Ernst Juenger, Die Schere #31: Text > 31 > > Ein Begräbnis, das sich noch nicht ereignet hatte, aber ereignen würde, > wurde »geschaut«. Damit bekam dieses Begräbnis eine Vergangenheit. Wenn
> nun die Uhrzeit vorrückt, wird diese Vergangenheit nicht mehr geschaut, > sondern erlebt. Das in der Schau Vorgegangene wird von der Gegenwart > eingeholt. Daß sich Schau und Wirklichkeit bis in die Einzelheiten > decken, ruft sowohl Erstaunen wie Betroffenheit hervor. > Ein Schotte, dessen Bruder vermißt wurde, sah ihn als Leichnam in einem > Weiher liegen und versuchte, ihn herauszuziehen. Dabei fiel ihm eine > Forelle auf, die neben dem Toten schwamm. Das war im Wahrtraum gewesen; > als er am nächsten Morgen den Teich aufsuchte, wiederholte sich das > Bild, selbst die Forelle stand an ihrem Ort. > So Schopenhauer nach einem Zeitungsbericht. Es wäre nun irrig, > anzunehmen, daß die Forelle zum Leichnam geschwommen wäre-gewissermaßen, > um die Vorschau zu bestätigen. Es war vielmehr dieselbe Forelle, die in > der Schau und dann in der Wirklichkeit gegenwärtig geworden war. Es war > auch derselbe Schotte, der sie gesehen hatte-jetzt tätig, wie zuvor in Ø der Potenz. DIE SCHERE #31: Walter's Translation A funeral, that had not yet occurred but would occur, was "sighted". By this, the funeral acquired a past. As the clock now advances, this past will not anymore be seen, but experienced. The present catches up with what happened in the sighting. The congruency of sight and reality in detail arises astonishment as well as touchedness. A scotsman, whose brother was missing, saw him dead in a pond ant tried to pull him out. He noticed a trout swimming near the corpse. This was in the true-dream, but when he went to the pond the following morning the image was repeated with even the trout in its place. Quotes Schopenhauer from a newsreport. It would be erronous now to suppose, the trout swam to the dead body as to confirm the vision. Moreover, it was the same trout present in the vision and then in reality. It was also the same scotsman, who had seen it, now active, as before in the potential. Die Schere #31: Notes EJ seems to be aware of the preposterousness of his conclusion that the identity of vision and real event is nothing extraordinary. He admits that it may cause surprise and even consternation. In order to substantiate his claim he inserts a story gleaned from Schopenhauer (who found it in a newspaper) (1), retold in EJ's characteristic terse and crystal-clear narrative style. One may argue that the trout seen near the body when it was eventually found had swum to this point long after the vision, in order, so to speak, to confirm it. EJ, however; insists that it must have been the same trout that had materialized both in the vision and in the real event ¾ as it had been the same Scot who had seen it in his vision and had seen it when he actually found his dead brother. (1) I have been unable to find this story in Schopenhauer. G.R. Günter Rebing
