Wednesday, February 07, 2007

The Eternal Return

The eternal return, according to Deleuze, effectively realises Being in the following way: "Being is said in a single and same sense, but this sense is that of eternal return as the return or repetition of that of which it is said."

The test of something's return is it's excessivity, it's becoming - different:

"When Nietzsche says that hubris is the real problem of every Heraclitean, or that hierarchy is the problem of free spirits, he means one - and only one - thing: that it is in hubris that everyone finds the being which makes him return..."

(Both quotations from Difference & Repetition, Continuum Press, 2004, p. 51)

Hubris is the repetition of difference, and this repetition is the expression of univocal being. This test is concerned with the idea that production is only expressed in actualising new forms, where 'hubris' denotes forces that transgress the qualitative state of a subject such that it is destroyed (i.e. not oppositionally but generically) and a new process of individuation starts its becoming. This becoming is preconceptual and is expressive of being, where a reflexive concept would subordinate production to its products and mute difference, making it dependent on the identical.

On the human level, hubris is the negation of the great ideal, and the project of the revaluation of values. Does this require a subject, or the becoming of new larval subjects?

This notwithstanding (though if anyone could help me with the above that would be great), it would be good to hear some opinions on the thought experiment of the eternal return as it occurs in Nietzsche:

The greatest weight. -- 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; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to 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 upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!' 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.' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change, you as you are or perhaps crush you. (GS 341)

1 Comments:

Blogger Atum said...

" Does this require a subject, or the becoming of new larval subjects?"

It requires the transgressing of the subject in question, and the reassertion of preconceptual forces constituting new larval subjects. Apparently.

'We' cannot revaluate values, or 'evaluate' the eternal return. What 'we are' becomes a particular magnitude of forces (the magnitude is that 'which we are'; a locus of forces) that does not comprehend what is occurring. What is occuring goes beyond the subject and its judgement, and reconstitutes insofar as an excess is levied.

7:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home