-----Original Message----- From: Roberto Calvo Macias [SMTP:rcalvom@ctv.es] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 1998 7:11 PM To: 'ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk' Subject: RE: The Anarch The dichotomy between the free human being and the anarchist is important. While the Anarchist seeks only external freedom, the anarch is free internally, whatever the outer circumstances may be. The anarchist fits into the system, by trying to weaken it, he instead strengthens it. Current examples would include Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, neither one of whom managed to do anything but give the US government an excuse to tighten certain laws. Indeed, I heard an interesting segment, I think it was on National Public Radio, about how The "Unabomber Manifesto" has become very popular in anarchist circles. They recognize one of their own I guess. Unfortunately they do not seem to see that he accomplished nothing. GERD [Roberto Calvo Macias] Gerd, I am completely agree with you. The most important thing to me is just the internal freedom, Thats the breakpoint: to know how it is. To look for the answers inside. Again its open the eternal game, Fate and Liberty, and again the J answer. Its not the point to win or not- externally, of course, the point is to win inside, the rest its pure fashion, goverments, a other vanishing things. A question: Is there a real good ethos?, a valid one?. I mean: what to do in a critical cuestion?. The ethic side of the anarch seems to me the most difficult part. This passage doesn't provide an answer but it does address the point: "As for the do-gooders, I am familiar with the horrors that were perpetrated in the name of humanity, Christianity, progress. I have studied them. I do not know whether I am correctly quoting a Gallic thinker: 'Man is neither an animal nor an angel; but he becomes a devil when he tries to be an angel.' " Eumeswil Page 145 I also find it tough to pin the anarch down on ethical questions. All I could suggest is that the anarch acts naturally and observes the results and his own composition until some hypothetical point when he can begin to make a few limited choices and act on them with some degree of success. I think that the question of ethical conduct remains theoretical until we actually know where we have choice and until we can act non-mechanically on the choice. But the point remains: on what basis does he make the choices? Anyone got any Junger references to the ethos question?
Markup © John King, 2008. Web archive generated Tue, 21st August 2007.