The Eternal Return

[ambiguity]

This Ourobos Ideology has been around for centuries... but what do people really think about it?

Friedrich Nietzche poses the question in an excellent way:

"What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?
Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'"

I was just curious what people think of this, and just remember that this is slightly different than the idea of 'Eternity' or endless life, but rather the theory that everything in this universe is likely to play over and over, and that time will repeat itelf over and over, all in the same sucession and sequence.

This ideal still suggests that life in Eternal, with a slight twist. Heinrich Heine explains it perfectly:

"Time is infinite, but the things in time, the concrete bodies, are finite. They may indeed disperse into the smallest particles; but these particles, the atoms, have their determinate numbers, and the numbers of the configurations which, all of themselves, are formed out of them is also determinate. Now, however long a time may pass, according to the eternal laws governing the combinations of this eternal play of repetition, all configurations which have previously existed on this earth must yet meet, attract, repulse, kiss, and corrupt each other again..."

Just for some extra food for thought... One of the last things Albert Einstein wrote, three weeks before his death was “To us believing physicists the distinction between past, present, and future has only the significance of a stubborn illusion.”

Questions? Comments? Please state your opinions.

 

[panic in paradise]

^those two have some very interesting things to say about Spirituality and Religion...i especially like the Zarathustra, and enjoy coming across what Einstein has to say about Religion, he was kind of Bi-Polar about his belief system...;-)this is interesting, is this a subject for a class?

i agree with them both in ways, Nietzhe seems to be referring to karma, or to ones Guardian Angel and being in a state of passive awe, or no fear do or die again mode - Einsteins point in this example is maybe describing how i like to thing of the partial workings here, in that a figure 8 point is the of a constant flow of our 'matter', where with in full conception past present future and all exist, and that in the middle point is a meeting point where we exist as we are.

 

[L2R]

with no memory between lives it makes no difference.

during some of my particularly bad psychedelic psychosis episodes years ago, it felt like i was a passenger on some rollercoaster ride which is my body, whose thoughts and actions were part of an incredibly violent and jarring experience.

 

[ambiguity]

Yea I've always been very interested in Nietzsche's point of view when it comes to just about anything, he's a very unique character. Him and Edgar Allen Poe are pretty much my two favourite writers... actually Poe uses this exact idea in some of his poetry and short stories (i.e. 'Dream within a dream').
And no Panic In Paradise, this was not an assignment for school or anything, merely something I think about.
I believe your right in a sense that Nietsche poses a question from a sort of ethical perspective. I find his last sentence extremely thought-provoking in this notion of: Is the life we live beautiful enough... and are the moments in our lives so eccentric... that if life really were to repeat itself in this figure eight sort of way like you were mentioning, that we would actually take it as a gift? Or would it be exactly the opposite, the equivalent of a Hell on Earth.
It's a difficult question to answer... and the reason I like it so much is because I think a very large portion of human beings believe in SOME SORT of eternity, but not very many people actually take the time to consider what perpetual existence might be like, especially if it were 'circular'.

L2R I just wanted to adress that I think a lot of people are troubled by with what you are saying (not to take a leap and imply 'your troubled by it' or anything). But I know I've certainly found myself disturbed by thoughts like those in certain psychedelics episodes... it's sort of similar to the upsetting idea that "nothing you can do in life will ever be remembered" or like... "everything eventually wears away". Shit like that.
But I always like to think that after we're done living all our lives and after we're finished roaming through this reality and that reality... and once we finally make it to the 'ultimate afterlife', or the 'final point', or the 'top of the pyramid', or whatever you want to call it...
that God or Buddha or whatever put us in this mess, hands us a 'giant spreadsheet' full of all the statistics and answers, lol.

Just so we can have that satisfaction and be like... well, it looks like Johnny won the tally for most times slippin' on wet floors.
or wow! Goldman Sachs really was running the world.
or... Shit man! I can't believe that 96% of the world had Katy Pary on their fucking Ipod from 2009-2010.

Do you kno what I mean though? Maybe I have too much of a spacey mind, but i personally would love to know all these so-called 'numbers' that are literally uncalculable, yet, are obviously counted in some way.
To know... how many bacteria or cells there are in the world, OR how many particles make up a chair. Or how people in the world have tried LSD or got addicted heroin.
To know who lied about this or that... and who actually fell in love? Or how many people were murderers? Or who got the closest to fully understanding the meaning of life? etc.
The list of questions are infinite, and each of them as interesting as the last.

These kind of unaswerable questions fuck with me on a daily basis...
not to the point were they bother me or anything, its just like...
that would honestly be the greatest privledge (in my mind at least) to one day be bestowed with this sort of knowledge.

All I know is that if Life is really like you say it is L2R...
A never-ending segregration of memories in reality A through Z.
Then I am going to be fucking pissed.
Well I guess Ill never really be able to draw that conclusion so...? =S
-end rant

 

[panic in paradise]

Nietzsche almost seems to talking about Azazel/Lucifer/Jupiter, supposedly my "Guardian Angel" - and it is fitting personally. from what i have learned. Lucifer likes to push ones buttons, as an Archetype he is all about trying to break you, but "rewards" highly for fighting back with him, fighting for life because of a love for it.

Lucifer is not "Satan" either, BTW -lol- he is a separate Arch Angel, apples and oranges those two in their Mythology.

so in a sense described above, i wouldnt be surprised if Azazel/Lucifer/Jupiter was Nietzsches Guardian Angel, or the story inspired him a great deal.

about Gifts...oh boy.

i have for starters, what is sometimes called the "Pharaohs Curse": Spondyloarthropy. i also have heard it mentioned a blessing, when you really start to realize and accept more then you may of wanted to, laying silently in pain. this, is rather similar to Lucifer's gig...i seriously could not imagine changing lives personally, its awful(understatement) but, amazing!!!

as far as the Figure-8, that i see described more in of what Einstein was saying, a cosmic, cellular connectivity or perception - a take i get very strongly when i have been meditating for a while, it is a sensation and awareness that will begin small, surrounding my body only then expanding eventually.


interesting stuff
_______________________________

' Azazel-Lucifer!
The Shaitan,
The Melek Ta'us!
O mighty Lord of this World
Who is at once
The Prince of Darkness
And the Angel of Light! '








^ paraphrased,

 

[L2R]

ambiguity, my fear was less so much the concern about not being remembered, but more about being trapped, suffocated and without any choice as i ride this life out. i felt like a passenger to my straight jacketed body and mind. all i could do is watch.

 

[ambiguity]

L2R, what I was saying is that the two go hand in hand for me...
One of the reasons I feel trapped is knowing that nothing I do will amount to anything substantial and that so much of life is intangible. That what makes me feel like passenger or a victim of varied forces.

and yes, Panic I feel very much strongly towards this idea of connectivity as well, that all points are eventually moving towards a conjoint state.
It's actually almost ironic how the general concensus of the twentieth century (especially among the scientists, astrologists etc.) seems to be that the universe is chaotic. And yet, there are so many abstract thinkers popping up here and there who believe that the nature of the universe is precisely the opposite.

 

[Psyduck]

"I was just curious what people think of this, and just remember that this is slightly different than the idea of 'Eternity' or endless life, but rather the theory that everything in this universe is likely to play over and over, and that time will repeat itelf over and over, all in the same sucession and sequence."

I'm not sure that Nietzsche meant this. I think the "eternal return" is the WILL willing itself, the WILL wills only itself, the WILL willing itself (over and over again), always willing never non-willing (opposed to Schopenhauer on art, or Buddhism). This is how Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal return is tied to his doctrine of will to power.

** As contrasted with the will only wanting and settling for one thing (i.e. "a nice wife, a nice job, a lot of money")... the authentic WILL-to-power isn't tied to a fixed object (this argument is against platonism/transcendence), but is freed of any object, the will doesn't want one object, but the WILL only wants itself (over and over again). This is the summum of creativity force, as opposed to the "easy" life which Nietzsche ascribes to the masses not living life to the fullest

 

[ambiguity]

wowww Psyduck thank you for the excellent input. I honestly never knew that's what he meant by that excerpt... i had read it from a source that implied a point of view similar to my own. What your saying makes a l lot of sense. I should do some more reading.

alternatively, Id just like to point oout another quote (im not sure what writings of his it's from)
but this is basically Nietzsche taking the same idea and sort of re-iterating it:
"This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you - -all in the same succession and sequence -- even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over and over, and you with it, a grain of dust."

I think the way Nietzsce structures this quote is absolutely pure poetry, however the phrasing is not so much subjective as asking "would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth...?". So i decided to go with the other one. Once again though, im not so sure if this quote speaks more towards my pov or your's Psyduck. I actually like your interpretation so much more than mine lol.

 

[Psyduck]

I think the way Nietzsce structures this quote is absolutely pure poetry,

1) Well, he's actually a secret metaphysician. In the background there is the classical metaphysical distinction between essence/existence (essentia/existentia). When we say "a cow is," what does the word "is" mean here? The "is" can traditionally mean what-ness (essentia), and how-ness (existentia). The entity's whatness (cow, having white/black spots, etc.) and its how-ness (livingness). The how-ness of a stone (deadness) is different from the how-ness of an animal (livingness) is different from the how-ness of a human (consciousness).

2) Nietzsche here says: the how-ness of the human being (and everything else in reality) is will-to-power. In the above example I made a distinction between stone/cow/human as deadness/livingness/consciousness. Nietzsche on the other hand gives one determination for all beings. WILL-to-POWER. Hence: the cow/stone/human "are" will-to-power. This might seem absurd. But take for example a tree which wants to grow. Empirically we see the tree growing, but this empirical observation doesn't give a metaphysical basis why novelty should arise in reality. How can something become what it "is" not (non-Being). How can a seed grow into a full-grown tree. This is the transition from Being to non-Being. The problem of becoming and being. The platonic tradition said that change and movement was an illusion and there was only pure Being (in a super-natural world of ideas). The problem of being is a serious problem. If there is only becoming in reality, thing never are. Then "you as baby," "you as child," and "you as mature person" are not the same person, but reality is always and endlessly changing.

3) Aristotle's solution for this was potency/act (dunamis/energeia). He said beings have potency. The seed is potentially a full-grown tree. Throughout the change the thing becomes-itself (self-becoming). The seed does not become something other, but becomes itself: it realizes (energeia) what it already was potentially (dunamis). Therefore it needs a power. Power means here: the power to establish a change, the power for transition. Power and potency are interrelated terms. The seed has the power to accomplish change (i.e. to become a full-grown tree). Similarly, a baby has the power to become a mature person. This notion of power/force is more primordial than scientific notions of force. If beings don't have this power, reality would be fixed, pure being, and nothing could change. Well, now Nietzsche comes again into play. Just as Aristotle says that entities must have power to become, Nietzsche says entities have will-to-power to become different (and this means: "really" different, not a self-becoming). Nietzsche however rejects a doctrine of Being. Aristotle says that there are substances, which can enact their potencies, and still remain the same beings (identity, Being). The power in Nietzsche does not fit in a paradigm of Being, but in a paradigm of pure Becoming (difference, flux).

4) This relates to my previous remark of the will willing itself (eternal return). If one says "hey, lets look for a nice job, this satisfies my life," you imagine this way of life as Being (fixed, unchanging, etc.) "I have a nice job, I don't every have to wonder about anything in my life again, this gives me a fixed and stable life." Identifying life with a fixed entity (ambition, desire) is tied to a doctrine of Being (one craves for something fixed, whereas reality is really constantly changing). Nietzsche says: "no, life is constantly changing," never fixed, pure Becoming... one should never settle for something fixed. This is how he tries to fight nihilism (the rejection of fixed values). In the end nothing is certain (you can lose your job, you can die in a car accident). So he says that identifying with Being (depending on a fixed, unchanging object in life) is for the weak, which are not able to embrace pure Becoming.

5) But if there is nothing in reality fixed how should one live? Despite all failures in life (losing job, losing girlfriend -- all unsteady things in life that can disappear), one must overcome nihilism. The how-ness of Life should be will-to-power. The will only wanting itself, over and over again. Only willing new things, the will never non-willing, the will never chained to one fixed object. Life wanting to Live. Will to power willing itself. The true Life is when the WILL only wills itself, infinitely times over again.

"This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you

So, I think (*I'm not sure*) that he also means this here. Nietzsche isn't talking about empirical events that will recur (i.e. the universe is cyclic), but he's talking about the HOW-ness of life. Remember the original distinction. One can apply it here too:

essentia (what-ness)
existentia (how-ness)

So, I really think, he's talking here about "existentia" and not "essentia." He's not talking about "what" will happen cyclically again (maybe it does, maybe not, that's not the main point). He's talking about how one should live Life. To live authentically doesn't consist in "what great things you have achieved," (essentia) but that you embraced your Life (all these pains/joys, bad/good, etc.) with the fullest force and vitality (existentia). You choose things in life so enthusiastic AS IF (how-ness) you wanted to do it over and over again... AS IF you wanted to live your life infinitely many times. Example: consider a person who has become a doctor in life, but the doctor says after 10 years carreer "wait, I'm not happy with my life, maybe I want to become a writer, what should I do? should I risk it... well, I rather not, it's safer to keep my current job, it gives me money, I can pay my bills, why take the risk." then the doctor has not lived life to the fullest (according to Nietzsche). He's not willing to embrace Becoming, but identifies himself with something fixed (Being). Another example: a person who loses his wife, and gets depressed, is not able to accept becoming in reality. He desires Life to be steady (i.e. that the things he wished would not have changed). He clings to some fixed illusion (Being). Nietzsche would say that "the strong" must free themselves from such illusions, and regenerate their Life and desires endlessly. In this sense, "the loss of your wife" is not the end of your Life, but the start of a new Life. Reality changed and you have to embrace this novelty.

*** this reply wasn't really a consistent answer to your post, but I started typing without thinking it seemed a waste to remove it. ***

 

[panic in paradise]

" *** this reply wasn't really a consistent answer to your post, but I started typing without thinking it seemed a waste to remove it. *** "


.... lol

no way, that really would of been a waste to dump...and i always have to laugh when i do the same thing(well wtf is this all now?!? lol) - i am going to be chewing on that a while...
;-)

 

[ambiguity]

wooowwwwwww!!!!!!!!?!!?! x2 i just want to give you credit. Your reasoning and train of thought is not only informative, but logical. I love how you provide examples to support your reasoning... and you have yet again, convinced me further of your point of view.
It seems as if Nietzsche was a bit of a existentialist maybe? ;o

I like this idea of the will to power, and I have read the Superman and I understood it fully before you explained it, but I never really thought it was applicable in this case.
Based on what you have stated, it would appear as though Nietzsche is trying to convey the idea of living life vivaciously, but I am not entirely onboard. I believe in abiguity to a certain extent, I believe in change and escaping the fixed-fate that so many are slain by).
But theres always a point where one must settle down to a certain extent, no?
If a doctor decides one day, hey i've always dreamed of setting up an icecream shop. I have the money to do it now and it would be nice to switch it up a little, and making all those kids happy would fill me with joy. Well... that actually winds up being selfish and impractical. Someone who went to university for ten years to become a doctor... best get into that damn surgical room and save lives.
Plus its important to bring up the notion (i know it's obvious) that one shouldnt trade one thing for another if both can be done simultaneously.

but... i really love what you say here: "You choose things in life so enthusiastic AS IF (how-ness) you wanted to do it over and over again."
It's almost as if the eternal return is God or Judgement.
It's this (and like I said earlier, highly existential) question,
would you be proud of what you've done in your life and what youve made of yourself... that if you were made to repeat it over and over again, that it would be a gift or a curse? thus gnashing your teeth over and over; being made to repeat the terrible life you made yourself. Or considering it a divine privledge.
you see what im saying? I know I took the conversation more into a personal-philosophizing direction, so I apologize. =X

 

[G.Rant]

The idea of an “eternal return” came to me through a transcendental experience at age 15. In a time span of a blink of an eye, I understood the meaning of the universe. A sensation which immediately left me and yet afterwards I was still left with the fuzzy image of what I had understood. I’ll explain what I saw for those who care to read on this far. In the darkness I saw the blink of a starburst much like an asterisk on your keyboard, which created a corresponding starburst to blink, each reacting to the other. This image is not so earth shattering in itself, but from this image I understood at the moment that there is no beginning time or end time to the universe. The universe expands with the big bang and finally comes together again to a singularity from which the process begins again through eternity, infinitely in from the past and infinitely into the future. One point I would like to mention about the eternal return as I see is that our lives are continuously relived throughout each successive universe. All things being equal at inception with no outside influence each and everyone’s life will unfold the same so that a trillion years from now I’ll be writing this post all over again. Eternity does exist! We experience it every day.

 

[gaktattack]

Its interesting that you bring up existentialism because there is a quote from Kierkegaard that addresses almost this exact same problem. From the perception of a despairer, injustices done to them have made them who they are and rage at any threat to this. "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!".

Whats interesting is this very quote from Kierkegaard could be applied to the religion he clung to. Why is it necessary to believe in eternal life in the religious sense?

I believe in a relativistic eternal life, knowing that all beings living today and those begotten from us originated from a singular cell eons in the past. And that somewhere in my body are two strands of DNA, one from my father and one from my mother. And they have this same distinction. Are we not respawning ourselves? It seems unfortunate that the consciousness dies with the organism, but to see the world as I have, you need to be born with a definite beginning.