Re: Die Schere #12: Notes: Abdalbarr's criticisms

[Rebing@t-online.de (Rebing)]

Abdalbarr,
the fatal gift is the Erisapfel mentioned in the text which was given by a 
goddess, Eris, to Paris, son of Priam, and which ultimately caused the War of 
Troy. The new concept of the environment, Umwelt, is equaled to the Erisapfel by 
EJ in this passage.
The term Umwelt being vague and ambiguous is no statement of mine but just what 
EJ says and criticises in the text. He does not subscribe to it, he does not 
really believe in it as a solution -- sorry, but that's what the text says as I 
read it. And I insist that the sentence beginning "Die Umwelt ist kein Weg..." is 
far too vague to my mind as to say anything more than: maybe there is something 
in this new idea of Umwelt, but maybe there isn't. I admit though, that EJ is 
here deliberately ambiguous in order to underline his sceptic attitude. 
Finally, the quote in French is merely the original of the line from Baudelaire 
EJ quotes in German in his last phrase. 
Günter Rebing

Brown schrieb:
> Greeetings.
>
> > seems his judgement on the new hopes set on
> > the environment being a way out of the problems we have run into on the
>  road of
> > progress. At first, he offers arguments for his scepticism: the idea of the
> > environment is too vague and thus will cause new conflicts, since it is a
>  fatal
> > gift of the gods.
>
> What is the fatal gift of the gods? Do you mean “die Umwelt?” Where dœs
> this reference find credence? I’ve never heard this before.
>
>
>  But then he changes his tone again, lapsing into a "Raunen" not
> > quite unlike Heidegger's clumsy games with German word roots. The effect
>  is, to
> > my mind, that the penultimate sentence of the aphorism ("Die Umwelt ist kein
> > Weg...")
>
> With regard to “Die Umwelt ist...“ I feel that that this is a clear
> statement. Look at  secular parties like the Greens who would make the
> enviroment to a “way’. They say capitalism is fine as long as we make it
> green, but look where its gotten us. It is a sort of neo-paganism not
> realising that we are in fact reflected in the illness of the world.  
>
> In EJs terms it is not that the enviroment is sick but it is man who is
> ill. What good is a green enviroment when man is not healthy? What is
> missing is the medicine. Also unlike the “pagans” who describe die
> Umwelt as Dasein (existence) in fact to use the “clumsy terms“ of
> Heidegger. Die Umwelt ist vorhanden, und der Mensch ist da. This might
> seem simple enough, but again it points to the question of Roberto. What
> is indeed the cause of our problems. Is technology to blame? Certainly
> not, again technology is simply “vorhanden”. It can do nothing on its
> own. Just as nature is. The answer is that we are all to blame. Die
> Umwelt, weil sie vorhanden ist, leidet unter uns. 
>
> So I would differ with your statement on this point Guenter.
>
>  can mean anything, but nothing in particular. However, he makes good by
> > by characterizing the disturbing ambiguousness of the new keyword with a
>  haunting
> > line from Baudelaire. (Julien Hervin, the French translator of DIE SCHERE,
>  notes
> > that it is taken from stanza 10 of Les Phares, "un appel de chasseurs
>  perdus dans
> > les grands bois".)
> > 
> Could somebody translate this to English? I’m sorry I don’t understand
> French.
>
> With best regard
> von der Gœthe Stadt.
> Abdalbarr
>
>