/lit/ - Literature

>>14085261
coffee with cream and coffee without milk. they aren't the same but they aren't direct negatives like I stated in the OP. I guess it would be easier to say the exact dialectic that I'm trying to understand. This is from Evola's "Ride the Tiger." He is summarizing the first chapter which I completely understood, but then he framed it or it was translated in a way that is foreign to me.

>The significance of the crises and the dissolutions that so many people deplore today should be stated, indicating the real and direct object of the destructive processes: bourgeois civilization and society.
>But measured against traditional values, these latter were already the first negation of a world anterior and superior to them.
>Consequently the crisis of the modern world could represent, in Hegel's terms, a "negation of a negation," so as to signify a phenomenon that, in its own way, is positive.
>This double negation might end in nothingness—in the nothingness that erupts in multiple forms of chaos, dispersion, rebellion, and "protest" that characterize many tendencies of recent generations: or in that other nothingness that is scarcely hidden behind the organized system of material civilization. Alternatively, for the men in question here it might create a new, free space that could eventually become the premise for a future, formative action.

My understanding is that bourgeois and traditional values negate each other as they can't find any compromise. This conflict leads to one of two outcomes, thus, "breaking" the dialectic. I just don't know why he had to waste some much time saying this. Is my understanding correct? Why would he go through all the trouble to describe such a simple hypothetical situation?