[Juenger-list] (no subject)

[niemoczynski@hotmail.com (Leon J. Niemoczynski)]

12 June 02

Dear John, Dear list;

I couldn’t agree more with your last post. It was approaching the point of 
stupidity.  My thought does not need further defense or explanation. My 
convictions stand.

In reply to the mention of Heidegger it seems now might be the opportune 
time to present my theory about Juenger and the nature of “Eumeswil”. 
Hopefully it will garner as much consideration, or controversy, as did my 
previous criticisms about what I consider to be lesser valid receptions of 
Juenger.

Juenger indeed was overburdened my formalities, yet he was also 
aristocratic, minding his own for what he found worthwhile. If no value was 
to be found then an investigation was not necessary. If something is 
rubbish, it needs no attention... in any kind of environment.

Of course, I model that philosophy from the actions of the proto-type anarch 
found throughout his literature. For example, my theory is that Vigo and 
Bruno (Eumeswil) reflect the real life relationship he had with Heidegger. 
Though, I cannot figure out whom was supposed to be whom. He comments about 
specific books and literature throughout the story modeling a plan that the 
anarch is to follow concerning the nature and worth of values in an 
aristocratic sense. I, personally, subscribe to that model. He also mentions 
specifics not only about attitude, but also diet and nutrition as well as 
exercise. One wonders how exactly far Juenger lived the experience of the 
anarch. In the literature his characters more than accurately reflect his 
interests of entomology and ornithology.

An excellent commentary about the Heidegger and Juenger affinity exists in 
David Krell’s analysis available in the English translation of Heidegger’s 
“Nietzsche” volumnes. I also plan to present a reworking of my paper in the 
form of  “How to Affirm Technology: Metatechnology and Nihilism” (from “On 
Heidegger’s thinking of Truth, Nihilism, and History”) which will be a full 
reworking of the third section, utilizing sections from Juenger's “Der 
Arbeiter” and Heidegger’s “What is a thing?” mentioning the analysis 
specifically. This will be presented at the Rose-Hulman Institute of 
Technology Humanities and Technology Association Conference in October.

Also mentionable is my forthcoming book about Nietzsche, Heidegger, and 
Juenger. If you would like I could post some sections from that mentioning 
that triage affinity. Most notable is Heidegger’s “Pathmarks” collection and 
“On the Question of Being” essays of which Herr Juenger reacted to quite 
strongly. I would aver that their differences arose over the nature of 
language. My theory is that for Heidegger, we see in “On the Way to 
Language” a cautious approach to the limits of oration. Juenger, conversely, 
embraces a dynamic Nietzscheanism –a prosaic herald to the power of 
technology to overcome the boundaries of the word in the form of history. 
Does this make Juenger a Post-Modern? (John -you should jump to that 
question you relatavist!) That is evident in “Eumeswil”.  This has brought 
contention from scholars, for example, some accuse Juenger of performing 
phenomenology without a subject as Mr. Elliot Neaman (Stanford University) 
suggests. Without a subject, I have concluded, neither language nor 
technology may be permitted.  Such may pose a problem.

Leon J. Niemoczynski
East Stroudsburg University
niemoczynski@hotmail.com







_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com