Re: The anarch

[Gerd Groenewold <venator@win.bright.net>]

Hello Jünger list folks,

Thomas Friese wrote:

> Anarch posting 2:
> ( Regarding the distinction between the anarch and the anarchist)
> 
>         "If I were an anarchist and nothing further, they would have easily exposed me. They are particularly geared towards detecting anyone who tries to approach the powerful with mischievous intent,  'with a dagger in his cloak.'  The anarch can lead a lonesome existence; the anarchist is sociable and must get together with peers."
>                                                                 Page 41-42.
> 
> (More regarding the anarchist/anarch distinction)
> 
>         " The positive counterpart of the anarchist is the anarch. The latter is not the adversary of the monarch, but his antipode, untouched by him though also dangerous. He is not the opponent of the monarch, but his pendant.
>         After all, the monarch wants to rule many, nay, all people; the anarch, only himself. This gives him an attitude both objective and skeptical towards the powers that be; he has their figures go past him - and he is untouched, no doubt, yet inwardly not unmoved, not without historical passion. Every born historian is more or less an anarch; if he has greatness, then on this basis he rises without partisanship to the judge's bench.
>         This concerns my profession, which I take seriously. I am also the night steward at the Casbah; now, I am not saying that I take this job less seriously. Here I am directly involved in the events, I deal with the living. My anarchic principle is not detrimental to my work.  Rather it substantiates it as something I have in common with everyone else, except that I am more conscious if this. I serve the Condor, who is a tyrant - that is his function, just as mine is to be his steward; both
>                                                                 Page 43.
> 

I think it is interesting that, the same way the Monarch wants to rule
everyone, the anarchist wants everyone to be free of rulership, whether
they feel the need for such freedom or not.  Of course, both are
unnattainable goals.  The anarch, as we see, wishes only to rule
himself.  As I said before (I think) it is a question of interior
rulership, as opposed to the anarchist's dependence on exterior
factors.  The anarch rules himself, the world rules the anarchist.  The
anarch creates his own freedom independent of exterior factors, the
freedom of the anarchist is entirely dependent upon exterior factors,
and these factors are never all present, therefore the anarchist is
never free.


GERD