “Eternal recurrence” is not a philosophical or > psychological theory at all but rather an inescapable but continuously > personal problematic of “I am what I am” which Aquinas also dealt with in > his own way in his ethical philosophy. Nietzsche’s “revaluation of > values” was, by nature, ‘incompleatable’, certainly not systematic > philosophy, and much more like a psychoanalysis of morality as it is found > and abused in the real world, the meaning behind the meanings twisting and > turning in one’s present moment conversation. > ---------- > MOORE: You need to read Heidegger’s Nietzsche lecture course, especially > the first volume where Heidegger writes of the unconscious river that flows > through every person that determines their character. Heidegger is honest > here by anyone’s standard and the result is shocking, Here, Heidegger was > as honest with himself as Nietzsche was always honest with himself. And > then there is James I. Porter’s *Nietzsche and the Philology of the Future > * which is as drastic as Heidegger’s but overwhelming scholarly in the > conventional sense at the same time. Porter works through everything point > by point. It is certainly totally relevant to Piercean or Poinsot studies. > It literally attacks the basis of every and any scholarly ‘discipline’ and > undermines them thoroughly. With Porter you have the advantage of his web > site with a wide range of his papers on not only the theory but the > practice of Nietzschean technique: > http://sites.google.com/site/jamesivanporter/ > and > http://sites.google.com/site/jamesivanporter/articles > and > > http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Philology-Future-James-Porter/dp/0804736987/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335769347&sr=1-1 > Regards, > Gary Moore > > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > *To:* Gary Moore <[email protected]> > *Cc:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:05 AM > *Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION > > You mention Nietzsche. My theory is that he went mad in part because his > own values and those he excoriated left him unable to complete revaluation > of values of which Antichrist was the first of five intended works. I > arrived independently (and pragmatically) at the values I now see as > ontological about 30 years ago and then, after encountering Nietzsche in > the 2000s (actually visiting Sils-Maria), wrote Abba's Way as a potential > continuation of the revaluation. It is only in the last few years I have > encountered Peirce. While I have no expertise regarding Peirce and > Neitzsche, I think it is virtually impossible to come to some comprehensive > understanding without integrating their insights.It was N mainly who > created the basis for a notion of values being ontological within the > immanent frame. And Peirce the basis for a reastic answer to nominalism. > Dealing with this momentous achievement seems to me now to be what's > happening. Best, S > > *ShortFormContent at Blogger* <http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
