All the thinkers mentioned seemed to be fairly 'mappable' according to being, to simplify grotesquely, pro- and anti-logos, while Nietzsche seems to live and die somewhere in the middle, or to torture himself (albeit joyfully) on the cross of their incommensurability. Are there any other thinkers you might recommend who fall in that confused Nietzschean middle? I'm curious because the pleasure I find in Nietzsche makes it impossible to fully commit to any anti-logos project, since it's evidently the fact that he was possessed - wittingly or unwittingly - by logos that makes him so joyful to read.
I would say D. H. Lawrence is squarely in the anti-logos camp, but that doesn't make him any less of a joy to read. If anything, it helps. Another great anti-logos writer would be William Everson. But to answer your question, I think Ezra Pound and Simone Weil both reside at the intersection of logos and anti-logos. They are both rather anti-logos in philosophy, but they get to that place through sheer power of intellection. The great novel of the logos is Moby Dick. Man's quest to exert his power over nature and the intellect destroys the world and man himself.
To me, Yeats is a good representative of this type, which I addressed in slightly different terms in a number of essays. Certainly, Nietzsche's doctrine of the will was repulsive to Klages and I'm sure to Lawrence (Farasha can correct me). I think Gerald Critch in Women in Love is a fairly powerful demonstration of this. But certainly, this is not all of Nietzsche!
Yes, Yeats is another good example. Though Yeats is really less mystical and more cerebral than he is made out to be. Conversely, Pound is often made out to be Apollonian, but is a true example of a Dionysian. In fact, much of Yeats' best late Dionysian verses are due to Pound's influence.
Nietzsche's Dionysianism and life-affirming doctrines were loved by Lawrence and Klages, but Lawrence abhorred the Nietzschean doctrine of Will to Power. He rightly claimed that it would lead to man's demise and the rise of the Machine.
Essentially, Nietzsche's thought can either end up as the metaphysical basis for a Birkin or a Critch. Most of the modern world has taken the latter Nietzsche. Lawrence, Klages, and to a certain extent, Heidegger, have taken the former Nietzsche. Nietzsche served his purpose well, but I think the modern reader would be better served through a close reading of Klages' Cosmogonic Eros or Lawrence's The Crown.
This is exactly the point I have made in print about Yeats. He desperately wished he could have been a Nietzschean man of will or a romantic but he was, even by his own estimation, born a generation too late. He was too much of a cold hearted intellectual.
Klages, for me, resolves all the issues with Nietzsche I have wrestled with since I was a teenager!
In my estimation, Klages is the greatest philosopher since Heraclitus; greater even than Heidegger. But of course it is nearly impossible to find his writings, even in German, since he doesn't fit into any of the currently in vogue P.C. moulds, which are so fashionable in academia and coastal cities. Klages' "Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele" is a true masterpiece. But, nearly all the most salient points are embodied in Lawrence's "Crown;" they just need to be decoded since some of DHL's statements in that, his most cryptic of books, are koan-like. I sometimes wonder if DHL was indirectly influenced by Klages. Frieda may have attended his famous lectures on man and earth, and even if Frieda didn't, her sister and her lover Otto Gross certainly did!
I also have come to the conclusion that Pound's Cantos are a kind of modern religious scripture for a new kind of paganism. Whatever their differences, Lawrence, Klages, and Pound were TRUE believers in the Gods, and they all knew that Xtianity was a debasement of ancient truths that led directly to the modern Hell!
I will have to spend more time with the Cantos on your recommendation. I absolutely agree in re Klages. He settled many long standing previously unresolved philosophical/spiritual problems for me. When I first read Klages I had the sudden feeling: "Aha, I've found it!"
There is a certain sense with him that one has gone as far as one can go through normal means. Past a certain line, philosophy is a ladder that must be discarded, and which must give way to theurgic practices.
Oh, and there are eyewitness accounts of Pound going into trances and dancing wildly to North African music, while Yeats would huddle up in shame in a corner, then rage at Pound for his indecorous behavior.
Without Yeats and Blake, I never would have seen the modern world for what it is. Both, largely through the lens of Kathleen Raine, were my doorways into everything else. They opened my doors of perception.
All the thinkers mentioned seemed to be fairly 'mappable' according to being, to simplify grotesquely, pro- and anti-logos, while Nietzsche seems to live and die somewhere in the middle, or to torture himself (albeit joyfully) on the cross of their incommensurability. Are there any other thinkers you might recommend who fall in that confused Nietzschean middle? I'm curious because the pleasure I find in Nietzsche makes it impossible to fully commit to any anti-logos project, since it's evidently the fact that he was possessed - wittingly or unwittingly - by logos that makes him so joyful to read.
I would say D. H. Lawrence is squarely in the anti-logos camp, but that doesn't make him any less of a joy to read. If anything, it helps. Another great anti-logos writer would be William Everson. But to answer your question, I think Ezra Pound and Simone Weil both reside at the intersection of logos and anti-logos. They are both rather anti-logos in philosophy, but they get to that place through sheer power of intellection. The great novel of the logos is Moby Dick. Man's quest to exert his power over nature and the intellect destroys the world and man himself.
To me, Yeats is a good representative of this type, which I addressed in slightly different terms in a number of essays. Certainly, Nietzsche's doctrine of the will was repulsive to Klages and I'm sure to Lawrence (Farasha can correct me). I think Gerald Critch in Women in Love is a fairly powerful demonstration of this. But certainly, this is not all of Nietzsche!
Yes, Yeats is another good example. Though Yeats is really less mystical and more cerebral than he is made out to be. Conversely, Pound is often made out to be Apollonian, but is a true example of a Dionysian. In fact, much of Yeats' best late Dionysian verses are due to Pound's influence.
Nietzsche's Dionysianism and life-affirming doctrines were loved by Lawrence and Klages, but Lawrence abhorred the Nietzschean doctrine of Will to Power. He rightly claimed that it would lead to man's demise and the rise of the Machine.
Essentially, Nietzsche's thought can either end up as the metaphysical basis for a Birkin or a Critch. Most of the modern world has taken the latter Nietzsche. Lawrence, Klages, and to a certain extent, Heidegger, have taken the former Nietzsche. Nietzsche served his purpose well, but I think the modern reader would be better served through a close reading of Klages' Cosmogonic Eros or Lawrence's The Crown.
This is exactly the point I have made in print about Yeats. He desperately wished he could have been a Nietzschean man of will or a romantic but he was, even by his own estimation, born a generation too late. He was too much of a cold hearted intellectual.
Klages, for me, resolves all the issues with Nietzsche I have wrestled with since I was a teenager!
In my estimation, Klages is the greatest philosopher since Heraclitus; greater even than Heidegger. But of course it is nearly impossible to find his writings, even in German, since he doesn't fit into any of the currently in vogue P.C. moulds, which are so fashionable in academia and coastal cities. Klages' "Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele" is a true masterpiece. But, nearly all the most salient points are embodied in Lawrence's "Crown;" they just need to be decoded since some of DHL's statements in that, his most cryptic of books, are koan-like. I sometimes wonder if DHL was indirectly influenced by Klages. Frieda may have attended his famous lectures on man and earth, and even if Frieda didn't, her sister and her lover Otto Gross certainly did!
I also have come to the conclusion that Pound's Cantos are a kind of modern religious scripture for a new kind of paganism. Whatever their differences, Lawrence, Klages, and Pound were TRUE believers in the Gods, and they all knew that Xtianity was a debasement of ancient truths that led directly to the modern Hell!
I will have to spend more time with the Cantos on your recommendation. I absolutely agree in re Klages. He settled many long standing previously unresolved philosophical/spiritual problems for me. When I first read Klages I had the sudden feeling: "Aha, I've found it!"
There is a certain sense with him that one has gone as far as one can go through normal means. Past a certain line, philosophy is a ladder that must be discarded, and which must give way to theurgic practices.
Oh, and there are eyewitness accounts of Pound going into trances and dancing wildly to North African music, while Yeats would huddle up in shame in a corner, then rage at Pound for his indecorous behavior.
Yes, exactly. He was quite timid and proper. He was a nevertheless a great inspiration to me.
Without Yeats and Blake, I never would have seen the modern world for what it is. Both, largely through the lens of Kathleen Raine, were my doorways into everything else. They opened my doors of perception.
Wow, I don't really know what to say. That was amazing. Thank you.