There are many interesting thoughts in your mail, but I will limit my comments to the part where we seem to differ.
Regarding your disagreement: it seems I was a bit unclear when trying to get my thougts through and I think this lies at the core of our disagreement. I never meant that "going into the woods" was to be understood as actually moving one's physical body into the actual woods -- and I'm sure that that wasn't what Jünger had in mind either, even though he writes of actual partisan struggles and probably considered the concrete retreat into the woods as a possibility. But the inner Waldgang always comes first, the physical one is a possible result of the former. I will try to clearify my thoughts: To enter the woods is* to awaken*, and the awakening is a result of becoming aware of the power store that is within and deciding to act contrary to the plans of Leviathan (reagarding this activistic strain of Jüngers thinking at this stage, one should always keep in mind that Der Waldgang was written at the very beginning of the Cold War, and the influence of von Stauffenberg's heroic attempt at Hitler's life). Thus, when a man enters the woods, as a result of his inner awakening, he beomces a Waldgänger. But I think our difference lies in the understanding of the symbolic term of "going into the woods" and I believe that is connected with where this pasage is found. When I look at the context where the passage about sleeping in the woods is found, it seems obvious that it is something of a digression: hence the "one could *also* say". Throughout the book, going into the woods is portrayed as an action performed by a person who finds himself in a certain condition and with a certain insight -- not just a change from outside taking place within a passive individual. An inner change takes place, one state replaces another; cf. Jünger's use of the symbolism of the ship, which is the opposite of the static, neverchanging wood. Or to use another term of Jünger's: the Waldgänger crosses the line. But of course, as you've pointed out, what that person has understood and also found is something that exists within everyone, but it is also somehting which needs realizing, which in turn requires effort and courage, making the number of "enlightened ones" small. Here I would just like to quote the passage immediately preceeding the "Man könnte auch sagen" passage which clearifies this and a few others things which are worth mentioning: *Wenn hier vom Einzelnen gesprochen wird, dann ist der Mensch damit gemeint, und zwar ohne den Beigeschmack, wie ihn das Wort im Laufe der beiden letzten Jahrhunderte gewonnen hat. Es ist der freie Mensch gemeint, so wie ihn Gott geschaffen hat. Dieser Mensch ist keine Ausnahme, stellt keine Elite dar. Er verbirgt sich vielmehr in jedem, und Unterschiede ergeben sich nur aus dem Grade, bis zu welchem der Einzelne die ihm verliehene Freiheit zu verwirklichen vermag. Dazu muß man ihm helfen — als Denkender, als Wissender, als Freund, als Liebender* *Now, when we speak of the individual, what we are referring to is man, without the aftertaste that this word has aquired over the past two centuries. We are referring to the free man as created by God. This man is not an exception, not representative of an elite. Rather, it [the free man, God's creation] hides within everyone and differences appear only in relation to how well a person is capable of realizing the freedom that has been given to him. To get there, one must help him -- as a thinker, as an intellectual, as a friend, as a lover. * That's all I have time for right now. But I would like to write a longer reply at a later time. Regards, /Stefan 2009/10/9 Simon Friedrich <simonfriedr...@yahoo.de> > > > 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 ** > known** to 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 <simonfriedr...@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_gau...@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 >> >>>>>> 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 >> >>>>>> 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 >> >>>>>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > > >
