AW: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis
That is exactly how Ernst Jünger would also have answered - he also saw things very differently throughout his life, and had no problem with that evolution. Simon Von: klaus gauger klaus_gau...@yahoo.com An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Gesendet: Freitag, den 6. März 2009, 21:15:43 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis Dear Simon, I am glad that my texts are usefull for you. And you are right, you don´t have to agree with all of my assumptions and conclusions. My interpretation of the Jünger-Brothers is a lifelong effort in constant progress, maybe in ten years I will see all these theorems of the Jünger-Brothers in quite a different way than I do today. Yours, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de schrieb am Fr, 6.3.2009: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de Betreff: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Datum: Freitag, 6. März 2009, 11:31 Klaus, so far I have read your Die Weltschau des Anarchen and Zu Friedrich Georg Jüngers Perfektion der Technik. I was impressed not only by the richness of literary knowledge evident in both texts but also by your understanding of and ability to show a continuous development of Ernst Jünger´s thought from the figures of Krieger through Arbeiter and Waldgänger to Anarch. Moreover, you justly give more weight to the final and highest result, the Anarch, rather than overemphasizing the transitional figures, as most academics occupied with Jünger do. Certainly, the transitional figures and the development are important, but not to the exclusion of the end result, which is his highest and most useful creation. By giving too much time to the transitional figures, other writers literally leave no time to seriously consider the Anarch. I would suspect this reflects directly on their own level of development - that whereas Ernst Jünger was able to develop his level of being and understanding up to the Anarch, they remain stuck at the level of Arbeiters. They are simply unable to appreciate the higher nature of this figure, even if they are able to criticize the shortcomings of the lower figures. Regarding Friedrich Georg Jünger, I learned much about the cultural and philosophical climate for the creation of this work from your text. I have already read The Failure of Technology in the English translation and can only agree with almost all of your summary of its contents. With two exceptions. His assertion that technology only appears to reduce our workload but in reality increases it is in my opinion quite correct. Apart from the unemployed, I also can´t imagine most normal Arbeiters today agreeing that they work less. Their work may not be as physically demanding, since machines do that part, but the maintenance of the whole technical infrastructure, at work and at home, demands enormous amounts of time. How many years of work time have I expended to pay for my effort-saving car or household appliances and their maintenance, or reconfiguring my computer as it regularly goes wrong. Paradoxically, with the infamous financial crisis, many of us will be discovering new leisure and then we may also discover that living more simply, with less of technology's gifts, requires less work and gives us more quality time for ourselves and our families. Regarding the second of his assertions that you critique, that technology does not in fact create wealth, I can only support the writer. The financial crisis - sorry, I know we're all sick and tired of it from the media coverage but it is relevent here - shows us this clearly. What seemed like the creation of wealth was in fact only a consumption of borrowed capital. Ultimately, the lender was the earth, so that the financial and environmental crises are intimately linked. The exhaustion of the capital brings about the collapse of the exploitation that was based on it. True creation of wealth, the kind Friedrich Georg must be thinking of, would increase the capital. As you know, both brothers would describe this as titanic, which only ends in catastrophe. And unfortunately, inescapable catastrophe - for when the capital is gone, it is well and truly gone and cannot be replaced elsewhere.. We will not be able to practise Raubbau with solar or other renewal energies. Here we can only live on the surfeit, the interest. And even if the surfeit of the sun is enormous, I am not an optimist who believes we will develop our capacity to harvest sun energy efficiently enough to completely replace the fossil fuels. Our whole world is based on this plutonic energy, as E.J would put it. The transition must necessarily bring about a reduction in world population. Excuse the digression. Thanks again for sending me these texts, and I will now continue with your Überleben in der Technischen Welt. Bis bald, Simon! http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com
AW: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis
Dear Simon, you are right, it doesn´t exist only one Jünger, but several Jüngers. I described four of them: the warrior, the worker, the forest-fleer and the anarch. Every Jünger is worth to be considered, and the anarch is the most adapted to our actual times and our actual situation. Jünger himself evolved himself during the more than eighty years as a prolific and cultivated author, and the last step he reached was the anarch. Yours, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de schrieb am Mo, 9.3.2009: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de Betreff: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis An: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Datum: Montag, 9. März 2009, 9:59 That is exactly how Ernst Jünger would also have answered - he also saw things very differently throughout his life, and had no problem with that evolution. Simon Von: klaus gauger klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Freitag, den 6. März 2009, 21:15:43 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis Dear Simon, I am glad that my texts are usefull for you. And you are right, you don´t have to agree with all of my assumptions and conclusions. My interpretation of the Jünger-Brothers is a lifelong effort in constant progress, maybe in ten years I will see all these theorems of the Jünger-Brothers in quite a different way than I do today. Yours, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de schrieb am Fr, 6.3.2009: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de Betreff: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Freitag, 6. März 2009, 11:31 Klaus, so far I have read your Die Weltschau des Anarchen and Zu Friedrich Georg Jüngers Perfektion der Technik. I was impressed not only by the richness of literary knowledge evident in both texts but also by your understanding of and ability to show a continuous development of Ernst Jünger´s thought from the figures of Krieger through Arbeiter and Waldgänger to Anarch. Moreover, you justly give more weight to the final and highest result, the Anarch, rather than overemphasizing the transitional figures, as most academics occupied with Jünger do. Certainly, the transitional figures and the development are important, but not to the exclusion of the end result, which is his highest and most useful creation. By giving too much time to the transitional figures, other writers literally leave no time to seriously consider the Anarch. I would suspect this reflects directly on their own level of development - that whereas Ernst Jünger was able to develop his level of being and understanding up to the Anarch, they remain stuck at the level of Arbeiters. They are simply unable to appreciate the higher nature of this figure, even if they are able to criticize the shortcomings of the lower figures. Regarding Friedrich Georg Jünger, I learned much about the cultural and philosophical climate for the creation of this work from your text. I have already read The Failure of Technology in the English translation and can only agree with almost all of your summary of its contents. With two exceptions. His assertion that technology only appears to reduce our workload but in reality increases it is in my opinion quite correct. Apart from the unemployed, I also can´t imagine most normal Arbeiters today agreeing that they work less. Their work may not be as physically demanding, since machines do that part, but the maintenance of the whole technical infrastructure, at work and at home, demands enormous amounts of time. How many years of work time have I expended to pay for my effort-saving car or household appliances and their maintenance, or reconfiguring my computer as it regularly goes wrong. Paradoxically, with the infamous financial crisis, many of us will be discovering new leisure and then we may also discover that living more simply, with less of technology's gifts, requires less work and gives us more quality time for ourselves and our families. Regarding the second of his assertions that you critique, that technology does not in fact create wealth, I can only support the writer. The financial crisis - sorry, I know we're all sick and tired of it from the media coverage but it is relevent here - shows us this clearly. What seemed like the creation of wealth was in fact only a consumption of borrowed capital. Ultimately, the lender was the earth, so that the financial and environmental crises are intimately linked. The exhaustion of the capital brings about the collapse of the exploitation that was based on it. True creation of wealth, the kind Friedrich Georg must be thinking of, would increase the capital. As you know, both brothers would describe this as titanic, which only ends in catastrophe. And unfortunately, inescapable catastrophe - for when the capital is gone, it is well and truly gone and cannot be replaced elsewhere.. We
Re: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis
As I can see you have a deep approach to the different steps o E Jünger thought. Can you make an hipotesis about a) the ideology That can match with different stages in particular with the worker. b) the kind of governemnt he imagines for the humankind (I know about worldwide state) Thank you so much Marta --- El lun 9-mar-09, Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de escribió: De: Simon Friedrich simonfriedr...@yahoo.de Asunto: AW: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis Para: juenger_org@yahoogroups.de Fecha: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2009, 5:59 am That is exactly how Ernst Jünger would also have answered - he also saw things very differently throughout his life, and had no problem with that evolution. Simon Von: klaus gauger klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Gesendet: Freitag, den 6. März 2009, 21:15:43 Uhr Betreff: AW: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis Dear Simon, I am glad that my texts are usefull for you. And you are right, you don´t have to agree with all of my assumptions and conclusions. My interpretation of the Jünger-Brothers is a lifelong effort in constant progress, maybe in ten years I will see all these theorems of the Jünger-Brothers in quite a different way than I do today. Yours, Klaus --- Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de schrieb am Fr, 6.3.2009: Von: Simon Friedrich simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de Betreff: [juenger_org] Your Anarch thesis An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. de Datum: Freitag, 6. März 2009, 11:31 Klaus, so far I have read your Die Weltschau des Anarchen and Zu Friedrich Georg Jüngers Perfektion der Technik. I was impressed not only by the richness of literary knowledge evident in both texts but also by your understanding of and ability to show a continuous development of Ernst Jünger´s thought from the figures of Krieger through Arbeiter and Waldgänger to Anarch. Moreover, you justly give more weight to the final and highest result, the Anarch, rather than overemphasizing the transitional figures, as most academics occupied with Jünger do. Certainly, the transitional figures and the development are important, but not to the exclusion of the end result, which is his highest and most useful creation. By giving too much time to the transitional figures, other writers literally leave no time to seriously consider the Anarch. I would suspect this reflects directly on their own level of development - that whereas Ernst Jünger was able to develop his level of being and understanding up to the Anarch, they remain stuck at the level of Arbeiters. They are simply unable to appreciate the higher nature of this figure, even if they are able to criticize the shortcomings of the lower figures. Regarding Friedrich Georg Jünger, I learned much about the cultural and philosophical climate for the creation of this work from your text. I have already read The Failure of Technology in the English translation and can only agree with almost all of your summary of its contents. With two exceptions. His assertion that technology only appears to reduce our workload but in reality increases it is in my opinion quite correct. Apart from the unemployed, I also can´t imagine most normal Arbeiters today agreeing that they work less. Their work may not be as physically demanding, since machines do that part, but the maintenance of the whole technical infrastructure, at work and at home, demands enormous amounts of time. How many years of work time have I expended to pay for my effort-saving car or household appliances and their maintenance, or reconfiguring my computer as it regularly goes wrong. Paradoxically, with the infamous financial crisis, many of us will be discovering new leisure and then we may also discover that living more simply, with less of technology's gifts, requires less work and gives us more quality time for ourselves and our families. Regarding the second of his assertions that you critique, that technology does not in fact create wealth, I can only support the writer. The financial crisis - sorry, I know we're all sick and tired of it from the media coverage but it is relevent here - shows us this clearly. What seemed like the creation of wealth was in fact only a consumption of borrowed capital. Ultimately, the lender was the earth, so that the financial and environmental crises are intimately linked. The exhaustion of the capital brings about the collapse of the exploitation that was based on it. True creation of wealth, the kind Friedrich Georg must be thinking of, would increase the capital. As you know, both brothers would describe this as titanic, which only ends in catastrophe. And unfortunately, inescapable catastrophe - for when the capital is gone, it is well and truly gone and cannot be replaced elsewhere.. We will not be able to practise Raubbau with solar or other renewal energies. Here we can only live on the surfeit, the interest. And even
