Philosophy Now Forum

"What has existed now begins to exist again." This is what Kierkegaard writes in his book, "Repetition," but what does it mean? It challenging philosophical idea: that each moment we are inevitably living the past, that is, the language, the culture, the social subtleties, the science, all of it, received by us and recollected in the production of the events we participate in. When you speak, is that YOU? Or is it simply a manner of language use you picked up very young and now reproduce? You cannot get out of this and proclaim ownership to all that issues forth from you action; that is, not until you understand Repetition. Repetition is the production of an event that, while is inevitably learned and recalled, issues forth from t he moment, as a beginning. This beginning starts, ideally, in the eternal present.

Is such an idea feasible? I say it is, though it is complicated. The complications begin with the notion of "eternal present". This is hard to pin down, but the essential idea is that as we move along in our lives, if we never initiate the collision between recollection and the freedom of the moment, we never realize...well...who we really are. We are like cogs in wheels without the ability to question the whole affair and are therefore caught, endless mimicking, parroting, unaware that we ARE. This is the metaphysical leap, a qualitative leap out of recollection, into the present, forward looking freedom.

Quite debatable, really.

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:46 pm "What has existed now begins to exist again." This is what Kierkegaard writes in his book, "Repetition," but what does it mean? It challenging philosophical idea: that each moment we are inevitably living the past, that is, the language, the culture, the social subtleties, the science, all of it, received by us and recollected in the production of the events we participate in. When you speak, is that YOU? Or is it simply a manner of language use you picked up very young and now reproduce? You cannot get out of this and proclaim ownership to all that issues forth from you action; that is, not until you understand Repetition. Repetition is the production of an event that, while is inevitably learned and recalled, issues forth from t he moment, as a beginning. This beginning starts, ideally, in the eternal present.

Is such an idea feasible? I say it is, though it is complicated. The complications begin with the notion of "eternal present". This is hard to pin down, but the essential idea is that as we move along in our lives, if we never initiate the collision between recollection and the freedom of the moment, we never realize...well...who we really are. We are like cogs in wheels without the ability to question the whole affair and are therefore caught, endless mimicking, parroting, unaware that we ARE. This is the metaphysical leap, a qualitative leap out of recollection, into the present, forward looking freedom.

Quite debatable, really.

I know this idea as eternal recurrence. I believe it is true which means I am a repeating machine within one eternity which repeats. So much for free will. Is it possible for a person becoming conscious to become more than a repeating machine and acquire choice and become part of a different eternity in which human consciousness as opposed to the reacting animal machine would be the norm? It isn't an idea the Great Beast will be open to

Nick_A
I know this idea as eternal recurrence. I believe it is true which means I am a repeating machine within one eternity which repeats. So much for free will. Is it possible for a person becoming conscious to become more than a repeating machine and acquire choice and become part of a different eternity in which human consciousness as opposed to the reacting animal machine would be the norm? It isn't an idea the Great Beast will be open to

Kierkegaard actually argues the opposite: it is in recurrence one finds oneself, but the matter is "finding" oneself: Consider that as we grow up and never read philosophy at all, never second guess anything, and so we becomes dentists and carpenters and teachers, all along never questioning, never for a moment having pause but letting the whole affair unfold altogether as it does. But one day you ask, what is it all about? For Kierkegaard you have taken, if you are sincere, a qualitative leap in what he calls hereditary sin. Now, forget the sin part, but the idea is that this is a spectacular moment when the question steps in and undoes the complacency and the routine, the mere recollection. You were a stone mason, and the causal sequencing for your life was well in place, but now it is all thrown under the bus because there is distance between you and the part you were playing; it no longer holds absolute sway. You drift into wonder, detach from all that would possess you. The world becomes a place of alienation! For Kierkegaard, it is alienation from God that is acknowledged for the first time because you are no longer held in place by habit and recollection. Later, others will have other characterizations.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:21 pm I know this idea as eternal recurrence. I believe it is true which means I am a repeating machine within one eternity which repeats. So much for free will. Is it possible for a person becoming conscious to become more than a repeating machine and acquire choice and become part of a different eternity in which human consciousness as opposed to the reacting animal machine would be the norm? It isn't an idea the Great Beast will be open to

Nietzsche was far too smart to mean this literally.
It's merely a metaphor for exhorting us to live each day as if we had to repeat it; that we live as if we would not do anything in any other way, except the right way.
This is not groundhog day, but a bit of advice on being mindful of our capabilities.

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:55 pm

Nick_A
I know this idea as eternal recurrence. I believe it is true which means I am a repeating machine within one eternity which repeats. So much for free will. Is it possible for a person becoming conscious to become more than a repeating machine and acquire choice and become part of a different eternity in which human consciousness as opposed to the reacting animal machine would be the norm? It isn't an idea the Great Beast will be open to

Kierkegaard actually argues the opposite: it is in recurrence one finds oneself, but the matter is "finding" oneself: Consider that as we grow up and never read philosophy at all, never second guess anything, and so we becomes dentists and carpenters and teachers, all along never questioning, never for a moment having pause but letting the whole affair unfold altogether as it does. But one day you ask, what is it all about? For Kierkegaard you have taken, if you are sincere, a qualitative leap in what he calls hereditary sin. Now, forget the sin part, but the idea is that this is a spectacular moment when the question steps in and undoes the complacency and the routine, the mere recollection. You were a stone mason, and the causal sequencing for your life was well in place, but now it is all thrown under the bus because there is distance between you and the part you were playing; it no longer holds absolute sway. You drift into wonder, detach from all that would possess you. The world becomes a place of alienation! For Kierkegaard, it is alienation from God that is acknowledged for the first time because you are no longer held in place by habit and recollection. Later, others will have other characterizations.

Thanks for pointing out the distinction. I see what you mean. It is a very important point in a person's life. Unfortunately society as a whole cannot understand it so will do what it can to discourage such and make such a person "normal" again. You are the first person I've met here who would be open to the reality of the experience as something other than a means for escapism and fantasy.

I once read a book called "Cosmic Consciousness" by Dr. Bucke. In it he wrote of these types of awakening experiences. Many great people like Walt Whitman have had them. The "what am I doing here" becomes dominant in person's life for a while and if not nurtured, must diminish sacrificing the conscious connection between levels of reality.


I will be gone for New Years but do hope to discuss the significance of this awakening experience when I return and how it pertains to the potential for Man's conscious evolution.

Until then: Happy New Year.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:21 pm Is it possible for a person becoming conscious to become more than a repeating machine and acquire choice and become part of a different eternity in which human consciousness as opposed to the reacting animal machine would be the norm?

Interesting concept. You ask if choice could be acquired. If a person hasn’t yet acquired choice, there’s only determinism. I wonder how one goes about acquiring free will while living in a determinist universe. I suppose it’s possible. Anyone have any ideas how that would work?

I don't believe Soren ever used a Gatling gun...

-Imp

Nick_A
Thanks for pointing out the distinction. I see what you mean. It is a very important point in a person's life. Unfortunately society as a whole cannot understand it so will do what it can to discourage such and make such a person "normal" again. You are the first person I've met here who would be open to the reality of the experience as something other than a means for escapism and fantasy.

I once read a book called "Cosmic Consciousness" by Dr. Bucke. In it he wrote of these types of awakening experiences. Many great people like Walt Whitman have had them. The "what am I doing here" becomes dominant in person's life for a while and if not nurtured, must diminish sacrificing the conscious connection between levels of reality.


I will be gone for New Years but do hope to discuss the significance of this awakening experience when I return and how it pertains to the potential for Man's conscious evolution.

I have read this book, or, I recall reading it. Walt Whitman was in the margins of the American renaissance, which had so called transcendentalism at its center. As philosophy, one should not expect much, but as a religion, this movement was a great affirmation of a kind of romantic mysticism, which I have serious respect for. After all, if one takes the matter to its "end," to the end of thought itself, where the words run out, all things become metaphysical. This is the secret apprehension that is always, already there, embedded our our language and institutions, but repressed in common living. There is an awakening experience, I am sure, and Kierkegaard was likely too brilliant for his own good: the trouble with genius is that it binds to one's fascination and takes possession. But he did refuse to marry in part because he lived, he confessed, in a strange spiritual world. See his Concept of Anxiety, a foundational work for modern existentialism.

As to conscious evolution, this term leans toward the empirical theory of evolution. Quasi mystics like Whitman and Emerson would say you are already there. Buddhists and Hindus say the same. I think they are right.

odysseus

This is the secret apprehension that is always, already there, embedded our our language and institutions, but repressed in common living.

Do you see this as the same or similar to anamnesis or remebrance Plato wrote of?

Awakening doesn’t seem to require details as in intuition but rather experiencing the conscious relationship between above and below along the scale of being and the norm for higher consciousness.

As to conscious evolution, this term leans toward the empirical theory of evolution. Quasi mystics like Whitman and Emerson would say you are already there. Buddhists and Hindus say the same. I think they are right.

Can a piano student improve on their ability to play a piano? The fact that they are fortunate enough to have the experience of a piano being played doesn’t mean that they can play piano

Just because some have had experiences of higher consciousness doesn’t mean that they are conscious beings. For me, conscious evolution as it pertains to man on earth is the process in which the laws of being enable Man to remember his origin and become himself; a conscious being. Experiences like repetition indicate the reality of Man’s potential conscious evolution. Plato described our problem in his Chariot allegory. The dark horse representing the lower parts of our collective soul has become corrupt. Consequently Man’s lawful conscious development is held to a standstill by the opposition between our higher and lower natures. People make efforts to “know Thyself” to witness the nature of this opposition. It is the first step in becoming normal for human being.

Without the potential for conscious evolution the best a person can hope for are momentary experiences of higher consciousness. It is like listening to a fine pianist and knowing you are incapable of ever playing the piano.

Men like Kierkegaard inspire us to engage in conscious contemplation as opposed to arguing fantasy if we have a sincere interest in the objective meaning and purpose of life. The majority are satisfied at least temporarily with what the world offers to satisfy their need for meaning. Yet with some, their need for meaning is strong enough so they can open their minds and hearts to receive help from above and experiences of the possibility for repetition which indicates the potential for Man’s conscious evolution into a higher quality of being by reconciling above and below.

Those having a profound experience must reject the normal tendency to shout it to the world. This will get you mocked or even killed as Socrates points out. It is better to just digest the expeience in silence and look for others who have had such experiences that you can learn from. From Plato’s Cave:

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

If a person insists on offending the experts of the day. First learn how to duck. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned or an insulted expert in self deception.