Re: DIE SCHERE #30: Text, translation, notes: corrected

[03643518060-0001@t-online.de (Brown)]

Rebing wrote:
> 
> -------------Forwarded Message-----------------
> 
> From:   INTERNET:ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk, INTERNET:ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> To:     Ernst Juenger List, INTERNET:ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> 
> Date:   2/7/99 10:25 AM
> 
> RE:     DIE SCHERE #30: Text, translation, notes
> 
> Sender: owner-ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> Received: from bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk (bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.37])
>         by arl-img-2.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) with ESMTP id KAA07884;
>         Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:25:31 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from majordom by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #2)
>         id 109Vv6-0006Z7-00
>         for ernst-juenger-l-outgoing@bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:14:48 +0000
> Received: from hil-img-1.compuserve.com ([149.174.177.131])
>         by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #2)
>         id 109Vv5-0006Yu-00
>         for ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 15:14:47 +0000
> Received: (from root@localhost)
>         by hil-img-1.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id KAA28590
>         for ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:13:09 -0500 (EST)
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:12:49 -0500
> From: Rebing <Rebing@compuserve.com>
> Subject: DIE SCHERE #30: Text, translation, notes
> To: Ernst Juenger List <ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk>
> Message-ID: <199902071012_MC2-6990-693C@compuserve.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Sender: owner-ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk
> 
> Ernst Jünger, DIE SCHERE #30: Text
> >  30
> >  >  In der Vorschau hat ein Zeitsprung stattgefunden; eine Vorhut wurde
> >  vorausgeschickt. Insofern wird in der Schau nicht Zukünftiges, sondern
> >  Vergangenes gesehen. Der Vorschauer hat die Gegenwart überholt. So kam
> >  es zur verblüffenden Identität des Geschauten und seiner Wiederholung in
> >  der Zeit.
> >  Für Schopenhauer galt das Zweite Gesicht als Bestätigung seiner These,
> >  »daß alles, was geschieht, mit strenger Notwendigkeit eintritt«. Den
> >  jungen Grillparzer hat solch »unentrinnbares Verhängnis« bestürzt. Sein
> >  Schicksalsdrama »Die Ahnfrau« wird von der Kritik als »vorübergehende
> >  Irrung« eingestuft.
> >  Da es sich aber beim Zweiten Gesicht um eine Rückschau handelt, ist auch
> >  dessen Notwendigkeit normal. Absolut notwendig und nicht zu verändern
> >  ist alles Vergangene. Schiller: Was man von der Minute ausgeschlagen,
> >  Gibt keine Ewigkeit zurück.
> >
> 
> DIE SCHERE #30: Walter's translation
> 30
> In the prewiew a time-leap has occurred, an advance guard was sent off.
> Accordingly, in the vision not future events, but past ones are seen. The
> visionary has overtaken the present time. Thus came about the astonishing
> identity of the foreseen and its repitition in time.
> 
> Schopenhauer took the second sight as a confirmation for his thesis "that all
> that occurrs does so with strict necessity". Young Grillparzer was consterned
> by this "unescapeable destiny". His fate-drama "Die Ahnfrau" is rendered a
> "transitory erring" by reviewers.
> 
> But because the second sight is a retrospective view, also its necessity is
> normal. Absolutely necessary and not alterable is all that has passed.
> Schiller: What one has declined from the minute, no eternity will return.
> 
> DIE SCHERE #30: Notes
> If you can accept the idea that the Vorschau is at the same time a
> Rückschau you need not accept Schopenhauer's and the young Grillparzer's
> belief in the absolute necessity of whatever happens. To be sure, everybody
> can easily agree to the statement that everything past is necessary
> (because it cannot be changed any more, except in realms which do not count
> here: fiction, or science fiction, or in Orwell's Ministry of Truth).
> However, for most people Schopenhauer and Grillparzer are too radical when
> they extend this quality of necessity to all things in the future. For
> these two authors second sight was additional proof of this universal
> necessity. 

This brings with it the question of EJ's own belief in which he is
laying out the potential for a super sensory order. Certianly if there
is a view to the future then there must be some sort of map by which we
may gain access. This means that fate is in this sense "written" and
although I know little of Schopenhauer's Philosophy and have never heard
of Grillparzer their view of predestination must be similiar to EJ's own
view. The reason for second sight being proof of universal necessity
indicates an ordered universe with an "author". This most certainly
implies, naturally only through indication, the presence of the divine.


> Now, since second sight is, according to EJ's reasoning in the
> last few aphorisms, also a matter of the past, everybody can accept the
> necessity of a Vorschau having to be corroborated by its fulfilment in
> reality some day in the future.
> So, if you go along with EJ and take second sight to be a look back into
> the past (I cannot, for me this remains a speculative playing around with
> ideas) you will have to believe that what is seen in second sight will
> always come true. Moreover, you will have to believe that the occult link
> between anticipatory vision and real event is a normal fact of life, as
> much as the indeed irrefutable truth expressed in Schiller's great lines at
> the end of this text.
> 
I agree with your interpetation here, Günter, even though you do not
share its conviction :-). But why is the view to the future also looking
to the past? It can only be that the course of things has been
predetermined by a "greater author" in some primordial past. Otherwise
"the absolute necessity" would be impossible holding no meaning. It is
interesting to note that EJ's latter works seem to be boardering on some
sort theology.

My "zwei Pfennige"
Abdalbarr