You wrote:
>I don't know whether Nietzsche has a "useful" answer to "the representation
>problem," but in THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, Nietzsche stages/dramatizes his
>philosophy in the bildung of Zarathustra, the latter of whom is, by the end
>of the book, absolutely disenchanted with the relation of
>semiotics/linguisticality/representation to truth. Zarathustra begins as a
>Platonic teacher who "loves men" and has a "gift" for them. But he sees
>again and again that language, and pedagogy via language/representation, is
>hopelessly inadequate for conveying the truth he communes with (which
>ironically, is being proferred to us readers linguistically--does this
>contradict my points or point to a tension in Nietzsche?). IMHO, this
>moves Nietzsche in the direction of the solepicistic, disgustingly
>conservative, bio-geneticism that runs throughout his work and culminates
>in The Will to POwer. He is greatly distrustful of
>language/referentiality.
Yeah, N was a clever one - focusing on morality itself in search of the historical trajectory (unto dissolution) of moralisation - and a diseased hermit (like Zarathustra) - trying to hasten and complete said dissolution. Not even a minima moralia for our Fred, I reckon.
Much of Nietzche's pulling power is similar to that of Gramsci's, I reckon (and I do like G) - anyone can make anything of him - handy for dissertation topics and pub arguments, and the odd world-historical cataclysm in search of lebensraum for newly liberated supermen.
Cheers, Rob.