I have to say this sounds a little black and white to me, as if to say that no
one has a right to an opinion about Jünger. Or perhaps, no one has a right to
an opinion that is different than mine. It also sounds a tad over-generalizing.
Is anyone at a university who teaches a particular subject a "eunuch"? Or as
someone said, a "wanker"? (Mutually exclusive actually) If only the writings
themselves matter, then what are we supposed to write about here in this
newsgroup? Where does a discussion start and how does it continue? I admit
there are a lot of adcademics who have very little of interst to say about
their field of specialization. But I would hate to criticize ALL of them for
the sins of some.
Jerry
>>For me the difference between "the theoreticians" and, let's call the
other group, "us" :-) is that the former takes EJ as a source of
employment, as a pleasant hobby, a Zeitvertreibung, or even a scapegoat
for their own polarized views, whereas the latter understands that his
work can have a real practical benefit for their own personal growth
and understanding of the world. The first group haven't made that
realization yet - but one can hope that during their sometimes purely
onanistic occupation with his work they may start to sense its real
value and make the switch to practical and personal application.
Which reminds me: somewhere Jünger talks about a typical evolution
which occurs in many people's lives from the theoretical, idealistic
left-wing to the practically oriented right-wing. The character
simultaneously becomes more distinct, less generalized. This must be
rooted deep in matter itself, he suggests, which is to say that the
political switch is merely one expression or reflection, and not the
most important, of this fundamental process. Perhaps the same
difference is present between those who see his work theoretically and
those who understand its practical applications.
