>>906169
>Клаузевиц мог себе представить летающую, например, пушку, которая сама находит цель и ее поражает?

>In his Strategy of 1804, the author lists several attributes of the mind in his discussion on the qualities of the commander-in-chief. In addition to ease of understanding (leichte Fassungskraft), clarity of representation (Deutlichkeit in seinen Vorstellungen), and sound judgement (richtige Urteilskraft), the general’s mind must also have the ability to “quickly see” or assess a situation (schnellen Überblick).1 Überblick could certainly be understood, at least in French, as coup d’oeil, but the word here does not have the meaning that Clausewitz gave later to the term in On War; in Strategy, Überblick is the ability to have an overall view, to grasp with the eyes, and not the coup d’oeil that Clausewitz later conceptualised.

>First of all, it is important to reject the idea that Clausewitz’s “emphasis on the coup d’oeil is an accurate reflection of the importance of topography in the post-revolutionary French military ventures”.12 His approach is the opposite, the question being how much visuality remains in his conception of coup d’oeil. More specifically, it involves determining the relationship between the mind’s eye (geistige Auge) – according to Clausewitz’s famous definition – and the bodily organ.13 At first sight, the relationship seems cumulative. This is Thomas David Pilcher’s interpretation in his rough translation: “By coup d’oeil is meant a correct survey not only by the physical but also by the mental eye”.14 This point of view is also taken in the much more interesting studies by Echevarria and Christian Müller.15

>However, another interpretation is that the relationship is not one of association but of dissociation. The cumulative connotation of Pilcher’s previous quotation is absent from the original version, which states rather an opposition. Clausewitz writes that the coup d’oeil denotes not simply (nicht bloß) the physical eye, but more frequently (häufiger) the mental eye. It is not a characterisation of the dual way in which the coup d’oeil works, but a distinction between two meanings of the term. What follows is even more explicit, as Clausewitz wants to strip (entkleiden) the concept of its visual connotations.16 In fact, an opposition between the concepts of Augenmaß and coup d’oeil underlies the construction of this part of the chapter devoted to genius. Howard and Paret’s translation reflects this by associating the first of these words with “a name which refers to visual estimates only”.17 This name – the Augenmaß – implies a limited meaning (beschränkten Bedeutung), which the author clearly wants to expand. If this is an indirect criticism of Bülow – whom Clausewitz does not name – it is an unfair one. Indeed, Bülow’s “military-strategic Augenmaß” was clearly not limited to the “oeil” understood as an organ.18

>For both Clausewitz and Bülow, the concept of coup d’oeil was emancipated from its initial visual and topographical anchorage. The author of On War obviously does not ignore the importance of terrain and the general’s appreciation of it, but he places it in a different conceptual category, which he simply calls sense of locality (Ortssinn).19
https://www.qeios.com/read/U8KAMK

Клаузевиц по шкале яблока мог вообразить запечёного поросёнка с яблоками, вертелом, столом на 6 человек и всеми приборами и напитками.