has anyone understood the universe any better? the universe is plasma and field. forget the bigbang and other stupidities and you are left with this. a man well beyond his time..perhaps beyond any time.

And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self-creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself–do you want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?– This world is the will to power–and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power–and nothing besides!

I am an author based in the UK and I think that I am right in saying that I am one of the few, if any, writers, who have attempted to update Nietzsche’s “eternal reccurence” in the light (pun unintended) of modern particle physics, neurology, psychiatry and consciousness studies.

In my two books I have suggested that the concept of the etenal return may have a basis in science. Without going into great detail my theory (called “Cheating The Ferryman”) proposes that at the moment of death the subject re-lives their life in a literal moment-by-moment recreation of that life from birth to the final second of their (second) life. I term this hallucinatory existence the “Bohmian IMAX” (referencing the influence of the great philosopher-scientist David Bohm on my theory). Indeed I suggest that an underlying weltgeist is taking place as this philosophy is a curiously popular theme in many modern movies such as “The Matrix”, “Vanilla Sky” and “Jacob’s Ladder”. Indeed the opening and final sequences of “American Beauty” reiterate this concept…and of course the ultimate eternal return movie, “Groundhog Day” cannot be left out of the discussion.

And just as the central character of “Groundhog Day”, Phil Conners, lives the same day over and over again so it is that the dying person, in the final seconds of their second life, goes back and does it again , and again!!

Sounds really crazy doesn’t it? But the science presented in my books seems to work – and en-route it also suggests a possible explaination for deja vu and precognition!!

Indeed if anybody is interested I will be discussing the eternal return and time perception with particle physicist Professor Jeff Forshaw at The National Theatre in London at 1830 on July 23rd 2009. This will be before a performance of “Time And The Conways” written by J.B. Priestley.

This has particular relevance to “Eternal Reccurence” because Priestley was influenced by that other great writer on the subject, Russian philosopher Peter Ouspensky. One of Priestley’s other ‘time plays’, is entitled “I Have Been Here Before”, an amazing exposition of Ouspensky’s ideas. Indeed it can be argued that Ouspensky wrote the ultimate novel on the subject – “The Curious Life of Ivan Osokin”.

But please remember …. my idea is simply that; a theory!

Best Wishes

Anthony Peake

Best Wishes, Sam Cox

My apologies if that be your perception.

I am female, named Bella. Thus a she. I have mentioned that somewhere here on an earlier post maybe 1-2 months ago.

My apologies too, when I first wrote in a hurry as I am busy starting a business, “1) Vaguely I recall reading short account (2nd or third hand or even 100th hand account) of Nietzsche being a convicted Christian who had a deep intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ in his college days.” I had in mind a personal poem he had written in his college days, but did not have the time to check the place I had seen. I have since done so, and reproduce the one in mind.

What is relevant is that Nietzsche in a short span of 3 years, moved quickly from

(i) Being moved by a personal savior (that we can assume he was referring to Jesus Christ) … age 18 ( see below)

(ii) Being moved by an unknown God …. Age 20 ( see above)

(iii) Being moved by other religion(s) and using (I presume) scientific method of objectivity on religious beliefs. # Here I think a distinction should be made between (a) objectivity as employed in science and (b) insights as may be drawn from religious beliefs or practices .

Thus your quote of Nietzsche, I have added in parenthesis the missing parts for fuller grasp though there are not necessary for the point you make, but they are good to have to get the context- and to evaluate it –

“If we had believed since youth that all salvation came not from Jesus but from another–say, from Mohammed–is it not certain that we would have enjoyed the same blessings? [ To be sure, faith alone gives blessings, not the objective which stands behind the faith. I write this to you dear Lisbeth, only in order to counter the most usual proof of believing people, who invoke the evidence of their experiences and deduce from it the infallibility of their faith. ] Every true faith is indeed infallible; it performs what the believing person hopes to find in it, but it does not offer the least support for the establishment of an objective truth. [ Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, then have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search (so forsche) Between, there are many half way positions . But it all depends on the principal aim.”]

a) Nietzsche is countering the “most usual proof of believing people, who invoke the evidence of their experiences and deduce from it the infallibility of their faith”. It begs the question would Nietzsche remark be apt, if it was not the “most usual proof of believing people”? That I think is fair comment and fair observation. I would like to know what you think.

b) If mid 19th Century is the time of scientific objectivity, than, Nietzsche might have used “objective truth” in the scientific context, and thus considered religious beliefs as lacking any objectivity or objective truth. Until the march of time, when we get the theory of everything, it would be difficult to imagine comparing apples to oranges, where the world is seen from idealist philosophical perspective as well as realist or materialist philosophical perspective. The theory of everything offers to merge the two philosophical perspectives, I contend. I would like to know what you think.

(c)Referring to [ Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, then have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search (so forsche) Between, there are many half way positions . But it all depends on the principal aim.”] could suggest that it is not entirely an either or proposition, and given the many possible permutations as well as the consideration of what is the overarching or principal aim.

(d) The matter seems more complicated by Nietzsche departure from other existentialists who give meaning through ‘a” commitment and work through that, for here , one says , [http://www.ruspoli.com/philosophy/Nietzsche/Nietzsche.html ]

(i) “The idea of an unconditional commitment is abhorrent to Nietzsche insofar as it represents the opposite of a brief habit. In the first sentence of the passage above, we see that Nietzsche believes that convictions have to be like brief habits; they have to be “used up”. The term “used up” indicates that the conviction had a purpose in helping the believer grow, but that its purpose did not extend beyond that. In other words, once this purpose is fulfilled, the conviction is no longer useful.”

(ii) “This is why Nietzsche proclaims that the “death of God”, or the fact that Christianity is no longer an option in our age, is only an unhappy occurrence for those who are stuck in unconditional commitments (or those who require convictions as backbones). For those who are used to brief habits, on the other hand, the news is good–it represents the possibility of new opportunities for growth, something that Christianity has halted for too long. It is important to note, as Heidegger does, that “‘God is Dead’ has nothing in common with the opinions of those who are merely standing about and talking confusedly, who ‘do not believe in God’” The death of god means the end of an era of unconditional commitment and the birth of a time when brief habits are allowed.”

{ This is no substitute for actual reference of Nietzsche but due to severe time constrain and attempting to understand Nietzsche legacy to us }

(e) Considering the paths ( see (c ) above) that Nieztsche mapped out and the one he took, and given the span of time he had available to think research and write, and the area in which he wrote in (of the path he undertook) his competency is necessarily limited to his chosen path. Of that path, going by (again some second hand recounting or analysis) his prediction of nihilistic worldview http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm if accurate shows the conditions with which we work with this era.

NIetzsche’s Poem at late 18 (age)

Thou hast called me:
Lord, I hasten to thy throne and there remain.
Blazing with love to thy compassionate eyes
Gaze sorrowfully into my heart:
Lord, I come.
I was lost, perplexed and dejected,
Destined for Hell and torment.
But I saw thee from afar,
And thy glance, intense with life,
Lighted constantly upon me:
Now I come gladly to thee.
I am filled with horror at the dark power of sin,
And I cannot look back.
I must not lose thee,
At night, terrified and oppressed, I see thee,
I see thee and I cannot let thee go.
Thou art so gentle, true and kind,
So loving, thou dear Saviour of sinners!
Appease my longing,
Let my soul and my thoughts rest in thy love
And remain forever with thee.

(From Nietzsche’s Wereke und Briefe: Historisch-kiritsche Gesamtausgabe, volume II, p. 80.)

That said, parochialism is a real problem for the great historical religions to the extent that they claim universal validity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek.”

you: Nietzsche recalled that he had early on decided that [religious beliefs were culture bound ] and [not to be taken seriously as objective truth.] ( I added the brackets and matters within for emphasis)

With all due respect, after looking at a review of your cited Objectivity and part online book by Peter Gaston with another Caroline Jones ‘Picturing Science and Producing Art’, I submit you started with one concept on culture [ religious beliefs are culture bound] and applied it in a different context where the concept of [objective truth] was not meant to be [ in culture].

Going by “Objectivity” [the book] it appears to me to refer to science, from mid 19th century to time of writing /publication. Nieztsche lived from 1844 to 1900. He lived through the mid 19th century period, where ideas of objective truth or objectivity would have gained ascendancy.
Strangely a family psychologist Tom Strong wrote the review (absent my ordering it from the inter library loan if any and given severe time constraint) Tom Strong where he outlined the shifting human ideal of objectivity in science, from
(i) artistic re-presentation of snowflakes to
(ii) camera pictures of nature [ what he calls the era of mechanical objectivity] to
(iii) structural objectivity focussing on measurements logic replicable empirical sequences …. ( having not read the book I can only catch an idea or surmise that is what the book talks of on objectivity).
Objectivity is then about peer review, replicable methods and scrutinised by peer scientists.

Thus objective truth if it is equated with objectivity, is limited to science. It is not with reference to other human fields, though it is odd that Tom Strong mentions in one breadth , “Thus to become objective required being steeped in particular ways of training one’s objectivity to see the structures a science requires. By this logic a cellular biologist, a geneticist, an anthropologist, and a psychologist can each look at a human being and come up with different structural accounts of the same person – all objectively one should add.” I am not too clear about what anthropology is about but it seems odd to me to speak of psychology as a science. So why the objective label for it?

If you reference religious beliefs, which is a field outside science , then the yardstick of objectivity should not be used in the same sleigh of your hand.

Would we or should we exclude management, business development from objectivity as used in science? After all if you apply your Bayesian priors, to small business development,

“1. Literature and hypotheses
Phillips and Kirchhoff (1989) mentioned the myth
of 9 out of 10 new businesses closing in their first
year. But using Dun & Bradstreet data they found
that 76 percent of new firms were open after two
years, 47 percent after four years and 38 percent
after six years. These rates are substantially different
than what is still commonly believed; more
than ten years after the publication of their article,
individuals still call the U.S. Small Business
Administration looking for the unknown source of
the alarming sound byte that 9 out of 10 businesses
close in their first year. This myth may still exist
because of the problems Williams (1993) details
in using Dun & Bradstreet as a data source for
business survival.

It is not hypothesized that current survival
figures differ too much from Phillips and
Kirchoff ’s findings, although an argument could
be made for a faster pace of life today leading to
quicker business closings. Other studies have
focused on business survival, but they have
generally looked at all businesses, not just new
businesses or just a few industries, not the entire
economy. http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/bh_sbe03.pdf “

it is hard to duplicate business for peer review given that it is a Bayesian prior that less than 50% of small businesses succeed.
Should we live alone by objective truth if same as objectivity and in science only, for then all of us must be scientists and apply period changing notions of objectivity? Do scientists employing objectivity in their science work, deduce that, scientific objectivity itself suffices to live a meaningful productive life?

This goes back to the question of why the primer on objectivity and in which field does it apply? And who determines what is the method of ascertaining objective truth ?

My version of the thinking of Nietzsche as a young man was an attempt to paraphrase from memory some of his early letters. In a letter he wrote to his sister in 1865, when he was 21, he wrote: “If we had believed since youth that all salvation came not from Jesus but from another–say, from Mohammed–is it not certain that we would have enjoyed the same blessings? …Every true faith is indeed infallible; it performs what the believing person hopes to find in it, but it does not offer the least support for the establishment of an objective truth.” As you can see, I’m the one who put the word “culture” in play, though I don’t think it’s out of place if we think of belonging to a culture as a matter of (among many other things) operating with the specific Bayesian priors we inherit at a particular place on the globe and time in history.

Speaking of loaded words: According to the important book Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison published in 2007–its’ actually titled Objectivity–the term “objectivity,” at least in its modern meaning, wasn’t used very much before the beginning of the 19th Century and needs to be understood in its historical context. Daston and Galison explain what a pragmatist might call the cash value of the word by showing how objectivity became a very specific value for people putting together scientific atlases. (And no, trying to figure out how scientists and others construct concepts to make their points is not the same thing as suggesting that everything is relative, just a matter of opinion, etc.)