Future, Present, & Past:



Speculative
~~ Giving itself latitude and leisure to take any premise or inquiry to its furthest associative conclusion.
Critical~~ Ready to apply, to itself and its object, the canons of reason, evidence, style, and ethics, up to their limits.
Traditional~~ At home and at large in the ecosystem of practice and memory that radically nourishes the whole person.

Oυδεὶς άμουσος εἰσίτω

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Nihilism as ghost story


dy0genes writes, in response to my post on Speculative Realism, that he's made his way through Brassier's Nihil Unbound. I quite like the take on Brassier as telling us spooky stories around a campfire, and I think it's more than half-accurate.

I sort of got the sense that the author had gathered us around under the stars to tell us ghost stories. He seems to assume that we fear both the dark and the ghosts. In my case he's at least a little right, enough that I found it engaging.


As anyone who's done much looking into their online presence will note, there is a strong affinity between the SRists and a certain kind of terror- or horror-genre. A whole issue of Collapse was devoted to para-Lovecraftian themes. And in fact I think there is a strong affinity between nihilism, horror, and the kind of magic(k) that coalesces around these genres. This is a far more an impression than a judgment; but Reza Negarestani's blog & Cyclonopedia is just the most extreme evidence. Nihilism as a ghost story--scaring ourselves. Yes, I like it.

dy0genes mentions:

Brassier's discussion on Nietzsche's failed attempt to overcome nihilism. I must say I've always read Nietzsche for his critique and psychological insights rather than what he tried to build up. Part of me has always felt a little disappointed with "eternal return". It barely coheres as a mathematical idea much less as a deep foundation for a new philosophy. So I probably didn't take it seriously enough.

I think dy0genes puts his finger on one of those "two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world" taxonomies: there are readers of Nietzsche who are impressed by his moral genealogy, and others who are struck by the Eternal Return. Like most such schemes, this one has holes, but it would be interesting to look at the commentary N. has received through this lens.

For myself, I'm an Eternal Recurrence guy. I have learned more from Nietzsche than from many a thinker, and he probably shaped my Christianity more deeply than any sermon I've ever heard; but the thing in N. that grabbed me by the scruff of my neck was Eternal Return of the Same. I would say that I recognized myself absolutely in his description:

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 moon-light 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?

To me, this is one of the ten or so scariest passages in world art and literature, up there with Yeats' "Second Coming," Schubert's "Der Erlkonig," and David Lynch's Lost Highway. Blanchot's book The Step Not Beyond, which is essentially a long gloss and meditation on this mad idea of Nietzsche's, threw me in my early 20's into the kind of malaise that one probably only encounters once or twice in one's life, at least inresponse to literature. It's all very well to say that Nietzsche was trying to spur the creation of the sort of will that could endure, and even rejoice in, the idea that the universe was an endless and meaningless grind:

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."

To me, the horror of it had nothing to do with an endless run of Auschwitzes and Killing Fields, or even with an endless replay of my own petty disappointments. It was just the insidious reduction of the universe to a diabolical machine, blindly putting the needle back in the groove--the idea that what seemed meaningful was just an inexplicable happening that would go on and on and on. No thrill or ecstasy or calm fulfillment could possibly, I felt, withstand the awful leveling that the Eternal Return implied. Human freedom and human creativity withered before it. Everything was reduced to an perpetuum mobile of causality.

If it doesn't grab you, probably all you can do is shrug and "hmmm" about it taking all kinds of people.

dy0genes goes on:

someplace [Nietzsche] said what was needed was a scientific Buddhism. Not until I read [Brassier's] critique did I realize that he was trying to do just that with the "creative" agenda he had set for himself.

The contradiction Brassier points out is that eternal return "exterminates all known values because it is the assertion of absolute eternal indifference, without even a "finale of nothingness" to punctuate the sequence or to distinguish between beginning or end." To my ear this sounds a lot like the emptiness that is neither born nor dies in Buddhist thought. It is all meaningless suffering. But Nietzsche posits an affirmative "redemption" by willing the world to be exactly what it is. Brassier goes on to point out that this affirmative act that "divides history in two" completely undermines the previous devaluation of eternal return (as it was intended to do) and makes the whole agenda very problematic. I think that's an interesting and well argued attack. But what struck me while reading this is how similar the moment of affirmation is to the sometimes repeated myth of the Buddha's enlightenment. Some Buddhists maintain that when enlightenment happened for the Buddha it actually happened to the whole world. Enlightenment was not only a personal experience but a cosmological one.

I don't "believe" that particular myth but I found it be an interesting parallel. It would not surprise me if Nietzsche was mindful of this parallel.

I am no Nietzsche scholar, and have not made an exhaustive study of Nietzsche's relationship to Buddhism, though this is one of the aspects of his thought that interests me. My suspicion is that it is far more interesting than the mere dismissal of "Schopenhauerian" pessimism it is usually assumed to be. In any case, Nietzsche certainly writes explicitly that he himself has divided history in two; and speaking of the murder of God, the Gay Science's madman says: "Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

dy0genes is right, too, that the Buddha's enlightenment is sometimes spoken of as having effected the whole universe--the power of Mara, the illusion-maker, was fundamentally broken. Of course, there were other Buddhas before Gautama (according to legend); but one can say that each time realization occurs, each time the sentient mind awakes to the truth of sunyata, in a sense this awakening is felt from one side of the universe to the other.

What this reminds the Christian of, of course, is the breaking of death by the Resurrection. This is, for the Christian, only the ne plus ultra of Revelation. In his exchange of letters with Eugen Rosenstock-Hussey, Franz Rosenzweig says regarding Revelation that it and it alone makes a "real before and after" in the world.

This can be critiqued as "magical thinking," but such claims of cosmological status for personal events chime with a profoundly liturgical mode of experience. What happens under the Bo Tree, or on this hill outside Jerusalem, or here at this altar in this church, is connected to the world, and even the meaning of the world. "Mah Nishtana?" goes the Haggadah question; "Why is this night different from all other nights?" "This is the night," the Easter exultet declares, "when first you saved our fathers: you freed the people of Israel from their slavery and led them dry-shod through the sea....This is the night when Jesus Christ broke the chains of death and rose triumphant from the grave." Any sense of "commemoration" is here secondary to an immediate enactment, a recognition of a present reality that obtains here and now. In the same way, the Hopi elder who Jung met on the Southwest American pueblo declared that he was helping the sun across the sky; implicit in his worldview was the sense that if he did not perform his dance, something in the cosmos could fray.

It is a simple matter to declare such assertions denotatively false--the sun will not fail if the Hopi elder does not dance, and "this night" is not part of the same 24-hour period as a night in Palestine or Egypt two or three millenia ago (leaving aside any other problematic claims about what happened on those occasions). But one wonders if the great rabbis, the Church fathers, and the Hopi elders are such fools as this easy dismissal might assume. A Jungian rejoinder (and not just Jungian) might be that an assertion can be connotatively true while denotatively false. While I am not sure I would want to defend this claim in exactly this form, I am anxious to defend the spirit of it from being a mere last-ditch sorry attempt to preserve discredited beliefs.

"Preservation" is not what is at issue, as if concern for the holy was a kind of spiritual wildlife conservation. What is called for is not a chain of museums or national parks for those who would be tourists of the sacred, but a rediscovery of what it means to live a whole life in the way that the Hopi or the Aboriginal elder or the Christian monk could. "The glory of God," wrote St Irenaeus of Lyons, "is the human person fully alive." (Against Heresies, IV 7)

The word for the kind of connection--implicit in the worldview of the Hopi elder or the Aboriginal singer--between the sentient being and its cosmic context, is participation, often found in Greek as methexis or as metalepsis. This is a technical term I hope I will be able to unpack more fully in some future posts, but it derives (in philosophy) most anciently from Plato, and has featured prominently in Levy-Bruhl, Barfield, and (one reason I am interested in them), some of the thinkers connected with Radical Orthodoxy.

Nietzsche did indeed know that what was needed was a new religion, of a sort; he was attracted to and horrified by the prospect that he would be its John the Baptist. He knew that it must have some sort of relationship to Plato; he himself called it "reversed" platonism. "Scientific Buddhism" may be as good a name as any for what he would have wanted, and it is important that for him, the Eternal Return was (like "enlightenment") a kind of experience, and not just an idea. This is the matter for a good deal of reflection. But I think it worth noting that the Eternal Return, in making every moment "simultaneous" in a sense, is a kind of flattened or mechanistic cosmos but one in which one could say, in a sense "This is the night." It is a vision not of a "scientific" universe but an interpretation of the meaning of a scientific universe, a universe that preserves the denotation of "this is the night," without the connotation -- i.e., without participation.

Many would-be defenders of the sacred, many aspiring "re-enchanters," are suspicious of or resentful of science. And there is a challenge from science, but this challenge is not that science undoes the meaning of the world. Brassier is rightly impatient with the humanities' general resistance to science. I think the divide between the humanities and the sciences is a cultural rather than a spiritual rift, and will be best addressed culturally not "spiritually." (This is one reason why I consider the work of John Brockman of special significance). Indeed, from one point of view, there is nothing especially "spiritual" about the humanities.

If I agree with Brassier about anything, it is the need to overcome the allergic reaction that so many in the humanities seem to feel about science--not about particular scientific results, but about the general esprit of science. Not that I think there is nothing amiss with scientism; but the answer to this is not avoidance and retreat.

I resonate very much with Brassier's account of nihilism as opportunity, not mere impasse. But his impatient claim that "philosophers would do well to stop trying to re-enchant the world" is a view that is about as uncongenial as I can imagine to my own disposition. It is true that thinking does risk being merely ridiculous when it tries too hard to pull off something like 're-enchantment.' To some degree this ridiculousness strikes me as having something to do with Keats' disdain for poetry that "has designs upon us." I would argue that the answer to this danger of ridiculousness is finesse, not abdication. Still, for all my differences with him, I find Brassier very bracing, and I like having my opposite so clearly laid out for me, but of course the challenging thing is he's not merely my opposite. I'm certainly glad di0genes found the book worth reading. I am more inclined now to see a certain kind of fascination with nihilism as a telling of ghost stories -- a sort of Halloween of philosophers. Which does not mean, of course, that there are not some who do try to practice black magic.

5 comments:

  1. That's quite an impassioned response. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for this. My sense of the horror of the eternal recurrence realization, which I think as absolutely inseparable from the rock at Surlei before which it happens, is factical. The horror of facticity, that something, anything is happening at all. And this is a form of perception that is certainly central to Lovecraftian experience, for example: “Life is a hideous thing, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.” Ergo eternal recurrence as opportunity for killing facticity with itself, if that makes sense, which I believe does correspond to Brassier's
    definition of facticity as the “narrow passage through which thought is able to exit from itself." I think your idea of nihilism as ghost story could also find a specific home in the syllogism as a kind of logical haunting of thought. From this perspective Brassier syllogisms about essential spectres are an attempt to poetically overcome the syllogism itself. But it does not seem that the majority of readers of SR texts (and maybe not Brassier himself), who are still playing on the chessboard of systematic philosophy, i.e. the space where philosophical truth is constituted by agreement/disagreement, where thought-production is perpetually deferred/ordered toward the singular implementation of its own obsolescencee, are ready to see/say this. Ergo the power of Cyclonopedia, as a text which absolutely forces the question of (unless you don't read it that way!), nay collapses, the poetry/philosophy distinction.

    I'm rambling, ok, but that is the point of comments, digression as arrival as so on.


    All best,

    Nicola

    p.s. re: horror et al, I believe you may very much enjoy imminent volume of black metal theory, http://blackmetaltheory.blogspot.com/, esp if you listen to black metal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nicola,

    Thanks for the comment, and especially for noting the rock at lake Silvaplana...I agree, it is essential to remember that this gripping *experience* happened to N, and that it was not just an abstract argument.(I think it must have been some kind of tremendous deja-vu--but perhaps I am projecting (this is partly what made the reading of N. so gripping for me)).

    The Lovecraftian quote you provide also chimes with the famous passage in Sartre's Nausea where the tree root first appears as a pulsating example of Being. No wonder Sartre was drawn to analysis of sticky shapeless masses like honey; no wonder Grant titled his contribution to Collapse IV "Being and Slime"! And there are, as you note, a number of current explorations into "hauntology" and das unheimlichkeit; even a hundred years + later, we have barely begun to really unpack what Freud means to philosophy.

    I haven't really gone there myself in this blog, but the genre-tweaking possibilities really appeal to me and actually seem more *philosophical* than "mere" argument per se. I'm rambling too, but then, you may have noted the post itself did that. And speaking of different genres, it occurs to me upon reading your comment that nihilism-as-ghost-story functions differently in a liturgical setting than in reading a treatise like Nihil Unbound; the spooky and downright unnerving have their place in a liturgical cycle--the carnivalesque atmosphere of Halloween pushing against the deep and sober (in the best sense) prayers of All Souls' Day.

    I'd be interested to hear a little more of what you mean here: "the chessboard of systematic philosophy, i.e. the space where philosophical truth is constituted by agreement/disagreement, where thought-production is perpetually deferred/ordered toward the singular implementation of its own obsolescence"--this, as opposed (I take it) to the experimental form that "forces the question".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Skholiast - I'm a novice to a lot of this stuff. I really appreciated your previous intro post to Speculative Realism; I've been reading some of the blogs in that area but have often had a hard time figuring out what they're on about.

    Re the Buddhist implications... the interesting thing in the interpretation here is that, although Nietzsche's familiarity with Buddhism really derived from classical Indian Buddhism, the kind of Buddhism articulated here sounds much more Chinese and Japanese. There's very little in Indian Buddhism about affirming the world. Even when Nagarjuna says that nirvana is merely samsara properly viewed, the emphasis is much more on the "properly viewed" than on the "merely samsara": once you view things properly, you're in an ultimate truth that is in many respects far removed from the conventional truth of everyday life.

    Things are very different in Chinese Ch'an thought, which becomes Zen in Japan. I'm not an expert on these traditions, but they place a much greater emphasis on affirming the world as it is, typically through the sort of contemplation of things as they are that I tend to associate with Heidegger. It's noteworthy in this respect that Heidegger knew and sometimes referred to Nishida Kitaro and Nishitani Keiji, probably the most influential Japanese philosophers of the 20th century, who tried to fuse Zen Buddhism with Western thought. I almost wonder if Heidegger was taking up an engagement with Buddhism where Nietzsche left off...?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amod,

    Thanks much for this. I recall reading somewhere that Heidegger said early on when he encountered Zen that it was what he had been struggling to articulate; but I no longer recall the source of this report, so I can't swear to its reliability. I agree though that the "affirmation" feels more Japanese or Chinese Buddhist (specifically Zen, as you note) than it does Indian. Certainly you are right in saying that Nietzsche's familiarity would have been with whatever had been translated from the latter. This strata of Buddhism is some that I am least familiar with. Still, I feel that "affirmation" is perhaps not quite the word for even Chan or Zen. I am really out of my depth here, but Zen strikes me as commending "mere awareness," or "letting-be," which is far less evaluative than either resignation or affirmation.

    Re. Speculative Realism, I am sure that some schools will eventually find certain traditions of Buddhism quite congenial--there is a strong strain of plain old empiricism in Buddhism, which is bound to appeal to the desire to build bridges between science and philosophy. Of course Maturana and Varela have already taken a number of steps in this direction, and some SRists are closer to M & V's approach than are others.

    Incidentally, one of my favorite philosophers is Nishida's onetime student Tanabe-- his title Philosophy as Metanoetics says a great deal all by itself-- but I think Tanabe eventually came to distance himself, quite intentionally, from Nishida.

    ReplyDelete