Was magic historically viewed as a metaphysical science that could exert "supernatural" effects on the corporeal world? Or does it deal with a different plane of reality all-together?
I am reading Evola's "Hermetic Tradition" and the way he defines it confuses me.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
I was also memed into buying Evola's Hermetic Tradition. Will probably arrive tomorrow. Never read anything of his before this, but this looked the most interesting to me. I've read a bit of Guenon though. Looks like I'm getting memed all the way.
I think it's the former. But it's a bit of a grey area imo. I know some people have reported very tangible results.
You are going to be brutally filtered. It is by far his least accessible work.
What would the most accessible work be?
Depends on what you're interested in. Pic rel. But I think that especially for more political guys, the essay collections I mentioned are by far the easiest and most digestible entry points. The other stuff requires a good bit of thinking and seriousness in order to get it.
Yeah getting the terminology is one of the harder things in the other works of Evola as well.
The distinction that I am familiar with is that between the "physical I" and the "transcendent self" that he makes in various places. The physical I is basically the human being, in some parts he used the phrase "the human animal". That means your emotions, desires, lusts and passions, the ego, arrogance and pride in material strength, the body, just all the stuff that you see in humans which you can also see in primates and in animals. The transcendent Self on the other hand is the spiritual part of the being and/or its originating principle. It's a bit tricky because it depends a bit on the context, as well. I'll give a quick example to further illustrate this distinction. At one point, Evola referred to a narrative, I think it was the "Nibelungenlied"? Or whatever it was called. Anyway, basically there's this young man, warrior, who has been invited to a banquet by his king. This is actually a trap the king set to kill the warrior. And the warrior is warned about this by a third party, and the warrior responds "if that's true, then that's his problem not mine - I am going to be loyal and faithful by trusting him, and if he betrays me, then the really tragic thing in this whole situation would be the king's own character". And that's a good illustration of things. The physical I, the human animal, clings to life, strength, passion, drive. It would be loath to relinquish its life over simple trust. But the transcendent Self values precisely these subtler, higher things. It does not care if physical life perishes, so long as it can act as it wills. So that's one practical example of the distinction between physical I and transcendent Self.
>like his ideas about reincarnation
He doesn't believe in reincarnation?
>He doesn't believe in reincarnation?
From what I remember he says that reincarnation as understood by the masses cannot be true because that would imply that the reincarnated person would be a different person from who was once in an earlier life and for some reason reincarnation cannot be true. This is moronic by itself but I think he gave an equally moronic allegorical meaning.
It was also other Ur Group members who said this.
I thought I don't understand his writing because either my Italian is rusty since I read mostly in English, or the Italian language of the past is very different today, but it's probably because he doesn't explain himself well enough
>This is moronic by itself
Okay so here's the situation. If you want to talk reincarnation, we have to be specific about what exactly is reincarnating. Evola says that the stream of life does continue forward bearing the karma you accrue in this lifetime or whatever, but, what it incarnates next is *not* you, the living, breathing person with an identity, memory and character. It incarnates a different entity on the basis of what you have done up until the end of your life. So neither the personal being is reincarnated, nor is the supreme spiritual self reincarnated (because it always is). What is reincarnated is the recycled remains of the little soul. Is that "you"? Few people would agree.
>I thought I don't understand his writing because either my Italian is rusty since I read mostly in English, or the Italian language of the past is very different today, but it's probably because he doesn't explain himself well enough
He explains things really well, but he does not make his explanations as digestible as possible. I will admit as much. The logic is very clear, very elegant, very direct. But the language can be a bit obscure, because he presents the logic directly, without trying very hard to bridge the gap between writer and reader. It took me a good bit of digging in order to understand a bunch of his terms.
It's complicated because there are various levels to it. It's kind of like a slider. Or, as Evola says, adjusting the frequency of a radio. I will tell you that after thinking about this issue for a while, I do think that the completely transcendent self (no identity, personality etc) is my true self. It is the true self of every being, but that doesn't make it any less mine for all that. This is something that becomes clear with time and reflection. I could try to describe it but unless you feel it, you won't know it. However, if you trace the chain of being, you will reach the same conclusion. Matter is changeable, and can offer no enduring identity. Therefore, in order to find identity, we must go higher. If we go higher, we encounter archetypes, forms, ideals, spiritual principles. Where do these come from and from where does their power stem? The One. If you are looking for a solid basis for identity, the only two places you can go are transcendent spirit or undifferentiated matter. There are no other "final" options. Conditioned forms like human life is something that is to be maintained and developed for one lifetime, but no more than that.
>It is the true self of every being, but that doesn't make it any less mine for all that.
I know you would hesitate to speak about this since it is an intuitive insight for you, but how do you know that it is yours as in distinct of the true self in general that everything ascendant participates in? I imagine that you would have been against Averroes in the unity of the intellect controversy.
Okay so I think what you are saying is, how do I know that the completely transcendent Self is mine in a distinct way from the ways it belongs to other beings as well? And I guess to that I would respond in a couple of ways. First, I would say that it is *distinctly mine* to the extent that my material self is also a distinct being, and therefore has its own distinct relationship with the completely transcendent One. But I should note that the completely transcendent Self as such does not distinctly belong to anyone in particular - it would be more accurate to say that the profane, material self belongs to the transcendent Self, since it stems from and ideally rests in it. The supreme life-giving principle is one, and it is present in everyone, and is the source of everyone. You might ask, where, in all this, is the legitimate place of human individuality? And I think there is a place for it. But if you ascend all the way up to the supremely transcendent principle, if you tune the radio all the way, you will reach the source of all identity and therefore transcend identity. And this is why the Buddha told his disciples to not speculate on whether Nirvana is "being or non-being, or both being and non-being, or neither being nor non-being". Attaining enlightenment means going above these categories. And once you go there, you do retain your power and liberty, but it is a "preformal, anterior" power and liberty, to borrow some of Evola's words. It is the supreme power because it exists without being bound to form or to the need for justifications. It exists without "individuality" as we know it, because it has something beyond individuality, something even better than that, that we as human beings cannot imagine. Does that make sense?
That makes a lot of sense and is better than I've heard anybody explain it. I know this might be out of your area of expertise, but if you haven't heard of the unity of the intellect controversy (Averroes vs. Aquinas on the nature of Aristotle's agent intellect which almost prevented Aristotle's works from being permitted in Christian Europe, debated about whether the agent intellect was one or many, what it meant for human souls, who is destined for heaven, etc.), I highly recommend you check it out. I don't think I'd get an opinion from you on it today, but I'd like to see what you think of it one day.
I am very sorry to say this but I have no interest in Aristotle. I am not really familiar with his framework or the problems he deals with. I think if you want my view on the way intellect and divinity work, you should read Plotinus. He says everything way better than I can anyway. As for who is destined for heaven, I guess I can try to answer this a bit more briefly. I think that theoretically, anyone can attain the highest heaven, at any moment. You would have to tap into the pure intellect in order to do that and shift your centre there. History suggests that this is not easy to achieve, but it can still happen at any time, to anyone. There are no hard rules about it. It's just a shift of the centre from the plane of matter to the plane of pure spirit. But if you're a "normal" human being, and keep your centre in the world of matter, especially if you live and think passively, you will be subject to "karmic thought" and "karmic reason". And in this state, thoughts and drives will play out in your mind, basically automatically. These can be destructive, neutral or uplifting. This is mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita - the three qualities, tamas, rajas and sattva, can direct a person in the different possible directions. And some can reach a lesser heaven by just relying on this automatic process. But the highest heaven, the "attainment of the Supreme Identity", is reserved for those who can detach from all three qualities (i.e. shift their centre of being to something outside them, to free, transcendent spirituality). So I guess this is how I would treat this problem.
>Plotinus
What is the nous? How is noetic thought different from discursive thought, imagination, practical knowhow, or sensory perception?
With noesis you just access the celestial object directly. With rationality, you follow a string of logical propositions in order to reach a truth.
>access
Access? Like a computer accessing a memory block?
Well I'm not a computer so I can't really tell you if it is analogous. But perhaps it is. Nous is the faculty of spiritual intellection that allows you to apprehend eternal and transcendent truths. That's the best way I can put it right now.
I've heard this before and I just don't buy it. "You must read Aristotle first or you won't understand Plotinus! And read the Stoics too!" Well, I didn't. And I understood everything perfectly, anyway.
It just seems weird to completely dismiss Aristotle but like Plotinus. I don't think Plotinus himself would have been a big fan of that. There's likely a lot that's missing from your understanding, considering how much of the Enneads is spent rehashing the Organon.
I don't agree with any of that, but you are entitled to your own opinion.
What's your fricking problem with Aristotle? Show some respect.
Holy shit dude. If you are going to react like that without me even saying negative about Aristotle, I see no point in me telling you my real feelings about him. I have been trying so hard to be courteous, too. Let us say that I have no interest in him and leave it at that.
We already know your real feelings about him, don't worry. You will always be a dilettante without mastering The Philosopher.
Nous is the hypostasis wherein lie the Platonic forms. It's the mind of the One, or the Pleroma in Gnostic cosmology.
Psyche, the soul, has access to Nous but is also dragged down by its access to the material realm. This is per Neoplatonic cosmology anyhow. So Nous would be part of discursive thought but such thought is also corrupted by focusing on the particular.
I don't really buy this line though. I agree with Hegel that this attempt to flee from all definiteness is a reduction, not a progression towards the Absolute.
Aristotle seems more in line with the concept of Logos overall, although this is an anarchronistic description since the Stoics and Christians came later.
Logos isn't Nous. Logos is seen more in the Stoics and less neoplatonist patristics (or even later Augustine, who I would argue becomes less and less Platonist over time) as the universe rationality in the world, the divine fire that shapes being. It is both eternal and immanent, unlike Nous, which for the Platonist is solely eternal.
Neoplatonism tends to result in a binary, expressionist semiotic where everything has to refer merely to the same collection of static ideas. The Logos tradition leads to a tripartite semiotics ala Pierce or even later Augustine (see Christ the Teacher early binary semiotic versus De Trinitate, a three part). There is the ground of being, the object, Father, the Logos, reason, the Song, and there is the interpretation, Holy Spirit. The object seen, the vision, and the desire to look as Augustine puts it.
While I agree Neoplatonist theories of universals are better than Aristotlean ones, the Aristotlean tradition eventually wins out with the advent of Hegel way down the line, who resolves its issues. I think of anyone attained the Gnosis in their life time, Hegel would be among the very few.
I personally think such a system
It sounds like the Nous and Aristotle's agent intellect are pretty similar, or at least occupy a similar metaphysical place. The soul seems to be the passive intellect along with other mechanisms of the body.
>tripartite semiotics ala Pierce
*Peirce, *tripartite phenomenology. Semiology is like the tip of the iceberg of Peircean process thought.
>
While I agree Neoplatonist theories of universals are better than Aristotlean ones, the Aristotlean tradition eventually wins out with the advent of Hegel way down the line, who resolves its issues. I think of anyone attained the Gnosis in their life time, Hegel would be among the very few.
Why Hegel over Peirce?
Why Hegel over Peirce? What is Peirce missing that Hegel has?
How can you be interested in Plotinus but not Aristotle? Plotinus is heavily indebted to Aristotle and his intellectual toolkit.
>How can you be interested in Plotinus but not Aristotle?
Hermetic alchemical writings are very dismissive of Aristotle as well.
Because it’s a subtle way to attack the Catholic Church by association. Nothing more. Probably because so many alchemical concepts and themes seem to be shamelessly lifted from Aristotelian exposition that they want to keep some distance, took
Cool. I wonder why the Church had an affinity for Aristotle in the first place, though?
Argument from authority? Aquinas had to spend his entire life crafting copes to avoid the Church from outright burning Aristotle's works.
He also wrote one of the greatest treaties on Alchemy.
Aristotle? Which treatise?
If you need a translation of Aristotle and the medieval unity of the intellect controversy that brings him into dialogue with Plotinus, here you go
>It is clear that at the level of Νοῦς, Intellect unlike Soul, em-braces the whole intelligible world in a single timeless vision. Moreover, following Aristotle, Plotinus’ Intellect in such activity is a We conscious-ness, not simply an I consciousness. This is so because in Intellect’s activ-ity of perfect self-awareness, there is an identity or “togetherness” between subject and object impossible at the level of Soul.
>Averroes held that the intellect was immaterial and universal, and therefore was common to all men. Knowledge becomes particularized only through phantasms which interface with the imagination, which is the same thing as Aristotle’s passive intellect, according to Averroes.(4, 295) Aristotle says that in order to know something, you have to leave an entity in tact and bring information about it into your mind and use your reason. You cannot have intuition with Aristotelian epistemology. You actualize your mind, not with respect to opinion, but with respect to knowing. Therefore, your knowledge is not numerically distinct with others. You have an ‘agent intellect’ already in act, such that when you actualize your own intellect, your are having identically the same thoughts, in so far as it is actualized, as God. This leads to the conclusion that immortality is general and not particular, and it also denies sanctions in the next life. Christians struggled with this problem to retain personal immortality: When I actualize my potential mind, it needs to be just my mind working, so that, when I die, I can go to heaven and be a mind, waiting to be reunited with my body.
>>It is clear that at the level of Νοῦς, Intellect unlike Soul
It seems like this person doesn't understand what they've written about. Psyche is just as universal as Nous according to Plotinus. We all descend from the same universal Psyche just as Psyche differentiates or descends as a logos of the Nous. That's why they're called hypostases. We share in all of them equally so far as we are ensouled, and through our souls share in Intellect.
Does Psyche embrace all of the intelligibles like the Nous does? What distinguishes Psyche from Nous then?
>I thought I don't understand his writing because either my Italian is rusty since I read mostly in English, or the Italian language of the past is very different today, but it's probably because he doesn't explain himself well enough
He is purposefully dense in his prose
>The distinction that I am familiar with is that between the "physical I" and the "transcendent self" that he makes in various places. The physical I is basically the human being, in some parts he used the phrase "the human animal". That means your emotions, desires, lusts and passions, the ego, arrogance and pride in material strength, the body, just all the stuff that you see in humans which you can also see in primates and in animals. The transcendent Self on the other hand is the spiritual part of the being and/or its originating principle. It's a bit tricky because it depends a bit on the context, as well. I'll give a quick example to further illustrate this distinction. At one point, Evola referred to a narrative, I think it was the "Nibelungenlied"? Or whatever it was called. Anyway, basically there's this young man, warrior, who has been invited to a banquet by his king. This is actually a trap the king set to kill the warrior. And the warrior is warned about this by a third party, and the warrior responds "if that's true, then that's his problem not mine - I am going to be loyal and faithful by trusting him, and if he betrays me, then the really tragic thing in this whole situation would be the king's own character". And that's a good illustration of things. The physical I, the human animal, clings to life, strength, passion, drive. It would be loath to relinquish its life over simple trust. But the transcendent Self values precisely these subtler, higher things. It does not care if physical life perishes, so long as it can act as it wills. So that's one practical example of the distinction between physical I and transcendent Self.
Is the transcendent self without identity, personality, etc.? That's not you. It can't be you. It's something everybody taps into.
Don't talk to me about memed into buying anything.
Get rid of those, child. You're gonna scare off the hos
I've read around a third of those books. How many have you read, shelfanon? Or do you buy the meme books without reading them?
they look untouched
i've read them all, however
Pretty based. Did you like them? I imagine you did, if you haver read them all.
savitri devi is a waste of time and oera linda is too
guenon and evola are amazing
>savitri devi is a waste of time
totally agree... tried reading her and she is disgusting, probably as much as people professing they are "nazis" while in fact are communists trying to get away with anything while having the choice to say they are "nazis" so their bosses won't get in trouble... just look at the Ukraine nazis serving a israeli cross-dressing midget who made a career promoting pornography
Savitri Devi was an interesting experience for me. She's obviously intelligent but also a weird autist. And also wrong. There are a lot of intelligent people who are wrong. She's not exceptional in that, but she sticks out for her strange and unorthodox views.
All of Evola and also some other bits like the Bhagavad Gita. It was a transformative experience for me. I've read a bit of Guenon but his writing style is not for me. Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power was probably the most digestible book for me.
I couldn't care less about what you think.
If that's a painting from his Dadaist era, he gives a quite different explanation on that in his autobiography. But I partly agree that he anticipated with (and IMO solved) a number of issues that other philosophers only identified much later. Thinking specifically of the problem of meaning.
>Plotinus’ Intellect in such activity is a We conscious-ness
Unrelated but this is probably the most confusing description of the concept conceivable. In complete unity there is no "we" precisely because there is no "you" and "I".
For the rest, some of the terminology here is not particularly clear to me, but from what I can see, in this one excerpt that you have provided me, my sympathies actually lie with Averroes. Aristotle as per usual struggles to go beyond discursive thought. Even the idea of "having the same thoughts as God" is kind of funny. Does God have thoughts? I really don't think so. His faculty of knowing is unitive, perfect, timeless and does not need to flow in sequence or gradually progress from one position to another. It's much more so like the universal and immaterial intellect of Averroes, except in full - whereas men will usually build borders around their corner of this universal intellect, and not go beyond them. Although that last idea may be rather unpolished. But I am confident that it contains the kernel of something very much valid.
>my sympathies actually lie with Averroes. Aristotle as per usual struggles to go beyond discursive thought.
Averroes (and many others) thinks he's interpreting Aristotle correctly. This is not an Averroes vs. Aristotle thing. It seems like you have a lot of misguided preconceptions about Aristotle.
I try to have as few conceptions about Aristotle as possible, actually. As I stated, I am not familiar with Aristotle or Averroes, and on the basis of what was said, I gave my opinion. That is all there is to it.
>Aristotle as per usual
Yes.
>I have no preconceptions of Aristotle
>Aristotle as per usual
I guess you are a based moron.
In this thread I've said at least five times that I have no background or desire to discuss Aristotle. If (You) didn't get the memo, you are the based moron. You are not uncovering some great secret. I was very open about my lack of interest in Aristotle.
You're trying (very poorly, given that you can't keep your story straight between posts) to affect a nonchalant and ignorant attitude towards Aristotle when he clearly makes you seethe beyond belief. Did Aristotle steal your gf or something?
Stop projecting.
I wasn't thinking of that either. But it's fine, I am sure we agree.
C'mon. Tell me about how Aristotle touched you inappropriately.
Are the Peripatetics in the room with you right now?
which ones did you read?
same anon
Where's you get your copy of The Impeachment of Man?
The truest display of an aristocratic soul is showing the hoes your magic book collection without them being scared off
Didn't know you post anonymously, Keith.
In very simple terms.
He is very much like Guenon but believes in the supremacy of the warrior caste instead of the superiority of the priestly caste.
I am utterly astonished to see people continue to repost this even though it is completely incorrect.
No, the King, who is from the warrior caste, is above the priestly cast, and the royal initiation that a king undergoes makes him bridge between he divine and the corporeal meaning that the king takes on, or marries, a priestly function with that of the warrior caste.
This applies only to the king, no one else.
I can agree with this with the qualification that we are simply referring to a royal figure that is also an initiate, and not to the royal initiation that Guenon describes as an inferior form of initiation, the lesser mysteries.
To Evola, the primary figure is the divine emperor who unites both spiritual and temporal authority in full, not as a simple bearer of borrowed priestly authority.
Yes. I do not mean "royal initiation" to mean simply a coronation or whatever.
so what is royal initiation if not coronation?
Initiation into a royal tradition of the mysteries. According to Guenon, this tends to be a form of the Lesser Mysteries. It is a spiritual tradition that is meant to liberate you from much of the human condition. I believe Evola references "the royal art" as one of the names for (internal) alchemy as well.
From what I gathered from the Hermetic Tradition, there are instantaneous yet deeply dangerous methods of initiation that are the right of those of impeccable substance and character who can handle it, those typically being royal.
the only purpose of "governments" is to kill innocent magic users
>magic users
>innocent
yeah right!
you are only half right
having any successful business, even a mundane one like baking bread, is a threat to "governments"
that's why Evola advocated the Emperor, as the person above princes (in Germany) or kings (in Italy or France)... for the Emperor such "magic" users are not a threat but a gift by the Lord, while princes and kings want to chop their heads off and put a relative or mistress or smth of theirs in their place to run the bakery... eventually failing and people going hungry and angry
this is a side-effect of businesses relying on both a leader and a "recipe"... princes and kings and other nasty people think that the recipe is enough (or even worse, that they are leaders) so they do disgusting things thinking it will assure their success... in reality it takes more than giving orders and extorting people to be a leader
what I wrote above is in a nutshell Evola's philosophy, for which you would have to had to go through at least three or four of his books to get
unfortunately the "art" of being an Emperor disappeared some centuries before our time, that's why it's necessary to either read a shitload of history (or Evola) to "get it"
The historical view of magic is literally no different than your standard Dungeons and Dragons bullshit. Yes, people really did believe in spells, curses, summonings, and prophecies. The Church has a formal ban on witchcraft for a reason. Hell, Simon the Magician is a character in Christian history.
It takes place neither on the material nor ideal but a hidden third plane which bridges the two...
I'm reading his essays on magical idealism right now. I'm at the beggining of the first chapter and it's completely moronic philosophical ramblings. Does it get better or should I stop?
Never read his essays on magical idealism but I have read literally everything else by him. So I guess if you don't like those essays you can check out some other works. If you like politics, browse your way through Recognitions, and Bow and the Club.
I don't understand what he means by "I" ("Io" in italian, maybe translated to "ego" in English). Neither he nor the editor writing the notes can explain comprehensibly what it means. This was a good part of his book on yoga and much of it I didn't understand.
Maybe there's not much to understand and it's just moronic philosophy like his ideas about reincarnation.
>"Io" in italian, maybe translated to "ego" in English
would be more accurate to translate "io" as "me" (no matter how stupid it sounds in English), while the italian "me" or "mi" to be translated as "myself"
the second one is closer to the possessive "mine" in English while the former refers to you as a person (to you as an object, if you will)
probably helps if you know another romance language as French or Spanish, as English does not really align with the words themselves
shit! that came out wrong, with all the edits
so Italian "io" is English "me" or the one that decides stuff and is the essence
Italian "me" or "mi" is English "myself" that is the object that the "io" can identify with as an ego.... but in reality (at least Evola's reality) is much more than the ego or yourself
I generally found that Evola is translated into English without much complications, that's why probably many people have problems with it, but just try to read like an Italian and go over the troublesome sections until it "clicks" and then return to them... they will make more sense
It's just the everyday self unless he is talking about the transcendent self.
These are the same people who post “tfw no gf” on LULZ along with a picture of a crying frog
We must…get back…to what is….truly essential (doesn’t define essential). King shit. Captcha: taxpay 0.0
for example
"mea culpa" is "my fault" but in the sense that it's how I am, I could have not done otherwise and I regret it
"ho fatto un errore" is "I made a mistake" (ho is a form of io) which is liked to decision
Read "Introduction to Magick" by Julius Evola. Your view of magical history is incorrect, the magic of Evola is a view not determined by positivism but my rather subjective experience akin to a psychedelic trip (which he did). This is why he criticizes Theosophy as it tries to explain history via magic in a autistic extremely literal way, the Evolian view of history is similar to Foccult or other post modernists, in the sense it viewed as a fluid myth, similar to a dream with present implications, in a sense Evola could be a right wing post modernist. A civilization that actually had a similar view on history up until 500 years ago was India and, as despite it being advanced it wasn't too literal with it's record and preferred to use myth for present purposes.
Below is one of his paintings, which gives a vibe on his view on reality as fluid forms repeating and fusing, rather then isolated pieces in a straight line
It's like a map for fricking with schizos though alot of them go schizo themselves just leave them alone.
Depends on the when and the where
>Was magic historically viewed
It really depends upon the level you're talking about. Magic has many historical contexts. The highest scientific level of ritual magic (in historical records at least) you'll find amongst the Vedic rishis, Neoplatonists, a few odd Renaissance figures, certain astrologers, and Egyptian cult (you can order an accessible copy of the Book of the Dead to give you an idea).
>Was magic historically viewed as a metaphysical science that could exert "supernatural" effects on the corporeal world?
Yes, it was viewed as being a bunch of nonsense propagated by bored rich aristocrats.
magic was viewed as witchcraft, as was alchemy, chemistry, and magnets.
Only by overly-dogmatic clergymen desiring power and idiot peasants.
Kek, look at dat homie wearin a monocle.
>morons who don't like Evola type like Black folk/wiggers
How based
I don't like Evola.
Just because I say "plunge into the source of reality" does not make me contaminated by the Mother or supportive of matriarchy. His whole duality of Solar and Telluric seems based on a flawed understanding of the relationship of being and becoming, which I think is closer to Dogen's uji ("being-time").
Also, the Aryans depicted the moon as personified by a male god and the sun as female. The daylight sky was the supreme god, which was indeed male. Evola gets a lot of small details like this wrong. For example, Zoroastrians in the Vendidad said Ahriman's forces came from the North. It was in a sense a revolt against the Aryans. It's in a sense an anti-Aryan tradition.
There is no hierarchy of beings. If there is, then human beings are a cancer to both themselves and the Earth, which can be used to justify speciecide.
Evolution is an undeniable fact of reality. His whole argument for "involution" and degeneration from the primordial Hyperborean race is the dumbest cope I've ever read. How can anyone study primatology or read a basic ecology book and conclude evolution as false? It's the biggest and stupidest cope imaginable.
Evola is not a scholarly source. His whole solar/being vs lunar/becoming dichotomy is complete and utter trash, and he just twists various translations to support his worldview (e.g., he claims Dao de Jing is solar but it always leans more towards the lunar per his definition).
There is no superior or inferior race of human beings, but mankind was meant to live in racially homogenous groups in connection with the land since that leads to more high-trust. This does not mean any race is superior to another.
The only thing Evola gets right is his defense of patriarchy and polygyny, but guess what species has that right? Gorillas, the gentle polygynous giants, and they're arguably superior to *modern* human beings who are more like chimps/bonobos, a sexually crazed and violent cannibalistic species.
Westerners are the last people to ever go to for spiritual or religious advice.
>For example, Zoroastrians in the Vendidad said Ahriman's forces came from the North. It was in a sense a revolt against the Aryans. It's in a sense an anti-Aryan tradition.
For the longest time I have wanted to know what went down during the time of the Indo-Aryan split, the Zoroastrians also reverse the natures of Deva and Asura.
This post is full of so much rubbish, stopped reading after you just ambiguously refer to something being closer to Dogen's "Being-time," peak pseud, which by the way in No way contradicts evolas understanding of the "relationship" between being and time. If you would like to elaborate on this important point, you can, because Dogen is still trying to express a nondualistic system just in a way which conveys the intimacy of being/existence or time, which ends essentially in a nondual "eternal now" formulation, which is in no way something different from the declaration of being beyond relativity/becoming, outside time in perfect simultaneity. If you somehow think that the relative moment in zen is somehow more or less real than it is for evola, you have fallen short. But then again you are in development, from mental to spiritual, your writing just was seething with that sort arrogant progressive mentalism I was driven to respond!
Hahahaha
>Just because I say "plunge into the source of reality" does not make me contaminated by the Mother or supportive of matriarchy
Absolutely filtered by Yoga of power. And metaphysics of sex, evola has a perfectly orthodox view of shaktism, some would say he is even perhaps overtly shakti obsessed, you simply cannot really understand an elevated feminine which is not a mere primal cthonic force.
The whole point about my reference to Dogen is being and becoming are so entangled that one cannot separate one apart from the other, you stupid fricking piece of shit and pseud.
>arrogant progressive mentalism
I am not a progressive, you illiterate bastard.
Just give up. People like you are destined to hell.
>The whole point about my reference to Dogen is being and becoming are so entangled that one cannot separate one apart from the other, you stupid fricking piece of shit and pseud.
Being and becoming are le entangled, pseudo metaphysical trash, becoming is the self-manifestation of being, in other words being, what don't you understand about nondualism - which dogen agrees with, entanglement is an empirical relationship and is therefore dualism. There is one nondual reality, and no other, becoming is being, but being is not becoming in any way other than being, the whole being is becoming is like saying being is being, "becoming is becoming" or "form is form" would never work because multiplicity is illusory in the same way successive conditioned moments of time are unreal for dogen, leaving only simultaneous Being "eternal now"
>I am not a progressive, you illiterate bastard.
You absolutely are
No arguments in your posts just simple misunderstandings,
>People like you are le hell
Let that mental conviction be deeply seeded in your mind, there are enemies like me all around you, aliens and others, inferiors and superiors, actions and reactions, see where that mental persuasion takes you, you are not beyond-mind clearly, seeing how steeped you are in other paraphernalia like politics, and whatever else. If your mind reaches total development it will exceed itself eventually, but it seems you haven't reached maturity yet
>becoming is being, but being is not becoming in any way other than being
If form is emptiness, emptiness is form, then it is natural that being is becoming, becoming is being.
> "becoming is becoming
Yes, it is common to say form is form, emptiness is emptiness, and etc. and play with these aporias. The closest Western philosopher to get this is Graham Priest's Inclosure Schema or Julius Bahnsen's realdialektik.
> multiplicity is illusory
Even the earliest Upanishads do not argue multiplicity is an illusion..look into the distinction of priority vs existence monism. Existence monism is absolute nonsense. Priority monism is closer to the truth. It also doesn't treat multiplicity as an illusion the way existence monism does.
>You absolutely are
>No arguments in your posts just simple misunderstandings,
How old are you? I am starting to think you're just a moronic Zoomer shithead. A progressive would never say, "mankind was meant to live in racially homogenous groups in connection with the land."
>it seems you haven't reached maturity yet
Stfu, icchantika. Evolatards gay. I don't *hate* Evola, but I don't agree with him on everything.
>If form is emptiness, emptiness is form, then it is natural that being is becoming, becoming is being.
Becoming is Being. In other words Being is Being, Becoming is the Self-manistation of Being. Multiplicity and relativity, phenomenality, change is Unreal.
>Multiplicity and relativity, phenomenality, change is Unreal.
I don't agree with Parmenides. I am more likely to agree with Heraclitus or even Empedocles.
Change is real. There is either an ever-present background of unity or an eventual culmination in unity.
You are not an autonomous being who can contemplate for himself. Go back to being a cuck to a second rate philosopher.
>There is either an ever-present background of unity
If change is fundamentally real, then there cannot be an ever-present background of unity, because the ever-present background would be forever changing into something else. Therefore it would not exist.
>or an eventual culmination in unity.
If there was an eventual culmination in unity, there would also be an eventual dissolution of unity, because it would have to change. And so there would be no fundamental unity because there is only change.
>Go back to being a cuck to a second rate philosopher.
You're already here cucking incoherently for Dogen and Heraclitus.
My view is closer to the Blue Cliff Record. Only paraconsistent forms of logic work in conveying it. Classical forms of logic do not work.
"In one there are many kinds;
In two there's no duality."
(Blue Cliff Record, Case 2, Thomas Cleary transl.)
Not only am I an autonomous being who can contemplate for himself, but I can also contemplate without succumbing to the effects of schizophrenia like you have.
>>You're already here cucking incoherently for Dogen and Heraclitus.
My sides.
>Change is real. There is either an ever-present background of unity or an eventual culmination in unity.
You are literally asking to be thrown into the indeterminate void of psychic hell. Reality IS that's it, change is real only in the sense of Being, in a sense other than that which includes all these other ontological speculations, and admits internal psychical distinctions like one and many, unity and plurality, you are meaning something conceptual and assigning some grade of reality to it, in other words confusing the psychic for the spiritual.
>And since we are “not other” than the Self, we are condemned to eternity. Eternity lies in wait for us, and that is why we must find again the Center, that place where eternity is bliss. Hell is the reply to the periphery which makes itself the Center, or to the multitude that usurps the glory of Unity; it is the reply of Reality to the ego wanting to be absolute and condemned to be so without being able to be so. The Center is the Self “freed,” or rather that which has never ceased to be free—eternally free.
>Om. That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
No. No. Yes.
>You are literally asking to be thrown into the indeterminate void of psychic hell.
Wait, how does that happen?
>I don't *hate* Evola, but I don't agree with him on everything.
This sentence just captures who you are and how you think entirely. You read little fragments here and there of people evola, dogen, or whoever else, you never penetrate the meaning, your pitiful schizo mind gets to work conceptualizing with your individualistic egoic icchantika brand you come here and spew garbage. There is something to be said at about the way you operate, always focussed on the periphery, the author himself or at least your individualistic wek perception of him, you are left with these mental objects, west, east, evola, dogen, mother, father and you just battle them against eachother endlessly to mask the absolute absence of any actual accomplishment. you are one of those people who got caught up in this field of research because of feeling above everyone else, you constantly demean others, everyone is a sheep, a plebian, but really this complex is the simple objectification of your own mental structure, you can't separate clearly the reality from the fantasy, they have become coincident, so you have fallen into subhuman states of consciousness, like the modern dysfunctional schizophrenic, who knows your background, drug abuse, childhood abuse, trauma and drug abuse are intertwined, and you come here with this complex saying nothing but icchantika, and your opinions on the list of "names" in your mind. It's over for you.
>you constantly demean other
Lol, not even half as much as Evola with how he calls the telluric races subhuman.
Stfu, you hypocritical goon.
I don't even establish a hierarchy in a metaphysical sense. I establish more of a heterarchy like Deleuze.
>who knows your background, drug abuse, childhood abuse, trauma and drug abuse are intertwined
I have two Bachelor's degrees in Neuroscience and Computer Science and am a burned out data scientist. I admit, I am an incompetent programmer and only did it for job opportunities. I have a deep passion in ornithology now, and I have read several books, including taking an online class. I also enjoyed scuba diving.
Certain topics tend to pique my interest. Right now I am interested in primatology.
In terms of art I am drawn towards aesthetic extremes, what I call spenta vs angra. For example, I am the type to watch or read a spenta film (e.g., Three Lives of Thomasina, The Secret Garden, etc.), and then balance it with angra (e.g., The House that Jack Built, Maldoror). I had one angra story published in a reputable journal article, but I was unable to publish my fully illustrated picture book because agents keep asking for globohomosexual themes.
I am the master over both the light and darkness as an incarnation of Vayu-Vata.
In regards to mysticism, I like ancient Central Asia like the Kushan empire.
>entangled that one cannot separate one apart from the othe
For dogen there is no question of "separating" them analytically... this separative process is not at all something I implied, I am saying that for Dogen there is One nondual Being which is intuited non-discurisvely, which corresponds to Being, not some conceptually fused "Becoming" and "Being"
Maybe one day you will be able to delimit your weak mind for the time keep giving bad summaries and opinions on half-digested ideas which remain purely mental and intellectual for you
Evola is in essential agreement, when this nondual being is Known, there is no debate or further qualification about it, you are stuck in artificial mental battles and are entirely missing the point
You are either a genuine schizo or just an extremely malicious bugman. In either case, I applaud the extent of your commitment to schizodom/bugmanhood. Or, going from your last line, maybe you could be a seething third worlder. There are a lot of those these days.
>But then again you are in development
I sincerely doubt that.
That poster is a mentally ill middle easterner, he posts in every Evola or Trad thread despite having read only one book by Evola. He'll spend all day telling you all about his low-info brownoid opinions.
I think this one might be a different one from the one I know, that guy never cared about Aristotle and has his own special terminology that he can be recognised by.
>brownoid
I'm not brown, moronic c**t.
>Evolution is an undeniable fact of reality.
Not really. The significant parts of the theory are guesswork.
Speciation has already been observed.
Also, genuinely consider suicide.
>No argument
Slit your fricking throat, you arrogant piece of shit. I would gouge out your eyes and put fuschias in them for the hummingbirds.
What argument can there be against schizophrenia? As the other anon said, you got basically everything wrong. There is no utility in arguing with stupid, all the more so because your schizophrenic views are so idiosyncratic that the only practical use of arguing against them would be to help you become less moronic. But because you are a schizo, that is not possible. Therefore, we should allow schizos be schizos. And if normal people wish to bring forth arguments or questions, we will answer those.
Lol, and Evola wasn't a shizo? Kys, Zoomer hack. You aren't a genuine thinker or mystic. You're just blind sheep.
You haven't had a single authentic experience of gnosis or henosis. Again, kys and take your whole family with you.
>normal person response
Evola also gave a special definition of normal, meaning, correct, appropriate, rather than merely average. And by that metric, you are not normal. Sorry.
>normal people
The masses are insipid, and even Evola agreed with that. "Normal" people don't experience henosis.
Kys, pseud and blind follower.
You're not even a sentient being. You have absolutely no Buddha nature.
>You're not even a sentient being. You have absolutely no Buddha nature
You think Buddha nature is qualified by the condition of sentience? That it can be lacking, does it have quantity? You are a weak minded pseud.
"Normal" people don't experience henosis. Why are you blending neoplatonic terms with some sort of poorly conceptualized buddhistic trash?
>Speciation has already been observed.
That's not what I meant by "significant parts of the theory."
>Also, genuinely consider suicide.
You definitely sound stable and enlightened.
>2023
It wasn't a "metaphysical science" so much as something that you had to fear but also had to have knowledge of but that knowledge itself could be dangerous, and there are many periods in history where it was treated differently so you can't really say "magic was like x"
Basically people back then had a different worldview. There was the world around them that worked the way it did that they did obviously study and improve and build on, then there was the things that they couldn't possibly understand, things they made a mythology around, abstract concepts that required a mythology to exist, they were much more loose in their thinking. It would be completely incomprehensible to most modern people, their day to day lives involved them telling stories and myths about certain things. For a fairly large part of the day they'd be thinking of myths and stories and magic and stuff like that, constantly making up new ones as they went along to explain the world, only it was so real to them that they practically lived in those stories.
I read 'The Magus of Java: Teachings of an Authentic Taoist Immortal', and so far have been able to burn a small fingertip sized hole in a seat covering using the heat from my leg utilizing its teachings. I already had over a year of consistent meditation under my belt beforehand. What are your guys' most impressive feats using what you've read?
Very cool anon.
> burn a small fingertip sized hole in a seat covering using the heat from my leg
bullshit
I got a girl pregnant using only magic words
>You read only authors you already agree with and end up posting here all day instead of actually practicing philosophy and slowly develop incurable mental illnesses like inceldom and NEEThood.
Okay smart guy, since you know me so well, what authors do I read?
The ones that trannies like. So Marx, Engels, Slav Zizok, gay, etc. All that gay pedo groomer trash.
*psyche is lower, bridge
Just makin a joke. Calm down fool.