If your hair is really yellow.. Say it loud and proud…Or get it
darkened..
Curiously, the so called metaphysics of subjectivity, has been
equated with technology and the individualist call for human rights.
With out sounding like one of those Po-Mo imbeciles, I can refer to
M. Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology (1977), he writes:
the world is transformed into picture and man into subiectum-throws
light at the same time on the grounding of modern history, an event
at first glance seems almost absurd. Namely, the more extensively
and the more effectually the world stands at man's disposal as
conquered, and the more objectively the object appears, all the more
subjectively, i.e., the more importunately, does the subiectum rise
up, and all the more impetuously, too, do observation of and
teaching about the world change into a doctrine of man, into
anthropology (p.133).
Heidegger then further discusses this idea of anthropology as a
moral humanism. An impossibility during the great age of the Greeks
as it would have been to even of had a world picture. The world
picture today subsequently equates with humanism. Ironically, this
may tie in with the other thread about charity and feminism.
Nevertheless, and this is a shot in the dark, but what about a
different superior individualism; one that reaches it own optimal
point to become its own absolute transcendence…
Is not total mobilisation a redundant point, considering your enemy
lives next door, not on some romantic's battlefield.
================================================
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: importunate
1 : troublesomely urgent : overly persistent in request or demand
2 : TROUBLESOME
- im·por·tu·nate·ly adverb
- im·por·tu·nate·ness noun
============================================
Main Entry: impetuous
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French impetueux, from Late
Latin impetuosus, from Latin impetus
1 : marked by impulsive vehemence or passion <an impetuous
temperament>
2 : marked by force and violence of movement or action <an impetuous
wind>
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "zenon_noir" <slugg3r@h...>
wrote:
>
> I am sure that 'darkiexx' will excuse your impurity, as he will
mine
> not only for the eyes, but for the double-sin of having yellow
hair:
> yellow which, after all, is the color of urine and of the asian
> invader!
>
> The question in my initial post concerns the political aspect of a
> military engagement, which cannot be ignored. "Se sacrifier, pour
> l'homme, est un bonheur: et l'art suprême du commandement consiste
à
> lui désigner des buts dignes de ce sacrifice (p.108)." Can we today
> still speak of political objectives worth any sacrifice? I doubt
> it. The first question can thus be reforumlated: can the sacrifice
in
> case of a "total mobilization" be carried out as an end in itself?
>
> While the sacrificial death can no longer today be made in the
name of
> the State or the Imperium, it can, I am inclined to think, for the
new
> type of man, be carried out as an end in itself. It must be
recalled
> that for 'the worker', all of existence must be sacrificed: it is
not,
> however, the romantic 'mors triumphalis' that is meant by sacrifice
> here, but the sacrifice of one's petty individuality for absolute
> impersonality:
>
> "C'est à ce type qu'appartient l'impersonnalité. Il n'est pas
> irremplaçable: chaque tué peut être immédiatement remplacé par un
> autre "travailleur", dans l'esprit d'une même tradition ou d'une
même
> fonction (pp.190-196). De même que l'individu disparaît, ainsi la
> masse comme pure quantité disparaît - on va au contraire vers de
> nouvelles formations organiques, et même qualitatives."
>
> "Le monde du "travail" engage tout l'être, toute la vie. Et il
aime,
> il veut cet engagement total, jusqu'au bout, jusqu'à la
destruction."
>
> Thus, the 'furor belli' you referred to is activated as an end in
> itself. One must seek out the elementary and dominate it ("ride the
> tiger"):
>
> "Il en résulte la nécessité d'un nouvel ordre, d'un ordre fondé,
non
> pas sur l'exclusion du danger, mais sur une nouvelle union de la
vie
> et du danger. Pour l'individu, le nouveau monde du "travailleur"
> signifiera, non pas une diminution, mais une augmentation du
travail:
> mais il disposera de forces nouvelles pour maîtriser ces nouveaux
> fardeaux (p.91)."
>
> As you recalled me saying, there is really one way of getting a
true
> answer to my inquiry, and that is by trying and seeing for
oneself. I
> must admit, though, that I was hoping I would get more insights
into
> the matter before I try and see if being turned into fragments on
the
> battefield is an effective method for transcendence...
>
>
> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok"
<vandermok@l...> wrote:
> >
> > Hoping that 'darkiexx' do not be shocked at the fact my eyes are
not
> 'ice blue' but only green/grey, I confirm that the warrior
> civilisation of the ancient Rome had nothing to do with the 'Papist
> Latin'.
> >
> > Today the 'war of machines' can teach mostly the sense of
discipline
> and hierarchy but hardly could involve the sacred 'furor belli'
(war
> fury). The 'furor' drove some warrior till to sacrifice himself to
the
> underworld's gods for achieving the collective victory (see for
> instance the episode of the consul Decius in Titus Livy, Historiae
> VIII, 9,1).
> > Evola wrote about, but on the light of the alchemical process,
here
> and there in 'La Tradizione Ermetica'.
> > Anyway, the 'furor' of the warrior, after the victory, was
ritually
> 'closed' into the temple of Janus (Mars, Hercules, Quirinus and
Janus
> being hypostasis of the same 'force') to avoid every backstroke to
the
> fatherland, because after the possibility of a 'mors triumphalis'
> (triumphal death) during the battle, there was also a
temporary 'pax
> triumphalis' (triumphal peace).
> >
> > Since the only existing god or force is the one we can experience
> inside, it seems to me not being indiscreet to remember you (H. F.)
> already answered in part by yourself the interrogative on the Army
and
> the today's approach to the 'war of machines' when time ago you
said
> me personally: "I might have to try and see for myself".
> >
> >
> > In <
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com>
> > frederick_of_hohenstaufen <slugg3r@h...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > In 'Le Chemin du Cinabre', Evola writes:
> >
> > "Dans la guerre moderne se déchaîne l'élémentaire (le terme est à
> > prendre comme lorsqu'on parle des forces élémentaires de la
nature),
> > l'élémentaire lié au matériel c'est-à-dire à un ensemble de
moyens
> > techniques d'une extrême puissance destructrice (les "batailles
de
> > matériel"). C'est comme une force non-humaine éveillé et mise en
> > muovement par l'homme, à laquelle l'individu-soldar ne peut
échapper:
> > il doit se mesurer à elle, il doit devenir l'instrument de la
> > mécanique et lui tenuir tête en même temps: spirituellement, et
non
> > pas seulement physiquement. Cela n'est possible que si l'on se
forge
> > soi-même en tant que type humain nouveau qui, précisément au
milieu de
> > situations destructices pour tout autre, sache saisir un sens
absolu
> > de la vie." (p.191)
> >
> > The same analysis can be found in "Le "Travailleur" et les
falaises de
> > marbre" at
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id59.html. English-
only
> > speakers can refer to Jünger's 'The Worker' ('Der Arbeiter').
Briefly,
> > the main idea from the quotation above is that the destructive,
> > elementary discharges of modern war may be used for the man with
the
> > right spiritual qualification for a transcendent -- or mehr-als-
leben,
> > to use an expression Evola borrowed from Simmel -- experience.
> >
> > Those considerations become truer as the years go by and as every
> > aspect of existence increasingly depend on technology and
> > mechanization, to the extent that today, in the field of war, we
may
> > objectively and non-figuratively speak of a "war of machines."
> >
> > Considering the above, the following questions might not be out
of
> > place: is the military today still a legitimate direction for
the man
> > seeking an opening to transcendence, and if so, to what extent?
> >
> > Regards
> >
>