-----Original Message----- From: Gerd Groenewold [SMTP:venator@win.bright.net] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 1998 7:50 PM To: ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk Subject: Re: The anarch 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. > Gerd replied: 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 ... So the anarch rules his own interior kingdom and deals with the external world according to his personal "foreign policy" - finding allies, trading, going to war occassionally, negotiating treaties. His freedom derives from the control he has over domestic matters and is not dependent on the actions of external powers.Yet if he is not dependent on these externals, he certainly must take them into account. A foreign invasion of his territory would greatly decrease his autonomy. I believe that most of us are in fact at this stage - the enemy is entrenched on our land and we are often even unaware of his presence and the control he exerts on our internal affairs. Friedrich Baroh is in this position - he must either elimimate the invader, society, from his being or be removed by society from society. The later would be equivalent to the exile of a monarch. In my opinion becoming aware of the extent of the enemy's encroachment into our rightful domain is the first step towards eventually becoming free anarchs. 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. Again, is the anarch entirely independent of external factors? Taken at its face value, that statement could be interpreted as part of a Buddhistic world-denying philosophy, and the anarch is anything but world-denying. In fact, we know that the anarch actually requires external factors. He requires the lawful structure of a society in order to operate. He requires experiences with people and powers to enjoy himself and to pursue his studies. And Manuel certainly seems to require the services of a woman! In truth, he could escape to the forest and become unattached to many of these factors, but then he wouldn't really be an anarch anymore, he would be a forest fleer. I only make this point because in my own life's experience I have vainly pursued an ideal of perfect independence. But it seems that interaction with the external world is inevitable and indeed highly desirable. Question: is the anarch not better descibed as having an interdependent relationship with the world? Thanks for the contribution. Thomas Friese Association Eumeswil
Markup © John King, 2008. Web archive generated Tue, 21st August 2007.