Hello all, Thomas Friese wrote: > And that is, I think, a large part of his problem. Aladdin was given > immense power, and wasted it on trivial things. This is, in a nutshell, > titanism. Baroh problem came to a sort of closure in the end with the > coming of Phares, who I certainly do not see in any way as a titanic > entity. > > Phares is mysterious - as you say, he is not titanic. I have recently reread "The birth of tragedy" and in some respects, Phares seems to act as the Apollonian side of Nietszche's structure of tragedy. Baroh has lived the Dionysian experience and Apollo comes to recreate the world of image and form. Just a speculation a this point. This makes some sense. I tend to associate Phares (seraph - seraphim) with the divine. What I notice about both _Eumeswil_ and _Aladdin's Problem_ is that the end comes in what seems to be a "Deus ex Machina" manner, indeed, in both cases it seems that maybe "deus" is not wholly innapropriate, although I would hate to simplify. > A preference for the Forest, but an understanding that both are > necessary. In mythology, the Titans really aren't ever destroyed, they > instead are bound, controlled. Prometheus on the rock, for instance. > The problem with our present situation, the near future that Juenger was > not optimistic about, is not that there are Titanic influences, it is > that these influences are out of balance. > Not sure what you mean - can you explain why or how we are out of balance. A few easily obtainable quotes from EJ may help here. From _Details of Time_: After describing the subversion of third world cultures by our civilization "Yet travel is one of the few domains where technology is positive." The supposition here being that technology, which is generally a Titanic force as things stand now, is generally negative. (p. 54) Admittedly, not the greatest example, but there's more: Referring to the atomic bomb and thus the threat of immanent mass destruction: "Naturally, those phenomena are part of the negative consequences of a world of titans, which produces a surplus of forces that can lead to catastrophes." (p. 129) He further on mentions that if we were to use technology differently, we would have much more positive results. In a brief sentence from _Eumeswil_, Venator states "Once Ares is no longer in charge of wars, the shacks of flayers multiply, the sword becomes a slaughterer's knife." That is to say, once the divine is removed, it becomes nothing but brute force for its own sake, a purely destructive thing, in other words, titanic. Another thing you might want to do is take a look at F. G. Jünger's _The Failure of Technology_ which I am lead to understand states essentially what I am here, that is to say that unrestrained titanism is not positive. Unfortunately, I have only had the opportunity to skim the book some, and to talk about it with a friend of mine who has read it, so I feel a little embarrassed to even bring it up. However, I think it is important, and if there is anyone on this list who can discuss this a little more intelligently than I, please do. My point is that the titans always are around to one degree or another. Mythology shows the gods binding them, but not destroying them in most cases. Balance refers to the situation where the titans are bound by the gods, where their powers are under control, where the titanic will to powerand perfection is again given purpose (the subtitle to the English version od _Failure of Technology_, "Perfection without Purpose_). Obviously, purpose is worthless without a titanic will, without the urge toward perfection, but perfection is worthless without purpose as well. > I don't think that means we must embrace the Titanic. I personnally > would be incapable of doing so. The lack of the influence of the divine > in our world does not mean we forget about the gods either, it just > means, I think, that we need to wait it out, while keeping that anarchic > inner distance, and remaining true to ourselves. > Does Junger not say at some point that we must choose decisively - I can't remember where I read this. If we must choose, then that means there is a choice to be made, does it not. If there were nothing to the gods anymore, then there would be no choice. I remember that Venator even did something that he felt almost embarrassed to call prayer as a part of his daily routine. Anyway, I think the only way we are to make further progress on this is to continue forward in our reading. GERD
Replies to this Message
Markup © John King, 2008. Web archive generated Tue, 21st August 2007.