Dear Stephen Rose, ROSE: "What gets me is summary conclusions that this or that of Nietzsche (say) is a mere stepping stone in his development." MOORE: I hope you do not think that? I I have said something to that effect I need to correct it. I totally agree with your next statement on Nietzsche, "When I now read something early of N, I find things understood and articulated then that are complete." My only qualification would be, that what was written early and seems self-explanatory goes on relatively unchanged at least subliminally, underneath the styles of exposition, in the later works where sometimes he says something positive to what earlier had been negative or the reverse, is a ‘trying out’ of other peoples’ ideas, the accepted general pathway of thought, my ‘ordinary discourse’ which is inevitably the fundamental ground from which we must speak, must refer to in one way or another, and, in the end always triumphs over philosophical discourse. In the little of the Peirce I have read I have found this same interplay between the ‘talk’ of philosophers and ‘real people’ which can be confusing, as was my search for something metaphysical in the “the positive internal characters of the subject in itself” which could have come as well from Kant, Ficthe, Schelling, or Hegel, but which I know see from the tutorship of others is a strict but plain logical statement. However, taking that quote with the others John Deely stated, it marvelously thus shows, as Nietzsche wants to show, in language, in ‘ordinary discourse’, we are ‘always already trapped in a general metaphysical schema that everyone accepts as ‘plain language’ without noting the larger metaphysical assumptions. Heidegger quotes Kant, I think from the CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON that “man is a metaphysical animal” but not with the ‘normal’ expected approval when one says, “Man is a rational animal” or “Man is a social animal” or “Man is a political animal”, but much more uneasily and dubiously as “Man is the only animal that can laugh”. Nietzsche certainly believe philosophy should be thoroughly risible.¶
--- “In Peirce the relevance of the early is palpable. I can go immediately to childhood and find a single conclusion that summarizes everything I have supposedly "come to" over time. I have never been a fan of life stages.” But with some thinkers this must be contended with. However, in your support, almost always in the long run a thinker’s traverse is simply circular and what seems different is merely a restatement of the ‘same’ from a different point of view, and having different points of view throughout one’s life is inescapable. Ludwig Wittgenstein is a great example of this. No one has proven his later philosophy is in fact different from his early philosophy, however much they look different. And his initial inspiration, to the shock of the Vienna Circle, was, like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer. They actually thought they misheard him. But you do not have to ‘believe’ in a philosopher to be inspired by him. After all, no one has simply and systematically figured out what Nietzsche ‘believed’ which, considering he believes there are some mistaken beliefs one must believe simply to speak to others. How can one possibly get on top of that? -- Regards, Gary C. Moore From: Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> To: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION, now Nietzsche What gets me is summary conclusions that this or that of Nietzsche (say) is a mere stepping stone in his development. When I now read something early of N, I find things understood and articulated then that are complete. In Peirce the relevance of the early is palpable. I can go immediately to childhood and find a single conclusion that summarizes everything I have supposedly "come to" over time. I have never been a fan of life stages. All the best, S ShortFormContent at Blogger On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Dear Stephen Rose, >The many books of both John Deely and Jacques Derrida [JD] actually, if one >gets involved with them, offers opportunities of cross reference and clearer >expression of certain ideas than any one summary volume. Having the books, >despite the expense, offers great opportunities for verification and >counter-verification when one has time to read the full context – usually for >my slow wittedness two or three times – brings great revelations sometimes to >what one author may have footnoted in a marginal manner. When S. J. McGrath >referred to Jacques Derrida’s THE GIFT OF DEATH I gained a great new >perspective on Heidegger’s view of death as a realistic limit situation in >language and experience as well as introducing me to deeper aspects of >Kierkegaard. Jacques Derrida’s original ideas I find 'marginal' [joke, >irony] but they usually bring with them great insights into other >philosophers.¶ >---- >John Deely, on the other hand, may very well express one of his ideas in a new >book much better in an old book or simply make it easier to find a reference. >--- >Pace Nietzsche, learning the wholly different ways one needs to read each >philosopher, though it is frustrating, is always in the end well worth while. >Nietzsche is both the hardest – because he is very easy and enjoyable to read >as entertaining literature – but shows each of us how we are irreducibly FIXED >in our personal/contextual/historical linguistic context – which to find out >about is really what philosophy is all about just as in Socrates’ dialogic >method of usually just asking questions [when most serious] or making speeches >when he is wanting to enthrall others with his command of rhetoric. >Enthralment obviously works at least just as well as logical conviction. >Abinavagupta once said the the ecstasy of literature is far superior to even >the religious ecstasy of the yogi. Nietzsche would have loved to have heard >that, but the enthusiasm for Abhinavagupta [various spellings] is a late >twentieth century thing. >--- >Regards, >Gary > > >From: Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >To: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> >Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:32 AM > >Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION, now >Nietzsche > > > >The French including JD could have been spared a few books by this input. I >have always credited ER as synonymous with what N means by amor fati which >isn't exactly stoic. I see these things as a basis for achieving transcendence >in the immanent frame, at least a bit. > > >PS Web tip for those with fairly common names. Including middle initials works >wonders for effective searches. > > > >ShortFormContent at Blogger > > > >On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Dear sir, >> >>Nietzsche rejected the 'eternal return' as irrational in his earliest >>notebooks attributing his source of the idea from Pythagoras which was a >>surprise to me. I researched the Stoics as best I could, supposedly the real >>generators of the idea, but it does not amount to anything important in their >>surviving fragments – except, taking my clue from Marcus Aurelius and >>Epictetus, the way things are, regardless of anything else whatsoever, is the >>most perfect way things can be. If there is change, it is merely a return to >>the same thing. The world you have is the only prize. >>¶Nietzsche, though, made it a poetic metaphor, not a real philosophical idea, >>in that one could say what has happened in your life you cannot change, and >>therefore can use this myth to say, again no matter what, that it was the >>best possible of your lives, that what you have lived cannot change therefore >>accept it enthusiastically as it is your most precious life no matter what it >>was! Marcus Aurelius essentially says the same thing even to the point of >>saying that even evil men can have a rightful place in Nature’s plan in which >>we all are just blades of grass anyway. ¶ >> I would say Nietzsche never debunked science per se but rather the >>self-importance and mystique of the Scientist's 'science'. He always finds a >>way to attack the person behind the science who puts too much self-importance >>into his accomplishment. >>-- >>Regards, >>Gary >> >> >> >>From: Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >>To: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> >>Cc: "PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU" <PEIRCE-L@listserv.iupui.edu> >>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:59 AM >>Subject: Re: [peirce-l] PEIRCE QUOTATION FROM JOHN DEELY LOCATION, now >>Nietzsche >> >> >> >>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 >> >> >> >>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> 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 <stever...@gmail.com> >>>To: Gary Moore <gottlos752...@yahoo.com> >>>Cc: "PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU" <PEIRCE-L@listserv.iupui.edu> >>>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 >>> >>> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
