/lit/ - Literature

>>17299947
There's no such thing as an "upward-oriented" institution as all moral contention is derived from material experience.

Just ordered a copy of Revolt Against The Modern World, never read anyone of Evola’s, what am I in for?

>>17299974
Yes, but what Evola argues (drawing from the ideas of Kant and Plato) is that there exists a superior world from which the material world itself is derived. I don't think Evola meant for the directionality to be strictly interpreted; that is, for us to be "wedged between" a material world and a Traditional world, with material below and Tradition above, only that there exists a specific hierarchy between the two world's. As such, it would follow that anything derived from the material world would be further derived from the Traditional. The material world could be seen as the middleman in this model, and an "upwards-oriented" view one which attempts to look beyond the obscuring material.

>>17299974
Wrong
>>17300014
>what am I in for?
A dense and well-referenced book which challenges pretty much every single thing taken for granted by modern societies.

>>17299947
Heidegger also believed in this Tradition, but in a living one and in the Instance, Urphänomen, Beyng.. and the God-Man Jesus Christ because he was a closet believing Catholic his entire life.

>Amongst Heidegger’s Nachlass (the papers left behind after his death) a handwritten note has been found in which the philosopher quotes a passage from Friedrich Bauer’s 1935 German translation of Revolt Against the Modern World (Erhebung wider die moderne Welt). Here is the passage as Heidegger copied it out:

>Wenn eine Rasse die Berührung mit dem, was allein Beständigkeit hat und geben kann — mit der Welt des Seyns — verloren hat, dann sinken die von ihr gebildeten kollektiven Organismen, welches immer ihre Größe und Macht sei, schicksalhaft in die Welt der Zufälligkeit herab.

>And here is a translation:

>When a race has lost contact with what alone has and can give it permanence [or “stability,” Beständigkeit] — with the world of Beyng [Seyns] then the collective organisms formed by it, whatever be their greatness and power, are destined to sink down into the world of contingency.

Some of us must, at least, know God or divinity only through Christianity, even Grecian paganism and its achievements cannot help but be read back into Christianity. It is, thoroughly-- our religion.

>>17300024
It's not so much a "superior world" as it is simply a metaphysical and ontological superiority - ie of a reality that is entirely unconditioned and self-sufficient, as opposed to the ceaseless conditioning and change of material reality (Becoming) which is never really intelligible in any meaningful way, and always indeterminate. Becoming is really only "moving away from the source", which is mythologically represented by "the fall", and typified by Taṇhā in Buddhism. Aztec tradition has Quetzalcoatl at the center of the four quarters (ages), representing a "fifth age", which also represents this difference. Being is only superior to Becoming, essentially, because the latter draws its possibility and existence from the former.

Heidegger also believed in this Tradition, but in a living one and in the Instance, Urphänomen, Beyng.. and the God-Man Jesus Christ because he was a closet believing Catholic his entire life.

>Amongst Heidegger’s Nachlass (the papers left behind after his death) a handwritten note has been found in which the philosopher quotes a passage from Friedrich Bauer’s 1935 German translation of Revolt Against the Modern World (Erhebung wider die moderne Welt). Here is the passage as Heidegger copied it out:

>Wenn eine Rasse die Berührung mit dem, was allein Beständigkeit hat und geben kann — mit der Welt des Seyns — verloren hat, dann sinken die von ihr gebildeten kollektiven Organismen, welches immer ihre Größe und Macht sei, schicksalhaft in die Welt der Zufälligkeit herab.

>And here is a translation:

>When a race has lost contact with what alone has and can give it permanence [or “stability,” Beständigkeit] — with the world of Beyng [Seyns] then the collective organisms formed by it, whatever be their greatness and power, are destined to sink down into the world of contingency.

>We immediately notice two things when Heidegger’s handwritten version is compared to the original. First, Heidegger has rendered Sein as Seyn. [17] Second, Heidegger replaces a colon with a period and omits the last part of the sentence entirely. The part after the colon can be translated as follows: “[to] become prey to the irrational, the changeable, the ‘historical,’ of what is conditioned from below and from the outside.” Why did Heidegger make these changes? Fully answering this question will allow us to see that Heidegger actually rejects Evola’s Traditionalism in the most fundamental terms possible.

Some of us must, at least, know God or divinity only through Christianity, even Grecian paganism and its achievements cannot help but be read back into Christianity. It is, thoroughly-- our religion.

>>17300081
>It's not so much a "superior world" as it is simply a metaphysical and ontological superiority
Trust me, I get it. There really is just no better word for the concept in our language, which is unfortunate, because conventional use has a bunch of value judgment implications.

>>17299947
>How would you create an upward-oriented institution
I wouldn't, because I can't, and I can't possibly conceive how to do so at this moment in time because I have not awakened to that principle of Being. No person without this direct knowledge of Self can hope to build anything but a tower of Babel; it would be a fundamentally promethean task, so don't even bother. Work on yourself instead, and even if you don't break through, at least you may be better positioned to recognise and follow a true leader when they arrive.

>>17299974
If you consider the matter of positivism versus idealism (or, indeed, dualism) a closed case, we can't even have a discussion on the matter. You've been blinded by the focus of the scientific method. Science concerns itself only with that which can objectively be observed. You consider the material world, the field of experience, to be the ground of reality, and the experience of that reality a phantasm. But you have failed to distinguish between the experience, and the one who experiences. In your ignorance, you - the only you that could truly be described as such - have misled yourself by identifying your self with that which is properly an experience. The entire basis for your self-perception is turned downward to the material. The truth is, you don't perceive your self at all.
What happened when it was discovered that the outcome of scientific experiments can be altered by the mere act of observation? Instead of accepting that the relation between object and subject is important - and that the latter can never be truly known by the scientific method - you spiraled into ever more convoluted explanations for how such an outcome could be purely materially derived.
Go play with your wave functions.

>>17300014
If I may recommend reading just one book prior to Revolt, order Alan Watts' 'The Supreme Identity'.
This is not an endorsement of all of Watts' work (especially not certain positions he took in latter decades), but he wrote 'The Supreme Identity' in the late 40s after having become acquainted with Guénon and Coomaraswamy. He uses much plainer language to explain principles that make for easier understanding of Evola and the Perennialists, even if they aren't 100% on the same page all the time.
Otherwise you'll jump into Revolt and may miss some of the detail Evola obscured by using terminology without explaining its meaning.

Well

>>17300370
Epic! Kind if I post that on my insta?

>>17300387
Yes just superimpose a WrathofGnon quote, it's easy

>>17299974
Only when you assume his value system. Ebola sees the "Good" as being allied with the "beautiful" and "perfect", and the Good as that which leads to manifesting Being-similar to how Heidegger the "letting be" of Being