Arnon

The tall manager at Sant Ambroeus smiled when we mentioned your name and presented him with our gift. We both took an instant liking to him. Would you be so kind to send the manager our regards? He shook Laura's hand, or rather her glove.
Did you notice our inscription?
Today, we visited the Klimmt exhibit at the Neue Galerie. We particularly enjoyed a collection of three clocks on the museum's second floor.
Laura ended up seeing many friends for Thanksgiving this year. Next time we're in New York, we would be delighted to meet up with you.

I can only offer some modest help:
http://www.ru.nl/politicologie/actueel/column/eerder_verschenen/20_november_2006_de/
http://patriot.net/~crouch/artj/heg.html
http://patriot.net/~crouch/artj/tol.html
(I have never read Hegel neither)

napoleon

Hegel wrote this to his friend Niethammer (in 1806):
‘Den Kaiser – diese Weltseele – sah ich durch die Stadt zum Rekognoszieren hinausreiten; es ist in der Tat eine wunderbare Empfindung, ein solches Individuum zu sehen, das hier auf einen Punkt konzentriert, auf einem Pferde sitzend, über die Welt übergreift, und sie beherrscht’ (Hegel 1952-60, I.120). ‘I saw the Emperor, this World Soul (Weltseele), riding through the town reconnoitring. It is indeed a wonderful feeling to see an individual of this kind, who, concentrated here to a single point, sitting on horseback, reaches out over
the entire world and masters it.’

You can read about this on the following url (from which I borrowed the above quotation): http://www.bbk.ac.uk/english/skc/world/world.pdf

I performed a little search on google; Apparantly it is something he wrote in a letter to Niethammer on 13/10/1806

too late

"Den Kaiser [Napoleon] – diese Weltseele – sah ich durch die Stadt zum Rekognizieren [Erkunden] hinausreiten; - es ist in der Tat eine wunderbare Empfindung, ein solches Individuum zu sehen, das hier auf einen Punkt konzentriert, auf einem Pferde sitzend, über die Welt übergreift und sie beherrscht." (Aus dem Brief an Niethammer vom 13.10.1806)

I wasn't the first one to post the correct answer. I'll just settle for being less happy...

It's actually a foursome -- Hegel, Tolstoy, Napoleon, and Beethoven.
In Lodewijk van Deyssel, 'Het Ik - heroïsch-individualistische dagboekbladen' (a Privé Domein volume) the protagonist actually conceives of himself as an emperor, i.e., the best and finest that the world has thus far produced. I don't believe he rides a horse as that would probably be to plebeian; I think he goes around in carriages through the streets of Paris, without a dime to piss on of course but that is obviously of no concern.

'Dit is een zeer goede toestand; want wij zijn als Napoleon en niemant, die het weet. Daardoor overtreffen wij hem misschien'.

Black Mass

I come in with a side-kick again (as always). Now that the quote has been found, may I give you another one in association with this image of a solispsist , vane Napoleon seated on a horseback yet going around slaughtering and killing:

Barbarism has a certain charm, particularly when it comes clothed in virtue.

It is by John Gray in his last book Black Mass: (p. 192) . Have you read it yet, Arnon?

Rutger

What is the link with Beethoven in this four-some you mention?

Oscar W

I did notice the inscription and I wondered: was it your handwriting or Laura’s? I will wait another year. Jacob waited seven years for Lea and then seven years for Rebecca, or the other way around, I will wait at least three years for Laura.
Have a safe trip back.

Eber Nachfolger

Thank you. You ard kindly invited to join me for cheese fondue in a small village north of Montreux, in the spring of 2008.
Do you think you can make it?

Rutger

Could you explain the foursome?
I extend to invitation for cheese fondue also to you.

Annette

I haven't read John Gray's last book, but FYI it's being reviewed in today's NY Times.

Arnon

Thanks, I will look it up and read it. Gray offers another good explanation of what you witnessed in Afghanistan or of what happens in many more of the current missions to bring "redemption" and "reinstall human dignity" through war. Ulrich Beck's War is Peace: On Postnational War, is another good one which I feel deserves being read even before Hegel. You can find this article on the web.

(Or: yes I am alive and kicking again ;-) ).

fegato, german jews

hi arnon,
wanted to thank you for the invite but do not have your address nor email.
zwi

Zwi

You are very welcome.
If you want to send an e-mail, just mail it to Johannes, johannes@arnongrunberg.com. He will forward it to me.

Arnon

I'll be happy to join you next spring for cheese fondue, depending on the exact date, the number fondue-pans used that evening and whether you will be present as a dead or living writer.

Quip

I am by no mans an expert on Hegel. But I do wonder if Hegel's remark about Napoleon was really a quip. I think he really saw Napoleon as a kind of personification of World Spirit.

@ batta

From what I remember scrolling trough the pages this afternoon on the net, Hegel wasn't too found of French politics ,wich was in charge at that moment, but thought that the future layed within German philosophy. But I can be wrong.

Eber N

The plan is to organize a cheese fondue dinner in the small village of Caux, north of Montreux. If you scroll back to my entry of February 6, 2007, you will see that I have organized a contest. The winners are going to receive an excellent meal consisting of cheese fondue and wine in Caux. If I recall rightly this contest produced approx. 15 winners.
Recently I stated that I consider myself (in the Netherlands) a dead author who keeps writing.
First of all Caux is in Switzerland. Second: why is this important to you. Are you interested in my body or in my work?

Batta

How is your fiancée doing these days?

Arnon

It is not your body, dead or alive (I dine with dead people quite frequently), but the presence of the 15 winners that frightens me a little. Your work is easy to obtain, so it’s not that either. I’m in it for the cheese-fondue. Let that be clear.

Hello Annette,
The virtue of your question is that it makes the obvious less obvious. Because indeed, what *is* the connection? There is a scene in a Woody Allen movie in which Allen leaves a Wagner opera and says, "I feel like I just conquered Poland". This is the obviousness I mean--listening to Beethoven and feeling like Napoleon, feeling like being the fate and destiny of history, of great events in great novels, of novels *as* great events. It almost becomes a synaesthetic experience--history becomes audible, music becomes thought , etc.

It is important to note, however, that such an approach can only serve as a model, a tool by which to engage thought or pleasure, and should not be taken too seriously. It doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny anyway: each of them were true geniuses in the Romantic sense of the word--but Napoleon was out to fulfill his own agenda rather than that of any world spirit, while Beethoven cancelled the dedication of his 3rd symphony (the "heroic") to Napoleon upon learning that he had proclaimed himself emperor. As for Hegel, it would take Marx to force history to seek its unavoidable destiny, and a neoconservative, Fukuyama, to confirm the event. Which leaves only the novelist, who wrote voluminous novels and became very old...

Thanks, Arnon, for your invitation, which I gladly accept! I'll be looking forward to it.

13 10 1806
pheanomenologie des Geistes
that is all i know

far too late

me spuit 11

Rutger

According to my French teacher Napoleon is a mass murderer. Can you be a genius and a mass murderer?
(For a while many people considered Stalin a genius.)

cheese fondue

did the winners receive the invitation already? My e-mail isn't working and i cannot remember joining.
liebe gruesse,

Friede

Johannes is in charge of the invitations.

Mieke

I would think that Hegel thought of Napoleon as an important force in history: an important (anti-)thesis in the dialectics of his time. Again, I am no expert on Hegel at all.

Arnon

My fiancée is fine, thank you for asking.

Arnon

Why would genius exclude crime? Crime may be defined as an act that the majority of a certain community disapproves of (and is laid down as such in law). Genius may defined as the ability to take control of processes that are otherwise subdivided over various individuals. In that respect, genius is crime, and mass murder the epitomy of both.
But I agree with you that true genius would be to not pursue such objectives, which is what Van Deyssel may be hinting at in that quote I gave. True events, true crimes are committed in novels, films, plays, and poems; the rest is soon forgotten, pointless, inconsequential.
Incidentally, Vestdijk wrote a beautiful short essay entitled, Historical Contingency (Essays in Duodecimo), in which he wonders how history would have looked if Napoleon had never lived, or how our music would have sounded if Beethoven never composed. Indeed, which course would my life (and yours) have taken had I not responded to your question today?

Rutger

Some people are known for their crimes, other people are known for other things but happened to be a criminal on the side, or at least happened to commit a criminal act on the side.
Hitler, to state the obvious, is known for his crimes.
Mailer is known for his books. The fact that he stabbed his wife is a (minor) detail in his biography.
I hesitate to follow your definition of a crime – it’s slightly too relativist to my taste.
Can you be a genius in killing people? That seems to me the question here. Your answer is: yes.
By the way, I’m not a historian, but didn’t Napoleon lose most important battles? Isn’t his standing based on a myth?
Why should we call Napoleon a genius and don’t place this label on Robespierre?
And I don’t agree that crimes in real life are soon forgotten.
The victims don’t forget. Sometimes generations later the crime is still not forgotten.
And Hitler, to state the obvious once again, is still more famous than Goethe, Schiller or Hegel.

Arnon

Did you see the interview in this week's Vrij Nederland with the psychiatrist, Louis Tas? His family fell victim to the Nazis but what says he? "Hitler was obviously a victim, too. Both he and Stalin had fathers who would beat them when they were drunk. It has deformed them."

In other words, Arnon, I don't think we should be putting labels on Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Robespierre, or anyone else. It's not about what people "are" nor even about what they "do" but about what they can become. And we can never judge that.

You say you don't agree that crimes in real life are soon forgotten: "The victims don't forget". But they, too, are soon forgotten! Besides, the severity of a crime is not dependent on how well it is remembered. Rather, it depends on people's interest in keeping the memory alive. Active natures tend to forget easily so that they can move on.

With regard to crimes of exceptional proportions, they seem to have a tendency to lose their once-only nature, and become almost instant myths. Remember Karl-Heinz Stockhausens remarks on 9/11 shortly after the events: "The greatest work of art ever". And Hitler himself? Depicted in film, literature, numerous works of art, and perhaps for *that* reason more famous then Goethe, Schiller, or Hegel. What do you think? Would we still remember King Lear if not for Shakespeare?

Rutger

If we cannot judge people, under no circumstances, we cannot produce literature.
The remarks made by Mr. Tas are not new, and even worse, are clichés of the less pleasant sort.
The fact that the perpetrator might be even a victim himself does not mean that we should not judge. (I can recommend Manès Sperber who has written insightful about this subject.)
Your opinion that we cannot put labels on individuals is unrealistic – without labeling things, animals and humans we would live in complete chaos, in darkness.
That we should be careful judging others and ourselves does not mean that we should abstain from this activity.
You can do better than this, Mr. Tas is old but you are still young I assume.

Rutger

And I don't think that we still remember Hitler thanks to the few movies about him, but yes he has become an icon.
I'm not sure what you want to prove with the Stockhausen quotation.

PS

I realize that perhaps I've answered many questions, but not the ones you were looking for. Let me try again.

Can one be a genius in killing people?
I think one can be a genius in anything, from card tricks to writing to killing people. To die at an early age in a car accident and not meet up to one's promise might thus be called a lack of talent.

Why should we call Napoleon a genius and not place this label on Robespierre?
Because Eichmann did a better job, and it required only obedience, and some logistic expertise.

(I take no liking in thinking or writing about these things, but it's like Louis Tas says: "Having been detained in Bergen-Belsen doesn't excuse one from looking at the facts".)

Can one become a genius through killing? Can one be a genius and still kill? My answer to both questions: no, I don't think so. It may be necessary to kill; it may be a good thing to kill, even when there is no need to self defend. In general, however, I think it's very difficult to build and create something, anything, by taking away. A genius has to be many people at once; would it disturb him to have other people around when he himself is on the virge of shizophrenia? His desire is to lead, i.e., to establish order, to become master of himself and of others, not to kill them (or himself).

It's getting late. Thanks again for the dinner invitation, I appreciate. Will you be able to contact me? Thanks, and goodnight.

Arnon

You're back already with more responses, very well.
I don't know why MR. Tas' comments are cliches at all. I think they are very refreshing and a propos. I hope my mind will be as clear and as unprejudiced when I'll be that age.
You seem to be in great need of an evil-doer. Let me ask you: who was it who persuaded Satan to be come evil?

"If we cannot judge people, under no circumstances, we cannot produce literature". Really? Refrain from producing literature, then!

I am not saying we cannot put labels on people, but that we should not look at people as unchanging and isolated subjects, that's all. We make connections, and by doing so, we overcome who we are. There is plenty of good literature there; there is drama.

Take care,
Rutger

Rutger

If we take the word “genius” seriously – and if we don’t why would we continue this discussion or game – we cannot conclude that you can be a genius in everything. Unless you think there is no real distinction between killing people, building houses made of cards and producing literature.
Being good at something is not the same as being a genius.
The fact(?) that Hitler and Staling had fathers who beat them, and the fact that you bring this up as a serious argument and/or explanation is worse than a cliché. Your statement that these “observations” are refreshing reminds me of a poor horse who has never seen a carrot in his life, and shortly before dying he comes across a carrot and he thinks: “Well, refreshing.”
Hitler, Stalin and Robespierre are dead, and therefore they cannot become anything.
When you come across your carrot don’t forget to eat it; staring at it while thinking how refreshing this strange vegetable is, is not enough.
And also keep in mind: a horse will never be a genius.
Not that I’m putting a label on you, or would you want to call a person who says that a chair is a chair somebody who unnecessarily puts a label on something that might evolve into something else?
If we are against labels we should be against language. For you the solution is easy: keep on balking.

Arnon

The inscription is in my handwriting, except for Laura's name. Come to think of it, I'm not sure whose handwriting is on the postcard we sent to your godson. We intend to send St Ambroeus's manager a postcard to thank him for his kindness.
Laura is impatiently inclined. She has on more than one occasion discovered a present intended for her, and opened it prematurely.
We aspire to meet your godson before his 5th birthday.

Oscar

Are you planning to propose to Laura?
Do you think you could still love her and respect her when I would become her lover on a monthly basis?
Would you like Laura and me to be open about our meetings, or do you prefer us being secretive?
My godson has not received the card yet.

Krista

Thanks! You are invited to come to Caux for cheese fondue. Are you interested?

Arnon

Laura noticed that the vast majority of Klimmt's models were Jewish women.
I'm not sure if this answers your question.

Arnon

You are an excellent writer but a poor reader, and a worse thinker. Or perhaps it is your English? You ought to talk to people more when you leave the house; why else be in New York?
I did not say one can be a genius in everything (one could in Leonardo's time) but in anything. I also said that genius in the Romantic sense of the word has to do with taking charge of most, or all aspects of a process.

Would you like to be a genius, Arnon? Did you become a writer for that express purpose? Would you kill if your writing wasn't as successsful? Are you asking me for permission to kill?

Apparently, you are well versed in both Stalins and Hitlers biographies. You doubt that they were beaten by their drunken fathers. Fine. It must have been something else then, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps their mothers? Sisters? Perhaps they had artistic aspirations but their writing didn't come off very good?
Do you think you should really have been a Hitler or a Stalin, Arnon? Do you think your writing is actually a joke, a big mistake? You can write to me privately if you care to discuss these matters. I can listen, and I want to help you.

"Hitler, Stalin, and Robespierre are dead".
"A horse will never become a genius".
"A chair is a chair".

Do you think these observations are anything better than cliches, Arnon? Is this why you fear that your writing is good, but not that of a genius? Do you think you would have failed at being Hitler or Stalin because you would rather label than kill? Writing as labeling, like a clerk in some post office, is this why you became a writer?

I have not yet received any details re: the cheese fondue. I am so looking forward to it.

@Arnon/Rutger, why on earth does every serious discussion and difference of opinion end up in sarcasm and personal attacks? You two being the thinkers you present yourselves as being, I'd like your honest anaylsis of this psychological mechanism. Or is human nature more difficult to understand than Hegel?

Noa

You may look at it like this: I am a horse who has just recognized his carrot. I think I will play with it for a while before I stick it in the cheese fondue pan.

Rutger

You seem to enjoy gratuitous and slightly amoral statements:
“It may be necessary to kill; it may be a good thing to kill, even when there is no need to self defend.”
Or sentences that remind one of self-help books:
“It's not about what people "are" nor even about what they "do" but about what they can become. And we can never judge that.”
You like pure nonsense as well:
“A genius has to be many people at once; would it disturb him to have other people around when he himself is on the virge of shizophrenia? His desire is to lead...”
And sometimes you manage to be funny:
“You may look at it like this: I am a horse who has just recognized his carrot. I think I will play with it for a while before I stick it in the cheese fondue pan.”
Slightly upsetting are your unworldly and haughty opinions:
“True events, true crimes are committed in novels, films, plays, and poems; the rest is soon forgotten, pointless, inconsequential.”
Now you have made clear that all you were trying to say is that you are looking forward to sticking your carrot in the fondue, and you are forgiven.
An invitation will reach you soon.
I haven’t checked Stalin’s nor Hitler’s biography lately but I trust you: they were beaten on a regular basis by their fathers. And they both ate too much apple pie. For more about this I would check my review in Vrij Nederland on Norman Mailer’s “The Castle in the Forest.” Published last spring.

Oscar

Many of Freud's patients were Jewish as well.

Arnon

Gratuitous, amoral, self-helpful, nonsensical, funny, upsetting, unworldly, and haughty--even though you're off on most points, you can see that I myself am a good example of someone who is many people at once. Or, take yourself, and your heteronyms--did you pick that up from a self-help book? Do you not consider that as pure nonsense?

I am glad you are in a position to return from your errors on your own account. That way, I don't have to forgive you, which is more like your deal anyway: making people 'very happy', and providing absolution. You may consider me your own private Judas: ready to betray you when the time comes. Until that day, I'll be monitoring you closely.

Thanks again for the invitation. Would you compare your body to cheese fondue? And, have you been kissed by a man before?

Rutger

My dear friend, the adjectives I used to describe some of your writings are indeed quite impressive. Even though I didn’t use these adjectives to describe you – I’m not so vain as to think I know you based on less than then comments on a site – I think that all these adjectives together do not imply any inconsistency. Come to think of it, from nonsense to self-help to being funny to being amoral, it’s all once dance step on a small square.
But if you feel the urge to tell me (and the rest of the world maybe) that you are more than one human being or persona, be my guest.
I have the impression that you are on a quest for forgiveness for your own fantasy. That’s where the difference between a fantasy and a deed comes in; fantasy does not have any consequences in the real world.
For that reason I’m smitten with your homosexual fantasies.

Thanks for the invitation, Arnon. I'm interested, but I cannot promise right now that I will be able to make it. I'll do my best.

Arnon

As much as I would like to engage in further discussion with you, I think I must pass by on this last one. Do me a favor if you can, and read up on the New Testament before you make a faggot out of me. I never called you a Jew either.

And what is this about seeking forgiveness for one's fantasy? Are you serious? I hope not.

Anyway, you can add homosexuality to the other adjectives you compiled, and see if you can draw a picture based on that data. Who do you think it will look like?
Only one correct answer. Make sure you don't fail.

Rutger

Do you mind if we call you Mr Carrot?

Rutger

I said that I was smitten with your homosexual fantasies. I didn’t mention that you were trying to be homosexual -- or that you are homosexual. For that matter.
I can see why you insist on being many different things (or humans) at the same. You seem to suffer from amnesia.
Please read your own comments again. This will answer all your questions.
For all other help I recommend you see Mr. Tas at your earliest convenience..
And don’t forget: no reason to feel guilty about homosexual fantasies.

Mr. Carrot

I forgot a word: At the same time.

@Rutger

You being new to this site, I need to tell you that certain roles have already been given to others.
You see I am to be the Judas. Ilanit is the Trojan Horse. And Dens is the alcoholic. Sander is the tech-guy and Johannes is the loyal one.
So, you'll have to find yourself a new role.

Class

Everybody always already plays a role, or many roles as in my case, so it is impossible to object. The appropriate name, however, needs to fit the relevant setting. Being new to the site, I don't know to whom or what Mr. Oscar Wilde owes his name, but it is clear that Blockhead would fit him better. After all, it is impossible for me to be the carrot since it was our dear host himself who acquired that name. I am the horse, i.e., I am the connection through which we may form a new machine of desire, perhaps of literature. In any case, the horse tells his carrot and his class to go back to the comments in this thread themselves before suggesting their master to do so. To me, it seems more a case of collective repression ("Verdrängung") than of amnesia. I have no interest to forget anything of what I wrote or read.

Master? Yes, but not in the sado masochistic sense of the word. You may think of me as your Teacher--he to whom you can go when you fail to understand the allocation of Beethoven in a foursome. Or to explain the difference between literature and what my carrot calls "the real world" (perhaps you should consider writing columns for "de krant van wakker Nederland"?). Or to ask about the relation between genius and genocide when one finds oneself at a loss with regard to ones writing. Etc.

I am also the one who expects to be understood when I make references to events in the Garden of Gethsemane, instead of seeing my carrot jump to a notion of homosexuality. Such puerile responses are very disappointing.

Of course, you may call me and manipulate me in whatever way you want. This is a virtual setting, and I can't even control my own writing. Just remember that failing to address me appropriately merely serves to discredit yourselves.

And with this said, I am closing this class. Good luck to you all.

@Rutger aka Master (?)

Excuse me Rutger but where on earth did you find someone calling you a master? The 'ben ik nou zo slim of ben jij nou zo dom?' attitude you're portraying here is something I can throw right back at you.
I suppose you mean the Mr. in Mr. Carrot. Then I suggest you go back to school - Mr. stands for Mister, not Master. Or perhaps you're suffering from megalomania (don't worry, I do too so I'm not judging you) in which case I can recommend my shrink. Nobody here is calling you things you aren't calling yourself. It's you who should be doing the close reading. And in the meantime: lighten up would you? Give us a smile my dear, it's very easy :) see?

Rutger a k a Mr. Carrot

If you cannot control your own writings – something that was clear to me before you mentioned it yourself – it’s really time to be silent for a while.
(And Mr. Carrot is a beautiful name for a horse.)

Carrot and Stick

"f you cannot control your own writings – something that was clear to me before you mentioned it yourself – it’s really time to be silent for a while."

It is these attempts at being humurous, which constitute the most embarrassing part of your writing. The argument is unsubstantiated and unconvincing, but it allows you to continue and hop over issues that, when addressed, would make your texts truly special. Now they are little more than a way for readers to pass some time, and be left indifferent after finishing.

Nobody needs to call me master, nor do I need to call my carrot my carrot. At least our positions are clear now. Keep provoking me, and I'll keep spamming your blog with more quality posts. Or treat me with the proper fucking respect, and I'll be silent. I think this is reasonable.

I will be signing RHCdG from now on. It is the acronym I use on other blogs as well, including my own.

Rutger

Spam is the word.
Lack of talent is not a crime. Lack of recognition is not a crime either. If you cannot get over your shame I suggest an appointment with the refreshing Dr. Tas.

Arnon

No silence then? I figured as much. But what a poor way to solicit your dosis from me. I am lacking neither talent nor recognition, and surely you have noticed by now that I am utterly shameless. Yes, you are right, spam is the word. I have other words for you too if you like. You can use them freely. Anything for a great writer.

Spam

A lack of talent and a lack of recognition... Is it me or you who suffers from amnesia? I have seen you use the same argument with other people on numerous occassions. You have accused virtually every Dutch writer of both. I wonder, would you consider that spam as well? Or would "cliche" be more appropriate?

I also wonder why you keep coming back at Louis Tas. I thought you didn't find him refreshing? Remember though, to find someone or something refreshing is not a quality of the object but a capacity of the subject. Unfortunately, mr. Tas bores you. Do you think your sun is already setting, Arnon? Are you already waning, disappearing? Is this why you are wholesaling cliches?

Spam? Are you kidding me? There is LOTS more where this is coming from - so be careful with how you respond. I'll predict the future from your intestines if need be.

Mr. RCD and lots more letters

It may be my imagination, but to me your words sound like you're threatening Arnon Grunberg. I find this to be quite concerning (no irony).

Dear Noa

You wish you had imagination. Don't kid yourself.

@Noa
Please do not portray yourself as a Judas (although I think it would fit me). If you allow me, I like to imagine you as ‘Mountain Girl’, for some unconscious reasons.

Concerning RH CdD I can only call him Mister Quality.

@RDH (I can't remember the full lettering and the popupscreen covers your name)

It's like I said: I'm a megalomanic so you're not telling me anything new. Anyway, I take it your reaction means to say you're not a sociopath. Good. Now let's move on shall we?