That is exactly how Ernst Jünger would also have answered - he also saw things very differently throughout his life, and had no problem with that evolution.
Simon ________________________________ Von: klaus gauger <klaus_gau...@yahoo.com> An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Gesendet: Freitag, den 6. März 2009, 21:15:43 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis Dear Simon, I am glad that my texts are usefull for you. And you are right, you don´t have to agree with all of my assumptions and conclusions. My interpretation of the Jünger-Brothers is a lifelong effort in constant progress, maybe in ten years I will see all these theorems of the Jünger-Brothers in quite a different way than I do today. Yours, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich <simonfriedr...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Fr, 6.3.2009: Von: Simon Friedrich <simonfriedr...@yahoo.de> Betreff: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Datum: Freitag, 6. März 2009, 11:31 Klaus, so far I have read your "Die Weltschau des Anarchen" and "Zu Friedrich Georg Jüngers Perfektion der Technik". I was impressed not only by the richness of literary knowledge evident in both texts but also by your understanding of and ability to show a continuous development of Ernst Jünger´s thought from the figures of Krieger through Arbeiter and Waldgänger to Anarch. Moreover, you justly give more weight to the final and highest result, the Anarch, rather than overemphasizing the transitional figures, as most academics occupied with Jünger do. Certainly, the transitional figures and the development are important, but not to the exclusion of the end result, which is his highest and most useful creation. By giving too much time to the transitional figures, other writers literally leave no time to seriously consider the Anarch. I would suspect this reflects directly on their own level of development - that whereas Ernst Jünger was able to develop his level of being and understanding up to the Anarch, they remain stuck at the level of Arbeiters. They are simply unable to appreciate the higher nature of this figure, even if they are able to criticize the shortcomings of the lower figures. Regarding Friedrich Georg Jünger, I learned much about the cultural and philosophical climate for the creation of this work from your text. I have already read The Failure of Technology in the English translation and can only agree with almost all of your summary of its contents. With two exceptions. His assertion that technology only appears to reduce our workload but in reality increases it is in my opinion quite correct. Apart from the unemployed, I also can´t imagine most normal Arbeiters today agreeing that they work less. Their work may not be as physically demanding, since machines do that part, but the maintenance of the whole technical infrastructure, at work and at home, demands enormous amounts of time. How many years of work time have I expended to pay for my effort-saving car or household appliances and their maintenance, or reconfiguring my computer as it regularly goes wrong. Paradoxically, with the infamous financial crisis, many of us will be discovering new leisure and then we may also discover that living more simply, with less of technology's gifts, requires less work and gives us more "quality time" for ourselves and our families. Regarding the second of his assertions that you critique, that technology does not in fact create wealth, I can only support the writer. The financial crisis - sorry, I know we're all sick and tired of it from the media coverage but it is relevent here - shows us this clearly. What seemed like the creation of wealth was in fact only a consumption of borrowed capital. Ultimately, the lender was the earth, so that the financial and environmental crises are intimately linked. The exhaustion of the capital brings about the collapse of the exploitation that was based on it. True creation of wealth, the kind Friedrich Georg must be thinking of, would increase the capital. As you know, both brothers would describe this as titanic, which only ends in catastrophe. And unfortunately, inescapable catastrophe - for when the capital is gone, it is well and truly gone and cannot be replaced elsewhere.. We will not be able to practise Raubbau with solar or other renewal energies. Here we can only live on the surfeit, the interest. And even if the surfeit of the sun is enormous, I am not an optimist who believes we will develop our capacity to harvest sun energy efficiently enough to completely replace the fossil fuels. Our whole world is based on this plutonic energy, as E.J would put it. The transition must necessarily bring about a reduction in world population. Excuse the digression. Thanks again for sending me these texts, and I will now continue with your "Überleben in der Technischen Welt". Bis bald, Simon! http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com ________________________________ Von: klaus gauger <klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Samstag, den 7. Februar 2009, 18:50:55 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Anarch thesis? Dear Simon, my doctoral thesis wasn´t bad, but I was too young then to produce a really brilliant and well-balanced text and today I would be able to write a better book. But anyway, if you send me your postal adress I will send you an exemplar of my thesis. My private Email: klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com. You can find my emailadress also on the front-page of my online-text you can find in the WWW about Ernst Jüngers philosophy of tecnology: www.lammla.. de/domains/ arnshaugk/ diktynna/ ej_technikkritik.pdf Yours, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> schrieb am Sa, 7.2.2009: Von: Simon Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> Betreff: [juenger_org] Anarch thesis? An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Samstag, 7. Februar 2009, 17:17 There might be dozens of doctoral thesis about Juenger, but the little I've read didn't impress me. Clever words, but what was their important point? But I suspect yours would be an exception. How would I be able to read it? I manage Juenger in original, so presumably I can manage your German? Simon ________________________________ Von: klaus gauger <klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 4. Februar 2009, 17:14:23 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Jnger Biografie Dear Gerald, I wrote myself a doctoral thesis about Ernst Jünger (it was published by Peter Lang, Zurich, in 1997 under the title: Krieger, Arbeiter, Waldgänger, Anarch). But this is not really important, there have been written dozens of doctoral thesis about Ernst Jünger, some of them are better, some of them are worse. I think important is only the personal relationship a reader establishes to Jünger an his work. An aphorism of Lichtenberg says: "If a book and a mind collide, and it sounds hollow, is it always the books fault?" So I am only interested in people where the collision between Ernst Jüngers books and their minds didn´t sound hollow. I am interested in the "Jüngerians" where something happened when they read Ernst Jüngers books. There are so many academic writers who despise Ernst Jünger for some reason ("He was a fascist, he wasn´t a democrat, he was an elitarian solipsist, etc.") and there others who "admire" him for absurd things (for example, some right-wing interpreters emphasize his success as a member of an elitarian stormtroop-unit and his many condecorations in World War I like the "Pour le Mérite" - you could also admire nazi-bosses like Hermann Göring for that, he was a member of the flying squad of the "Red Baron" Manfred von Richthofen in World War I and also earned the "Pour le merite", like Ernst Jünger). All this is absurd, important is only the relationship a reader establishes to Ernst Jüngers works in case that there exists a genuine, affective and intelectual attraction by Ernst Jüngers work and not the intention to use Ernst Jüngers works for some political strategy - affirmative admiration for the nationalist and militarist Ernst Jünger in case of some ultra-right- wing interpreters (these people usually don´t like the later Jünger, the anarchist, solipsist and apolitical philosopher) - and rejection and polemic distortion of Ernst Jüngers works by some left-wing interpreters who only use (or better: abuse) Ernst Jüngers example to criticize what these ignorants call "elitarian", "fascist" and "antidemocratic" thought and literature. Yours, Klaus --- Gerald Brennan <brenna...@yahoo. com> schrieb am Mi, 4.2.2009: Von: Gerald Brennan <brenna...@yahoo. . com> Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Jnger Biografie An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2009, 13:26 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.
