AW: AW: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass
Dear Simon, you are absolutely right, the early Jünger is only an easy target for the democratic and pazifist critique of fascist thought. The late Jünger is much more dificult to understand and is not at all a simple fascist, the concept of the Anarch is mainly based on the ideas of the left-wing Hegelian Max Stirner, a good friend of Karl Marx, though later Marx criticized him harshly, because his concept was very different from the messianic and totalitarian concepts of Karl Marx himself. Stirner was a non-violent anarchist and freethinker, and the late Jünger was an outsider, humanist and anarchist in the postindustrial, highly technological society that was established after World War II in the western hemisphere of the world. Yours, Klaus P.S.: You are also right when it comes to the professors. Some of them are well-trained and intelligent, but they are seldom really original and most of the things they write are simply boring. --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de schrieb am Mo, 22.12.2008: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de Betreff: AW: AW: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Datum: Montag, 22. Dezember 2008, 11:49 Klaus, Obwohl der frühere Jünger wichtig ist, um seine Entwicklung zu verstehen, ist der spätere Jünger zweifellos viel interessante. Aber er ist auch schwieriger zu verstehen und keiner easy target, wie man es auf Englisch ausdrückt. Und deshalb - nicht nur weil sie einfach langsamer als andere sind - beschäftigen sich die Akademiker immer noch so sehr mit dem frühen J. Wie J selbst, schätze ich die Professoren nicht besonders. Natürlich aber gibt es Ausnahmen, und wenn einer meine Urteil ließt, dann soll ich mich im Voraus schon verzeihen! Simon Von: klaus gauger klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Samstag, den 20. Dezember 2008, 00:22:11 Uhr Betreff: AW: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass Lieber Simon, ja, ich glaube, wir sind uns in den meisten Punkten ziemlich einig, auch in dem Punkt, dass man Jünger nicht auf den frühen, faschistischen Jünger eingrenzen sollte, sondern dass gerade der spätere Jünger, der Humanist, Philosoph und Weltbürger, vielleicht sogar der interessantere ist. Bis dann, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de schrieb am Fr, 19.12.2008: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de Betreff: AW: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Freitag, 19. Dezember 2008, 13:07 Bravo, also teilen wir diese Meinung - ich hätte es nicht besser sagen können. Besonders in einer Fremdsprache. Simon Von: klaus gauger klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 18. Dezember 2008, 17:39:12 Uhr Betreff: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass Dear Simon, this is a nice blog, and I believe Jüngers anarch is the adecuate response to the reality we are living in. In our highly technological, postindustrial society the most challenging question is how to preserve individuality, freedom of will, and the capacity to analyze and to understand the world we are living in. Instead of becoming a functional part of the megamachine (Lewis Mumford) of modern state and society the anarch tries to preserve his mind, his own will and his own values, which might be different from those of the politically conformist consumer which is the model of the ideal citizen of the megamachine . The anarch is not violent and does not ignore the rules of society - this is the difference to the anarchist - the anarch knows the rules of society and respects them, but only in a superficial way, because he knows these rules have to be accepted to a certain point, but they must not be adopted by himself. The anarchs own rules and ideas might be different from those of society and in case he collides with society or the society turn against him, he will become a forest-fleer and an outlaw an will hide himself in the forest, which is a metaphor for his own interior world, his fantasy and dreams and his soul, which are never seriously damaged and touched by society. Yours, Klaus Gauger --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de schrieb am Do, 18.12.2008: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de Betreff: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008, 11:32 Dear Richard, Klaus, et al: Since it is more or less on this theme of man and state, here's a link to my last blog entry Human freedom and the welfare of the state. http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com Simon Von: Richard Krähenbühl ri...@t-online. de An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Freitag, den 12. Dezember 2008, 12:28:33 Uhr Betreff: Re: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass
AW: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass
Lieber Simon, ja, ich glaube, wir sind uns in den meisten Punkten ziemlich einig, auch in dem Punkt, dass man Jünger nicht auf den frühen, faschistischen Jünger eingrenzen sollte, sondern dass gerade der spätere Jünger, der Humanist, Philosoph und Weltbürger, vielleicht sogar der interessantere ist. Bis dann, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de schrieb am Fr, 19.12.2008: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de Betreff: AW: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Datum: Freitag, 19. Dezember 2008, 13:07 Bravo, also teilen wir diese Meinung - ich hätte es nicht besser sagen können. Besonders in einer Fremdsprache. Simon Von: klaus gauger klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 18. Dezember 2008, 17:39:12 Uhr Betreff: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass Dear Simon, this is a nice blog, and I believe Jüngers anarch is the adecuate response to the reality we are living in. In our highly technological, postindustrial society the most challenging question is how to preserve individuality, freedom of will, and the capacity to analyze and to understand the world we are living in. Instead of becoming a functional part of the megamachine (Lewis Mumford) of modern state and society the anarch tries to preserve his mind, his own will and his own values, which might be different from those of the politically conformist consumer which is the model of the ideal citizen of the megamachine . The anarch is not violent and does not ignore the rules of society - this is the difference to the anarchist - the anarch knows the rules of society and respects them, but only in a superficial way, because he knows these rules have to be accepted to a certain point, but they must not be adopted by himself. The anarchs own rules and ideas might be different from those of society and in case he collides with society or the society turn against him, he will become a forest-fleer and an outlaw an will hide himself in the forest, which is a metaphor for his own interior world, his fantasy and dreams and his soul, which are never seriously damaged and touched by society. Yours, Klaus Gauger --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de schrieb am Do, 18.12.2008: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de Betreff: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008, 11:32 Dear Richard, Klaus, et al: Since it is more or less on this theme of man and state, here's a link to my last blog entry Human freedom and the welfare of the state. http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com Simon Von: Richard Krähenbühl ri...@t-online. de An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Freitag, den 12. Dezember 2008, 12:28:33 Uhr Betreff: Re: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass - Original Message - From: klaus gauger To: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:18 PM Subject: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass Dear Simon, all your remarks are absolutely correct. The Jüngerian Anarch is solipsistic and his philosophy has nothing to do with traditional anarchism as a political and social phenomenon. The Anarch is an individual that is an opponent to the tecnical and rational organization of modern society and tries to live his libertarian ideas and values. Yours, Klaus Gauger --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de schrieb am Do, 11.12.2008: 12.12.2008 Dear Simon, concerning Ernst Jünger's anarch, reading through his Siebzig Verweht diaries, I have gathered the impression that EJ considered himself an anarch, but did not reveal it openly. All he has written between the lines would be a chapter by itself. Anyway, I just would like to translate an entry of 1972, on his way to Alanya. One more instance to show how Jünger foresaw things to come: In the plane. Before departure our hand luggage had been thoroughly screened. Policemen and policewomen were probing passengers in the cabin. The shadow-sides of comfort are getting evident, not only on a technical basis. Phenomenons like airplane hijacking, kidnapping, hostage-taking are more than things curious and signs of decadence. They should be studied ex ovo as symptoms of a new valuation or devaluation of man. Man who neither counts as person or as an individual, but is subjected to purely material assessment, becoming a commercial item. In an insurance fraud, for instance, he has to appear as a corpse, without any reference to individuality. Similar to child robbery and kidnapping. There is a difference here to antique slavery. Though the slave had to succumb to property law, this kind of anonymous substitution was missing, in spite of cases that were condemned as inhuman already in those times. Value
AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass
Thank you, Leon. It will take me a little while to get through your excerpt - Heidegger's ideas are not that familiar to me yet. I also had the idea that an English translation of Klaus's Technikkritik would be interesting for the list, and I half-contemplated offering to do it myself. While only the Eumeswil and Waldgang sections might be sufficient relative to your essay, for the list it would be best in its entirety, since it follows a chronological and intellectual progression. At the moment, I don't have time, maybe early next year. Anyone else like to tackle it? Simon Von: Leon J. Niemoczynski niemoczyn...@hotmail.com An: juenger list juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 10. Dezember 2008, 17:38:17 Uhr Betreff: RE: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass Dear Klaus + Simon, Please find below an excerpt--I doubt that I would be able to post the whole thing. Perhaps in trade, Klaus, you would be willing to offer in English translation to the list either 38.c Eumeswiland 28.b Der Waldgang,from your Die Technikfrage be Ernst Juenger. Made my way through your German text, and for those who cannot read the language either of those sections in translation would be really helpful to those following the conversation being posted here. -LJN Excerpt from, Leon Niemoczynski, “Heidegger’s Ontology in the 1930’s from Plato to the Beiträge.” Proceedings of the North American Heidegger Conference, (May, 2008): 119-137. The paper draws into question the exact nature of the gift of futurity at two levels. First, in light of what specific pre-conditions can the gift of futurity be understood asa gift or as something granted. And second, on what basis or “expression of an anterior act” could the gift be meaningfully gratuitous?[18] With respect to the first question, Colony claims “Heidegger is clear that space-time is not a site which would contain the god itself, yet he still understands this site as prerequisite for the god’s manifestation.”[19] With respect to the second question, “In spite of the fact that the god itself remains wholly other and incomparable to being…Heidegger’s thinking…in the Contributionsis undoubtedly guided by the attempt to envision a more divine god which would be untainted by what he took to be the idolatrous concepts of the onto-theological tradition.”[20] Continuing, “Heidegger’s god is described as giving though the alien topos of being in which the god is implicated only via the neutral concept of need. However, to what degree can Heidegger’s account of this absolute alterity of the god itself, with respect to its manifestation in being, still allow for these manifestations to be contextualized as the expression of an earlier instance of giving and not as merely neutral occurrences?”[21] Colony closes the paper with the thought that in order to contextualize the givenness of the time of the last god it would be necessary to contextualize such givenness with respect to “the anteriority of the god in qualitative terms as the source of an act of gratuitous address.”[22] In terms of rendering both the giftness of the gift and the intelligibility of the last god, Heidegger’s close colleague Ernst Jünger may provide a clue, but in a context not so closely related to the themes of the religious or to Da-sein enthinking be-ing’s ownmost truth. Jünger makes appearances in Heidegger’s Contributions §75 and in the closely related Besinnung (translated as Mindfulness), §10 and §64, for example.[23] Heidegger also delivered a lecture course on Jünger’s masterwork Der Arbeiter: Herrschaft und Gestalt (1932) [The Worker: Mastery and Form] published as Zu Ernst Jünger (GA 90.)[24] Heidegger also wrote an essay dedicated to Jünger’s sixtieth birthday, entitled “Über ‘die Linie’,” later re-titled “Zur Seinsfrage” [On the Question of Being] (GA 9.)[25] What is significant about mention of Jünger here is that, in Richard Polt’s words, Heidegger expressed “horror” at the modern condition, seeing it as a “disaster” responsible for the degeneration of the world and the dislocation of Dasein from Being and truth.[26] I believe the modern condition serves as the anterior qualitative plane that Colony claims one needs so that one might discern the gratuitous act of address as an act of gratuity within a postmodern world (this qualitative plane includes the Gigantic, the absence of the divine, the potential oblivion of Being—all taken up as themes in the Contributions.) Moreover, I believe it is through Jünger’s metaphysical optic that Heidegger diagnoses the conditions that threaten Being, formulating the distinction between Dasein and Da-sein in response.[27] It is also through Jünger’s metaphysical optic that Heidegger understands the significance of the last god, a sign that Being is threatened from total mobilization and annihilation.[28] Yet, in these same conditions, remarkably, the divine
AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass
Dear Simon, all your remarks are absolutely correct. The Jüngerian Anarch is solipsistic and his philosophy has nothing to do with traditional anarchism as a political and social phenomenon. The Anarch is an individual that is an opponent to the tecnical and rational organization of modern society and tries to live his libertarian ideas and values. Yours, Klaus Gauger --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de schrieb am Do, 11.12.2008: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de Betreff: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Datum: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2008, 11:01 Dear Klaus, I hesitant to think of Juenger's model as non-violent anarchism - in my opinion this expression over-emphasizes the rather secondary aspect of violence and continues an association with popular notions of anarchism as a social phenomenon. I understand that if one uses the word anarchism in connection with the anarch, one is then forced to add the non-violent condition to correct for the associations of the word. I would rather find some other formulation which dispenses with that word and therefore does not have to make any secondary stipulations about its non-violent nature. Naturally Juenger's anarch does not believe in violence as an effective method to change anything, but he knows that in certain extreme cases he might have to resort to violence to protect his personal freedom. The anarch is preferably but not necessarily non-violent. I understand anarchism as a social or group phenomenon which is supported by shared beliefs in changing the world by eliminating the rules and rulers which limit the group's freedom. The group acts in and against society. The anarch acts alone. Personal anarchy is more the condition Juenger's anarch strives for. His field of action is his own personal self-island , his own personal forest, mostly within, but to some limited degree also in the practical world around him. He is not interested in, he understands the futility of, trying to improve the world. One could imagine a group of hippies living peacefully in a comune removed from society as practising non-violent anarchism. But they are not anarchs in Juenger's sense. Sorry to make a big deal about two little words, but these notions have to be carefully explained in order to avoid misunderstandings and false conclusions on the part of the public. There are too many misunderstandings regarding Juenger already. best regards from Wien, Simon Von: klaus gauger klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 10. Dezember 2008, 13:22:35 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass Dear Leon, I see myself the forest-fleer and Eumeswil as the texts that are in the center of Jüngers critique of the Leviathan and in both texts he establishes a non-violent form of anarchism as the adecuate response to the methods and the tecnical instruments of the Leviathan. I would like to read your article, Dear Leon, if this is posible. Maybe I can find it somewhere online or just send me the article in Word, PDF or another common format: klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com I have written myself a longer text about Jüngers philosophy of technology, where I also write about the forest-fleer and Eumeswil, but also about all the other important diaries, essays and novels of Ernst Jünger: http://www.lammla. de/domains/ arnshaugk/ diktynna/ ej_technikkritik .pdf Yours, Klaus Gauger --- Leon J. Niemoczynski niemoczynski@ hotmail.com schrieb am Mo, 8.12.2008: Von: Leon J. Niemoczynski niemoczynski@ hotmail.com Betreff: [juenger_org] Navigating Leviathan's carcass An: juenger list juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Montag, 8. Dezember 2008, 21:38 Dear List, With reference to my article, and forgive me if I've posted about it before, Juenger provides one with blueprints on how to navigate, shall we say, the skeletal jungle of Leviathan's carcass. The article that I am referring to is Leon Niemoczynski, “Heidegger’s Ontology in the 1930’s from Plato to the Beiträge.” Proceedings of the North American Heidegger Conference, (May, 2008):119-137. It is the section about Juenger's Forest-Fleer essay and Eumeswil that are here most pertinent. Additionally, I've written some text in an introductory book about Juenger with his aphorisms and the first chapter of that book is called Survival in the Postmodern Age. I believe that I posted portions of that here as well. In any case, the skeletal remains of the Leviathan no doubt still draws the desiring machines here and there to feast upon its remains; the allusion being to Deluze and Guatarri's 'Capitalism and Schizophrenia' (1972.) There is not much else to do other than to feast: just ask the consumer spenders within the current global economic recession. Though, could controlling and directing one's desires be the key
