RE: Die Schere #12: Notes

[Roberto Calvo Macias <rcalvom@ctv.es>]

-----Mensaje original-----
De:	Brown 
Enviado el:	jueves 21 de mayo de 1998 23:09
Para:	ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Asunto:	Re: Die Schere #12: Notes

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 d?s
this reference find credence? I've never heard this before.
[Roberto Calvo Macias]  Agree with Aldabarr. Die Umwelt cannot be a fatal gift of the gods. To me is just a desire, a ilusion. What i think is that people would like to live in Heliopolis, where tecnology exist but only in a good way, near invisible- i.e. the subterranean reactor. Die Umwelt is people cry against the malignant use of today tecnology. But, and here is the failure of Greens, humans are not good by nature, and tecnology will always involve good and bad use. Then, this is the EJ "acusse": if tecnology surely will be use in bad and good use, why not reduce its strongness- for instance: if a mad king provokes a war, in the middle age, that should be bad but not definitive; on the other way, if the new emperor BC gets mad that eould be difinitive- and mortal. 

 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. Thats it! First the Man, then the enviroment. If we do not in that way, that will be " bread for today, hunger for tomorrow"  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. It cannot exist pure Umwelt- Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior donot goes by sun. Man himself, as OS say, is tecnology- the first thing man did was tecnology, the first man who did a thing was tecnology.  The answer is that we are all to blame. True . 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".)
>  [Roberto Calvo Macias]  A calling from hunters out-of-the-way in the  dense wood- we could say here in the "heart of darkness". 
Could somebody translate this to English? I'm sorry I don't understand
French.

With best regard
von der G?the Stadt.
Abdalbarr
Best regards
roberto 


<<< application/ms-tnef: EXCLUDED >>>