Henry Williamson: Nature’s Visionary

Mark Deavin

 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

The fact that the name of Henry Williamson is today so little known across the White world is a sad reflection of the extent to which Western man has allowed himself to be deprived of his culture and identity over the last 50 years. Until the Second World War Williamson was generally regarded as one of the great English Nature writers, possessing a unique ability to capture the essential essence and meaning of the natural world in all its variety and forms.

His most famous Nature book, Tarka the Otter, was published in 1927 and became one of the best-loved children’s books of all time, with its vivid descriptions of animal and woodland life in the English countryside. It was publicly praised by leading English literary figures such as Thomas Hardy, Arnold Bennett, and John Galsworthy. Hardy called Tarka a “remarkable book,” while Bennett declared it to be “marvelous.” Even T. E. Lawrence, also known as Lawrence of Arabia, admitted that “the book did move me and gratify me profoundly.”

Tarka was awarded the coveted Hawthornden Prize for literature in 1928 and eventually attracted the interest of Walt Disney, who offered a small fortune for the film rights. Williamson, however, was concerned that such an arrangement might compromise his artistic integrity, and he rejected the offer.

Seventy years later, however, Tarka, like the majority of Williamson’s books, is relatively unknown and has only just become available in print again. The reason: Like several other leading European authors, Williamson was a victim of the Second World War. Not only did his naturalistic message conflict with the materialistic culture that has pervaded the Western world since 1945, but he himself was a political fighter who actively opposed the war on ideological grounds.

Born in Brockley, southeast London, in December 1895, Williamson was educated at Colfe’s Grammar School, Lewisham. He spent much of his early life exploring the nearby Kent countryside, where his love of Nature and animals and his artistic awareness and sensitivity were first stimulated. Never satisfied unless he had seen things for himself, he always made sure that he studied things closely enough to get the letter as well as the spirit of reality. This enabled him to develop a microscopic observational ability which came to dominate his life.

Williamson joined the British Army at the outbreak of war in 1914 and fought at the Battle of the Somme and at Passchendaele, where he was seriously wounded. It was this experience as a frontline soldier which was the redefining moment in his life and artistic development, stimulating in him a lifelong Faustian striving to experience and comprehend the “life flow” permeating his own, and all, existence.

His spiritual development continued after the war. In 1919 he read for the first time the visionary The Story of My Heart, which was written by the English Nature writer Richard Jefferies and published in 1893. For Williamson, discovering Jefferies acted as a liberation of his consciousness, stimulating all the stored impressions of his life to return and reveal a previously smothered and overlaid self. It was not just an individual self that he discovered, however, but a racial self in which he began to recognize his existence as but a link in an eternal chain that reached back into the mists of time, and which — if it were permitted — would carry on forever.

Williamson sensed this truth in his own feeling of oneness with Nature and the ancient, living, breathing Universe as represented by the life-giving sun. It also was reflected in his idea of mystical union between the eternal sunlight and the long history of the earth. For Williamson the ancient light of the sun was something “born in me” and represented the real meaning of his own existence by illuminating his ancestral past and revealing the truth of redemption through Nature. Like Jefferies before him, Williamson “came to feel the long life of the earth back in the dimmest past while the sun of the moment was warm on me … This sunlight linked me through the ages to that past consciousness. From all the ages my soul desired to take that soul-life which had flowed through them as the sunbeams had continually found an earth.” [1]

After the war Williamson became a journalist for a time while beginning work on his first novel, The Beautiful Years (1922). Finally he decided to break all contact with London and in 1922 moved to an ancient cottage in Georgham, North Devon, which had been built in the days of King John. Living alone and in hermit fashion at first, Williamson disciplined himself to study Nature with the same meticulous observations as Jefferies, tramping about the countryside and often sleeping out. The door and windows of the cottage were never closed, and his strange family of dogs and cats, gulls, buzzards, magpies, and one otter cub were free to come and go as they chose.

It was his experiences with the otter cub which stimulated Williamson to write Tarka. He had rescued it after its mother had been shot by a farmer, and he saved its life by persuading his cat to suckle it along with her kitten. Eventually the otter cub was domesticated and became Williamson’s constant companion, following him around like a dog. On one walk, however, it walked into a rabbit trap, panicked, and ran off. Williamson spent years following otters’ haunts in the rivers Taw and Torridge, hunting for his lost pet.

The search was in vain, but his intimate contact with the animal world gave him the inspiration for Tarka: “The eldest and biggest of the litter was a dog cub, and when he drew his first breath he was less than five inches long from his nose to where his tail joined his back-bone. His fur was soft and grey as the buds of the willow before they open up at Eastertide. He was called Tarka, which was the name given to the otters many years ago by men dwelling in hut circles on the moor. It means Little Water Wanderer, or Wandering as Water.”

Williamson never attempted to pass any kind of moral judgment on Nature and described its evolutionary realities in a manner reminiscent of Jack London:

Long ago, when moose roamed in the forest at the mountain of the Two Rivers, otters had followed eels migrating from ponds and swamps to the seas. They had followed them into shallow waters; and one fierce old dog had run through the water so often that he swam, and later, in his great hunger, had put under his head to seize them so often that he dived. Other otters had imitated him. The moose are gone, and their bones lie under the sand in the soft coal which was the forest by the estuary, thousands of years ago. Yet otters have not been hunters in water long enough for the habit to become an instinct.

Williamson actually rewrote Tarka 17 times, “always and only for the sake of a greater truth.” [2] Mere polishing for grace and expression or literary style did not interest him, and he strove always to illuminate a scene or incident with what he considered was authentic sunlight.

He also believed that European man could be spiritually healthy and alive to his destiny only by living in close accord with Nature. Near the end of Tarka, for instance, he delightfully describes how “a scarlet dragonfly whirred and darted over the willow snag, watched by a girl sitting on the bank … Glancing round, she realized that she alone had seen the otter. She flushed, and hid her grey eyes with her lashes. Since childhood she had walked the Devon rivers with her father looking for flowers and the nests of birds, passing some rocks and trees as old friends, seeing a Spirit everywhere, gentle in thought to all her eyes beheld.”

Williamson’s sequel to Tarka was Salar the Salmon, which was also the result of many months of intimate research and observation of Nature in the English countryside. Then came The Lone Swallow, The Peregrine’s Saga, Life in a Devon Village, and A Clear Water Stream, all of which, in the eyes of the English writer Naomi Lewis, displayed “a crystal intensity of observation and a compelling use of words, which exactly match the movement and life that he describes.”

To Williamson himself, however, his Nature stories were not the most important part of his literary output. His greatest effort went into his two semi-autobiographical novel groups, the tetralogy collected as The Flax of Dreams, which occupied him for most of the 1920s, and the 15-volume A Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight, which began with The Dark Lantern in 1951 and ended with The Gale of the World in 1969.

Williamson’s experiences during the First World War had politicized him for life. A significant catalyst in this development was the Christmas truce of 1914, when British and German frontline soldiers spontaneously left their trenches, abandoned the fighting, and openly greeted each other as brothers.

Williamson later spoke of an “incoherent sudden realization, after the fraternization of Christmas Day, that the whole war was based on lies.” Another experience that consolidated this belief was when a German officer helped him remove a wounded British soldier who was draped over barbed wire on the front line. He was thus able to contrast his own wartime experiences with the vicious anti-German propaganda orchestrated by the British political establishment both during and after the war, and he was able to recognize the increasing moral bankruptcy of that establishment. In Williamson’s view the fact that over half of the 338 Conservative Members of Parliament who dominated the 1918 governing coalition were company directors and financiers who had grown rich from war profits was morally wrong and detestable.

This recognition, in itself a reflection of an already highly developed sense of altruism, meant that Williamson could never be content with just isolating himself in the countryside. He had to act to try to change the world for the better. Perhaps not surprisingly he came to see in the idea of National Socialism a creed which not only represented his own philosophy of life, but which offered the chance of practical salvation for Western Civilization. He saw it as evolving directly from the almost religious transcendence which he, and thousands of soldiers of both sides, had experienced in the trenches of the First World War. This transcendence resulted in a determination that the “White Giants” of Britain and Germany would never go to war against each other again, and it rekindled a sense of racial kinship and unity of the Nordic peoples over and above separate class and national loyalties. [3]

Consequently, not only was Williamson one of the first of the “phoenix generation” to swear allegiance to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists, but he quickly came to believe that National Socialist Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, pointed the way forward for European man. Williamson identified closely with Hitler — “the great man across the Rhine whose life symbol is the happy child,” seeing him as a light-bringing phoenix risen from the chaos of European civilization in order to bring a millennium of youth to the dying Western world. [4]

Williamson visited Germany in 1935 to attend the National Socialist Congress at Nuremberg and saw there the beginnings of the “land fit for heroes” which had been falsely promised the young men of Britain during the First World War by the government’s war propagandists. He was very impressed by the fact that, while the British people continued to languish in poverty and mass unemployment, National Socialism had created work for seven million unemployed, abolished begging, freed the farmers from the mortgages which had strangled production, developed laws on conservation, and, most importantly, had developed in a short period of time a deep sense of racial community. [5]

Inspired to base their lives on a religious idea, Williamson believed that the German people had been reborn with a spiritual awareness and physical quality that he himself had long sought. Everywhere he saw “faces that looked to be breathing extra oxygen; people free from mental fear.” [6]

Through the Hitler Youth movement, which brought back fond memories of his own time as a Boy Scout, he recognized “the former pallid leer of hopeless slum youth transformed into the suntan, the clear eye, the broad and easy rhythm of the poised young human being.”

In Hitler’s movement Williamson identified not only an idea consistent with Nature’s higher purpose to create order out of chaos, but the physical encapsulation of a striving toward Godhood. Influenced by his own lifelong striving for perfection, Williamson believed that the National Socialists represented “a race that moves on the poles of mystic, sensual delight. Every gesture is a gesture from the blood, every expression a symbolic utterance … Everything is of the blood, of the senses.” [7]

Williamson always believed that any spiritual improvement could only take place as a result of a physical improvement, and, like his mentor Richard Jefferies, he was a firm advocate of race improvement through eugenics. He himself was eventually to father seven children, and he decried the increasing lack of racial quality in the mass of the White population. He urged that “the physical ideal must be kept steadily in view” and called for the enforcement of a discipline and system along the lines of ancient Sparta in order to realize it. [8]

In 1936 Williamson and his family moved to Norfolk, where he threw himself into a new life as a farmer, the first three years of which are described in The Story of a Norfolk Farm (1941). But with the Jews increasingly using England as a base from which to agitate for war against Germany, Williamson remained very active through his membership in the British Union of Fascists in promoting the idea of Anglo-German friendship. Until it was banned in 1940, Williamson wrote eight articles for the party newspaper Action and had 13 extracts reprinted from his book The Patriot’s Progress. He called consistently for Hitler to be given “that amity he so deserved from England,” so as to prevent another brothers’ war that would see the victory only of Asiatic Bolshevism and the enslavement of Europe. On September 24, 1939, for instance, he wrote of his continuing conviction that Hitler was “determined to do and create what is right. He is fighting evil. He is fighting for the future.”

Williamson viewed the declaration of war on Germany by Britain and France as a spiteful act of an alien system that was determined to destroy the prospect of a reborn and regenerated European youth. And his continued opposition to it led to his arrest and internment in June 1940, along with Mosley and hundreds of others. His subsequent release on parole was conditional upon his taking no further action to oppose the war. Silently, however, Williamson remained true to his convictions. Visiting London in January 1944, he observed with satisfaction that the ugliness and immorality represented by its financial and banking sector had been “relieved a little by a catharsis of high explosive” and somewhat “purified by fire.”

National Socialism’s wartime defeat, however, dealt Williamson a heavy blow. Decrying the death struggle of “the European cousin nations” he lamented that “the hopes that have animated or agitated my living during the past thirty years and four months are dead.” [9]

Consequently, his first marriage broke up in 1947, and he returned to North Devon to live in the hilltop hut which he had bought in 1928 with the prize money from Tarka.

But it was not in Williamson’s character to give up on what he knew to be true and right, and, as his most recent biographer makes clear, he never recanted his ideas about Hitler. [10]

On the contrary, he continued to publicly espouse what he believed, and he fervently contested the postwar historical record distorted by false Jewish propaganda — even though his effort resulted, as he realized it would, in his continued literary ostracism.

In The Gale of the World, the last book of his Chronicle, published in 1969, Williamson has his main character Phillip Maddison question the moral and legal validity of the Nuremberg Trials. Among other things, he muses why the Allied officers who ordered the mass fire bombing of Germany, and the Soviet generals who ordered the mass rape and mass murder during the battle for Berlin, were not on trial; and whether it would ever be learned that the art treasures found in German salt mines were put there purely to be out of the way of the Allied bombing. He also questions the official view of the so called “Holocaust,” stating his belief that rather than being the result of a mass extermination plan, the deaths in German concentration camps were actually caused by typhus brought about by the destruction of all public utility systems by Allied bombing.

In the book Williamson also reiterates his belief that Adolf Hitler was never the real enemy of Britain. And in one scene Phillip Maddison, in conversation with his girl friend Laura, questions whether it was Hitler’s essential goodness and righteousness that was responsible for his downfall in the midst of evil and barbarity:

Laura: I have a photograph of Hitler with the last of his faithful boys outside the bunker in Berlin. He looks worn out, but he is so gentle and kind to those twelve- and thirteen-year-old boys.

Phillip: Too gentle and kind Laura … Now the faithful will be hanged.

Williamson also remained loyal in the realm of political ideas and action. When Oswald Mosley had returned to public life in Britain in 1948 by launching the Union Movement, Williamson was one of the first to give his support for an idea which he had long espoused: the unity of Western man. Contributing an article to the first issue of the movement’s magazine, The European, he called for the development of a new type of European man with a set of spiritual values that were in tune with himself and Nature.

Such positive and life-promoting thinking did not endear Williamson to the powers that be in the gray and increasingly decadent cultural climate of post-Second World War Britain. His books were ignored, and his artistic achievement remained unrecognized, with even the degrees committee at the university to which he was a benefactor twice vetoing a proposal to award him an honorary doctorate. The evidence suggests, in fact, that Williamson was subject to a prolonged campaign of literary ostracism by people inside the British establishment who believed he should be punished for his political opinions.

For Williamson, however, the machinations of trivial people in a trivial age were irrelevant; what was important was that he remained true in the eyes of posterity to himself, his ancestors, and the eternal truth which he recognized and lived by. In fact, as one observer described him during these later years, he remained a “lean, vibrant, almost quivering man with … blazing eyes, possessing an exceptional presence [and a] … continued outspoken admiration for Hitler … as a ‘great and good man.’” [11]

Certainly, Williamson knew himself, and he knew what was necessary for Western man to find himself again and to fulfill his destiny. In The Gale of the World he cited Richard Jefferies to emphasize that higher knowledge by which he led his life and by which he was convinced future generations would have to lead their lives in order to attain the heights that Nature demanded of them: “All the experience of the greatest city in the world could not withhold me. I rejected it wholly. I stood bare-headed in the sun, in the presence of earth and air, in the presence of the immense forces of the Universe. I demand that which will make me more perfect now this hour.”

Henry Williamson’s artistic legacy must endure because, as one admirer pondered in his final years, his visionary spirit and striving “came close to holding the key to life itself.”

He died on August 13, 1977, aged 81.

Notes

[1] Ann Williamson, Henry Williamson: Tarka and the Last Romantic, (London, 1995), 65.

[2] Eleanor Graham, “Introduction” to the Penguin edition of Tarka the Otter (1985).

[3] Higginbottom, Intellectuals and British Fascism , (London, 1992), 10.

[4] Henry Williamson, The Flax of Dreams (London, 1936) and The Phoenix Generation (London, 1961).

[5] Henry Williamson, A Solitary War (London, 1966).

[6] Higginbotham, op. cit., 41-42.

[7] J. W. Blench, Henry Williamson and the Romantic Appeal of Fascism , (Durham, 1988).

[8] Henry Williamson, The Children of Shallow Ford, (London, 1939).

[9] Higginbotham, op. cit., 49.

[10] Ann Williamson, op. cit., 195.

[11] Higginbotham, op. cit., 53.

National Vanguard, 117 (1997), 17-20.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/nv.html

Reflections on the Aesthetic & Literary Figure of the Dandy

Robert Steuckers

 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Translated by Greg Johnson

Before getting to the quick of the subject, I would like to make three preliminary remarks:

I hesitated to accept your invitation to speak on the figure of the dandy, for this sort of issue is not my main subject of interest.

I finally accepted because I rediscovered a magisterial and lucid essay by Otto Mann, published many years ago in Germany: “Dandyism as Conservative Lifestyle” (“Dandysmus als konservative Lebensform”). This essay deserves to be republished, with commentaries.

My third remark is methodological and definitional. Before speaking of the “dandy,” and relating the subject to the excellent work of Otto Mann, I must set forth the different definitions of the “dandy.” These definitions are for the most part erroneous, or superficial and insufficient.

Some define the dandy as “a pure phenomenon of fashion,” as an elegant personage, nothing more, concerned only to dress himself in the latest style. Others define him as a superficial personage who loves the good life and wanders idly from cabaret to cabaret. Françoise Dolto has painted a psychological portrait of the dandy. Still others emphasize almost exclusively the homosexual dimension of certain dandies like Oscar Wilde. Less commonly, the dandy is assimilated to a sort of avatar of Don Juan, who filled his emptiness by racking up female conquests. These definitions are not those of Otto Mann, which I have adopted.

The Archetype: George Bryan Brummell

Following Otto Mann, I hold that the dandy has a far deeper cultural significance than superficial Epicureans, hedonists, homosexuals, Don Juans, and fashion victims. For Otto Mann, the model, the archetype of the dandy remains George Bryan Brummell, a figure of the early 19th century, which he opposed.

Brummell, contrary to certain later pseudo-dandies, was a discrete man, who did not seek to draw attention to himself by vestimentary or behavioral eccentricities. Brummell avoided loud colors, did not wear jewels, was not devoted to purely artificial social games. Brummell was distant, serious, dignified; he did not try to make an impression, as did later figures as varied as Oscar Wilde, Stefan George, or Henry de Montherlant. For him, spiritual tendencies predominate. Brummell engaged society, conversed, told stories, using irony and even mockery. To speak like Nietzsche or Heidegger, we could say that he rose above the “human, too human” or quotidian banality (Alltäglichkeit).

Brummell, a first generation dandy, incarnates a cultural form, a way of being, that our contemporary society should accept as valid, indeed as solely valid, but that it can no longer generate, or generate sufficiently. Which is why the dandy opposes our society. The principal reasons that underlie his opposition are the following: (1) society appears as superficial and marked with inadequacies and insufficiencies; (2) the dandy, as a cultural form, as the incarnation of a manner of being, poses as superior to this inadequate and mediocre society;  (3) the Brummellian dandy does nothing exaggerated or scandalous (sexually, for example), does not commit crimes, does not have political commitments (contrary to the dandies of the second generation like Lord Byron). Brummell himself could not maintain this attitude to the end of his days, because he was crippled by debts and died in poverty in a hospice in Caen. At a certain point, he had turned his back on the fragile equilibrium required by the initial posture of the dandy, of which he was the first incarnation.

An Ideal of Culture, Balance, & Excellence

If the dandy’s behavior and way of being contain no exaggeration, no flamboyant originality, then why does he appear important, or merely interesting, to us at all? Because he incarnates an ideal, which is to some extent, mutatis-mutandis, the same as Greek paiedeia or Roman humanitas. In Evola and Jünger, there is nostalgia for Latin magnanimitas, for the hochmuote of the Germanic knights of the 12th and 13th centuries, Roman or medieval avatars of a Persian proto-historical model, first advanced by Gobineau then by Henry Corbin. The dandy is the incarnation of this ideal of culture, balance, and excellence during one of the most trivial periods in history, where the crude, calculating bourgeois and the rowdy militant of the Hébertist or Jacobin sort took the place of the aristocrat, the knight, the monk, and the peasant.

At the end of the 18th century, with the French Revolution, these virtues, rising from the oldest proto-historical depths of European humanity, were completely called into question. First by the ideology of the Enlightenment and its corrolary, militant egalitarianism, which would erase all the visible and invisible traces of this ideal of excellence. Then, by the Sturm und Drang and Romanticism, which, by way of reaction, sometimes tilted toward ineffectual sentimentalism, which is also an expression of disequilibrium. The immemorial models, sometimes blurred and diffuse, the surviving archetypal attitudes . . . disappear.

The English first became aware of it, at the end of the 17th century, even before the upheavals of the 18th: Addison and Steele in the columns of the Spectator and the Tatler noted the urgent necessity of preserving and maintaining a system of education, a general culture able to guarantee the autonomy of man. A value that the current media do not promote, quiet proof that we have indeed fallen into an Orwellien world, which dons the mask of the “good democratic apostle,” inoffensive and “tolerant,” but pitilessly hounds down all residues of autonomy in the world today. In their successive articles, Addison and Steele bequeathed us an implicit vision of the cultural and intellectual history of Europe.

The Ideal of Goethe

The highest cultural ideal Europe has ever known is of course ancient Greek paideia. It had been reduced to naught by primitive Christianity, but, from the 14th century on, one sees throughout Europe a desire for ancient ideals to be reborn. The dandy, and, long before his emergence on the European cultural scene, the two English journalists Steele and Addison, wished to incarnate this nostalgia for paideia, in which the autonomy of each individual is respected. In fact, they try to concretely realize in society Goethe’s objective: to incite their contemporaries to forge and fashion a personality, which will be moderate in its needs, satisfied with little, but above all capable, through this quiet asceticism, of reaching the universal, of being a model for all, without betraying its original humanity (Ausbildung seiner selbst zur universalen und selbstgenugsamen Persönlichkeit).

This Goethean ideal, shared avant la lettre by the two English publicists then incarnated by Brummell, was not unscathed by the vicissitudes of the French Revolution, the industrial revolution, and the assorted scientific revolutions. Under the blows of modernity’s contempt for the Ancient, Europe found itself devoid of any substantial culture, any ethical backbone. The consequences are fully apparent today in the decline of education.

From 1789 throughout the 19th century, the cultural level steadily collapsed. Cultural decline started at the top of the social pyramid, henceforth occupied by the triumphant bourgeoisie which, contrary to the dominant classes of former times, has no moral (sittlich) base capable of maintaining a high level of civilization; it has no religious base, nor any real professional ethic, unlike the craftsmen and tradesmen once supervised by their guilds or corporations (Zünfte). The sole aim of the bourgeoisie is the contemptible accumulation of cash, which allows us to speak, following René Guénon, of a “reign of quantity” in which all quality is banished.

In the disadvantaged classes at the bottom of the social ladder, any element of culture is eradicated quite simply because the pseudo-elites no longer uphold a cultural standard; the people, alienated, insecure, proletarianized, are no longer a matrix of specific enthnically determined values, much less a matrix capable of generating an active counter-culture that could easily nullify what Thomas Carlyle called the “cash-flow mentality.” In short, we are witnessing the rise of an affluent barbarism (eine ökonomisch gehobene Barbarei), economically advanced and culturally void.

One cannot be rich in the bourgeois style and also refined and intelligent. This is obviously true: nobody cultivated wants to find himself at dinner, or in conversation, with billionaires like Bill Gates or Albert Frère, nor with bankers or manufacturers of automobiles or refrigerators. The true man of culture, who would be lost in the presence of such dismal characters, would continually have to repress yawns at their inept chatter. (Those of a more volcanic temperament would have to repress the desire to rub a pie in the fat faces of these nullities.) The world would be purer—and surely more beautiful—without such creatures.

The Mission of the Artist According to Baudelaire

For the dandy, it is necessary to reinject aesthetics into this barbarism. In England, John Ruskin (1819–1899), the Pre-Raphaelites with Dante Gabriel Rossetti and William Morris, went to work. Ruskin elaborated architectural projects to embellish the cities made ugly by the anarchic industrialization of the Manchesterian era. Specifially, this led to the construction of “garden cities.”  Henry van de Velde and Victor Horta, Belgian and German Art Nouveau or Jugendstil architects, took up this torch. But all the while, in spite of these concrete achievements—for architecture more easily allows concrete realization—the gulf between the artist and society never ceased growing. The dandy is like the artist.

In France, Baudelaire, in his theoretical writings, sets the artist up as the new “aristocrat,” whose attitude must be stamped with distant coldness, whose feelings should neither be excited nor irritated beyond measure, whose principal quality must be irony, along with the ability to tell pleasant anecdotes. The artistic dandy takes a distance from all the conventional hobby-horses of society.

Baudelaire’s views are summarized in the words of a character of Ernst Jünger’s novel Heliopolis: “I became a dandy, who makes the unimportant important, who smiles at the important” (“Ich wurde zum Dandy, der das Unwichtige wichtig nahm, das Wichtige belächelte”). Baudelaire’s dandy, following the example of Brummell, is thus not a scandalous and sulfurous character like Oscar Wilde, but a cold observer (or, to paraphrase Raymond Aron, a “disengaged spectator”), who sees the world as a mere theatre, often insipid, where characters without real substance move about and gesticulate. The Baudelairian dandy has a bit of a taste for provocation, but it remains confined, in most cases, by irony. These later exaggerations, often mistaken for expressions of dandyism, do not correspond to the attitudes of Brummell, Baudelaire, or Jünger.

Thus Stefan George, in spite of the great interest of his poetic work, pushes aestheticism to the point of self-parody. For George, it is a small price to pay in an era when the “loss of every happy medium” becomes the rule. (Hans Sedlmayr explained this loss of the “happy medium” quite clearly in a famous book on contemporary art, Verlust der Mitte.) Sedlmayr clarifies this urge to seek the “piquant.” George found it in the revival of classical Greece.

Oscar Wilde ultimately put only himself on stage, proclaiming himself “aesthetic reformer.” Art, from his point of view, is nothing more than a space of contestation destined ultimately to absorb all social reality, becoming the only true reality. The economic, social, and political spheres are devalued; Wilde denies them all substantiality, reality, concreteness. If Brummell retained an entirely sober taste, if he kept his head on his shoulders, Oscar Wilde posed from the start as a demigod, wore extravagant clothing, with loud colors, a bit like the Incroyables and the Merveilleuses of the French Revolution. A provocateur, he also started a negative process of “feminization/ devirilisation,” walking through the streets with flowers in his hand. One can regard it as a precursor of today’s “gay pride” parades. His poses are pure theatre, far removed from Brummell’s tranquil feeling of superiority, of virile dignity, of “nil admirari.”

Oscar Wilde, 1854–1900

Self-Satisfaction & the Expansion of the “Ego”

For Otto Mann, this quotation from Wilde is emblematic:

The gods had given me almost everything. I had genius, a distinguished name, high social position, brilliancy, intellectual daring: I made art a philosophy, and philosophy an art: I altered the minds of men and the colours of things: there was nothing I said or did that did not make people wonder: I took the drama, the most objective form known to art, and made it as personal a mode of expression as the lyric or the sonnet, at the same time that I widened its range and enriched its characterisation: drama, novel, poem in rhyme, poem in prose, subtle or fantastic dialogue, whatever I touched I made beautiful in a new mode of beauty: to truth itself I gave what is false no less than what is true as its rightful province, and showed that the false and the true are merely forms of intellectual existence. I treated Art as the supreme reality, and life as a mere mode of fiction: I awoke the imagination of my century so that it created myth and legend around me: I summed up all systems in a phrase, and all existence in an epigram. Along with these things I had things that were different. (De Profundis)

The patent self-satisfaction, the expansion of the “ego,” reach the point of mystification.

These exaggerations kept growing, even in the orbit of the stoic virility dear to Montherlant. He too strikes exaggerated poses: as practitioner of an extremely ostentatious bullfighting, being photographed wearing the mask of a Roman Emperor, etc. Lesser followers risk falling into flashy “lookism” and bad taste, formalizing to the extreme the attitudes or postures of the poet or the writer. In any case, they are not a solution to the phenomenon of decadence.

As regards dandyism, the only way out is to return calmly to Brummell himself, before he sank under financial vexations. Because this return to Brummell is equivalent, if one remembers the earlier exhortations of Addison and Steele, to a more modern—more civil and perhaps more trivial—form of paideia or humanitas. But, trivial or not, these values would be still be maintained, would continue to exist and shape minds.

This mix of good sense and the dandy aesthetic would make it possible to pursue a practical political objective: to defend the school in the classical sense of the term, to increase its power to transmit the legacy of Hellenic and Roman antiquity, to envisage a new and effective pedagogy, which would mix the idealism of Schiller, traditional methods, and the methods inspired by Pestalozzi.

 

Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, 1893–1945

Return to Religion or “Unhappy Consciousness”?

The figure of the dandy must thus be put back in the context of the 18th century, when the ideals and classical models of traditional Europe were being battered and destroyed under the butcher’s blows of leveling modernity. The substance of religion—whether Christian or pre-Christian under Christian varnish—becomes hollow and exhausted. The Moderns take the place of the Ancients.  This process led inevitably to an existential crisis throughout European civilization.

Two paths are available to those who try to escape this sad destiny: (1) The return to religion or tradition, important paths that are not our topic today, to the extent that it represents an extremely vast continent of thought, deserving a complete seminar to itself. (2) To cultivate what the Romantics called Weltschmerz, the pain caused by a disenchanted world, which amounts to assuming an attitude of permanent critique toward the manifestations of modernity, developing an unhappy consciousness that generates a self-marginalizing culture where the political spirit can formulate an opposition to the mainstream.

For the dandy and the Romantic who oscillate between the return to religion and the feeling of Weltschmerz, the latter is most deeply felt. In the interiority of the poet or the artist this feeling will mature, grow, develop. To the point of becoming immune to the power of the unhappy consciousness to cause both languid and violent emotions. In the end, the dandy must become a cold and impartial observer in control of his feelings and emotions. If his blood boils at “economic horrors” it must quickly cool, leading to impassiveness, if he is to be able to face them effectively. The dandy who underwent this process thus reached a double impassibility: nothing external can shake him any longer; but neither can any interior emotion.

Pierre Drieu La Rochelle was never able to arrive at such a balance, which gives a very peculiar and seductive note to his work, quite simply because it reveals this process underway, with all its eddies, calms, and advances. Drieu suffers from the world, is tested on the front lines, is seduced by the discipline and “metallic” aspects of “immense and red” Fascism, on the march in his time, mentally accepts the same discipline in the Communists and Stalinists, but never really becomes a “cold and impartial observer” (Benjamin Constant). The work of Drieu La Rochelle is justly immortal because it reveals this permanent tension, this fear to falling into the ruts of a barren emotion, this joy at seeing vigorous alternatives to modern torpor, like Fascism or the satire of Doriot.

 

Ernst Jünger, 1895–1998

Strengthening Mind & Character

In short, the deconstruction of the ideas of ancient paideia and the deliquescence of immemorial religious substantialities beginning at the end of the 18th century, is equivalent to an existential crisis throughout all Western countries. The response of intelligence to this crisis is double: either it calls for a return to religion or it causes a deeply rooted pain in the depths of the soul, the famous Weltschmerz of the Romantics.

Weltschmerz is felt in the deepest interiority of the man who faces this crisis, but it is also in his interiority that he works silently to rise above this pain, to make it the material from which he forges the answer and alternative to this terrible loss of substantiality that is presided over by a deleterious economicism. It is thus necessary to harden the mind and character against the pangs entailed by the loss of substantiality without inventing out of whole cloth a rather lame substitute for what has been lost.

Baudelaire and Wilde think, each in his own way, that art will offer an alternative to the old substantialities that is almost identical in all ways but more flexible and moving. But in this case, art need not be understood as simple aestheticism. The toughening of the mind and character must serve to combat the ambient economicism, to fight against those who incarnate it, accept it, and puts their energies in its service. This toughness must be used as the firm moral and psychological base of the ideals of political and metapolitical struggle.

This toughness must be the carapace of what Evola called the “differentiated man,” he who “rides the tiger,” who wanders, unperturbed and imperturbable, “among the ruins,” the one Jünger called the “Anarch.” “The differentiated man who rides the tiger among the ruins” or the “Anarch” are described as impartial, impassive observers. These tough, differentiated men rise above two kinds of obstacles: external obstacles and those generated from their own interiority. That is to say, the impediments posed by inferior men and the weaknesses of a soul in distress.

Chandala Figures of Decadence

The existential crisis that began around the middle of the 18th century led to nihilism, quite judiciously defined by Nietzsche as an “exhaustion of life,” as a “devaluation of the highest values,” which is often expressed by a frantic agitation and the inability to really enjoy leisure, an agitation that accelerates the process of exhaustion.

The abstraction of existence is the clear indication that our “societies” no longer constitute “bodies” but, as Nietzsche says, mere “conglomerates of Chandalas,” in whom nervous and psychological maladies accumulate, a sign that the defensive power of strong natures is no more than a memory. It is precisely this “defensive power” that the “differentiated” man must—at the end of his search for traditional mysteries—reconstitute in himself.

Nietzsche very clearly enumerates the vices of the Chandala, the emblematic figure of European decadence, resulting from the existential crisis and nihilism: the Chandala suffers various pathologies: an increase in criminality, generalized celibacy and voluntary sterility, hysteria, constant weakening of the will, alcoholism (and various drug addictions as well), systematic doubt, a methodical and relentless destruction of any residue of strength.

Among the Chandala figures of decadence and nihilism, Nietzsche includes those he calls “official nomads” (Staatsnomaden), who are civil servants without real fatherlands, servants of the “cold monster,” with abstract minds that, consequently, generate always more abstractions, whose parasitic existence generates, by their appalling but persistent sluggishness, the decline of families, in a environment made of contradictory and crumbling diversities, where one finds the “discipline” (Züchtung) of characters to serve the abstractions of the cold monster—a generalized lubricity in the form of irritability and as the expression of an insatiable and compensatory need for stimuli and excitations—neuroses of all types—political “presentism” (Augenblickdienerei) in which long memory, deep perspectives, or a natural and instinctive sense for the right no longer prevail—pathological sensitiveness—barren doubts proceeding of a morbid fear of the unyielding forces that made and will still make history/power—a fear of mastering reality, of seizing the tangible things of this world.

Victor Segalen, 1878–1919

Victor Segalen in Oceania, Ernst Jünger in Africa

In this complex of frigidity, of agitated opposition to change, barren frenzies, and neuroses, one primary response to nihilism is to exalt and concretize the principle of adventure, in which the protester will leave the bourgeois world, with its tissue of artifices, moving towards virgin spaces that are intact, authentic, open, mysterious.

Gauguin left for the Pacific Islands.

Victor Segalen, in his turn, praises primordial Oceania and imperial China perishing under the blows of the Westernization. Segalen remains Breton, according to what he calls the “return to the ancestral marrow,” denounces the invasion of Tahiti by the “American romantics,” these “filthy parasites,” writes an “Essay on Exoticism” and “An Aesthetics of the Different.” The rejection of bits and pieces without much of a past cost Segalen an unjustified ostracism in his fatherland. From our point of view, he is an author worth rediscovering.

The young Jünger, still in adolescence, dreamed of Africa, the continent of elephants and other fabulous creatures, where spaces and landscapes are not ravaged by industrialization, where nature and indigenous people preserved a formidable purity, where everything was still possible. The young Jünger joined the French Foreign Legion to realize this dream, to be able to land on this new continent, glutted with mysteries and vitality.

The year 1914 gave him, and his whole generation, a chance to abandon an enervating existence. In the same vein, Drieu La Rochelle spoke of the élan of Charleroi. And later, Malraux, of “Royal roads.”

On the “left” (in so far as this political distinction has any meaning), one instead speaks of “engagement.” This enthusiasm was especially apparent at the time of the Spanish Civil War, where Hemingway, Orwell, Koestler, and Simone Weil joined the Republicans, and Roy Campbell the Nationalists, who were also lauded by Robert Brasillach.

The adventure and engagement, in the uniform of a soldier of the phalangist militia, in the ranks of the international brigades or the partisans, are perceived as antidotes to the hyperformalism of a colorless civilian life. “I was tired of civilian life, therefore I joined the IRA,” goes the Irish nationalist song, which, in its particular context, proclaims, with a jaunty tune, this great existentialist uprising of the early 20th century with all the ease, vivacity, rhythm, and humor of Green Éire.

Intoxication? Drugs? Amoralism?

But if political or military commitment fulfills the spiritual needs of those those who are bored by the unrelieved formalism of civilian life without traditional balance, the rejection of all formalism can lead to other less positive attitudes. The dandy, who departs from the balanced pose of Brummell or the delicately crafted criticism of Baudelaire, will want to experience ever new excitations, merely for the sterile pleasure of trying them.

Drugs, drug-addiction, the excessive consumption of alcohol constitute possible escapes: the romantic figure created by Huysmans, Des Esseintes, fled to liquor. Thomas De Quincey evoked “The Opiumeaters.” Baudelaire himself tried opium and hashish.

Falling into drug-addiction is explained by the closing of the world, after the colonization of Africa and other virgin territories; real, dangerous adventure is no longer possible there. War, tested by Jünger around the same time as “drugs and intoxications,” lost its attraction because the figure of the warrior becomes an anachronism as wars are excessively professionalized, mechanized, and technologized.

Amorality and anti-moralism are more dead-ends. Oscar Wilde frequented sleazy bars, ostentatiously flaunting his homosexuality. His character Dorian Gray becomes a criminal in order to press his transgressions ever further, with a pitiful sort of hubris. One might also recall Montherlant’s painful end and keep in mind his dubious heritage, continued to this day by his executor, Gabriel Matzneff, whose literary style is certainly quite brilliant but in whose wake the saddest scenarios unfold, carried on in secret, in closed circles, all the more perverse and ridiculous since the sexual revolutuion of the 1960s also allows enjoyment without petty moralism of many strong pleasures.

These drugs, transgressions, and sex-crazed buffooneries, are just so many existential traps and cul-de-sacs where unfortunates ruin themselves in search of their “spiritual needs.” They wish to “transgress,” but this, to the ironical observer, is nothing more than a sad sign of wasted lives, the absence of real vitality, and sexual frustrations due to defects or physical infirmities. Certainly, one cannot “ride the tiger”—indeed it would be hard to find one—in the salons where the old fop Matzneff lets drop tidbits of his sexual encounters to his creepy little admirers.

 

Frithjof Schuon, 1907–1998

Religious Asceticism

The true alternative to the bourgeois world of “little jobs” and “petty calculations” mocked by Hannah Arendt, in a world now closed, where adventures and discoveries are henceforth nothing but repetitions, where war is “high tech” and no longer chivalrous, lies in religious asceticism, in a certain return to the monarchism of meditation, in the return to Tradition (Evola, Guénon, Schuon). Drieu La Rochelle evokes this path in his “Journal,” after his political disappointments, and gives an account of his reading of Guénon.

The Schuon brothers are exemplary in this context: Frithjof joined the Foreign Legion, surveyed the Sahara, made the acquaintance of the Sufis and the marabouts of the desert and the Atlas Mountains, adhered to an Isamized Sufi mysticism, then went to the Sioux Indian reservations in the United States, and left a stunning and astounding body of pictorial work.

His brother, named “Father Galle,” surveyed the Indian reservations of North America, translated the Gospels into the Sioux language, withdrew to a Trappist monastery in Walloonia, where he trained young horses Indian-style, met Hergé, and became friends with him.

Their lives prove that adventure and total escape from the artificial and corrupting world of the Westernization (Zinoviev) remains possible and fruitful.

For the rebellion is legitimate, if one does not fall into the traps.

Contribution to the “SYNERGON-Deutschland” seminar, Lower Saxony, May 6, 2001.

http://www.voxnr.com/cc/dt_autres/EEukZAVyyutLZaTvmX.shtml

Right-Wing Anarchism

Karlheinz Weißman

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

The concept of right-wing anarchism seems paradoxical, indeed oxymoronic, starting from the assumption that all “right-wing” political viewpoints include a particularly high evaluation of the principle of order. . . . In fact right-wing anarchism occurs only in exceptional circumstances, when the hitherto veiled affinity between anarchism and conservatism may become apparent.

Ernst Jünger has characterised this peculiar connection in his book Der Weltstaat (1960): “The anarchist in his purest form is he, whose memory goes back the farthest: to pre-historical, even pre-mythical times; and who believes, that man at that time fulfilled his true purpose . . . In this sense the anarchist is the Ur-conservative, who traces the health and the disease of society back to the root.” Jünger later called this kind of “Prussian” . . . or “conservative anarchist” the “Anarch,” and referred his own “désinvolture” as agreeing therewith: an extreme aloofness, which nourishes itself and risks itself in the borderline situations, but only stands in an observational relationship to the world, as all instances of true order are dissolving and an “organic construction” is not yet, or no longer, possible.

Even though Jünger himself was immediately influenced by the reading of Max Stirner, the affinity of such a thought-complex to dandyism is particularly clear. In the dandy, the culture of decadence at the end of the 19th century brought forth a character, which on the one hand was nihilistic and ennuyé, on the other hand offered the cult of the heroic and vitalism as an alternative to progressive ideals.

The refusal of current ethical hierarchies, the readiness to be “unfit, in the deepest sense of the word, to live” (Flaubert), reveal the dandy’s common points of reference with anarchism; his studied emotional coldness, his pride, and his appreciation of fine tailoring and manners, as well as the claim to constitute “a new kind of aristocracy” (Charles Baudelaire), represent the proximity of the dandy to the political right. To this add the tendency of politically inclined dandies to declare a partiality to the Conservative Revolution or to its forerunners, as for instance Maurice Barrès in France, Gabriele d’Annunzio in Italy, Stefan George or Arthur Moeller van den Bruck in Germany. The Japanese author Yukio Mishima belongs to the later followers of this tendency.

Besides this tradition of right-wing anarchism, there has existed another, older and largely independent tendency, connected with specifically French circumstances. Here, at the end of the 18th century, in the later stages of the ancien régime, formed an anarchisme de droite, whose protagonists claimed for themselves a position “beyond good and evil,” a will to live “like the gods,” and who recognized no moral values beyond personal honor and courage. The world-view of these libertines was intimately connected with an aggressive atheism and a pessimistic philosophy of history. Men like Brantôme, Montluc, Béroalde de Verville, and Vauquelin de La Fresnaye held absolutism to be a commodity that regrettably opposed the principles of the old feudal system, and that only served the people’s desire for welfare. Attitudes, which in the 19th century were again to be found with Arthur de Gobineau and Léon Bloy, and also in the 20th century with Georges Bernanos, Henry de Montherlant, and Louis-Ferdinand Céline. This position also appeared in a specifically “traditionalist” version with Julius Evola, whose thinking revolved around the “absolute individual.”

In whichever form right-wing anarchism appears, it is always driven by a feeling of decadence, by a distaste for the age of masses and for intellectual conformism. The relation to the political is not uniform; however, not rarely does the aloofness revolve into activism. Any further unity is negated already by the highly desired individualism of right-wing anarchists. Nota bene, the term is sometimes adopted by men–for instance George Orwell (Tory anarchist) or Philippe Ariès–who do not exhibit relevant signs of a right-wing anarchist ideology; while others, who objectively exhibit these criteria–for instance Nicolás Gómez Dávila or Günter Maschke–do not make use of the concept.

Bibliography

Gruenter, Rainer. “Formen des Dandysmus: Eine problemgeschichtliche Studie über Ernst Jünger.” Euphorion 46 (1952) 3, pp. 170-201.
Kaltenbrunner, Gerd-Klaus, ed. Antichristliche Konservative: Religionskritik von rechts. Freiburg: Herder, 1982.
Kunnas, Tarmo. “Literatur und Faschismus.” Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 269-74.
Mann, Otto. “Dandysmus als konservative Lebensform.” In Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, ed., Konservatismus international, Stuttgart, 1973, pp. 156-70.
Mohler, Armin. “Autorenporträt in memoriam: Henry de Montherlant und Lucien Rebatet.” Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 240-42.
Richard, François. L’anarchisme de droite dans la littérature contemporaine. Paris: PUF, 1988.
______. Les anarchistes de droite. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1997.
Schwarz, Hans Peter. Der konservative Anarchist: Politik und Zeitkritik Ernst Jüngers. Freiburg im Breisgan, 1962.
Sydow, Eckart von. Die Kultur der Dekadenz. Dresden, 1921.

Karlheinz Weißman, “Anarchismus von rechts,” Lexikon des Konservatismus, ed. Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing (Graz and Stuttgart: Leopold Stocker Verlag, 1996). Translator anonymous. From Attack the System, June 6, 2010, http://attackthesystem.com/2010/06/right-wing-anarchism/

Leadership & the Vital Order

Leadership & the Vital Order:
Selected Aphorisms by Hans Prinzhorn, Ph.D., M.D.

Hans Prinzhorn

 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Translated and edited by Joseph D. Pryce

The enduring fame of German psychotherapist Hans Prinzhorn (1886–1933) is based almost entirely upon one book, Bildnerei der Geisteskranken (Artistry of the mentally ill), that brilliant and quite unprecedented monograph on the artistic productions of the mentally ill, which appeared in 1922. Sadly, it is too often forgotten that Hans Prinzhorn was the most brilliant and independent disciple of Germany’s greatest 20th-Century philosopher, Ludwig Klages (1872–1956).

Although Prinzhorn himself would have protested against the oblivion into which his mentor’s life’s work has fallen, it is a fact that Prinzhorn is still a major presence in the technical literature, whilst his hero, paradoxically, has been “killed by silence.” One should be thankful for even the smallest mercies.

Prinzhorn is even now a not inconsiderable presence in the field that he made his own, and he will remain a major figure, albeit a controversial one, in the field of psychology, as long as his discoveries are cherished and his insights developed as a living heritage by those who recognize, and are willing to repay, at least some small portion of the debt that scholarship still owes to his memory.

Humanitarian Demagogues, Egalitarian Rabble. Whether today’s mechanistic and atomistic experiments with human beings originated in the Orient or in the Occident, the result is always the same: the tyranny of a clique in the name of the equality of all. And it is from this very tendency that the fantastic pipe dream of human individuals being reduced to the status of mere numbers arises. This wishful thinking is a symptom of the nihilistic Will to Power that conceals its true nature behind the cloak of such humanitarian ideals as humility, solicitude for the weak, the awakening of the oppressed masses, the plans for universal happiness, and the fever-swamp vision of perpetual progress. All of these lunatic projects invariably result in a demagogic assault on the part of the inferior rabble against the nobler type of human being. These mad projects, it need hardly be said, are always concocted in the name of “humanity,” in spite of the fact that decades earlier Nietzsche had conclusively demonstrated that it was the ressentiment, or “life-envy,” of those who feel themselves to be oppressed by fate that was at the root of all such tendencies. Indeed, it is even now quite difficult for the select few who have no wish to enroll themselves among the oppressed mob to understand the realities of their situation!

The Goals of Socialism. When we set our goals in the direction of socialism, whether in the sphere of politics, of welfare work, or of the ideal community, the fanaticism that inspires the socialist is customarily tinged with Christianity. Thus the socialist urges the citizen to progress from wicked egoism to a more social attitude. Even when we ignore the social, religious, or political nature of the ideologue’s desiderata, there is one positive aspect to this development, for socialism at least directs our attention away from the tyrannical ego and towards the world that surrounds us, thus calling upon the only one of socialism’s fundamental motives that we can regard as positive and biologically sensible.

Characterological Truth vs. Psychoanalytical Error. The most extensive, pleasant, and (one might even say) amusing effects wrought by the application of the psychoanalytic treatment depended on the fact that the most wretched and feeble blockhead was now able to convince himself that he was equal to Goethe in that the instincts that played so decisive a role in the cretin’s development were identical with those that were operative in the case of Goethe, and it was only a malicious practical joke on the part of Destiny that permitted Goethe to find in poetry a congenial sublimation of his sexuality.

The Psychopath and the Revolution. We can hold out no hope whatever for the successful creation of the sort of community that is constructed by ideologists on the basis of purely rational considerations, for the projects that are hatched out in the mind of the rationalist are most definitely not analogous to the development of living forms in nature, no matter how often the contrary position has been proclaimed by false prophets. Thus, the delusive hopes that are cherished for the successful implementation of the simple-minded schemes of our socialist and humanitarian ideologists must fail in the future as they have always failed in the past. The only tangible result of these schemes has been to intoxicate the isolated psychopath with an egalitarian frenzy, from which his tormented ego awakens, more desperate than ever, in order to plunge once again, with ever-increasing violence, into his political ecstasies, into bellowing his eulogies to those nameless “masses” who are so dear to the ideologue that he has appointed them to be the sole beneficiaries of his activism, now that he has been made sufficiently mad by a nebulous and insatiable longing for “liberation.” But the “sham” anonymity, which functions effectively as the cloak for politicians who pretend to act in the name of “the masses,” can only benefit clever, robust, and willful politicians, such as those who rule the Soviet Union; the real psychopath, on the other hand, who often possesses a taste for novel sensations and who, perhaps, may also be seeking personal publicity, will never be able to conform to the prescriptions of such an icy, strict self-discipline. As a result, he “breaks out,” and is soon overwhelmed by calamities from which he thinks he can only escape by resorting to even more violent attempts to achieve “liberation.” From the standpoint of psychology, the history of revolutions is very helpful to those who wish to increase their understanding of the “everyday” behavior—as well as the political actions—of his fellow human beings, not least to the physician who seeks enlightenment as to the nature of the motivations that drive men to perform violent deeds in situations to which they lend the halo of freedom, equality, and fraternity.

Heredity as Destiny (and Tabula Rasa as Sheer Nonsense). The life-curve of an individual’s development is a single event, which arrays itself along the lines of irrevocable changes. Strictly speaking, therefore, every occurrence, no matter how insignificant, involves an irrevocable change: in life nothing can be reversed, nothing repudiated, nothing ventured without an attendant responsibility, nothing can be annihilated: that formula constitutes the biological basis of destiny. Just as the individual must accept his biological heritage as a whole, whether he likes it or not, in precisely the same fashion must he accept the pre-ordained pattern of obscure rhythms transpiring within him.

Today we have become tragically unconcerned with our biological destiny, to say nothing of the fact that we refuse to feel the slightest reverence to the sphere of life, to which we owe everything. …That very attitude accounts for the success that has greeted the claims advanced by Alfred Adler and his followers, who advance the dogma that the hitherto customary views on heredity are fundamentally false, since man is born as a tabula rasa whereon his environment makes impressions that, by means of education, one can direct at will, and according to the capacity of that will, toward any desired goal. Adler compounds his felony by claiming that there is no such thing as inborn talent or traits of disposition. …

It would be impossible to reject the principles of biological theory more absolutely than Adler and his cohorts have done. Even that which we understand by the old, almost obsolescent name of “temperament”—that which represents the sum-total of the somatically connected, permanent tendencies of an individual—even this link between the purely psychological and the purely somatic view is repudiated by Adler in his grotesquely teleological and hyper-rationalist construction. … Since there is no biological basis whatsoever for his stupendous assertions, one must seek for such a basis in another sphere, viz., the author’s ideology. Sure enough, we learn that Adler is a fanatical believer in the coming Utopia of socialism, and, as we all recognize, no Utopia can prosper until a faceless equality of disposition has been forced upon every individual by the ideological zealots who will run the show. Therefore I denounce the politically tendentious World-View that Adler and his apostles put forward as “science,” for it is a perfect example of nihilism passing itself off as scholarship, and no cloak of pedantic and prudent caution can hide the fact.

Genetic Endowment and Environmental Conditioning. Upon his entry into individual existence, the human being’s development as a psychosomatic creature is determined as regards substance, capacity for expansion, and direction, in the first place by his genetic endowment as a whole; in the second place by his pre-natal environment; and lastly by the circumstances of his birth. That almost all the active factors rise and fall in varying phases, makes a rational interpretation and estimate of the state of things at any given moment impossible in the strictest sense of that word.

But the fact that such an admission of the difficulties that arise due to methodological limitations is exploited by false prophets in order to deceive the world as to the real nature of biological facts—usually in order to breathe some life into the defunct heresy of the infant born as a tabula rasa—is either a sad indication of their childish mentality or additional evidence that they are indulging their ideological proclivities in the wrong place. What Goethe described as “the law under which you entered the world,” what Kant, Schopenhauer, and others called the “intelligible character,” is the first unavoidable actuality that we must accept as the destiny of our being, and as the starting-point of all investigation and thinking that relates to the human being. All experience and all reasonable thinking drives us back to this basic fact.

The Occidental Observer, August 8, 2010, http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Pryce-Prinzhorn.html

Joseph Pryce (email him) is a writer and poet and translator from New York. He is author of the collection of mystical poems Mansions of Irkalla, reviewed here. His translation of the German philosopher Ludwig Klages’ work will be published shortly.

Spengler: Criticism & Tribute

Revilo Oliver

 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Editor’s Note:

Oswald Spengler’s Man and Technics and Revilo Oliver’s America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative and The Origins of Christianity are available for purchase on this website.

Conceived before the First World War is Oswald Spengler’s magisterial work, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (Munich, 1918). Read in this country chiefly in the brilliantly faithful translation by Charles Francis Atkinson, The Decline of the West (New York, two volumes, 1926-28), Spengler’s morphology of history was the great intellectual achievement of our century. Whatever our opinion of his methods or conclusions, we cannot deny that he was the Copernicus of historionomy. All subsequent writings on the philosophy of history may fairly be described as criticism of the Decline of the West.

Spengler, having formulated a universal history, undertook an analysis of the forces operating in the immediately contemporary world. This he set forth in a masterly work, Die Jahre der Entscheidung, of which only the first volume could be published in Germany (Munich, 1933) and translated into English (The Hour of Decision, New York, 1934). One had only to read this brilliant work, with its lucid analysis of forces that even acute observers did not perceive until 25 or 30 years later, and with its prevision that subsequent events have now shown to have been absolutely correct, to recognize that its author was one of the great political and philosophical minds of the West. One should remember, however, that the amazing accuracy of his analysis of the contemporary situation does not necessarily prove the validity of his historical morphology.

The publication of Spengler’s first volume in 1918 released a spate of controversy that continues to the present day. Manfred Schroeter in Der Streit um Spengler (Munich, 1922) was able to give a précis of the critiques that had appeared in a little more than three years; today, a mere bibliography, if reasonably complete, would take years to compile and would probably run to eight hundred or a thousand printed pages.

Spengler naturally stirred up swarms of nit-wits, who were particularly incensed by his immoral and preposterous suggestion that there could be another war in Europe, when everybody knew that there just couldn’t be anything but World Peace after 1918, ’cause Santa had just brought a nice, new, shiny “League of Nations.” Such “liberal” chatterboxes are always making a noise, but no one with the slightest knowledge of human history pays any attention to them, except as symptoms.

Unfortunately, much more intelligent criticism of Spengler was motivated by emotional dissatisfaction with his conclusions. In an article in Antiquity for 1927, the learned R. G. Collingwood of Oxford went so far as to claim that Spengler’s two volumes had not given him “a single genuinely new idea,” and that he had “long ago carried out for himself” — and, of course, rejected — even Spengler’s detailed analyses of individual cultures. As a cursory glance at Spengler’s work will suffice to show, that assertion is less plausible than a claim to know everything contained in the Twelfth Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Collingwood, the author of the Speculum Mentis and other philosophical works, must have been bedeviled with emotional resentments so strong that he could not see how conceited, arrogant, and improbable his vaunt would seem to most readers.

It is now a truism that Spengler’s “pessimism” and “fatalism” was an unbearable shock to minds nurtured in the nineteenth-century illusion that everything would get better and better forever and ever. Spengler’s cyclic interpretation of history stated that a civilization was an organism having a definite and fixed life-span and moving from infancy to senescence and death by an internal necessity comparable to the biological necessity that decrees the development of the human organism from infantile imbecility to senile decrepitude. Napoleon, for example, was the counterpart of Alexander in the ancient world.

We were now, therefore, in a phase of civilizational life in which constitutional forms are supplanted by the prestige of individuals. By 2000, we shall be “contemporary” with the Rome of Sulla, the Egypt of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and China at the time when the “Contending States” were welded into an empire. That means that we face an age of world wars and what is worse, civil wars and proscriptions, and that around 2060 the West (if not destroyed by its alien enemies) will be united under the personal rule of a Caesar or Augustus. That is not a pleasant prospect.

Oswald Spengler, 1880 - 1936

The only question before us, however, is whether Spengler is correct in his analysis. Rational men will regard as irrelevant the fact that his conclusions are not charming. If a physician informs you that you have symptoms of arteriosclerosis, he may or may not be right in his diagnosis, but it is absolutely certain that you cannot rejuvenate yourself by slapping his face.

Every detached observer of our times, I think, will agree that Spengler’s “pessimism” aroused emotions that precluded rational consideration. I am inclined to believe that the moral level of his thinking was a greater obstacle. His “fatalism” was not the comforting kind that permits men to throw up their hands and eschew responsibilities. Consider, for example, the concluding lines of his Man and Technics (New York, 1932):

Already the danger is so great, for every individual, every class, every people, that to cherish any illusion whatever is deplorable. Time does not suffer itself to be halted; there is no question of prudent retreat or wise renunciation. Only dreamers believe that there is a way out. Optimism is cowardice.

We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.

Now, whether or not the stern prognostication that lies back of that conclusion is correct, no man fit to live in the present can read those lines without feeling his heart lifted by the great ethos of a noble culture — the spiritual strength of the West that can know tragedy and be unafraid. And simultaneously, that pronouncement will affright to hysteria the epicene homunculi among us, the puling cowards who hope only to scuttle about safely in the darkness and to batten on the decay of a culture infinitely beyond their comprehension.

That contrast is in itself a very significant datum for an estimate of the present condition of our civilization …

Three Points of Criticism

Criticism of Spengler, therefore, if it is not to seem mere quibbling about details, must deal with major premises. Now, so far as I can see, Spengler’s thesis can be challenged at three really fundamental points, namely: (1) Spengler regards each civilization as a closed and isolated entity animated by a dominant idea, or Weltanschauung, that is its “soul.” Why should ideas, or concepts, the impalpable creations of the human mind, undergo an organic evolution as though they were living protoplasm, which, as a material substance, is understandably subject to chemical change and hence biological laws? This logical objection is not conclusive: Men may observe the tides, for example, and even predict them, without being able to explain what causes them. But when we must deduce historical laws from the four of five civilizations of which we have some fairly accurate knowledge, we do not have enough repetitions of a phenomenon to calculate its periodicity with assurance, if we do not know why it happens.

(2) A far graver difficulty arises from the historical fact that we have already mentioned. For five centuries, at least, the men of the West regarded modern civilization as a revival or prolongation of Graeco-Roman antiquity. Spengler, as the very basis of his hypothesis, regards the Classical world as a civilization distinct from, and alien to, our own — a civilization that, like the Egyptian, lived, died, and is now gone. It was dominated by an entirely different Weltanschauung, and consequently the educated men of Europe and America, who for five centuries believed in continuity, were merely suffering from an illusion or hallucination.

Even if we grant that, however, we are still confronted by a unique historical phenomenon. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Hindu, and Arabian (“Magian”), civilizations are all regarded by Spengler (and other proponents of an organic structure of culture) as single and unrelated organisms: Each came into being without deriving its concepts from another civilization (or, alternatively, seeing its own concepts in the records of an earlier civilization), and each died leaving no offspring (or, alternatively, no subsequent civilization thought to see in them its own concepts). There is simply no parallel or precedent for the relationship (real or imaginary) which links Graeco-Roman culture to our own.

Since Spengler wrote, a great historical discovery has further complicated the question. We now know that the Mycenaean peoples were Greeks, and it is virtually certain that the essentials of their culture survived the disintegration caused by the Dorian invasion, and were the basis of later Greek culture. (For a good summary, see Leonard R. Palmer, Mycenaeans and Minoans, London, 1961). We therefore have a sequence that is, so far as we know, unique:

Mycenaean>Dark Ages>Graeco-Roman>Dark Ages>Modern.

If this is one civilization, it has had a creative life-span far longer than that of any other that has thus far appeared in the world. If it is more than one, the interrelations form an exception to Spengler’s general law, and suggest the possibility that a civilization, if it dies by some kind of quasi-biological process, may in some cases have a quasi-biological power of reproduction.

The exception becomes even more remarkable if we, unlike Spengler, regard as fundamentally important the concept of self-government, which may have been present even in Mycenaean times (see L. R. Palmer, Mycenaeans and Minoans, cited above, p. 97). Democracies and constitutional republics are found only in the Graeco-Roman world and our own; such institutions seem to have been incomprehensible to other cultures.

(3) For all practical purposes, Spengler ignores hereditary and racial differences. He even uses the word “race” to represent a qualitative difference between members of what we should call the same race, and he denies that that difference is to any significant extent caused by heredity. He regards biological races as plastic and mutable, even in their physical characteristics, under the influence of geographical factors (including the soil, which is said to affect the physical organism through food) and of what Spengler terms “a mysterious cosmic force” that has nothing to do with biology. The only real unity is cultural, that is, the fundamental ideas and beliefs shared by the peoples who form a civilization. Thus Spengler, who makes those ideas subject to quasi-biological growth and decay, oddly rejects as insignificant the findings of biological science concerning living organisms.

It is true, of course, that man is in part a spiritual being. Of that, persons who have a religious faith need no assurance. Others, unless they are determined blindly to deny the evidence before us, must admit the existence of phenomena of the kind described by Franz E. Winkler, M.D., in Man: The Bridge Between Two Worlds (New York, Harper, 1960), and, of course, by many other writers. And every historian knows that no one of the higher cultures could conceivably have come into being, if human beings are merely animals.

But it is also true that the science of genetics, founded by Father Mendel only a century ago and almost totally neglected down to the early years of the Twentieth Century, has ascertained biological laws that can be denied only by denying the reality of the physical world. Every educated person knows that the color of a man’s eyes, the shape of the lobes of his ears, and every one of his other physiological characteristics is determined by hereditary factors. It is virtually certain that intellectual capacity is likewise produced by inheritance, and there is a fair amount of evidence that indicated that even moral capacities are likewise innate.

Man’s power of intervention in the development of inherited qualities appears to be entirely negative, thus affording another melancholy proof that human ingenuity can easily destroy what it can never create. Any fool with a knife can in three minutes make the most beautiful woman forever hideous, and one of our “mental health experts,” even without using a knife, can as quickly and permanently destroy the finest intellect. And it appears that less drastic interventions, through education and other control of environment, may temporarily or even permanently pervert and deform, but are powerless to create capacities that an individual did not inherit from near or more remote ancestors.

The facts are beyond question, although the Secret Police in Soviet Russia and “liberal” spitting-squads in the United States have largely succeeded in keeping these facts from the general public in the areas they control. But no amount of terrorism can alter the laws of nature. For a readable exposition of genetics, see Garrett Hardin’s Nature and Man’s Fate (New York, Rinehart, 1959), which is subject only to the reservation that the laws of genetics, like the laws of chemistry, are verified by observation every day, whereas the doctrine of biological evolution is necessarily an hypothesis that cannot be verified by experiment.

The Race Factor

It is also beyond question that the races of mankind differ greatly in physical appearance, in susceptibility to specific diseases, and in average intellectual capacity. There are indications that they differ also in nervous organization, and possibly, in moral instincts. It would be a miracle if that were not so, for, as is well known, the three primary races were distinct and separate at the time that intelligent men first appeared on this planet, and have so remained ever since. The differences are so pronounced and stable that the proponents of biological evolution are finding it more and more necessary to postulate that the differences go back to species that preceded the appearance of the homo sapiens. (See the new and revised edition of Dr. Carleton S. Coon’s The Story of Man, New York, Knopf, 1962.)

That such differences exist is doubtless deplorable. It is certainly deplorable that all men must die, and there are persons who think it deplorable that there are differences, both anatomical and spiritual, between men and women. However, no amount of concerted lying by “liberals,” and no amount of decreeing by the Warren [Supreme Court] Gang, will in the least change the laws of nature.

Now there is a great deal that we do not know about genetics, both individual and racial, and these uncertainties permit widely differing estimates of the relative importance of biologically determined factors and cultural concepts in the development of a civilization. Our only point here is that it is highly improbable that biological factors have no influence at all on the origin and course of civilizations. And to the extent that they do have an influence, Spengler’s theory is defective and probably misleading.

Profound Insights

One could add a few minor points to the three objections stated above, but these will suffice to show that the Spenglerian historionomy cannot be accepted as a certainty. It is, however, a great philosophical formulation that poses questions of the utmost importance and deepens our perception of historical causality. No student of history needed Spengler to tell him that a decline of religious faith necessarily weakens the moral bonds that make civilized society possible. But Spengler’s showing that such a decline seems to have occurred at a definite point in the development of a number of fundamentally different civilizations with, of course, radically different religions provides us with data that we must take into account when we try to ascertain the true causes of the decline. And his further observation that the decline was eventually followed by a sweeping revival of religious belief is equally significant.

However wrong he may have been about some things, Spengler has given us profound insights into the nature of our own culture. But for him, we might have gone on believing that our great technology was merely a matter of economics — of trying to make more things more cheaply. But he has shown us, I think, that our technology has a deeper significance — that for us, the men of Western civilization, it answers a certain spiritual need inherent in us, and that we derive from its triumphs as satisfaction analogous to that which is derived from great music or great art.

And Spengler, above all, has forced us to inquire into the nature of civilization and to ask ourselves by what means — if any — we can repair and preserve the long and narrow dikes that alone protect us from the vast and turbulent ocean of eternal barbarism. For that, we must always honor him.

Journal of Historical Review, vol. 17, no. 2 (March-April 1998), 10-13.

 

Paganismo y filosofia de la vida en Knut Hamsun y D. H. Lawrence

Paganismo y filosofía de la vida en Knut Hamsun y D.H. Lawrence

Robert STEUCKERS

Ex: http://algaida.wordpress.com/

Knut Hamsun en "Dikterstuen", Nørholm, 1930

Robert Steuckers*

 

El filólogo húngaro Akos Doma, formado en Alemania y los Estados Unidos, acaba de publicar una obra de exégesis literaria, en el que hace un paralelismo entre las obras de Hamsun y Lawrence. El punto en común es una “crítica de la civilización”. Concepto que, obviamente, debemos aprehender en su contexto. En efecto, la civilización sería un proceso positivo desde el punto de vista de los “progresistas”, que entienden la historia de forma lineal. En efecto, los partidarios de la filosofía del Aufklärung y los adeptos incondicionales de una cierta modernidad tienden a la simplificación, la geometrización y la “cerebrización”. Sin embargo, la civilización se nos muestra como un desarrollo negativo para todos aquellos que pretenden conservar la fecundidad inconmensurable de los veneros culturales, para quienes constatan, sin escandalizarse por ello, que el tiempo es plurimorfo; es decir, que el tiempo para una cultura no coincide con el de otra, en contraposición a los iluministas quienes se afirman en la creencia de un tiempo monomorfo y aplicable a todos los pueblos y culturas del planeta. Cada pueblo tiene su propio tiempo. Si la modernidad rechaza esta pluralidad de formas del tiempo, entonces entramos irremisiblemente en el terreno de lo ilusorio. 

Desde un cierto punto de vista, explica Akos Doma, Hamsun y Lawrence son herederos de Rousseau. Pero, ¿de qué Rousseau? ¿Quién que ha sido estigmatizado por la tradición maurrasiana (Maurras, Lasserre, Muret) o aquél otro que critica radicalmente el Aufklärung sin que ello comporte defensa alguna del Antiguo Régimen? Para el Rousseau crítico con el iluminismo, la ideología moderna es, precisamente, el opuesto real del concepto ideal en su concepción de la política: aquél es antiigualitario y hostil a la libertad, aunque reivindique la igualdad y la libertad. Antes de la irrupción de la modernidad a lo largo del siglo XVIII, para Rousseau y sus seguidores prerrománticos, existiría una “comunidad sana”, la convivencia reinaría entre los hombres y la gente sería “buena” porque la naturaleza es “buena”. Más tarde, entre los románticos que, en el terreno político, son conservadores, esta noción de “bondad” seguirá estando presente, aunque en la actualidad tal característica se considere en exclusiva patrimonio de los activistas o pensadores revolucionarios. La idea de “bondad” ha estado presente tanto en la “derecha” como en “izquierda”.

Sin embargo, para el poeta romántico inglés Wordsworth, la naturaleza es “el marco de toda experiencia auténtica”, en la medida en que el hombre se enfrenta de una manera real e inmediatamente con los elementos, lo que implícitamente nos conduce más allá del bien y del mal. Wordsworth es, en cierta forma, un “perfectibilista”: el hombre fruto de su visión poética alcanza lo excelso, la perfección; pero dicho hombre, contrariamente a lo que pensaban e imponían los partidarios de las Luces, no se perfecciona sólo con el desarrollo de las facultades de su intelecto. La perfección humana requiere sobre todo pasar por la prueba de lo elemental natural. Para Novalis, la naturaleza es “el espacio de la experiencia mística, que nos permite ver más allá de las contingencias de la vida urbana y artificial”. Para Eichendorff, la naturaleza es la libertad y, en cierto sentido, una trascendencia, pues permite escapar a los corsés de las convenciones e instituciones.

Con Wordsworth, Novalis y Eichendorff, las cuestiones de lo inmediato, de la experiencia vital, del rechazo de las contingencias surgidas de la artificialidad de los convencionalismos, adquieren un importante papel. A partir del romanticismo se desarrolla en Europa, sobre todo en Europa septentrional, un movimiento hostil hacia toda forma moderna de vida social y económica. Carlyle, por ejemplo, cantará el heroísmo y denigrará a la “cash flow society”. Aparece la primera crítica contra el reino del dinero. John Ruskin, con sus proyectos de arquitectura orgánica junto a la concepción de ciudades-jardín, tratará de embellecer las ciudades y reparar los daños sociales y urbanísticos de un racionalismo que ha desembocado en puro manchesterismo. Tolstoi propone una naturalismo optimista que no tiene como punto de referencia a Dostoievski, brillante observador este último de los peores perfiles del alma humana. Gauguin transplantará su ideal de la bondad humana a la Polinesia, a Tahití, en plena naturaleza.

Hamsun y Lawrence, contrariamente a Tolstoi o a Gauguin, desarrollarán una visión de la naturaleza carente de teología, sin “buen fin”, sin espacios paradisiacos marginales: han asimilado la doble lección del pesimismo de Dostoievski y Nietzsche. La naturaleza en éstos no es un espacio idílico propicio para excursiones tal y como sucede con los poetas ingleses del Lake District. La naturaleza no sólo no es un espacio necesariamente peligroso o violento, sino que es considerado apriorísticamente como tal. La naturaleza humana en Hamsun y Lawrence es, antes de nada, interioridad que conforma los resortes interiores, su disposición y su mentalidad (tripas y cerebro inextricablemente unidos y confundidos). Tanto en Hamsun como en Lawrence, la naturaleza humana no es ni intelectualidad ni demonismo. Es, antes de nada, expresión de la realidad, realidad traducción inmediata de la tierra, Gaia; realidad en tanto que fuente de vida.

 

D H Lawrence

Frente a este manantial, la alienación moderna conlleva dos actitudes humanas opuestas: 1.º necesidad de la tierra, fuente de vitalidad, y 2.º zozobra en la alienación, causa de enfermedades y esclerosis. Es precisamente en esa bipolaridad donde cabe ubicar las dos grandes obras de Hamsun y de Lawrence: Bendición de la tierra, para el noruego, y El arcoiris del inglés.
En Bendición de la tierra de Hamsun, la naturaleza constituye el espacio el trabajo existencial donde el hombre opera con total independencia para alimentarse y perpetuarse. No se trata de una naturaleza idílica, como sucede en ciertos utopistas bucólicos, y además el trabajo no ha sido abolido. La naturaleza es inabarcable, conforma el destino, y es parte de la propia humanidad de tal forma que su pérdida comportaría deshumanización. El protagonista principal, el campesino Isak, es feo y desgarbado, es tosco y simple, pero inquebrantable, un ser limitado, pero no exento de voluntad. El espacio natural, la Wildnis, es ese ámbito que tarde o temprano ha de llevar la huella del hombre; no se trata del espacio o el reino del hombre convencional o, más exactamente, el acotado por los relojes, sino el del ritmo de las estaciones, con sus ciclos periódicos. En dicho espacio, en dicho tiempo, no existen interrogantes, se sobrevive para participar al socaire de un ritmo que nos desborda. Ese destino es duro. Incluso llega a ser muy duro. Pero a cambio ofrece independencia, autonomía, permite una relación directa con el trabajo. Otorga sentido, porque tiene sentido. En El arcoiris, de Lawrence, una familia vive de forma independiente de la tierra con el único beneficio de sus cosechas.

Hamsun y Lawrence, en estas dos novelas, nos legan la visión de un hombre unido al terruño (ein beheimateter Mensch), de un hombre anclado a un territorio limitado. El beheimateter Mensch ignora el saber libresco, no tiene necesidad de las prédicas de los medios informativos, su sabiduría práctica le es suficiente; gracias a ella, sus actos tienen sentido, incluso cuando fantasea o da rienda suelta a los sentimientos. Ese saber inmediato, además, le procura unidad con los otros seres.

Desde una óptica tal, la alienación, cuestión fundamental en el siglo XIX, adquiere otra perspectiva. Generalmente se aborda el problema de la alienación desde tres puntos de vista doctrinales:

1.º Según el punto de vista marxista e historicista, la alienación se localizaría únicamente en la esfera social, mientras que para Hamsun o Lawrence, se sitúa en la naturaleza interior del hombre, independientemente de su posición social o de su riqueza material.

2.º La alienación abordada a partir de la teología o la antropología.

3.º La alienación percibida como una anomalía social.

 

D H Lawrence

En Hegel, y más tarde en Marx, la alienación de los pueblos o de las masas es una etapa necesaria en el proceso de adecuación gradual entre la realidad y el absoluto. En Hamsun y Lawrence, la alienación es un concepto todavía más categórico; sus causas no residen en las estructuras socioeconómicas o políticas, sino en el distanciamiento con respecto a las raíces de la naturaleza (que no es, en consecuencia, una “buena” naturaleza). No desaparecerá la alienación con la simple instauración de un nuevo orden socioeconómico. En Hamsun y Lawrence, señala Doma, es el problema de la desconexión, de la cesura, el que tiene un rango esencial. La vida social ha devenido uniforme, desemboca en la uniformidad, la automatización, la funcionalización a ultranza, mientras que la naturaleza y el trabajo integrado en el ciclo de la vida no son uniformes y requieren en todo momento la movilización de energías vitales. Existe inmediatez, mientras que en la vida urbana, industrial y moderna todo está mediatizado, filtrado. Hamsun y Lawrence se rebelan contra dichos filtros.

Para Hamsun y, en menor medida, Lawrence las fuerzas interiores cuentan para la “naturaleza”. Con la llegada de la modernidad, los hombres están determinados por factores exteriores a ellos, como son los convencionalismos, la lucha política y la opinión pública, que ofrecen una suerte de ilusión por la libertad, cuando en realidad conforman el escenario ideal para todo tipo de manipulaciones. En un contexto tal, las comunidades acaba por desvertebrarse: cada individuo queda reducido a una esfera de actividad autónoma y en concurrencia con otros individuos. Todo ello acaba por derivar en debilidad, aislamiento y hostilidad de todos contra todos.

Los síntomas de esta debilidad son la pasión por las cosas superficiales, los vestidos refinados (Hamsun), signo de una fascinación detestable por lo externo; esto es, formas de dependencia, signos de vacío interior. El hombre quiebra por efecto de presiones exteriores. Indicios, al fin y a la postre, de la pérdida de vitalidad que conlleva la alienación.
En el marco de esta quiebra que supone la vida urbana, el hombre no encuentra estabilidad, pues la vida en las ciudades, en las metrópolis, es hostil a cualquier forma de estabilidad. El hombre alienado ya no puede retornar a su comunidad, a sus raíces familiares. Así Lawrence, con un lenguaje menos áspero pero acaso más incisivo, escribe: “He was the eternal audience, the chorus, the spectator at the drama; in his own life he would have no drama” (“Era la audiencia eterna, el coro, el espectador del drama; pero en su propia vida, no había drama alguno”); “He scarcely existed except through other people” (“Apenas existía, salvo en medio de otras personas”); “He had come to a stability of nullification” (“Había llegado a una estabilidad que lo había anulado”).

En Hamsun y Lawrence, el Ent-wurzelung y el Unbehaustheit, el desarraigo y la carencia de hogar, esa forma de vivir sin fuego, constituye la gran tragedia de la humanidad de finales del siglo XIX y principios del XX. Para Hamsun el hogar es vital para el hombre. El hombre debe tener hogar. El hogar de su existencia. No se puede prescindir del hogar sin autoprovocarse una profunda mutilación. Mutilación de carácter psíquico, que conduce a la histeria, al nerviosismo, al desequilibro. Hamsun es, al fin y al cabo, un psicólogo. Y nos dice: la conciencia de sí es a menudo un síntoma de alienación. Schiller, en su ensayo Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung, señalaba que la concordancia entre sentir y pensar era tangible, real e interior en el hombre natural, al contrario que en el hombre cultivado que es ideal y exterior (“La concordancia entre sensaciones y pensamiento existía antaño, pero en la actualidad sólo reside en el plano ideal. Esta concordancia no reside en el hombre, sino que existe exteriormente a él; se trata de una idea que debe ser realizada, no un hecho de su vida”).

Schiller aboga por una Überwindung (superación) de dicha quiebra a través de una movilización total del individuo. El romanticismo, por su parte, considerará la reconciliación entre Ser (Sein) y conciencia (Bewußtsein) como la forma de combatir el reduccionismo que trata de arrinconar la conciencia bajo los corsés de entendimiento racional. El romanticismo valorará, e incluso sobrevalorará, al “otro” con relación a la razón (das Andere der Vernunft): percepción sensual, instinto, intuición, experiencia mística, infancia, sueño, vida bucólica. Wordsworth, romántico inglés, representante “rosa” de dicha voluntad de reconciliación entre Ser y conciencia, defenderá la presencia de “un corazón que observe y apruebe”. Dostoievski no compartirá dicha visión “rosa” y desarrollará una concepción “negra”, donde el intelecto es siempre causa de mal, y el “poseso” un ser que tenderá a matar o a suicidarse. En el plano filosófico, tanto Klages como Lessing retomarán por su cuenta esta visión “negra” del intelecto, profundizando, no obstante, en la veta del romanticismo naturalista: para Klages, el espíritu es enemigo del alma; para Lessing, el espíritu es la contrapartida de la vida, que surge de la necesidad (“Geist ist das notgeborene Gegenspiel des Lebens”).

Lawrence, fiel en cierto sentido a la tradición romántica inglesa de Wordsworth, cree en una nueva adecuación del Ser y la conciencia. Hamsun, más pesimista, más dostoievskiano (de ahí su acogida en Rusia y su influencia en los autores llamados ruralistas, como Vasili Belov y Valentín Rasputín), nunca dejará de pensar que desde que hay conciencia, hay alienación. Desde que el hombre comienza a reflexionar sobre sí mismo, se desliga de la continuidad que confiere la naturaleza y a la cual debiera estar siempre sujeto. En los ensayos de Hamsun, encontramos reflexiones sobre la modernidad literaria. La vida moderna, ha escrito, influye, transforma, lleva al hombre a arrancarlo de su destino, a apartarlo de su punto de llegada, de sus instintos, más allá del bien y del mal. La evolución literaria del siglo XIX muestra una fiebre, un desequilibrio, un nerviosismo, una complicación extrema de la psicología humana. “El nerviosismo general (ambiente) se ha adueñado de nuestro ser fundamental y se ha fijado en nuestra vida sentimental”. El escritor se nos muestra así, al estilo de un Zola, como un “médico social” encargado de diagnosticar los males sociales con objeto de erradicar el mal. El escritor, el intelectual, se embarca en una tarea misionera que trata de llegar a una “corrección política”.

 

Nietzsche con el uniforme de artillero prusiano, 1868

Frente a esta visión intelectual del escritor, el reproche de Hamsun señala la imposibilidad de definir objetivamente la realidad humana, pues un “hombre objetivo” es, en sí mismo, una monstruosidad (ein Unding), un ser construido como si de un mecano se tratase. No podemos reducir al hombre a un compendio de características, pues el hombre es evolución, ambigüedad. El mismo criterio encontramos en Lawrence: “Now I absolutely flatly deny that I am a soul, or a body, or a mind, or an intelligence, or a brain, or a nervous system, or a bunch of glands, or any of the rest of these bits of me. The whole is greater than the part” (“Bien, yo niego absoluta y francamente ser un alma, o un cuerpo, o un espíritu, o una inteligencia, o un cerebro, o un sistema nervioso, o un conjunto de glándulas, o cualquier otra parte de mí mismo. El todo es más grande que las partes”). Hamsun y Lawrence ilustran en sus obras la imposibilidad de teorizar o absolutizar una visión diáfana del hombre. El hombre no puede ser vehículo de ideas preconcebidas. Hamsun y Lawrence confirman que los progresos en la conciencia de uno mismo no conllevan procesos de emancipación espiritual, sino pérdidas, despilfarro de la vitalidad, del tono vital. En sus novelas, son las figuras firmes (esto es, las que están arraigadas a la tierra) las que logran mantenerse, las que triunfan más allá de los golpes de suerte o las circunstancias desgraciadas.

No se trata, en absoluto, repetimos, de vidas bucólicas o idílicas. Los protagonistas de las novelas de Hamsun y Lawrence son penetrados o atraídos por la modernidad, los cuales, pese a su irreductible complejidad, pueden sucumbir, sufren, padecen un proceso de alienación, pero también pueden triunfar. Y es precisamente aquí donde intervienen la ironía de Hamsun o la idea del “Fénix” de Lawrence. La ironía de Hamsun taladra los ideales abstractos de las ideologías modernas. En Lawrence, la recurrente idea del “Fénix” supone una cierta dosis de esperanza: habrá resurrección. Es la idea de Ave Fénix, que renace de sus propias cenizas.

El paganismo de Hamsun y Lawrence

Si dicha voluntad de retorno a una ontología natural es fruto de un rechazo del intelectualismo racionalista, ello implica al mismo tiempo una contestación de calado al mensaje cristiano.

En Hamsun, se ve con claridad el rechazo del puritanismo familiar (concretado en la figura de su tío Han Olsen) y el rechazo al culto protestante por los libros sagrados; esto es, el rechazo explícito de un sistema de pensamiento religioso que prima el saber libresco frente a la experiencia existencial (particularmente la del campesino autosuficiente, el Odalsbond de los campos noruegos). El anticristianismo de Hamsun es, fundamentalmente, un acristianismo: no se plantea dudas religiosas a lo Kierkegaard. Para Hamsun, el moralismo del protestantismo de la era victoriana (de la era oscariana, diríamos para Escandinavia) es simple y llanamente pérdida de vitalidad. Hamsun no apuesta por experiencia mística alguna.

Lawrence, por su parte, percibe la ruptura de toda relación con los misterios cósmicos. El cristianismo vendría a reforzar dicha ruptura, impediría su cura, imposibilitaría su cicatrización. En este sentido, la religiosidad europea aún conservaría un poso de dicho culto al misterio cósmico: el año litúrgico, el ciclo litúrgico (Pascua, Pentecostés, Fuego de San Juan, Todos los Santos, Navidad, Fiesta de los Reyes Magos). Pero incluso éste ha sido aherrojado como consecuencia de un proceso de desencantamiento y desacralización, cuyo comienzo arranca en el momento mismo de la llegada de la Iglesia cristiana primitiva y que se reforzará con los puritanismos y los jansenismos segregados por la Reforma. Los primeros cristianos se plantearon como objetivo apartar al hombre de sus ciclos cósmicos. La Iglesia medieval, por el contrario, quiso adecuarse, pero las Iglesias protestantes y conciliares posteriores han expresado con claridad su voluntad de regresar al anticosmicismo del cristianismo primitivo. En este sentido, Lawrence escribe: “But now, after almost three thousand years, now that we are almost abstracted entirely from the rhythmic life of the seasons, birth and death and fruition, now we realize that such abstraction is neither bliss nor liberation, but nullity. It brings null inertia” (“Pero hoy, después de tres mil años, después que estamos casi completamente abstraídos de la vida rítmica de las estaciones, del nacimiento, de la muerte y de la fecundidad, comprendemos al fin que tal abstracción no es ni una bendición ni una liberación, sino pura nada. No nos aporta otra cosa que inercia”). Esta ruptura es consustancial al cristianismo de las civilizaciones urbanas, donde no hay apertura alguna hacia el cosmos. Cristo no es un Cristo cósmico, sino un Cristo rebajado al papel de asistente social. Mircea Eliade, por su parte, se ha referido a un “hombre cósmico”, abierto a la inmensidad del cosmos, pilar de todas las grandes religiones. En la perspectiva de Eliade, lo sagrado es lo real, el poder, la fuente de vida y de la fertilidad. Eliade nos ha dejado escrito: “El deseo del hombre religioso de vivir una vida en el ámbito de lo sagrado es el deseo de vivir en la realidad objetiva”.

Knut Hamsun, 1927

La lección ideológica y política de Hamsun y Lawrence

En el plano ideológico y político, en el plano de la Weltanschauung, las obras de Hamsun y de Lawrence han tenido un impacto bastante considerable. Hamsun ha sido leído por todos, más allá de la polaridad comunismo/fascismo. Lawrence ha sido etiquetado como “fascista” a título póstumo, entre otros por Bertrand Russell que llegó incluso a referirses a su “madness”: “Lawrence was a suitable exponent of the Nazi cult of insanity” (“Lawrence fue un exponente típico del culto nazi a la locura”). Frase tan lapidaria como simplista. Las obras de Hamsun y de Lawrence, sgún Akos Doma, se inscriben en un cuádruple contexto: el de la filosofía de la vida, el de los avatares del individualismo, el de la tradición filosófica vitalista, y el del antiutopismo y el irracionalismo.

1.º La filosofía de la vida (Lebensphilosophie) es un concepto de lucha, que opone la “vivacidad de la vida real” a la rigidez de los convencionalismos, a los fuegos de artificio inventados por la civilización urbana para tratar de orientar la vida hacia un mundo desencantado. La filosofía de la vida se manifiesta bajo múltiples rostos en el contexto del pensamiento europeo y toma realmente cuerpo a partir de la reflexiones de Nietzsche sobre la Leiblichkeit (corporeidad).

2.º El individualismo. La antropología hamsuniana postula la absoluta unidad de cada individuo, de cada persona, pero rechaza el aislamiento de ese individuo o persona de todo contexto comunitario, familiar o carnal: sitúa a la persona de una manera interactiva, en un lugar preciso. La ausencia de introspección especulativa, de conciencia y de intelectualismo abstracto hacen incompatible el individualismo hamsuniano con la antropología segregada por el Iluminismo. Para Hamsun, sin embargo, no se combate el individualismo iluminista sermoneando sobre un colectivismo de contornos ideológicos. El renacimiento del hombre auténtico pasa por una reactivación de los resortes más profundos de su alma y de su cuerpo. La suma cuantitativa y mecánica es una insuficiencia calamitosa. En consecuencia, la acusación de “fascismo” hacia Lawrence y Hamsun no se sostiene en pie.

3.º El vitalismo tiene en cuenta todos los acontecimientos de la vida y excluye cualquier jerarquización de base racial, social, etc. Las oposiciones propias del vitalismo son: afirmación de la vida / negación de la vida; sano / enfermo; orgánico / mecánico. De ahí, que no se pueda reconducirlas a categorías sociales, a categorías políticas convencionales, etc. La vida es una categoría fundamental apolítica, pues todos los hombres sin distinción están sometidos a ella.

4.º El “irracionalismo” reprochado a Hamsun y Lawrence, igual que su antiutopismo, tienen su base en una revuelta contra la “viabilidad” (feasibility; Machbarkeit), contra la idea de perfectibilidad infinita (que encontramos también bajo una forma “orgánica” en los románticos ingleses de la primera generación). La idea de viabilidad choca directamente con la esencia biológica de la naturaleza. De hecho, la idea de viabilidad es la esencia del nihilismo, como ha apuntado el filósofo italiano Emanuele Severino. Para Severino, la viabilidad deriva de una voluntad de completar el mundo aprehendiéndolo como un devenir (pero no como un devenir orgánico incontrolable). Una vez el proceso de “acabamiento” ha concluido, el devenir detiene bruscamente su curso. Una estabilidad general se impone en la Tierra y esta estabilidad forzada es descrita como un “bien absoluto”. Desde la literatura, Hamsun y Lawrence, han precedido así a filósofos contemporáneos como el citado Emanuele Severino, Robert Spaemann (con su crítica del funcionalismo), Ernst Behler (con su crítica de la “perfectibilidad infinita”) o Peter Koslowski. Estos filósofos, fuera de Alemania o Italia, son muy poco conocidos por el gran público. Su crítica a fondo de los fundamentos de las ideologías dominantes, provoca inevitablemente el rechazo de la solapada inquisición que ejerce su dominio en París.

Nietzsche, Hamsun y Lawrence, los filósofos vitalistas o, si se prefiere, “antiviabilistas”, al insistir sobre el carácter ontológico de la biología humana, se opusieron a la idea occidental y nihilista de la viabilidad absoluta de cualquier cosa; esto es, de la inexistencia ontológica de todas las cosas, de cualquier realidad. Buen número de ellos —Hamsun y Lawrence incluidos— nos llaman la atención sobre el presente eterno de nuestros cuerpos, sobre nuestra propia corporeidad (Leiblichkeit), pues nosotros no podemos conformar nuestros cuerpos, en contraposición a esas voces que nos quieren convencer de las bondades de la ciencia-ficción.

La viabilidad es, pues, el “hybris” que ha llegado a su techo y que conduce a la fiebre, la vacuidad, la ligereza, el solipsismo y el aislamiento. De Heidegger a Severino, la filosofía europea se ha ocupado sobre la catástrofe que ha supuesto la desacralización del Ser y el desencantamiento del mundo. Si los resortes profundos y misteriosos de la Tierra o del hombre son considerados como imperfecciones indignas del interés del teólogo o del filósofo, si todo aquello que ha sido pensado de manera abstracta o fabricado más allá de los resortes (ontológicos) se encuentra sobrevalorado, entonces, efectivamente, no puede extrañarnos que el mundo pierda toda sacralidad, todo valor. Hamsun y Lawrence han sido los escritores que nos han hecho vivir con intensidad dicha constante, por encima incluso de algunos filósofos que también han deplorado la falsa ruta emprendida por el pensamiento occidental desde hace siglos. Heidegger y Severino en el marco de la filosofía, Hamsun y Lawrence en el de la creación literaria, han tratado de restituir la sacralidad en el mundo y revalorizar las fuerzas que se esconden en el interior del hombre: desde ese punto de vista, estamos ante pensadores ecológicos en la más profunda acepción del término. El oikos nos abre las puertas de lo sagrado, de las fuerzas misteriosas e incontrolables, sin fatalismos y sin falsa humildad. Hamsun y Lawrence, en definitiva, anunciaron la dimensión geofilosófica del pensamiento que nos ha ocupado durante toda esta universidad de verano. Una aproximación sucinta a sus obras se hacía absolutamente necesaria en el temario de 1996.

________________

* Comentario al libro de Akos Doma, Die andere Moderne. Knut Hamsun, D.H. Lawrence und die lebensphilosophische Strömung des literarischen Modernismus (Bouvier, Bonn, 1995), leído como conferencia en Lombardía, en julio de 1996. Traducción de Juan C. García Morcillo.

[Tomo el artículo del archivo de su fuente primera, la asociación Sinergias Europeas, que editaba el boletín InfoEuropa. Ya no cabalgan.]

Heidegger “The Nazi”

Michael O'Meara

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Emmanuel Faye
Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935
Trans. Michael B. Smith, foreword Tom Rockmore
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009

National Socialism was defeated on the field of battle, but it wasn’t defeated in the realm of thought.

Indeed, it’s undefeatable there because the only thing its enemies can do to counter its insidious ideas is to ban those thinkers, like Martin Heidegger, whose works might attract those wanting to know why National Socialism is undefeatable and why its world view continues to seduce the incredulous.

Or, at least, so thinks Emmanuel Faye in his recently translated Heidegger, l’introduction du nazisme dans la philosophie (Paris: Albin Michel, 2005).

Why, though, all this alarmed concern about a difficult, some say unreadable, philosopher of the last century?

The reason, Tom Rockmore says, is that he lent “philosophical cover to some of the darkest impulses that later led to Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust.”

One.
The Scandal

Faye’s book is part of a larger publishing phenomenon — in all the major European languages — related to the alleged National Socialism of the great Freiburg philosopher.

Like many prominent German academics of his age, Heidegger joined Hitler’s NSDAP shortly after the National Revolution of 1933.

He was subsequently made rector of the University of Freiburg, partly on the basis of his party affiliation, and in a famous rectorial address — “The Self-Assertion of the German University” — proposed certain reforms that sought to free German universities from “Jewish and modernist influences,” reorienting it in this way to the needs and destiny of the newly liberated Volksgemeinschaft.

 

Heidegger’s role as a public advocate of National Socialist principles did not, however, last very long.  Within a year of his appointment, he resigned the rectorship.

As he told the de-Nazification tribunal in 1945, his resignation was due to his frustration in preventing state interference in university affairs, a frustration that soon turned him away from all political engagements.

The story he told to the liberal inquisitors (which most Heideggerians accepted up to about 1988) was one in which a politically naive academic, swept up in the revolution’s excitement, had impulsively joined the party, only to become quickly disillusioned.

The story’s “dissimulations and falsehoods” were, indeed, good enough to spare him detention in a Yankee prison — unlike, say, Carl Schmitt who was incarcerated for two years after the war (though the only “Americans” Schmitt ever encountered there were German Jews in the conquerors’ uniform) — but not good enough to avoid a five-year ban on teaching.

In any case, it has always been known that Heidegger had at least a brief “flirtation” with “Nazism.”

Given the so-called “negligibility” of his National Socialism, he was able, after his ban, to resume his position as Germany’s leading philosopher.  By the time of his death (1976), he had become the most influential philosopher in the Western world.  His books have since been translated into all the European languages (and some non-European ones), his ideas have come to dominate contemporary continental thought, and they have even established a beachhead in the stultifying world of the Anglo-American academy, renowned for its indifference to philosophical issues.

Despite Heidegger’s enormous influence as “the century’s greatest philosopher,” he never quite shed the stigma of his early brush with National Socialism.  This was especially the case after 1987 and 1988.

For in late 1987 a little known Chilean-Jewish scholar, Victor Farìas, produced the first book-length examination of Heidegger’s “brush” with National Socialist politics.

His Heidegger and Nazism was not a particularly well-researched work, and there was a good deal of speculation and error in it.

It nevertheless blew apart the story Heidegger had told his American inquisitors in 1945, revealing that he had been a party member between 1933 and 1945; that his National Socialism was something more than the flirtation of a politically naive philosopher; and that his affiliation with the Third Reich was anything but “fleeting, casual, or accidental but [rather] central to his philosophical enterprise.”

This “revelation” — that the greatest philosophical mind of the 20th century had been a devoted Hitlerite — provoked a worldwide scandal.

In the year following Farìas’ work, at least seven books appeared on the subject.

The most impressive of these was by Hugo Ott, a German historian, whose Martin Heidegger: A Political Life (1994) lent a good deal of historically-documented substance to Farìas’ charges.

In the decades since the appearance of Farìas’ and Ott’s work, a “slew” of books and articles (no one is counting any more) have continued to probe the dark recesses of Heidegger’s scandalous politics.

Almost every work in the vast literature devoted to Heideggerian philosophy must now, in testament to the impact of these studies, begin with some sort of “reckoning” with his “Nazism” — a reckoning that usually ends up erecting a wall between his philosophy and his politics.

In this context, Emmanuel Faye’s book is presently being touted as the “best researched and most damaging” work on Heidegger’s National Socialism — one that aims to tear down the wall compartmentalizing his politics and to brand him, once and for all, as an apologist for “the greatest crime of the 20th century.”

It’s fitting that Faye, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Paris-Nanterre, is French, for nowhere else have Heidegger’s ideas been as influential as in France.

Heidegger began appearing in French translation as early as the late 1930s.  The publication in 1943 of Jean-Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, based on a misreading of Heidegger, gave birth to “existentialism,” which dominated Western thought in the late 1940s and 1950s, helping thus to popularize certain Heideggerian ideas.

At the same time, French thinkers were the first to pursue the issue of Heidegger’s alleged National Socialism.

Karl Löwith, one of the philosopher’s former Jewish students exiled in France, argued in 1946 that Heidegger’s politics was inseparable from his philosophical thought. Others soon joined him in making similar arguments.

Though Löwith’s critique of Heidegger appeared in Les Temps Modernes, Sartre’s famous journal, the ensuing, often quite heated, French controversy was mainly restricted to scholarly journals.  Faye’s father, Jean-Pierre Faye, also a philosopher, figured prominently in these debates during the 1960s.

It was, though, only with Farìas and Ott that the debate over Heidegger’s relationship to the Third Reich spread beyond the academic journals and touched the larger intellectual public.

This debate continues to this day.

Part of the difficulty in determining the exact degree and nature of Heidegger’s political commitment after 1933 is due to the fact that Heidegger’s thought bears on virtually every realm of contemporary European intellectual endeavor, on the right as well as the left, and that there’s been, as a consequence, a thoughtful unwillingness to see Heidegger’s National Socialism as anything other than contingent — and thus without philosophical implication.

This unwillingness has been compounded by the fact that the Heidegger archives at Marbach are under the control of Heidegger’s son, Hermann, who controls scholarly access to them, hindering, supposedly, an authoritative account of Heidegger’s thinking in the period 1933-1945.

Moreover, only eighty of the planned 120 volumes of Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe have thus far appeared and, as Faye contends, these are not “complete,” for the family has allegedly prevented the more “compromising” works from being published.

The authority of Faye’s Heidegger — which endeavors to eliminate everything separating his politics from his philosophy — rests on two previously unavailable seminars reports from the key 1933-34 period, as well as certain documents, letters, and other evidence, which have appeared in little known or obscure German publications — evidence he sees as “proving” that Heidegger’s “Nazism” was anything but contingent — and that this “Nazism” was, in fact, not only inseparable from his thought, but formative of its core.

On this basis, along with Heidegger’s collaboration with certain NSDAP thinkers, Faye claims that the philosophy of the famous Swabian is so infused with National Socialist principles that it ought no longer to be treated as philosophy at all, but, instead, banned as “Nazi propaganda.”

Two.
Faye’s Argument

Heidegger’s seminars of 1933 and 1934, in Emmanuel Faye’s view, expose the “fiction” that separates Heidegger’s philosophy from his politics. For these seminars reveal a brown-shirted fanatic who threw himself into the National Revolution, hoping to become Hitler’s philosophical mentor.

At the same time, Faye argues that Heidegger’s work in the 1920s, particularly his magnum opus, Being and Time (1927), was already infected with pre-fascist ideas, just as his postwar work, however much it may have resorted to a slightly different terminology, would continue to propagate National Socialist principles.

Earlier, however, when the young Heidegger was establishing himself in the world of German academic philosophy (the 1920s), there is very little public evidence of racial or anti-Jewish bias in his work. To explain this, Faye quotes Heidegger to the effect that “he wasn’t going to say what he thought until after he became a full professor.” His reticence on these matters was especially necessary given that his “mentor,” Edmund Husserl, was Jewish and that he needed Husserl’s support to replace him at Freiburg.

(For those militant Judeophobes who might think this is somehow compromising, let me point out that Wilhelm Stapel [1882-1954], after also doing a doctorate in Husserlian phenomenology, was a Protestant, nationalist, and anti-Semitic associate of the Conservative Revolution who played an important early role in NSDAP politics.)

Faye nevertheless claims that Heidegger’s early ideas, especially those of Being and Time, were already disposed to themes and principles that were National Socialist in nature.

In Being and Time, for example, Heidegger rejects the Cartesian cogito, Kant’s transcendental analytic, Husserlian phenomenology — along with every other bloodless rationalism dominating Western thought since the 18th century — for the sake of an analysis based on “existentials” (i.e., on man’s being in the world).

Like other intellectual members of Hitler’s party, Heidegger disparaged all forms of universalist thought, dismissing not only notions of man as an individual, but notions of the human spirit as pure intellect and reason.

In repudiating universalist, humanist, and individualist thought associated with liberal modernity, Faye’s Heidegger is seen not as contesting the underlying principles of liberal modernity, which he, as a former Catholic traditionalist, thought responsible for the alienation, rootlessness, and meaninglessness of the contemporary world. Rather he is depicted as preparing the way for the “Nazi” notion of an organic national community (Volksgemeinschaft) based on racial and anti-Jewish criteria.

Revealingly, this is about as far as Faye goes in treating Heidegger’s early thought. In fact, there is very little philosophical analysis at all of Being and Time or any other work in his book. Every damning criticism he makes of Heidegger is based on Heidegger’s so-called affinity with National Socialist themes or ideas — or what a liberal defending a Communist would call guilt by association.

Worse, Faye lacks any historical understanding of National Socialism, failing to see it as part of a larger anti-liberal movement that had emerged before Hitler was even born and which influenced Heidegger long before he had heard of the Führer.

For our crusading anti-fascist professor, however, the anti-liberal, anti-individualist, and anti-modern contours of Heideggerian thought are simply Hitlerian — because of their later association with Hitler’s movement — unrelated to whatever earlier influences that may have affected the development of his thought. Q.E.D.

Faye, though, fails to make the case that Heidegger’s pre-1933 thought was “Nazi,” both because he’s indifferent to Heidegger’s philosophical argument in Being and Time, which he dismisses in a series of rhetorical strokes, and, secondarily, because he doesn’t understand the historical/cultural context in which Heidegger worked out his thought.

More generally, he claims Heidegger negated “the human truths that are the underlying principle of philosophy” simply because whatever doesn’t accord with Faye’s own liberal understanding of philosophy (which, incidentally, rationalizes the radical destructurations that have come with the “Disneyfication, MacDonaldization, and globalization” of our coffee-colored world) is treated as inherently suspect.

Only on the basis of the 1933-34 and ‘34-35 seminars does Faye have a case to make.

For the Winter term of 1933-34 Heidegger led a seminar “On the Essence and Concepts of Nature, History, and State.” If Faye’s account of the unpublished seminar report is accurate (and it’s hard to say given the endless exaggerations and distortions that run through his book), Heidegger outdid himself in presenting National Socialist doctrines as the philosophical basis for the new relationship that was to develop between the German people and their new state.

Like other National Socialists, Heidegger in this seminar views the “people” in völkisch terms presuming their “unity of blood and stock.”

Faye is particularly scandalized by the fact that Heidegger values the “people” (Volk) more than the “individual” and that the people, as an organic community of blood and spirit, excludes Jews and exalts its own particularity.

In this seminar, Heidegger goes even further, calling for a “Germanic state for the German nation,” extending his racial notion of the people to the political system, as he envisages the “will of the people” as finding embodiment in the will of the state’s leader (Führer).

Faye contends that people and state exist for Heidegger in the same relation as beings exist in relation to Being.

As such, Heidegger links ontology to politics, as the “question of all questions” (the “question of being”) is identified with the question of Germany’s political destiny.

Heidegger’s rejection of the humanist notion of the individual and of Enlightenment universalism in his treatment of Volk and Staat are, Faye thinks, synonymous with Hitlerism.

Though Faye’s argument here is more credible, it might also be pointed out that Heidegger’s privileging of the national community over the interests and freedoms of the individual has a long genealogy in German thought (unlike Anglo-American thought, which privileges the rational individual seeking to maximize his self-interest in the market).

The second seminar, in the Winter term of 1934-35, “On the State: Hegel,” again supports Faye’s case that Heidegger was essentially a “Nazi” propagandist and not a true philosopher. For in this seminar, he affirms the spirit of the new National Socialist state in Hegelian terms, spreading the “racist and human-life destroying conceptions that make up the foundations of Hitlerism.”

In both courses, Faye sees Heidegger associating and merging philosophy with National Socialism.

For this reason, his work ought not to be considered a philosophy at all, but rather a noxious political ideology.

Faye, in fact, cannot understand how Heidegger’s insidious project has managed to “procure a planetary public” or why he is so widely accepted as a great philosopher.

Apparently, Heidegger had the power to seduce the public — though on the basis of Faye’s account, it’s difficult to see how the political hack he describes could have pulled this off.

In any case, Faye warns that if Heidegger isn’t exposed for the political charlatan he is, terrible things are again possible. “Hitlerism and Nazism will continue to germinate through Heidegger’s writings at the risk of spawning new attempts at the complete destruction of thought and the extermination of humankind.”

Three.
Race and State

 

Martin Heidegger, 1889 - 1976

From the above, the reader might conclude that Faye’s Heidegger is a wreck of a book.  And, in large part, it is, as I will discuss in the conclusion.

However, even the most disastrous wrecks (and this one bears the impressive moniker of Yale University Press) usually leave something to be salvaged.  There are, as such, discussions on the subjects of “race” and “the state,” which I thought might interest TOQ readers.

A) Race

National Socialism, especially its Hitlerian distillation, was a racial nationalism.

Yet Heidegger, as even his enemies acknowledge, was contemptuous of what at the time was called “biologism.”

Biologism is the doctrine, still prevalent in white nationalist ranks, that understands human races in purely zoological and materialist terms, as if men were no different from the lower life forms — slabs of meat whose existence is a product of genetics alone.

Quite naturally, Heidegger’s anti-biologism was a problem for Faye, for how was it possible to claim that Heidegger was a “Nazi racist,” if he rejected this seemingly defining aspect of racial thought?

In an earlier piece (”Freedom’s Racial Imperative: A Heideggerian Argument for the Self-Assertion of Peoples of European Descent,” TOQ, vol. 6, no. 3), I reconstructed the racial dimension of Heidegger’s thought solely on the basis of his philosophy.

But Faye, who obviously doesn’t put the same credence in Heidegger’s thought, is forced, as an alternative, to historically investigate the different currents of NSDAP racial doctrine.

In his account (which should be taken as suggestive rather than authoritative), the party, in the year after the revolution, divided into two camps vis-à-vis racial matters: the camp of the Nordicists and that of the Germanists.

The Nordicists were led by Hans K. Günther, a former philologist, and had a “biologist” notion of race, based on evolutionary biology, which sought, through eugenics, to enhance the “Nordic blood” in the German population.

By contrast, the Germanists, led by the biologist Fritz Merkenschlager and supported especially by the less Nordic South Germans, held that blood implied spirit and that spirit played the greater role in determining a people’s character.  (This ought not to be confused with Klages’ “psychologism.”)

The Germanists, as such, pointed out that Scandinavians were far more Nordic than Germans, yet their greater racial “purity” did not make them a greater people than the Germans, as Günther’s criteria would lead one to believe.

Rather, it was the Germans’ extraordinary Prussian spirit (this wonder of nature and Being) that made them a great nation.

This is not to say that the Germanists rejected the corporal or biological basis of their Volk — only that they believed their people’s blood could not be separated from their spirit without misunderstanding what makes them a people.

For the Germanists, then, race was not exclusively a matter of biological considerations alone, as Günther held, but rather a matter of blood and spirit.

(As an aside, I might mention that Julius Evola, whose idea of race represents, in my view, the highest point in the development of 20th-century racial thought, was much influenced by this debate, especially by Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, whose raciology was a key component of the Germanist conception, emphasizing as it does the fact that one’s idea of race is ultimately determined by one’s conception of human being.)

Faye claims that, in a speech delivered in August 1933, Hitler emphasized the spiritual determinants of race, in language similar to Heidegger’s, and that he thus came down on the side of the Germanists.

The key point here is that, for Faye, the “völkisch racism” of the Germanists was no less “racist” than that of the biological racialists — implying that Heidegger’s Germanism was also as “racist.”

The Germanist conception, I might add, was especially well-suited to a “blubo” (a Blut-und-Boden nationalist) like Heidegger. Seeing man as Dasein (a being-there), situated not only in a specific life world (Umwelt), but in exchange with beings (Mitdasein) specific to his kind, his existence has meaning only in terms of the particularities native to his milieu, (which is why Heidegger rejected universalism and the individualist conception of man as a free-floating consciousness motivated strictly by reason or self-interest).

Darwinian conceptions of race for Heidegger, as they were for other  Germanists in the NSDAP, represented another form of liberalism, based on individualistic and universalist notions of man that reduced him to a disembedded object — refusing to recognize those matters, which, even more than strictly biological differences, make one people unlike another.

Without this recognition, Germanists held that “the Prussian aristocracy was no different from apples on a tree.”

B) The State

As a National Socialist, Faye’s Heidegger was above all concerned with lending legitimacy to the new Führer state.

To this end, Heidegger turned to Carl Schmitt, another of those “Nazi” intellectuals, who, for reasons that are beyond Faye’s ken, is seen by many as a great political thinker.

In his seminar on Hegel, Heidegger, accordingly, begins with the 1933 third edition of Schmitt’s Concept of the Political (1927).

 

There Schmitt defines the concept of the state in terms of the political — and the political as those actions and motives that determine who the state’s “friends” and who its “enemies” are.

But though Heidegger begins with Schmitt, he nevertheless tries to go beyond his concept of the political.

Accepting that the “political” constitutes the essence of the state, Heidegger contends that Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction is secondary to the actual historical self-affirmation of a people’s being that goes into founding a state true to the nation.

In Heidegger’s view, Schmitt’s concept presupposes a people’s historical self-affirmation and is thus not fundamental but derivative.

It is worth quoting Heidegger here:

There is only friend and enemy where there is self-affirmation. The affirmation of self [i.e., the Volk] taken in this sense requires a specific conception of the historical being of a people and of the state itself. Because the state is that self-affirmation of the historical being of a people and because the state can be called polis, the political consequently appears as the friend/enemy relation. But that relation is not the political.

Rather, it follows the prior self-affirmation.

For libertarians and anarchists in our ranks, Heidegger’s modification of Schmitt’s proposition is probably beside the point.

But for a statist like myself, who believes a future white homeland in North America is inconceivable without a strong centralized political system to defend it, Heidegger’s modification of the Schmittian concept is a welcome affirmation of the state, seeing it as a necessary stage in a people’s self-assertion.

Four.
Conclusion

From the above, it should be obvious that Faye’s Heidegger is not quite the definitive interpretation that his promoters make it out to be.

Specifically, there is little that is philosophical in his critique of Heidegger’s philosophy and, relying on his moralizing attitude rather than on a philosophical deconstruction of Heidegger’s work, he ends up failing to make the argument he seeks to make.

If Faye’s reading of the seminars of 1933-34 are correct, than Heidegger was quite obviously more of a National Socialist than he let on. But this was already known in 1987-88.

Faye also claims that Heidegger’s pioneering work of the 1920s anticipated the National Socialist ideas he developed in the seminars of 1933-34 and that his postwar work simply continued, in a modified guise, what had begun earlier. This claim, though, is rhetorically asserted rather than demonstrated.

Worse, Faye ends up contradicting what he sets out to accomplish. For his criticism of Heidegger is little more than an ad hominem attack, which assumes that the negative adjectives (”abhorrent,” “appalling,” “monstrous,” “dangerous,” etc) he uses to describe his subject are a substitute for either a proper philosophical critique or a historical analysis.

In thus failing to refute the philosophical basis of Heidegger’s National Socialism, his argument fails, in effect.

But even if his adjectives were just, it doesn’t change the fact that however “immoral” a philosopher may be, he is nevertheless still a philosopher. Faye here makes a “category mistake” that confuses the standards of philosophy with those of morality. Besides, Heidegger was right in terms of his morals.

Faye is also a poor example of the philosophical rationalism that he offers as an alternative to Heidegger’s allegedly “irrational” philosophy — a rationalism whose enlightenment has been evident in the great fortunes that Jews have made from it.

Finally, in insisting that Heidegger be banned because of his fascist politics, Faye commits the “sin” that virtuous anti-fascists always accuse their opponents of committing.

In a word, Faye’s Heidegger is something of a hatchet job that, ultimately, reflects more on its author’s peculiarities than on his subject.

Yet after saying this, let me confess that though Faye makes a shoddy argument that doesn’t prove what he thinks he proves, he is nevertheless probably right in seeing Heidegger as a “Nazi.”  He simply doesn’t know how to make his case — or maybe he simply doesn’t want to spend the years it takes to “master” Heidegger’s thought.

Even more ironic is the scandal of Heidegger’s “Nazism” seen from outside Faye’s liberal paradigm. For in this optic, the scandal is not that Heidegger was a National Socialist — but rather that the most powerful philosophical intelligence of the last century believed in this most demonized of all modern ideologies.

But who sees or cares about this real scandal?

We Anti-Moderns

Michael O'Meara

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Antoine Compagnon
Les antimodernes:
De Joseph de Maistre à Roland Barthes
Paris: Gallimard, 2005

“Ce qu’on appelle contre-révolution ne sera
point une révolution contraire, mais le
contraire de la révolution.”
—Joseph de Maistre

Though Antoine Compagnon’s eloquently written and extensively researched essay won a number of prizes and set off a stir among France’s literati, there is little to recommend it here—except for its central theme, which speaks, however implicitly, to the great question of our age in defining and classifying a form of thought whose mission is to arrest modernity’s seemingly heedless advance toward self-destruction.

The antimoderne, Compagnon argues, was born with the birth of liberal modernity. Neither a reactionary nor an antiquarian, the anti-modernist is himself a product of modernity, but a “reluctant” one, who, in the last two centuries, has been modernity’s most severe critic, serving as its foremost counter-point, but at the same time representing what is most enduring and authentic in the modern. This makes the antimoderne the modern’s negation, its refutation, as well as its double and its most authentic representative. As such, it is inconceivable without the moderne, oscillating between pure refusal and engagement. The anti-modernist is not, then, anyone who opposes the modern, but rather those “modernists” at odds with the modern age who engage it and theorize it in ways that offer an alternative to it.

Certain themes or “figures” distinguish anti-modernism from academism, conservatism, and traditionalism. Compagnon designates six, though only four need mentioning. Politically, the antimoderne is counter-revolutionary; unlike contemporary conservatives, his opposition to modernity’s liberal order is radical, repudiating its underlying premises. Philosophically, the antimoderne is anti-Enlightenment; he opposes the disembodied rationalism born of the New Science and its Cartesian offshoot, and he sides with Pascal’s contention that “the heart has its reasons that reason knows not.” Existentially, the antimoderne is a pessimist, rejecting the modern cult of progress, with its feel-good, happy-ending view of reality. Morally or religiously, the antimoderne accepts the doctrine of “original sin,” spurning Rousseau’s Noble Savage and Locke’s Blank Slate, along with all the egalitarian, social-engineering dictates accompanying modernity’s optimistic onslaught.

The greatest and most paradigmatic of the antimoderns was Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821). Prior to the Great Revolution of 1789, which ushered in the modern liberal age, Maistre had been a Freemason and an enthusiast of the Enlightenment. The Revolution’s wanton violence, combined with Burke’s Reflections, helped turn him against it. Paradoxically indebted to the style of Enlightenment reasoning, his unorthodox Catholic critique of the Revolution became the subsequent foundation not only for the most meaningful distillations of Continental conservatism, but of the antimodern project.

The tenor of Maistre’s anti-modernism is probably best captured in his contention that the counter-revolution would not be a negation of the Revolution, but its dépassement (i.e., its overtaking or transcendence). Unlike certain reactionary anti-revolutionaries who sought a literal restoration of the old regime, the grand Savoyard realized the Revolution had wreaked havoc upon Europe’s traditional order, and nothing could ever be done to undo this, for history is irreversible. The counter-revolution would thus have to be revolutionary, going back not to the old regime, but beyond it, to a new order representing both the Revolution’s completion and transcendence. In this sense, the anti-modern project—by rejecting what is decadent and perverted in the modern, while defending what is great and necessary in it—holds out the prospect of rebirth.

Between the Great Revolution and the Second World War, as anti-modernists were excluded from the leading spheres of French political and social life, they took refuge, Compagnon argues, in literature and letters—their “ideological resistance [being] inseparable from [their] literary audacity.” Balzac, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Proust, Péguy, Céline—to name those most familiar to English-speaking readers—are a few of the great figures of French literature who, in implicit dialogue with Maistre, resisted the modern world in modernist ways. (Not coincidentally, for it was also a European phenomenon, the great Welsh Marxist scholar, Raymond Williams, makes a similar argument for English literature in his Culture and Society, 1780–1950 [1958], though in anti-capitalist rather than anti-modernist terms.)

But if Compagnon develops a suggestive term to designate the nineteenth- and twentieth-century resistance to modern liberal dogmas, he himself is no anti-modernist—which is what one would expect from this professor of French literature occupying prestigious chairs at both the Sorbonne and Columbia University. For anti-modernism is not simply modernity’s aesthetic auxiliary, as Compagnon would have it, but an ideological-cultural tradition frontally challenging the modern order. Given, moreover, the anti-liberal and frequently anti-Semitic implications of the anti-modern temper, as well as its uncompromising resistance to the reigning powers, no feted representative of the system’s academic establishment could possibly champion its tenets. Thus, despite Compagnon’s invaluable designation of one of the great figures opposing modernity’s destructive onslaught, he not only characterizes the antimoderne in exclusively literary terms, missing thereby its larger historical manifestations and contemporary relevance, he never actually comes to term with its defining antonym: the “moderne.”

The concept of modernity, though, is crucial not only to an understanding of the anti-modern, but to an understanding of—and hence resistance to—the forces presently threatening the European life world. There are, of course, a number of different ways to understand these anti-white threats. In an earlier piece in TOQ, I argued that they stem ultimately from the ontological disorder (“consummate meaninglessness”) that marks the foundation of the modern age. Others in these pages have pointed to the Jewish “culture of critique” and the managerial revolution of the Thirties, both of which throw light on the subversive forces threatening us. At other venues, there are those emphasizing the predatory nature of international capitalism, the suicidal disposition of our secular, humanist civilization, or the complex and perplexing forces of modern structural differentiation, to mention just a few of the contending interpretations. Because the historical process is a complicated affair and rarely lends itself to a single monolithic interpretation, the wisest course is probably an eclectic one accommodating a variety of interpretations.

However, if it were necessary to put a single label on the historical process responsible for the “decomposition and involution” preparing the way for our collective demise as a race and a culture, the best candidate in my view is the admittedly imprecise and difficult to define term “modernity”—and its variants (modernism, modernization, modern times, etc.). Over the last century and a half, some of our greatest thinkers have wrestled with this term, offering a variety of not always compatible interpretations of that “certain something” which distinguishes modern life from all former or traditional modes of existence. Compagnon adopts the view of Baudelaire, who invented the term, defining “modernité” as an experience “which is always changing, which does not remain static, and which is most clearly felt in the [bustling] metropolitan center of the city [where everything is] constantly subject to renewal.” The Baudelairian conception, like other interpretations of the modern stressing its fleeting, fragmented, and discordant nature, relates back to the Latin modernus or the early French modo, meaning “just now”—that is, something that is of present and not of past or “old-fashioned” times. In this sense, it is associated, positively, with the new, the improved, the unquestionably superior; negatively, with the ephemeral, the fashionable, and the superficial.

Here is not the place to review the history of this key term. Suffice it to note that the modernist sees life in the present as fundamentally and qualitatively different from life in the past. In contrast to traditionalists, who view the present as a continuation, a transmission, and a recuperation of the past, modernists (and today we are all, to one degree or another, modernists) emphasize discontinuity, favoring reason’s endless capacity to create ever more desirable forms of existence, opposing, thus, the historic, organic, and traditional orders of earlier social forms and identities. Racially, culturally, and in other ways, modern civilization cannot, then, but pursue its abstract, disordering cult of progress in a manner that contests who we are.

There is also a geography to modernity. It began as a European idea, but its fullest historical realization came in lands where the European tradition was weakest, specifically in America (“the home of unrelenting progress . . . where tomorrow is always better than today”) and, to a lesser extent, Soviet Russia. Thus it was that up to 1945 anti-modernists dominated European literature and letters and anti-modernist principles not infrequently found their way into the European public sphere. Since das Jahre Null, however, all has changed, and anti-modernists have been largely exiled to Samizdat and marginal publications—a sign of modernity’s increasingly totalitarian disposition to regulate, level, and homogenize for the sake of America’s modern “way of life.”

Flawed as it may be, Compagnon’s book not only helps us rediscover the anti-modern tradition that stands as an antidote to a runaway modernity, it comes at a time when modern civilization, in the form of globalization, faces its gravest crisis. Phillipe Grasset (at dedefensa.org), arguably the greatest living student of modern, especially American, civilization, claims that a triumphant modernity is today completely unchained, drunk on its own power, as it remakes the planet and transforms our lives in ways that destructure all known identities and beliefs. Like earlier French Jacobins, who exported their revolution to the rest of Europe, American Jacobins in the White House and on Wall Street are today imposing their revolutionary disorder on the rest of the world, as they turn it into a monochrome, amorphous herd of consumers shorn of everything that has traditionally been the basis of our civilization.

A single force compels the spiritless modernism of these latter-day Jacobins: the chaos-creating imperatives of their techno-economic cult of progress, which runs roughshod over every organic, historic, and traditional reference. Evident in Iraq, along our southern border, and in the antechambers of the European Commission, they thrive not just on the illusion that the past is discontinuous with the present, but on a “virtualism” whose artificial and self-serving constructions bear little relationship to the realities they endeavor to affect. As one White House official said to a New York Times reporter (October 17, 2004) on the subject of Bush’s “faith-based community”: “When we act, we create our own reality.” The modernist is prone, thus, to taking refuge in the illusory idea he makes of reality. This “virtualist” affirmation of illusion as reality inevitably leads to chaos, madness, and a world which is no longer our own.

Because our age’s defining conflict increasingly revolves around the battle between a destructuring modernity, in the form of globalism, and the anti-modernist forces of order rooted in the cultural and genetic heritage defining the European, the anti-modernist project has never been more pertinent. In Grasset’s view, what is at stake in this conflict is “the consciousness of existing as a specific phenomenon”—that is, identity. For as the modernist impetus of an American-driven globalism imposes its virtualist identities (based on creedal abstractions, not history, nature, or tradition), it clashes with the anti-modern project of forging an identity based on a synthesis of primordial identities and modern imperatives, as the temporal and the untimely meet and merge in a higher dialectic.

Throughout the nineteenth century and into the first half of the twentieth century, anti-modernists commanding the cultural heights of modern civilization were able, at times, to mitigate modernity’s destructive import. Since the American triumph of 1945, especially since 1989, as liberals and globalists subjected the spirit to new, more iron forms of conformity, this has changed, and anti-modernist writers and critics have been systematically purged from the public sphere.

The anti-modern, though, is not so easily suppressed, for it is the voice of history, heritage, and a reality that refuses to adapt to the modernist’s Procrustean demands.

Banned now from literature and letters, it is shifting to other fields. With the terrorist assault of 9/11, fourth-generation war in Iraq, the European referendum of 2005, etc.—the anti-modern forces of history and heritage continue to make themselves felt, for as our clueless modernists fail to understand, the past is never dead and gone.

TOQ, vol. 7, no. 4, Winter 2007–2008

Pensare come una montagna

Pensare come una montagna

di Luisa Bonesio

Fonte: Geofilosofia 

1. Volti di montagna

“Pensare come una montagna”: una proposizione che fa sobbalzare ogni buon filosofo accademico o gridare allo scandalo di un palese antiumanesimo gli zelanti neoilluministi come Luc Ferry, eppure non estranea, nel suo spirito, al “sentire cosmico”, come l’anima “immota e chiara come la montagna prima del meriggio”, o la “saggezza selvatica” (1) dello Zarathustra nietzschiano. “Pensare come una montagna”, motto del fondatore dell’ecologia profonda Aldo Leopold, tuttavia è anche una proposizione che rischia di non venire intesa in tutte le sue possibilità nemmeno da chi fa della difesa dell’ambiente la sua bandiera, e nemmeno comprensibile nella retorica di molto alpinismo. Nondimeno, credo che si debba riflettere attentamente su questa espressione provocatoria, ben al di là dell’intenzionalità con cui fu pronunciata.

Nell’ampiamente nota storia della “invenzione” moderna dei paesaggi alpestri, che avviene sotto il segno congiunto dell’estetica e degli interessi naturalistici, si nota uno strabismo nel modo di considerare la montagna: all’interesse degli artisti, e poi dei touristi, fa da contraltare una sorta di cecità estetica dei locali. Famosi gli esempi dell’ascesa di Petrarca al Monte Ventoso, in cui gli abitanti del luogo tentano ripetutamente di dissuadere il poeta e suo fratello dall’impresa; e la testimonianza di Cézanne: “Il contadino che vuol vendere le sue cose al mercato non ha mai visto la montagna Sainte-Victoire [...]. Sa cosa viene seminato là o qui lungo la strada, come sarà il tempo l’indomani, se la montagna Sainte-Victoire porterà o no il suo cappello [...] ma che gli alberi sono verdi e che questo verde è un albero, che questa terra è rossa, e questo detrito rosso sono colline, credo veramente che la maggior parte non lo senta non sapendo nulla al di fuori della propria inconsapevole inclinazione verso ciò che è utile” (2). Il che è molto simile a quanto accadde ai primordi della scoperta alpinistica: furono uomini “venuti da fuori”, cittadini, stranieri a “conquistare” quelle vette alla cui ombra vivevano le guide locali. In questa iniziale divaricazione degli sguardi - quelli “disinteressati”, estetici e artistici, e poi del cliché turistico da un lato, e quelli “volti all’utile”, di quelli che il geografo Cosgrove (3) chiamerebbe gli “insiders”, si prefigura la vicenda successiva e il destino moderno delle montagne, e delle Alpi in particolare.

Per andare in montagna, per guardarla esteticamente e “con sentimento”, occorre poterla “vedere”, “metterla a fuoco”. Con Petrarca - per quanto da Rudatis la sua modesta ascesa sia potuta essere sminuita, da un punto di vista alpinistico, come “una turlupinatura” - s’intravede il modo moderno di guardare la natura, la curiosità di scoprire paesaggi mai visti prima, il desiderio di godere la bellezza multiforme degli spettacoli naturali ma anche delle proprie sensazioni al loro cospetto, indipendentemente dalla conoscenza scientifica che potrebbe spiegarli. La scoperta della montagna si inscrive in questa più ampia vicenda dell’affermazione moderna della soggettività, della valorizzazione estetica del sentimento, dell’emozione individuale. La natura da un lato è scrutata e violata con ogni mezzo dalla scienza, assoggettata alla calcolabilità in vista del suo sfruttamento; viene oggettivata, misurata, analizzata, tradotta in cifre ed equazioni, ridotta a pura materialità disanimata passibile di manipolazione; ma dall’altro, in assoluta complementarità, trova una valorizzazione nel sentimento privato dei singoli, che si dilettano delle sue scene, paurose o pittoresche, sublimi o idilliache, in cui proiettare le proprie sensazioni e i propri stati d’animo. Nella grande stagione iniziale dell’estetica settecentesca come nuova disciplina filosofica, sapere di ciò di cui non si può dare spiegazione concettuale, conoscenza di un piacere che rischia sempre di chiudersi nel solipsismo, nella contemplazione solitaria, al pari di tutti gli aspetti disumani e selvaggi della natura, non ancora addomesticati dalla civiltà, la montagna è la grande protagonista del moderno sentimento del paesaggio.

Prima che Paccard e Balmat aprissero la via alle spedizioni scientifiche di Horace Bénédict de Saussure, e poi alle innumerevoli ascensioni ed escursioni, è proprio l’estetica a “inventare” la via alla montagna, nella forma delle poetiche del sublime. La natura impervia, se non ostile e minacciosa, dei monti esercita una sua specifica fascinazione, analoga a quella dell’oceano in tempesta, di uno spettacolo di grandezza e di potenza che eccede i limiti umani. La smisuratezza della montagna intimorisce, ma al tempo stesso fa piacevolmente sperimentare all’uomo la propria capacità di tradurre in godimento estetico, grazie alla sensibilità e alla cultura, qualsiasi aspetto della natura, anche il più terribile e minaccioso, affermando così, in ultima istanza, ancora una volta la propria superiorità. Ed è anche, se non nelle intenzioni dei filosofi e degli artisti settecenteschi, certamente negli effetti storici, un modo per sottomettere ancora una volta la natura alla misura umana, nei suoi aspetti più soggettivistici e idiosincratici, riducendola a semplice correlato emotivo o a occasione per provare sempre nuove situazioni. E’ da notare come qui sia la radice prima, anche se ormai inconsapevole, della ricerca di quell’“estremo” che caratterizza così fortemente un approccio sempre più in voga alla montagna.

Quando la via alla montagna è così aperta, dalla letteratura e dalle arti, su di essa comincia a focalizzarsi l’attenzione e la curiosità di un pubblico che, mutando i tempi, da colto e poco numeroso, assume dimensioni sempre maggiori fino a diventare quello di massa dei giorni nostri. Parallelamente all’invenzione (4) estetica della montagna, ne avviene un’altra, non meno rilevante, di ordine scientifico e naturalistico: mi limito a ricordare le menzionate spedizioni pionieristiche di Saussure sul Monte Bianco, e in seguito i vari viaggi di Alessandro Volta nelle Alpi svizzere. La cultura occidentale torna in tal modo a guardare le montagne, iscrivendole in un sistema di rappresentazioni che le correla alla soggettività, al sentire del singolo: così che, quando si daranno le condizioni sociali ed economiche, oltre che ideologiche, per un consumo “di massa” della natura come paesaggio e luogo di salubrità, il turismo non farà che usare, ridotte a slogan, le parole dell’estetica del pittoresco e del sublime, degradando a kitsch la natura selvaggia e retorizzando, spesso fino al caricaturale, le virtù salutari del clima. Oggi noi siamo in grado di cogliere appieno gli effetti di questa vicenda di uso “estetico” delle montagne, con le differenze innegabili che esistono fra singole regioni o località. A questa inscrizione nella logica cittadina come spazio turistico o sportivo, si aggiunge una più generale inscrizione - che non è sempre forzosa, ma spesso auspicata dagli stessi abitanti - nella grande logica globale, mediante vie di comunicazione, trasporto di energia, assedio dell’industria e dei suoi rifiuti. Contro i fianchi delle montagne battono sempre più insistentemente le mareggiate dell’industrialismo, della logica di massa, dell’assalto a uno degli ultimi territori differenziati del continente europeo, che fino a qualche generazione fa era rimasto in un equilibrio intatto, di tipo preistorico (5).

Se la codificazione estetica delle montagne è stata l’occasione per estrarle da quell’aura di leggendarie paure e di diffidente tenuta a distanza, essa, però, le ha inevitabilmente “tradotte” in un sistema di rappresentazioni in cui esse non “parlano”, né tantomeno “pensano”, né sfiora la mente dell’homo tecnicus la preoccupazione di comprendere che cosa possa voler dire “pensare” come loro. Per molti versi, le montagne “sono” così come la ha costruite un’operazione immaginale che ha l’età della modernità: imponenti, sublimi, terribili, minacciose, affascinanti... Chi potrebbe resistere alla tentazione di appropriarsene, almeno in immagine, o per impresa sportiva, o per partecipazione al grande rito collettivo delle vacanze? Il valore estetico finisce con il diventare sempre più un valore economico e del consumo, cui nulla sembra potersi sottrarre nel nostro mondo, e quindi finisce con l’essersi trasformato, da sguardo alla gloria delle montagne in strumento del loro stravolgimento. Non si guardano più i monti per intenderne il nomos, non se ne contempla il volto per imparare a conoscerlo e ad accordarsi con esso, ma dei monti e delle valli si fanno scenari e pretesti di svago o di titanismi.

Ma quei locali che ai cittadini apparivano così indifferenti al bello, perché gravati dal duro e sapiente compito del sopravvivere in montagna, e che invece ne erano stati i consapevoli partners nel cooperare alla formazione di quei paesaggi tanto ambiti, forse avevano consapevolezza di cosa potrebbe voler dire “pensare come una montagna”: là dove la distruzione moderna, l’abbandono, lo stravolgimento non hanno agito del tutto, là si vede (ammesso che si sia ancora in grado) come quella lentezza, quell’immobilità tanto sbeffeggiata dai contemporanei, sia stata una delle cifre più profonde dell’abitare la montagna. Altro ritmo, altro tempo in cui si salvaguardava (e si esprimeva) l’estraneità di questi luoghi alla logica del novum, del consumo, dell’accelerazione: niente di meno futuristico delle montagne, con buona pace di varie utopie architettoniche (da Viollet-le-Duc a Bruno Taut) che hanno maggior parentela con l’opprimente assurdità della geometria aliena delle Montagne della follia di H.P. Lovecraft (6) che con un pensiero consono ai luoghi, una sapienza della località, una consapevolezza del genius loci. Domandarsi se gli attuali abitanti delle montagne abbiano conservato questa sapienza dell’equilibrio con il proprio luogo è altrettanto importante dell’interrogarsi sulle modalità di accostarsi ai monti da parte dei turisti e degli appassionati.

2. “Le culminazioni dell’alpe” Abbiamo già visto come non necessariamente quelli “che vanno in montagna” coincidano con quelli “che stanno in montagna”: o almeno, ne siano, almeno inizialmente, profondamente diversi gli intenti. Ancora oggi, per lo più, un caricatore d’alpe ha del territorio montano una visione assai diversa da quella dell’escursionista o del turista, sia in termini di conoscenza che di individuazione dei suoi possibili usi; così come un cercatore di cristalli all’epoca della scoperta del Monte Bianco rispetto a un artista che ne immortalava le vedute. Sicuramente anche il modo di “vedere” le montagne dei monaci tibetani o di quanti si recano in pellegrinaggio sul Kailash (o su qualsiasi altra montagna sacra) è diverso da quello degli occidentali che vi si recano per le loro ascese.

Nella cultura del Novecento esistono significative posizioni di critica i miti della modernità - progresso, democraticismo, economicismo, fede nella scienza e nella tecnica, materialismo -, in cui il turismo viene interpretato come una forma massificata e priva di consapevolezza dell’accostarsi alla natura. Il turismo e il mito della natura incontaminata appaiono come uno dei segni della decadenza spirituale della nostra epoca, oltre che fenomeni che finiscono col distruggere o compromettere l’ambiente naturale, senza peraltro assicurare durevolmente quei benefici che fungono ormai per lo più da alibi e retorica per la commercializzazione di qualcosa che non dovrebbe poter essere considerato una merce. Questo punto di vista non vuole ripristinare un passato improbabile, ma, al contrario, richiamare l’attenzione sul fatto che ogni luogo richiede comportamenti e misure specifiche che ne rispettino il nomos sapendone riconoscere il significato.

Una declinazione particolare di questa attitudine di rifiuto dello svilimento delle montagne nella logica consumistica o sportiva è ravvisabile nell’interpretazione della pratica alpinistica come disciplina ascetica e spirituale. L’alpinismo di chi si rifà a valori spirituali e metafisici si distacca recisamente da ogni interpretazione della disciplina in senso agonistico e sportivo. Lo sport è infatti una delle manifestazioni della civiltà di massa e del culto della forma fisica fine a se stessa che caratterizza il nichilismo contemporaneo, viceversa significativamente poco preoccupato della salute spirituale -, costitutivamente volto all’agonismo, o addirittura al superomismo - dunque prodotto estremo della volontà i potenza che pretende di essere metro di tutte le cose, visibili e invisibili, signoria sulla terra che, faustianamente, non tollera alcun limite alle sue conquiste, ma è sempre proteso ad affermarsi in nome di quel titanismo con cui ha cambiato la faccia della terra (7).

Se l’ascensione viene considerata per le possibilità spirituali e iniziatiche che offre, la sacralità della montagna, testimoniata dal suo universale simbolismo come corrispondente di stati interiori trascendenti o sede di divinità, o di eroi trasfigurati, insomma luogo di partecipazioni a forme di vita più alta, diventa luogo di manifestazione simbolica di significati trascendenti, come l’esperienza stessa della montagna alla nostra più profonda interiorità, purché venga realizzata adeguatamente, suggerisce.

Questo modo di accostarsi alla montagna respinge sia l’atteggiamento “lirico”, ossia sentimentale in senso banalizzante e retorico - il cliché della montagna-panorama secondo gli standard del pittoresco e di un certo lirismo ottocentesco - estraneo sia agli abitanti dei monti che ai veri alpinisti; sia l’atteggiamento “naturistico”, che come abbiamo già visto, è piuttosto un sintomo di decadenza spirituale, una sorta di misticismo primitivistico della natura che rimane segnato da un carattere di reazione e di evasione dalla negatività della vita quotidiana; sia l’atteggiamento per cui il valore di un’ascesa è visto nella sensazione e nell’eroismo fisico, in cui il rischio è l’esasperazione di una fisicità fine a se stessa, un ideale della prestazione agonistica che di fatto è già ampiamente sviluppato nel carattere di lavoro che permea tutti gli aspetti della vita sociale, ma non può essere in sé considerato la base per conquistare una spiritualità superiore. Questo punto merita attenzione, dal momento che qui si può far rientrare, oltre alla caccia all’emozione, all’eccitante, all’“estremo”, al “no limits”, anche una certa esasperazione degli aspetti e dei supporti tecnici dell’arrampicare. In secondo luogo, è da notare come a questo orizzonte di esasperazione sportiva si scateni appartenga la corsa al primato, la competizione, la rincorsa alla scoperta di nuove montagne, che è anche l’escogitazione delle “vie”, delle difficoltà, ecc. Come se alla montagna non ci si potesse accostare che con un atteggiamento di competizione, di sfida, di appropriazione (significativo il gesto del piantare la bandiera sulla vetta), di “conquista”. Anche questo aspetto, in realtà, è perfettamente coerente con l’affermazione del soggettivismo che contrassegna l’epoca moderna: come nella scienza non vi deve essere, per definizione, alcun aspetto che possa sottrarsi all’indagine, come il cammino della cosiddetta civiltà prevede la sottomissione e l’affermazione della libertà umana sui vincoli della natura, analogamente e come logica conseguenza, non deve restare dominio o recesso del mondo naturale nel quale l’uomo non porti la propria presenza appropriante, non “firmi” - di solito con ingombranti rifiuti - il suo passaggio.

Quando le vette sono tutte conquistate, dunque, inizia la retorica della “sfida” al pericolo, alla difficoltà, ai limiti, con tutte le sue infinite, per quanto ripetitive, varianti. Nella visione e nella pratica più diffusa della “sfida” al pericolo e alle difficoltà agisce un paradigma superomistico che ha poco a che vedere con l’effettiva concezione nietzschiana dell’oltreuomo, ma molto con una certa vulgata che afferma i valori, che un tempo erano quelli dell’ascesi e della fortificazione dello spirito, in un contesto completamente secolarizzato e con un’intenzione del tutto profana: si tratta di superare i propri limiti di resistenza fisica, di vincere le paure, di lottare contro la montagna per dimostrarsi metaforicamente e letteralmente alla sua altezza, si affrontano sacrifici, pericoli, si rischia la vita in una sorta di eroismo solitario, ma il fine è semplicemente quello di un’affermazione di sé, una specie di narcisismo eroicizzante. Semplificando per far emergere con chiarezza l’essenziale, si potrebbe dire che in quest’ottica non conta la montagna per quello che è, ma come supporto, occasione e oggetto dell’impresa di un singolo. Portato alle sue estreme, ma del tutto coerenti, conseguenze, si tratta sempre di quell’atteggiamento di riduzione di tutto l’esistente alle ragioni o alle sensazioni soggettive: si tratta pur sempre di un accostarsi estetico o estetizzante - cioè tale da privilegiare la sensazione, l’emozione, il sentimento individuale, l’autorappresentazione fino al punto di non “vedere” più la montagna, ridotta ormai a scenario delle imprese umane-troppo umane. Anzi, a rigore non è più in gioco “la montagna” (come qualsiasi altro paesaggio), ma una finzione rappresentativa e fortemente artificiale, in cui non si mette in gioco la propria vita, ma si fa, piuttosto “teatro”: è l’atteggiamento “di chi cerca la natura per eseguire in essa l’ultima possibile recita in un mondo per il resto totalmente umanizzato. [...] Ovunque, in montagna, in viaggio nei deserti, sulle spiagge, come nel paesaggio urbano l’individuo si comporta sempre più da attore che recita, seguendo un copione che suggerisce non solo i comportamenti ma anche i luoghi giusti, gli ambienti adatti a esprimersi, secondo i modi che tornano a vantaggio dell’economia consumistica” (8).

Quello che ancora una volta rimane inascoltata è l’eco contenuta nell’emozione e nell’intuizione che portano verso la montagna: grandezza che richiama a qualcosa che non è più umano, che è primordiale, inaccessibile, enigmatico, immutabile (9). Se si “pensasse come una montagna”, si lasciassero risuonare questi richiami, cercando di trasformarli in meditazione, contemplazione, si potrebbe avviare una realizzazione spirituale corrispondente all’esperienza della montagna: si tratterebbe di recare l’illuminazione di una visione simbolica adeguata sull’esperienza della montagna, trasformando la vita quotidiana, diventando quelli che non ritornano mai dalle vette in pianura (10). Non tornare in pianura, ossia a quelle che Nietzsche chiamava le “bassure” della vita comune che cerca le sue piccole sicurezze e il suo confortevole benessere, significa in realtà che non vi sarebbe più né andare né tornare, una volta “realizzata” la Montagna nel proprio spirito, tradotto il simbolo in realtà. E’ superfluo sottolineare quanto una visione del genere, pur in un’attività che superficialmente sembrerebbe essere la stessa di ogni alpinista, si distacchi, nei suoi aspetti ascetici e conoscitivi, ma anche in quelli del comportamento verso la montagna, da ogni pratica sportiva che della montagna faccia solo un pretesto, una palestra o un palcoscenico di avventure narcisistiche e di comportamenti consumistici: è, come ha detto efficacemente Rudatis, “la scalata che va oltre tutte le scalate” (11).

Questo significato forte dell’ascensione conduce a riflettere sul pericolo di degradazione simbolica che le montagne corrono nei nostri tempi. Oggi che tutte - o quasi - le montagne sono state conquistate materialmente, esiste il rischio che anche questo volto della natura perda il residuo significato simbolico, e dunque le montagne siano “abbassate” e rese equivalenti a tutto il resto. E’ quanto si è già verificato, anche solo a livello del consumo estetico, nella inesorabile progressiva appropriazione immaginale, prima dalla rappresentazione artistica e letteraria, poi dal mondo della vita sociale che li fruisce come luoghi turistici e, così facendo, li consuma secondo la logica moderna della ricerca incessante della novità, che spinge inesorabilmente alla “scoperta” e all’appropriazione di paesaggi e aspetti della natura sempre diversi (12). In questa forma del consumo estetico-turistico di massa è racchiuso un enorme pericolo, di ordine economico e di ordine simbolico (13). Ma se è dalla perdita del valore simbolico che deriva ogni altro fenomeni di degrado, materiale, immaginario ed estetico, la riflessione circa i modi di “valorizzare” le montagne può ricevere una nuova luce: valorizzare dovrebbe voler dire: salvaguardare il valore intrinseco della montagna, non svenderla o tramutarla nella caricatura di una periferia metropolitana; e preservare l’intangibilità delle montagne, salvaguardarne il carattere appartato e selvatico, mediante zone di rispetto, una viabilità non corriva verso le spinte commerciali, una rinnovata educazione alla loro grandezza .

Una montagna vista innanzitutto nel suo carattere “alto”, impervio, selettivo, ascensionale e solitario non può favorire comportamenti di facile appropriazione, di consumo e distruzione indiscriminata, di annessione indifferente. Una montagna come axis mundi, luogo sacrale, cratofania o santuario, o anche semplicemente come luogo di una singolarità irripetibile, se davvero compreso come tale, non può essere considerata come un bene di cui disporre indiscriminatamente, neppure nell’immaginario. Ma anche una montagna compresa come luogo delle culture che vi sono insediate, come sempre più precario retaggio tradizionale sopravvivente nell’estrema modernità, non dovrebbe essere cancellata nella sua identità con gli alibi della valorizzazione commerciale, che è l’acido più corrosivo nei confronti del senso di appartenenza. 

3. Mons silvaticus L’orizzonte di tutte queste considerazioni è la questione epocale dell’identità dei luoghi, della loro salvaguardia e del loro significato. Rilke, alla svolta del secolo, affermava la necessità di sottrarre alla consuetudine le nostre immagini della natura e dei paesaggi, logorate dalle molte rappresentazioni letterarie e iconografiche, fino ad essere diventate un cliché che impedisce lo sguardo su ciò che veramente è. Lasciare che la natura ci ridiventi straniera, per coglierne l’effettiva estraneità al mondo delle nostre rappresentazioni, e, misurando questa distanza, lasciar essere la differenza, accettare che tutto quanto vi è di comune fra uomini e cose si ritiri nella “profondità comune donde traggono nutrimento le radici di ogni divenire” (14). L’esigenza di lasciare che la natura si ritragga nell’enigmaticità e quindi riconquisti, nella distanza, la sua aura, è la sostanza delle posizioni di difesa della Wilderness, gli aspetti selvatici del paesaggio terrestre, non certo per amore di esotismo, ma nel nome di un’estrema difesa delle radici selvatiche della stessa umanità, di quella radicatezza senza la quale la cultura è messa a repentaglio. La selvatichezza è il terreno vitale in cui crescono le culture attente alla necessità di non interrompere la comunicazione con l’altro, e dunque consapevoli della loro dipendenza dall’altro: sia nel senso della sopravvivenza e prosperità materiale, che in quello simbolico, della differenza in relazione alla quale soltanto può sussistere identità. Quando la dimensione della selvatichezza viene attaccata e distrutta, la terra feconda in cui si radicano le civiltà si trasforma nel deserto di cui parla la filosofia del Novecento. Desolazione di un luogo andato in rovina, sia negli aspetti naturali che nelle realizzazioni della cultura: solitudo, in cui l’uomo è rimesso alla via senza uscita della propria stoltezza. La desertica ripetitività del sempre uguale è il destino di chi pensa che la natura, soprattutto nei suoi aspetti indomiti, sia un fastidioso contrattempo sul cammino della progettualità umana.

La Wildnis è la questione dell’intera civiltà terrestre nell’epoca della tarda modernità. Occorre perciò salvaguardare attivamente la fisionomia singolare dei luoghi riconoscendone le radici selvatiche: senza la presenza e la simbolizzazione dell’estraneazione incarnata nel lato ombroso della civiltà, nel selvatico appunto, la costruzione umana è destinata a somigliare a una torre di Babele cui venga meno il fondamento. La presunta razionalità che vige nell’ordine metropolitano, assieme a tutte le sue realizzazioni, assomiglia sempre più a una sopravvivenza fantasmatica di cui l’immaginario legato alla realtà virtuale è un’eloquente manifestazione.

Ma le radici selvatiche, di cui la montagna è emblema e riserva, non potrebbero essere lasciate disseccare senza un più generale svigorimento simbolico. Si potrebbe dire che quando i simboli cominciano a diventare muti, le foreste cominciano a essere ridotte a riserva di legname o ad ostacolo all’espansione cittadina e le montagne a parco di divertimenti. È per questo che la montagna deve tornare a poter essere vista come l’emblema dello spazio elevato e sacro, del luogo dell’aprirsi, reale e simbolico, di una dimensione la cui alterità e distanza, anche fisica, dall’usuale, mostra una dimensione di verticalità essenzialmente estranea al mondo del nichilismo. In ogni luogo, oltre agli elementi visibili, oggetto dell’indagine geografica e storico-artistica, vi sono elementi non obiettivabili, non suscettibili di quantificazione scientifica, e nondimeno simbolicamente essenziali. Nel riconoscimento della profonda simbolicità delle manifestazioni della natura è racchiusa ogni possibilità di armonizzazione con la morfologia ambientale e di suo sapiente assecondamento, che si traduce sempre anche in opera di bellezza.

La tarda modernità tende a esotizzare sempre più “la natura”, “il selvatico”, il “tradizionale”, rescindendoli come riserve o come mere citazioni, quando non come oggetti dell’industria culturale o turistica. D’altra parte, però, si assiste alla diffusione di un desiderio di appartenenza, o di “ritorno” alla “natura” che per molti versi è un fenomeno di provenienza urbana. Ritorno dunque “sentimentale”, avrebbe detto Schiller, e non “ingenuo”: come è ogni vero ritorno (15). Ma già in questo è forse possibile intravedere il ridestarsi di una memoria e l’affiorare di una consapevolezza differenziale nell’omologazione contemporanea. Gli sviluppi in senso sempre più immateriale della tecnica, l’uso di sistemi di comunicazione che rendano obsoleto il proliferare di grandi strade, assieme a una chiara comprensione dei limiti da rispettare, potrebbero rendere meno utopica e nostalgica la difesa dell’individualità dei luoghi, e nella fattispecie della montagna, sottraendola al tempo stesso alla prospettiva della mera esteticità o di un devastante consumo sportivo. Ritornare, dunque, con nuova consapevolezza, nei pressi delle radici selvatiche e rocciose della civiltà, prima che tutto sia distrutto nichilisticamente - ossia anche per superficialità, tracotanza o rassegnazione o appagamento nell’integrazione (16) - per salvaguardarne almeno la memoria: primo, indispensabile, passo verso quel riorientamento che solo potrebbe salvare la terra.

Quest’opera della memoria non è volta a fabbricare un ricordo, né un ennesimo simulacro di un “regno perduto”: è piuttosto un’opera di meditazione sul volto della terra a venire che procede da uno scavo nelle rovine del presente, si immerge nella solitudo dell’oggi come in un controluce che ne rivela i tratti essenziali, o in un’algidezza in cui si trasfigura il crescente irrigidimento della vita nell’ascesi della riflessione, in cui le “montagne da pascolo” del turismo possano riassumere il sembiante di Mons Victorialis, di luogo solstiziale dello spirito. Le radici selvatiche, le forme dell’elevatezza e della distanza, quelle che Evola chiamava “le culminazioni dell’alpe”, sono per noi l’ultimo punto di vista differenziale dal quale comprendere il mondo e metterlo in prospettiva. Che si possa anche solo per un momento sostare nel silenzio della montagna e intenderne la voce, è una delle estreme possibilità di salvaguardia di questo mondo. Ma chi lo potrà fare non sarà né turista, né sportivo, né collezionista di record o di imprese estreme, ma qualcuno che avrà compreso la legge del luogo e si sarà messo in consonanza con essa: montanaro, pastore, boscaiolo o incamminato sulla via del Sé, tutti attenti e responsabili della conservazione delle condizioni di appartatezza, della costitutiva ed essenziale distanza, tutte figure del “pensare come una montagna”, della consapevolezza che essa deve tornare segreta e salva come un vero Montsalvat: monte della salvazione, perché montagna della selvatichezza.

Note:

Torna al testo

1. Cfr. L. Bonesio, La saggezza selvatica di Zarathustra, “Letteratura Tradizione”, 5, 1998.
2. Cit. in J. Ritter, Paesaggio. Uomo e natura nell’età moderna, a cura di M. Venturi Ferriolo, Guerini e Associati, Milano 1994, pp. 68-69.
3. D. Cosgrove, Realtà sociali e paesaggio simbolico, a cura di C. Copeta, Unicopli, Milano 1990.
4. Per il termine “invenzione”, nella sua duplice accezione di scoperta e produzione di qualcosa che non c'era, cfr. Ph. Joutard, L'invenzione del Monte Bianco, tr. it. di P. Crivellaro, Einaudi, Torino 1993.
5. Cfr. F. Fedele, Inventare le Alpi: archeologie, abitanti, identità, in Appartenenza e località: l’uomo e il territorio, a cura di L. Bonesio, SEB, Milano 1996.
6. “A poco a poco, però, (le cime) si innalzarono minacciose nel cielo occidentale permettendoci di distinguere diverse cime nude, squallide e nerastre e di cogliere lo strano senso di fantastico che ispiravano viste così nella luce rossastra dell’Antartico con lo sfondo suggestivo di nuvole iridescenti di polvere di ghiaccio. Da quello spettacolo derivava un senso di stupenda segretezza e di potenziale rivelazione. Era come se queste cuspidi da incubo fungessero da piloni di uno spaventoso ingresso nelle sfere proibite dei sogni, nei complessi golfi del passato remoto, dello spazio e dell’ultradimensionalità” (H.P. Lovecraft, Le montagne della follia, tr. it. di G. De Luca, Sugarco, Milano 1983, p. 39). “L’effetto era quello di una città ciclopica di architettura ignota all’uomo o all’immaginazione umana, con un vasto aggregato di costruzioni nere come la notte costruite con mostruose perversioni delle leggi geometriche. C’erano coni tronchi, talvolta disposti a terrazza o scanalati, sormontati da alti steli cilindrici, che qua e là si slargavano a bulbo e spesso terminavano in una serie di dischi dentellati e assottigliantisi...” (Ivi, pp. 40-41). La descrizione della città in rovina sulle montagne antartiche prosegue con tutti i dettagli di “sagome deformate da un’odiosità ancora maggiore” (Ibidem).

7. “L’impulso di natura plutonica non sorge più alla ricerca dell’oro, ma di energie capaci di trasformarsi in utopie, dai combustibili fossili fino all’uranio. Mossi da tale ricerca, non si agisce secondo criteri di economia, ci si comporta invece come lo scialacquatore che dissipa l’intera eredità per perseguire un’idea fissa. Nei sogni di Plutone non vi sono tesori nascosti, ma il vulcano. E’ attratto dall’Everest non per la vista che può offrire, ma per il record che gli consente di raggiungere. La biblioteca non è per lui il luogo delle Muse, ma uno spazio di lavoro, completo di arredo tecnico. Trascura di onorare i morti, ma va a frugare dentro alle tombe più antiche” (E. Jünger, La forbice, tr. it. di A. Iadicicco, Guanda, Parma 1996, p. 157).
8. E. Turri, Il paesaggio come teatro. Dal territorio vissuto al territorio rappresentato, Marsilio, Venezia 1998, p. 132. Sono tutti atteggiamenti, come si può constatare, che derivano da un'esasperazione di aspetti della personalità in senso soggettivistico, limitati a un'idea povera e in sostanza ampiamente consumistica dell'affermazione di sé e a un mondo che “comporta la riduzione dello scenario a un paesaggio del tutto denaturalizzato, che anche nei suoi aspetti selvaggi è ricondotto, fittiziamente, alla nuova e totale teatralizzazione del mondo” (Ivi, p. 133).
9. Un significativo esempio di questo arrampicare attento a connotazioni simboliche ed esoteriche sono gli scritti di D. Rudatis, in particolare Liberazione, Nuovi Sentieri, Belluno 1985.
10. J. Evola, Spiritualità della montagna, in Meditazioni delle vette, Il tridente, La Spezia 19863, ora raccolto in J. Evola-Samivel, Il sorriso degli dèi. Note su uomini di montagna e montagne degli dèi, Barbarossa, Milano 1996. Sia pure in un più ampio contesto di pensiero, le riflessioni di Evola su questo tema, insieme con quelle dell'accademico del CAI Domenico Rudatis, sono del massimo interesse. Un’utile raccolta di scritti appartenenti a questa prospettiva è il volumetto di AA.VV., Il regno perduto. Appunti sul simbolismo tradizionale della montagna, Il cavallo alato, Padova 1989.
11. D. Rudatis, Sulla via del senso cosmico, “Annuario CAAI”, 1990, p. 14.
12. Cfr. J. Ritter, op. cit., n. 57.
13. In un contributo molto significativo da questo punto di vista, Evola annovera tra i sintomi di decadenza spirituale l’approccio “discendente” alla montagna rappresentato dallo sci (di discesa): “Laddove l’alpinismo è caratterizzato dall’ebrezza dell’ascesa come conquista, lo sciismo è caratterizzato dall’ebrezza della discesa, della velocità e quasi diremmo della caduta” (J. Evola, Ascendere e discendere, in Meditazioni delle vette, cit., p. 71). La caratterizzazione evoliana dello sci può facilmente essere estesa, oggi, a tutti gli sport che perseguono “tecnica, giuoco ed ebbrezza della caduta”: in essi si esprime lo spirito della modernità, “spirito ebbro di velocità, di ‘divenire’, di un moto accelerato, incomposto, fino a ieri celebrato come quello di un progresso, laddove esso, sotto molti aspetti, altro non è che quello di un franare e di un precipitare” (Ivi, pp. 71 e 72).

14. R.M. Rilke, Del paesaggio e altri scritti, tr. it. di G. Zampa, Cederna, Milano 1949, p. 33.
15. Sul tema del viaggio e del ritorno in patria, cfr. la lettura heideggeriana di Hölderlin (M. Heidegger, La poesia di Hölderlin, a cura di L. Amoroso, Adelphi, Milano 1988).
16. Jünger ha sottolineato come il carattere devastante del nichilismo contemporaneo provenga dal buon adattamento dell’“ultimo uomo” di nietzschiana memoria a condizioni di vita impossibili per una civiltà “normale” (nel senso che la Tradizione attribuisce a questo aggettivo). Cfr., ad esempio, E. Jünger, Oltre la linea, in M. Heidegger-E. Jünger, Oltre la linea, tr. it. di F. Volpi e A. La Rocca, Adelphi, Milano 1989.

 

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

 

La croisade de Thomas Molnar contre le monde moderne

La croisade de Thomas Molnar contre le monde moderne

par Arnaud FERRAND-LÉGER

Ex: http://www.europemaxima.com/

Dans le monde clos des intellectuels catholiques, Thomas Molnar reste un penseur à part. Philosophe, universitaire, écrivain et journaliste, l’ancien exilé hongrois réfugié aux États-Unis est rentré dans sa patrie dès la chute du communisme. Depuis il enseigne la philosophie religieuse à l’Université de Budapest. Mieux, avec la victoire des jeunes-démocrates de Viktor Orban, le professeur Molnar fut le conseiller culturel du jeune Premier ministre magyar avant de retourner dans l’opposition.

 

En France, les interventions de Thomas Molnar se font maintenant rares dans la presse, y compris parmi les journaux catholiques et nationaux. Il publia longtemps dans le bimensuel Monde et Vie d’où, d’une plume acérée, il diagnostique d’un œil sévère et avisé le délabrement du monde postmoderniste. En revanche, il continue la publication de ses ouvrages. Le dernier, Moi, Symmaque et L’Âme et la Machine, composé de deux essais, porte encore un regard inquiet sur le devenir de la société industrielle occidentale. Rarement, un livre aura justement traduit la crise mentale profonde dans laquelle sont plongés les catholiques de tradition. Il faut croire que l’accélération du monde soit brusque pour que le catholique Molnar se mette à la place du sénateur romain Symmaque, dernier chef du parti païen au IVe siècle. Symmaque fut le dernier à essayer de restaurer les cultes anciens…

 

 

Tel un nouveau Symmaque, Thomas Molnar charge, sabre au clair !, contre le relativisme moral, le multiculturalisme, l’inculture d’État, la perte des valeurs traditionnelles, l’arnaque artistique… Il n’hésite pas à affronter les grandes impostures contemporaines ! Mais le docteur Molnar ouvre un corps social entièrement métastasé.

 

 

Découvrir Thomas Molnar

 

 

Cette nouvelle dénonciation – efficace – permettra-t-elle à son œuvre prodigieuse de sortir enfin du silence artificiel dans lequel la pensée dominante l’a plongée ? Jean Renaud le croit puisqu’il relève le défi. A travers cinq entretiens, précédées d’une étude fine et brillante de l’homme et de ses livres, Jean Renaud se propose de faire découvrir cet étonnant universitaire hongrois. Même si son ouvrage se destine en priorité au public francophone d’Amérique du Nord (Pour les « Américains nés dans un monde unilatéral, programmé, horizontal, indifférencié ! Un de [leurs] ultimes recours, ce sont ces quelques Européens qui, de par le monde, persistent »), le lectorat de l’Ancien Monde peut enfin connaître la pensée originale de cet authentique réactionnaire, entendu ici dans son acception bernanosienne.

 

 

Non sans une pointe d’humour, Jean Renaud présente le professeur Molnar comme « toujours prêt à attaquer et à tenir, même pour soutenir des causes impopulaires, cet ennemi de l’Europe politique, cet exilé en terre d’Amérique mérite néanmoins parfaitement le titre d’Européen. Non seulement possède-t-il les principales langues du vieux continent, il est d’abord et surtout resté fidèle à un héritage, multiple, ondoyant, traversé de lignes harmoniques, de fragiles équilibres. Cet héritage européen n’est point porté par lui comme une cape décorative ornée de nostalgies : il est vivant et doit être protégé par le verbe et par la pensée ». Ce combat qui fait frémir toute la grande conscience humaniste n’est pas « sans taches, puisque [son promoteur] est blanc, mâle et hétérosexuel, ni impertinence, car il n’en manifeste aucune honte ». D’ailleurs, insatisfait d’exposer ses opinions incongrues, il osa s’exprimer dans la presse nationale-catholique et participa à plusieurs colloques du G.R.E.C.E.; c’est dire la dangerosité du personnage !

 

 

Bien sûr, Thomas Molnar n’adhère pas à la Nouvelle Droite. Il en diverge profondément sur des points essentiels. Ce catholique de tradition reste un fervent défenseur du principe national. Il « préfère ce nationalisme que l’on dit “ étroit ” et “ identitaire ” au mondialisme homogénéisé, uniforme, forcément totalitaire. Bref [il ne veut] pas que les “ valeurs ” américaines, après celles de Moscou, soient imposées à l’humanité. […] Les petits peuples, ajoute-t-il, à l’égal des puissants, sont indissolublement attachés à leur identité nationale : langue, littérature, souvenirs historiques incrustés dans les monuments, les chansons, les proverbes et les symboles. Voilà les seuls outils propres à résister aux conquêtes et aux occupations. Pour la même raison, il est impossible d’organiser des alliances ou des fédérations de petites nations : les haines et les méfiances historiques les empêchent de se fédérer. C’est un malheur, mais que voulez-vous ? »

 

 

Contempteur des fausses évidences

 

 

Auteur d’une remarquable contribution à l’histoire de la Contre-Révolution, sa vision de la droite est impitoyable de lucidité. Après avoir montré que « le libéralisme […] est antinational par essence, morceau difficile à avaler pour ces hommes de droite qui se veulent des conservateurs à l’américaine, tels Giscard, Barre et Balladur. […] Il est significatif, continue-t-il, de constater que l’histoire de la droite est jalonnée de grandes illusions et, partant, de grandes déceptions. […] La droite n’a pas de politique, elle a une “ culture ”. La politique ne se trouve qu’à gauche depuis 1945; la droite ne fait que “ réagir ” de temps en temps avec un Pinochet au Chili, un Antall en Hongrie. C’est de courte durée. […] La droite n’a pas le choix : autoexilée de la politique, elle déplore cet exil qui promet d’être permanent, elle ferme les yeux et préfère s’illusionner ».

 

 

Persuadé de l’importance du combat métapolitique et de son enjeu culturel, Thomas Molnar note, avec une précision de chirurgien, que « l’opinion de droite, et la droite catholique en fait partie intégrante, ne s’intéresse guère aux arguments, aux raisonnements, au jeu subtil de la culture. Elle se sent, depuis 1789, lésée dans ses droits, dans sa vérité, et cherche à regagner ses positions d’antan. Elle se laisse enfermer dans un ghetto, pleine de ressentiment, et fait tout pour limiter sa propre influence, son propre poids, afin de pouvoir dire par la suite qu’elle est victime de l’histoire et de ses influences sataniques ». Ce réac suggère des orientations nouvelles qui détonnent dans un milieu sclérosé. Il propose par conséquent une rénovation radicale du discours banalement conservateur.

 

 

La partie la plus intéressante des entretiens concerne toutefois la Modernité, ses conséquences et son avenir. Respectueux d’« un réel multiforme jamais possédé, dans son intégralité, par la raison humaine », Thomas Molnar observe que « le ciel de la modernité est fermé; les certitudes d’antan ont mauvaise presse. Mettons-nous dans la peau de l’homme moderne : ses deux poteaux indicateurs sont l’utopie et la technologie, le miracle politique et le miracle matériel, idéaux éphémères qui s’écroulent à chaque instant. Fini le rêve marxiste, vive le libéralisme ! Plus de voyage dans la lune, vive l’intervention biotechnique ! Le cosmos, jadis peuplé de dieux, ressemble aujourd’hui à quelques gros cailloux qui tourne et éclatent, naissent et s’éteignent ». Voilà le triste bilan de « la philosophie moderne [… qui] est le refus des essences et l’accueil de l’existence brute, du devenir […] plutôt que de l’être. […] La perte de l’essence entraîne celle des structures, puis celle des significations. on peut dire n’importe quoi, à l’instar de la peinture moderne. Nous habitons le paradis des tartuffes et des charlatans, paradis où fleurit la dégringolade du sens ».

 

 

La crise de la Modernité

 

 

Or la désespérance nihiliste est superfétatoire. Pis elle est inutile, car si l’« on se sert, aujourd’hui, de ce mot “ désenchantement ” pour décrire la perte du sacré; n’oublions pas qu’il peut y avoir, dans un avenir proche ou lointain, une perte du profane, plus exactement une perte du noyau de notre civilisation technicienne et mécanicienne ». Il envisage alors tranquillement « l’effondrement graduel (toujours la fatigue des civilisations) de la mentalité technicienne, voire scientifique, par le reflux de la civilisation occidentale, qui a atteint, avec la domination américaine sur la planète, une espèce de nec plus ultra ». Certes, «l’idéologie industrielle, profondément subversive, la publicité, l’étalage du privé sur la place publique, la confusion des sexes, le règne de la machine et des robots bloquent, pour le moment, notre horizon », mais « les modernes ont tout perdu, souligne à son tour Jean Renaud; ils nous ont peut-être profondément offensés, mais ils sont fous. Leur univers est imaginaire. Chacun à notre place, il nous est possible de résister, de tenir quotidiennement, de refuser l’isolement d’aider le jeune et le vieux, d’accumuler ces actes modestes que nous avons désappris, ces actes par lesquels l’âme se fortifie. Le monde moderne existe de moins en moins ». Si les catholiques actuels savaient encore penser et s’ils cessaient de suivre les sirènes de la confusion moderne, le professeur Molnar serait sans conteste leur référence intellectuelle.

 

 

« Pour la liberté de l’âme face à la robotisation », tonne Thomas Molnar qui poursuit ainsi une véritable croisade spirituelle contre un monde déshumanisé et mécanisant, toujours plus négateur de la diversité naturelle. En d’autres temps et en d’autres lieux, Thomas Molnar aurait été un croisé de haute tenue, car il est dans l’âme un Croisé contre le Désordre contemporain. Ode alors à l’homme qui fut la Chrétienté…

 

 

Arnaud Ferrand-Léger

 

 

• Moi, Symmaque, suivi de L’Âme et la machine, Éditions L’Âge d’Homme, 167 p.

 

• Du mal moderne. Symptômes et antidotes, cinq entretiens de Thomas Molnar avec Jean Renaud, précédé de « Thomas Molnar ou la réaction de l’esprit » par Jean Renaud, Québec, Canada, Éditions de Beffroi, 1996.

---

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=475

In memoriam: Thomas MOlnar (1921-2010)

In Memoriam: Thomas Molnar (1921–2010)

John Zmirak

 

Ex: http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/

 

Thomas Molnar, the esteemed political philosopher and historian, passed away on July 20 at the age of eighty-nine. Dr. Molnar was a friend of ISI from its earliest days. He lectured frequently for the Institute and contributed many articles to the Intercollegiate Review and Modern Age. In 2003 ISI awarded him its Will Herberg Award for Outstanding Faculty Service.

Requiescat in pace.

The following profile of Dr. Molnar was originally published in American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (ISI Books, 2006). Also, consult the First Principles archival section to read some of Dr. Molnar’s fine essays.

A political philosopher by training, Thomas Molnar was born June 26, 1921, in Budapest and studied in France just before the Second World War, by the end of which he found himself interned in Dachau for anti-German activities. His first book, Bernanos: His Political Thought and Prophecy (1960), was a pioneering study of the work of the famous French Catholic novelist, who had moved from membership in the Action Française to writing on behalf of the French resistance. Taking his cue from Bernanos, Molnar would, like the novelist, go on to become a fiercely independent and contrarian writer, as well as a critic of modern political and economic systems that attempted to deny or transform man’s nature and his place in the cosmos. As Molnar would write of Teilhard de Chardin in perhaps his most wide-ranging book, Utopia: The Perennial Heresy (1967): “[Teilhard’s] public forgets . . . that man cannot step out of the human condition and that no ‘universal mind’ is now being manufactured simply because science has permitted the building of nuclear bombs, spaceships and electronic computers.” Throughout his career, Molnar would remain the enemy of such transformative philosophical endeavors—whether they came in the form of Soviet communism or Western technological hubris. In this respect, his critique of classical and modern “Gnosticism” mirrored the work of the philosophical historian Eric Voegelin.

Revolted by the communist conquest (and 1956 suppression) of his homeland, Molnar early found himself interested in twentieth-century counterrevolutionary movements such as the Action Française and the Spanish Falangists. He examined such movements in his penetrating study The Counter-Revolution (1969), pointing to the quality they shared with their counterparts on the Left: a loathing of the rise of the commercial class and its mores. Regardless of the important constituencies such movements might find in the middle class—Engels was a factory owner’s heir, Maurras got his funding from French manufacturers—Molnar concluded that the animating sentiment of each such movement was hostility to the “bourgeois spirit.”

Molnar’s study of these secular counterrevolutionary movements revealed their limitations and their participation in the modern spirit that aims to “manage” human nature by means of state or party in accord with an ideological plan. Molnar rediscovered his childhood Catholic faith in the early 1960s, and it would ever after serve as the lodestar guiding his political, cultural, and philosophical writings. Among his most important books are Twin Powers: Politics and the Sacred (1988) and The Church: Pilgrim of Centuries (1990), which examine the struggle between church and state in medieval and early-modern history—and this battle’s continuing implications for politics and ecclesiastical governance. Molnar identifies two destructive tendencies rooted in the medieval and early-modern periods whose implications only became obvious in the twentieth century: first, Erastianism, the subjection of spiritual authority to the power of the state or the preferences of civil society; and second, Puritanism, a claim by the state to spiritual power and redemptive purpose.

Molnar was one of the earliest writers and academics to associate himself with the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (later Intercollegiate Studies Institute), joining its lecture program and frequently publishing in the Intercollegiate Review and Modern Age. His writing also appeared in dozens of other publications and in several European languages on topics ranging from classical history and French literature to foreign policy and modern philosophy. Molnar traveled to every inhabited continent and moved increasingly in his later years toward a global, world-historical (rather than particularly Western) view of events; he retained, however, a firmly Catholic faith that rendered him skeptical of secular undertakings, including the conservative movement. A personal friend of luminaries Russell Kirk and Wilhelm Röpke, Molnar was more pessimistic than either of those thinkers about the prospects of saving the essentials of Western civilization from the advancing effects of the “ideology of technology,” which promised with more apparent plausibility than did previous systems (such as Marx’s) to make man into a different animal, if not in fact a god. Molnar was the author of more than thirty books.

Further Reading

• Molnar, Thomas. The Decline of the Intellectual. Cleveland: World, 1961.
• ———. The Emerging Atlantic Culture. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1994.
• ———. The Pagan Temptation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988.

Pavel Florenskij : Il pensiero contro l'ideologia

Pavel Florenskij: Il pensiero contro l'ideologia

di Vito Mancuso

Fonte: La Repubblica [scheda fonte]

L'incontro con Pavel Florenskij ha segnato profondamente la mia vita e quindi questo articolo lo si deve intendere come una dichiarazione d'amore. L'occasione è la nuova edizione del capolavoro del 1914 La colonna e il fondamento della verità grazie al contributo encomiabile di Natalino Valentini, al quale si deve la cura di molti altri scritti, tra cui Bellezza e liturgia, l'epistolario dal gulag Non dimenticatemi e le memorie Ai miei figli. Come ogni dichiarazione d'amore, anche questa si rivolge alla più intima umanità dell'interessato, a quel mistero personale non riassumibile nelle sue conoscenze. Dico questo per liberare Florenskij dall'incanto della sua genialità («il Leonardo da Vinci della Russia») per l'essere stato matematico, fisico, ingegnere, e, sull'altro versante, teologo, filosofo, storico dell'arte. Marito e padre di cinque figli, fu anche sacerdote ortodosso, status che gli costò la vita nel 1937. Essere sacerdote e insieme scienziato era una smentita vivente dell'ideologia comunista, per la quale la fede era solo ignoranza: la dittatura non poteva tollerarlo e non lo tollerò.

Da una lettera del 1917 emerge la sua inconfondibile personalità: «Nello spazio ampio della mia anima non vi sono leggi, non voglio la legalità, non riesco ad apprezzarla... Non mi turba nessun ostacolo costruito da mani d'uomo: lo brucio, lo spacco, diventando di nuovo libero, lasciandomi portare dal soffio del vento». Eccoci al cospetto di un nesso incandescente: dedizione assoluta per «la colonna e il fondamento della verità» e insieme vibrante ribellione a ogni legaccio della libertà. Si comprende così come non solo per il regime ma anche per la Chiesa gerarchica il suo pensiero era ed è destabilizzante, tant'è che ancora oggi, nonostante il martirio, Florenskij non è stato beatificato. Durante la prigionia scriveva al figlio Kirill: «Ho cercato di comprendere la struttura del mondo con una continua dialettica del pensiero». Dialettica vuol dire movimento, pensiero vivo, perché «il pensiero vivo è per forza dialettico», mentre il pensiero che non si muove è quello morto dell'ideologia, che, nella versione religiosa, si chiama dogmatismo.

Il pensiero si muove se è sostenuto da intelligenza, libertà interiore e soprattutto amore per la verità, qualità avverse a ogni assolutismo e abbastanza rare anche nella religiosità tradizionale. Al riguardo Florenskij racconta che da bambino «il nome di Dio, quando me lo ponevano quale limite esterno, quale sminuimento del mio essere uomo, era in grado di farmi arrabbiare tantissimo». La sua lezione spirituale è piuttosto un'altra: la fede non è un assoluto, è relativa, relativa alla ricerca della verità. Quando la fede non si comprende più come via verso qualcosa di più grande ma si assolutizza, si fossilizza in dogmatismo e tradisce la verità.

La dialettica elevata a chiave del reale si chiama antinomia, concetto decisivo per Florenskij che significa «scontro tra due leggi» entrambe legittime. L'antinomia si ottiene guardando la vita, che ha motivi per dire che ha un senso e altri opposti. Di solito gli uomini scelgono una prospettiva perché tenerle entrambe è lacerante, ma così mutilano l'esperienza integrale della realtà. Ne viene che ciò che i più ritengono la verità, è solo un polo della verità integrale, per attingere la quale occorre il coraggio di muoversi andando dalla propria prospettiva verso il suo contrario. Conservando la propria verità, e insieme comprendendone il contrario, si entra nell'antinomia.

«La verità è antinomica e non può non essere tale», scrive Florenskij nello straordinario capitolo della Colonna dedicato alla contraddizione dove convengono Eraclito, Platone, Cusano, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel. Ma è per Kant l'elogio più alto: «Kant ebbe l'ardire di pronunciare la grande parola "antinomia", che distrusse il decoro della pretesa unità. Anche solo per questo egli meriterebbe gloria eterna». In realtà questa celebrazione della vita aldilà del concetto è il trionfo dell'anima russa, quella di Puskin, Gogol', Dostoevskij, Tolstoj, Cechov, Pasternak, e che pure traspare da molte pagine di Florenskij cariche di poesia.

Per lui anche la Bibbia e la dottrina sono colme di antinomie, in particolare la Lettera ai Romani è «una bomba carica di antinomie». Ma di ciò si deve preoccupare solo chi ha una concezione dottrinale del cristianesimo, non chi, come Florenskij, lo ritiene funzionale alla vita.

Tra i due nomoi dell'antinomia non c'è però per Florenskij perfetta simmetria: operativamente egli privilegia il polo positivo. Pur sapendo bene che «la vita non è affatto una festa, ma ci sono molte cose mostruose, malvagie, tristi e sporche», non cede mai alla rassegnazione o al cinismo; al contrario insegna ai figli che «rendendosi conto di tutto questo, bisogna avere dinnanzi allo sguardo interiore l'armonia e cercare di realizzarla».

Tale armonia non può venire dal mondo, dove regna l'antinomia, ma da una dimensione più profonda. La voglio illustrare con alcune righe del testamento spirituale, iniziato nel 1917, l'anno della rivoluzione, avendo subito intuito la minaccia che incombeva su di lui: «Osservate più spesso le stelle. Quando avrete un peso sull'animo, guardate le stelle o l'azzurro del cielo. Quando vi sentirete tristi, quando vi offenderanno, quando qualcosa non vi riuscirà, quando la tempesta si scatenerà nel vostro animo, uscite all'aria aperta e intrattenetevi, da soli, col cielo. Allora la vostra anima troverà la quiete».

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

 

Thomas Molnar (1921-2010)

Thomas Molnar (1921-2010)

 

Ex: Nieuwsbrief Deltastichting nr. 38 - Augustus 2010

 

De Hongaars-Amerikaanse politieke filosoof Thomas Molnar werd in 1921 geboren te Boedapest als Molnár Tamás. Hij liep school in de stad Nagyvárad, op de Hongaars-Roemeense grens, die werd ingenomen door Roemeense troepen in 1919. Het jaar nadien bepaalde het Verdrag van Trianon dat de stad, herdoopt als Oradea, zou toebehoren aan Roemenië. Begin jaren ‘40 verhuisde hij naar België om er in het Frans te studeren aan de Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). Tijdens de oorlog werd hij er als leider van de katholieke studentenbeweging door de Duitse bezetter geïnterneerd in het KZ Dachau. Na de oorlog keerde hij terug naar Boedapest en was er getuige van de geleidelijke machtsovername door de communisten. Daarop vertrok hij naar de Verenigde Staten, waar hij in 1950 aan de Universiteit van Columbia zijn doctoraat in filosofie en geschiedenis behaalde. Hij droeg vaak bij tot National Review, het in 1955 door William F. Buckley opgerichte conservatieve tijdschrift. Hij doceerde aan verscheidene universiteiten en na de val van het communistisch regime in Hongarije ook aan de Universiteit van Boedapest en de Katholieke Péter-Pázmány-Universiteit. Sinds 1995 was hij ook lid van Hongaarse Academie der Kunsten. Hij is de auteur van meer dan 40 boeken, zowel in het Engels als Frans, en publiceerde in tal van domeinen zoals politiek, religie en opvoeding.

 

Geïnspireerd door Russell Kirks ”The Conservative Mind” ontwikkelde Molnar zich tot een belangrijk denker van het paleoconservatisme, een stroming in het Amerikaanse conservatisme die het Europese erfgoed en traditie wil bewaren en zich afzet tegen het neoconservatisme. Paul Gottfried vermeldt terecht in zijn memoires (Encounters. My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers. ISI Books, 2009) dat Molnar in verschillende van zijn geschriften zijn verachting voor de Amerikaanse maatschappij en politiek niet onder stoelen of banken steekt. Zo bespot hij de “boy scout” mentaliteit van Amerikaanse leiders , hun “Disney World”-opvattingen over de toekomst van de democratie en identificeert hij protestantse sektarische driften achter het Amerikaanse democratische geloof. Het Amerikaanse materialisme is volgens hem geëvolueerd van een ondeugd naar een wereldvisie. Het is dus niet toevallig dat Molnar vandaag wordt ‘vergeten’ door mainstream conservatieven aan beide zijden van de Atlantische Oceaan.

 

Molnar trad ook veelvuldig in debat met Europees nieuw rechts. Toen Armin Mohler zijn "Nominalistische Wende" uiteenzette, bediende Molnar hem van een universalistisch antwoord. Als katholiek intellectueel publiceerde Molnar in 1986 samen met Alain de Benoist “L’éclipse du sacré” waarin zij vanuit hun gemeenschappelijke bezorgdheid voor de Europese cultuur de secularisering van het Westen bespreken. “The Pagan Temptation”, dat het jaar nadien verscheen, was Molnars weerlegging van de Benoists “Comment peut-on etre païen?” Molnars eruditie en originaliteit blijken echter onverenigbaar met elk hokjesdenken en dat uitte zich onder meer  in het feit dat hij enderzijds lid was van het comité de patronage van Nouvelle Ecole, het tijdschrift van Alain de Benoist, en anderzijds ook voor de royalisten van de Action Française schreef.

 

Thomas Molnar stierf op 20 juli jongstleden, zes dagen voordat hij 90 zou worden, te Richmond, Virginia.

 

Meer informatie bij het Intercollegiate Studies Institute, waar men tal van artikels en lezingen van Thomas Molnar kan consulteren.

 

Florenskij, nozze mistiche tra fede e scienza

Florenskij, nozze mistiche tra fede e scienza

di Marcello Veneziani

Fonte: il giornale [scheda fonte]

 

Tornano le opere più importanti del filosofo e sacerdote russo fucilato nei gulag nel 1937 perché anti-materialista. La sua figura e i suoi scritti dimostrano come si possano conciliare i dogmi religiosi con i principi della matematica

Meriterebbe di esistere Dio, la Verità e la Santissima Trinità e meriterebbe che la fede fosse davvero la via della salvezza eterna, anche solo per coronare la vita, la morte e il pensiero ardente di Pavel Florenskij, filosofo, matematico e sacerdote. Non merita di perdersi nel nulla e nel vuoto una vita eroica così spesa, una tensione di pensiero così potente e incandescente, un amore così colmo di sacrifici e dedizione come quello che riversò Florenskij scommettendo tutto se stesso sulla verità. Sarebbe un peccato mortale subito dall’uomo, uno spreco divino, vanificare la vita e il pensiero di Florenskij; sarebbe un oltraggio imperdonabile alla pietà e all’intelligenza umana e divina.

La mente eroica di cui parlava Vico si incarna nel filosofo, scienziato e mistico russo, fucilato nell’Unione sovietica nel giorno dell’Immacolata, nel 1937, dopo anni di gulag. Ho davanti agli occhi la ristampa recente de La colonna e il fondamento della verità di Pavel Florenskij (San Paolo, pagg. 816, euro 64), il ponderoso capolavoro pubblicato nel 1914 e uscito la prima volta in Italia nel 1974 grazie a Elémire Zolla e Alfredo Cattabiani, che allora dirigeva la Rusconi libri. L’edizione italiana precedette anche quella russa del 1990, dopo la caduta del Muro. Colpisce in copertina il suo sguardo metafisico, i suoi occhi sono il riassunto esistenziale della sua fede e del suo pensiero, guardano dentro e altrove.

Fa impressione in questo testo il suo lucido e implacabile argomentare scientifico e matematico, il rigore della sua filosofia, la vastità della sua cultura, uniti a una fede assoluta in Dio, nel dogma trinitario, e una totale devozione alla Madonna. Lui presbitero della Chiesa ortodossa, padre di cinque figli e insieme autore di importanti scoperte scientifiche. Al punto da essere costretto dal regime comunista a continuare la sua ricerca scientifica tra lavori forzati, torture e gulag. Ma come egli stesso scrisse: «Il destino della grandezza è la sofferenza, causata dal mondo esterno e dalla sofferenza interiore».

Eppure Florenskij, nato in Caucaso il 1882, proveniva da una famiglia laica, di cultura positivista, e approdò con gli anni alla fede in Cristo e in Dio, quando discese in lui lo Spirito Santo, come amava dire, conservando tuttavia «la carnalità del pensiero» e l’attitudine alla matematica e alla fisica. Ma Florenskij visse tra antinomie fortemente marcate e le teorizzò alla luce della fede e del pensiero. A cominciare dalla prima radicale antinomia: «La verità è irraggiungibile - non si può vivere senza la verità». Arrivando a scegliere la Verità indipendentemente se sia possibile: «Io non so se la Verità esista o meno, ma con tutto il mio essere sento che non posso farne a meno, so che, se esiste per me è tutto: ragione, bene, forza, vita, felicità. Forse non esiste ma io l’amo più di tutto ciò che esiste... Metto nelle mani della verità il mio destino».

L’opera di Florenskij è percorsa dal pensiero simbolico («Per tutta la vita ho pensato a una sola cosa... il simbolo»), dal valore magico della parola, della bellezza e della liturgia e dal valore sacro della memoria, che è la presenza nel tempo dell’eternità. A cominciare dalla memoria dell’infanzia, che per Pavel aveva il duplice incanto di percepire integralmente la realtà e insieme di penetrare nella favola profonda del mondo. Il segreto della genialità, sosteneva, sta proprio nel saper custodire la disposizione d’animo dell’infanzia.

L’opera di Florenskij, amata in Italia da Augusto Del Noce e da Sergio Quinzio, da Padre Mancini e da Cristina Campo, ma prediletta anche da Massimo Cacciari, rivede la luce grazie al lavoro di Natalino Valentini, che ha curato anche altre opere di Florenskij dedicate al simbolo, a Bellezza e liturgia, fino alle memorie dedicate Ai miei figli o le lettere dal Gulag, dal titolo evocatore Non dimenticatemi (tutte disponibili negli Oscar Mondadori).

Resta il mistero di un matematico che fu sacerdote, di un mistico che fu uno scienziato. Come è possibile la ricerca scientifica se si è abbagliati dalla Verità divina e dal dogma trinitario, obietta il comune senso laico. Si può essere ingegneri, elettrificare la Russia e insieme sostenere che non c’è scampo tra «la ricerca della Trinità o la morte nella pazzia», studiare la Natura al microscopio e insieme pregare la Madonna “deipara”, come lui la definisce? L’opera di Florenskij sta a dimostrare che è possibile, anzi suggerisce che il pensiero di Dio può potenziare la vita e la scienza anziché mortificarli. La ricerca del mistero può suscitare la passione della ricerca scientifica perché spinge oltre i confini del risaputo. Florenskij non si accontentava delle regolarità delle leggi naturali, perché ricercava sempre l’eccezione, l’inspiegabile: la sua vocazione alla mistica, al miracolo e al mistero diventava così la molla per l’indagine scientifica, per la scoperta e per il calcolo matematico. L’amore per il soprannaturale lo spingeva a non fermarsi all’evidenza, alle leggi ripetitive della natura ma a cercare, tramite l’eccezione, l’irruzione del noumeno nel fenomeno. «Fu il Disegno Divino a educarmi alla trepidazione di fronte ai fenomeni» e alla ricerca. La fede apriva in lui gli orizzonti dell’intelligenza anziché precluderli.

Resta stridente il contrasto tra il pensiero mistico, la vita ascetica di Florenskij e il nostro mondo e il nostro tempo. Ma come egli stesso scrive: «Gli asceti della Chiesa sono vivi per i vivi e morti per i morti».
Di Florenskij in Russia non restarono neanche le spoglie. Nel luglio del 1997 furono ritrovate le fosse comuni di prigionieri delle isole Solovki dov’era detenuto Florenskij. In una delle sue ultime lettere dal gulag, Florenskij scriveva: «La vita vola via come un sogno e spesso non riesci a far nulla prima che ti sfugga l’istante nella sua pienezza. Per questo è fondamentale apprendere l’arte del vivere, tra tutte la più ardua ed essenziale. Colmare ogni istante di un contenuto sostanziale, nella consapevolezza che esso non si ripeterà mai più come tale». Pavel, Padre e Maestro.

 

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Se Cioran il nichilista scopre l'amore assoluto

Se Cioran il nichilista scopre l'amore assoluto

di Mario Bernardi Guardi

Fonte: secolo d'italia

 

Se c'è uno scrittore che, per la sua vocazione apocalittica e il suo moralismo bruciante, cupo e derisorio, si presta a definizioni "tranchant", questo è Emil Michel Cioran. Di volta in volta battezzato "barbaro dei Carpazi", "eremita antimoderno", "esteta della catastrofe", "apolide metafisico", "cavaliere del malumore cosmico". Ma anche lui, da buon Narciso, ci ricamava sopra e sulla sua "carta di identità" scriveva cose come "idolatra del dubbio", "dubitatore in ebollizione", "dubitatore in trance", "fanatico senza culto", "eroe dell'ondeggiamento". Ora, raccontare Cioran significa fare i conti con tutti questi appellativi e prendere atto che la loro indubbia suggestione trova punti di forza in una vita per tanti versi scandalosa...

 Visto che prima del Cioran "parigino"- è nel 1937 che il Nostro approda in Francia -, capace di confezionare le sue aureee sentenze nihilistico-gnostiche in un brillantissimo francese, c'è un Cioran duro e puro, di fiera stirpe rumena, che fa propri i miti del radicamento e dell'identità, simpatizzando per il fascismo di Codreanu e delle sue Guardie di Ferro, e scrivendo un bel po' di cose "compromettenti". Di questo, Antonio Castronuovo in un agile profilo pubblicato da Liguori, Emil Michel Cioran (pp.100, euro 11,90), dà solo rapidi cenni, ricordando che, comunque, Emil Michel dedica un intero capitolo del suo "Sommario di decomposizione", alla "Genealogia del fanatismo", collocandosi così "all'opposto delle fascinazioni giovanili". E cioè delle, chiamiamole così, "fascio-fascinazioni".

Ora, Castronuovo fa bene a ricordarci, con la consueta eleganza, il grande "stilista" e il grande "moralista", lo scrittore impertinente e beffardo che si interroga sul senso della vita e della morte, il chierico extravagante che cerca di stanare Dio dai suoi misteri e dai suoi abissali silenzi. E tuttavia siamo convinti che Cioran e altri "dannati" dello scorso secolo - Pound e Céline, Drieu e Heidegger, Eliade e Jünger, tanto per fare i primi nomi che ci vengono in mente - non debbano essere alleggeriti dalle loro "responsabilità" con la vecchia storia dei "peccati di gioventù", una specie di rituale giustificativo-assolutorio che li "disinfetta" e li rende "presentabili", ma toglie loro qualcosa, e cioè la "ragioni" di una scelta. Per scandalose che possano apparire alle "animule vagule blandule" del "politicamente corretto". Ed è per questo che, a suo tempo, non ci è dispiaciuto il saggio di Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine Il fascismo rimosso: Cioran, Eliade, Ionesco nella bufera del secolo che, sia pure con una "vis" polemica non aliena da faziosità, si sforza di illuminare/documentare le stazioni di una milizia intellettuale che sarebbe sbagliato ignorare o sottovalutare. Non si può esaurire la forza testimoniale di Cioran nell'ambito delle acuminate provocazioni, immaginandone la vita come una fiammeggiante costellazione di (coltissime) invettive. Sia dunque reso merito a Friedgard Thoma che ci racconta un Cioran innamorato (Per nulla al mondo. Un amore di Cioran, a cura e con un saggio di Massimo Carloni, (L'orecchio di Van Gogh, pp.160, € 14,00), addirittura un Cioran "maniaco sentimentale": un genio dell'aforisma, ma anche un umanissimo, fragile, tenero settantenne, tutto preso da lei, giovane insegnante tedesca di filosofia e letteratura, che, folgorata dalla lettura del libro L'inconveniente di essere nati, nel febbraio del 1981 gli ha scritto una calda lettera di ammirazione. C'è da stupirsi del fatto che Cioran non fosse "corazzato" di fronte ai complimenti di una donna intelligente e affascinante? Come, lui, l'apocalittico, così inerme, così indifeso! Eppure, in Sillogismi dell'amarezza è proprio il "barbaro dei Carpazi" a invitarci a tenere la guardia alta di fronte al vorticoso nichilismo degli "apocalittici" e magari a scavarvi dentro. «Diffidate - scrive - di quelli che voltano le spalle all'amore, all'ambizione, alla società. Si vendicheranno di avervi "rinunciato". La storia delle idee è la storia del rancore dei solitari». Dunque, Cioran, uomo di idee ma anche di emozioni, compiaciuto per quella lettera affettuosa, risponde immediatamente alla sua "fan", con un mezzo invito ad andarlo a trovare a Parigi.

Lei, che ci tiene ad essere una interlocutrice culturale e cita Walser, Hölderlin e Gombrowicz, non manca di allegare alla risposta una sua foto. E siccome si tratta di una donna giovane - capelli sciolti, bocca carnosa, sguardo intenso -, le coeur en hiver di Cioran comincia a battere furiosamente. Lui stesso le confesserà un paio di mesi dopo: «Tutto in fondo è cominciato dalla foto, con i suoi occhi direi». E' una tempesta dei sensi, un'"eruzione emotiva". Ancor più incontrollabile, allorché lei decide di trascorrere qualche giorno a Parigi. Lui va a prenderla all'hotel e arriva dieci minuti prima: è «un uomo di costituzione fragile, con un ciuffo di capelli grigi, arruffati, e gli occhi dello stesso colore». Lei «cerca di apparire attraente, indossando un abito nero non troppo corto, sotto un lungo cappotto chiaro». Seguono conversazioni, passeggiate, cene, visite a musei, telefonate… Cioran vive una sorta di voluttuoso invasamento, al punto che, quando lei torna a Colonia, le scrive con spudorata audacia: «Ho compreso in maniera chiara di sentirmi legato sensualmente a lei solo dopo averle confessato al telefono che avrei voluto sprofondare per sempre la mia testa sotto la sua gonna». Poi, è lui ad andarla a trovare in Germania. «Vestita di rosso e nero», Friedgard lo accoglie alla stazione. Lui è innamorato pèrso, lei, sedotta intellettualmente, continua a sedurlo fisicamente, senza nulla concedere. Lui soffre, la chiama «mia cara zingara», le scrive: «Non capisco cosa sto cercando ancora in questo mondo, dove la felicità mi rende ancora più infelice dell'infelicità». Friedgard vuol tenere intatte "venerazione e amicizia", parlando di autori e di libri, entrando nella sua intimità, portando alla luce le sue contraddizioni. Ma confessando anche, con franchezza: «Dunque, caro: lei mi ha trascinato nell'immediatezza inequivocabile d'una relazione fisica, mentre io cercavo l'erotica ambiguità della relazione "intellettuale"». Proprio quella che a Cioran non basta. È innamorato, desidera la giovane prof. con una sensualità "vorace", le fa scenate di gelosia perché lei, ovviamente, ha un "compagno" cui è legata.

«Sono vulnerabile - le scrive - e nessuno quanto Lei può ferirmi tanto facilmente». E consolarlo, anche. Così, la immagina nelle vesti di una suora, "dalla voce sensuale però". E come uno studentello inebriato d'amore, che non rinuncia alle battute, confessa che vorrebbe morire insieme a lei: «A una condizione, però, che ci mettessero nella stessa bara». Così potrebbe raccontarle tante cose, «tante, ancora non dette».

Non manca nemmeno la proposta di matrimonio. Friedgard annota: «Al telefono, Cioran si dilettava volentieri con la proposta di sposarmi, contro tutti i suoi principi, addirittura secondo il rito ortodosso ("su questo devo insistere"), il che per lui significava essere cinti entrambi da corone. Quante risate, su un sogno triste». Un sogno che, così, non poteva continuare. La non appagata, sofferta, estrema accensione dei sensi di Emil «s'incanalerà negli anni lungo i binari d'una tenera, affettuosa amicizia». Nella cui calma piatta si spengerà fatalmente la "tentazione di esistere", carne e spirito almeno una volta insieme.

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

"Aristote au Mont Saint Michel: les racines grecques de l'Europe chrétienne" de Sylvain Gouguenheim

« Aristote au mont Saint-Michel : Les racines grecques de l'Europe chrétienne » de Sylvain Gouguenheim

 

Ex: http://www.polemia.com/

L’ouvrage de Sylvain Gouguenheim, divisé en cinq chapitres, aborde dans l’introduction la question de la situation respective de l’Orient et de l’Occident. Il fait le point sur la survivance de la Grèce dans le vaste empire romain, devenu chrétien byzantin, où les Chrétiens s’étaient divisés en plusieurs Eglises, Nestoriens en Perse de langue syriaque, Jacobites en Syrie de langue syriaque, Melkites en Egypte et Syrie de langue grecque, Coptes en Egypte de langue issue de l’ancien parler pharaonique. Quant au monde oriental, l’hellénisme prit sa source dans l’Antiquité tardive, les auteurs néoplatoniciens plutôt que par la redécouverte du classicisme athénien. Ensuite sont passées en revue les deux opinions courantes, admises de nos jours bien que contradictoires :

• 1° procédant d’une confusion entre les notions d’« arabe » et de « musulman », la dette grecque de l’Europe envers le monde arabo-musulman aurait repris le savoir grec et, le transmettant à l’Occident, aurait provoqué le réveil culturel de l’Europe ;
• 2° procédant toujours de la même confusion, les Musulmans de l’époque abbasside (l’«Islam des lumières »), dans leur fébrilité pour la recherche, auraient découvert l’ensemble de la pensée grecque qu’ils auraient traduite en arabe, avant de la transmettre à l’Europe par le truchement de l’Espagne par eux occupée puis libérée. Parallèlement, la Chrétienté médiévale serait demeurée en retard, plongée dans un âge d’obscurantisme.

Byzance, réservoir du savoir grec

Or Byzance, la grande oubliée des historiens de l’héritage européen, fut le réservoir du savoir grec, qu’elle diffusa dans toutes ses possessions italiennes comme à Rome où la connaissance de la langue grecque n’avait jamais disparu.
Dans un premier chapitre, l’auteur étudie la permanence de la culture grecque, relayée à ses débuts par le Christianisme d’expression grecque (Evangiles et premiers textes). En outre, dès le Ve siècle, Byzance connut une grande vague de traductions du grec en syriaque, opérées par les Chrétiens orientaux, faisant coexister la foi au Christ et la paideia antique, véhiculée ensuite par des auteurs tels que Martianus Capella et Macrobe, comme l’a fort bien démontré A. Vernet, par les traductions et commentaires de Platon, composés par Calcidius (cosmologie) dès les années 400, et d’Aristote, composés par Boèce (logique et musique). La pensée grecque est aussi présente chez les Pères, chez les prélats d’Italie du sud, grands intellectuels, importée aussi par les Grecs syriaques chassés d’Orient par l’iconoclasme byzantin et par la conquête arabe, pour ne parler que des manuscrits apportés d’Orient en Sicile (Strabon, Don Cassius…), comme le démontrent les travaux de J. Irigoin : autant de régions de peuplement et de culture grecque, noyaux de diffusion à travers toute l’Europe.
• La conquête musulmane de la Sicile (827) porta un coup dur à ce mouvement : monastères et bibliothèques incendiés ou détruits, habitants déportés en esclavage, dont les rescapés vont en Campanie ou dans le Latium pour y fonder des abbayes (Grotta Ferrata). Les reconquêtes byzantines puis normandes restaureront la tradition hellénique.
• A Rome, qui avait connu une forte immigration de Grecs et de Levantins fuyant les persécutions perses et arabes, tous les papes, entre 685 et 752, seront grecs ou syriaques, et fonderont des monastères grecs. Pendant des siècles des artistes byzantins (fondeurs de bronze, mosaïstes) viennent en Italie, appelés par de grands prélats, pour orner cathédrales et abbatiales. En Germanie, la cour de l’empereur Otton II, époux de Théophano, ouvre une période de renaissance de la langue et de la culture grecques. Puis son fils Otton III attirera beaucoup de Grecs venus d’Italie du sud, qui occuperont des sièges importants dans l’Empire et l’Eglise (dont l’un des plus célèbres est Rathier de Vérone), y apportant souvent des textes de mathématique et d’astronomie : parmi eux Siméon l’Achéen, militaire byzantin, qui combattit aux côtés de Guillaume le Libérateur à La Garde-Freinet, libérant ainsi définitivement la Provence de l’invasion musulmane. Les élites du Maghreb, juifs et chrétiens, s’enfuient et se réfugient en Espagne.
• En France , les contacts entre Francs et Byzantins s’intensifient avec Pépin le Bref. Les Carolingiens reçoivent des manuscrits d’Aristote et de Denys l’Aréopagite. Leur entourage compte nombre d’hellénistes. Charlemagne lui-même comprenait le grec. Sous Louis le Pieux deux ambassades byzantines (824 et 827) apportent le corpus du Pseudo-Denys, que traduisit l’abbé de Saint-Denis, Hilduin, même si cette traduction passe pour avoir été fort médiocre ; traduction que l’empereur Charles le Chauve devra charger le savant helléniste Jean Scot Erigène, auteur lui-même de poèmes en grec, de réélaborer

Les centres de diffusion de la culture grecque en Europe

L’exposé sur les centres de diffusion de la culture grecque en Europe dans les siècles postérieurs est trop long et répétitif : les princes normands de Sicile encouragèrent le monachisme grec, et l’on pourrait ajouter que leur chancellerie expédiait leurs actes en quatre langues, grec, latin, arabe, normand. A Rome, le haut clergé parle grec. Le Latran, riche d’une immense bibliothèque, diffuse partout des œuvres grecques. Anastase le bibliothécaire, helléniste réputé, fut ambassadeur à Byzance. De Rome, la langue et la culture grecques se diffusèrent dans les pays anglo-saxons : Bède le Vénérable (+ 735) lisait le grec ; Aldhelm de Canterbury (+709), d’une très haute culture classique, enseigna la langue grecque à saint Boniface. Quant à l’Irlande, grand foyer d’hellénisme, outre Jean Scot, ses savants diffusèrent leur savoir dans toute l’Europe du nord, jusqu’à Milan. Pour l’Espagne, la Catalogne surtout offre des textes d’Aristote et des néoplatoniciens, dans les manuscrits desquels on peut remarquer des alphabets et des essais de plume en grec : ajoutons que le même phénomème s’observe aussi dans nombre de manuscrits conservés en France.

L’auteur accorde un grand chapitre à la médecine, domaine dans lequel le rôle joué par les savants musulmans a été particulièrement exalté. Raymond Le Coz, dans son ouvrage  Les chrétiens dans la médecine arabe  (Paris, L’Harmattan, 2006) a fait justice de cette opinion. Il souligne lui aussi le rôle primordial des chrétiens du Proche-Orient : Nestoriens, Jacobites, Melkites, Coptes, qui traduisirent les textes grecs bien avant l’arrivée de l’Islam. R. Le Coz insiste sur l’héritage byzantin qui imposa les ouvrages de Galien, la place éminente de l’Ecole d’Alexandrie dont l’une des plus grandes figures est Oribase, auteur d’une encyclopédie en soixante-dix livres, rapportant en outre de nombreux textes de ses prédécesseurs. Cette école, brillant encore avec Ammonius (VI° s.) puis Jean Philipon, fut remplacée au VIIIe siècle par celle de Bagdad où Nestoriens et Jacobites transmettront, par leurs traductions en langue arabe, aux musulmans leurs connaissance du savoir grec. Les Nestoriens seront d’ailleurs les médecins des califes de Bagdad et donneront naissance à la figure du « philosophe médecin, souvent astronome, astrologue ou alchimiste, si caractéristique de tout le moyen-âge, arabe et occidental ». Chez les Latins, dès le VIe siècle et grâce à Cassiodore, on connait les travaux de Soranos, médecin grec d’Ephèse (II° s.), Hippocrate, Galien, Dioscoride et Oribase. Puis ces textes circulent dans les abbayes d’Italie du nord et du sud, où la pratique du grec ne cessa jamais : Salerne, le Mont-Cassin, de si brillante réputation que de hauts personnages du nord de l’Europe viennent s’y faire soigner, avec les œuvres de Garipontus et Petrocellus. Quant au célèbre Constantin l’Africain (+1087), sa biographie nous informe qu’il apprit la médecine à Kairouan ou au Caire : on ne peut donc savoir quelles ont été ses sources, bien que, selon Pierre Diacre, il aurait été aussi formé aux disciplines grecques d’Ethiopie : il traduisait directement du grec ou de l’arabe en latin.

Le XIIe siècle, renouveau des études à partir de sources antiques

S’attardant sur la Renaissance carolingienne, l’Académie du Palais de Charlemagne, sur Richer de Reims qui aurait enseigné la médecine grecque, Gouguenheim, suivant un plan chronologique un peu confus, dresse un tableau de la Renaissance du XII° siècle, où le renouveau des études puise à la source de la culture antique : traductions d’œuvres scientifiques d’optique, de mécanique dans toute l’Europe, impulsées par l’Ordre de Cluny et son abbé Pierre le Vénérable. Mais pour tous ces savants, peut-on affirmer qu’ils ont tous travaillé sur des traductions directes et que leurs connaissances sont en totalité indépendantes des travaux arabo-musulmans ?
La circulation directe des textes de Byzance en Italie, vers la France et l’Empire mériterait, pour ces époques, d’être mieux connue, mieux étudiée. Quoiqu’il en soit, grâce à la réforme grégorienne, au renouveau du droit, de la philosophie politique, de la pratique rénovée de la dialectique, partout en Europe et en toutes matières, on constate un regain de l’influence et de l’imitation de l’Antique, la pratique et la découverte de textes grecs et latins. L’abbé Suger de Saint-Denis ne faisait-il pas l’admiration de ses moines grecs parcequ’il récitait de mémoire plus de trente vers d’Horace ? On découvre le livre II de la Logique d’Aristote, l’harmonie du monde de Platon à travers l’étude de la nature (Guillaume de Conches, Hugues de Saint-Victor), des œuvres de Cicéron. La mythologie païenne sert de support à la méthode allégorique d’exégèse de l’Ecriture. L’activité de traduction s’intensifie à Tolède, Palerme, Rome, Pise, Venise, en Rhénanie, à Reims, Cluny, au Bec-Hellouin, au Mont-Saint-Michel. Les Antiques sont les géants de Bernard de Chartres. Tous ces faits sont bien connus et ils témoignent d’une ouverture extraordinaire au savoir antique grec et latin, mais ils ne constituent pas une preuve exclusive d’un transfert directe de cette culture d’orient en occident.
Dans un deuxième chapitre, l’auteur revient, de façon quelque peu redondante, sur la diffusion du savoir grec par Byzance et la chrétienté d’orient, du VIe au XIIe siècle, rappelant les voies et les hommes qui ont permis la continuité avec le monde occidental depuis l’époque classite que. Le chapitre III est la justification du titre de l’ouvrage : l’Europe a recherché elle-même, et non reçu passivement l’héritage antique, grâce aux moines de ses grandes abbayes qui en firent des traductions directes. L’auteur donne une place centrale à l’abbaye du Mont-Saint-Michel où Jacques de Venise, arrivé au début du XIIe siècle, traduisit du grec en latin de nombreux textes d’Aristote, bien avant les traductions faites à Tolède à partir de textes en arabe. Une antériorité sur laquelle on aurait aimé que l’auteur insistât davantage. Le séjour de Jacques de Venise au Mont-Saint-Michel est contesté par certains historiens. Robert de Torigny, abbé en 1154, témoignera seulement de lui comme traducteur et commentateur vers 1125, mais la présence de ses traductions dans des manuscrits de la bibliothèque d’Avranches n’est sans doute pas due au hasard. La question, au reste, est de peu d’importance : son œuvre demeure et fut largement diffusée, à Chartres, Paris, en Angleterre, à Bologne et à Rome. Jean de Salisbury, dans le Metalogicon, utilise pour la première fois tous les écrits de l’Organon, peut-être dans la traduction de Jean de Venise.

Arabité et islamisme

Le chapitre IV est consacré à la nature de la réception des textes grecs par les arabes musulmans. L’opinion commune leur attribue une appropriation totale du savoir grec. Or l’auteur met de nouveau en garde, comme le fait R. Le Coz pour la médecine, contre la confusion entre arabité et islamisme. Le « monde musulman », alors dominant, comportait beaucoup de savants chrétiens, juifs, sabéens, parmi lesquels nombreux étaient des Arabes, arabisés, Persans convertis. Or auparavant les Arabes furent mis en contact dès l’époque ummayyade avec le monde grec et lui furent hostiles. Une grande partie de l’élite byzantine prit la fuite. S’il n’est pas démontré que le calife Umar II a lui-même ordonné l’incendie de la bibliothèque d’Alexandrie, du moins est-ce bien lui qui mit un terme à l’enseignement des sciences dans cette ville, « décision tout à fait conforme à ce que l’on connait du personnage » (R. Le Coz). La destruction de centres de culture aussi célèbres que le Mont Athos, Vatopédi, les raids incessants lancés par les califes en Sicile, au Mont-Cassin, à Rome et jusqu’au nord de la Gaule, aux VIII et IXe siècles, suffisent, dit l’auteur, à « démontrer le peu de goût des peuples musulmans pour la civilisation greco-latine ». Quant à la tradition de la « Maison de Sagesse », qui aurait regroupé des savants de toutes confessions et toutes disciplines, elle repose sur un texte beaucoup plus tardif rapportant la vision d’Aristote qu’aurait eue en songe le calife Al-Mamun, dont la bibliothèque ne fut ouverte, selon le témoignage d’un Musulman, qu’aux spécialistes du coran et de l’astronomie. L’auteur insiste sur les difficultés d’une traduction du grec en arabe : pour la langue, la pensée, dont les musulmans font passer les mots au filtre du coran, le raisonnement, au service exclusif de la foi. Quant à la médecine, R. Le Coz a démontré (dans  Les médecins nestoriens. Les maîtres des Arabes, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2003) que l’Islam n’a rien apporté. En philosophie, la logique aristotélicienne, passée au tamis du néoplatonisme, ne fut appliquée, par le mouvement de la Falsafa, que pour une exégèse rationnelle du Coran.

Averroès, islamiste pur et dur

Le parti le plus orthodoxe de l’Islam prit, à partir du IXe siècle, un aspect guerrier, contre la Trinité des chrétiens et le Dieu vengeur des Juifs. Son meilleur représentant est Averroès, médecin et juriste, qui prêcha à Cordoue le djihad contre les chrétiens : pour lui, l’étude de la Falsafa doit obéir aux principes de la chari’a (loi religieuse). De plus, la philosophie doit être interdite aux hommes du commun. Averroès, élitiste, ne fut ni athée ni tolérant. Pour ce qui est de la science politique, jamais l’Islam n’eut recours au système juridique greco-romain. La « Politique » d’Aristote ne fut jamais traduite en arabe : elle leur fut totalement étrangère. L’Islam n’a retenu des Grecs que ce qui leur était utile et ne contrevenait aux lois du Coran : sciences naturelles et médecine, tandis que la théologie chrétienne fut peu à peu pénétrée par la philosophie qui l’amena à évoluer.

Deux civilisations, deux cultures

Au dernier chapitre, l’auteur soulève la question de l’ouverture de l’Islam aux autres civilisations. Sauf quelques rares exceptions, ce ne fut, pendant tout le moyen-âge, qu’un long face à face de deux mondes radicalement différents, le plus souvent opposés. Comme nous le rappelle R. Le Coz, les Arabes conquérants ont toujours dédaigné apprendre la langue des pays conquis, puisque leur propre langue était celle de Dieu lui-même, celle de la Révélation. Evoquant la scission en Méditerranée, opérée par l’Islam, entre l’Occident et Byzance, et l’orientation consécutive de l’Europe vers le nord, l’auteur aurait pu invoquer aussi l’origine ethnique des Francs, qui marqua fortement les changements culturels. Pour une étude comparative dans le domaine de la transmission de l’une et l’autre culture, il est évident que l’Islam n’est pas un espace défini, que ces peuples auraient occupé pour s’y fondre, mais une culture fondamentalement religieuse, constituée par conquêtes successives, dans laquelle la politique et le droit (fiqh) dépendent strictement de la religion. En outre, les longs siècles de conflits violents étaient peu compatibles avec des échanges scientifiques. Il est tout aussi indéniable que le Christianisme est né et plonge ses racines dans un univers grec. L’usage de la liturgie grecque à Saint-Jean du Latran comme dans les grandes abbayes de Germanie et de France, de toute antiquité et pas seulement à partir du XIIe siècle, en est une preuve irréfutable. Deux civilisations fondées sur des religions contradictoires à vocation universelle ne pouvaient s’interpénétrer, à moins que l’une s’impose à l’autre, comme ce fut le cas pour l’Egypte et le Maghreb. C’est pourquoi, conclue l’auteur, une culture, stricto sensu, peut à la rigueur se transmettre, non une civilisation.

En conclusion

Sylvain Gougenheim rappelle que la quasi-totalité du savoir grec avait été traduite tout d’abord en syriaque, puis du syriaque en arabe par les Chrétiens orientaux, ce que confirme R. Le Coz dans le domaine médical : « comment les Arabes ont-ils pu connaître et assimiler cette science qui leur était étrangère…il a fallu des intermédiaires pour traduire les textes de l’Antiquité et initier les nouveaux venus à des techniques dont ils ignoraient tout. Les intermédiaires nécessaires ont été les chrétiens, héritiers de Byzance, qui vivaient dans le monde soumis à l’Islam et qui avaient été arabisés ». Quant aux occidentaux, outre leur propre tradition de savoir grec, ils bénéficièrent aussi de l’apport de ces chrétiens grecs et syriaques chassés d’orient, de l’Ecole d’Alexandrie, comme le confirment les études de J. Irigoin. Toutes ces données, solidement étayées, autorisent l’auteur à inscrire les racines culturelles de l’Europe dans le savoir grec, le droit romain et la Bible.

L’annexe 1, qui fait, semble-t-il, couler beaucoup d’encre, est consacré au livre de l’orientaliste Sigrid Hunke, « Le Soleil d’Allah », polémique s’il en est, qui occupe, comme celui de M. Detienne, peu de place dans le débat dans la mesure où cet écrit, faisant écho à une idéologie aujourd’hui en vogue, n’est mû que par des arguments passionnels, voire racistes : il est donc sans intérêt.

L’héritage grec a été transmis à l’Europe par voie directe

L’ouvrage de Sylvain Gouguenheim, comme son titre l’indique, s’attache à démontrer que l’héritage grec a été transmis à l’Europe par voie directe, indépendante de la filière arabo-musulmane, tout en reconnaissant à la science musulmane la place qui lui est historiquement et chronologiquement due. Le livre est, avouons-le redondant, prolixe, parfois touffu. Partant de l’opinion commune, la démonstration se perd dans des excursus et des retours en arrière trop longs, des synthèses aussitôt reprises dans le détail, dans lesquels le lecteur a parfois du mal à retrouver le fil conducteur. L’auteur a voulu, de toute évidence, étant donnée la sensibilité du sujet, apporter le maximum de preuves à des faits qui, pour la plupart, sont irréfutables. L’ouvrage présente, il est vrai, un foisonnement cotoyant parfois la confusion. Certaines argumentations en revanche auraient mérité un plus grand développement, par exemple sur la science biblique, les Pères grecs et latins, l’Ecole d’Alexandrie. Cette étude a donc suscité de violentes polémiques, largement relayées par l’historien philosophe allemand Kurt Flasch, signataire d’une pétition la condamnant, mais reconnaissant aussitôt que « depuis 1950 la recherche a établi de façon irréfutable la continuité des traditions platonicienne et aristotélicienne. Augustin était un fin connaisseur du néoplatonisme qu’il ne distinguait pas du platonisme. Donc, le socle grec de la culture européenne et occidentale est incontestable ». Alors, où est le problème, et pourquoi cette polémique ? Elle repose, nous l’avons dit, sur plusieurs malentendus : la confusion entre « arabe » et « musulman », la notion de « racines », qui renvoie essentiellement aux hautes époques, l’absence de distinction nette entre la connaissance d’Aristote et celle de l’ensemble du savoir grec. Les musulmans abbassides promurent en leur temps et à leur tour la tradition grecque dans certaines disciplines, essentiellement scientifiques. Nulle part l’auteur ne nie que l’Islam ait conservé et fait progresser ces disciplines, cependant toujours passées au filtre du Coran, dont l’Occident a ensuite bénéficié. Cet ouvrage est un travail de grande synthèse, on ne peut lui demander d’être, dans tous les domaines, à la fine pointe de la bibliographie, laquelle est d’ailleurs sélective. Il présente, quant à la forme, quelques irrespects concernant les règles éditoriales, fautes vénielles dont nul ne peut prétendre être exempt. Quant au fond, les preuves apportées sont nécessaires et suffisantes. Celle que l’on pourrait y ajouter est fournie par la longue fréquentation des manuscrits médiévaux, et mieux encore, le fichier du contenu des bibliothèques médiévales d’occident, élaboré par A. Vernet tout au long de sa carrière et aujourd’hui déposé à l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des textes : on peut y constater qu’en effet la culture européenne ne doit pas grand’chose à l’Islam.

Il faut reconnaître à Sylvain Gouguenheim le mérite d’être allé à contre-courant de la position officielle contemporaine, d’avoir fourni aux chercheurs un gros dossier qui décape les idées reçues : une étude vaste, précise et argumentée, qui fait preuve en outre d’un remarquable courage.

Françoise Houël Gasparri
Chartiste, médieviste
Auteur de nombreux ouvrages, dont notamment :
Crimes et Chatiments en Provence au temps du Roi René , Procédure criminelle au XVe siècle, Paris, éditions Le Léopard d’or, 1989 ; Un crime en Provence au XVe siècle, Paris, Albin Michel, 1991

Correspondance Polémia – 28/06/2010

Les intertitres sont de la rédaction.

Voir : « Le retour à l’identité »

Sylvain Gouguenheim, Aristote au Mont-Saint-Michel. Les racines grecques de l’Europe chrétienne. Paris, Le Seuil (l’Univers historique), 2008, 285 pages.

La "Damnatio memoriae" fruto de la memoria historica

La Damnatio memoriae fruto de la memoria histórica

Alberto Buela (*)

Cuando el historiador Ernst Nolte demostró allá por los años ochenta del siglo pasado que la historia reciente de Alemania, especialmente la de la segunda guerra mundial, se había transformado en un pasado que no pasa, el mundo académico y los voceros de la policía del pensamiento saltaron como leche hervida. Es que Nolte puso en evidencia el mecanismo por el cual la memoria histórica había reemplazado a la historia como ciencia, con lo que quedó en evidencia la incapacidad histórica de los famosos académicos y los presupuestos ideológicos-políticos que guiaban sus investigaciones.

Es sabido que la memoria es siempre la memoria de un sujeto individual o si se quiere de una persona, singular y concreta. La memoria no existe más que como memoria de alguien. Su naturaleza estriba en otorgarle al sujeto el principio de identidad. Yo soy yo y me reconozco como tal a lo largo del tiempo de mi vida por la memoria que tengo de mi mismo desde que existo hasta el presente. Si existe o no una “memoria colectiva” esta es una cuestión que no está resuelta. El gran historiador alemán  Reinhart Koselleck (1923-2006) sostuvo que no. Así, en su última  entrevista en Madrid, publicada póstumamente el 24/4/2007, afirma:

“ Y mi posición personal en este tema es muy estricta en contra de la memoria colectiva, puesto que estuve sometido a la memoria colectiva de la época nazi durante doce años de mi vida. Me desagrada cualquier memoria colectiva porque sé que la memoria real es independiente de la llamada "memoria colectiva", y mi posición al respecto es que mi memoria depende de mis experiencias, y nada más. Y se diga lo que se diga, sé cuáles son mis experiencias personales y no renuncio a ninguna de ellas. Tengo derecho a mantener mi experiencia personal según la he memorizado, y los acontecimientos que guardo en mi memoria constituyen mi identidad personal. Lo de la "identidad colectiva" vino de las famosas siete pes alemanas: los profesores, los sacerdotes (en el inglés original de la entrevista: priests), los políticos, los poetas, la prensa..., en fin, personas que se supone que son los guardianes de la memoria colectiva, que la pagan, que la producen, que la usan, muchas veces con el objetivo de infundir seguridad o confianza en la gente... Para mí todo eso no es más que ideología. Y en mi caso concreto, no es fácil que me convenza ninguna experiencia que no sea la mía propia. Yo contesto: "Si no les importa, me quedo con mi posición personal e individual, en la que confío". Así pues, la memoria colectiva es siempre una ideología, que en el caso de Francia fue suministrada por Durkheim y Halbwachs, quienes, en lugar de encabezar una Iglesia nacional francesa, inventaron para la nación republicana una memoria colectiva que, en torno a 1900, proporcionó a la República francesa una forma de autoidentificación adecuada en una Europa mayoritariamente monárquica, en la que Francia constituía una excepción. De ese modo, en aquel mundo de monarquías, la Francia republicana tenía su propia identidad basada en la memoria colectiva. Pero todo esto no dejaba de ser una invención académica, asunto de profesores.”

En concordancia con esto ya había reaccionado cuando el gobierno alemán decidió erigir un símil de la estatua de La Piedad en la Neue Wache para venerar a las víctimas de las guerras producidas por Alemania. Koselleck levantó su voz crítica para advertir que un monumento de connotación cristiana resultaba una "aporía de la memoria" frente a los millones de judíos caídos en ese trance. Pero también en 1997, cuando el ayuntamiento de Berlín decidió erigir un monumento para recordar el Holocausto judío, volvió a la palestra para recordar que los alemanes habían matado por igual a católicos, comunistas, soviéticos, gitanos y gays. Nadie como él, entre los historiadores, hizo tanto para desembarazar a la escritura y a las representaciones de la historia del brete a que la someten los ideólogos de la “memoria histórica”.

El reemplazo de la historia como ciencia, como conocimiento por las causas, con el manejo metodológico que exige el trabajo sobre los testimonios y materiales del pasado, por parte de la memoria histórica siempre parcial e interesada (la ideología es un conjunto de ideas que enmascara los intereses de un grupo, clase o sector) ha desembocado en la moderna damnatio memoriae o condena de la memoria.

La damnatio memoriae era una condena judicial que practicaba el senado romano con los emperadores muertos por la cual se eliminaba todo aquello que lo recordaba. Desde Augusto en el 27 a.C. hasta Julio Nepote en el 480 d.C. fueron 34 los emperadores condenados. Se llegaba incluso hasta la abolitio nominis, borrando su nombre de todo documento e inscripción. Se buscaba la destrucción de todo recuerdo. Se destruían sus bustos y estatuas. Suetonio cuenta que los senadores lanzaban sobre el emperador muerto las más ultrajantes y crueles invectivas. La intención era borrar del pasado todo vestigio que recordara su presencia.

Las damnationes se realizaban a partir del poder constituido y su presupuesto ideológico era: de aquello que no se habla no existe. Arturo Jauretche, ese gran pensador popular argentino en su necrológica de nuestro maestro, José Luís Torres, nos habla de la confabulación del silencio como mejor mecanismo de los grupos de poder.  Es una manifestación de prepotencia del poder establecido, con lo que busca eliminar el recuerdo del adversario, quedando así el poder actual como único dueño del pasado  colectivo.

No es necesario ser un sutil pensador para comparar estas destrucciones de la memoria y eliminaciones de  todo recuerdo con lo que sucede con nuestros gobiernos de hoy. En España una vez muerto Franco comenzó una campaña de difamación contra su persona y sus obras que llegó hasta cambiarle el nombre al pueblo donde nació. En Argentina cuando cayó Perón en 1955 se prohibió hasta su nombre (por dictador), reapareció la vieja abolitio nominis. Hace poco tiempo el gobierno de Kirchner hizo bajar el cuadro del ex presidente Videla (por antidemócrata). Al General Roca que llevó la guerra contra el indio le quieren voltear la estatua (por genocida). Se le quitó el nombre del popular escritor Hugo Wast a un salón de la biblioteca nacional (por antijudío). Y así suma y sigue.

Cuando la historia de un pueblo cae en manos de la memoria colectiva o de la memoria histórica lo que se produce habitualmente es la tergiversación de dicha historia, cuya consecuencia es la perplejidad de ese pueblo, pues se conmueven los elementos que conforman su identidad.

Es que la memoria lleva, por su subjetividad, necesariamente a valorar de manera interesada lo qué sucedió y cómo sucedió. Así para seguir con los ejemplos puestos, objetivamente considerados, Franco fue un gobernante austero y eficaz, Perón no fue un dictador, Videla fue un liberal cruel, Roca no fue un genocida y Wast fue un novelista católico. Vemos que aquello que deja la memoria histórica es un relato mentiroso que extraña al hombre del pueblo sobre sí mismo.

La memoria histórica es un producto de la mentalidad y los gobiernos jacobinos, aquellos que gobiernan a favor de unos grupos y en contra de otros. Aquellos que utilizan los aparatos del Estado no en función de la concordia interior sino como ejercicio del resentimiento, esto es, del rencor retenido, dando a los amigos y quitando a los enemigos. La sana tolerancia de la visión y versión del otro acerca de los acontecimientos históricos es algo que la memoria histórica no puede soportar, la rechaza de plano. La consecuencia lógica es la dammnatio memoriae, la condena de la memoria del otro.

 

(*) arkegueta, eterno comenzante- Univ. Tecnológica Nacional

[e-mail]

  

De slapeloze uit Rasinari

De slapeloze uit Răşinari

Ex: http://www.cioran.eu/

Terwijl ik met kromme rug gebogen zat in het archief van de Provinciale Zeeuwsche Courant, met als doel informatie te vergaren over een zekere historische periode van het stadje Terneuzen, van belang voor een verantwoording in het boek van een lokale auteur, stuitte ik op een artikel in de krant van 21 december 1934. Het artikel in de kunstbijlage - de laatste decennia zeer gewaardeerd vanwege de prettige opmaak en degelijke medewerking van scribenten als Hans Warren en Alfred Kossmann, maar na de restyling van 2001 voorlopig helaas verworden tot een moeilijk te herkennen katern - van de hand van ene Ramses P. Verbrugge, trok mijn aandacht. In de eerste plaats omdat het stuk handelde over een auteur die mij niet bekend was, namelijk E. M. Cioran, en in de tweede plaats omdat bij verder lezen het stuk mij fascineerde. De gerecenseerde auteur fascineerde mij, alsmede Verbrugge's aanpak en ontboezeming dat Cioran's debuut hem de stuipen op het lijf had gejaagd. Verbrugge's mening was overigens geformuleerd in het Zeeuws, met alle oa's en sch's inbegrepen, en niet te doorgronden voor buitenstaanders. Omdat ik geboren ben in Terneuzen - mijn achternaam is een symbool van haar rumoerige internationale havenverleden - heb ik mij in ieder geval enigszins in staat geacht een vrije vertaling te produceren, na het lezen van de bovenstaande Engelse vertaling uit 1992. Hier het resultaat.

De slapeloze uit Răşinari
E. M. Cioran, On the heights of despair

De Roemeense schrijvende filosoof E. M. Cioran, maakt mij bijzonder neerslachtig, maar doet mij daarvan de waarde realiseren. Met nadruk krijgt deze filosoof hier de voornaam 'schrijver' aangereikt. Zeer bekwaam is hij met woorden. Filosofie bij Cioran is van vlees en bloed, en moet daarom ook met het zwaard geschreven worden. Gaandeweg het boek doemde de impressie bij mij op dat zijn persoonlijke ontboezemingen, die meermaals als bijlage terugkeren, naast verstrengeld te zijn in de stukken - ook al erg ongebruikelijk in de filosofie - ertoe dienen om de filosofische wanhoop te bezweren. Maar die wanhoop - de ultieme wanhoop: de dood - is het enige waar we mee uit de voeten kunnen, want de logiek van de Griekse wijsgeren heeft voor Cioran afgedaan. Alleen door de lyriek beleven we de subjectieve chaos die ons universum beheerst.

'I despise the absence of risks, madness, and passion in abstract thinking. How fertile live, passionate thinking is! Lyricism feeds it like blood pumped into the heart!'

En:

'Haven't people learned yet that the time of superficial intellectual games is over, that agony is infinitely more important than syllogism, that a cry of despair is more revealing than the most subtle thought, and that tears always have deeper roots than smiles?'

Cioran's lyrisme van de wanhoop is ironisch, poëtisch, arrogant, paradoxaal en gewelddadig. Hij laat zijn licht schijnen over moderne zaken zoals hij daar noemt: vervreemding, absurditeit, het pijnlijke van het bewustzijn en de ziekte van de rede. Hij doet dat in zesenzestig korte, bondige, heftige hoofdstukken, alle gevuld met stevige aforismen. Nietzscheaans is Cioran in zijn afwijzing van het middelmatige, maar die is niet despotisch, want op lijden staat geen maat - lijden is altijd intern, nooit extern. Cioran gaat uit van zijn eigen lijden, dat een oorsprong heeft: slapeloosheid. Cioran lijdt aan slapeloosheid, en naar het schijnt heeft hij de kunde van het fietsen opgepakt om na uren en uren gefiets te proberen thuis in zijn kleine en schamele appartement in slaap te vallen. Vaak tevergeefs. Zijn fysieke gesteldheid is navenant en wordt de basis van zijn filosofie, zoals we lezen in Facing silence:

'Chronic fatigue predisposes to a love of silence, for in it words lose their meaning and strike the ear with the hollow sonority of mechanical hammers; concepts weaken, expressions lose their force, the word grows barren as the wilderness. The ebb and flow of the outside is like a distant monotonous murmur unable to stir interest or curiosity. Then you think it useless to express an opinion, to take a stand, to make an impression; the noises you have renounced increase the anxiety of your soul. After having struggled madly to solve all problems, after having suffered on the heights of despair, in the supreme hour of revelation, you will find that the only answer, the only reality, is silence.'

Ziekte, de eenzaamheid van de stilte maakt een mens lucide en doet hem de nietsheid ervaren. Hij moet die schrijnende kans met beide handen aangrijpen: 'Only the sick man is delighted by life and praises it so that he won't collapse.' Dit uitgangspunt voert de jonge Roemeense auteur naar verscheidene lyrische uitweidingen, die over de problematiek van de zelfmoordneiging zijn niet ondervertegenwoordigd. Met de zesenzestig hoofdstukken verwierf hij aan een universiteit in een grote stad (welke wordt niet duidelijk in de verantwoording) een plaats in Berlijn, alvorens een eindthese te schrijven over het Bergoniaanse intutionisme. Hij is pas drieëntwintig jaren jong en geboren te Răşinari, een klein, idyllisch Transsylvaans dorpje. Zal hij niet als een kwade zombie laveren tussen de zwartgeschaduwde stadsbussen en centrummuren?

Kerk te Răşinari - Januari 2005

Titels als The premonition of madness, Nothing is important, The world in which nothing is solved, Total dissatisfction, en The return to chaos geven een indruk van de beladen thematiek en haar behandeling; een stuk als Enthousiasm as a form of love geeft de speelsheid in die zwaarte weer. Mooi vind ik bovendien de stukken waarin Cioran zelf lijkt te balanceren, wild maar elegant te koorddansen, tussen het gewicht van zijn thema en de verwoording ervan. In The cult of infinity, een pleidooi voor de eindeloosheid, buigt hij zich over muziek.

'One of the principal elements of infinity is its negation of form. Absolute becoming, infinity destroys anything that is formed, crystallized, or finished. Isn't music the art which best expresses infinity because it dissolves all forms into a charmingly ineffable fluidity? Form always tends to complete what is fragmentary and, by individualizing its contents, to eliminate the perspective of the universal and the infinite; thus it exists only to remove the content of life from chaos and anarchy. Forms are illusory and, beyond their evanescence, true reality reveals itself as an intense pulsation. The penchant for form comes from love of finitude, the seduction of boundaries which will never engender metaphysical revelations. Metaphysics, like music, springs from the experience of infinity. They both grow on heights and cause vertigo. I have always wondered why those who have produced masterpieces in these domains have not all gone mad. Music more than any other art requires so much concentration that one could easily, after creative moments, lose one's mind. All great composers ought to either commit suicide or become insane at the height of their creative powers. Are not all those aspiring to infinity on the road to madness? Normality, abnormality, are notions that no longer mean anything. Let us live in the ecstasy of infinity, let us love that which is boundless, let us destroy forms and institute the only cult without forms: the cult of infinity.'

In de Kansas City Star van 11 november 1934 observeert een journalist, William Allen White, dat Franklin Delano Roosevelt 'has been all but crowned by the people.' Zijn radiopraatjes voor de openhaard nemen de mensen voor hem in, maar de depressie beklijft. In de Abessijnse stad Walwal is het 4 december tot een vuurgevecht gekomen tussen Italiaanse en Abessijnse troepen. Over de zelfmoord op 7 december van een Noorse zeeman in pension City in de Terneuzense Nieuwstraat blijft de commissaris in het ongewisse. Over het onbenullige van geschiedenis schrijft Cioran in History and eternity, ons ademloos achterlatend door een originele visie: geschiedenis is een nutteloos vacuüm?

'By outstripping history one acquires superconciousness, an important ingredient of eternity. It takes you into the realm where contradictions and doubts lose their meaning, where you can forget about life and death. It is the fear of life and death that launches men on their quest for eternity: its only advantage is forgetfulness. But what about the return from eternity?'

Met deze sporadische vraag geraken we tot het enige minuscule Socratische trekje in Cioran. De slapeloze lyriek van deze gewelddadige schrijver en filosoof zal hopelijk nog zoveel mogelijk open wonden open houden.

Aldo Fujimori

Torheiten

Torheiten

Ex: http://rezistant.blogspot.com/

Die persönlichen Interessenverflechtungen sind in einer durchentwickelten Volksgemeinschaft derartig vielgestaltig und wegen des Spezialistentums so unlösbar, dass es weder zu einer erhöhten Freiheit noch zu einer wirklichen Brüderlichkeit und vor allem niemals zu einer echten Gleichheit kommen kann. In jedem einzelnen der unzähligen Fachgebiete muss es stets Zuständigkeiten, Befehlsbefugnisse, Verantwortlichkeiten, Kritikverbote und Gehorsamsverpflichtungen geben. Das ganze komplizierte Gebäude der Zusammenarbeit würde sehr schnell auseinander brechen, wenn jedermann in jeder Sache über seine spezielle Berufung hinaus ein Mitbestimmungsrecht ausüben würde, und sei es auch nur in personellen Fragen.

In der Politik kann es sich nicht anders verhalten, und infolgedessen pflegen politische Diskussionen in einer Demokratie unfachlich und praktisch unfruchtbar zu sein. Sie bedeuten eine ungeheuerliche Kraft- und Zeitvergeudung, wie es immer der Fall ist, wenn sich Laien in fachliche Dinge einmischen - noch dazu ohne für ihre Torheiten zur Verantwortung gezogen werden zu können - oder wenn Staatsführungen ihre Massnahmen auf ein laienhaftes Verständnis abstimmen müssen.

Hans Domizlaff, Die Seele des Staates. - Die Geburtsfehler der Demokratie. Privatdruck, Hamburg 1957.

Nietzsche et l'hyperphysique de la morale

Nietzsche et l’hyperphysique de la morale

par Pierre LE VIGAN

L’interrogation sur la morale est au cœur de la pensée de Nietzsche. « Je descendis en profondeur, je taraudais la base… je commençais à saper la confiance en la morale » (Aurore). La démarche de Nietzsche est une démarche de soupçon sur le pourquoi des choses. En conséquence, Nietzsche annonce qu’il faut de méfier à la fois de la morale et des moralistes. « J’ai choisi le mot d’immoraliste comme signe distinctif ou comme distinction », écrit-il dans Ecce homo.

Le rapport à la morale de Nietzsche va toutefois bien au-delà de la dimension de provocation, d’où la nécessité d’une généalogie de Nietzsche quant à la question morale. Le propos du philosophe André  Stanguennec consiste d’abord en cela : retracer l’apparition et les remaniements du thème de la morale chez Nietzsche. Il vise ensuite à étudier son traitement dans la Généalogie de la morale, cette œuvre étant vue comme l’unification de la théorie du problème moral chez Nietzsche Enfin, la troisième partie du travail de Stanguennec est consacrée à des mises en perspectives critiques d’origines diverses (Kant, Fichte, une certaine philosophie matérialiste – celle d’Yvon Quiniou), critiques présentées sous une forme dialogique.

Il faut donc effectuer un retour sur l’approche que fait Nietzsche de la morale. Nietzsche s’oppose d’abord à Socrate et à ses trois idées : 1) le savoir est condition de la vertu, 2) on ne pêche que par ignorance, 3) il est possible de chasser le mal du réel. Comment Nietzsche voit-il la question de la morale ? Sous l’angle du perspectivisme, « condition fondamentale de toute vie » (Aurore), perspectivisme d’abord humain, puis supra-humain. Il s’agit en d’autres termes de mettre en perspective les actions de chacun par rapport à son itinéraire, à ses valeurs, et cela sans référence à une morale transcendante, ni à une origine commune de celle-ci quels que soient les hommes.

Rien n’est responsabilité et tout est innocence pour Nietzsche (Humain, trop humain). Il reste la probité c’est-à-dire la rigueur et l’exigence vis-à-vis de soi-même. Quand Nietzsche dit qu’il n’y a pas de responsabilité des actes humains, en quel sens peut-on le comprendre ? En ce sens que : c’est le motif le plus fort en nous qui décide pour nous. Nous sommes agis par ce qui s’impose à nous en dernière instance : soit une force qui nous dépasse (ainsi la force de la peur qui nous fait fuir), soit une force qui nous emporte (ainsi la force de faire face conformément à l’idée que nous avons de nous-mêmes). Mais dans les deux cas, il n’y a pas de responsabilité à proprement parler.

La notion de responsabilité de l’individu est rejetée par Nietzsche pour deux raisons. L’une est qu’il ne s’agit pas pour lui de se référer à l’individu en soi. La seconde raison est que la notion de responsabilité supposerait l’univocité du sens de nos actions – univocité à laquelle Nietzsche ne croit pas. Quand Nietzsche oppose le « divisé » à « l’indivisé » qu’est l’individu (Aurore), il plaide pour un individu acceptant la division même de son être. Et c’est pour cet être et pour lui seul que se pose la question de la morale. Cette question de la morale prend ainsi sens à partir de la mort du dieu moral, le dieu des apparences, le surplombant (le Père), à partir de la mort du dieu d’amour (le Fils), et à partir de la mort du dieu devenu homme (le dieu modeste et humanisé qu’est aussi le Fils).

Loin d’être à l’origine des comportements « vertueux », la morale est pour Nietzsche une interprétation de ceux-ci a posteriori. Et une interprétation parmi d’autres. En ce sens, pour Nietzsche, cette interprétation est toujours fausse parce qu’incomplète. L’interprétation morale a posteriori nie ce qui s’est incarné dans l’acte – le flux de forces, l’énergie, la mise en perspective de soi (toujours le perspectivisme). La morale de l’intention ne dit jamais avec probité ce qui vraiment a fait advenir les actes. C’est pourquoi il y a selon Nietzsche un fondement « amoral » à une autre morale possible et souhaitable selon lui. Quelle est-elle ? Une morale en un sens plus restreint, une morale plus tranchante, avec laquelle on ne peut biaiser. « Ce qui fait le caractère essentiel et inappréciable de toute morale, répétera Nietzsche dans Par-delà bien et mal, c’est d’être une longue contrainte … c’est là que se trouve la “ nature ” et le “ naturel ” et non pas dans le laisser-aller » (paragraphe 188).

La morale est la théorie du déplacement des jouissances du monde. Qu’est-ce qui ordonne le passage d’une jouissance à une autre ? Quelle structure ? C’est là qu’est la morale selon Nietzsche, en un sens donc, à la fois étroit et ambitieux. Tout le reste est conséquence de ce questionnement ainsi formulé. Nietzsche peut être pacifiste ou belliciste en fonction de ce qui permet le mieux l’apparition d’un type humain supérieur. Il peut être pour un certain type de sélection si elle permet l’apparition d’un type d’homme supérieur, mais contre la forme actuelle du progrès donc de la sélection contemporaine : « Le progrès n’est qu’une idée moderne, donc une idée fausse », écrit Nietzsche (Antéchrist).

S’il y a une morale pour Nietzsche, elle consiste donc, exactement et strictement, à remonter aux origines des actes humains. Il faut comprendre que « le corps est une grande raison » (Zarathoustra). Il faut aussi enregistrer qu’il y a la vraie morale (c’est-à-dire l’éducation d’une contrainte par la contrainte) de ceux qui savent « digérer le réel » et la fausse morale-alibi des autres. « Un homme fort et réussi digère ses expériences vécues (faits, méfaits compris) comme il digère ses repas, même s’il doit avaler de durs morceaux » (in Généalogie de la morale). Le vouloir-lion ne se résume à aucune morale, aucun « tu dois ».

L’homme-lion ne refuse pas la douleur, à la manière de l’épicurien. Ce serait là vouloir un bouddhisme européen, une Chine européenne, une Europe devenue « Petite Chine ». L’homme-lion ne recherche pas non plus à tout prix le plaisir, à la manière du gourmand tel Calliclès (qui ne se réduit bien sûr pas à cette dimension et est notamment le fondateur de la généalogie de la morale et du droit).

L’homme-lion n’est ni masochiste (et donc certainement pas chrétien) ni hédoniste (d’où l’écart dans lequel se trouve Michel Onfray quand il défend Nietzsche au nom, à la fois, du matérialisme et de l’hédonisme). En d’autres termes, pour Nietzsche, tout « oui » à une joie est aussi un « oui » à une peine (cf. « Le chant du marcheur de nuit », in Zarathoustra, IV, paragraphe 10). « Toutes choses sont enchaînées, enchevêtrées, éprises. »

La morale de Nietzsche ne consiste jamais à représenter quelque chose et surtout pas l’esthétique du sublime qu’il attribue à Kant et à Fichte. Elle consiste à présenter, à affirmer, à produire. Elle est métaphorique. André Stanguennec le montre bien : si l’anti-nihilisme de Nietzsche  est clair et net, son rapport au bouddhisme est ambivalent : sa conception du Moi comme illusion, et illusion à tenir à distance de soi-même plaît à Nietzsche. Et dans le même temps il perçoit fort bien comment un bouddhisme « épuré » psycho-physiologiquement (cf. A. Stanguennec, p. 277) pourrait rendre « vivable » le nihilisme – et même –, car Nietzsche mène toujours une analyse biface du réel – circonscrire ce nihilisme à un espace et à une population tels que d’autres horizons s’ouvrent au(x) surhomme(s). Le nihilisme servirait alors stratégiquement de bénéfique abcès de fixation à la médiocrité.

Cette nouvelle morale de Nietzsche est donc tout le contraire d’un « bouddhisme européen » (au sens de « européanisé ») consistant à « ne pas souffrir », et à « se garder » (en bonne santé). La grande santé n’est en effet pas la bonne santé. Elle est la santé toujours en conquête d’elle-même et en péril de n’être assez grande. Le bouddhisme européen est donc une fausse solution.

L’alternative n’est pas entre bouddhisme et hédonisme. La morale de Nietzsche n’est pas non plus le finalisme, qui postule qu’il faudrait se conformer à un sens déjà-là. C’est à l’homme, selon Nietzsche, de donner une valuation – une valeur dans une hiérarchie de valeurs – aux choses. Et ces valeurs sont conditionnées par leur utilité sociale. À quoi servent-elles ? Que légitiment-elles ? Voilà les questions que pose et se pose Nietzsche Ne le cachons pas : il existe un risque, au nom d’une vision « réalitaire », au nom d’une philosophie du soupçon, de croire et faire croire que l’homme n’a que des rapports d’instrumentalisation avec ce qu’il proclame comme « ayant de la valeur » pour lui. Des rapports purement stratégiques avec les valeurs : les valeurs de sa stratégie et non la stratégie de ses valeurs. « Nietzsche concède donc, écrit en ce sens André Stanguennec, qu’une part non négligeable de vérité a été découverte dans la perspective sociologique et utilitariste sur la morale » (p. 225).

Deux composantes forment la morale de Nietzsche : surmonter la compassion, surmonter le ressentiment. Il n’y a pour Nietzsche  jamais de fondement de la morale mais toujours une perspective. Cette perspective est ce qui permet au fort de rester fort. Il s’ensuit que ce qui met en perspective la morale de chacun se distribue selon Nietzsche en deux registres : morale des faibles et  morale des forts. Le terme « morale » n’est au demeurant pas le meilleur. Il s’agit – et le mot dit bien la brutalité dont il est question – d’un fonctionnement. Morale des faibles : elle se détermine par rapport à l’autre; le jugement (attendu et redouté en même temps) des autres précède l’action qui n’est qu’une réaction. Morale des forts : le sentiment de soi prévaut sur le sentiment de l’autre ou des autres; l’action s’en déduit, le jugement – qui est un diagnostic en tout état de cause sans repentir – intervient après l’action. Pour le fort, il ne saurait y avoir de faute puisqu’il ne saurait y avoir de dette vis-à-vis d’autrui. Il peut juste y avoir un déficit du surmontement de soi par soi, c’est-à-dire une mise en défaut de la volonté de puissance.

Ce qui est moral pour Nietzsche c’est de vouloir la multiplicité infinie des perspectives. Nietzsche s’oppose donc aux philosophes ascétiques, adeptes d’une volonté de puissance à l’envers, et dont le mot d’ordre est de « vouloir le rien » (attention : la volonté de néant des ascétiques ne se confond pas avec le bouddhisme, volonté du néant de la volonté – « ne rien vouloir »). Ensuite, contrairement à Kant, Nietzsche refuse la distinction entre l’apparence des choses et les choses en soi. Pour Nietzsche, la référence de la morale, c’est le monde comme totalité inconditionnée, totalité ni surplombante ni substantielle mais parcourue par les volontés de puissance qui sont comme les flux du vivant.

Nietzsche tente de dépasser la question du choix entre l’infinité ou la finitude du monde. Il tente de la dépasser par un pari sur la joie et sur la jubilation. C’est en quelque sorte la finitude du monde  corrigée par l’infinité des désirs et des volontés de puissance. La physique de Nietzsche est peut-être ainsi non pas une métaphysique – ce qui est l’hypothèse et la critique de Heidegger – mais une hyperphysique.

Cette hyperphysique nietzschéenne du monde consiste en l’impossibilité d’une morale du « moi ». Le « moi » renvoie à l’idée d’un dieu unique qui serait le créateur du « moi » comme sujet. Or, Nietzsche substitue au « moi » un « soi » comme « grande raison » du corps (Zarathoustra). Le dernier mot de la morale est alors la même chose que la vision de soi acceptée comme ultime. Nietzsche nous délivre sa vision : « Je ne veux pas être un saint … plutôt un pitre » (Ecce homo). Toutefois c’est une saillie marginale que cette remarque de Nietzsche. Ce qui est bien pour Nietzsche, c’est d’être soi, c’est d’approfondir non sa différence aux autres, mais son ipséité, c’est se référer non aux autres mais à soi. Nietzsche rejoint Fichte quand celui-ci précise : « Ce que l’on choisit comme philosophie dépend ainsi de l’homme que l’on est » (Première introduction à la doctrine de la science, 1797).

Ainsi, il n’y a pas pour Nietzsche de vrai choix possible d’une philosophie ou d’une morale : « Nos pensées jaillissent de nous-mêmes aussi nécessairement qu’un arbre porte ses fruits » (Généalogie de la morale, avant-propos). S’il n’y a pas de vrai choix, il n’y a pas pour autant de transparence. Nietzsche affirme : « Nous restons nécessairement étrangers à nous-mêmes, nous ne nous comprenons pas, nous ne pouvons faire autrement que de nous prendre pour autre chose que ce que nous sommes » (Généalogie de la morale). Étrange platonisme inversé que celui que développe Nietzsche. Car dans sa perspective, notre possibilité d’être, et notre force d’être elle-même, repose sur l’acceptation et même sur le pari de notre inauthenticité, de notre être-devenir « à côté de nous-mêmes ». Et c’est un autre problème, au-delà du travail de Stanguennec, que de savoir si cette position est tenable.

Pierre Le Vigan

André Stanguennec, Le questionnement moral de Nietzsche, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 59659 Villeneuve d’Ascq, 2005, 367 p., 24 €.

---

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=716

El hombre integro (spoudaios) como norma del obrar

El hombre íntegro (spoudaios) como norma del obrar

Alberto Buela (*)

 

En estos días que nos hemos enterado por un estudioso amigo, que los ingleses de Oxford, que solo se citan a sí mismo en los estudios aristotélicos, han citado nuestra vieja traducción de 1981 del Protréptico de Aristóteles, única obra en castellano citada por ellos desde la época del ñaupa.

Y además, luego de haber visto como el gallego Megino Rodríguez se hizo el burro en su lamentable traducción del 2005, no haciendo ni siquiera mención a la existencia de nuestro trabajo, es que vamos a  encarar lo que para nosotros es la médula de la ética del hijo de Efestiada de Calcide.

Y lo vamos a hacer porque a esta altura de la soirée [1] pretendemos ofrecer, al lego en forma simple y clara, la idea fuerza que funda la ética aristotélica y que recorre toda la obra del esposo de Pythia y de Herpilis.  

La intención expresa que nos guía es dejar de lado toda actitud erudita, llevándonos del consejo del Don Miguel Reale, ese gran pensador brasileño cuando afirmaba: cultura es aquello que queda cuando el andamiaje de la erudición se viene abajo.

 

El tutelado de Próxenes se ocupó durante toda su vida del tema ético, desde sus primeros escritos como el Protréptico hasta sus últimos como la Magna Moralia [2]. O sea, desde sus treinta y un años siendo aún discípulo de Platón hasta los sesenta y dos cercanos a su muerte.

 

Antes que nada, cabe destacar la exigencia aristotélica en ética; de llevar a la práctica aquello que se estudia y así lo afirma en forma tajante y definitiva: “Lo que hay que hacer después de haberlo aprendido, lo aprendemos haciéndolo… practicando la justicia nos hacemos justos y practicando la temperancia temperantes” (EN. 1103 a 31). “Puesto que el presente estudio no es teórico como los otros, pues investigamos- en ética- no para saber qué es la virtud sino para ser buenos” (EN. 1103 b 28). El realismo aristotélico es el signo de su filosofía, es por ello que el genial Rafael pinta a Aristóteles señalando con su índice la tierra mientras camina junto a Platón.

 

Y de qué tipo y clase es ese hombre bueno que nos propone el maestro de Alejandro?  Es el spoudaios (spoudaioV), el phronimos(fronimoV). Es la idea fuerza, es el centro de toda le ética aristotélica, de modo que si caracterizamos acabadamente estos conceptos vamos a comprender su mensaje ético.

Ya en uno de sus primeros escritos, el Protréptico,  afirma:“Además qué regla (kanon) o qué determinación precisa (oroV  akribesteroV) de lo que es bueno podemos tener sino el criterio del hombre sapiente (fronimoV). Frag. 39. “todos estamos de acuerdo que el hombre más íntegro dirija (spoudaiotaton arcein). Frag. 38.

Al respecto afirma en la Ética Nicomaquea: “El spoudaios enjuicia correctamente todas las cuestiones prácticas y en todas ellas se le devela lo verdadero…quizá el spoudaios difiere de los demás por ver lo verdadero en cada cuestión como si fuera el canon y la medida en ellas”  (EN. 1113 a 29-32). Como se dijo la areté (excelencia) y el spoudaios parecen ser la medida de todas las cosas. Éste está de acuerdo consigo mismo y tiende con toda su alma a fines que no divergen entre sí” (EN. 1166 a 12-19). Y más adelante, casi al final de la ética va ser mucho más explícito: “En los hombres los placeres varían mucho pues las mismas cosas agradan a unos y molestan a otros… Esto ocurre con las cosas dulces, que no parecen lo mismo al que tiene fiebre que al que está sano y lo mismo ocurre con todo lo demás. Pero en tales casos, se considera que lo verdadero es lo que le parece al spoudaios, y si esto es cierto, y la medida de cada cosa son la areté (excelencia) y el spoudaios como tal, son placeres los que a él le parecen y agradables aquellas cosas en que se complace” (EN. 1176 a 17-19).

 

 

Vemos por estas y otras muchas citas[3] que podríamos agregar que los términos spoudáios y phrónimos van a tener, desde sus primeros escritos hasta los últimos, un peso significativo y determinante en toda la ética del padre de Nicómano. Ellos son el centro y el fundamento de toda su ética.

El primer significado del término spoudáios menta el esfuerzo serio y sostenido aplicado a una cosa digna y en una segunda acepción se vincula a las nociones de areté (excelencia o perfección) y agathós (bien).

Esta valoración del spoudaios, por el padrino de Nicanor, como última  regla y norma en las cuestiones prácticas y morales es asombrosa. Erróneamente, como le ocurrió a Dirlmeier, el último traductor al alemán, se puede pensar que se asemeja al adagio del sofista Protágoras: “el hombre es la medida de todas las cosas”, pero en realidad el dueño de Tacón, Filón y Olímpico se distancia porque el spoudaios no es el hombre común del sofista sino el hombre digno. Y con esta afirmación se aleja también de Platón y sus normas universales para el obrar.

Sin quererlo nos ayuda, el maestro de Teofrastro, a enfrentar la filosofía moral moderna y la certeza que busca ésta en los juicios ético-morales. Ante el rigorismo ético del pensamiento ilustrado, de la ética autónoma, del formalismo kantiano, y la ética veterotestamentaria, Aristóteles nos propone el criterio de lo verosímil como guía y norma del hacer y del obrar. “Pues no se puede buscar del mismo modo el rigor en todas las cuestiones, sino en cada una según la materia que subyazca a ellas” (EN. 1098 a 27).

 

 

Viene ahora la cuestión de cómo traducir estos dos términos cruciales para la comprensión de la filosofía práctica del hijo de Nicómaco.

 

Así para spoudaios [4]J. Tricot traduce por “l´homme de bien o vertueux”. Pallí Bonet y E.Sinnott  por “hombre bueno”. J. Montoya y T. de Koninck por “hombre virtuoso”.  Emile Bréhier  David Ross y Nicola  Abbagnano por “sofós”, esto es por sabio, sage o saggio. En cambio ya el español Antonio Tovar en 1953 lo traduce por “diligente” y muchos años después el alemán Harder lo traduce por “hombre noble y serio”. Y el argentino Pablo Maurette por “hombre circunspecto”, “ya que el adjetivo castellano expresa a la vez la idea de sabiduría pero también anuncia seriedad, paz interior y perseverancia. P.Aubenque la traduce por “diligente y serio”.

 

En nuestro criterio, traducir spoudaios por bueno tiene una connotación exclusivamente moral que el término griego supera. En cuanto a la traducción por virtuoso, el término no existe en griego.

Traducir por sabio es una visión intelectualista. Más cerca del original están las versiones de hombre noble, serio o circunspecto pero dejan de lado el aspecto práctico del spoudáios. En cuanto a la traducción por diligente, a la inversa que la anterior, se limita solo al aspecto práctico del spoudáios, es por eso que Aubenque (l´éponge) se percata y agrega el término serio.  

 

Nosotros preferimos traducirlo por “hombre íntegro y diligente” pues cada vez que se plantea el tema del criterio en la elección ética o en la vida práctica es el spoudáios quien aparece. Y es como hombre digno que agota en sí la función propia del hombre (juzga adecuadamente)  y como diligente actúa siempre de acuerdo con la areté (la excelencia o perfección) de cada cosa, acción o situación.

Aquello que asombra de esta idea del spoudaios es que éste no es ni se alza como una regla trascendente, como los diez mandamientos, sino que el spoudaios mismo es quien se convierte en la medida de la acción perfecta tanto en el hacer como en el obrar.

 

En el spoudaios su deseo se refiere siempre al bien y como cada cual es bueno para sí mismo es, en definitiva para nosotros para quienes queremos el bien, ya que la preferencia de sí mismo se encuentra en el fondo de todos los deseos.

El spoudaios es el que realiza al grado máximo las potencialidades de la naturaleza humana. Lo que caracteriza al spoudaios es contemplar la verdad en cada acción o tarea y el es la referencia y la medida de lo noble y agradable.

El spoudaios hace lo que debe hacer de manera oportuna. Es el hombre que actúa siempre con la areté. Este concepto de areté no se limita simplemente al plano moral como sucede cuando se la traduce por “virtud” sino que debe de ser entendida como excelencia o perfección de las cosas y las acciones y así podemos hablar de la areté del ojo que es percibir bien, la del caballo que es correr, la del ascensor que es subir y bajar. Es decir que la areté expresa y tiene tanto un contenido moral y ético como funcional, y es por ello que debemos traducir y entender el término areté como excelencia, perfección o acabamiento de algo.

Y esto es lo que logra el spoudaios con su obrar y con su hacer, transformase, él mismo, en canon y la medida que se presenta como norma no trascendente de la sociedad,[5] y es por esta última razón que sólo a partir de él podemos conseguir la implantación de un verdadero y genuino humanismo.

 

En cuanto al concepto de phrónesis hace ya muchos años en nuestra traducción al castellano del Protréptico (1981) hemos sostenido: “La aparición por primera vez del término phrónesis, capital para la interpretación jaegerdiana del Protréptico, nos obliga a justificar nuestra traducción del vocablo. Hemos optado por traducir phronimos por sapiente y phrónesis por sapiencia por dos motivos. Primero porque nuestra menospreciada lengua castellana (no se aceptaban comunicaciones en castellano en los congresos internacionales de filosofía en la época) es la única de las lenguas modernas que, sin forzarla, lo permite. Y segundo, porque dado que la noción de phrónesis implica la identidad entre el conocimiento teorético y la conducta práctica, el traducirla por “sabiduría” a secas, tal como se ha hecho habitualmente, es mutilar parte del concepto. Ello implica in nuce una interpretación platónica del Protréptico, y traducirla por “prudencia” la limita a un aspecto moral que el concepto supera, mientras que “sapiencia o saber sapiencial”, implica no sólo un conocimiento teórico sino también su proyección práctica“ [6].

Ya observó hace más de medio siglo ese agudo traductor de Aristóteles al castellano que fue el mejicano Antonio Gómez Robledo: “Hoy la prudencia tiene que ver con una cautela medrosa y no con el heroísmo moral, el esfuerzo alto y sostenido de la virtud”.

 

Sobre este tema es interesante notar que los scholars ingleses, especialistas desde siempre en los estudios aristotélicos, se han jactado de sus traducciones por lo ajustado de las mismas a la brevedad de la expresión griega. Sin embargo en esta ocasión tanto el inglés como el francés han tenido que ceder a la precisión del castellano. Así para phrónesis ellos necesitan de dos términos, sea practical wisdom o saggesse practique, en tanto que al castellano le alcanza con uno: sapiencia.[7] Ya decían nuestros viejos criollos: Hay que dejar de ser léido para ser sapiente. Así la tarea del sapiente consiste en saber dirigir correctamente la vida. Su saber, a la vez,  teórico y práctico le permite distinguir lo que es bueno de lo que es malo y encontrar los medios adecuados para nuestros fines verdaderos: “los sapientes buscan lo que es bueno para ellos y creen que es esto lo que debe hacerse” (EN. 1142 a 1).

 

Spoudaios y phronimos, íntegro y sapiente, son dos caras de una misma moneda, son dos términos que pintan conceptos similares, solo se distinguen por los matices, uno destaca la integridad, la seriedad que viene del verbo spoudázein y otro el matiz más intelectual que viene del verbo phronéin.

Así el hombre íntegro y sapiente será aquel que sabe actuar en la vida cotidiana de forma tal que sus acciones, por lo incierta que es la vida en sí misma, se transforman en norma y medida de lo que debe hacerse para el buen vivir.

 

 

(*) arkegueta, aprendiz constante

Universidad Tecnológica Nacional (UTN)

[e-mail]                                                                                 

---

[1] Es que llevamos 40 años leyendo sistemáticamente al Discípulo.

[2] Los escritos que tratan específicamente de la ética son: Protréptico, Ética Eudemia, Ética Nicomaquea, Magna Moralia (algunos (Aubenque) dicen que no sería de Aristóteles y otros (Ackrill) que sí), y uno pequeño De virtutibus et vicis donde no hay en toda la opera omnia  de Aristóteles ni en ninguno de los sesudos comentaristas del Estagirita una síntesis más acabada de su teoría de las virtudes como la que nos brinda este pequeño tratado. Está bien, no salió de la pluma de Aristóteles, pero quien quiera que haya escrito este opúsculo conocía al Filósofo como los mejores.

[3] Cf. EN 1179 b 20; 1155 a 12-19; EE 1218 b 34; Rhet 1367 b 21, etc.

[4] Cf. EN, 1109a 24, 1113a 25, 1114b 19, 1130b 25, 1144a 17 y 1154a 6

[5] Salvando la distancia teológica que media, el spoudaios nos recuerda el Jesús existencial que se alza como norma, aquel del: ego sum via, veritas et vita  o “el que no está conmigo está contra mi”.

[6] Aristóteles: Protréptico, Bs.As., Ed. Cultura et labor, 1983, p. 44

[7] Existe una anécdota de José Luís Borges quien ante la jactancia inglesa de la brevedad de su expresión tomó un cuento inglés y lo escribió en castellano mucho más breve. De ello se dio cuenta André Malreaux cuando caracterizó el mérito de Borges afirmando: “su genio está en la economía y belleza de su expresión”.

Giovanni Gentile: Fascism's Ideological Mastermind

Mussolini’s ‘Significant Other’

Giovanni Gentile: Fascism’s Ideological Mastermind

 

Ex: http://magnagrece.blogspot.com/

Professore Giovanni Gentile: the “Philosopher of Fascism.”

“Philosophy triumphs easily over past, and over future evils, but present evils triumph over philosophy.” – François de La Rochefoucauld: Maxims, 1665

In writing the history of a country or of an ethnos, all too often even the most well-meaning people are tempted out of patriotism to embellish the truth by either building up the good or omitting certain ‘unsavory’ facts about the past. On an emotional level this is understandable. After all, in a certain sense an ethnic group is a vastly extended family. The country, on the other hand, can be considered a sizable prolongation of the borders of one’s home. Who but the crassest enjoys speaking ill of home and family?

Nevertheless, if one wishes to strive for accuracy and objectivity in their writings, one must inevitably confront the specter of those who, during the course of their lives, engaged in actions that today go against the grain of established social mores. Otherwise, one risks being exposed to the charge of chauvinism (or worse).

It has been the stated purpose of this writer to show the reader how his people, the DueSiciliani, have carved out a place for themselves in this world in spite of the loss of their homeland, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, to the forces of the Piedmontese and their allies in 1861. Thus far, I and other like-minded folk posting on this blog have written of the commendable members of our people who have significantly added to Western Civilization through their contributions to the arts, sciences, philosophy (and even sports).

Men like Ettore Majorana, Salvator Rosa, Vincenzo Bellini and “the Nolan”, Giordano Bruno have unquestionably made this world better by being in it.

Similarly, we have written of those whose legacies provoke more ambivalent feelings. Men like Paolo di Avitabile and Michele Pezza, the legendary “Fra Diavolo”, led lives that to this day are considered controversial.

It now falls to this writer the hapless task of telling the tale of one of our own who went down “the road less traveled” to a decidedly darker place in the chapters of history – among the creators of 20th century totalitarian movements. As the reader will soon see, this journey cost him friends, a loftier place in the history books, and eventually his life!

Giovanni Gentile was born in the town of Castelvetrano, Sicily on May 30th, 1875 to Theresa (née Curti) and Giovanni Gentile. Growing up, his grades were so good he earned a scholarship to the University of Pisa in 1893. Originally interested in literature, his soon turned to philosophy, thanks to the influence of Donato Jaja. Jaja in turn had been a student of the Abruzzi neo-Hegelian idealist Bertrando Spaventa (1817-1883). Jaja would “channel” the teachings of Spaventa to Gentile, upon whom they would find a fertile breeding ground.

During his studies he found himself inspired by notable pro-Risorgimento Italian intellectuals such as Giuseppe Mazzini, Antonio Rosmini-Serbati and Vincenzo Gioberti. However, he also found himself drawn to the works of German idealist and materialist philosophers like Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and especially Georg Hegel. He graduated from the University of Pisa with a degree in philosophy in 1897.

He completed his advanced studies at the University of Florence, eventually beginning his teaching career in the lyceum at Campobasso and Naples (1898-1906).

Benedetto Croce

Beginning in 1903, Gentile began an intellectual friendship with another noted philosopher from il sud: Benedetto Croce. The two men would edit the famed Italian literary magazine La critica from 1903-22. In 1906 Gentile was invited to take up the chair in the history of philosophy at the University of Palermo. During his time there he would write two important works: The Theory of Mind as Pure Act (1916) and Logic as Theory of Knowledge (1917). These works formed the basis for his own philosophy which he dubbed “Actual Idealism.”

Giovanni Gentile’s philosophy of Actual Idealism, like Marxism, recognized man as a social animal. Unlike the Marxists, however, who viewed community as a function of class identity, Gentile considered community a function of the culture and history in a nation. Actual Idealism (or Actualism) saw thought as all-embracing, and that no one could actually leave their sphere of thinking or exceed their own thought. This contrasted with the Transcendental Idealism of Kant and the Absolute Idealism of Hegel.

He would remain at the University of Palermo until 1914, when he was invited to the University of Pisa to fill the chair vacated by the death of his dear friend and mentor, Donato Jaja. In 1917, he wound up at the University of Rome, where in 1925 he founded the School of Philosophy. He would remain at the University until shortly before his murder.

After Italy’s humiliating defeat at the disastrous Battle of Caporetto in November, 1917, Gentile took a greater interest in politics. A devoted Nationalist and Liberal; he gathered a group of like-minded friends together and founded a review, National Liberal Politics, to push for political and educational reform.

Gentile’s writings and activism attracted the attention of future Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Immediately after his famous “March on Rome” at the end of October, 1922, Mussolini invited Gentile to serve in his cabinet as Minister of Public Instruction. He would hold this position until July, 1924. Surviving records show that on May 31st, 1923 Giovanni Gentile formally applied for membership in the partito nazionale fascista, the National Fascist Party of Italy.

With his new cabinet position Gentile was given full authority by Mussolini to reform the Italian educational system. On November 5th, 1923 he was appointed senator of the realm, a representative in the Upper House of the Italian Parliament. Gentile was now at the pinnacle of his political influence. With the power and prestige granted him by his new office, he began the first serious overhaul of public education in Italy since the Casati Law was passed in 1859.

Gentile saw in Mussolini’s authoritarianism and nationalism a fulfillment of his dream to rejuvenate Italian culture, which he felt was stagnating. Through this he hoped to rejuvenate the Italian “nation” as well. As Minister of Public Instruction Gentile worked laboriously for 20 months to reform what was most certainly an antiquated and backward system. Though successful in his endeavor, ironically, it was the enactment of his plan that caused his political influence to wane.

In spite of this, Mussolini continued to grant honors on him. In 1924, after resigning his post as Minister, “Il Duce” invited him to join the “Commission of Fifteen” and later the “Commission of Eighteen” basically in order to figure out how to make Fascism fit into the Albertine Constitution, the legal document that governed the state of Italy since its formation after the infamous Risorgimento in 1861.

On March 29th, 1925 the Conference of Fascist Culture was held at Bologna, in northern Italy. The précis of this conference was the document: the Manifesto of the Fascist Intellectuals. It was an affirmation of support for the government of Benito Mussolini, throwing a gauntlet down to critics who questioned Mussolini’s commitment to Italian culture. Among its signatories were Giovanni Gentile (who drew up the document), Luigi Pirandello (who wasn’t actually at the conference but publicly supported the document with a letter) and the Neapolitan poet, songwriter and playwright Salvatore Di Giacomo.

It was that last name that provoked a bitter dispute between Gentile and his erstwhile friend and mentor, Benedetto Croce. Responding with a document of his own on May 1st, 1925, the Manifesto of the Anti-Fascist Intellectuals, Croce made public for all to see his irreconcilable split (which had been brewing for some time) with the Fascist Party of Italy…and Giovanni Gentile. In his document he dismissed Gentile’s work as “…a haphazard piece of elementary schoolwork, where doctrinal confusion and poor reasoning abound.” The two men would never collaborate again.

From 1925 till 1944 Gentile served as the scientific director of the Enciclopedia Italiana. In June of 1932 in Volume XIV he published, with Mussolini’s approval (and signature) and over the Roman Catholic Church’s objections, the Dottrina del fascismo (The Doctrine of Fascism). The first part of the Dottrina, written by Gentile, was his reconciling Fascism with his own philosophy of Actual Idealism, thereby forever equating the two.

Giovanni Gentile approved of Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Though he found aspects of Hitler’s Nazism admirable, he disapproved of Mussolini allying Italy with Germany, believing Hitler’s intentions could not be trusted and that Italy would wind up becoming a vassal state. His views on this were shared by General Italo Balbo and Count Galeazzo Ciano, Mussolini’s son-in-law and Foreign Minister. Nevertheless, Gentile continued to support Mussolini. Since he recognized that Italy was a polity but not a nation in the true sense of the word, he believed “Il Duce’s” iron-fisted rule to be the only thing sparing the Italian pseudo-state from civil war.

With the collapse of Italy’s Fascist regime in September, 1943 and Mussolini’s rescue by Hitler’s forces, Gentile joined his emasculated master in exile at the so-called Italian Social Republic; an ad hoc puppet state created by Hitler in an ultimately futile attempt to shore up his rapidly crumbing 1,000-year Reich. Even then, he served as one of the principal intellectual defenders of what was obviously a failed political experiment.

On April 15, 1944 Professore Giovanni Gentile was murdered by Communist partisans led by one Bruno Fanciullacci. Ironically, he was gunned down leaving a meeting where he had argued for the release of a group of anti-Fascist intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect. He was buried in the Church of Santa Croce in Florence where his remains lie, perhaps fittingly, next to those of Florentine philosopher and writer Niccolò Machiavelli.

As one might imagine, after his death Gentile’s name was scorned if not forgotten entirely by historians. In recent years, however, scholars have begun to re-examine his legacy. Political theorist A. James Gregor (née Anthony Gimigliano), a recognized expert on Fascist and Marxist thought and himself an American of Southern Italian descent, believes that Gentile actually exerted a tempering influence on Italian Fascism’s proclivities towards violence as a political tool. This, he argues, is one (of several) of the reasons why Mussolini’s Italy never indulged in the more draconian excesses of Hitler’s regime.

Even his former friend and colleague Benedetto Croce later recognized the superior quality of Gentile’s scholarship and the quantity of his publications in the history of philosophy. Yet he differed sharply from him in political ideology and temperament. While both men forsook any loyalty to i Due Sicilie in favor of the pan-Italian illusion of the Risorgimento, they disagreed mightily as to the nature of the Italian state and to what course it should pursue.

For Gentile the actual idealist, the state was the supreme ethical entity; the individual existing merely to submit and merge his will and reason for being to it. Rebellion against the state in the name of ideals was therefore unjustifiable on any level. To Gentile, Fascism was the natural outgrowth of Actual Idealism.

Croce the neo-Kantian, on the other hand, argued forcefully the state was merely the sum of particular voluntary acts expressed by individuals (who were the center of society) and recorded in its laws. To Croce, Gentile’s metaphysical concepts regarding the state approached mysticism.

Thus, while both men have sadly been largely forgotten, even in the intellectual circles they once traversed, Croce’s legacy survives in a much better light than the man he once called friend.

Niccolò Graffio

Further reading:

• A. James Gregor: Giovanni Gentile: Philosopher of Fascism; Transaction Publishers, 2001.
• Giovanni Gentile and A. James Gregor (transl): Origins and Doctrine of Fascism: With Selections from Other Works; Transaction Publishers, 2002.
• M.E. Moss: Mussolini’s Fascist Philosopher: Giovanni Gentile Reconsidered; Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2004.

Algo sobre el poder y el poderoso

Algo sobre el poder y el poderoso

Alberto Buela (*)

A Germán Spano, que me lo obsequió

 

Se reeditó recientemente el pequeño Diálogo sobre el poder y acceso al poderoso del iusfilósofo alemán Carl Schmitt, que fuera publicado tanto en Alemania como en España en 1954[1], y que naciera como un diálogo radiofónico, que en un principio tendría el autor y el politólogo francés Raymond Arón o el sociólogo Helmut Schelsky o el filósofo Arnold Gehlen, pero los tres se rehusaron. Claro está la demonización mediática que pesaba sobre Schmitt era tal que cuando en el semanario Die Zeit, su jefe de redacción escribe a propósito del Diálogo: “En la República Federal de Alemania, el gran jurísta Carl Schmitt es una figura controvertida. Sin embargo, incluso sus enemigos deberían prestar atención cuando hace observaciones originales y sagaces…Nadie que se proponga escribir sobre el poder debería abordar el tema sin haber leído el texto de Carl Schmitt”(N° 9 del 2/7/54), al jefe de redacción lo echaron del trabajo y le prohibieron la entrada al edificio.

 

La naturaleza del poder

 

Se trata de hablar específicamente del poder que ejercen los hombres sobre otros hombres, pues el poder no procede ni de la naturaleza ni de Dios, al menos para la sociedad desacralizada de nuestro tiempo.

El poder establece una relación de mando-obediencia entre los hombres que cuando desaparece la obediencia, desparece el poder. Se puede obedecer por confianza, por temor, por esperanza, por desesperación que se busca junto al poder, pero “la relación entre protección y obediencia sigue siendo la única explicación para el poder”.

 

El acceso al poderoso

 

Como todo poder directo está sujeto a influencias indirectas, quien presenta un proyecto al poderoso, quien lo informa, quien lo ayuda o asesora ya participa del poder. Esto ha desvelado a los hombres que en el mundo han ejercido poder directo. Existen cientos de anécdotas al respecto, de cómo los poderosos han tratado de romper el círculo de influencias indirectas que los rodeaban. “Delante de cada espacio de poder directo se forma una antesala de influencias y poderes indirectos, un acceso al oído, un pasaje a la psique del poderoso”. Y cuanto más concentrado está ese poder en una cima, más se agudiza la cuestión del acceso a la cima. Más violenta y sorda se vuelve la lucha de aquellos que están en la antesala y controlan el pasaje al poder directo.

Quienes tienen  acceso al poder ya participan del poder y como consecuencia no permiten u obstruyen el acceso de otros al poder. En una palabra, el poder no se comparte, solo se ejerce.

 

Maldad o bondad del poder

 

Si el poder que ejercen los hombres entre sí no procede de la naturaleza ni de Dios sino es una cuestión de relación entre los hombres ¿es bueno, es malo, o qué es?, se pregunta.

Para la mayoría de los hombres el poder es bueno cuando lo ejerce uno y malo cuando lo ejerce su enemigo. El poder no hace a los hombres buenos o malos sino que cuando se ejerce muestra en sus acciones si el poderoso es bueno o malo, que es otra cosa distinta.

Para San Pablo todo poder viene de Dios, y para San Gregorio Magno la voluntad de poder es mala, pero el poder en sí mismo siempre es bueno.

Pero actualmente la mayoría de las personas siguen el criterio expresado por Jacobo Burckhardt que “el poder en sí mismo es malo”. Lo paradójico que esto fue escrito a partir de los gobiernos de Luís XIV, Napoleón y los gobiernos populares revolucionarios surgidos a partir de la Revolución Francesa. Es decir, que en plena época del humanismo laico, de los derechos humanos del hombre y el ciudadano se difunde la universal convicción de que el poder es malo.

 

A que se debe este cambio de ciento ochenta grados en la concepción del poder que pasó de bueno hasta finales del siglo XVIII, a malo hasta nuestros días.

El avance exponencial de la técnica, transformada luego en tecnología y finalmente en tecnocracia ha hecho que sus productos se desprendan del control del hombre y por lo tanto el poderoso no puede asegurar la protección que supone el tener poder sobre aquellos que le obedecen. Se supera así la relación protección obediencia que caracteriza la naturaleza del poder.

El poder es se ha transformado en algo objetivo más fuerte que el hombre que lo emplea.

El concepto de hombre ha cambiado y es vivido como más peligroso que cualquier otro animal, es el homo homini lupus de Hobbes, autor reverenciado por Schmitt.

 

Nota bene:

Sin cuestionar la excelencia de este brevísimo diálogo, quisiéramos observar que aun cuando Schmitt quiere hablar sobre el poder en general, se limita sin quererlo al poder político pues no tiene en cuenta el poder que nace de la autoridad, esto es el poder que nace del saber o conocer algo en profundidad y que pueda ser enseñado. No es por obediencia, al menos primariamente, que un discípulo se acerca a un verdadero maestro, ni por protección que un maestro ejerce su profesión, sino en busca de la transmisión genuina del saber.

Es que la obediencia a la autoridad se funda en el saber de dicha autoridad, y no en la mayor o menor protección que pueda brindar dicha autoridad.

 

(*) arkegueta- UTN(Universidad Tecnológica Nacional)

[e-mail]

 

---

[1] Revista de estudios políticos N° 78, Madrid, 1954

La Tara hispanica

La Tara hispánica

(a propósito del Príncipe de Asturias)

                                                                                               

Alberto Buela (*)

 

Una vez más, el más importante premio a “las humanidades”, el Príncipe de Asturias, ha sido otorgado a afamados ensayistas que no tienen nada que ver con España, la lengua de los hispanos y su particular tradición cultural.

Hace varias décadas atrás un muy buen pensador español, Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, en un libro memorable, La envidia igualitaria, sostuvo que “la envida es el vicio capital de los hispanos y la causa decisiva de sus caídas históricas. La inferioridad de los españoles no sería intelectual sino emotiva”.

Nosotros, remedando a de la Mora, vamos a sostener que la imitación, el remedo, la mala copia, sobretodo del mundo centro europeo – Alemania, Inglaterra y Francia- es la tara hispánica. Y la frutilla del postre es este Premio Príncipe de Asturias a Alain Touraine y Zygmunt Barman, dos personajes que en el mundo del pensamiento más profundo y serio, no significan absolutamente nada, el primero por oportunista (se ha acomodado toda su vida a las más variadas circunstancias políticas para quedar al calor del poder) y el otro, por sionista y loobista pro hebreo.

 

Cómo será el carácter acomodaticio de Touraine que inmediatamente declaró: “Este premio aumenta aun más mi conciencia de ser un intelectual latino”.  Una vez más la apelación a la latinité, cuando les conviene. Este llamado a “lo latino” nos recuerda a Chevalier, el canciller de Napoleón III, que inventó el concepto de “latinidad” para poder justificar su intervención en Méjico con motivo de la aventura un príncipe europeo, Maximiliano, para Méjico.

Ya lo dijo Jorge Luís Borges: no ve venga a vender eso de la latinidad que yo solo veo argentinos, colombianos, españoles o italianos. Es un invento francés para curarse en salud en tierras americanas. Y Borges sería conservador y antiperonista, pero era un parapeto a la mediocridad.

En cuanto a Bauman respondió con el típico argumento hebreo de que ellos son “maestros de humanidad”, sobre todo cuando son laicos y agnósticos, y así dijo: “el Premio es un reconocimiento a mi modesta contribución a la autoconciencia de la humanidad”.

Pero si la humanidad no tiene manos ni pies, decía Kierkeggard, a lo que agregaba don Miguel de Unamuno: el adjetivo humanus me es tan sospechoso como su sustantivo abstracto humanitas. Ni uno ni otro, sino el sustantivo concreto: el hombre”. Y Proudhon más tajante aún sostenía por doquier: “cada vez que escucho humanidad, sé que quieren engañar”.

 

Habiendo tantos y tan buenos ensayistas, sociólogos, filósofos, historiadores, politólogos de lengua española van a buscar a dos intelectuales más mediáticos que sustanciales, más frívolos que serios, a dos intelectuales que están reñidos con lo mejor de la tradición cultural de los pueblos hispánicos.

 

Es que la tara hispánica es la imitación. La imitación al estilo de un espejo opaco como es este caso, que imita y encima imita mal, en forma desdibujada.

 

Nosotros por nuestra profesión lo vemos en la filosofía y más específicamente en la filosofía antigua donde los estudiosos de lengua castellana se desesperan por citar autores ingleses, franceses y alemanes dejando de lado la citación de nosotros mismos. Todas las traducciones del griego al castellano hecha por, generalmente buenos investigadores de origen hispano, comentan traducen e interpretan al modo los scholars ingleses o franceses o alemanes, y cuando citan algún trabajo en lengua castellana es el de ellos mismos y de nadie más. Esto último no hace más que confirmar la envidia señalada por de la Mora.

Los investigadores de origen hispano han cedido ante “los especialistas de lo mínimo” la interpretación de la filosofía, al menos de la antigua, y han postergado aquello que fue signo de la inteligencia hispana durante siglos: “la visión del todo de lo estudiado”. Esa buena herencia de Grecia y Roma expresada por Platón: “dialéctico es el que ve el todo y el que no, no lo es” (Rep 537 c 14-15).

La diferencia entre el análisis moderno y el clásico es que el primero descompone hasta lo mínimo y allí se queda, mientras que el clásico, descompone hasta lo mínimo para luego sintetizar en “un todo” de sentido.

Esta carrera de ciegos para ver la nada ha que se ha sometido el pensamiento de lengua y raíz hispana en los últimos cincuenta años ha producido en filosofía, además de los especialistas de lo mínimo, lo que podemos llamar “la viaraza gallega”. Esto es, la reacción intempestiva y arbitraria al estilo de del Valle Inclán.

El mejor ejemplo que conozco, obviamente, es la de los traductores al castellano de las obras de filosofía, y ello se nota especialmente en los tecnicismos filosóficos, cuyo mayor productor ha sido Aristóteles.

Así las palabras técnicas de uso universal en filosofía como sustancia, accidente, acto, potencia, ser, ente, felicidad, virtud, etc., que son fundamentales para entenderse entre los filósofos, han sido traducidas de las maneras más arbitrarios y caprichosas que se nos puedan ocurrir, por los investigadores desde hace unos cincuenta años para acá.

Vayan algunos ejemplos: a) García Yebra traduce en su Metafísica el término griego ousia por “esencia”, en lugar de sustancia como se lo tradujo durante dos mil años. b) Hernán Zucchi (argentino) se “le ocurre” traducir ousia por “entidad”, provocando un galimatías ininteligible en su traducción de la Metafìsica de Aristóteles. c) También “se le ocurre” a Pallí Bonet (que debe ser catalán, pero la viaraza gallega lo alcanza) al traducir la Ética Nicomaquea el término técnico héxis que se traduce históricamente por hábito, por la expresión “modo de ser”, con lo cual no se entiende nada. d) Eduardo Sinnott (argentino) realiza la mejor traducción anotada de la Ética Nicomaquea, pero la echa a perder cuando “se le ocurre” dejar de traducir el término eudaimonía  por felicidad, para traducirlo por “dicha”. Esto es, gozo individualista del hombre vulgar o dicharachero. d) Quintín Racionero que “se le ocurre” en su anotada traducción de la Retórica, no traducir un término fundamental como “antístrofa”, y luego cuando tiene que traducir otra palabra fundamental como phornimós, en lugar de hacerlo por “prudente”, por un prejuicio anticristiano, lo traduce por el término burgués “sensato”. f) Dejo para el final el caso de Mengino Rodríguez quien en su reciente traducción del Protréptico (2007) ignoró supinamente la nuestra (1983) y se atribuyó a sí mismo la primera traducción del texto aristotélico.[1]

 

Esta tara “gallega” es la que marca la capitis diminucio con la cual estos se aproximan a los estudios clásicos. Sin ir más lejos el año pasado fue rechazado un proyecto presentado por la muy buena filósofa catalana Margarita Mauri de investigación sobre la filosofía práctica de Aristóteles  porque,”el grupo solicitante no acredita publicaciones en espacios internacionales reconocidos “(léase: revistas inglesas, francesas o alemanas) en torno a los estudios aristotélicos…..los participantes en el proyecto no han optado por los espacios de discusión aristotélica más consolidados (revistas internacionales, etc).” afirmó el Comité de selección del Ministerio de ciencia e innovación de España. Tuvo que aparecer una carta del profesor norteamericano de la insignificante Northwestern University para que “los gallegos” del comité de selección aceptaran el proyecto.

 

Hoy el más encumbrado tribunal en estudios humanísticos del mundo hispano acaba de otorgarle el premio más importante en euros (son 50.000) a dos personajes, que con su obra y su prédica denostan al mundo que los premia. En el fondo, este encumbrado tribunal hispánico se ha portado como un cabrón, ha gastado los dineros de los españoles en premiar a aquellos cuya producción y verba ha ido siempre contra España y aquello que lo hispano representa en el mundo.

 

(*) arkegueta, aprendiz constante, eterno comenzante.

alberto.buela  gmail.com

 

 

---

[1] Confrontar nuestro artículo A propósito del Protréptico de Aristóteles, en Internet.

L'Addictature: la tyrannie de la dépendance

L'Addictature : La tyrannie de la dépendance

Ex: http://www.polemia.com/

Polémia a reçu un excellent texte sur « l’addictature ». « L’addictature », c’est la dictature du système marchand, mondialiste et médiatique à travers l’addiction : l’addiction aux images, l’addiction à la consommation ; notamment par la prise du contrôle des esprits par les publicitaires et la décérébration scientifique, une addiction à la consommation à la publicité et au commerce qui est, selon l’auteur, la principale cause du politiquement correct. C’est le chef d’entreprise, le publicitaire et l’éditorialiste qui cherchent à éviter tout ce qui peut nuire à un « bon climat », ce qui les conduit à privilégier le conformisme et à craindre la liberté de l’esprit.

Polémia

1/ Consommer c’est détruire

Londres, été 2000, à proximité du célébrissime Hyde Park, une réunion se tient dans les locaux d’une agence de publicité regroupant une vingtaine de « marqueteurs » du monde entier… Face à l’agence, un panneau publicitaire de 4m sur 3 attire l’attention du passant, dérange la bonne société londonienne et émerveille nos jeunes cadres un brin efféminés, grands prêtres de l’impact pour l’impact, adeptes des idées décalées qui « feraient bouger le monde », ennemis jurés de la normalité d’emblée jugée réactionnaire ou simplement emmerdante.

Sur l’affiche géante : une femme septuagénaire ridée comme une pomme, le visage révulsé et bestial, un corps misérable au deux tiers dénudé, simplement sanglé dans une combinaison sado-maso de latex noir clouté ; dans sa main droite un fouet hérissé d’épines de métal, dans sa main gauche une boîte de pastilles à la menthe et un « claim », une signature, un message : « Draw the pleasure from the pain » (tirez votre plaisir de la souffrance). Un clin d’œil bien british à la gloire du menthol contenu dans ces anodines pastillettes mais qui pourrait en dire long sur la dégradation de notre rapport au monde ô combien tourmenté.

Et si consommer c’était consumer et se consumer, altérer l’objet et s’altérer soi-même… et si consommer c’était avant tout détruire ? Le désir est castré par la totale accessibilité des biens. Contrairement au discours des publicitaires, les médias ne créent jamais le désir mais surinforment sur l’hyper-disponibilité des biens et des plaisirs qu’ils sont censés générer. Mais, au fait, peut-on réellement désirer quelque chose de prêt à consommer ? Tout est susceptible d’être consommé : des derniers yaourts à boire à la jeune blonde siliconée. Les fabricants de biens de consommation sont des créateurs d’éphémère et les consommateurs les destructeurs compulsifs de ces biens. Cette évidence met en lumière un malaise profond dans la relation de l’homme à l’objet, de l’Etre à l’Avoir. L’acquisition du bien est sacrée mais curieusement le bien ne l’est plus car son destin est d’être rapidement détruit. Cette évidence fonde le non-respect des choses, mais aussi des personnes ou de soi-même, ce qui est l’une des origines de l’apologie du morbide dans notre société. Les clins d’œil publicitaires d’un goût douteux ne sont d’ailleurs pas les seuls à cultiver cette pulsion destructrice, cette pathologie collective.

2/ De la répression à la dépression

Le système marchand mondialisé et son paravent droit-de-l’hommiste mis en majesté par la médiacratie n’en finit pas de stigmatiser les répressions pour mieux nous faire sombrer en dépression. Lorsqu’il n’y a plus de résistance, de combats, d’appartenance, il reste la dépendance. Lorsqu’il n’y a plus de tradition il reste les addictions.

Les épouvantails dressés par l’addictature sont les paravents bien pratiques d’une redoutable machine à lobotomiser le cerveau humain. A la manière des sectes, qui dénoncent le pouvoir répressif du milieu familial pour mieux couper la nouvelle recrue de ses racines, le système diabolise les points d’ancrage intangibles (gisements potentiels d’éclairs de lucidité) pour mieux pratiquer ses lavages de cerveau.

3/ La machine à générer le manque

Imaginons l’espace d’un instant un historien du futur portant un regard critique sur l’ère des marchands. Que décrirait-il en vérité ? Un monde dont le fonctionnement peut se résumer à la relation du dealer au toxicomane. Un monde hanté par la phobie du manque et de la répression au point de lui préférer la décérébration, l’aliénation, l’addiction. Personne ne semble échapper à la grande machine à générer le manque… Ni les oligarques, tour à tour marchands et consommateurs, ni les intellectuels les plus éclairés voire les plus dissidents. La véritable dissidence n’est possible dans l’addictature que si, et seulement si, la prise de conscience des aberrations du système, la réinformation et l’éveil du sens critique sont accompagnés d’un véritable sevrage au sens le plus addictologique du terme. La société de consommation agit sur l’homme comme une drogue, comme l’ont approché bon nombre de sociologues depuis Jean Baudrillard. Mais un drogué pourra avoir conscience que son dealer est son bourreau tout en mettant tout en œuvre pour le protéger car il a besoin de sa dose. Cette relation morbide et masochiste du drogué au dealer est l’une des principales caractéristiques d’une machine à détruire. Détruire les biens (consommer c’est consumer), détruire la planète (on ne peut indéfiniment ou « durablement » détruire des ressources finies), détruire l’homme (privé de tout repère, vidé de tout projet, de toute valeur et de tout désir).

La soif de nouveauté et son corollaire, l’insatisfaction permanente, traduisent non pas une envie de vie, mais un manque, là encore au sens toxicologique du terme.

4/ La manipulation marchande au cœur du réacteur médiatique

Ne cherchons pas derrière l’hypnose médiatique la main d’un « Big Brother » idéologue et manipulateur. Ils sont des milliers, les « Big Brothers » du système marchand, et leur seul dieu, leur unique idéal est l’Argent ; un système multicéphale ultra-matérialiste, qui a pour seul objectif de réduire le citoyen à l’état de consommateur. Régis Debray dans son cours de médiologie générale observe : « Pour s’informer de ce qui se passe au dehors, il faut regarder la télévision et donc rester à la maison. Assignation à résidence bourgeoise car un “chacun pour soi” était en filigrane, qu’on le veuille ou non, dans le “chacun chez soi”. La démobilisation du citoyen commence par l’immobilisation physique du téléspectateur. »

La tyrannie médiatique n’est en vérité que l’un des moyens mis en œuvre par le véritable bras armé du système qu’est le marketing. Son aversion pour le dissensus, son penchant pour la pensée unique, le politiquement correct, découlent très directement d’un impératif absolu dans toute relation d’affaire : le bon climat. Le bon climat, c’est la confiance et l’éviction de tout ce qui pourrait gêner, choquer, distraire de ce qui est l’objectif principal : l’échange.

Le dealer se montre toujours rassurant sur les risques encourus, sur l’environnement, la qualité de la marchandise ou sur les conséquences du shoot… La confiance est la clé, surtout pas les vagues : l’origine de la bien-pensance est très exactement là ! Plus un seul éditorialiste ne peut ignorer les postes clés du compte d’exploitation du journal qui l’emploie et les chiffres clés du nombre d’abonnés et du chiffre d’affaires lié aux annonceurs. Nous pouvons faire le pari que c’est la « consophilie » ou la « consodépendance » du médiacrate qui le rend politiquement correct avant même ses partis pris idéologiques. La liberté de la presse, malgré ses postures et sa prétendue et arrogante indépendance, apparaît désormais bien plus libérale au sens idéologique du terme que réellement libérée.

L’addictature se met ainsi en place pas à pas en agissant grâce à un formidable rouleau compresseur : le mix-marketing. Actions sur les produits (toujours innovants ou mieux emballés) ; actions sur la diffusion (des relais, des distributeurs) ; actions sur le prix (attractif, promotionnel, compétitif) ; actions sur la communication (un objectif et une promesse par cible, bien intelligible, un ton bien testé, un choix média pertinent) ; actions sur la connaissance des cibles.

Ce dernier point en dit long sur un processus de décérébration quasi scientifique : outre les études quantitatives qui permettent de segmenter et de croiser de façon très fiable les comportements d’achat sur différentes catégories de biens de consommation, le marketing a recours à des « focus groups », véritables séances de psychanalyse où des consommateurs-cobayes sont exposés à des projets, des produits, des signatures de communication (plus une seule campagne publicitaire n’échappe à des pré-tests approfondis où l’impact et la « valeur incitative » sont pré-évalués et l’offre réajustée).

Plus récemment, les publicitaires et marqueteurs se sont intéressés à notre cerveau. On connaissait les tests de pupimétrie (évaluation de la dilatation de la pupille en fonction des stimuli visuels) ; les études de « eye-tracking » (observation du cheminement du regard sur un rayon de supermarché en vue de hiérarchiser la place en linéaire ; les observations in situ par caméras du comportement du consommateur, analysé par des spécialistes en comportement animal sur le lieu de vente, le tout complété d’interviews in vivo…

Mais voici venue l’ère du « neuro-marketing » qui vient parachever le système de surveillance de l’addictateur marchand sur nos misérables vies de toxicos soi-disant libérés. En mars 2007, le journal Le Monde révélait dans l’indifférence générale que Omnicom, leader mondial de l’achat publicitaire, avait recours aux neurosciences pour comprendre et influencer les consommateurs. L’imagerie par résonance magnétique fonctionnelle (IRMF) peut en effet livrer désormais des images du cerveau et de ses réactions à toutes sortes de stimulations. Le Collège de médecine de Houston a largement contribué à populariser ces techniques jusqu’à « interroger » les cerveaux pour leur poser une question du type : « Etes-vous plutôt Pepsi ou Coca ? ». Lorsque Patrick Le Lay rappelait, en 2005, que ce qu’il vendait à Coca Cola c’était du temps de cerveau disponible, il ne croyait pas si bien dire. Ses successeurs sont désormais en mesure de vendre une part de cerveau qualifié, pré-testé, encadastré, radiographié, formaté. Il est aujourd’hui possible de prédire l’acte d’achat en observant à l’IRMF l’activation des circuits neuronaux. De la même manière, il est possible d’évaluer la mémorisation d’une campagne de communication en fonction de la répétition du message et du couplage de plusieurs médias pour sa diffusion.

5/ Des barbelés dans nos têtes

Sucrée, sans tyrans identifiables, sans miradors ni répressions visibles, l’addictature à pas de velours a tressé des barbelés dans nos têtes en exécutant le désir par l’hyper-disponibilité des biens, en nous emprisonnant dans la néophilie et l’insatisfaction permanente, en digérant les germes des contestations, en entretenant une névrose, une obsession : remplir un vide (comme un puits sans fond). La tyrannie de la dépendance est en marche, de la découverte d’une drogue jusqu’à la quête insatiable d’un plaisir pour aboutir à la dépendance absolue et à l’overdose. Toxicomanes, cyber-addicts, consommateurs, même combat !! Seul le fil à la patte change de forme, seule la dose change d’aspect.

Le dealer (oligarque ou revendeur) est peut-être l’archétype de la réussite moderne, mais lui aussi est tour à tour victime et bourreau, esclave et maître. Il devient alors difficile de désigner la tête, le tyran responsable, ce qui est généralement très confortable dans une démarche révolutionnaire classique.

Pourtant, lorsqu’une névrose s’érige en système de valeurs, que l’Avoir prend le pas sur l’Etre et que des milliards de cerveaux passent au micro-ondes, il serait inconcevable qu’une certaine dissidence émanant de quelques rescapés ne puisse émerger pour organiser au bout du compte : une rupture.

6/ Des ratés qui nourrissent l’espoir

Comme toujours, les organismes (des plus simples aux plus complexes) portent en eux les germes de leur propre destruction. Des cellules s’altèrent, mutent et compromettent tout à coup un équilibre par essence précaire voire miraculeux : le principe vital. Le système dans lequel nous vivons, aussi technomorphe et désincarné soit-il, n’en reste pas moins une production humaine dont le matériau, le carburant principal, demeure l’homme et à ce titre comporte le même niveau de vulnérabilité biologique. L’idée selon laquelle le système marchand occidental serait un aboutissement, la fin de l’histoire, le bonheur universel ou le salut éternel est une vue de l’esprit englué dans un mythe progressiste, d’origine chrétienne, laïcisé par les Lumières. Les crises actuelles sont en train de venir à bout de ce mythe.

7/ Radioscopie de la dissidence

Rendre le dissensus possible n’est pas à la portée de tous. Deux voies très différentes s’offrent à nous : la dissidence révolutionnaire avouée, extrémiste, anarchiste ; elle est l’élément extérieur au système qui l’attaque frontalement tel un chevalier parti à l’assaut des moulins ; autre voie, la dissidence métastatique : lovée au cœur du système elle œuvre contre lui à son insu en amplifiant de façon exagérée ses caractéristiques jusqu’à les rendre toxiques pour le système lui-même. Une mutation, un cancer dont l’exemple le plus parlant est ce que représente le capitalisme financier en regard du capitalisme industriel : les traders et les banques d’investissement auront finalement fait beaucoup plus contre le capitalisme que des décennies d’idéologies anticapitalistes. On connaissait les idiots utiles, voici venue l’ère des intelligences cyniques. La menace endogène se révèle toujours plus efficace pour détruire un modèle politique que les attaques exogènes. Le cancer qui pénètre chaque jour un peu plus le système marchand aura raison de lui ; il se nourrit de lui, vit à ses dépens, lui pompe toutes ses réserves, son énergie, sa moelle, son avenir.

Vouloir mieux encore retourner les armes du système contre le système peut aujourd’hui nous inciter à maîtriser la méthodologie marketing afin d’optimiser la pénétration des idées. A cet égard le « marketing idéologique » pourrait représenter une sorte de combat post-gramsciste où l’entrisme socio-culturel laisserait la place à une stratégie rigoureuse et marquettée d’ajustement des thématiques en fonction des cibles (sans les travestir car nous ne nous situons pas dans une approche de marketing de la demande mais dans un marketing de l’offre, c'est-à-dire, un peu comme dans l’industrie du luxe, un marketing « Gardien du Temple », éloigné d’un clientélisme façon démocratie participative). A ces ajustements il conviendrait d’adjoindre une réflexion approfondie sur la diffusion de ces thématiques et de leurs meilleurs porte-drapeaux ainsi qu’un plan détaillé sur la communication desdites thématiques (message, ton, supports médias…). Vaste programme !!!

8/ De l’idéologie de la destruction aux valeurs de la création

Le sevrage par la déconsommation semble être la condition préalable. Rien ne sera possible dans la procrastination sur le registre « J’arrête demain » ou le constat passif du type « Ce monde est fou… ». Impossible de transiger sur la normalité et les fonctions vitales. Impossible de ne pas hurler que l’essence même de l’humain est de créer, de procréer, de se surpasser et que l’appartenance vaut mieux que toute dépendance.

Les marchands doivent quitter le temple et rejoindre le marché. Il est pour le moins paradoxal de faire le constat aujourd’hui que l’homme matérialiste (libéral ou marxiste) aura été en réalité un antimatérialiste, c’est-à-dire au sens propre du terme un destructeur de matières, de biens, d’environnement. Les ruptures mortelles se sont multipliées depuis la mainmise de certaines visions monothéistes et de leurs produits dérivés pseudo-humanistes sur nos consciences : rupture organisée du corps avec l’âme ; du matériel avec le spirituel ; de l’Homme avec la Nature ; du Peuple avec sa terre.

Passer de l’idéologie de la destruction aux valeurs de la préservation et de la création, c’est redonner tout à la fois à l’homme et à la matière leur noblesse, leur statut… C’est affirmer et même sacraliser la filiation des matières entre le minéral, le végétal, l’animal et l’humain… C’est redonner à l’homme ses attaches dans le temps et dans l’espace, loin des mystifications, loin des addictions… C’est remettre l’Homme à sa place et retrouver les liens fondamentaux… ceux qui délient les chaînes.

H. Calmettes

19/05/2010

Correspondance Polémia 24/05/2010