Klaus, your undue compliment has at least stimulated me to edit what I said and include it as a couple of entries on my blog.
When are you going to contribute to the blog by the way? It´s an open offer. Simon http://ernst-juenger.blogspot.com ________________________________ Von: klaus gauger <klaus_gau...@yahoo.com> An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Gesendet: Freitag, den 9. Oktober 2009, 16:14:14 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Forest fleer, anarch, master-spy, wolf Dear Simon, your remarks regarding the forest-fleer and the anarch are brilliant and I agree with every word of them. Yours, Klaus Gauger --- Simon Friedrich <simonfriedr...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Fr, 9.10.2009: >Von: Simon Friedrich <simonfriedr...@yahoo.de> >Betreff: [juenger_org] Forest fleer, anarch, master-spy, wolf >An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >Datum: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2009, 10:46 > > > >Stefan, since the list has quieted again, I took another look at your comments >below on the translation. > >IMHO, the best translation is in the simple present tense, since this is an >archetypal situation valid for all men at all times: > >"Man sleeps in the woods. When he awakens and realizes his power, then order >is reconstituted. " > >I disagree that only when a man enters the woods does he, can he, become a >Waldgaenger. Juenger is saying that at the deepest level of reality Man, and >each man, is already in the woods, the woods being the original untamed core >of his being. But since he sleeps he is not aware of this. He merely needs to >awaken to discover where he is and the intrinisic freedom of that state from >the tamed world, from civilization that tries to traps him, enchant him, >control him in its various ways. > >The only difference between the Waldgaenger > and the Anarch then is that the former has been recognized as an outsider and > is forced therefore to retreat to the forest in the flesh. The anarch remains > undiscovered. But both have awoken and discovered themselves in their own > untouched forest and free. > >A few further reflections: > >One could bring the old English expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing" to >bear on the anarch, who appears to be like the rest but underneath is not at >all. Unlike the socialized beings around him, he is fundamentally a loner. He >can be social but not socialized. An important difference however is that the >anarch's relationship to the sheep around him is not predatory. In fact, this >wolf's enemy is the shepherd and his dogs. When he is smelled out, he is >forced to throw off his disguise and run for the cover of the woods, become a >Waldgaenger. But free and alone he was always, even with his sheep's clothing >on. > >Another analogy - this time not mine but > Juenger's - is the master spy, who lives in disguise and externally smoothly > integrated into the society. But his mission is entirely different from those > around him - and again, they are not his enemies but their master and his > watchdogs. Like the anarch, he puts on a false mask, a foreign uniform and he > must resist identifying with them. But again there are differences - the > master spy knows from the start who he is, the anarch has to lose himself to > society and then laboriously rediscover his true identity, his true heimat. > And the anarch works for no other master, he is his own. > >Simon >http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com > > > > > > ________________________________ Von: Stefan Jarl <stefj...@gmail. com> >An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >Gesendet: Freitag, den 25. September 2009, 23:11:01 Uhr >Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Rebel and Forest fleer > > > >Yes, I thought about that as well. Thanks! > >Just a few comments: > >'Ächtung' means 'banishment' , hence I would change your "The Forest-Journey >follows on the awareness, that man through it evinces the will to a claim of >personal power." into "The "going into the woods" was the result of >banishment, through which a man would make his intention knownto get by on his >own." > >The second line in the second quote should be translated as something like: >"Rather the reader has to prepare himself for a considerable > excursion." > >And the last quote I would translate as: "One can also say, that Man sleeps in >the woods. When he awakens, realizing his power, then order is reconstituted. >There are always powers that try to obscure him [Man], sometimes totemic, >sometimes magical, sometimes technical. Then rigidity paired with fear >increases." > >(With the risk of turning this into a debate about translation: The reasons >why I would use "Man" with a capital M is because I believe that these lines >-- confusingly out of context as they are here in this case -- refers to the >inner realization of the eternal image of man within the person determined to >become a forest-goer. >I've also changed the meaning and I'll try to explain why. Admittedly, the >sentence is grammatically ambiguous in german. "Im Wald" could be an adverbial >modifier signifying location ("In the woods (the) man is sleeping."), or an >attribute describing the noun (The man in the > woods is sleeping) But to say that "the man in the wood is sleeping" just > doesn't make sense within the context and logic of the book. Throughout, the > Waldgänger is portrayed as an enlightened one, one that has awakened and seen > the dreams and illusions for what they are. When man enters the woods, when > he becomes a Waldgänger/Forest walker, then surely he is asleep no more.) > >Regards, >/S > > >2009/9/25 Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> > >Here are my (tentative) translations: >> >> >>> "Wir wollen diese Zuwendung den Waldgang nennen und den Menschen, der sie >>> vollzieht, den Waldgänger. Ähnlich wie das Wort Arbeiter bezeichnet auch >>> dieses eine Skala, indem es nicht nur die verschiedensten Formen und >>> Felder, sondern auch Stufen eines Verhaltens kennzeichnet. Es kann nicht >>> schaden, aß der Ausdruck bereits als eines der alten Isländerwörter >>> Vorgeschichte hat, wenngleich er hier weiter gefaßt sein soll. Der Waldgang >>> folgte auf die Ächtung; durch ihn bekundete der Mann den Willen zur >>> Behauptung aus eigener Kraft. Das galt als ehrenhaft und ist es heute noch, >>> trotz allen Gemeinplätzen. " >>> >> >>We will call this focus the Forest-Journey and the person who >>undertakes it, the Forest-Goer. This is similar to the word ‘worker,’ >>describing also a spectrum which contains the not only most diverse >>forms and fields, but also denoting levels of conduct. It cannot hurt >>that this term, >> again contained here, already has a history as one of >>the old Icelandic words. The Forest-Journey follows on the awareness, >>that man through it evinces the will to a claim of personal power. >>This was regarded as honorable and continues to be so today, despite >>all platitudes. >> >> >>> >>> For example, take the very first lines of the book, where Jünger draws >>> attention the dangers of the undertaking: "Der Waldgang — es ist keine >>> Idylle, die sich hinter dem Titel verbirgt. Der Leser muß sich vielmehr auf >>> einen bedenklichen Ausflug gefaßt machen, der nicht nur über vorgebahnte >>> Pfade, sondern auch über die Grenzen der Betrachtung hinausführen wird." >>> >> >>The Forest-Journey -- it is no idyll which is hidden behind the title. >>The reader must compete much more than a precarious journey , which >>not only leads over already built paths, but also beyond the borders >>of what we can see. >> >> >>> >>> "Man kann auch sagen, daß der Mensch im Walde schläft. Im Augenblick, in >>> dem er erwachend seine Macht erkennt, ist die Ordnung wiederhergestellt. >>> [...] Immer sind Mächte, die [den Menschen] maskieren wollen, bald >>> totemistische, bald magische, bald technische. Dann wächst die Starre und >>> mit ihr die Furcht." >>> >> >>One can also say, that the man in the woods sleeps. In a moment, in >>which he gains the awareness of his awakening might, is the order >>again fixed. Always is the might, that the men wish to hide, almost >>totem-like, almost magic, almost technical. Then awakens the numbness >>and with it the fear. >> >> >>> >>> 2009/9/25 Simon Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Juenger's Waldgaenger originates, as I far as I know, from Icelandic sagas >>>> of men who had to flee alone into the forest to escape persecution - and I >>>> believe he also brings Corsican bandits fleeing into the macchia to save >>>> themselves. I am therefore not contrary to the term Forest Fleer. It is >>>> after all essentially a flight to safety for the individual. "Forest goer" >>>> would also be conceivable, if it did not sound awkward in English. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, these figures are rebels in some sense, even if their >>>> rebellion is individual, not collective. >>>> >>>> FYI, the Italian translation is Il Trattato di Ribelle. "Treatise on the >> Rebel". >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com >>>> >>>> >>>> --- Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> schrieb am Do, 24.9.2009: >>>> >>>> Von: Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> >>>> Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Benoist, the french "new right", Le Pen and >>>> Benoist and Jünger >>>> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>> Datum: Donnerstag, 24. September 2009, >> 11:30 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Stefan, >>>> >>>> I associate a pathfinder with someone involved in a reconnaissance mission >>>> of some kind rather than escape (or whatever else is implied by Juenger's >>>> term). >>>> >>>> Perhaps it is only Eliot Neaman who translates 'Der Waldgang' as 'Treatise >>>> of the Rebel.' As a google search on the title does not turn up anything >>>> else. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jd >>>> >>>> >>>> joeldietz.com | twitter.com/ jdietz | twitter.com/ fractastical (tech) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Stefan Jarl <stefj...@gmail. com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Without being too familiar with the subject, I would say that what words >>>>> one uses to translate Waldgänger depends upon one's understanding of the >>>>> underlying philosophy. To my knowledge, the german term Waldgänger is >>>>> neutral (with the literal meaning of "forest walker" ), but if one >>>>> translating the text would happen to have a more activist, political >>>>> outlook in general one might be inclined to regard the Waldgang as a form >>>>> of escape, a flight from the political "realities" where one's duties lie >>>>> etc. But of course, the author himself would not have agreed on such an >>>>> understanding of the concept of Waldgang. >>>>> >>>>> English is not my mother tongue, but would perhaps "pathfinder" would be >>>>> a more suitung term? >>>>> >>>>> /S >>>>> >>>>> 2009/9/24 >> Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A not entirely unrelated question: Waldgaenger is sometimes translated >>>>>> as 'rebel' and sometimes as some variant of 'forest-fleer' .' Does >>>>>> anyone know why the former translation is sometimes used? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jd >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:30 PM, klaus gauger <klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Gregory, Dear Joel, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> the core of christianism (christianism is mainly only a "expanded", >> "internationalized" version of jewish monotheism, though there are some >> differences) is the promise that God is there to lead you into salvation. >> Socialist and egalitarian ideas promise all human beings a bright future and >> a paradise on earth (this is, of course, a difference to christianism: >> christians think that the destiny of man on earth is suffering, the paradise >> comes only after death). So the ideas of 1789 and socialism as the heir of >> christianism promise a paradise on earth, a egalitarian society in which all >> needs and demands of the people are satisfied, as much as all your needs and >> demands are satisfied in the christian paradise if you were during your life >> a good christian who believed in god and salvation (actually, for a real >> christian life is already a preparation for paradise >> and already in life he has the feeling of being near to god and salvation). >> Thinkers of the extreme right don´t believe in these kind of ideas. They >> believe in the eternal fight of nations and races who should be ruled by a >> pagan and aristocratic elite who command the masses without any remorse and >> moral limitations that are so typical for jewish and christian thinking >> (Extreme right-wing-thinking is mostly a mixture of nietzschean and >> darwinist ideas and their model are the ancient greek states, especially >> Sparta). All extreme right-wink thinking is mostly a variation of these >> ideas, and from what I can see, Benoist is no exception. The early Jünger >> had exactly the same ideas and Benoist probably admires mostly the "warrior" >> and the "worker", the early figures of Jünger, though he might be attracted >> also by the later figures, the forest-fleer and the anarch. Well, that´s >> all I have to say. Benoist is a typical conservative- revolutionary thinker >> from what I can see, but he is probably much smarter on an intelectual level >> and has a much more elaborated political vision as somebody like Le Pen, who >> is just a brutal and primitive racist and nationalist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Klaus >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. com> schrieb am Do, 24.9.2009: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Von: Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. >> com> >>>>>>> Betreff: [juenger_org] Benoist, the french "new right", Le Pen and >>>>>>> Benoist and Jünger >>>>>>> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>>>>> Datum: Donnerstag, 24. September 2009, 2:43 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Klaus and Joel, thanks very much for joining the discussion -- as I >>>>>>> always say, I just don't know much about Junger and I know even less >>>>>>> less about DeBenoist , so I learn a lot from these reflections. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It might sound like a foolish question, but I am still unsure as to why >>>>>>> Debenoist is considered 'right wing' -- Of course, he clearly isn't >>>>>>> 'left wing' either -- but the man isn't a racist, he isn't anti >>>>>>> immigrant ( though he is clearly >> anti immigration) but rather, favours solidarity with immigrants since it >> seems he considers immigration a result of a globalised world, and that >> their culture is as much under threat as his own, and they are as much >> 'victims' of a globalized world that only 'values' people as bit players in >> a competitive, materialistic, purpose less drive, and as nothing else. Also, >> he isn't an anti Semite ( though he is as Klaus has said, he is opposed to >> Judaeo Xtian monotheism ). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding influences now, he is heavily influenced by Horkheimer and >>>>>>> Adorno ( Dialectic of Enlightenment/ Enlightenment as Mass Deception ) >>>>>>> and their critique of the intellectual poverty of inner city banal >>>>>>> 'culture' ; he is influenced by Gramsci's rejection of cultural >>>>>>> hegemony, and he constantly references concepts from Baudrillard -- >>>>>>> these ideas and world views are hardly from the 'Right'' >> canon -- in fact most 'right wingers' would despise them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any ideas? As I say, debenoist is new to me. From what little I have >>>>>>> read, but maybe, I will tentatively venture to say perhaps his 'right >>>>>>> -wingness' seems to lie in a number of factors, amongst them a belief >>>>>>> in a form of heredity ruling aristocracy, a rejection of concepts of >>>>>>> all being 'equal', a powerful belief in 'European ness' but without >>>>>>> any racial prejudice ( but why is that right wing anyway?) and a >>>>>>> rejection of mass immigration -- but do those beliefs make him 'right >>>>>>> wing?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above are just my impressions after reading debenoist intensively >>>>>>> for a short while -- I really don't know much about him at all, and I'd >>>>>>> value your impressions of who and what the man represents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >> all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg. >>>>>>> --- On Thu, 24/9/09, klaus gauger <klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: klaus gauger <klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com> >>>>>>> Subject: [juenger_org] Re: Benoist, the french "new right", Le Pen and >>>>>>> Benoist and Jünger >>>>>>> To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, 24 September, 2009, 8:40 AM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Joel, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have read the discussion in our Jünger-list about Alain de Benoist >>>>>>> and Ernst Jünger and the french "new right". It is true that Benoist is >>>>>>> against Le Pen and that he is not that >> radical as the former leader of the FN (Front National). But the Front >> National is the political platform of the French "new right" and Benoist >> tries to influence these people to adopt a more moderate and intelectual and >> "smarter" form of right-wing radical thinking and acting. But the core of >> the ideas of Le Pen and Benoist are the same: They are against americanism, >> multiculturalism and most of all the so called "egalitarian" ideas (jewish >> monotheism as the root of these ideas and the french revolution and later >> marxism as the heir of jewish-cristian tradition and a secular form of >> jewish monotheism). When it comes to Jünger and Benoist, it´s true what you >> wrote in your first mail: Benoist is a great admirer of Jünger. I send you a >> link of a PDF containing the english translation of an introduction from >> Benoist to the works of Ernst >> Jünger: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.alaindeb enoist.com/ pdf/an_introduct ion_to_ernst_ >>>>>>> junger.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Klaus >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> schrieb am Mi, 23.9.2009: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Von: Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> >>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Juenger's ( apparent) influence on >>>>>>> dissolving the 'left/right' dialectic? >>>>>>> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>>>>> Datum: Mittwoch, 23. >> September 2009, 11:58 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've actually long been wanting to discuss De Benoist's Why I am a >>>>>>> Pagan, recently released in English translation. Telos (the same folks >>>>>>> that published "On Pain") occasionally publish articles of his. There >>>>>>> are more works of his available in German. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Very contentious though. Perhaps your email will finally prompt me to >>>>>>> read Thomas Sheehan's "Myth and Violence: The Fascism of Julius Evola >>>>>>> and Alain de Benoist." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jd >>>>>>> >>>>>>> joeldietz.com | twitter.com/ jdietz | twitter.com/ fractastical >> (tech) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. >>>>>>> com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello all -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my recent reading, I find that the contemporary French 'thinker' >>>>>>>> Alain de Benoist is (apparently ) very influenced and guided by >>>>>>>> Juenger, and ( it seems ) aspires to dissolve the false divisions >>>>>>>> between 'left' and 'right' wing thought in his work ( it seems to me >>>>>>>> that De Benoist is saying that such distinctions are simply no longer >>>>>>>> relevant in many regards, and can't address Europe's current dilemmas >>>>>>>> and urgent concerns ). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Anarch seems to play a crucial role in De Benoist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since you know far more >> than I about Juenger I'd like to ask if any of you have any views about that >> so called influence ? Does De Benoist have insight into Juenger? What do >> you think and know about De Benoist? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am asking because Juenger is new to me, and so is De Benoist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for any insights. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- On Tue, 22/9/09, Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. com> >>>>>>>> Subject: [juenger_org] "Soldier, Worker, Rebel, Anarch" -- The Anarch >>>>>>>> and Only One >>>>>>>> To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >> de >>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, 22 September, 2009, 10:51 AM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greetings everyone -- I add some article links here that I recently >>>>>>>> found on Junger. I hope they interest. I enjoyed "Soldier, Worker, >>>>>>>> Rebel, Anarch", but since I am new to Juenger, I don't know at all if >>>>>>>> these articles show good understanding of Juenger or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway -- Hope you enjoy them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.alaindeb enoist.com/ pdf/an_introduct ion_to_ernst_ >>>>>>>> junger.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.ilbolero diravel.org/ vetriolo/ abdalqadir- iunger.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.meaus. com/Ernst% 20Junger% 20at%20102. html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.nonservi am.com/magazine/ issues/22/ ns22-screen. pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- On Sun, 6/9/09, Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. com> >>>>>>>> Subject: [juenger_org] The Anarch and Only >> One >>>>>>>> To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, 6 September, 2009, 10:55 PM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am really enjoying all the Juenger/ Juenger related emails -- and >>>>>>>> learning a lot from all of your reflections. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keep them coming. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks to all. As a newcomer to Juenger, and very keen to learn more, >>>>>>>> I appreciate it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- On Sun, 6/9/09, Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [juenger_org] Differences: Anarch and Only One >>>>>>>> To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >> yahoogroups. de >>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, 6 September, 2009, 8:01 PM >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is an important quote. Thank you Simon. I believe that it >>>>>>>> establishes that there is a difference, although without a careful >>>>>>>> reading of the text with attention to this question, I doubt there is >>>>>>>> much of a chance of figuring out the answer (assuming there is one) . >>>>>>>> Thankfully I now have a copy in the original; it will take me some >>>>>>>> time to get through. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, I believe there is an important difference between >>>>>>>> Juenger's European concept, as represented by Alexander's Sword in the >>>>>>>> Gordian Knot, and the purely initiatory concept, which he refers to as >>>>>>>> Asiatic and Despotic. See, for instance, Evola's critique of him on >>>>>>>> these grounds (http://eisernekrone .blogspot. >> com/2008/ 02/julius- evola-on- ernst-jnger- east-and. html). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keep in mind that there may also be third and fourth options, that >>>>>>>> Juenger obscures the content of his thought to avoid a clarification >>>>>>>> revealing a crystallized concept clearly at odds with the democratic >>>>>>>> regime he detested. Also that he never resolved the matters in his own >>>>>>>> mind. His ability to clearly state his political leanings in his early >>>>>>>> work would seem to support the first of these, although his notion of >>>>>>>> possibilities and ideals certainly could have changed with age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the very least, it seems unlikely that his viewpoint would have >>>>>>>> evolved to embrace museum curation as the totality of his positive >>>>>>>> ideal. Along these lines, I have often wondered what it means for >>>>>>>> Venator to go into the forest at the end of the Eumeswil. And I have >>>>>>>> been afraid to find >> out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jd >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Simon Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ >>>>>>>> yahoo.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear List, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In all this discussion of the meaning, morality/amorality etc of the >>>>>>>>> Only One, we should remember that although Juenger uses this figure >>>>>>>>> to help build the metaphysical structure of the anarch, he also >>>>>>>>> decisively distinguishes the two figures. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Stirner's arrow grazed the point at which I suspected the presence >>>>>>>>> of the anarch" - it barely >> touched it, no "volltreffer" . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And then the explicit statement that Vigo is the only one who would >>>>>>>>> understand the very subtle though fundamental difference between the >>>>>>>>> two figures. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Remember also that he uses the anarchist to describe the anarch, >>>>>>>>> though the two are worlds apart. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suspect that the difference between the two must be so subtle that >>>>>>>>> Juenger is unable to explicitly explain it - or unwilling in the same >>>>>>>>> sense as the teacher who knows that the ultimate truths can only be >>>>>>>>> discovered by the disciple himself, who would just be misguided by >>>>>>>>> attempted explanations. He says of the Only One that "it takes no >>>>>>>>> genius to make such discoveries, only intuition... . they are >>>>>>>>> revealed through meditation.. ..it is not certain that the most >>>>>>>>> skillful archer has >> the truest aim. A dreamer, a child, a crackpot may be the one who pulls it >> off." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One gets it or one does not, and Juenger understands that there is no >>>>>>>>> dialectical way around that. (This is typical of Juenger's deep >>>>>>>>> sincerity; he is not out to impress but to represent what is truth >>>>>>>>> for him.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the present, I don't get it, though I trust there is a difference >>>>>>>>> and wanted to stress that here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simon >>>>>>>>> http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>> Von: Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. >> com> >>>>>>>>> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Samstag, den 5. September 2009, 20:29:23 Uhr >>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Derrida;Stirner, Feuerbach and the >>>>>>>>> "Spectres of Marx" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The proper translation depends on the purpose. As a title, it should >>>>>>>>> communicate the central idea as clearly as possible without deviating >>>>>>>>> from stylistic norms. 'The Only One and his Own" probably expresses >>>>>>>>> the philosophical concept most succinctly, but is open to the >>>>>>>>> misinterpretation of the unaware reader that he actually is the 'only >>>>>>>>> one' in the normal way usage of 'only,' instead of the philosophical >>>>>>>>> manner Simon Friedrich has helpfully summarized (the idea of >>>>>>>>> self-sufficiency and >> mastery within one's microcosm). 'Sole one,' has more or less the same >> problem. 'Unique' deviates from this philosophical concept. 'Alone' is >> closer to the 'Einsam' person which is contrasted with the 'Einzig' in >> Juenger, and obscures rather than elucidates the philosophical background. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Consequently, I prefer the 'Individual and What is His,' for neither >>>>>>>>> mangling nor possibly misrepresenting the philosophical concept, >>>>>>>>> while retaining stylistic clarity. I did not see any potential >>>>>>>>> translations in the notes section of the aforementioned translation >>>>>>>>> which attempt to capture the wordplay that is essential to Stirner's >>>>>>>>> language game, but one could do something like 'The Own One and all >>>>>>>>> he Owns,' 'The Possessor and his Possessions, ' or, as I suggested >>>>>>>>> earlier, the 'The Self-Possessing One and his Possessions. ' That >>>>>>>>> said, many such word games are probably left >> untranslated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suppose I should note that I did not see the latter clause ('what >>>>>>>>> is his') represented in any of the discussions of translations on the >>>>>>>>> internet, but see no reason to prefer any of the other versions over >>>>>>>>> this, most succinct, word choice. Also, I see no translations of >>>>>>>>> einzig which adequately capture the hervorragend, unerreicht aspect >>>>>>>>> of the word. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am curious to see if you find something edifying in Stirner. I did >>>>>>>>> not in my brief perusal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Gregory Whitfield >>>>>>>>>> To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >> juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 3:15 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [juenger_org] Derrida;Stirner, Feuerbach and the "Spectres >>>>>>>>>> of Marx" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joel ( and the others ) -- Thanks for the link to the PDF -- I enjoy >>>>>>>>>> Stirner, but have thus far struggled with the REBEL PRESS >>>>>>>>>> translation, which was so unwieldy. Thanks for another version. I >>>>>>>>>> look forward to reading it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am enjoying the debates on Stirner -- others posters have been >>>>>>>>>> debating the accuracy of the title -- what do you feel is a fair >>>>>>>>>> translation ? Others here have argued that "The Ego and its Own" is >>>>>>>>>> not at all an ideal rendering. What's your view? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On a final note, if you are interested, here is >> Derrida commenting on the ideas of Max Stirner and Feuerbach in "Spectres of >> Marx" -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.marxists .org/reference/ subject/philosop hy/works/ >>>>>>>>>> fr/derrida2. htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am no great fan of Derrida and certainly not a fan of Marxist >>>>>>>>>> praxis, but I like these paragraphs quite a lot . As you'll be >>>>>>>>>> aware, Max Stirner hated the authoritarian nature of Communism too , >>>>>>>>>> writing, “Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I >>>>>>>>>> experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is >>>>>>>>>> the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> Greg. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- On Sun, 6/9/09, Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [juenger_org] Stirner and his philosophy >>>>>>>>>> To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >>>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, 6 September, 2009, 12:52 AM >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Klaus, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You may not remember any parts where murder and infanticide are >>>>>>>>>> justified, but they are there. Namely, from page 423 of the English >>>>>>>>>> translation available at the following link (http://www.nonservi >>>>>>>>>> am.com/egoistarc hive/stirner/ TheEgo.pdf): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My intercourse with the world, what does it aim at? >>>>>>>>>> I want to have the enjoyment of it, therefore it must >>>>>>>>>> be my property, and therefore I want to win it. I do >>>>>>>>>> not want the liberty of men, nor their equality ; I >>>>>>>>>> want only my power over them, I want to make them >>>>>>>>>> my property, i. e. material for enjoyment. And, if I >>>>>>>>>> do not succeed in that, well, then I call even the >>>>>>>>>> power over life and death, which Church and State >>>>>>>>>> reserved to themselves,—mine ... my >> satisfaction >>>>>>>>>> decides about my relation to men, and that I do not >>>>>>>>>> renounce, from any access of humility, even the power >>>>>>>>>> over life and death.through me; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't included the part where he explicitly justifies >>>>>>>>>> infanticide, but you are welcome to read it. Other than this, I am >>>>>>>>>> not sure what your point is. Is it: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (1) Stirner's philosophy is so absurd no one could think of it as >>>>>>>>>> anything but a joke, presumably including Stirner himself? >>>>>>>>>> (2) Stirner's philosophy is impractical, but expresses an ideal >>>>>>>>>> state of affairs. >>>>>>>>>> (3) Junger thought that Stirner's phliosophy was (1) or (2). If so >>>>>>>>>> why does he characterize Stirner as a 'great saint' >> ? What is saintly about him? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joel >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM, klaus gauger <klaus_gauger@ >>>>>>>>>> yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear >> Joel, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I read the book "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" in German about 15 >>>>>>>>>>> years ago. I don´t remember any parts in this book where >>>>>>>>>>> infanticide, murder and incest are justified. The book is mainly >>>>>>>>>>> ironic and witty and is just a rejection of all the obligations and >>>>>>>>>>> ideologies imposed to a citizen usually in the modern state: >>>>>>>>>>> obligations and ideologies imposed by the state, obligations and >>>>>>>>>>> ideologies imposed by the representants of the ruling religions, >>>>>>>>>>> obligations and ideologies imposed by the ruling class of society, >>>>>>>>>>> etc. The book was so harmless, that the censors of the Prussian >>>>>>>>>>> state refused to forbide the book. Their argument was that the book >>>>>>>>>>> was just too absurd for being taken serious by anybody. The radical >>>>>>>>>>> anarchism of Stirner was in the context of the Prussian state just >>>>>>>>>>> an absurdity. And >> I suppose even today you will find only very seldom followers of such a >> philosophy as Stirners offers in his "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum". At >> least it would be very difficult to follow such a philosophy: Anybody >> following Stirners philosophy would have to refuse all obligations and >> ideologies coming from the state or all the other entities that are >> important in our social and political system. If you only reject to pay your >> taxes, you already would be today in a big trouble, not mentioning what >> would happen if you refuse to participate in all the other aspects of modern >> society and the modern state. This book was widely read by anarchist circles >> in the 1920s in Germany and people with strong individualist and libertarian >> beliefs always liked this book. But in fact, you would have to leave modern >> society if you wanted to follow completely the philosophy of this book. Even >> Jünger who was always an outsider in >> german society surely had to pay his taxes and had to participate in >> important aspects of the systems of Germany (from the Wilhelminian State to >> our reunified Germany). You can only follow Stirners philosophy in some >> partial aspects and the book may help the reader to laugh about all the >> obligations and ideologies imposed to the citizens in the Prussian state in >> the 19th century as much as about the obligations and ideologies imposed to >> us today. Karl Marx hated this book, though he was many years a close friend >> of Stirner (Stirner belonged to the circle of left-wing hegelians gathered >> around Bruno Bauer. Marx was many years a member of this circle also) . Marx >> later wrote a long essay named "Sankt Max" about Stirner condemning harshly >> Stirners philosophy that was never printed. Untill today marxists hate >> Stirner and his anarchism (in fact they condemn any form of anarchy until >> today) >> and tell all kind of absurdities about the "egoistic" and "primitive" >> philosophy of Stirner. In fact Stirners individualistic and libertarian >> ideas are just the opposite of Marx´s ideas. Marx wanted a state were an >> elite of intellectuals and high-ranked party-members implement a hard >> dictatorial system in the name of the proletarians and the communist ideals >> and where nobody has even the right to have own properties. Stirner wanted a >> state of free "owners" that organize themselves in free associations of >> people who share the same interests and the same philosophy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yours, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Klaus >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >> Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> schrieb am Sa, 5.9.2009: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Von: Joel Dietz <jdi...@gmail. com> >>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Being alone and being the Only One >>>>>>>>>>> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>>>>>>>>> Datum: Samstag, 5. September 2009, 12:43 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> After reviewing some related literature, I suggest 'the Individual >>>>>>>>>>> and what is his,' as a potential translation. Perhaps also, 'the >>>>>>>>>>> self-possessing one and all he owns.' 'Only one,' while somewhat >>>>>>>>>>> more correct than 'alone one' within the context of Stirner's >>>>>>>>>>> philosophy, gives the impression that others do not exist. Rather, >>>>>>>>>>> for Stirner, others do exist, but they are merely relegated to the >>>>>>>>>>> status >> of property (Eigentum); one has no moral obligations to them whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As a consequence of this investigation, I am inclined to reject the >>>>>>>>>>> philosophy of the late Juenger as mere egoism masquerading under >>>>>>>>>>> the guise of religious continuity. How can Anthony the great and >>>>>>>>>>> Francis of Assisi be precursors to Stirner's proto-Raskolnikov? >>>>>>>>>>> The deficiencies of such a character are already well-covered by >>>>>>>>>>> Dostoekvsky; Juenger, it seems to me, takes a step backwards if his >>>>>>>>>>> ideal state coalesces around nothing more than a Union of Egoists >>>>>>>>>>> (Verein von Egoisten) - or if, as may also be the case, there is no >>>>>>>>>>> ideal state, only a post-historical melange of sights, smells, and >>>>>>>>>>> sounds from past civilizations. Eumeswil is then a museum; Juenger >>>>>>>>>>> its curator. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In conclusion, I quote from the Stanford >> Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Stirner: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Stirner embraces the stark consequences of this rejection of any >>>>>>>>>>> general obligation towards others, insisting, for example, that the >>>>>>>>>>> egoist does not renounce “even the power over life and death” >>>>>>>>>>> (282). Over the course of the book, he variously declines to >>>>>>>>>>> condemn the officer's widow who strangles her child (281), the man >>>>>>>>>>> who treats his sister ‘as wife also’ (45), and the murderer who no >>>>>>>>>>> longer fears his act as a ‘wrong’ (169). In a world in which “we >>>>>>>>>>> owe each other nothing” (263), it seems that acts of infanticide, >>>>>>>>>>> incest, and murder, might all turn out to be justified. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Joel >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Simon Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ >>>>>>>>>>> yahoo.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks Leon! Your discussion put new light for me on the >>>>>>>>>>> > differences and relationships between aloneness and being the >>>>>>>>>>> > Only One. But ultimately lead me to disagree that "the alone one" >>>>>>>>>>> > is the best translation ;-) ! >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > As an individual, one is alone and separated from a world of >>>>>>>>>>> > other individuals and >> things. This is the condition of the "alone one" - he is solitary. But >> within the bounds of the personal microcosm, without any reference to the >> outer world, he is the Only One. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Aloneness exists in reference to the greater world, the >>>>>>>>>>> > macrocosmos; being the Only One is purely from the internal >>>>>>>>>>> > perspective of the microcosmos, without any relation to an outer >>>>>>>>>>> > world. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Although aloneness in the sense of being the "alone one" is one >>>>>>>>>>> > of the problems of Aladdin's Problem, I am not convinced that >>>>>>>>>>> > Juenger thought of Der Einziger as "the alone one". In Eumeswil, >>>>>>>>>>> > he gathers St Anthony, St Francis and Stirner into a group of >>>>>>>>>>> > "great saints", wherein St Francis is characterized as having >>>>>>>>>>> > recognised the power of the poor (arm) man, St Anthony that of >>>>>>>>>>> > the solitary (einsam) man, and Stirner that >> of the only (einzig) man. St Anthony is the paragon of the solitary man, >> "the alone one" while Stirner is the only one. So only-ness is different >> from alone-ness. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Since you bring Aladdin's Problem up, it makes me wonder if this >>>>>>>>>>> > book doesn't provide a reconciliation between the problem of >>>>>>>>>>> > aloneness and the salvation of being only. As you say, Friedrich >>>>>>>>>>> > Baroh suffers from being alone, as each man does. But his >>>>>>>>>>> > salvation may have something to do with his discovery of being >>>>>>>>>>> > the Only One in a world all his own: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Baroh's problem originates in the outer world: "My complaints are >>>>>>>>>>> > not housed in my brain. They are lodged in my body and beyond >>>>>>>>>>> > that in society, the cause of my illness. " >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > He must >> separate from the world, become an 'alone one': "I can do something about it >> only when I have isolated myself from society. Perhaps society will help by >> casting me out. Perhaps I will be interned." >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > In his aloneness, he discovers and creates a world of his own, >>>>>>>>>>> > which has no dependence on the outer world: "In a cell, I could >>>>>>>>>>> > keep elaborating, working on the material without disruptions >>>>>>>>>>> > from outside. Whether or not this effort will produce results is >>>>>>>>>>> > beside the point; I watch over and preserve the treasure in the >>>>>>>>>>> > cave; in solitude - all by myself.... >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > He has become the Only One, master of his own kingdom: "Let the >>>>>>>>>>> > world go under; it is mine." >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> Simon >>>>>>>>>>> > http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>>> > Von: Leon J. Niemoczynski <niemoczynski@ hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> > An: juenger list <juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de> >>>>>>>>>>> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 3. September 2009, 15:37:22 Uhr >>>>>>>>>>> > Betreff: RE: [juenger_org] The Only One and the anarch >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Simon, et al. >>>>>>>>>>> > I think "the alone one and its own" resonates best. Let me >>>>>>>>>>> > (quickly) explain. In 'Aladdin's Problem' Juenger explains that >>>>>>>>>>> > each man is alone; yet this is the universal problem. Here I am >>>>>>>>>>> > reminded of Kierkegaard' s subjective and existential reaction to >>>>>>>>>>> > Hegel. Juenger (and Stirner) both do not deny the universality >>>>>>>>>>> > involved here: each person is his or her OWN seat of will. Yet >>>>>>>>>>> > all person's have it, inexorably, and for many, this is a problem >>>>>>>>>>> > because of an authenticity in facing that owness and aloneness, >>>>>>>>>>> > given the fact that each individual is alone in being fully >>>>>>>>>>> > responsible for determining the details and course of their own >>>>>>>>>>> > life. But this core problem, and the structure associated with >>>>>>>>>>> > it, while being subjective and has indeed a subjective starting >>>>>>>>>>> > point, is something universal. The universal is >> internalized. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Second, I think the "only one" smacks just ever so slightly of >>>>>>>>>>> > aristocratic notion that perhaps is justified here in the sense >>>>>>>>>>> > that the "only one" feels alone in their recognition of the quest >>>>>>>>>>> > to develop oneself in the midst of an ever-growing mass of >>>>>>>>>>> > inauthentic society. A postmodern read of this would suggest >>>>>>>>>>> > that the "unique" individual is one who resists the >>>>>>>>>>> > depersonalizing forces of the modern world (mass propaganda, >>>>>>>>>>> > control, domination.) However, this resistance, again, is always >>>>>>>>>>> > internal and from an internal vantage point. It could be, in >>>>>>>>>>> > principle, externalized at any moment should the only one choose >>>>>>>>>>> > to do that. Yet Juenger makes the point clear: What would be >>>>>>>>>>> > the point of acting out this internal resistance in the end, >>>>>>>>>>> > however, given that the transvaluation of values is itself >>>>>>>>>>> > another reversal in the waves of >> power that dominate and pervade the world? (Nietzsche, Foucault, and Juenger >> are all on point with this.) >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > To me, "the alone one" represents the human being who realizes >>>>>>>>>>> > that they are alone; and that each person, when it comes down to >>>>>>>>>>> > it, is really alone in all of their proprietary measures and >>>>>>>>>>> > attempts of "owning" their own self. How difficult in these >>>>>>>>>>> > postmodern times something like this internal cultivation must be >>>>>>>>>>> > when "the self" is so determined and dominated by an outside >>>>>>>>>>> > world, and not in a nice way (sorry Levinas.) For Juenger, that >>>>>>>>>>> > face of the Other which we read in Levinas reveals only the most >>>>>>>>>>> > pessimistic side of things, and here Schopenhauer may have been >>>>>>>>>>> > right too! Stirner/Kierkegaard /Juenger basically give us the >>>>>>>>>>> > germ, the seed, or the seat of each person's owness: the will >>>>>>>>>>> > decides to either go with or against the pervasive tides of >> power, for the time being. While one may be "against the modern world," the >> external representation never indicates as much. In fact, sometimes it is >> more propitious to go against my own self, to self-overcome, and to keep my >> own perspectives fresh. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Cordially, >>>>>>>>>>> > LJN >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>>> > To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >>>>>>>>>>> > From: simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de >>>>>>>>>>> > Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:16:32 +0000 >>>>>>>>>>> > >> Subject: [juenger_org] The Only One and the anarch >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Dear Greg and list, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > the blog is a very modest effort in my view, but it gives me >>>>>>>>>>> > pleasure and a forum to figure these things out for myself, which >>>>>>>>>>> > ultimately is what I care about. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Regarding Stirner: although I read German, I have only read the >>>>>>>>>>> > English translation by Steven Byington, published by Cambridge >>>>>>>>>>> > Texts in the History of Political Thought. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > I find that translation decent, except as far as the title goes, >>>>>>>>>>> > and there only concerning "Der Einziger" - "Property" and "Own" >>>>>>>>>>> > seem sufficiently synonomous. I >> find this a fundamental question, since it gets to the very essence, the >> substance of this figure. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > According to the "Note on the translation" in this edition, there >>>>>>>>>>> > was also much discussion and disagreement between the translator >>>>>>>>>>> > and his team on this count. Eventually Benjamin Tucker, an >>>>>>>>>>> > English anarchist, came up with "The Ego and its Own". The Note >>>>>>>>>>> > adds that "The Unique Individual and Its Property" would have >>>>>>>>>>> > been more literal and would have avoided any psychoanalytical >>>>>>>>>>> > connotations. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > According to Juenger, Stirner himself often replaced Einziger >>>>>>>>>>> > with Eigner (the owner, proprietor), since it smacked less of >>>>>>>>>>> > egoism. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > In the English translation of Eumeswil, Neugroschel, whose >>>>>>>>>>> > translations I >> mostly like, uses "The Only One and his Own". This must be his translation >> of the German title and not taken from from an existing English translation. >> (Is this common, for a translator to use their own version of a title when >> the book and its title has already been published in that language? Did >> Neugroschel merely overlook the existing translation or did he deliberately >> prefer his?) >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > I have also come across "The Unique", though I can't remember >>>>>>>>>>> > where. The dictionary gives "einzig" (as adjective) as "sole", >>>>>>>>>>> > "single", "unique", "only", "alone". To some degree all of them >>>>>>>>>>> > fit. But which gets to the essence best? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > I also always find myself thinking of this book as the "The Only >>>>>>>>>>> > One and his Own", because I more often refer to Eumeswil than >>>>>>>>>>> > this book. And yet until recently >> "Only" also bothered me. Then it occured to me that Only One does in fact >> get to the heart of the matter best. Let me explain my thinking. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Literally and existentially, the anarch is "without a ruler" - >>>>>>>>>>> > without an external ruler to be precise. He is his own ruler, >>>>>>>>>>> > master of his own kingdom, that microcosm which is his own inner >>>>>>>>>>> > Republic. In this world, he is all alone, existentially the "Only >>>>>>>>>>> > One" within that microcosm. I am always and neccessarily alone >>>>>>>>>>> > and the only one in my inner world. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Constant conscious realization of being the Only One is both his >>>>>>>>>>> > salvation and a burden. His salvation because if he can remember >>>>>>>>>>> > and live this existentially inescapable reality, he becomes >>>>>>>>>>> > immune to the outer world - for who can penetrate his inner >>>>>>>>>>> > essence, which lives within its >> own microcosm? On the other hand, it is a burden because the condition of >> being the Only One within its own world means he ultimately has sole >> responsibility for his welfare. There is no expectation of salvation by the >> State, or even God, no projecting of responsibility outwards. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > (This verges on mystical experience - and in fact, in the pages >>>>>>>>>>> > of Eumeswil dedicated to Stirner, there are also references to >>>>>>>>>>> > Silesian mysticism and Gnosticism as being trailblazers in Man's >>>>>>>>>>> > attainment of self-conscious inner freedom. ( Juenger sometimes >>>>>>>>>>> > refers to Angelus Silesius under "Silesian mysticism" - was >>>>>>>>>>> > Eckhardt also from Silesia?) If you are familiar with Gurdjieff's >>>>>>>>>>> > cosmology, the world of the Only One and Anarch could also be >>>>>>>>>>> > equated with G's Deuterocosmos, the microcosmos which each human >>>>>>>>>>> > being is potentially capable of creating out of and within >>>>>>>>>>> > himself. And I am >> sure Indian philosophy has other formulations for the same reality, or >> rather potentiality. ) >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > This view of the Only One makes clearer much of what Juenger >>>>>>>>>>> > describes of the anarch. That each man's basically anarchic, but >>>>>>>>>>> > most never consciously realize that. That reaching this state is >>>>>>>>>>> > like finding the Koh-i-noor diamond within oneself. That >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > This existential human condition can be pictured politically, as >>>>>>>>>>> > Plato did. In fact, the state of Eumeswil is almost a mirror of >>>>>>>>>>> > the anarch - the analogy is so close it seems to be deliberate - >>>>>>>>>>> > has this ever been commented on? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Eumeswil is a small, mostly self-sufficient state that minds its >>>>>>>>>>> > own business within a macrocosmos of much larger power-hungry >> entities. It takes care of its own internal affairs, only dealing with the >> Yellow or Blue Khan's Empires when it is expedient or necessary. It does not >> seek to expand into the domain of others, nor impose its views or influence >> outside its borders. It aims only at ruling its own microcosm. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Regarding reading, Eumeswil is by far the most interesting book >>>>>>>>>>> > for me, mainly because it contains almost all the anarch >>>>>>>>>>> > material, but also because it is the fullest exposition of >>>>>>>>>>> > Juenger's mature thought. Contrary to what others may suggest, I >>>>>>>>>>> > would suggest starting with this book and only filling in with >>>>>>>>>>> > earlier works when time and interest requires. Retreat into the >>>>>>>>>>> > Forest and Marmorklippen should be the next readings, since they >>>>>>>>>>> > help explain the development of the anarch, as Klaus has already >>>>>>>>>>> > said. But in itself, Eumeswil suffices for the essence of >>>>>>>>>>> > Juenger's thought. One >> comes back again and again to contemplate a sentence, a paragraph. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Glad you found this list and have stimulated so much new activity! >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Simon >>>>>>>>>>> > http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>>> > Von: Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. com> >>>>>>>>>>> > An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>>>>>>>>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 2. September 2009, 16:58:04 Uhr >>>>>>>>>>> > Betreff: >> [juenger_org] The anarch;Eckhart and Schopenhauer >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Simon, your Anarch blog is most excellent and inspiring -- I >>>>>>>>>>> > have spent some time reading over the interesting posts. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Related to Junger and concepts of the 'detached Anarch', living >>>>>>>>>>> > in the world of men, yet not bogged down by its mundanities, >>>>>>>>>>> > absurdity and banality, can I ask you ( and the others ) some >>>>>>>>>>> > 'Anarch/Junger conceptually related' questions? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > To what extent do all of you feel Junger was influenced by Max >>>>>>>>>>> > Stirner's "Ego and Its Own" -- has Junger written much about >>>>>>>>>>> > Stirner, and acknowledged his influence? If so, where might I find >> such texts? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Was Junger the first to use the term "Anarch" -- or is rooted in >>>>>>>>>>> > earlier tradition? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Does Junger mention Eckhart and Schopenhauer at all? Was he >>>>>>>>>>> > influenced by them, and if so, perhaps, influenced by early >>>>>>>>>>> > Indian philosophy at all ? I am thinking here of the earliest >>>>>>>>>>> > Theravada Suttas and Advaita Vedanta such as Ashtavakra Gita. >>>>>>>>>>> > And finally -- does anyone know where I can find a good >>>>>>>>>>> > translation of "Ego and its Own" -- I had the Rebel Press >>>>>>>>>>> > version, and that was a clumsy, unwieldy text to read. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks for all your insights -- I am currently reading Junger's >>>>>>>>>>> > "The Retreat into The Forest" and learning a >> lot. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Best Regards to all, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Greg. >>>>>>>>>>> > --- On Wed, 2/9/09, Simon Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> >>>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > From: Simon Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> >>>>>>>>>>> > Subject: [juenger_org] The anarch etc... >>>>>>>>>>> > To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >>>>>>>>>>> > Date: Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 7:52 PM >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Dear Greg, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > glad you're so enthusiastic about Jünger! I haven't been online >>>>>>>>>>> > much during the summer, hence no suggestions from me for reading. >>>>>>>>>>> > Instead take a look at my occassional blog on the Anarch.... >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Simon >>>>>>>>>>> > http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>>> > Von: Gregory Whitfield <gregd...@yahoo. com> >>>>>>>>>>> > An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de >>>>>>>>>>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 2. September 2009, 03:31:04 Uhr >>>>>>>>>>> > Betreff: RE: [juenger_org] The Anarch and Violence >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks so much to all of you for your thoughtful and insightful >>>>>>>>>>> > emails. They are really helping me discover the world of Junger. >>>>>>>>>>> > I just can't believe that I had never actually heard of him until >>>>>>>>>>> > a year or so ago. Mind you, perhaps it's because he doesn't fit >>>>>>>>>>> > in to the world's idea of a PC writer,that many readers have never >> heard of him -- it seems to me that lots of readers/critics/ academics just >> don't know how to deal with him, and don't know where to place him -- which >> of course, makes him all the more attractive to readers like myself, who >> have always looked to writers and thinkers who exist off the beaten track >> and turn away from "politely accepted/acceptable discourse". >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Thanks again -- I will be sure to follow your advice and >>>>>>>>>>> > directions, and get back to you all once I have read more. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Now -- to enter the world of Junger I shall go. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > John, I will be sure to read your PHD papers too -- thanks so >>>>>>>>>>> > much for getting all that wonderful information online. >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Greg. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > --- On Wed, 2/9/09, Rickard <reseanteckningar@ hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > From: Rickard <reseanteckningar@ hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> > Subject: RE: [juenger_org] The Anarch and Violence >>>>>>>>>>> > To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >>>>>>>>>>> > Date: Wednesday, 2 September, 2009, 5:28 AM >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Hello, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > More excerpts from Der Waldgang, in English, can be found at this >>>>>>>>>>> > address: >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > http://anteckningar .wordpress. com/2007/ 06/05/der- waldgang- >>>>>>>>>>> > excerpter/ >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > The first part is the already mentioned article “The retreat into >>>>>>>>>>> > the forest” from Confluence, followed by “Taking the forest way” >>>>>>>>>>> > published in a magazine called Art & Thought in 2003 (but it >>>>>>>>>>> > seems like the original PDF is removed from their site.) >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> Yours, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Rickard >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>>> > To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de >>>>>>>>>>> > From: jdi...@gmail. com >>>>>>>>>>> > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:58:44 +0000 >>>>>>>>>>> > Subject: [juenger_org] The Anarch and Violence >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > A more extensive exposition of Juenger's views can be found in >>>>>>>>>>> > his Waldganger (http://www.juenger. org/mailarchive/ >>>>>>>>>>> > 8_1998/msg00000. php): >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > <<It may seem strange that a single individual, or even several, >>>>>>>>>>> > should resist the Leviathan. Yet it is precisely through their >>>>>>>>>>> > action that the colossus reveals its vulnerability. For even a >>>>>>>>>>> > handful of determined men can become a threat, not only morally >>>>>>>>>>> > but physically. Again and again we witness that two or three >>>>>>>>>>> > gangsters can upset an entire metropolitan district, and cause >>>>>>>>>>> > lengthy sieges. If the relationship is reversed, if the >>>>>>>>>>> > authorities turn criminal and men of justice offer resistance, >>>>>>>>>>> > incomparably greater effects can be produced. The consternation >>>>>>>>>>> > of Napoleon at the uprising of Mallct, a >>>>>>>>>>> > single, but unbending man is a well-known instance. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Let us assume that a small number of truly free men are left in a >>>>>>>>>>> > city or state. In that case the breach of the >> constitution would carry a heavy risk. In this sense, the theory of >> collective guilt is justified, for the possibility of violating a law is >> directly proportional to the degree of resistance it encounters at the hands >> of freedom. An attack on the invulnerability and, indeed, on the sanctity of >> the home would not have been possible in old Iceland, in the form in which >> it was possible as a purely administrative measure in Berlin in 1933, in the >> midst of a population of several millions. As an honorable exception we >> should mention a young Social Democrat who killed half a dozen of the >> so-called auxiliary police at >>>>>>>>>>> > the entrance of his apartment. He still partook of the >>>>>>>>>>> > substantial Old-Germanic sense of freedom which his opponents >>>>>>>>>>> > celebrated in their theories. Naturally, he had not learned this >>>>>>>>>>> > from the program of his party.>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Klaus, >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Do you agree that this concept of violence is consistent with >>>>>>>>>>> > Juenger's exposition of the Anarch in Eumeswil, or is the sense >>>>>>>>>>> > of freedom to which you refer simply that 'celebrated in theory' ? >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > Jd | joeldietz.com >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>>> > Använd nätet för att dela med dig av dina minnen till vem du vill. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>>> > Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do >>>>>>>>>>> > online. Find out more. >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________ _________ _________ __ >>>>>>>>>> I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. >>>>>>>>>> We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. >>>>>>>>>> >> SPAMfighter has removed 648 of my spam emails to date. >>>>>>>>>> The Professional version does not have this message. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >>------------ --------- --------- ------ >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > > >
