The Eternal Return of the Same

From Heidegger's What is Called Thinking? :

The thought of the eternal recurrence of the same remains veiled – and not just by a curtain. However, the darkness of this last thought of Western metaphysics must not mislead us, must not prompt us to avoid it by subterfuge. Fundamentally there are only two subterfuges. Either we say that this Nietzschean thought of the eternal recurrence of the same is a kind of mysticism and does not belong in the court of thought. Or else we say: this thought is already as old as the hills, and amounts to the cyclical world view, which can be found in Heraclitus’ fragments and elsewhere. This second bit of information, like everything of its kind, says absolutely nothing. What good is it supposed to do us to ascertain that some thought can “already”” be found in Leibniz, or even “already” in Plato – if Liebniz’ thought and Plato’s thought are left in the same darkness as this thought that is allegedly clarified by such references!

But as concerns the first subterfuge, according to which Nietzsche’s thought of the eternal recurrence of the same is a mystical fantasy: The coming age, in which the essence of modern technology – the steadily rotating recurrence of the same – will come to light, might have taught man that a thinker’s essential thoughts do not become in any way less true simply because we fail to think them (109).

Modern technology, modern economics, and modern politics sure seem cyclical. There seem to be technological possibilities of newness, but economics and politics seem to be going nowhere and seem to shut down technological possibilities.

More to follow when I figure out what the hell this has to do with Borges' "Emma Zunz."

UPDATE: It's amazing when we realize that the thoughts one has thought have been thought by another. Adorno was right:

“Whatever was once thought, however, can be suppressed; it can be forgotten and can even vanish. But it cannot be denied that something of it survives. For thinking has the momentum of the general. What has been cogently thought must be thought in some other place and by other people. This confidence accompanies even the loneliest and most impotent thought” (from the essay "Resignation" on p. 203 in The Culture Industry).

I'm thinking along similar lines as Macherey's thoughts as described here: Literary Encyclopedia on Macherey I need to read Macherey pronto!

UPDATE: It's funny how my mode of reading unwittingly aligns with my mode of politics. Both could essentially be described as Marxist.