Traducción de Han Ryner [Inglés a español]

Este foro es para coordinar traducciones urgentes o para la traducción de textos que se consideren interesantes relacionados con el Anarquismo y los Movimientos Sociales.
Responder
Avatar de Usuario
Individualismoanarquista
Mensajes: 5
Registrado: 31 Jul 2014, 23:26

Traducción de Han Ryner [Inglés a español]

Mensaje por Individualismoanarquista » 31 Jul 2014, 23:54

Hola compañeros. Estamos organizando una editorial, claramente con muy pocos recursos, sobre anarquismo y anarquistas. La traducción se nos dificulta y no tenemos equipo para hacer ese trabajo. Por lo tanto pensamos en recurrir en algunas ocasiones con ustedes para que nos puedan apoyar. Cuando tengamos la primera antología, les pasaremos los datos para que puedan descargarla para leerla.
Nos gustaría que nos ayudaran con la traducción, de uno por uno o de los que gusten, de los siguientes ensayos:
Han Ryner
On Individualism

I mean by individualism a certain method of thought and life. Or perhaps a necessity of thought and life. Do we not live and think in the measure to which we are individualists? What is not individualist in me repeats, obeys, imitates. Even among the most passive there is doubtless a living hour where he sought within himself his reasons to obey like a cadaver. In order to annihilate his spirit, his heart, and his consciousness he had to appeal to his consciousness, his heart, and his spirit. His sole royal gesture was an abdication; his sole manifestation of life was suicide. And yet, in order to cease being a man he had for one minute to perceive that he was a man.

The most social of thinkers remain individualists in the measure to which they remain thinkers. The constructive power of a de Bonald, the verve of a de Maistre: the individual merits, the real life of these writers, and not the servile pro-slavery conclusions that express only their limits and banality. Charles Maurras is superior to the supporter who repeats him, because Charles Maurras has laid out a personal and ingenious road towards the abyss of triviality.

Every man has passed through, even if in a fleeting unconscious moment, Descartes’ provisional doubt. Most have been afraid, have retreated to the refuge of their old thoughts. But the terrifying moment has nevertheless enriched them. Now some of these old thoughts have again become thoughts for them. Until this point, they had only been words.

I find in the measure that I seek myself. But what do I find in me: Life; a life: my life.

What is my life? What is my deepest will? Will to pleasure, will to power, or will to harmony? Epicureanism, imperialism, or stoicism?

Are men so various that Epicurus and Nietzsche were able to plumb their ultimate depths, as did Epictetus? I wouldn’t have the presumption to accuse of superficiality any of those who have attempted to find themselves. I only know that the will to harmony in me is more profound that the wills to pleasure and power.

More liberating as well. To be sure, profound epicurean pleasure comes from myself, but the pain through which it allows itself to be troubled comes from without. You, Nietzsche, do you not know what compromises are demanded by all human powers and to what point the master is the slave of his slaves? It is only through contempt for pain and fear, by contempt for all authority and obedience that I liberate my being. The social is always one of my limits, one of my troubles. As long as I don’t ideologically suppress pain, death and authority through contempt I am incapable of a true thought and a true joy.

In the concrete, I don’t escape from death, illness, social control. But laughter suffices to deliver the spirit.

He who awakens to individualism rejects, in a first movement of revolt morality at the same time as the social. The priests of all servitudes have so capably mixed together the one and the other in the confusion of their sophisms... Insofar as I free myself from men and things I find love in myself. The free harmony I love in myself I love wherever I meet it. And just as the acorn in the teeth of the pig puts me in mind of the vast shadow of the oak, the man who consents to the worst social crushing still provides me with the nostalgic richness of a dream of love.
Han Ryner
Anti-patriotism

Will I manage to avoid here those considerations that belong more in the articles on Fatherland and Patriotism?

Anti-patriotism was the reaction of reason and sentiment the moment patriotism reigned. It took on diverse forms in accordance with the degree to which it relied more or less consciously on individualism, on love for all men, on love for one man (as with Camille, the sister of the Horatii), or even on a reasoned or sentimental preference for the laws and morals of a foreign country.

Buddha was necessarily hostile to any patriotic exclusivism, this man who doesn’t even admit what can be called human chauvinism, but extends to all living beings his loving mercy. In Greece the Sophists were anti-patriotic. Socrates, the greatest of them, proclaimed: “I am not Athenian; I am a citizen of the world.” He condemned the fatherland in the name of “unwritten laws,” i.e., in the name of conscience. Other Sophists rejected it in the name of a more interested individualism. Nevertheless, their contemporary Aristophanes detested his democratic fatherland because he admired the aristocratic organization of Lacedemonia. (Thus M. Paul Bourget and M. Leon Daudet, dazzled by the precision power of the German command had their years of naive patriotism: little gigolos who almost inevitably surrender themselves to the most fearsome “terror.”) Plato and Xenophon, poor disciples of Socrates who falsify and use him a bit like M. Charles Maurras falsifies and uses M. Auguste Comte, have sentiments similar to those of Aristophanes. Xenophon ended by fighting against his fatherland in the ranks of the Lacedemonians.

The Cyrenaic philosophers were anti-patriotic. One of them, Theodore the Atheist, repeated the line of many wise men: “The world is my fatherland.” He added, “Sacrificing oneself to the fatherland means renouncing wisdom in order to save the mad.” In which he is wrong: it means assisting the mad in destroying themselves.

The Cynics daringly professed anti-patriotism. Antisthenes mocks those who are proud of being autochtonous, a glory they share — he notes — with a certain number of slugs and marvelous grasshoppers. Diogenes, in order to make fun of the emotional activities of patriots, rolled his barrel across a besieged city. His disciple, the Cretan Krates, declared: “I am a citizen not of Thebes, but of Diogenes.”

Plutarch reproaches the Epicureans and Stoics the disdainful practical anti-patriotism that kept them from all public employment. The Epicurean only admitted chosen sentiments and reserved his heart for a few friends, who might be from any country. The Stoic extended his love to all men. He obeyed “the nature that made man the friend of man, not from interest, but from the heart.” Four centuries before Christianity he invented charity, which unites in one family all those who participate in reason, men and gods.

The first Christians were as anti-patriotic as the Stoics, the Epicureans and the other wise men. Those of Judea were not moved by the ruin of Jerusalem. Those from Rome stubbornly predicted the fall of Rome. They only loved the celestial fatherland, and Tertullian said in their name: “The thing that is most foreign to us is the public thing.” They were faithful to the spirit of the Gospel, where a certain parable of the Good Samaritan would be translated by a truly Christian Frenchman into the parable of the good Prussian, though an evangelical German would make of it the parable of the good Frenchman. And “good” wouldn’t have the same meaning that it does with a Hindenburg of the academician Joffre.

Catholicity means universality. Catholicism is international and consequently, if it is conscious and sincere, is form of anti-patriotism. A more recent International wants to replace war by revolution, and hostilities between nations by the class struggle. The principles of Catholicism don’t allow a distinction between the faithful and the non-believers. Modern Catholics brag of their patriotism without realizing that this means denying their catholicity. Thus the members of the Socialist or Communist parties who consent to “national defense” would knowingly or not cease to be able to call themselves socialists. The catholic meaning still lives in a few men, in Gustave Dupin, author of “La Guerre Infernale,” in Grillot de Givry, author of “Le Christ et la Patrie,” in Dr. Henri Mariave, author of “La Philosophie Suprême.” They are thus considered an abomination by their so-called brothers.

The anti-patriotic truth was never explained by anyone with more balanced force and clear consciousness than by Tolstoy. His pamphlet “Patriotism and the Government” shows to what extent “patriotism is a backward idea, inopportune and harmful... As a sentiment patriotism is an evil and harmful sentiment; as a doctrine it is nonsensical, since it is clear that if every people and every state takes itself for the for the best of peoples and states then they have all made an outlandish and harmful mistake.” He then explains how “this old idea, though in flagrant contradiction with the entire order of things, which has changed in other aspects, continues to influence men and guide their acts.” Only those in power, using the easily hypnotizable foolishness of the people, find it “advantageous to maintain this idea, which no longer has any meaning or usefulness.” They succeed in this because they own the sold-out press, the servile university, the brutal army, the corrupting budget, the most powerful means for influencing men.”

Except when it’s a question of demands by natives of the colonies, or the separatist sentiments of a few Irishmen, a few Bretons, or a few Occitanians, the word patriotism is almost always used today in a lying fashion. The sacrifices that are requested for “for the fatherland” they in reality have us offer to another divinity, to the nation which destroyed and robbed our fatherland, whichever it might be. No one any longer has a fatherland in the large and heterogeneous modern nations....

The love for the land of our birth is foolish, absurd, and the enemy of progress if it remains exclusive. If it were to become a means of intelligence I would praise it in the same way that the man who rests in the shade of a tree praises the seed. From my love for the land of my childhood and for the language that, I might say, first smiled on our ears should, comes love for the beauties of all of nature and the pensive music of all human languages. May my pride in my mountain teach me to admire other summits; may the gentleness of my river teach me to commune with the dream of all waters; from the charm of my forest, may I learn to find it in the measured grace of all woods; may the love of a known idea never turn me from a new idea or an enrichment that comes from afar. In the same way that a man grows beyond the size of a child, the first beauties met serve to have us ideally understand, taste, and conquer all beauties. What poverty to hear in these naive memories a poor and moving language that prevents our hearing other languages! Let us love, in our childhood memories the alphabet that allows us to read all the texts offered by the successive or simultaneous riches of our life.
Han Ryner
What An Individual Is

An individual is a complex, indefinable object. And so only the individual possesses something that can without lying be called existence. As the Cynic philosophers already knew, nothing real, nothing concrete is definable.

The necessities of thought, speech, of science and action force us to act as if the definable exists. Let us consent to this, while all the while smiling at the inevitable.

But we should never forget that no word can give us the essence of a being, not even my own essence, and that no thought, whatever good will and sympathy might animate it, will ever penetrate the essence of another. Our most beautiful, strongest, most penetrating truths glory — modestly — in being but lesser lies.

The more I strive to seize the concrete, the more my formulas become complex and hesitant, then the more I become irritated at not being able to make them flexible and mobile. Whenever I pronounce absolute words I know I am speaking in the abstract and that I am speaking of the void.

Avatar de Usuario
Besançon
Mensajes: 618
Registrado: 25 Dic 2006, 01:59
Ubicación: Centro

Re: Traducción de Han Ryner [Inglés a español]

Mensaje por Besançon » 09 Ago 2014, 01:37

No me fío de la editorial Innisfree, nada de nada.

PD: El trabajo para una empresa se paga, ¿lo sabías?

Avatar de Usuario
Individualismoanarquista
Mensajes: 5
Registrado: 31 Jul 2014, 23:26

Re: Traducción de Han Ryner [Inglés a español]

Mensaje por Individualismoanarquista » 09 Ago 2014, 16:25

No tiene relación con la editorial que mencionaste. Sólo que si no quieres cooperar para otros proyectos, no sé el sentido de las razones para venir a decir que somos tal y que haremos tal (una empresa), cosa que no somos ni haremos.

Avatar de Usuario
Besançon
Mensajes: 618
Registrado: 25 Dic 2006, 01:59
Ubicación: Centro

Re: Traducción de Han Ryner [Inglés a español]

Mensaje por Besançon » 09 Ago 2014, 18:31

Entonces ruego me disculpes, patinazo mío. ¿Quienes sois?

Avatar de Usuario
Individualismoanarquista
Mensajes: 5
Registrado: 31 Jul 2014, 23:26

Re: Traducción de Han Ryner [Inglés a español]

Mensaje por Individualismoanarquista » 09 Ago 2014, 18:53

Nuestro grupo es de México. Somos nuevos en esto de las publicaciones. Apenas estamos haciendo la estructura de la editorial y de los folletos. Sólo que los que formamos el colectivo encontramos ciertas simpatías con el Manifiesto de Bellegarrigue y, personalmente, con El Único y su propiedad de Stirner. Fuera de eso no tenemos ninguna simpatía por el individualismo actual que, injustamente se viene aprovechando de los y las anarquistas individualistas del siglo XX, y al cual se le viene llamando anarcocapitalismo, agorismo, etcétera.
Entiendo que no se tengan simpatías de algunos anarcocomunistas por el individualismo de otros anarquistas, o a la inversa, pero nuestro proyecto está intentando poner en debate las diferentes posiciones que han tomado los comunistas sobre la organización y la economía y las que han tomado los individualistas sobre la organización y la economía. Cabe resaltar que a veces los individualistas son también comunistas en la economía aunque difieren en los modos de organización (anarcosindicalismo, sobre todo).
Y ya, sin seguir saliendo del tema, venimos a pedir apoyo para traducir. El material, después de ser editado, será de adquisición gratuita en web. Estamos interesados en traducir a Cleyre, Marsden, Ryner, Walker, entre otrxs, aunque también tenemos intención de traducir, con el tiempo, sobre anarquismo negro y autores sin varias traducciones en español, como Mühsam, Parsons y Guillaume.
Saludos.

Responder