Dear Joel, the writings of Jünger have an inner consistency. They developed during 80 years and the early stages of his writing are still included in his late writings. He didn´t revoke any of his writings, though he opted not to include the many articles he wrote in his national-revolutionary period in the final edition of his writings (which indicates that he wasn´t very proud of this inhuman bullshit he published in those "fanzines" for ex-soldiers during the 1920s). He didn´t revoke his fascist book "the worker" (it´s a brilliant, but controversial and surely fascist book), because he believed that he contained a valid diagnose of modern times (and even a apolitical young german like me can find some arguments that confirm this belief of Jünger). He didn´t revoke any of his former war-writings like "tempests of steel" and included them all in the final edition of his works. He believed that his writing evolved organically from the first book (tempest of steel) to his late conceptions like the ones of "Eumeswil". So you are absolutely right, there is an inner consistency in his writing. Does that mean that he never stopped to be a fascist? Surely not. It only proves that there is an evolving direction in his writing, from prefascist books in the 1920s to the final works like "Die Schere" (the scissors) in 1990. Is it important for me that he maybe was still a little bit a fascist as an old man? No, it is absolutely not important for me. One of the favourite books of the Nazis was Knut Hamsuns "der Segen der Erde" (The Blessings of the soil). With this book Knut Hamsun won the Nobel-Prize of Literature in 1920. I read it 20 years ago and it was one of the best books I ever read. Then I read several other books of Hamsun: Not as a theoretician, but as a pure story-teller, he is much better than Jünger (Jünger was never a candidat for the Nobel prize). Hamsun is an absolutely brilliant writer, early works like "Hunger" are of a pure existentialist force that everybody who knows something about literature will be shocked when he reads such a book. Hamsun was from Norway and was a collaborator for the Nazis during the german occupation of Norway in the second world war. He detested democracy and americanism and was a Nazi in the true sense of the word. After second world war the norwegian people put him under arrest in his home. He was already an old man and he never revoked his fascist views. Should I consider this when I read the books of Hamsun? No, I am interested in good literature. Hamsun is brilliant literature, so I read his books. I don´t care about the political background of his writing or the man who was a nazi. I loved literature all my life, that´s all. I wrote my doctoral thesis about the early works of Jünger and I will never have much money because I choosed to study literature and languages. That´s all I can tell you, Joel. And I am not interested in politics. I was once a member of the german "Green Party" (it´s the ecological party of germany), but I was disgusted about these typical young wankers in the party who wanted to make a party-career and always had a lot of important things to say. So I never made again an attempt to actively support a party. I vote once in every 4 years and I usually vote the socialdemocrats and the "Green Party". That´s my whole active participation in politics. Well, Joel, let´s leave here for today. Maybe I have now made clear my point of view.
Yours, Klaus --- Joel Dietz <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo, 7.9.2009: > Von: Joel Dietz <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Differences: Jünger in the end only "disliked" > democracy? > An: [email protected] > Datum: Montag, 7. September 2009, 22:33 > Karl, > > You are welcome to be an apolitical man should you wish, > although > neither Brecht nor Juenger made a similar choice. > > That said, you summarize my approach incorrectly on > multiple counts: > > (1) I am not offering a critique of Juenger, I am only > attempting to > clarify his beliefs on political and other issues insofar > as this is > possible. To this end, I see no need to be > politically correct and > describe someone as tolerating or liking something if he > detests it. > > (2) I do not believe that Juenger's later writings are a > masquerade. > Rather, I believe that Juenger's writings express an inner > consistency. This may be incorrect, but it is my > working hypothesis > (and, I believe, confirmed by statements of Juenger > himself). > > (3) I do not read Juenger for personal enjoyment as you do, > nor do I > plan to. Consequently, I am not disturbed by contentious > issues that > may be found in the text. > > Regards, > > Joel > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:21 PM, klaus gauger<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Joel, > > > > If I understand you well Jünger first detested > democracy when he was young, > > and later only disliked it. There exists a doctoral > thesis that came out > > last year by a young man named Daniel Morat who says > exactly that: That > > Jünger only underwent a "deradicalization" but never > really changed his > > opinions. Well, what do you want me to say? Can we > prove that Jünger became > > in the end a democrat or at least a man that accepted > democracy? Can we > > prove that it was not that way and he always was a > fascist, until the end of > > his days? Morat tries to prove that on hundred of > pages that are so boring > > that I couldn´t finish to read his doctoral thesis. > Actually, this is a mere > > question of belief. If Jünger didn´t change and > always stayed a fascist, all > > his later writings are a masquerade (that´s your > theory). If not, he really > > changed his beliefs. Actually, I never worried about > these questions. I read > > his books and know that Jünger had a brilliant mind. > I´m > > not really interested in politics. I am an apolitical > man. I also read > > Brecht and don´t worry about the fact that he was a > convinced communist and > > loyal to Stalin and Ulbricht. I´m not a political man > and don´t worry about > > the political background of the books I am reading. I > read everything in my > > life, also "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" from > Stirner. In many histories > > of philosophy he is the paradigmatic example for > "ethical egoism" - so what? > > I laughed a lot when I read "Der Einzige und sein > Eigentum". It´s really a > > brilliant and funny book and surely it is more > harmless than the communist > > manifest who tried to found a new religion that costed > the life of millions > > of people in the last century. > > > > Yours, > > > > Klaus > > > > --- Joel Dietz <[email protected]> > schrieb am Mo, 7.9.2009: > > > >> Von: Joel Dietz <[email protected]> > >> Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Differences: Jünger a > fascist in the 1970s? > >> An: [email protected] > >> Datum: Montag, 7. September 2009, 14:51 > >> Dear Klaus (and also Simon), > >> > >> I confess I find the attempt to clearly separate > Juenger's > >> pre- and > >> post-war opinions as both terribly convenient and > contrary > >> to the > >> evidence at hand. Did not Juenger not do so > himself, but > >> instead > >> explicitly avoided revising his earlier opinions, > claiming > >> consistency > >> in its place? Moreover, in his 'brutal fascist' > writings, > >> as you > >> choose to describe them, does he not advocate a > society > >> ruled by > >> detached Nietzschean overlords. Is this figure > really so > >> different > >> from the Anarch or the hero of Heliopolis? It was > to > >> Goebbel's > >> populism which he made disparaging remarks, > remember, and > >> later > >> collaborated up with Eliade, who's greatest stated > regret > >> was that his > >> generation was not up to the challenge before > them. > >> > >> That said, I admitted in my previous email that > his > >> political ideals > >> and notions of Juenger may have changed. At the > very least, > >> his method > >> for conveying them did. The writings of the aged > brim > >> always less with > >> emotion than those of hot young souls; perhaps > 'detest' > >> gave way to > >> simply 'dislike.' Still, stating that he met with > democrats > >> does not > >> make him sympathetic to their cause. Apparently he > also had > >> cordial > >> relations with Brecht. I would not think to make > him into a > >> communist > >> sympathizer, unless I were under interrogation in > the > >> gulag. > >> > >> Should anyone wish, I am happy to review the > evidence in > >> greater > >> detail. I realize this is a difficult subject to > deal with, > >> esp. for > >> Germans who are always asked to remember and > renounce their > >> fascist > >> past. Juenger, however, never did. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Joel > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Simon > Friedrich<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > Can only agree with everything you say here, > Klaus. > >> Just as we shouldn't > >> > bundle all intoxicants into one negative > category of > >> "drugs", so shouldn't > >> > confuse the early with the mature Juenger, > least of > >> all use the experiments > >> > and mistakes of the early one to attack the > later > >> one. > >> > > >> > Simon > >> > http://ernst-juenger.blogspot.com > >> > > >> > > >> > ________________________________ > >> > Von: klaus gauger <[email protected]> > >> > An: [email protected] > >> > Gesendet: Montag, den 7. September 2009, > 10:39:28 Uhr > >> > Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Differences: > Jünger a > >> fascist in the 1970s? > >> > > >> > Dear Joel, > >> > > >> > > >> > The "Wäldchen 125" was written when Ernst > Jünger was > >> a pure fascist, in > >> > 1920s. He wrote much worse things than that > in those > >> years. I never denied > >> > that Jünger was a brutal fascist in the > 1920s and > >> beginning 1930s. But he > >> > surely was not a fascist any more when he > wrote > >> "Eumeswil" and the concept > >> > of the anarch, based mainly on the ideas of > Stirner, > >> is exactly the opposite > >> > of fascist and communist concepts: It´s a > libertarian > >> concept and surely one > >> > that didn´t show much respect towards the > ruling > >> classes and the ideologies > >> > of any system, included the system of the > >> Bundesrepublik. It´s Stirners main > >> > idea that in all systems - he refered it to > the > >> Prussian state of his time - > >> > the ruling classes and the representants of > the system > >> alway try to convice > >> > us that their interests are our interest. > They say > >> today: free markets and > >> > democracy everywhere and the american away of > life is > >> good for us all and > >> > everybody has to engage in these interests. > Stirner > >> would > >> > say: Why have these things to be important > for me? > >> What are my main > >> > interests? Are my interests really the same > interest > >> then the ones > >> > proclaimed by the ruling classes or the state > or the > >> representants of > >> > society or of some religion? Or is this all a > hoax to > >> engage us in things > >> > that are not really of my interest (Stirner > sees that > >> always from an > >> > individual standpoint - he is not interested > in what > >> the majority thinks to > >> > be our interests). I feel this "solipsism" of > Stirner > >> is highly intelligent. > >> > You always have to ask yourself what your > real > >> interests are and if they are > >> > really the same than the interests proclaimed > by the > >> system in which you are > >> > living in. And Jünger says exactly the same > in > >> "Eumeswil": Mind your own > >> > business and follow your own interests and > don´t take > >> care of what the > >> > system and the representant or the majority > want´s > >> from you. If you > >> > participate in the system, only do it in a > superficial > >> way, but be always > >> > aware that maybe the > >> > reality and the system in which you are > living in is > >> going in a direction > >> > you don´t really like and is not really > representing > >> your own interests. > >> > Stirner proclaimed solipsism and solitary, > >> self-responsable acting and > >> > thinking. If you want to share your ideas > and > >> interests with other people, > >> > do it in free associations of free "owners". > That´s > >> more or less also > >> > Jüngers philosophy in "Eumeswil", and the > >> "background" of the novel is a > >> > high-tecnological society in moral and > cultural decay > >> with ecological > >> > troubles (is that really so far away from > our > >> society?). I don´t want to > >> > heaten up the discussion, but I don´t like > if > >> somebody in a superficial way, > >> > mixing up the Jünger of the 1920s and the > Jünger of > >> the 1970s, states: > >> > "Jünger detested democracy´". Jünger met > in the > >> 1980s and 1990s important > >> > politicians like Helmut Kohl, Francois > Mitterand, > >> Felipe Gonzalez, any many > >> > other politicians and many intellectuals, > many of the > >> them clearly left-wing > >> > like Heiner Müller or Rolf Hochhuth (who was > even a > >> friend of him), and he > >> > had a good time with all of them. Would he > have done > >> that if he had been > >> > then a fascist "detesting democracy"? > >> > > >> > > >> > Yours, > >> > > >> > > >> > Klaus > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --- Joel Dietz <[email protected]> > >> schrieb am So, 6.9.2009: > >> > > >> >> Von: Joel Dietz <[email protected]> > >> >> Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] Differences: > Vigo and > >> the diagnose made in > >> >> "Eumeswil" > >> >> An: [email protected] > >> >> Datum: Sonntag, 6. September 2009, 23:26 > >> >> Dear Klaus, > >> >> > >> >> Juenger was the one who stated in > Waeldchen 125, > >> "I hate > >> >> democracy > >> >> like the plague." Perhaps he changed his > negative > >> >> appraisal; Karl Korn > >> >> did not think so. > >> >> > >> >> I would not turn Juenger and represent > him as a > >> champion of > >> >> political > >> >> correctness, nor normality, placidity, > or > >> pacificism. I > >> >> only attempt > >> >> to represent him as he was, without > apology. > >> >> > >> >> What is the diagnose of the novel? That > we are in > >> moral > >> >> decay? This is > >> >> obvious enough... > >> >> > >> >> Also, please do not turn up the heat if > you cannot > >> handle > >> >> the flame. I > >> >> am happy to retreat to my dark corner > should my > >> comments > >> >> appear like > >> >> spark to tinder. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> > >> >> Jd > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM, klaus > gauger > >> <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Dear Simon, Dear Joel, > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Vigo is in Eumeswil one of the > teachers of > >> Martin > >> >> Venator who works as a historian. Vigo > refers to > >> >> Giambattista Vico, who was an italian > historian in > >> the 17th > >> >> and 18th century. Vico had the theory of > the > >> "corso" and > >> >> "ricorso" of cultures. Cultures go up to > a highest > >> point of > >> >> cultivation and then decline again until > reaching > >> again a > >> >> barbarian state. After that it is > possible that > >> they rise up > >> >> again. This is in some way similar to the > theories > >> of > >> >> Spengler and Vico was also > against Decartes and > >> his pure > >> >> rationalism. He believed in intuition > and > >> imagination as > >> >> driving forces of the mind. > >> >> > As to Joel I really wonder about the > kind of > >> comments > >> >> I have to read from him: "Jünger > detested > >> democracy" - who > >> >> says that? All his political correct > critics who > >> have > >> >> searched during Jüngers life always to > "tear away > >> the mask" > >> >> from the ugly face of the ugly fascist > Ernst > >> Jünger? > >> >> Jünger didn´t detest democracy. He > detested > >> primitive > >> >> thinking and action. He detested the > Wilhelminian > >> system (he > >> >> run away from the brutal and inhuman > schoolsystem > >> of the > >> >> Wilhelminian Empire into the foreign > legion), he > >> detested > >> >> the republic of Weimar because in those > years he > >> was an > >> >> national-revolutionary and a fascist and > he > >> didn´t accept > >> >> the defeat of Germany in the first World > War . He > >> detested > >> >> the Nazi-System because Hitler was a big > >> disappointment for > >> >> him, even in the years of Weimar he > already > >> didn´t like the > >> >> Nazis. And he didn´t detest the > Bundesrepublik, > >> but he > >> >> clearly perceived that Germany was > becoming a > >> clumsy and > >> >> provincial copy of the american system > (that´s in > >> fact what > >> >> the Bundesrepublik today is). I actually > like the > >> U.S.A, > >> >> but I also clearly see the defects of a > nearly > >> pure > >> >> capitalist system. Well, that´s all I > have > >> to say. I > >> >> always liked Jünger, because he didn´t > have > >> fear of > >> >> becoming the target of all the political > correct > >> people in > >> >> the Bundesrepublik and because he was a > man who > >> clearly said > >> >> what he thought. "Eumeswil" is clear > enough: A > >> city on a > >> >> high tecnological level in the hands of a > tyrannt > >> named > >> >> "Condor" where all values have been lost > and the > >> only > >> >> remaining value is the money and the > anarch > >> Martin Venator > >> >> is a quiet observer of this society in > moral > >> decay. Isn´t > >> >> that clear enough for you, Joel? Or is it > just > >> that you > >> >> dislike the diagnose made in this novel > because it > >> isn´t > >> >> political correct? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Yours, > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Klaus > >> >> > > >> >> > --- Joel Dietz <[email protected]> > >> >> schrieb am So, 6.9.2009: > >> >> > > >> >> > Von: Joel Dietz <[email protected]> > >> >> > Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] > Differences: > >> Anarch and > >> >> Only One > >> >> > An: [email protected] > >> >> > Datum: Sonntag, 6. September 2009, > 12:01 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > This is an important quote. Thank > you Simon. > >> I believe > >> >> that it establishes that there is a > difference, > >> although > >> >> without a careful reading of the text > with > >> attention to this > >> >> question, I doubt there is much of a > chance of > >> figuring out > >> >> the answer (assuming there is one) . > Thankfully I > >> now have a > >> >> copy in the original; it will take me > some time to > >> get > >> >> through. > >> >> > > >> >> > That said, I believe there is an > important > >> difference > >> >> between Juenger's European concept, as > represented > >> by > >> >> Alexander's Sword in the Gordian Knot, > and the > >> purely > >> >> initiatory concept, which he refers to as > Asiatic > >> and > >> >> Despotic. See, for instance, Evola's > critique of > >> him on > >> >> these grounds (http://eisernekrone .blogspot. com/2008/ > >> 02/julius- > >> >> evola-on- ernst-jnger- east-and. html). > >> >> > > >> >> > Keep in mind that there may also be > third and > >> fourth > >> >> options, that Juenger obscures the > content of his > >> thought to > >> >> avoid a clarification revealing a > crystallized > >> concept > >> >> clearly at odds with the democratic > regime he > >> detested. Also > >> >> that he never resolved the matters in his > own > >> mind. His > >> >> ability to clearly state his political > leanings in > >> his early > >> >> work would seem to support the first of > these, > >> although his > >> >> notion of possibilities and ideals > certainly could > >> have > >> >> changed with age. > >> >> > > >> >> > At the very least, it seems unlikely > that > >> his > >> >> viewpoint would have evolved to embrace > museum > >> curation as > >> >> the totality of his positive ideal. Along > these > >> lines, I > >> >> have often wondered what it means for > Venator to > >> go into the > >> >> forest at the end of the Eumeswil. And I > have been > >> afraid to > >> >> find out. > >> >> > > >> >> > Best, > >> >> > > >> >> > Jd > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:02 PM, > Simon > >> Friedrich > >> >> <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Dear List, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> In all this discussion of the > meaning, > >> >> morality/amorality etc of the Only One, > we should > >> remember > >> >> that although Juenger uses this figure to > help > >> build the > >> >> metaphysical structure of the anarch, he > also > >> decisively > >> >> distinguishes the two figures. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Stirner's arrow grazed the > point at > >> which I > >> >> suspected the presence of the anarch" - > it barely > >> touched > >> >> it, no "volltreffer". > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And then the explicit statement > that Vigo > >> is the > >> >> only one who would understand the very > subtle > >> though > >> >> fundamental difference between the two > figures. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Remember also that he uses the > anarchist > >> to > >> >> describe the anarch, though the two are > worlds > >> apart. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I suspect that the difference > between the > >> two must > >> >> be so subtle that Juenger is unable to > explicitly > >> explain > >> >> it - or unwilling in the same sense as > the teacher > >> who knows > >> >> that the ultimate truths can only be > discovered by > >> the > >> >> disciple himself, who would just be > misguided by > >> attempted > >> >> explanations. He says of the Only One > that "it > >> takes no > >> >> genius to make such discoveries, only > intuition... > >> . they > >> >> are revealed through meditation.. ..it is > not > >> certain that > >> >> the most skillful archer has the truest > aim. A > >> dreamer, a > >> >> child, a crackpot may be the one who > pulls it > >> off." > >> >> >> > >> >> >> One gets it or one does not, and > Juenger > >> >> understands that there is no dialectical > way > >> around that. > >> >> (This is typical of Juenger's deep > sincerity; he > >> is not out > >> >> to impress but to represent what is truth > for > >> him.) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> For the present, I don't get it, > though I > >> trust > >> >> there is a difference and wanted to > stress that > >> here. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Simon > >> >> >> http://ernst- juenger.blogspot .com > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ________________________________ > >> >> >> Von: Joel Dietz > <jdi...@gmail. > >> com> > >> >> >> An: juenger_org@ yahoogroups. > de > >> >> >> Gesendet: Samstag, den 5. > September 2009, > >> 20:29:23 > >> >> Uhr > >> >> >> Betreff: Re: [juenger_org] > >> Derrida;Stirner, > >> >> Feuerbach and the "Spectres of Marx" > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Greg, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The proper translation depends > on the > >> purpose. As > >> >> a title, it should communicate the > central idea as > >> clearly > >> >> as possible without deviating from > stylistic > >> norms. 'The > >> >> Only One and his Own" probably expresses > the > >> philosophical > >> >> concept most succinctly, but is open to > the > >> >> misinterpretation of the unaware reader > that he > >> actually is > >> >> the 'only one' in the normal way usage of > 'only,' > >> instead of > >> >> the philosophical manner Simon Friedrich > has > >> helpfully > >> >> summarized (the idea of self-sufficiency > and > >> mastery within > >> >> one's microcosm). 'Sole one,' has more or > less the > >> same > >> >> problem. 'Unique' deviates from this > >> philosophical > >> >> concept. 'Alone' is closer to the > 'Einsam' > >> person which is > >> >> contrasted with the 'Einzig' in Juenger, > and > >> obscures rather > >> >> than elucidates the philosophical > background. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Consequently, I prefer the > 'Individual > >> and What is > >> >> His,' for neither mangling nor possibly > >> misrepresenting the > >> >> philosophical concept, while retaining > stylistic > >> clarity. I > >> >> did not see any potential translations in > the > >> notes section > >> >> of the aforementioned translation which > attempt to > >> capture > >> >> the wordplay that is essential to > Stirner's > >> language game, > >> >> but one could do something like 'The Own > One and > >> all he > >> >> Owns,' 'The Possessor and his > Possessions,' or, as > >> I > >> >> suggested earlier, the 'The > Self-Possessing One > >> and his > >> >> Possessions.' That said, many such word > games are > >> probably > >> >> left untranslated. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I suppose I should note that I > did not > >> see the > >> >> latter clause ('what is his') represented > in any > >> of the > >> >> discussions of translations on the > internet, but > >> see no > >> >> reason to prefer any of the other > versions over > >> this, most > >> >> succinct, word choice. Also, I see no > >> translations of > >> >> einzig which adequately capture the > hervorragend, > >> unerreicht > >> >> aspect of the word. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I am curious to see if you find > something > >> edifying > >> >> in Stirner. I did not in my brief > perusal. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Regards, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Joel > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> ----- Original Message > ----- > >> >> >>> From: Gregory Whitfield > >> >> >>> To: [email protected] > yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>> Sent: Saturday, September > 05, 2009 > >> 3:15 PM > >> >> >>> Subject: [juenger_org] > >> Derrida;Stirner, > >> >> Feuerbach and the "Spectres of Marx" > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Joel ( and the others ) -- > Thanks for > >> the link > >> >> to the PDF -- I enjoy Stirner, but have > thus far > >> struggled > >> >> with the REBEL PRESS translation, which > was so > >> unwieldy. > >> >> Thanks for another version. I look > forward to > >> reading it. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I am enjoying the debates > on Stirner > >> -- > >> >> others posters have been debating the > accuracy of > >> the title > >> >> -- what do you feel is a fair translation > ? Others > >> here have > >> >> argued that "The Ego and its Own" is not > at all > >> an ideal > >> >> rendering. What's your view? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On a final note, if you are > >> interested, here > >> >> is Derrida commenting on the ideas of Max > Stirner > >> and > >> >> Feuerbach in "Spectres of Marx" -- > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> http://www.marxists .org/reference/ > >> subject/philosop > >> >> hy/works/ fr/derrida2. htm > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I am no great fan of > Derrida and > >> certainly > >> >> not a fan of Marxist praxis, but I > like these > >> paragraphs > >> >> quite a lot . As you'll be aware, Max > Stirner > >> hated the > >> >> authoritarian nature of Communism too , > >> >> writing, “Communism rightly revolts > against the > >> pressure > >> >> that I experience from individual > proprietors; but > >> still > >> >> more horrible is the might that it puts > in the > >> hands of the > >> >> collectivity.” > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Regards, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Greg. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> --- On Sun, 6/9/09, Joel > Dietz > >> >> <jdi...@gmail. com> wrote: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> From: Joel Dietz > <jdi...@gmail. > >> com> > >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [juenger_org] > Stirner > >> and his > >> >> philosophy > >> >> >>> To: [email protected] > yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>> Date: Sunday, 6 September, > 2009, > >> 12:52 AM > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Klaus, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> You may not remember any > parts where > >> murder > >> >> and infanticide are justified, but they > are there. > >> Namely, > >> >> from page 423 of the English translation > available > >> at the > >> >> following link (http://www.nonservi am.com/egoistarc > >> hive/stirner/ > >> >> TheEgo.pdf): > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> My intercourse with the > world, what > >> does it > >> >> aim at? > >> >> >>> I want to have the enjoyment > of it, > >> therefore > >> >> it must > >> >> >>> be my property, and > therefore I want > >> to win > >> >> it. I do > >> >> >>> not want the liberty of men, > nor > >> their > >> >> equality ; I > >> >> >>> want only my power over > them, I want > >> to make > >> >> them > >> >> >>> my property, i. e. material > for > >> >> enjoyment. And, if I > >> >> >>> do not succeed in that, > well, then I > >> call even > >> >> the > >> >> >>> power over life and death, > which > >> Church and > >> >> State > >> >> >>> reserved to > themselves,—mine ... > >> my > >> >> satisfaction > >> >> >>> decides about my relation to > men, and > >> that I > >> >> do not > >> >> >>> renounce, from any access > of > >> humility, even > >> >> the power > >> >> >>> over life and death.through > me; > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I haven't included the part > where he > >> >> explicitly justifies infanticide, but you > are > >> welcome to > >> >> read it. Other than this, I am not sure > what your > >> point > >> >> is. Is it: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> (1) Stirner's philosophy is > so absurd > >> no one > >> >> could think of it as anything but a > joke, > >> presumably > >> >> including Stirner himself? > >> >> >>> (2) Stirner's philosophy is > >> impractical, but > >> >> expresses an ideal state of affairs. > >> >> >>> (3) Junger thought that > Stirner's > >> phliosophy > >> >> was (1) or (2). If so why does he > characterize > >> Stirner as a > >> >> 'great saint' ? What is saintly about > him? > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Regards, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> Joel > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 5:21 > PM, klaus > >> gauger > >> >> <klaus_gauger@ yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Dear Joel, > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> I read the book "Der > Einzige und > >> sein > >> >> Eigentum" in German about 15 years ago. I > don´t > >> remember > >> >> any parts in this book where infanticide, > murder > >> and incest > >> >> are justified. The book is mainly ironic > and witty > >> and is > >> >> just a rejection of all the obligations > and > >> >> ideologies imposed to a citizen > usually in the > >> modern > >> >> state: obligations and ideologies imposed > by the > >> state, > >> >> obligations and ideologies imposed by > the > >> representants of > >> >> the ruling religions, obligations and > >> ideologies imposed by > >> >> the ruling class of society, etc. The > book was so > >> harmless, > >> >> that the censors of the Prussian > state refused > >> to forbide > >> >> the book. Their argument was that the > book was > >> just too > >> >> absurd for being taken serious by > anybody. The > >> radical > >> >> anarchism of Stirner was in the context > of the > >> Prussian > >> >> state just an absurdity. And I suppose > even today > >> you will > >> >> find only very seldom followers of such > a > >> philosophy as > >> >> Stirners offers in his "Der Einzige und > sein > >> Eigentum". At > >> >> least it would be very difficult > to follow such > >> a > >> >> philosophy: Anybody following Stirners > philosophy > >> would have > >> >> to refuse all obligations and ideologies > coming > >> from the > >> >> state or all the other entities that are > important > >> in our > >> >> social and political system. If you only > reject > >> to pay your > >> >> taxes, you already would be today in a > big > >> trouble, not > >> >> mentioning what would happen if you > refuse to > >> participate in > >> >> all the other aspects of modern society > and the > >> modern > >> >> state. This book was widely read by > anarchist > >> circles in the > >> >> 1920s in Germany and people with strong > >> individualist and > >> >> libertarian beliefs always liked this > book. But > >> in fact, > >> >> you would have to leave modern society > if you > >> wanted > >> >> to follow completely the philosophy of > this > >> book. Even > >> >> Jünger who was always an outsider in > german > >> society surely > >> >> had to pay his taxes and had to > participate in > >> >> important aspects of the systems of > Germany > >> (from the > >> >> Wilhelminian State to our reunified > Germany). You > >> can only > >> >> follow Stirners philosophy in some > partial aspects > >> and the > >> >> book may help the reader to laugh about > all > >> >> the obligations and ideologies imposed > to the > >> citizens in > >> >> the Prussian state in the 19th century as > much as > >> about the > >> >> obligations and ideologies imposed to us > today. > >> Karl Marx > >> >> hated this book, though he was many years > a close > >> friend of > >> >> Stirner (Stirner belonged to the circle > of > >> left-wing > >> >> hegelians gathered around Bruno Bauer. > >> Marx was many years > >> >> a member of this circle also) . Marx > >> later wrote a long > >> >> essay named "Sankt Max" about Stirner > condemning > >> harshly > >> >> Stirners philosophy that was never > printed. Untill > >> today > >> >> marxists hate Stirner and his anarchism > (in > >> fact they > >> >> condemn any form of anarchy until today) > and tell > >> all kind > >> >> of absurdities about the "egoistic" and > >> "primitive" > >> >> philosophy of Stirner. In fact Stirners > >> individualistic and > >> >> libertarian ideas are just the opposite > of Marx´s > >> ideas. > >> >> Marx wanted a state were an elite of > >> intellectuals and > >> >> high-ranked party-members implement a > hard > >> dictatorial > >> >> system in the name of the proletarians > and the > >> communist > >> >> ideals and where nobody has even > the right to > >> have own > >> >> properties. Stirner wanted a state of > free > >> "owners" that > >> >> organize themselves in free associations > of people > >> who share > >> >> the same interests and the same > philosophy. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Yours, > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Klaus > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> --- Joel Dietz > <jdi...@gmail. > >> com> > >> >> schrieb am Sa, 5.9.2009: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Von: Joel Dietz > <jdi...@gmail. > >> com> > >> >> >>>> Betreff: Re: > [juenger_org] Being > >> alone and > >> >> being the Only One > >> >> >>>> An: juenger_org@ > yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>>> Datum: Samstag, 5. > September > >> 2009, 12:43 > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> After reviewing some > related > >> literature, I > >> >> suggest 'the Individual and what is his,' > as a > >> potential > >> >> translation. Perhaps also, 'the > self-possessing > >> one and all > >> >> he owns.' 'Only one,' while somewhat > more > >> correct than > >> >> 'alone one' within the context of > Stirner's > >> philosophy, > >> >> gives the impression that others do not > exist. > >> Rather, for > >> >> Stirner, others do exist, but they are > merely > >> relegated to > >> >> the status of property (Eigentum); one > has no > >> moral > >> >> obligations to them whatsoever. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> As a consequence of > this > >> investigation, I > >> >> am inclined to reject the philosophy of > the late > >> Juenger as > >> >> mere egoism masquerading under the guise > of > >> religious > >> >> continuity. How can Anthony the great and > Francis > >> of Assisi > >> >> be precursors to Stirner's > proto-Raskolnikov? > >> The > >> >> deficiencies of such a character are > already > >> well-covered by > >> >> Dostoekvsky; Juenger, it seems to me, > takes a step > >> backwards > >> >> if his ideal state coalesces around > nothing more > >> than a > >> >> Union of Egoists (Verein von Egoisten) - > or if, as > >> may also > >> >> be the case, there is no ideal state, > only a > >> post-historical > >> >> melange of sights, smells, and sounds > from past > >> >> civilizations. Eumeswil is then a museum; > Juenger > >> its > >> >> curator. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> In conclusion, I quote > from the > >> Stanford > >> >> Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on > Stirner: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Stirner embraces the > stark > >> consequences of > >> >> this rejection of any general obligation > towards > >> others, > >> >> insisting, for example, that the egoist > does not > >> renounce > >> >> “even the power over life and death” > (282). > >> Over the > >> >> course of the book, he variously declines > to > >> condemn the > >> >> officer's widow who strangles her child > (281), the > >> man who > >> >> treats his sister ‘as wife also’ > (45), and the > >> murderer > >> >> who no longer fears his act as a > ‘wrong’ > >> (169). In a > >> >> world in which “we owe each other > nothing” > >> (263), it > >> >> seems that acts of infanticide, incest, > and > >> murder, might > >> >> all turn out to be justified. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Regards, > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> Joel > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at > 6:39 PM, > >> Simon > >> >> Friedrich <simonfriedrich@ > yahoo.de> wrote: > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Thanks Leon! Your > discussion > >> put new > >> >> light for me on the differences and > relationships > >> between > >> >> aloneness and being the Only One. But > ultimately > >> lead me to > >> >> disagree that "the alone one" is the > best > >> translation ;-) > >> >> ! > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > As an individual, > one is > >> alone and > >> >> separated from a world of other > individuals and > >> things. This > >> >> is the condition of the "alone one" - he > is > >> solitary. But > >> >> within the bounds of the personal > microcosm, > >> without any > >> >> reference to the outer world, he is the > Only One. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Aloneness exists > in > >> reference to the > >> >> greater world, the macrocosmos; being the > Only One > >> is purely > >> >> from the internal perspective of the > microcosmos, > >> without > >> >> any relation to an outer world. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Although aloneness > in the > >> sense of > >> >> being the "alone one" is one of the > problems of > >> Aladdin's > >> >> Problem, I am not convinced that Juenger > thought > >> of Der > >> >> Einziger as "the alone one". In Eumeswil, > he > >> gathers St > >> >> Anthony, St Francis and Stirner into a > group of > >> "great > >> >> saints", wherein St Francis is > characterized as > >> having > >> >> recognised the power of the poor (arm) > man, St > >> Anthony that > >> >> of the solitary (einsam) man, and Stirner > that of > >> the only > >> >> (einzig) man. St Anthony is the paragon > of the > >> solitary man, > >> >> "the alone one" while Stirner is the only > one. > >> So > >> >> only-ness is different from alone-ness. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Since you bring > Aladdin's > >> Problem up, > >> >> it makes me wonder if this book doesn't > provide a > >> >> reconciliation between the problem of > aloneness > >> and the > >> >> salvation of being only. As you say, > Friedrich > >> Baroh suffers > >> >> from being alone, as each man does. But > his > >> salvation may > >> >> have something to do with his discovery > of being > >> the Only > >> >> One in a world all his own: > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Baroh's problem > originates > >> in the > >> >> outer world: "My complaints are not > housed in my > >> brain. They > >> >> are lodged in my body and beyond that in > society, > >> the cause > >> >> of my illness. " > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > He must separate > from the > >> world, > >> >> become an 'alone one': "I can do > something about > >> it only > >> >> when I have isolated myself from society. > Perhaps > >> society > >> >> will help by casting me out. Perhaps I > will be > >> interned." > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > In his aloneness, > he > >> discovers and > >> >> creates a world of his own, which has no > >> dependence on the > >> >> outer world: "In a cell, I could keep > elaborating, > >> working > >> >> on the material without disruptions from > outside. > >> Whether or > >> >> not this effort will produce results is > beside the > >> point; I > >> >> watch over and preserve the treasure in > the cave; > >> in > >> >> solitude - all by myself.... > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > He has become the > Only One, > >> master of > >> >> his own kingdom: "Let the world go under; > it is > >> mine." > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Simon > >> >> >>>> > http://ernst- > juenger.blogspot .com > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > ____________ > _________ > >> _________ __ > >> >> >>>> > Von: Leon J. > Niemoczynski > >> >> <niemoczynski@ hotmail.com> > >> >> >>>> > An: juenger list > >> <juenger_org@ > >> >> yahoogroups. de> > >> >> >>>> > Gesendet: > Donnerstag, den > >> 3. > >> >> September 2009, 15:37:22 Uhr > >> >> >>>> > Betreff: RE: > [juenger_org] > >> The Only > >> >> One and the anarch > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Simon, et al. > >> >> >>>> > I think "the alone > one and > >> its own" > >> >> resonates best. Let me (quickly) > explain. In > >> 'Aladdin's > >> >> Problem' Juenger explains that each man > is alone; > >> yet this > >> >> is the universal problem. Here I am > reminded of > >> >> Kierkegaard's subjective and existential > reaction > >> to > >> >> Hegel. Juenger (and Stirner) both do > not deny > >> the > >> >> universality involved here: each person > is his or > >> her OWN > >> >> seat of will. Yet all person's have > it, > >> inexorably, and > >> >> for many, this is a problem because of > an > >> authenticity in > >> >> facing that owness and aloneness, given > the fact > >> that each > >> >> individual is alone in being fully > responsible > >> for > >> >> determining the details and course of > their own > >> life. But > >> >> this core problem, and the structure > associated > >> with it, > >> >> while being subjective and has indeed a > subjective > >> starting > >> >> point, is something universal. The > universal is > >> >> internalized. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Second, I think the > "only > >> one" smacks > >> >> just ever so slightly of aristocratic > notion that > >> perhaps is > >> >> justified here in the sense that the > "only one" > >> feels alone > >> >> in their recognition of the quest to > develop > >> oneself in the > >> >> midst of an ever-growing mass of > inauthentic > >> society. A > >> >> postmodern read of this would suggest > that the > >> "unique" > >> >> individual is one who resists the > depersonalizing > >> forces of > >> >> the modern world (mass propaganda, > control, > >> domination.) > >> >> However, this resistance, again, is > always > >> internal and from > >> >> an internal vantage point. It could be, > in > >> principle, > >> >> externalized at any moment should the > only one > >> choose to do > >> >> that. Yet Juenger makes the point > clear: What > >> would be > >> >> the point of acting out this internal > resistance > >> in the end, > >> >> however, given that the transvaluation of > values > >> is itself > >> >> another reversal in the waves of power > that > >> dominate and > >> >> pervade the world? (Nietzsche, Foucault, > and > >> Juenger are all > >> >> on point with this.) > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > To me, "the alone > one" > >> represents the > >> >> human being who realizes that they are > alone; and > >> that each > >> >> person, when it comes down to it, is > really alone > >> in all of > >> >> their proprietary measures and attempts > of > >> "owning" their > >> >> own self. How difficult in these > postmodern > >> times > >> >> something like this internal cultivation > must be > >> when "the > >> >> self" is so determined and dominated by > an outside > >> world, > >> >> and not in a nice way (sorry Levinas.) > For > >> Juenger, that > >> >> face of the Other which we read in > Levinas reveals > >> only the > >> >> most pessimistic side of things, and > here > >> Schopenhauer may > >> >> have been right too! > Stirner/Kierkegaard > >> /Juenger > >> >> basically give us the germ, the seed, or > the seat > >> of each > >> >> person's owness: the will decides to > either go > >> with or > >> >> against the pervasive tides of power, for > the time > >> being. > >> >> While one may be "against the modern > world," the > >> external > >> >> representation never indicates as much. > In fact, > >> sometimes > >> >> it is more propitious to go against my > own self, > >> to > >> >> self-overcome, and to keep my own > perspectives > >> fresh. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Cordially, > >> >> >>>> > LJN > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > ____________ > _________ > >> _________ __ > >> >> >>>> > To: [email protected] > >> yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>>> > From: > simonfriedrich@ > >> yahoo.de > >> >> >>>> > Date: Thu, 3 Sep > 2009 > >> 13:16:32 +0000 > >> >> >>>> > Subject: > [juenger_org] The > >> Only One > >> >> and the anarch > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Dear Greg and > list, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > the blog is a very > modest > >> effort in > >> >> my view, but it gives me pleasure and a > forum to > >> figure > >> >> these things out for myself, which > ultimately is > >> what I care > >> >> about. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Regarding Stirner: > although > >> I read > >> >> German, I have only read the English > translation > >> by Steven > >> >> Byington, published by Cambridge Texts in > the > >> History of > >> >> Political Thought. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > I find that > translation > >> decent, > >> >> except as far as the title goes, and > there only > >> concerning > >> >> "Der Einziger" - "Property" and "Own" > seem > >> sufficiently > >> >> synonomous. I find this a fundamental > question, > >> since it > >> >> gets to the very essence, the substance > of this > >> figure. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > According to the > "Note on > >> the > >> >> translation" in this edition, there was > also much > >> discussion > >> >> and disagreement between the translator > and his > >> team on this > >> >> count. Eventually Benjamin Tucker, an > English > >> anarchist, > >> >> came up with "The Ego and its Own". The > Note adds > >> that "The > >> >> Unique Individual and Its Property" would > have > >> been more > >> >> literal and would have avoided any > >> psychoanalytical > >> >> connotations. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > According to > Juenger, > >> Stirner himself > >> >> often replaced Einziger with Eigner (the > owner, > >> proprietor), > >> >> since it smacked less of egoism. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > In the English > translation > >> of > >> >> Eumeswil, Neugroschel, whose translations > I mostly > >> like, > >> >> uses "The Only One and his Own". This > must be his > >> >> translation of the German title and not > taken from > >> from an > >> >> existing English translation. (Is this > common, for > >> a > >> >> translator to use their own version of a > title > >> when the book > >> >> and its title has already been published > in that > >> language? > >> >> Did Neugroschel merely overlook the > existing > >> translation or > >> >> did he deliberately prefer his?) > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > I have also come > across "The > >> Unique", > >> >> though I can't remember where. The > dictionary > >> gives "einzig" > >> >> (as adjective) as "sole", "single", > "unique", > >> "only", > >> >> "alone". To some degree all of them fit. > But which > >> gets to > >> >> the essence best? > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > I also always find > myself > >> thinking of > >> >> this book as the "The Only One and his > Own", > >> because I more > >> >> often refer to Eumeswil than this book. > And yet > >> until > >> >> recently "Only" also bothered me. Then it > occured > >> to me that > >> >> Only One does in fact get to the heart of > the > >> matter best. > >> >> Let me explain my thinking. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Literally and > existentially, > >> the > >> >> anarch is "without a ruler" - without an > external > >> ruler to > >> >> be precise. He is his own ruler, master > of his own > >> kingdom, > >> >> that microcosm which is his own inner > Republic. In > >> this > >> >> world, he is all alone, existentially the > "Only > >> One" within > >> >> that microcosm. I am always and > neccessarily alone > >> and the > >> >> only one in my inner world. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Constant conscious > >> realization of > >> >> being the Only One is both his salvation > and a > >> burden. His > >> >> salvation because if he can remember > and live > >> this > >> >> existentially inescapable reality, he > becomes > >> immune to the > >> >> outer world - for who can penetrate his > inner > >> essence, which > >> >> lives within its own microcosm? On the > other hand, > >> it is a > >> >> burden because the condition of being the > Only One > >> within > >> >> its own world means he ultimately has > sole > >> responsibility > >> >> for his welfare. There is no expectation > of > >> salvation by the > >> >> State, or even God, no projecting of > >> responsibility > >> >> outwards. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > (This verges > on mystical > >> experience > >> >> - and in fact, in the pages of Eumeswil > dedicated > >> to > >> >> Stirner, there are also references to > Silesian > >> mysticism and > >> >> Gnosticism as being trailblazers in > Man's > >> attainment of > >> >> self-conscious inner freedom. ( Juenger > sometimes > >> refers to > >> >> Angelus Silesius under "Silesian > mysticism" - was > >> Eckhardt > >> >> also from Silesia?) If you are familiar > with > >> Gurdjieff's > >> >> cosmology, the world of the Only One and > Anarch > >> could also > >> >> be equated with G's Deuterocosmos, the > microcosmos > >> which > >> >> each human being is potentially capable > of > >> creating out of > >> >> and within himself. And I am sure Indian > >> philosophy has > >> >> other formulations for the same reality, > or > >> rather > >> >> potentiality. ) > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > This view of the > Only One > >> makes > >> >> clearer much of what Juenger describes of > the > >> anarch. That > >> >> each man's basically anarchic, but most > never > >> consciously > >> >> realize that. That reaching this state is > like > >> finding the > >> >> Koh-i-noor diamond within oneself. That > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > This existential > human > >> condition can > >> >> be pictured politically, as Plato did. In > fact, > >> the state of > >> >> Eumeswil is almost a mirror of the anarch > - the > >> analogy is > >> >> so close it seems to be deliberate - has > this ever > >> been > >> >> commented on? > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Eumeswil is a > small, mostly > >> >> self-sufficient state that minds its own > business > >> within a > >> >> macrocosmos of much larger power-hungry > entities. > >> It takes > >> >> care of its own internal affairs, only > dealing > >> with the > >> >> Yellow or Blue Khan's Empires when it is > expedient > >> or > >> >> necessary. It does not seek to expand > into the > >> domain of > >> >> others, nor impose its views or influence > outside > >> its > >> >> borders. It aims only at ruling its own > >> microcosm. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Regarding reading, > Eumeswil > >> is by far > >> >> the most interesting book for me, mainly > because > >> it contains > >> >> almost all the anarch material, but also > because > >> it is the > >> >> fullest exposition of Juenger's mature > thought. > >> Contrary to > >> >> what others may suggest, I would suggest > starting > >> with this > >> >> book and only filling in with earlier > works when > >> time and > >> >> interest requires. Retreat into the > Forest and > >> Marmorklippen > >> >> should be the next readings, since they > help > >> explain the > >> >> development of the anarch, as Klaus has > already > >> said. But in > >> >> itself, Eumeswil suffices for the essence > of > >> Juenger's > >> >> thought. One comes back again and again > to > >> contemplate a > >> >> sentence, a paragraph. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Glad you found this > list and > >> have > >> >> stimulated so much new activity! > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Simon > >> >> >>>> > http://ernst- > juenger.blogspot .com > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > ____________ > _________ > >> _________ __ > >> >> >>>> > Von: Gregory > Whitfield > >> >> <gregd...@yahoo. com> > >> >> >>>> > An: juenger_org@ > >> yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, > den 2. > >> September > >> >> 2009, 16:58:04 Uhr > >> >> >>>> > Betreff: > [juenger_org] The > >> >> anarch;Eckhart and Schopenhauer > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Simon, your > Anarch blog is > >> most > >> >> excellent and inspiring -- I have spent > some time > >> reading > >> >> over the interesting posts. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Related to Junger > and > >> concepts of the > >> >> 'detached Anarch', living in the world of > men, yet > >> not > >> >> bogged down by its mundanities, absurdity > and > >> banality, can > >> >> I ask you ( and the others ) some > 'Anarch/Junger > >> >> conceptually related' questions? > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > To what extent do > all of you > >> feel > >> >> Junger was influenced by Max Stirner's > "Ego and > >> Its Own" -- > >> >> has Junger written much about Stirner, > and > >> acknowledged his > >> >> influence? If so, where might I find such > texts? > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Was Junger the > first to use > >> the term > >> >> "Anarch" -- or is rooted in earlier > tradition? > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Does Junger mention > Eckhart > >> and > >> >> Schopenhauer at all? Was he influenced by > them, > >> and if > >> >> so, perhaps, influenced by early Indian > >> philosophy at all ? > >> >> I am thinking here of the earliest > Theravada > >> Suttas and > >> >> Advaita Vedanta such as Ashtavakra Gita. > >> >> >>>> > And finally -- does > anyone > >> know where > >> >> I can find a good translation of "Ego and > its Own" > >> -- I had > >> >> the Rebel Press version, and that was a > clumsy, > >> unwieldy > >> >> text to read. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Thanks for all your > insights > >> -- I > >> >> am currently reading Junger's "The > Retreat into > >> The > >> >> Forest" and learning a lot. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Best Regards to > all, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Greg. > >> >> >>>> > --- On Wed, 2/9/09, > Simon > >> Friedrich > >> >> <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> wrote: > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > From: Simon > Friedrich > >> >> <simonfriedrich@ yahoo.de> > >> >> >>>> > Subject: > [juenger_org] The > >> anarch > >> >> etc... > >> >> >>>> > To: [email protected] > >> yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>>> > Date: Wednesday, 2 > >> September, 2009, > >> >> 7:52 PM > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Dear Greg, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > glad you're so > enthusiastic > >> about > >> >> Jünger! I haven't been online much > during the > >> summer, hence > >> >> no suggestions from me for reading. > Instead take a > >> look at > >> >> my occassional blog on the Anarch.... > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > http://ernst- > juenger.blogspot .com > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Regards, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Simon > >> >> >>>> > http://ernst- > juenger.blogspot .com > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > ____________ > _________ > >> _________ __ > >> >> >>>> > Von: Gregory > Whitfield > >> >> <gregd...@yahoo. com> > >> >> >>>> > An: juenger_org@ > >> yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, > den 2. > >> September > >> >> 2009, 03:31:04 Uhr > >> >> >>>> > Betreff: RE: > [juenger_org] > >> The Anarch > >> >> and Violence > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Thanks so much to > all of you > >> for your > >> >> thoughtful and insightful emails. They > are really > >> helping me > >> >> discover the world of Junger. I just > can't believe > >> that I > >> >> had never actually heard of him until a > year or so > >> ago. Mind > >> >> you, perhaps it's because he doesn't fit > in to the > >> world's > >> >> idea of a PC writer,that many readers > have never > >> heard of > >> >> him -- it seems to me that lots of > >> readers/critics/ > >> >> academics just don't know how to deal > with him, > >> and don't > >> >> know where to place him -- which of > course, makes > >> him all > >> >> the more attractive to readers like > myself, > >> who have always > >> >> looked to writers and thinkers who exist > off the > >> beaten > >> >> track and turn away from "politely > >> accepted/acceptable > >> >> discourse". > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Thanks again -- I > will be > >> sure to > >> >> follow your advice and directions, and > get back to > >> you all > >> >> once I have read more. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Now -- to enter the > world of > >> Junger I > >> >> shall go. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > John, I will be > sure to read > >> your PHD > >> >> papers too -- thanks so much for getting > all that > >> wonderful > >> >> information online. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Best Regards, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Greg. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > --- On Wed, 2/9/09, > Rickard > >> >> <reseanteckningar@ hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > From: Rickard > >> <reseanteckningar@ > >> >> hotmail.com> > >> >> >>>> > Subject: RE: > [juenger_org] > >> The Anarch > >> >> and Violence > >> >> >>>> > To: [email protected] > >> yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>>> > Date: Wednesday, 2 > >> September, 2009, > >> >> 5:28 AM > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Hello, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > More excerpts from > Der > >> Waldgang, in > >> >> English, can be found at this address: > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > http://anteckningar .wordpress. com/2007/ > >> >> 06/05/der- waldgang- excerpter/ > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > The first part is > the > >> already > >> >> mentioned article “The retreat into > the > >> forest” from > >> >> Confluence, followed by “Taking the > forest > >> way” > >> >> published in a magazine called Art & > Thought > >> in 2003 > >> >> (but it seems like the original PDF is > removed > >> from their > >> >> site.) > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Yours, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Rickard > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > ____________ > _________ > >> _________ __ > >> >> >>>> > To: [email protected] > >> yahoogroups. de > >> >> >>>> > From: jdi...@gmail. > com > >> >> >>>> > Date: Tue, 1 Sep > 2009 > >> 17:58:44 +0000 > >> >> >>>> > Subject: > [juenger_org] The > >> Anarch and > >> >> Violence > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > A more extensive > exposition > >> of > >> >> Juenger's views can be found in his > Waldganger (http://www.juenger. > >> >> org/mailarchive/ 8_1998/msg00000. > >> >> php): > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > <<It may seem > strange > >> that a > >> >> single individual, or even several, > should resist > >> the > >> >> Leviathan. Yet it is precisely through > their > >> action that the > >> >> colossus reveals its vulnerability. For > even a > >> handful of > >> >> determined men can become a threat, not > only > >> morally but > >> >> physically. Again and again we witness > that two or > >> three > >> >> gangsters can upset an entire > metropolitan > >> district, and > >> >> cause lengthy sieges. If the relationship > is > >> reversed, if > >> >> the authorities turn criminal and men of > justice > >> offer > >> >> resistance, incomparably greater effects > can be > >> produced. > >> >> The consternation of Napoleon at the > uprising of > >> Mallct, a > >> >> >>>> > single, but > unbending man is > >> a > >> >> well-known instance. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Let us assume that > a small > >> number of > >> >> truly free men are left in a city or > state. In > >> that case the > >> >> breach of the constitution would carry a > heavy > >> risk. In this > >> >> sense, the theory of collective guilt is > >> justified, for the > >> >> possibility of violating a law is > directly > >> proportional to > >> >> the degree of resistance it encounters at > the > >> hands of > >> >> freedom. An attack on the invulnerability > and, > >> indeed, on > >> >> the sanctity of the home would not have > been > >> possible in old > >> >> Iceland, in the form in which it was > possible as a > >> purely > >> >> administrative measure in Berlin in 1933, > in the > >> midst of a > >> >> population of several millions. As an > honorable > >> exception we > >> >> should mention a young Social Democrat > who killed > >> half a > >> >> dozen of the so-called auxiliary police > at > >> >> >>>> > the entrance of > his > >> apartment. He > >> >> still partook of the substantial > Old-Germanic > >> sense of > >> >> freedom which his opponents celebrated in > their > >> theories. > >> >> Naturally, he had not learned this from > the > >> program of his > >> >> party.>> > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Klaus, > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Do you agree that > this > >> concept of > >> >> violence is consistent with Juenger's > exposition > >> of the > >> >> Anarch in Eumeswil, or is the sense of > freedom to > >> which you > >> >> refer simply that 'celebrated in theory' > ? > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > Jd | joeldietz.com > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > ____________ > _________ > >> _________ __ > >> >> >>>> > Använd nätet för > att dela > >> med dig > >> >> av dina minnen till vem du vill. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > ____________ > _________ > >> _________ __ > >> >> >>>> > Windows Live: Keep > your > >> friends up to > >> >> date with what you do online. Find out > more. > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > ________________________________ > >> >> >>> I am using the Free version > of > >> SPAMfighter. > >> >> >>> We are a community of 6 > million users > >> fighting > >> >> spam. > >> >> >>> SPAMfighter has removed 648 > of my > >> spam emails > >> >> to date. > >> >> >>> The Professional version > does not > >> have this > >> >> message. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ------------------------------------ > >> >> > >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> >> > >> >> (Yahoo!-ID erforderlich) > >> >> > >> >> mailto:[email protected] > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------ > >> > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------ > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> (Yahoo!-ID erforderlich) > >> > >> mailto:[email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > (Yahoo!-ID erforderlich) > > mailto:[email protected] > > > >
