Analysis: These long phonetic investments: whether as multiplications of operations upon the phonemes "Ahhhhh" "Uhmmmm" vibrations in the air the want to elongate, and then cut. These fabric of "opening up space for thought" as the self-presentation of the work of thought none of them have acquiented themselves with, but rather been charioted through by others: undergraduates pushed out, and exploiters to be like future PhDs etc.
Is anyone aware of anyone who reads N's "eternal recurrence of the same" as a trap laid by N himself? The fact that it produces at least two distinct interpretations as you suggest, an ethical and a metaphysical one, shows at least two types of will to power at work, which both operate on the assumption that the question is a serious proposition, rather than a sarcastic joke played on anyone who would take such a question seriously? From what I can see, all the potential outcomes of considering Nietzsche's proposition seriously, are indicative of a particular tendencies of consciousness, which Nietzsche continually takes aim at throughout his work. IE wish thinking, fleeing into the ideal, making concept mummies, and alienation from one's own life, among others. As he says continuously in Twilight, how can one make any judgements of one's life, when one is engaged in the process of living it? It becomes a nice little day dream to distract from the deeper implications of his work.
Does anyone know of program that could isolate the degrees of phonetic energy spent in performativity as pure self-presentation: objectifying itself as "phenomena as phenomnena" per actual delivered content per minute? I am serious about it for purely violent will to power reasons.
Taylor Carman from 40:30 ff = important points about difference btwn H's ontotheology as history of metaphysics for H. and that which many others have in mind when saying N. eschews metaphysics. The question thus arises, is H's reading of Western metaphysics one which lays open the unthought (or at least evocatively describes it)? Or is Babich rather correct in pegging H's critique as one that unfolds at a comparatively shallow level which does not respond fully to N's "breaking apart' of metaphysics?
We never find the dasein or what is the true man of these philosophers. Like authors of any non fictional or historical writings, we can never know what influences or biased reasoning they had in their own concepts.
