This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C1DDAF.5CA33660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -----Messaggio Originale----- Da: Andrea Strazzoni A: Jason Carter Data invio: giovedì 4 aprile 2002 16.53 Oggetto: R: [Juenger-list] american peace I'm very interested in discussing in a costructive debate. In this mail I have commented your considerations: I haven't a great culture, because I'm 17, but these opinions came from reading: (my quotations are shown by @@@@@@): > Andrea Strazzoni wrote: > > >EJ thinked that techinic could be an amplification, a > >bigger structure of the spirit, but only if it will be guided by an >elite > >(like during naationalsocialism), it could grow without vulgarizing > > >itself. > > A short aside before I reply to your main point: I would suggest that there > was nothing "elite" about the creatures that governed the Third Reich. The > real elite of that era was made up of men like EJ himself, and they were > conspicuously absent from positions of power. Hitler and his ilk were petty > demagogues; they wielded power because they knew how to mobilize the hatred > and ressentiment of others, not because there was anything excellent or > great about them. There was not an Alexander in the lot - there wasn't even > a Napoleon. @@@@@@@@@@I think that EJ saw in the NS the way to "unvulgarize" the Technic: but he also found in it an technical essence, the traditional and pagan aspect was (for him) only a mask, NS amplified the tradition by the technic, but there aren't way to return to the past: we can only built on it, or amplify it: this made NS: EJ considered every "returns to the past" as a museal artifice. For me he didn't consider the NS elite as a group of demagogues: this error of interpretation comes from wrong comments on his opera, specially about "Auf den marmorklippen", show for many years like a critic to the NS regime: this work is a critic to the modernity, and to the vulgarization of many aspects of it, characterized by the demagogue Oberforster, the modern man, who (in few words) killed the aristocracy. EJ cricized the NS for his modern, technical essence, but he was appreciated by the nazi entourage for his vision based on a technical aristocracy, like the SS. I think that consider the NS and Hitler like a demagogic phenomenon is superficial. Juenger treated it on the metaphisical aspects, but these have had very important real consequences and faces. In EJ there isn't a difference between metaphisical aspect and real one. > > >The question is: have we to believe in the north-american empire? > >Can we abandone ourselves to the force of the techcnic, under the > > >leadership of USA, to make faster the run over the "line" and towards >a > >new age? Have we to consider USA like the mondial empire, the >paradise of > >tecnhic or a mix of these? > > I would suggest that you keep in mind that societies change over time, often > very radically. The Roman Empire was a very different place in the age of > Trajan and Marcus Aurelius than the Roman Republic was after the Second > Punic War; I see no reason to believe that America will be any different. > @@@@@@@@@@EJ proposed the empire to control the planet. His geopolitical vision was based on a government who saves the singular person against the force of of technic and nihilism: the technic will be spiritualized by using it only to built an arsenal guided by elites, signed by a monumental style. And the technic will be also spiritualized: in its perfect form (see: "The perfection of the Technic" by EJ's brother, but I'm sorry I haven't yet read it: I base my consideration about the technical aristocracy on "Der Arbeiter") But he understood that it wasn't possible: he proposed an other way to obtain the safely: the passage to the forest. About USA: they are an empire only in the name: their politic is espansionistic (these are gepolitical considerations, not ideological), like an imperialistic strategy, but their government is the democracy; there's a great difference between USA and Roman Empire: Roman Empire was THE empire, USA are a state guided by politic economy, capitalism is their motor; this gives them their imperialistic tendence, but it is an effect, not wanted. Originally "Empire" means "imperium", the power of the autority, then it named all expansionistic state (like the Great Britain, who is the father of USA). Even in EJ thinking empire means the second significance. > And I should also point out that there is no real reason for the USA to > remain a "North American" empire. The US was not intended to be a > nation-state; it was supposed to be a federal association of sovereign > states that cooperated and submited to a higher authority (the federal > gov't) in such areas as concerned all of them and that could otherwise do as > they liked within their own borders. The notion of an American "nation" is > an alien ideological import that came across the Atlantic after the French > Revolution and that has no real foundation in the American political > tradition. It has been used by both the left and the right for their > purposes, but in the end it is foreign to what the United States is about. > Technically, there is every possibility that a foreign country, such as > Scotland or Ireland, could join the US as a state of the union. There is no > real reason, except for stupidity and intellectual inertia on the part of > American "leaders", to think that it would be impossible to make the US into > something more than just America. @@@@@@@ I haven't studied much (only on school programs) US' history, but I read that at the foundation of them, ther was a doubt on giving the form of government: or a Federal State, where states mantains some powers, like some aspects of economic politic, and where the central power has the legislative, executive, military, money, etc. powers. Or a Federation, where states has more pwer than the central one. USA choosen the first option: they are a federal ste divided into stes who have less power than the central government. So I don't think that is possible to consider USA like a simple union. And about their espansionistic politic: it hasn't real "politic" base, it wasn't decided in the goverment, but by the economic process. Their military potence has made them in an empire (like before GB). > >The "american-peace", if we want to abandone old valours, yet dead or >who > >are falling or destined to be destroyed by the waves of the >nuhilism, we > >have to believe in it. > > You do not have to abandon old values to be part of the US. There is an > enormous amount of cultural difference in this country, far more than the > products of the American news media and entertainment industries would lead > you to believe. Go to http://www.google.com and do a search for a county by > county election map from the 2000 Presidential race, and you will see what I > mean. The map will show a sharp split between the counties that Bush won and > the counties that Gore won. The US is a place of more cultural freedom than > you think. We are the home of Hollywood - but we are also the home of the > Christian Coalition, the Pentecostal movement, and one of the largest > portions of the Catholic Church in the Western world. I do not know of any > other society on Earth with as many active traditional elements as the US. > @@@@@@@@@@ EJ considered everything of the old cardinal points destined to be destroyed by the nihilism. support them it's unuseful. Nitezsche considered Christianism the greatest valour, the svalutated valour: he declared also (in "der Antichrist") it was a "millenar lie", because it defends weak aspects of life (it refused life) and it is a measure to tolerate the hard of existence. Knowing has at the end killed god: so the christian religion (but not the connection with the Holy) is the last valour to defend. the only way to crosso over the line is to be perfect nihilist, accepting the nihilism and technic in their most destructive forms. And about the traditionalism of the rligius movement in USA: I think they haven't anytingh of traditional: Catholicism goes against a "given order", who is the column of the tradition; Luteranism has some traditional aspects, but only in specific context, like during the Bauernkrieg of 1525 in Germany, but generally it is based on the literally interpretation of Bible. For this it is the same as the Catholicism. Calvinism is the most counter-traditional movement: it is one of the factor who started capitalism and modernity (see Max Weber). > >The technic will be surely not in the hands of fews, it will be (and it is > >yet) vulgarized, > > That remains to be seen. Most of the technology that has been "vulgarized" > is only superficially understood by the masses that use it. There is an > entire subculture of professional technologists - the eltie EJ spoke of, > perhaps? - who do understand the way things work. Things are less accessible > than the advertising of the computer software and hardware industries would > like us to believe. @@@@@@@@ the vulgarization of technic is this: everyones use it without understanding how to use. There is other: pollution is the first effect of the vulgarization: the technic is in the hands of capitalism, the tecnhic destroyed nature because people, not aristocracy (in Jungerian sense) use it. Professionist aren't aristocracy, they are the army of the modern thinking. > > >(excuse me for my errors) > > Certainly! :) I hope you find my opinions fruitful. > > > > Jason > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > @@@@@@@@@@@@I think also that EJ is trwated not with the correct importance: he was the greatest philosophist of 900'; Gadamer, Heidegger, Adorno, etc. are important, but he analized our time in its major aspect: the Technic and the Nihilism (for me they are brothers, like the Titans have killed Gods, Technic (compared often with the Titans) has killed (with other factors, not alone) the valours), and, like a philospher of the ellenism (we live in a neo-alexandrian age), he explained a way to save ourselves: the passage to the forest (Epicurus said : "live hidden!"). It isn't treated in schools: my teacher of philosphy teachs EJ even if I passed him my books of EJ, because he haven't read him). But he proposed an "entomological" analisis of our time and also the way to the safety. > ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C1DDAF.5CA33660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>-----Messaggio Originale-----=20 <DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>Da:</B> <A=20 href=3D"mailto:andreastrazzoni@libero.it"; = title=3Dandreastrazzoni@libero.it>Andrea=20 Strazzoni</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>A:</B> <A href=3D"mailto:jmc159@hotmail.com"=20 title=3Djmc159@hotmail.com>Jason Carter</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>Data invio:</B> gioved=EC 4 aprile 2002 16.53</DIV> <DIV><B>Oggetto:</B> R: [Juenger-list] american = peace</FONT></EM><EM><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></EM></DIV></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm very interested in discussing = in a=20 costructive debate. In this mail I have commented your considerations: I = haven't=20 a great culture, because I'm 17, but these opinions came from = reading:</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><EM>(my quotations are shown by=20 @@@@@@):</EM></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> Andrea Strazzoni = wrote:<BR>> <BR>>=20 >EJ thinked that techinic could be an amplification, a<BR>> = >bigger=20 structure of the spirit, but only if it will be guided by an = >elite<BR>>=20 >(like during naationalsocialism), it could grow without vulgarizing = <BR>>=20 > >itself.<BR>> <BR>> A short aside before I reply to your = main=20 point: I would suggest that there <BR>> was nothing "elite" about the = creatures that governed the Third Reich. The <BR>> real elite of that = era was=20 made up of men like EJ himself, and they were <BR>> conspicuously = absent from=20 positions of power. Hitler and his ilk were petty <BR>> demagogues; = they=20 wielded power because they knew how to mobilize the hatred <BR>> and=20 ressentiment of others, not because there was anything excellent or = <BR>>=20 great about them. There was not an Alexander in the lot - there wasn't = even=20 <BR>> a Napoleon.</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>@@@@@@@@@@I think that EJ saw in = the NS the way=20 to "unvulgarize" the Technic: but he also found in it an technical = essence, the=20 traditional and pagan aspect was (for him) only a mask, NS amplified the = tradition by the technic, but there aren't way to return to the past: we = can=20 only built on it, or amplify it: this made NS: EJ considered every = "returns to=20 the past" as a museal artifice. For me he didn't consider the NS elite = as a=20 group of demagogues: this error of interpretation comes from wrong = comments on=20 his opera, specially about "Auf den marmorklippen", show for many years = like a=20 critic to the NS regime: this work is a critic to the modernity, and to = the=20 vulgarization of many aspects of it, characterized by the demagogue = Oberforster,=20 the modern man, who (in few words) killed the aristocracy. EJ cricized = the NS=20 for his modern, technical essence, but he was appreciated by the nazi = entourage=20 for his vision based on a technical aristocracy, like the SS. I think = that=20 consider the NS and Hitler like a demagogic phenomenon is superficial. = Juenger=20 treated it on the metaphisical aspects, but these have had very = important real=20 consequences and faces. In EJ there isn't a difference between = metaphisical=20 aspect and real one. </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> <BR>> >The question is: = have we to=20 believe in the north-american empire?<BR>> >Can we abandone = ourselves to=20 the force of the techcnic, under the <BR>> > >leadership of = USA, to=20 make faster the run over the "line" and towards >a <BR>> >new = age? Have=20 we to consider USA like the mondial empire, the >paradise of <BR>> = >tecnhic or a mix of these?<BR>> <BR>> I would suggest that you = keep in=20 mind that societies change over time, often <BR>> very radically. The = Roman=20 Empire was a very different place in the age of <BR>> Trajan and = Marcus=20 Aurelius than the Roman Republic was after the Second <BR>> Punic = War; I see=20 no reason to believe that America will be any different.<BR>>=20 </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>@@@@@@@@@@EJ proposed the empire to = control the=20 planet. His geopolitical vision was based on a government who saves the = singular=20 person against the force of of technic and nihilism: the technic will be = spiritualized by using it only to built an arsenal guided by elites, = signed by a=20 monumental style. And the technic will be also spiritualized: in its = perfect=20 form (see: "The perfection of the Technic" by EJ's brother, but I'm = sorry I=20 haven't yet read it: I base my consideration about the technical = aristocracy on=20 "Der Arbeiter") But he understood that it wasn't possible: he = proposed an=20 other way to obtain the safely: the passage to the forest. About USA: = they are=20 an empire only in the name: their politic is espansionistic (these are=20 gepolitical considerations, not ideological), like an imperialistic = strategy,=20 but their government is the democracy; there's a great difference = between USA=20 and Roman Empire: Roman Empire was THE empire, USA are a state guided by = politic=20 economy, capitalism is their motor; this gives them their imperialistic=20 tendence, but it is an effect, not wanted. Originally "Empire" means = "imperium",=20 the power of the autority, then it named all expansionistic state (like = the=20 Great Britain, who is the father of USA). Even in EJ = thinking empire=20 means the second significance.</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>> And I should also point = out that there=20 is no real reason for the USA to <BR>> remain a "North American" = empire. The=20 US was not intended to be a <BR>> nation-state; it was supposed to be = a=20 federal association of sovereign <BR>> states that cooperated and = submited to=20 a higher authority (the federal <BR>> gov't) in such areas as = concerned all=20 of them and that could otherwise do as <BR>> they liked within their = own=20 borders. The notion of an American "nation" is <BR>> an alien = ideological=20 import that came across the Atlantic after the French <BR>> = Revolution and=20 that has no real foundation in the American political <BR>> = tradition. It has=20 been used by both the left and the right for their <BR>> purposes, = but in the=20 end it is foreign to what the United States is about. <BR>> = Technically,=20 there is every possibility that a foreign country, such as <BR>> = Scotland or=20 Ireland, could join the US as a state of the union. There is no <BR>> = real=20 reason, except for stupidity and intellectual inertia on the part of = <BR>>=20 American "leaders", to think that it would be impossible to make the US = into=20 <BR>> something more than just America.</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>@@@@@@@ I haven't studied much = (only on=20 school programs) US' history, but I read that at the foundation of them, = ther=20 was a doubt on giving the form of government: or a Federal State, where = states=20 mantains some powers, like some aspects of economic politic, and where = the=20 central power has the legislative, executive, military, money, etc. = powers. Or a=20 Federation, where states has more pwer than the central one. USA choosen = the=20 first option: they are a federal ste divided into stes who have less = power than=20 the central government. So I don't think that is possible to consider = USA like a=20 simple union. And about their espansionistic politic: it hasn't real = "politic"=20 base, it wasn't decided in the goverment, but by the economic process. = Their=20 military potence has made them in an empire (like before = GB).</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> >The "american-peace", if = we want to=20 abandone old valours, yet dead or >who <BR>> >are falling or = destined=20 to be destroyed by the waves of the >nuhilism, we <BR>> >have = to=20 believe in it.<BR>> <BR>> You do not have to abandon old values to = be part=20 of the US. There is an <BR>> enormous amount of cultural difference = in this=20 country, far more than the <BR>> products of the American news media = and=20 entertainment industries would lead <BR>> you to believe. Go to <A=20 href=3D"http://www.google.com";>http://www.google.com</A> and do a search = for a=20 county by <BR>> county election map from the 2000 Presidential race, = and you=20 will see what I <BR>> mean. The map will show a sharp split between = the=20 counties that Bush won and <BR>> the counties that Gore won. The US = is a=20 place of more cultural freedom than <BR>> you think. We are the home = of=20 Hollywood - but we are also the home of the <BR>> Christian = Coalition, the=20 Pentecostal movement, and one of the largest <BR>> portions of the = Catholic=20 Church in the Western world. I do not know of any <BR>> other society = on=20 Earth with as many active traditional elements as the US.<BR>>=20 </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>@@@@@@@@@@ EJ considered everything = of the old=20 cardinal points destined to be destroyed by the nihilism. support them = it's=20 unuseful. Nitezsche considered Christianism the greatest valour, the = svalutated=20 valour: he declared also (in "der Antichrist") it was a "millenar lie", = because=20 it defends weak aspects of life (it refused life) and it is a measure to = tolerate the hard of existence. Knowing has at the end killed god: so = the=20 christian religion (but not the connection with the Holy) is the last = valour to=20 defend. the only way to crosso over the line is to be perfect nihilist,=20 accepting the nihilism and technic in their most destructive forms. And = about=20 the traditionalism of the rligius movement in USA: I think they haven't = anytingh=20 of traditional: Catholicism goes against a "given order", who is the = column of=20 the tradition; Luteranism has some traditional aspects, but only in = specific=20 context, like during the Bauernkrieg of 1525 in Germany, but generally = it is=20 based on the literally interpretation of Bible. For this it is the = same as=20 the Catholicism. Calvinism is the most counter-traditional movement: it = is one=20 of the factor who started capitalism and modernity (see Max=20 Weber).</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>> >The technic will be = surely not in=20 the hands of fews, it will be (and it is <BR>> >yet) = vulgarized,<BR>>=20 <BR>> That remains to be seen. Most of the technology that has been=20 "vulgarized" <BR>> is only superficially understood by the masses = that use=20 it. There is an <BR>> entire subculture of professional technologists = - the=20 eltie EJ spoke of, <BR>> perhaps? - who do understand the way things = work.=20 Things are less accessible <BR>> than the advertising of the computer = software and hardware industries would <BR>> like us to=20 believe.</FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></EM> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>@@@@@@@@ the vulgarization of = technic is this:=20 everyones use it without understanding how to use. There is=20 other: pollution is the first effect of the vulgarization: the = technic=20 is in the hands of capitalism, the tecnhic destroyed nature because = people,=20 not aristocracy (in Jungerian sense) use it. Professionist aren't = aristocracy,=20 they are the army of the modern thinking. <BR>> <BR>> >(excuse = me for=20 my errors)<BR>> <BR>> Certainly! :) I hope you find my opinions=20 fruitful.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>=20 <BR>>  = ; =20 Jason<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>=20 _________________________________________________________________<BR>>= Join=20 the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. <BR>> <A=20 href=3D"http://www.hotmail.com";>http://www.hotmail.com</A><BR>>=20 </FONT></EM></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><EM><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>@@@@@@@@@@@@I think also that = EJ is trwated=20 not with the correct importance: he was the greatest philosophist of = 900';=20 Gadamer, Heidegger, Adorno, etc. are important, but he analized our time = in its=20 major aspect: the Technic and the Nihilism (for me they are brothers, = like the=20 Titans have killed Gods, Technic (compared often with the Titans) has = killed=20 (with other factors, not alone) the valours), and, like a philospher of = the=20 ellenism (we live in a neo-alexandrian age), he explained a way to save=20 ourselves: the passage to the forest (Epicurus said : "live hidden!"). = It isn't=20 treated in schools: my teacher of philosphy teachs EJ even if I passed = him my=20 books of EJ, because he haven't read him). But he proposed an = "entomological"=20 analisis of our time and also the way to the safety. <BR>>=20 </FONT></EM></DIV></FONT></EM></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C1DDAF.5CA33660--
Follow Ups to this Message
Markup © John King, July 2001.