Gary Kern wrote:
>
> Brown wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think EJ had strong motives to try to find a meaning in the way people
> > > are cut off from a full life. He had seen too many people die, both
> > > when he was young and then over the long decades of his astonishingly
> > > long life. And so he tried to turn things around by the power of his
> > > mind. But human life really is cruel, great talents are cut off well
> > > before they are done, and to reverse that reality is a falsification of
> > > it. It is the nature of man to oppose nature.
> > >
> > > GK
> > >
> >
> > Gary,
> >
> > I really don't buy this position at all. In a previous posting you
> > mention EJ's guilt at having lived such a long life and now you mention
> > a similiar point of view by rephrasing it.
> >
> > IMHO I feel your position is too materialist i.e. that all of EJ's views
> > are simply an intellectual cover-up (power of the mind). The indications
> > are contrary to this though. EJ has rejected the materialist conclusions
> > from a very early date. We see that he is actively seeking meaning even
> > in his early works and that his later works are a similiar to a
> > theogony. He has a keen interest in theology and persues it continuously
> > in his readings. Also it would not be like Jünger to show remorse over
> > something which he had no control. Now it is important to note that EJ's
> > view of fate is very complex and cannot be reduce to those simple
> > statements which were mentioned above.
> >
> > Sorry to keep mentioning it, I hope somebody bites soon, but EJ's later
> > work has to main streams in his later work, building a bridge to the
> > divine (enabling it to return) and freedom in the age of tyrrany. These
> > two matters could also be seen as one and the same. I have posted quite
> > a few quotes with regards to this subject matter and I've run across a
> > lot that I have not posted. Seems we all have our focuses on the list.
> > In this respect EJ's views of God and freedom are my favorite aspects of
> > his work. In anycase I feel that although you don't share his view of
> > things, it seems to me that your interpretation is a bit out of focus.
> >
> > Have you ever got a copy of Prognosen? I think its still in print.
> >
> ****************************
> 1. I did not say anything about "all of Jünger's views," only this one,
> namely, that a person's life is complete no matter when he dies and no
> one dies before his work is done.
I guess what I want to say is that it does not sound as bad as you
depict it. It is Jünger seeking a deeper meaning that came from his
reflections on life & Death. I can see an intrinsic truth in it. It is
saying rather that all
Human life is valuable and that mass murder cannot be politicized and
justified because every life has meaning. Isn't it the materialistic
belief that a human is just resource to be used and thrown away?
> 2. In opposing that view I do not assert a materialist position at all.
> Quite the contrary, I assert the value of human life against the
> implacable hand of fate--or the will of God.
The "humanistic" point of view is materialism of the highest calibre,
coming from the enlightenment as it does. Its basis is reason and
certaily not faith. Finding its roots in the french revolution.
To quote EJ, Strahlungen II 18.Aug.1944:
"Die Zerstorung der Alten Welt, wie sie mit der Franzoesischen
Revolution & eigentlich schon mit der Renaissance cichtbar zu werden
beginnt, gleicht dem Absterben der organischen Verbindungen, der Nerven
und Arterien. Wenn der Prozeß beendet ist, treten die Gewaltmenshcen
auf..."
If God created us then we belong to him. We can not claim divinity nor
can we rage against fate, the danger here lies in hubris, claiming the
rank of the divine and passing judgement against it, although we are
only mortals suffering from limited vision.
Fate is rather something we must live with and in 'the moment' it
certainly does not exist. Every moment must be uncovered for itself.
The Greeks did not have the same idea of tragedy that we have today.
Today, something is tragic because the victims were taken in thier
prime. It is simply a loss without meaning. Thus it is synonimus with
the terrible and bad. Classical tragedy was something else though, it
had meaning because its source was divine. The tragic was for them the
means by which man is propelled to greater wisdom and understanding of
himself. If we cannot escape fate we must be content to live with it, to
accept it, and surpass it.
It seems to me that we have value because our ability to recognize
fate, unlike animals.
> 3. EJ's position, I think, is meant to be paradoxical. It charms us by
> overturning the normal reaction to things. Generally I like to do the
> that, but here the consequences are too great: total acceptance of the
> "will of God," which "allots" you your time.
Yes, but then what role does the divine play? Are we created? Is there a
course of events? Are we here and is God up there? usw. My point here,
either one accepts the divine and fate or one rages against it. The
second is useless because in the end, we have no control over our fate,
we cannot strike out against fate. The only control we have is that we
take life into our own hands i.e. suicide. Which Thomas already gave a
commentary on.
> 4. Now what is that "will of God"? The answer is anything that happens.
> You cross the street and live 30 more years, completing your life's work
> and dying in retirement. Or you cross the street and are catapulted 350
> feet against a stone wall, so that your survivors have to conceptualize
> you as a completed life. Both, to those people left behind, is the will
> of God. Or: you have a serious disease, and those who accept the will
> of God are prepared to go either way--if you survive, God helped you; if
> you die, God took you to heaven. In short, EJ asserts that no matter
> what happens to you, it is good.
This point is clear. You take the pessimistic point of view or the view
of
Schopenhauer. Maybe EJ is taking the optimistic point view or the view
of
Leibniz? "The best of all possible worlds..."
> 5. It is possible to reject this position and still to admire EJ. Even
> when wrong he is original and stimulating. He is a teacher, but not to
> be followed in all things. On this point we can follow his iconoclastic
> spirit, not his specific solution to the tragedy of premature death.
It is my view that EJ as a poet is striking out for a deeper
understanding
of the world we contend with every day. I would also posit that
everything
has its meaning and in its relation to the whole is good. Would this
imply
the return of the divine?
> My position is this: Sometimes what happens to you is good, sometimes
> it is bad. When it is bad, it is wrong. The world is so arranged that
> you must play a losing game. So the set-up is wrong. Man opposes the
> will of God.
I guess the major question here is what is the role of the Divine? And
if everything is so bad to begin with why would we want the divine to
return, meaning "only a god can save us now..." Martin Heidegger, to Der
Spiegel.
What is then the definition of Nihilism and its relation to EJ, the loss
of the divine and it's return?
Just a few thoughts in response.
Greetings to all.
Abdalbarr
