Re: Kantian transcendental idealism.

To be honest: I have no real idea how to understand it. I think it deserves a more important place within Nietzsche’s corpus than the affirmation interpretation allows, yet I can’t possibly take seriously the Return as cosmological fact. I’m actually intending to write my MA thesis on this topic. If you’re interested, Deleuze, in my opinion, provides the best interpretation of the doctrine. His is an eternal return, not of the same, but of the different; an eternal return of those beings whose being is becoming.


I wonder what Kant would have to say about the Casey Anderson verdict?

I’ve come to suspect that it has much to do with a sympathy toward a cyclical, indo-European (“Aryan”) world view, as opposed to the lineair, Judaeo Christian one. The former derives itself from nature, from her cycli, the latter tries to escape nature and submit her to an end-goal.

Kant’s definition of subjectivity as the transcendental unity of apperception is the best I’ve seen.

Why not simply the unity of apperception? Or the immanent unity?

“The unity of self is as much an object of experience as anything is.
Therefore experience both of the self and its objects rests on acts of synthesis that, because they are the conditions of any experience, are not themselves experienced.”

That does not seem to follow necessarily!
And I dont think that it is true.
Rather, these acts of synthesis are what we do when we are acting.

Of most of these acts we are so convinced of their necessity that we’ve long evolved beyond being able to not do them, breathing for example - and all necessary bodily functions keeping our physical, subconscious self intact. But we can breathe consciously, we can still access all of that physical synthesizing (that’s what it is, oxidation) consciously.

But qua consciousness, we are constantly having to synthesize anew this integrity of self. It’s not something that’s a given.

The thought that unity of self is a given does no justice to the enormous efforts most people constantly need to make to ‘keep it together’.

I think we’ve identified the most fundamental error of human thought: the idea that existence exists automatically, as a given. The following, only slightly less deep error is the conception of God - the reaction upon realizing the folly of the first error. But both notions do no justice to the interpretor, who gives us the explanation with every breath he takes.

Knowing this explanation by heart, so to speak - beating it consciously -
that is what has from outside been interpreted as ‘divine’ or ‘supernatural’ powers.

To attain such transcendental (in Kants terms) awareness, one has to learn to sink into the action of living. The most widely practiced method is this: to be aware of all the effort ones organs are exerting, and direct these efforts as these organs.

Great power is in learning the ways in which effort goes into human being, being in a human way. But also making oneself conscious of these elements of the self, one opens up the risk of destabilization. If I am correct the hindu description of actively ‘running this risk’ is Kundalini awakening. The definitive loss of balance and control is ‘demonic possession’ - in our terms madness, existential non-culpability.

This in turn explains why most schools of initiation advise to have a qualified master supervise the process. More revealingly, it’s why Kaballists say that one must first have a family and a secured fortune to enter this stage of consciousness; One is advised to secure the ‘unity of self’ by outward conditions before one begins to test it internally.

I think Kant meant that the unity of apperception “transcends” anything that experience can establish. It is a unity that presupposed of experience rather than derived from it. So it’s not like “we” have to will to do something to experience the unity of consciousness. It’s there spontaneously.

I think you’re misinterpreting Kant. He’s talking about ordinary experience not something mystical like transcendental meditation. When we say “I think” as you did above we are referring to what Kant calls the unity of apperception i.e. self- conscious experience.

Thanks for your response Felix, but I never meant to imply such a thing. I probably should have not used words like kaballah.

I gather as much from the wiki text.
In my post, I explain why I disagree.