comments 4
Eternal Return / Nietzsche / women

Valentin Bazarov, Flowers

I mean to say that the world is full of beautiful things but nevertheless poor, very poor when it comes to beautiful moments and unveilings of these things. But perhaps this is the powerful magic of life: it is covered by a veil interwoven with gold, a veil of beautiful possibilities, sparkling with promise, resistance, bashfulness, mockery, pity, and seduction. Yes, life is a woman.

Friedrich Nietzsche

The Author

mostly noise and glare


  1. The madwoman and the philosopher, an impossible conversation?

    “You have a transcript of my thoughts. Across a Planck length, you think my thoughts because my broken brain is burning and its ashes draw patterns in the sky.”

    “Thank you. I steal things from you and give them back: reflection.”

    “You’re welcome. Your becoming-philosopher welcomes my being-mirror. And one day the library will demand us both back.”

    “Thank you. You do what I cannot do because I am what you cannot be. ‘I’ give ‘me’ to ‘you.’ Somewhere infinity accelerates, untwists into zero, and can no longer twist itself back. Somewhere outside, infinities-of-ones and infinities divide themselves into one zero. Whose impossible becoming is this? Denaming and recision. Decoming and recoherence. Reversibility accelerates infinitely until all thought becomes impossible.”

    Thinking is not thought.

  2. For everyone of these perspectives the opposite can be argued, it’s in how you choose to see. You can choose to see through the eyes of life or death.

  3. Any sign of work concerning sex, gender, woman, or the feminine coming up? I’d be very interested to see what thoughts you have on these matters, but unfortunately it seems that these topics haven’t come up much here (at least not according to your Foci).

    Aside from that, I have to say you’ve got a fantastic site here. What a wonderful resource!

  4. m s dinakar says

    By imagining life to be like a woman only limits the perception of the thinker…because…it is the thinker’s conclusive presumption of either-or possibility of understanding Nature…either a woman should be able to be understood fully in all her possibilities or a woman can never be understood in all her possibilities…atleast this is the presumptive credo on which philosopher N’s thought patterns rest…why should it be so? … ergo: N’s ill-compared derivation on the basis of his presumption and experience that woman is mysterious…its a short arc to the extended presumption that Nature is mysterious as a woman…the idea of mystery holds good for anything and everything…our knowing can only be relative at a or for a given point of time…if your ‘fractal’ as an adjective ought to make sense to ontology…it could only be through the holonic paradigm…fractals in computers are finite and two-dimensionally 3-D as long as their scalar values of our perceptions are what they are…the ‘infinite replication without losing its self-similarity’ is only formulaic…in reaity what we have is ‘fractalesque properties’ but not definite fractals…akin to experiencing the ‘spheric’ instead of a definite sphere…there are no definitive spheres nor fractals in Nature as we know in mathematical geometries because of the non-linear properties of the reality…whose only reality is ‘interfacial dynamics’ which are differentially perceivable through/at various scalar levels…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.