-----Original Message----- From: Roberto Calvo Macias [SMTP:rcalvom@ctv.es] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 1998 9:38 AM To: 'ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk' Subject: RE: The Anarch -----Mensaje original----- De: Thomas Friese Enviado el: sábado 21 de febrero de 1998 6:13 Para: 'ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk' Asunto: RE: The Anarch -----Original Message----- From: Gerd Groenewold [SMTP:venator@win.bright.net] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 1998 5:08 PM To: ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Anarch > I think there is a problem with trying to claim the Anarch as a crowning creation. Indeed, discovery might be a better word than creation. O.K, I agree with that - a discovery he made and described and that we must each find within our own being. Beyond that, I don't think the Anarch makes sense except in the context of the whole of Jünger's thinking. If we did not live in an age when all the ideals were dead, as he has said, why be an Anarch? There are a number of reasons, but it is not so clear. If the Titans were not in control, maybe it would not be desirable not to "drop out" as the anarch does. Hmm, I agree that the present historical ride is one in which it is particularly important to find a way of separation. But anarchs and non-anarch have existed in every period, as have society's curbings of the individual's autonomy and power. Any society or other external power is the foe of the anarch, is it not? I risk deviating into another topic here, yet it is relevant. The anti-Titanic slant of the recent discussion on the list troubles me in some sense. What if the anarch discovers his fate is to live in a wholly Titanic world? This is not theoretical, especially in the New World.The individual discovers he has titanic powers and responsibilities - alla Friedrich Baroh. He is an anarch cast into a titanic role. A tough position. An inescapable destiny. Dangerously seductive. But not all negative. Bruno is titanically inclined and yet one of Manuel's teachers. No where in Eumeswil does Manuel ever express any more than a preference for the forest over the underworld, even as he keeps his goals beyond both. The Titanic is our situation, and, if Junger's prognoses are accurate we can forget about the gods for a century or two. No sentimental longing will bring them back for us. Here we are. In my opinion, we should look at what the advantages of the Titanic world are and exploit them to the maximum while retaining our inner distance. Even if our fate is unavoidably tragic. Prometheus and Dionysus: titans and benefactors of Man, bringers of culture. At a certain point Man recreates the gods in his art works - the titans give birth to the gods. Man is the Titan, we are Titans. Or not? I honestly don't know. Feedback? [Roberto Calvo Macias] Totally agree, Thomas. You have give the crucial sentence: here we are. Thats the reality. Either the titanic world is good or bad we must face it. I think we are the titans. It was a man that discover fire, so prometheus was a man. Perhaps an special one. The Dionysus case is a bit special.In fact, sometimes is said to be a god, like greeks, sometimes like a titan- J way. Inebriation permit us to conect to that hidden misterious and therefore its realtionship also with art. But the two titans have the other side. When prometheus stealed the fire, he stealed two things: a Power and a Danger. > Anyhow, let the experiment begin > > From Part 1 - The teachers > > (Regarding the psychological testing which the Condors's staff have to undergo to be hired:) > > "They found no mischief in me. I remained normal, however deeply they probed. And also straight as an arrow. To be sure, normality seldom coincides with straightness. Normalcy is the human constitution; straightness is logical reasoning. With its help, I could answer satisfactorily. In contrast, the human element is at once so general and so intricately encoded that they fail to perceive it, like the air that they breathe. Thus they were unable to penetrate my fundamental structure, which is anarchic. > That sounds complicated, but it is simple, for everyone is anarchic; this is precisely what is normal about us. Of course, the anarch is hemmed in from the first day by father and mother, by state and society. Those are prunings, tappings of the primordial strength, and nobody escapes them. One has to resign oneself. But the anarchic remains, at the very bottom, as a mystery, usually unknown even to its bearer. It can erupt from him as lava, can destroy him, liberate him. It is interesting that this anarchic nature is seen as an ambivalent, dangerous force. It reminds me of states of ecstasy encountered in the context of ancient mystery cults, for example. I think that the key to keeping it from being destructive is discipline, and I think that this is a quality that Venator very well embodies, to a degree the Greeks, or the Prussians would probably find admirable. Discipline... yes. And also knowledge of the rules of the game and awareness of the powers that exist in the real world and the spiritual world. Pure, uncontrolled expression of the freedom discovered might lead to being perceived as dangerous by the society, or, much worse, to real madness. [Roberto Calvo Macias] The other day i was talking with Jonathan Ott, an scientist, and says something similar will ocurr in the USA, a new witch hunting. This witchhunt is possible but my point was that a naive or uncontrolled expression of inner freedom would be so noticeable and odd that it would cause exclusion or ostracization even in a normal period. I have read some of Jonathan Ott's writings on psychedelic experiences - same guy? > Distinctions must be made here: love is anarchic, marriage is not. The warrior is anarchic, the soldier is not. Manslaughter is anarchic, murder is not. Christ is anarchic, Saint Paul is not. Since, of course, the anarchic is normal, it is also present in Saint Paul, and sometimes it erupts mightily from him. Those are not antitheses but degrees. The history of the world is moved by anarchy. In sum: the free human being is anarchic, the anarchist is not." > Page 41. > 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. As Junger says, the anarchist is a neccessarily social being. GERD
Markup © John King, 2009. Web archive generated Tue, 21st August 2007.