[email protected] wrote: > > Dear Bertil, > I've read that book, and Schwarz's essay as well, of course. Schwarz older > book dealing with Juenger is quite a good one, no doubt about that. His essay > in Schwilk's birthday book for Juenger on the other hand is not convincing at > all. To discuss some of Juenger's prognosises is exactly what I'd like to do > here in this (serious, as I hope) mailing list. It's not that I'd like to > prove anything to you, I'd like to dicuss these questions of my own, as I > have been dealing with Juenger now for long, and I'm trying to evaluate: what > is his importance as philosopher, are his prognosises relevant, do they give > any new insight, always compared with analysts like Marx, Schmitt, Kondylis, > and others. > I would be very grateful if you could start with discussing this topic. If > you don't like that, if you prefer to go on with your "school" without being > disturbed by questions from outside, I'll leave you alone. It's quite > interesting for me, because I observed the mailing list members' discussion > concerning the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia, which started with Ernst Juenger > as reference point, but didn't prove any specific applicability of > "Juengerian" insights in this concrete case. > For my sake let's discuss his models of recognition in a more abstract manner > then. > Curiously waiting for arguments, > Yours very truly > KvK *********************** Sometime back I called into question a few of the statements EJ made in the first sections of DIE SCHERE. In particular, I thought that his argument that no man dies before his time, that a man's life is properly completed when he dies, no matter when or how he dies, is a paradoxical and hence attractive position, but actually a specious one. People die prematurely and tragically; the world is unfair. We debated the matter on the list at some length. The debate was on a high philosophical level, without personal invective.
The more recent series of exchanges about NATO and the new world order as roughly anticipated by EJ was not quite the same. I had a problem with my server at the time and did not receive any of the postings until after the whole thing was over. Reading about 50 e-mail messages all at once, I discovered that after the first two or three exchanges they said nothing and went nowhere, angrily. From these two experiences I conclude that the more productive discussion will come in response to a specific text, such as to each individual section of DIE SCHERE as it appears. DIE SCHERE grounds the discussion with a specific text, specific words and a specific idea of the Master. List members can throw in quotations from other texts, but the discussion remains focused. I don't mean to exclude any possible discussion on any point, but I feel that the ongoing reading of a specific EJ work is the backbone of the list. So far I have agreed with none of the main points in DIE SCHERE, yet I consider it a wonderful work. The terse, aphoristic style; the subject matter itself, which few respectable writers have treated; the realm of associations--all these make me think that EJ is at the edge of a cliff, looking into unexplored territory. I don't quite agree with what he says he sees, but want to go on looking with him. GK
