/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12537766]

Do you think Plinker has read any Guenon? How would he respond to Guenon’s arguments?

[Anonymous No.12537769]

Pinker*

[Anonymous No.12537774]

>Pinker was born in Montreal, Quebec, in 1954, to a middle-class Jewish family.

[Anonymous No.12537808]

What phenotype is this?>>12537766

[Anonymous No.12537894]

Even if Pinker were allowed ten lifetimes to work, he would never approach the totality of Guenon’s vision.

[Anonymous No.12537898]

>>12537808
100% gaul face desu

[Anonymous No.12537900]

>>12537808
FAS

[Anonymous No.12537903]

>>12537766
What is the greatness of Guenon? What did he "do", exactly?

[Anonymous No.12537943]

>>12537903
It's just one faggot who keeps spamming here about him.

[Anonymous No.12538815]

>>12537903
Guénon reads like a well constructed encyclopedia. Never compromised, always logical, always strict to the point no-nonsense type of writer. Most traditional authors spent pages explaining topics which Guénon covers in few passages.

His book "Reign of Quantity" released in 1945 is perhaps the most prophetic book in terms of how accurate his portrayal of coming modern (or post-modern) societal, spiritual and physic of our time was back then. Even a simple topic like "Degeneration of Coinage" is extremely prophetic in a sense that most our money, today, is becoming digital. Guénon is right in a sense that he is absolutely certain that money will cease to exist (in the material world so to speak) as we are beginning to see now. This is just one of the topics in which that book is highly prophetic.

The problem with him is that people mislabel him as a " oriental metaphysician", a term he even himself disliked, but he was actually a "perennial" philosopher.

Unlike many other traditionalist authors, he refused to have “students” or disciples. He went so far as to say that “René Guénon does not exist” or that “René Guénon is a symbol.”

>>12537943
Nah, I rarely even post in Guénon threads or discuss Guénon here, but he gets dicussed a lot. The original Guénonfag is an insufferable poster.

[Anonymous No.12538818]

>>12537898
they can’t recover from this

[Anonymous No.12538820]

>>12537766
Crisis of the modern world is coming in the mail. If I like it Imma buy the Quantities book.

Pretty stoked famalam. I've read Evola but he's a blackpilled cunt

[Anonymous No.12538823]

uh, sorry, honey. the immaterial doesnt exist.

[Anonymous No.12538832]

>>12538823
>the immaterial doesnt exist.

>“René Guénon does not exist”
- René Guénon

[Anonymous No.12538872]

>>12538832
oh no he became something uncool to pol OwO

[Anonymous No.12538885]

>>12538872
/pol/ is sentimentally attached to "tradition". That means outward appearances like race, regional traditions, traditional architecture and traditional costumes

Guénon was strictly concerned about philosophia perennis. I don't think he had high regard or longing for much of society for the past 1000 years.

The term "traditionalism" is misleading when we are talking about perennialist authors, because there are actual "traditionalists" who are in reality concerned about preserving some "white traditional culture" of America which is totally irrelevant to perennialist traditionalists.

[Anonymous No.12539076]

I have a question: I do believe that the way of life of Plato, Epictetus, Boethius, etc was much better than the "mainstream liberal way of life", focused on money, sex, etc. And that they should be read again (at least by those that are smart enough to understand them).

Is that the kind of "sentiment" of Guenon?

[Anonymous No.12539086]

>>12538815
>but he was actually a "perennial" philosopher.
He disliked the term philosopher too.

Just say he was an initiate and his goal was to expose the unity of all traditional doctrines... People seem to have a problem with the spiritual dimension even thought it's the meat and bones of his work.

[Anonymous No.12539092]

>>12539076
Nope.
I mean in a way, yes but he was beyond that. The goal of man is to transcend himself and rejoice "the supreme principle" (You can call it God);so to speak but aside from Plato all the guys you're talking about are too profane.
You must get back to a spiritual tradition basically

[Anonymous No.12539106]

>>12539086
>Just say he was an initiate
Of the Sufi tradition.

I consider "Aleister Crowley" as initiate too, even though Guénon had almost paranoia about him, while Evola praised Crowley and while some might consider him example of "counter-tradition". Ironically, Crowley considered Coomaraswamy a "Black Brother" (Failed initiate) and probably would have given such harsh judgement on Guénon too.

>expose the unity of all traditional doctrines...

Even though many Guénon readers tend to disagree, the closest analytical approach to Eastern metaphysical thought was practiced by Crowley's "Argentum Astrum" and especially the A∴A∴ curriculum with their "Aim of Religion, the Method of Science"

Without any criticism towards Islam, to me it seems that after Guénon had almost some sort of "falling out" with Freemasonry and the West in general, his conversion and relocation to Egypt almost seemed, in a way, desperate.

[Anonymous No.12539113]

>>12538815
>>12539086
>>12539092
Could any of you provide me with a guide to spiritual tradition? Where should I start?

[Anonymous No.12539134]

>>12539106
You seem to know much more about Crowley than me but he looks like a straight up black magician, not linked to any exotericism and channeling entities in egypt who look like "short greys" alien.
While I like Evola he also wasn't linked to any tradition. You cannot be an initiate and staying in your room fantasizing about the end of Kali yuga and refusing to practice a valid religion (like Crowley) because it's "weak and sentimental jewish doctrine"
He was akin to an intelligent /pol/ack.

[Anonymous No.12539150]

>>12539113
I'd recommand Schuon's writings especially "The transcendant Unity of all religions" he's easier to read than Guenon and actually dares to use the word "God"
Guenon is much more precise and "deeper" though. Once you get the gist of it "Reign of the quantity and signs of the times" should be your choice.

[Anonymous No.12539179]

>>12539134
>black magician,

Absurd claim. Did you know Crowley even went to court to sue people who claimed he was a "black magician"?
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/apr/13/archive-1934-aleister-crowley-libel-black-magic
>Mr. Crowley complained that the book imputed that he practised "black magic" and he said this was a libel upon him. The defence was a plea of justification.

>channeling entities in egypt who look like "short greys"

The "Grey" looking Alien in question is a portrait which was named "LAM". Lam is a tibetan word for "Path or Way" and "LAMA" is He who travles on the Path.

This is a drawing Crowley made after most probably inspired by a child he saw during his travels in China or Shanghai, the child was visibly disfigured with some sort of fluid swollening the child's head (cannot remember the exact medical term)

It was only Crowley's disciple Kenneth Grant who made same allusions to Aliens etc.

I suggest you to read this article written by Evola about Crowley http://www.gornahoor.net/library/EvolaOnCrowley.pdf

>practice a valid religion (like Crowley)

This is a great understatement of the man in question. Crowley's father was a preacher of the Plymouth Brethern Christianity.

Crowley spent most of his childhood as a Christian and had strong religious experiences as a child.

Crowley never rejected Christianity, not at all, he simply assumed the apocalyptic vision of the Book of Revelation and later in life identified himself with the Beast whose number is the number of Man and that is 666.

Saying Crowley practiced no religion is simply wrong, considering how essential and fundamental foundation the Book of Revelation (and Scarlet Woman) was to him from the very beginning of his childhood.

[Anonymous No.12539216]

>>12539179
are you girardfag?
your posts are pretty similar to his

[Anonymous No.12539220]

>>12539179
What you're saying is interesting and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt then. Thank you for your sources

[Anonymous No.12539553]

>>12539076
Not really, Guenon valued wisdom generally; it's not like he had an automatic distate for anything that's not an eastern philosophy. He references Plato throughout his works for example. In his view it's important for a culture to have a tradition of teaching and passing down metaphysical doctrines which correspond to the primordial 'Tradition' but that doesn't make every other kind of knowledge worthless. He considers that some types are of course better than others but he didn't seem to have a huge problem with that stuff so long as it doesn't begin to supplant the more valuable stuff and gird an increasingly materialistic and superficial society like with utilitarianism etc. There are all sorts of areas of Islamic, Hindu and Chinese thought that have nothing to do with the sort of metaphysics he writes about but he doesn't spend a bunch of time attacking them because they didn't become the dominant mindset and excert a negative effect on those societies as a whole.

[Anonymous No.12539584]

>>12539076
Not really, Guenon valued wisdom generally; it's not like he had an automatic distate for anything that's not an eastern philosophy. He references Plato throughout his works for example. In his view it's important for a culture to have a tradition of teaching and passing down metaphysical doctrines which correspond to the primordial 'Tradition' but that doesn't make every other kind of knowledge worthless. He considers that some types are of course better than others but he didn't seem to have a huge problem with that stuff so long as it doesn't begin to supplant the more valuable stuff and gird an increasingly materialistic and superficial society like with utilitarianism etc. There are all sorts of areas of Islamic, Hindu and Chinese thought that have nothing to do with the sort of metaphysics he writes about but he doesn't spend a bunch of time attacking them because they didn't become the dominant mindset and excert a negative effect on those societies as a whole.

[Anonymous No.12539595]

>>12537808
a t l a n t i d

[Anonymous No.12539804]

>>12539106
>Guénon had almost some sort of "falling out" with Freemasonry and the West in general, his conversion and relocation to Egypt almost seemed, in a way, desperate.
He coverted to Islam and was initiated as a Sufi very early on, before he wrote any of his books. Him moving to Egypt was the natural conclusion of the thoughts he expressed in his books, if he thought that there were no genuinely 'traditional' spiritual orders really active in the west and if his works emphasized participation in them then it's the natural conclusion that he would move somewhere else so that he could participate in them.

also,

>unironically taking Crowley seriously

[Anonymous No.12539901]

>>12538885
I'm concerded with beauty, which is perennial and non-subjective according to me. This beauty was manifested to a larger extent, and with a higher degree of expression in my country several hundreds of yeard prior than what it is today. I think you're doing /pol/ a disservice and show a poor understanding, even if, to some extent, it is as you've described.

[Anonymous No.12539955]

>>12539804
>unironically taking Crowley seriously

And what you mean by that? At least Guénon took him quite "seriously" considerin Guénon eagerly believed Crowley was actual secret advisor to Hitler himself (which of course is a bogus claim considering Crowley's secretary Karl Germer was even put into prison camp for having affiliation with "high ranking freemason Aleister Crowley")

https://www.gornahoor.net/?p=4693
>To come back to Aleister Crowley, what you told me reminds me of the story that turned up in 1931 (I believe at least that was the exact date): while he was in Portugal, he suddenly disappeared. They found his clothes on the border of the sea, something that made them believe he had drowned. But it was only a simulated death, since they were no longer concerned about him and did not try to find out where he had gone. Actually, he went to Berlin to play the role of secret adviser to Hitler who was then at his beginning. It is probably this that had given rise to certain tales about the Golden Dawn, but in reality it was only about Crowley, because it does not seem that a certain English colonel named Etherton, who was then his “colleague”, had ever had the least relationship with that organisation.

>A little later, Crowley founded the Saturn-Lodge in Germany; have you ever heard of it? There he called himself Master Therion, and his signature was to mega Therion (the Great Beast), something that in Greek gives exactly the numeric value 666.

[Anonymous No.12540272]

>>12539955
I meant that he was a retarded larper and a clown, neither of which prevent people from behaving in a malicious and unwholesome manner or exerting that kind of influence on others.

[Anonymous No.12540403]

>>12540272
>FRATER PERDURABO is of the Sanhedrim of the Sabbath, say men; He is the Old Goat himself, say women.
>Therefore do all adore him; the more they detest him the more do they adore him.

>And yet who knoweth which is Crowley, and which is FRATER PERDURABO?

When it comes to Crowley people tend to succumb into character assasination. They still do the elementary mistake to confuse the writings of Frater Perdurabo to that scandalous Imp Crowley.

[Anonymous No.12540430]

>>12540403
>>Therefore do all adore him; the more they detest him the more do they adore him.

Sounds like a satanic parody of one of Maester Eckart's quote.
Like it or not Crowley was involved in the majority of proto-new age cults such as the golden dawn.
As someone once said : "You will know them by their fruits". Guenon inspired plenty of spiritual people such as Michel Valsan, A.K Coomwasramy, Schuon, Titus Buckart or just normal readers who went back into religion

Who has Crowley inspired? /x/posters, the beatles and other manipulated showbiz stars

[Anonymous No.12540434]

>>12540430
The quote in question being : "The more he (the sinner) blasphemes, the more he praises God"
It's related to the fact God is beyond all antagonism as the supreme principle and ruler of the universe.

[Anonymous No.12540608]

>>12540430
>Like it or not Crowley was involved in the majority of proto-new age cults such as the golden dawn.

"Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs. Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath taken his seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods"

Crowley effectively made Golden Dawn obsolete and caused ultimately the schism that dissolved the Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn.

It is funny you bring this into light considering even Guénon spent a lot of his youth in French occult scene with controversial figures such as Papus etc. Crowley was a member of the Golden Dawn in his 20s.

>Who has Crowley inspired?
Brilliant minds such as J. F. C. Fuller come to mind who even wrote a book about Crowley (The Star in The West that is Wormwood). This man is effectively was the father of modern armoured warfare. Also Jack Parsons, one of the pioneers of modern rocketry. The list goes on and on.

This is typical character assasination of Crowley: people call him a raving degenerate lunatic, while totally ignoring the fact that he was highly sophisticated poet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer and worked for the British Government.

It is futile to even continue this discussion, you have already made up your mind about him by some shady internet articles and pop culture.

/x/-posters would not be even talking of Crowley if it was not for Kenneth Grant, who probably perverted more of Crowley's writings than anyone else.

[Anonymous No.12540622]

>>12537808
I've always found Guenon to be really weird looking.

[Anonymous No.12540776]

>>12540608
>: people call him a raving degenerate lunatic, while totally ignoring the fact that he was highly sophisticated poet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer and worked for the British Government.

These things aren't mutually exclusive and you should know that since we're on /lit/

>>12540608
>Also Jack Parsons, one of the pioneers of modern rocketry.
A very spiritual activity indeed.

These things (literature, art, engineering, etc) are irrelevant to spirituality in themselves otherwise Jack de Molay would be nothing more than a vulgar peasant since he didn't even know how to read.

[Anonymous No.12540783]

>>12540776
Jacques de Molay*

[Anonymous No.12540828]

>>12540776
So what about Crowley's mentor and close friend Allan Bennett or Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya? Convert to Theravada tradition and practically alone introducted Buddhism to England. He established the first Buddhist Mission in the United Kingdom.

Crowley practically saved his life multiple times and financially funded him and supported him.

You think Crowley associated himself only with some vulgar, unspiritual people or some sort of counter-traditionalists? Crowley hated Theosophists more than Guénon

[Anonymous No.12540909]

>>12537903
He did exactly what >>12538815 said and I really enjoyed Reign of Quantity but if you're a traditional Catholic it's really nothing new. He's a traditionalist for seculars, i.e. people who are intrinsically divorced from tradition and completely miss the point of it when they read people like Guénon and Evola.

[Anonymous No.12541188]

>>12537808
I don't know but I'm french (Alps) and I look like him except I got a longer nose like Macron.

[Anonymous No.12541195]

>>12537808
Mountain baguette

[Anonymous No.12541430]

>>12540909
>but if you're a traditional Catholic it's really nothing new.

Trad catholic usually (usually) hate other religions and believe theirs is their sole and ultimate truth. They even go as far as saying only catholicism is valid.
You're right though that he's a "traditionalist for seculars" in the sense that people who can't *feel* the truth behind the symbols of christianity need something more "logical" to get back to it.

[Anonymous No.12541485]

>>12539901
I suggest you the writings of Coomaraswamy, he wrote much on Art and Beauty.

[Anonymous No.12541629]

>>12537808
Character in the background in a Hellboy comic

[Anonymous No.12541633]

>>12538815
>He went so far as to say that “René Guénon does not exist” or that “René Guénon is a symbol.”

[Anonymous No.12541720]

>>12541633
I think Jim Carrey would deserve a thread.

[Anonymous No.12542473]

>>12540608
>>12540403

Crowley was an amateur experimenter far out his depth who was decisively defeated in a confrontation that he had with George Gurdjieff.

>I find it disheartening that, in certain circles, Aleister Crowley is considered a “man of the Right.” While he is undoubtedly an interesting character, and was not without some intelligence, he strikes me as an immoral degenerate who was committed to the total destruction of the Western tradition. The most generous interpretation would be a Nietzschean one, in which he was perhaps attempting to push what was already falling. But the fact is, his influence has been almost wholly negative. “By their fruits ye shall know them” is still the best way to judge a spiritual teacher, and one needn’t be a Christian to recognize the utility and practicality of that formula. The fruits of a spiritual teacher are, among other things, his disciples, and I am not aware of any “Crowleyites” that give their master a good name.

>The best story about Aleister Crowley, in my opinion, comes to us from the disciples of G.I. Gurdjieff. No stranger to controversy himself (see Whitall Perry’s Gurdjieff in the Light of Tradition for a critical appraisal) Gurdjieff nonetheless seems to have fared better than Crowley in terms of the legacy he has left behind.
The story of when Crowley met Gurdjieff can be found in James Webb’s comprehensive book, The Harmonious Circle:

>Crowley knew the town of Fontainebleau well – in 1924 he had spent a tormented period there in an attempt to cure himself of heroin addiction. The Great Beast was a familiar figure in Paris expatriate circles, and [C.S.] Nott met him in the capital while himself staying at the Prieure. Crowley’s interest was aroused either by a general occult curiosity or by Gurdjieff’s reputation as a specialist in curing drug addiction; and he soon afterward turned up at Fontainebleau, where was the object of some amazement. To one of the inmates, the Wickedest Man in the World seemed overfed and inoffensive – with the exception of his almost colorless eyes, the antipodes to Gurdjieff’s heavy gaze. The published accounts of Crowley at the Prieure speak only of a brief visit and a vaguely sinister impression. Nott records that Crowley spoke to one of the children present about his son whom he was teaching to be a devil. “Gurdjieff got and spoke to the boy, who thereupon took no further notice of Crowley.” But the magician’s visit was extensive, and his confrontation with Gurdjieff of a more epic nature.

[Anonymous No.12542479]

>>12540608
>>12540403

>Crowley arrived for a whole weekend and spent the time like any other visitor to the Prieure; being shown the grounds and the activities in progress, listening to Gurdjieff’s music and his oracular conversation. Apart from some circumspection, Gurdjieff treated him like any other guest until the evening of his departure. After dinner on Sunday night, Gurdjieff led the way out of the dining room with Crowley, followed by the body of pupils who had also been at the meal. Crowley made his way toward the door and turned to take his leave of Gurdjieff, who by this time was some way up the stairs to the second floor. “Mister, you go?” Gurdjieff inquired. Crowley assented. “You have been guest?” – a fact which the visitor could hardly deny. “Now you go, you are no longer guest?” Crowley – no doubt wondering whether his host had lost his grip on reality and was wandering in a semantic wilderness – humored his mood by indicating that he was on his way back to Paris. But Gurdjieff, having made the point that he was not violating the canons of hospitality, changed on the instant into the embodiment of righteous anger. “You filthy,” he stormed, “you dirty inside! Never again you set foot in my house!” From his vantage point on the stairs, he worked himself up into a rage which quite transfixed his watching pupils. Crowley was stigmatized as the sewer of creation was taken apart and trodden into the mire. Finally, he was banished in the style of East Lynne by a Gurdjieff in fine histrionic form. Whitefaced and shaking, the Great Beast crept back to Paris with his tail between his legs.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/martinaurelio.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/when-crowley-met-gurdjieff/amp/

As every person in touch with the higher realms is aware, these seemingly innocuous interactions are only the proverbial tip of the iceberg for the deeper spiritual confrontation going on below the surface. When two spiritual masters (and aspiring ones who know a bit of tricks) come face to face with one another, things like eye contact, body language and voice intonation are only proxies for simultaneous warfare occurring on the psychic plane. Crowley was forced to draw upon all his experience and magical reservoirs and was still shaken to his roots and exposed as an impotent fraud. If he had any real talent he would have shrugged off Gurdjieff's psychic blast and done him one in return, or at the very least stand his ground in defiance, instead he fled like a schoolboy being chastised by his teacher. It amazes me that charlatans like him still manage to indoctrinate fools decades after his death.

[Anonymous No.12542712]

>>12542479
>come face to face with one another, things like eye contact, body language and voice intonation are only proxies for simultaneous warfare occurring on the psychic plane. Crowley was forced to draw upon all his experience and magical reservoirs and was still shaken to his roots and exposed as an impotent fraud.

This is so cool

[Anonymous No.12543029]

do you think guenon would play shin megami tensei

[Anonymous No.12543095]

i rly dont like these "traditionalists" and "theosophists". seem like slimey people to me, a pseudo-cult of modernity. seem like people wearing spirituality as clothing

[Anonymous No.12543125]

>>12543029
For some reason this strikes me as the most /lit/ in this (otherwise quite good) thread.

But don't mind me and carry on, gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.12544439]

>>12542479
>>12542473
This "story" is proven false by numerous other hand wittness account who were present there, and not only by Crowley himself. www.lashtal.com (Aleister Crowley society forum) has lots of topics dealing with this supposed "Gurdijeff vs Crowley"

There is even a book written about the two men: https://www.amazon.com/Beelzebub-Beast-Comparative-Gurdjieff-Aleister/dp/1906073147

There was not such confortation between the two men.

Crowley, simply visited the Prieure, wrote in his diary the following: "Gurdijeff seems like a tip-top man" and left after a short stay.

Most of the stories circulating about Crowley, upon examination, are simply false, scandalous our outright lies.

The only remark Crowley ever made himself about Gurdijeff was diary entry considering Gurdijeff "“tip-top man...a very advanced adept"

[Anonymous No.12544457]

>>12542479
>Finally, he was banished in the style of East Lynne by a Gurdjieff in fine histrionic form. Whitefaced and shaking, the Great Beast crept back to Paris with his tail between his legs.

This account by Webb was published in 1980, and cites no sources. Stanley Nott, who unlike Webb was a direct student of Gurdjieff’s and was present during Crowley’s visit, makes no mention of such an outburst from Gurdjieff. Lawrence Sutin (biographer of Crowley )questions whether such an event took place:
At any rate Webb at the time of writing his book was dealing with an encounter that took place over fifty years before; one wonders who his source was.

There is one earlier account of Crowley and Gurdijeff meeting: which also is probably false. This was released in 1971:
>Many years ago, Aleister Crowley, who had made a name for himself in England as “magician” and who boasted, among other things, of having hung his pregnant wife by the thumbs in the attempt to give birth to a monstrous being, presented himself at Fontainebleau without being invited. Crowley was clearly convinced that Gurdjieff was a “black magician” and the evident purpose of his visit was to challenge him to a sort of duel of magic. The meeting turned out to be a disappointment since Gurdjieff, although he did not deny knowledge of certain powers that could be called “magical”, refused to make any such demonstration. At his turn, Mr. Crowley also refused to “reveal” his powers; therefore, to the great disappointment of those present, they were not able to witness a supernatural feat. What’s more, Mr. Crowley went away with the impression that Gurdjieff was a charlatan or a mediocre sorcerer. (Gurdjieff Remembered, Samuel Weiser, 1971).

For one thing, the notion that Crowley thought Gurdjieff a “charlatan” is completely refuted by Crowley’s own words from his diary, referring to Gurdjieff as an “advanced adept”.

For all things considered, it seems Gurdijeff and Crowley met: respected each other, but lost interest quick and went on their own ways.

Conidering Crowley was a man to hold grudges over small matters he would not have praised Gurdijeff in his private diaries if they would have had some sort of "psychic battle" or whatever stories people come up with.