On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Thomas Friese wrote:
> Point 1) Despite having read both books, comprehension of the Anarch/Only
> distinction still eludes me. Junger suggests the anarchist/anarch and
> owner/egoist distinctions as analogous to this one. Perhaps then the
> difference lies in the depth to which the idea is embodied. The degree of
> substantiality. I can marry someone or I can actually experience
> metaphysical unity with someone. Perhaps the Only has married the idea but
> not become it. Why is Vigo the only one in Eumeswil who would be capable of
> understanding it - perhaps this is a lead to follow. No other suggestions
> for the moment - your query remotivates me to get back to this important
> point.
you mean like being aware of your options but reserv them, like a
potential of choice? I haven't the book right here with me so if you find
something on Vigo please, share with us :).
> Point 2) Would you not then be a solipsist - and therefore neither an anarch
> nor "Only". Junger makes it clear that although Stirner was seen as a
> solipsist, he was not. All may be illusion, but some illusions conform more
> objectively to underlying facts than others (All art is not Art). And
> "facts", despite their elusiveness, are the anarch's world.
:) No... when I say that nothing is true I mean ways of looking to
the world wich go besides facts. It's a question of saying wright or
wrong. I still working on the concept but It goes more or less like this:
you can prove the existence of God(s) for instance. Now, you believe Him
(they?) or not... but here I enter and say: I want to believe , not
because I do really, I have faith, but because I find it something of
aesthetical beauty and so I like it. In the mean time I'm fully aware that
in what I bealive can not be true, b.t.w. it is something I choose and it
is not material...
As you say (correct if I understod you wrongly) we must place
ourselfes in facts, material ones. what I say is that every theory must be
cautioned in them. If I choose to believe one I'm ready to put it aside if
it goes against facts/events that it wrongly explain or that can't be
mastered (controled) by it. more, I can choose to believe in something
just because it pleases me, even if it is wrong in the sense explained
before. What is important in my opinion is that the anarch is fully aware
of the relativitie of humam "constructions"...
sorry for the confuse like of argument...
Salut!,
Ricardo Reis
"NON SERVIAM"
Replies to this Message
Markup © John King, 2008. Web archive generated Tue, 21st August 2007.