Dear Klaus, I hesitant to think of Juenger's model as "non-violent anarchism" - in my opinion this expression over-emphasizes the rather secondary aspect of violence and continues an association with popular notions of anarchism as a social phenomenon. I understand that if one uses the word anarchism in connection with the anarch, one is then forced to add the "non-violent" condition to correct for the associations of the word. I would rather find some other formulation which dispenses with that word and therefore does not have to make any secondary stipulations about its non-violent nature.
Naturally Juenger's anarch does not believe in violence as an effective method to change anything, but he knows that in certain extreme cases he might have to resort to violence to protect his personal freedom. The anarch is preferably but not necessarily non-violent. I understand anarchism as a social or group phenomenon which is supported by shared beliefs in changing the world by eliminating the rules and rulers which limit the group's freedom. The group acts in and against society. The anarch acts alone. "Personal anarchy" is more the condition Juenger's anarch strives for. His field of action is his own personal "self-island", his own personal forest, mostly within, but to some limited degree also in the practical world around him. He is not interested in, he understands the futility of, trying to improve the world. One could imagine a group of hippies living peacefully in a comune removed from society as practising non-violent anarchism. But they are not anarchs in Juenger's sense. Sorry to make a big deal about two little words, but these notions have to be carefully explained in order to avoid misunderstandings and false conclusions on the part of the public. There are too many misunderstandings regarding Juenger already. best regards from Wien, Simon ________________________________ Von: klaus gauger <klaus_gau...@yahoo.com> An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 10. Dezember 2008, 13:22:35 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass Dear Leon, I see myself the "forest-fleer" and "Eumeswil" as the texts that are in the center of Jüngers critique of the "Leviathan" and in both texts he establishes a non-violent form of anarchism as the adecuate response to the methods and the tecnical instruments of the "Leviathan". I would like to read your article, Dear Leon, if this is posible. Maybe I can find it somewhere online or just send me the article in Word, PDF or another common format: klaus_gau...@yahoo.com I have written myself a longer text about Jüngers philosophy of technology, where I also write about the "forest-fleer" and "Eumeswil", but also about all the other important diaries, essays and novels of Ernst Jünger: http://www.lammla.de/domains/arnshaugk/diktynna/ej_technikkritik.pdf Yours, Klaus Gauger --- Leon J. Niemoczynski <niemoczyn...@hotmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 8.12.2008: Von: Leon J.. Niemoczynski <niemoczyn...@hotmail.com> Betreff: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: "juenger list" <juenger_org@yahoogroups.de> Datum: Montag, 8. Dezember 2008, 21:38 Dear List, With reference to my article, and forgive me if I've posted about it before, Juenger provides one with blueprints on how to navigate, shall we say, "the skeletal jungle" of Leviathan's carcass. The article that I am referring to is Leon Niemoczynski, “Heidegger’s Ontology in the 1930’s from Plato to the Beiträge.” Proceedings of the North American Heidegger Conference, (May, 2008):119-137. It is the section about Juenger's Forest-Fleer essay and Eumeswil that are here most pertinent. Additionally, I've written some text in an introductory book about Juenger with his aphorisms and the first chapter of that book is called "Survival in the Postmodern Age." I believe that I posted portions of that here as well. In any case, the skeletal remains of the Leviathan no doubt still draws the desiring machines here and there to feast upon its remains; the allusion being to Deluze and Guatarri's 'Capitalism and Schizophrenia' (1972.) There is not much else to do other than to feast: just ask the consumer spenders within the current global economic recession. Though, could "controlling" and "directing" one's desires be the key to navigating the zones of power found in the Leviathan about which we speak, and in whose remains we dwell? I think so, and interestingly, a strange comparative point appears between Juenger and that of Buddhism, and perhaps also to that of the Heideggerean concept of Besinnung. Is it just in the controlling of one's desires and the (creative) formation of self and individuality that, despite the forces which threaten such a formation, that liberation from the Leviathan is to be found? Or, like Foucault, and indirectly Nietzsche, is it the case that despite controlling one's desires are human beings--the desiring machines--relegated to their own transvaluations of power and desires regardless of however well they enact (read: transgress) those transvaluations? "Food" for thought. Juengerian wishes, LJN ________________________________ Dr. Leon Jon Niemoczynski Lecturer of Philosophy & Religious Studies Immaculata University | Holy Family University Philadelphia, PA 19004 Email: niemoczynski@ hotmail.com ________________________________ To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de From: lmorp...@aol. com Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:09:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [juenger_org] Misogynie Lieber Klaus, ich bedanke mich bei Dir für die Richtigstellung meines Beitrages sowie für die Informationen zur Person Wilhelm Reichs. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, kommt das marxistische Element in Theweleits Studie ebenfalls deutlich zum Vorschein. Auf jeden Fall kenne ich mich im Bereich der Psychologie nicht gut aus, und folglich verneige ich mich vor Deinen Kenntnissen. Herzliche Grüße von Nick In a message dated 08/12/2008 13:26:28 GMT Standard Time, klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com writes: Lieber Nick, Deine Bemerkung ist richtig, enthält aber eine kleine Unrichtigkeit: Klaus Theweleit war seinerzeit kein Freudianer, sondern Reichist. Die reichistische Szene ist eine Freiburger Spezialität (und Theweleit ist Freiburger wie ich, ich kenne ihn persönlich). Die Grundtheoreme für seine psychoanalytische Durchleuchtung der "soldatischen Männer" (zu denen auch Jünger zählt) entnahm Theweleit also den Theorien Wilhelm Reichs, der in den zwanziger und dreissiger Jahren in Wien und Berlin versuchte, Psychoanalyse und Marxismus zu vereinen (und nicht zuletzt deshalb von Freud aus der Psychoanalytischen Vereinigung herausgeworfen wurde). In der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus ging Reich in die U.S.A. und wurde dort in den 50er-Jahren als Scharlatan verurteilt, inhaftiert und verstarb in der Haft.. Reich hatte versucht, seine abstruse "Orgontheorie" und entsprechende "Orgonkästen" als Heilmethode zu vermarkten, die "Drug and Food Administration" prozessierte ihn deswegen. Auch beschäftigte sich Reich damals mit Wetterexperimenten. Reich verlor wohl in den 50er-Jahren zunehmend den Verstand und wurde zum fehlgeleiteten Esoteriker. Vermutlich war er im psychiatrischen Sinne sogar paranoid, er fühlte sich verfolgt und war wohl krank. Insofern hätte man ihn eher in ein Krankenhaus bringen sollen als in ein Gefängnis. Mit den Freiburger Reichisten sollte man übrigens das Gleiche machen, aber das ist ein Thema, das eher für mich als Freiburger von Belang ist. Bis dann, Dein Klaus ________________________________ Suspicious message? There’s an alert for that. Get your Hotmail® account now.
