/lit/ - Literature

Who are you quoting?

>>18844313
Francisco de Lizardi

>>18844317
italians can't philosophy

>>18844317
what book?

Read this every night, finished it in 7 days. Its not that difficult, you don't need any complementary text. Anyone with a high school education should be able to read this. If you really want a challenge then read it in its original language.

>>18844329
He's Mexican
>>18844335
It isn't from any book, it's a translation from this article: https://guerradelasideas.blogspot.com/2020/11/el-acefalo-en-relacion-al-anarca.html?m=1

>>18844341
You are not funny

>>18844282
>>18844355
Read less blogs and more books

>>18844282
This sounds like a very superficial reading of Bataille. Almost as if the person quoted thinks Bataille endorses war as a form of mysticism (?) rather than describing it as an outlet for surplus. Can't assess for Junger but presumably similar. Also lol at glorifying war for some apolitical sake. War is politics by other means. You want adventure go travel or do mountain climbing. Also go read Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism

>>18844451
It might be a problem of my translation, since English is not my first language.
What he means is that, for Roger Caillois, both war and carnival are ways of transgressing and breaking with the sacred. Bataille addresses carnival and eroticism, while Junger addresses war. The main idea is summarized in the last paragraph.
As for the idea of glorifying war from an apolitical perspective, it comes from Junger in his youth (just consider that he joined the French Foreign Legion and later fought for Germany in WW1).
Also, thanks for the recommendation.
>>18844425
What difference does it make? Would it really make a difference if the same article had been published in a book?

>>18844282
>>18844512
Interesting take

>>18844282
>>18844512
Extremely interesting correlation, thank you for posting and translating.

But Junger said Anarch = Stirner

>>18844282
Interesting. It's true that both Caillois and Bataille (who discusses War as Inner Experience - a coincidental title in itself - in La limite de l'utile) saw that war could be sacred. However, Bataille was more against war, at least its modern form, which he no longer considered sovereign. Caillois, too, criticizes a total, planetary war that seeks to destroy its absolute enemy. In this sense, one might also read them in the margins of Schmitt, especially the Theory of the Partisan. But the anarch, like the forest rebel, is already more a figure of resistance. (I remember reading an article in which Jünger's forest rebel is also compared to Klossowski's Nietzschean surplus men.)

>>18844282
Bad reading of Junger

>>18844282
Misreading of Jüngers thought development and his concept of the anarch

>>18844355
If Italians can't philosophise then Mexicans can't even think.

>>18844282
bump

> as a disruptive element of reality itself, a position not very different from that of Jünger's anarch
the anarch is not disruptive. thats the whole point, anon. he will dip society only once he needs to save himself from it.
>>18845106
this.
The anarch would not go die in a war for some experience while remaining “politically neutral”.
OP is conflating a butchered rendition of the worker with the anarch.

paging jünger anon to abjure this with proper quotes.

Bataille would destroy Jünger.

daily reminder that the munich cosmic circle was a thousand times cooler than acephale

>>18847019
>The anarch would not go die in a war for some experience while remaining “politically neutral”.
Sure, he could. In fact, he said almost exactly that at one point. So I don’t know why you believe this. The failure lies in pinning down what the anarch can or can’t do.

>>18848023
Why not both?

>>18848023
>the circle died when a fight between a jewish member and one spouting anti-semetic hate occurred, causing the members to pick sides or even consider completely turning their back on munich
fucking kek
I seriously need to start reading at least Klages as soon as possible.

>>18848162
There is a chart just for this. I prefer the cosmic circle. Mostly because surrealist eroticism only exposes sexus, and not the truly unconscious experience found in eros which makes klages' metaphysics so compelling.

>>18848281
Nice. Also, redpill me on Bene.

>>18848220
I started with the biocenteic worldview before I realized the arktos translation is complete shit. The only way to get decent kalges material in english, is paul bishop's vitalist toolkit and theion publishing's two books on klages. Sadly theion is expensive, but bishop's book is on libgen. The only two essays I'd recommend out of the arktos book are; 'on eros as love and as passion' and 'on consciousness and life'. The theion copy of cosmogonic eros has a great schuler essay (the only work of schuler's in englishto my knowledge) if you're willing to spend the money.

>junger thread
>sliding starts
Why don't they want us to discuss him?

>>18848598
/lit/ doesn't read, let alone discuss anything, tourist

>>18848366
i am german, live un munich and have access to all the main libraries as a student. I should be fine finding all the relevant texts.
Thank you though for your advice! it be more useful for some other anon though.

>>18848654
the bounds of my envy are unrivaled teut-anon

A major question here is the extent of polarity in our time. It's interesting that the sort of brutal experience Bataille was searching for - as with Van Gogh as Prometheus - is made possible through technological law, and to an extent that no great man or artistic movement could ever live up to. This is in the same way that the Labyrinth, that greatest mystery of sacrifice, was created by Daedalus - who also becomes lost to an unknown labyrinth when he tries to kill his rival Perdix.

This was the aesthetic problem for Jünger: in which the most is yielded from that which will form no scars, or perhaps even become one with the earth, as with the railroad tracks which degrade and grow over once mobilisation is complete. This is something other than expenditure, as with the wealth of being or having, of Midas or the one who would cut gold from his mouth. In being nothing can be added or taken away, nothing more is needed - and to an extent that mentioning god is itself a weakening. This is where one no longer lives as a god, and even begins to lose his memory of it.

It is in this sense that our aesthetics are fitting for the era. None of the historical forms could ever live up to the destruction we experience, hence the turning inward to personal journals, writing letters, documenting. This coincides with the museum images and photographic realism, a knowledge which constantly surpasses itself in moving towards perfection. Not unlike the railroads, to leave no vestige of man's passage is the greatest mastery over nature.

At the same time there is a need for destruction that no sacrificial rites could ever take to account. The economic age is also an exceeding of all economic questions. Those who oppose war today are also 'mercenary mass murderers in service of ideologies and principals which consume more lives than the Aztec sacrificial priests'. There is something beyond excess, an economy of the crippling and maiming of all that exists within. One turns the "Death of God" into a principle, with countless maxims and systems.

>>18848880
Jünger sees the horror of such things, and it is hard to imagine that he would identify with anything like expenditure. And in fact, the Anarch is largely a response to the polarizing forces which nullify and maim, that crippling nihilism which is often an inward poetic response to technological law. Or rather, it is simply destructive because it can no longer know the poetic language as one is lost to the laws of our time.

Is this not the source of all the severed ears in The Glass Bees? Technology cripples from within, from where there can be no vestiges of its destruction. It cuts away the big ear, leaving many - and then nothing but a man. The organs and limbs are cut off, and without metamorphosis, yet the great symbols remain, and the metaphysical laws reign beneath the surface, crippling in a way that the grotesque man can never account for. Sickness cannot explain it, and the search for sickness, the carnival ruins of decadence and hedonism, is only to become one with a deeper affliction.

Sickness took over the question which suicide could not answer. Like the anarchist and suicide who have no control over the forces which well up and then erupt in him, the sick man has no control over his fate, whether in life or death, and simply rushes onwards - whether towards strength or weakness. Both are a crippling type of inner sickness.

>>18848889
One should not identify Prometheus with his being wounded. The law resides beyond his wounding, his birth, or return, and a Promethean art which sees nothing more than striving is merely the highest formality - and one which cannot even be a repetition, as with the Classical architecture which perfected the colourlessness of ruins, or the Gothic Church reproductions. One becomes petty and overbearing, like the gods - he cuts off his ear so as to not hear his own laments.

"Better to be kicked in the arse or to found a dynasty." The Anarch lives apart from absolute polarity, he resists the metaphysical sickness in the same way that the Christian stands apart from the death of the ages. The Acephale is an end of the grotesque, but an end which can only think or see through return. He is like Da Vinci's monsters or Michelangelo's prisoners, but rather than cutting away he adds, combines - he is the inverse cripple become an inverse suicide. Or Herder's African headless men, who cannot think. One becomes metaphysically sick so as to survive as part of the mean, but he also must do so in his own way. There are an infinite number of ways to cut off an ear, but one begins there before cutting off all his other limbs. It is the death of man as a species, just like the centaur before him - a technical sacrifice akin to a blood eagle.

Also worth noting is that Kampf does not really translate as War, which can easily distort the meaning of one of his important texts. And "Inner Experience" is meant very differently from how we think of experience and individualism today. How Tocqueville differentiates democratic and aristocratic individualism is a good starting point here.

The conflict of man is inseparable from the world revolution, as well as the national and civil wars at the time. That Jünger first went to war following a search for experience and danger does not testify to the ends, what he would become, or the fate behind it. This is important for a just reading, or at least one in which Jünger's own philosophy is applied.

Interestingly, comparisons to Bataille require a sort of combat nihilism reading that the neoreactionaries like to apply.

And also important is how Jünger is an anti-economic thinker, or at least he sees that economics is always paired with the technical, as one of its measures. Expenditure can occur in a kingdom where great wealth is expected, this is a type of exchange or even limit on excess, from the material to the immaterial world. One might say that trough such practises the money supply is limited.
This is similar to divine redistribution, as Plato said of blind wealth which is always invaluable and acts much like showers of gold. Law is heaviest where there is only a single coin hidden away, and where gold rains or rises from the underworld, is given away freely at the eleventh hour, a severe shift in the law has occurred.

The permanence in the modern era is a type of jubilee excess, a sacrifice to lawlessness.

>>18844282
bump

>>18848880
>This was the aesthetic problem for Jünger: in which the most is yielded from that which will form no scars, or perhaps even become one with the earth, as with the railroad tracks which degrade and grow over once mobilisation is complete
Doesnt he talk about this rather as “organic construction” where it is not a dilapidation of the technique, but instead there are no scars because the appropriate technique fits its time and place to the point where it then reaches its perfection. He says that the roman aqueducts are perfection of technique for the ancient times that have not been found in the contemporary era where the buildings are not built for eternity (as he says one can see by the material, location, etc. used) as was done in ancient times for certain buildings.
I find this essential for not just his early elaborated types but also for the anarch to fit into the era as the man who leaves no scars, but also is not incongruous in being as his counterparts in the urbanite citoyen, etc.
I have read too little of bataille, but any of the goethe-nietzschean approach is definitely inherent in Jüngers types as well for their metaphysical understanding.

Good thread

>>18849600
>the roman aqueducts are perfection of technique for the ancient times that have not been found in the contemporary era where the buildings are not built for eternity (as he says one can see by the material, location, etc. used) as was done in ancient times for certain buildings.
Rome needed the aqueducts to be permanent or else they wouldn't have fresh water and that would lead to disease outbreaks and effectively the collapse of the society. Modern or contemporary infrastructure doesn't need to be eternal because it isn't built for these extreme use cases; largely most of what gets built today gets built as an investment to generate a return, not as a vital investment in public health. What's the loss on leasing office space or the taxes it generates for a city if the building wears out some day, is a very different question from what's going to happen if a city with a million people has no more water.

>>18849684
well yeah, thats why Jünger said the economical thinking is not the one that will define the typus which will be able to organically construct that which will be permanent.
the economic urbanite will by then and in contrast be a relic of a bygone past.

>>18849600
I have manipulated the quote a little bit, made it closer to what Tocqueville said, and also tried to give it the overall image of his philosophy of technology and liberalism.
Essentially, modern man cannot see his own destructiveness, the extent of the territory gives a whole new understanding of nature, one which neutralizes even as it comes closer to the earth. The destructive aspect is a simple matter of being, and even if the smallest plot of paradise survives this is enough for him, the rest of the land is reformed above nature.

The image Jünger uses to describe the perfection of technology is that of the upside-down pyramid. Where it is in its most advanced state it approaches the smallest point closet to the ground, its bearing on the earth both maximized and minimized. This may also be seen in the maxima minima thermometer where the highest and lowest temperatures are marked along with the current temperature. Technology exists in this way for modern man, as knowledge and a testing ground which recedes into the background as it is perfected.

There is an eternity in this as well, although one which relates to the ahistorical period. The ideal of technology is a sort of free working of the elements, that in mobilising the elements the earth is impacted only minimally. FG Jünger uses the images of Fourier, of oceans of lemonade and dolphins pulling ships. The Soviets saw a bear coming down from the hills to help build the proletarian cities. It is important to keep these images in mind of the intent most especially where we discuss the brutal effects of technology, otherwise the essence will be lost.

In other words, pessimism more than anything else must not lose sense of the essential. This was Schopenhauer's strength, he did not lose sight of the end, a teleology. Pessimism now is only a negative form of rationalism and critique. It acts against all teleology while at the same time deepening and compounding the metaphysical sickness which is the very cause of our inescape.

>>18849798
The speed at which societies move today makes permanence obsolete. We'd have to crash back to a medieval subsistence to make his perspective anything more than idiosyncratic taste

>>18844282
Junger has the better physiognomy

>>18844512
The difference is that while Bataille was cringe Junger was based.

>>18850174
Closet-gay take

>>18850304
Sorry you're jewish.

>>18850348
Is that what you call not thinking about which man is prettier?

>>18850174
Nice contribution

>>18850174
>>18850348
Why does a piece of shit like you read Junger?

>>18847612
Cringe
>>18848023
>>18850174
>>18850252
Based
Sorry, but could you fill me in?

>>18850990
>Sorry, but could you fill me in?
That was meant for >>18848281

Btfo by Heidegger

>Btfo by Heidegger

>>18851195
can you explain to me what Heidegger tried to say as his main idea of his philosophy ?

>>18850252
Cringe

>>18850252
Based

bump

>>18851622
The nothing noths

>>18848023
the inklings were cooler than either of them

> Bataille
Did he write any actually decent fiction? Junger’s fiction is okay.

>>18853866
It's just transgressive edgy stuff.

Does Bataille ever discuss the Acephale?

You are losing

>>18844282
>disruptive element of reality itself, a position not very different from that of Jünger's anarch, sovereign of individuality who has seized authority in a constant denial of society.
None of this is the point.

Bumping the only good thread.

So no one has read Bataille?

bump

>>18849010
This suggests that the laws of economy are inverted with Bataille's thinking. He sees excess as an addition, as something which derives from the very character of man, even the universe, as his impossible limit. The danger here is in interpretation of the sacred, the destined, the elusive, as waste or fuel to be burned, as a mere economic configuration. Such thinking desacralizes law and that unattainable element of wealth which great works attempt to reveal, or harmonize with.
Jünger follows an older relation of law and value, as with Plato or Goethe who saw neither excess nor scarcity. One does not become so much as realise himself, he weaves through the world in becoming his form. In metamorphosis, becoming and being are one. Any excess or limit is bound as part of the form and the figure, one turn in their being freed.

Destruction is an essential part of becoming, but in Bataille it takes on a nihilistic law of return. It destroys not to have become but because destruction is seen as the very law, or principle, of becoming. If there is harmony this can only be with the impossible. It is a Copernican turning of the 'machine as species' in Marx, or the tendency of the rate of profits to fall as an eternal return and infinite regress. Becoming as the poetry of technicians, or the technicians' becoming of poetry. One should have simply said that poetry is impossible after Marx.

Jünger's figure of the Worker - in short, the creation of a new species - is similarly destructive, perhaps moreso, yet it has clearly defined limits, an end to which even it, in its infinite becoming, aims. There is a teleology even in the man who destroys from the comic, from that excess which can never be dispensed with, and so forms as part of the new man. And this is perhaps the central difference, the law determines all things, it can never be dispensed with. The economic excesses are vital as a means, as giving weight and force to the material where they would otherwise remain base, a limitation or wall separating us from the highest. Either material can be reformed in harmony with these higher laws, or they will form a secondary type of wall, wherein one sees religious weakening and a beginning of the excess.

>>18859651
One of Bataille's great mistakes is revealing here. His thinking that the Marshall Plan would somehow reinvigorate the sacred economy and thus the Soviet productive apparatus shows an identification with the nihilism of what Jünger called total mobilisation. This is again where he referred back to the law, and that even if we do not measure up to it the law determines all things. The world state existed as nomos, no matter the political differences, and the wealth of this situation existed in so far raised its laws to the highest. Where one does not measure up there is really an excess that is also a lack, which goes against all the rules of materialist thinking - all of the gaps cannot be stopped up. Perhaps Bataille was thinking within this region, but he thought in such a way that excess needed to be added to excess, to add a destructive measure to what was already infinitely destructive, but is in its own way limited and freeing.

Much as one has to see the Marxist problems - the Worker as species type - from the point of Hegel, Goethe, or Plato, one should also see total mobilisation as a theological limit. The excess only increases where there is a falling out of the highest laws, away from the cosmological grounding rather than this ground being at fault in some way. The faults and ruptures, no matter how catastrophic, are only themselves a measure, a stopping up of the gaps. Nothing can be added to them, nor taken away.

>>18853866
Some of the most beautiful shit I've ever read. Especially My Mother.

>>18859662
>His thinking that the Marshall Plan would somehow reinvigorate the sacred economy
That's not really it at all. He wasn't claining the Marshall Plan reinvigorates some lost world of exchange but was a response to the threat of soviet communism and could not exist without that pressure. He correctly identified that foreign aid (of the economic sort) is an evolution of military expenditure, and later on in the cold war, well after Bataille, foreign aid basically blended back into military expenditure as the US and the Soviet Union propped up various third world governments against one another, funded rival rebels, etc., all contingent on the receiver of the gift becoming indebited to the giver. Today there's the World Bank or the IMF doing similar stuff in imposing financial standards on countries as a prerequisite for aid but with less geopolitical strings, while the US still gives money to countries to buy its weapons and systems. Russia has its own relations still as well especially with India, Iran, Syria etc.

>>18860241
Admittedly I haven't read him much since I was young so I could make mistakes. However, I remember an explicit statement regarding this feedback and improvement of the Soviet system due to pressure returning to them. Can't remember where, but I think your comment lacks the 'cosmic' or 'nietzschean' aspect of his economics.

A couple quotes which imply that this is at least possible in his thinking.

"The solving of social problems no longer depends on street uprisings, and we are far from the time when expanding populations, short of economic resources, were:constrained to invade the wealthiest regions. (Besides, military conditions work in favor of the rich nowadays, the opposite being true in the past.) Hence the consequences of politics apart from wars are of utmost interest. We cannot be sure that they will save us from disaster; but they are our only chance. We cannot deny that war often precipitated the development ofsocieties: Aside from the Soviet Union itself, our least rigid social relations, and our nationalized industries and services, are the result of two wars that shook Europe. It is even true that we come out of the last war with an increased population; living standards themselves are still improving overall. Nevertheless, it is hard to see what a third war would bring us, other than the irremediable reduction of the globe to the condition of Germany in 1945. Henceforth we need to think in terms of a peaceful evolution without which the destruction of capitalism would be at the same time the destruction of the works of capitalism, the cessation of economic development, and the dissipation of the socialist dream. We must now expect from the threat ofwar that which yesterday it would have been callous but correct to expect from war. This is not reassuring, but the choice is not given."

>>18861093
"That said, it stands to reason that only a success of the American methods implies a peaceful evolution. It is to Albert Camus's great credit that he so clearly demonstrated the impossibility ofa revolution without war, at least a classic revolution. But it is not necessary to see an inhuman will embodied in the USSR or the work of evil in the politics of the Kremlin. It is cruel to desire the continuation of a regime relying on a secret polic~emuzzlingof thought and numerous concentration camps. But there would be no Soviet camps in this world ifan immense movement ofhuman masses had not responded to a pressing need. It would be useless in any case to pretend to self-consciousness without perceiving the meaning, the truth and the crucial value of the tension maintained in the world by the USSR. (If this tension were to fail, a feeling of calm would be completely unwarranted; there would be more reason than ever to be afraid.)"

Aside from the ugliness of this thinking it presents the exact opposite to Jünger, who thought that resolutions could only come through a single side, or the 'World State'.

>>18861111
Also worth noting is the difference with Schmitt, who saw that the possibility of the world nomos could be carried out by America. Bataille's vision, in comparison, is seriously confused as it sees world law through the lens of economy, which weakens the nations and any possible response.
This results in the fatalism and capitulation, America is the worst possible economy, but our only possible hope, and soviets the worst possible politics, and a worse horror, but given its economics and opposition to capitalism it retains an even greater hope

>>18861093
Really he's just 20 years ahead of the curve of French marxists, most of whom will have to go through 1968 to figure out revolution is not going to happen (Bataille in fact points out elsewhere thus far they only succeed against monarchial/feudal societies, not bourgeois, but his point here that war now favors the wealthy is similar). So his point here is that it wouldn't even be worth it to destroy capitalism at all costs because the burden of losing all that it produced would be too great. Same goes for the risk of total atomic war, it would destroy the whole general economy, not just the surplus.

>>18861146
Only 120 years after Tocqueville...
Should the question of war, especially atomic war, ever be approached from an economic point of view?

>>18861188
>Should the question of war, especially atomic war, ever be approached from an economic point of view?
If you want to win the war, yes

>>18857677
I did, but he filtered me desu.

>>18861331
Exactly the opposite. Economic thinking has never won a war.

>>18862152
Logistics win wars, which means you're retarded.

>>18862280
Logistics is logistics. Economics is economics. Stop conflating things to protect your ideology.

>>18862280
>logistics can be formulated in economics terms and from there be made subservient
check!

>>18862491
>Stop conflating things to protect your ideology.
Do you ever read what you write or are you actually this dense? You seem to be the one here with a non-material view of war, which requires the most dishonesty of all, to say that war is about some magical tingly experience for the warrior instead of expending resources.

>>18862628
reddit

>>18862628
Imagine studying these ideas for years and never coming to the simple realisation that materialism is alienation.
In simple bugman terms, you can't manufacture opposition to manufacturing, which is why you have to turn economics into a theology. The ultimate cope.

>>18862591
Yes.

>>18844282
>Both are gestures that only aspire to the formation of a new man from the challenge and abandonment of the conventions of this and any society. This virtual relationship between two bearers of the mysterious runes of fate fuasto makes it possible to guess the appearance of a new model that is complemented by both aspects: that of the conquest and the destruction of oneself.
What are their books that focus on this idea? How does one bring to life a new man?

>>18848889
>>18848893
>>18848880
Anons give me stuff to start reading on Jung, I always talked shit about psychology, but mainly because of Freud. Jung seems to be based tho, ngl.

>>18862941
>>18863148
Lol, go get deployed to afghanistan

>>18863523
The Worker

>>18864087
>join the materialist war which i insist is winning

>>18861331
>victory by Amazon Prime™

You know, I kind of feel that Jünger is great to talk about with like minded friends in a pleasant setting where the moment can really unfold itself, but trying to emulate this online on an anonymous afgahni poppy growing image board just doesnt quite work.

>>18867054
There's like five people who discuss him. Finding someone in person would be like winning the lottery

>>18862628
>materialism
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1427677293866995714