/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16071640]

Ride the Tiger

What am I in for, bros?

[Anonymous No.16071670]

>>16071640
It's bad. Read the Communist Manifesto instead.

[Anonymous No.16071679]

>>16071640
Its good, you're in for a good read

[Anonymous No.16071681]

>>16071670
that's probably the worst advice i've heard all day.
jewish materialism is a mistake.

[Anonymous No.16071688]

>>16071640
Gibberish by an Italian fag

[Anonymous No.16071706]

>>16071670
Yeah, I guess that's on the roadmap too.
>>16071679
I've heard this is better than Revolt Against the Modern World, which I read last year. Is it true? That one was kinda hard to get through.

[Anonymous No.16071709]

>>16071640
A tiger unrid

[Anonymous No.16071733]

Read Revolt against the Modern World and maybe Men among the Ruins first, MotR is useful if you struggled with extrapolating RatMW into something that can be explained or analysed in the modern cultural/political climate; something of a bridge between books.

Ride the Tiger assumes you already understand his philosophy and read RAtMW, it assumes he is preaching to the choir so to speak, and not the best for someone who is looking to learn about what he was about.

>>16071670
Evola is too difficult for most, and I'm 100% sure he has never been read comprehensively by someone who abhors him. He is either agreed with or just set aside, only being attacked by the plebs.

[Anonymous No.16071750]

>>16071640
In all honesty I liked Men Among the Ruins and Revolt a lot more.

[Anonymous No.16071752]

>>16071681
Atleast materialism can actually be studied through empirical means, "spiritual"/"metaphysics" end up being just based on woo woo and speculation. Read Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.16071758]

>>16071752
More like Shittgaystein.

[Anonymous No.16071781]

>>16071752
Have you actually read Evola? No, you haven't have you. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.16071790]

>>16071752
You probably should too

[Anonymous No.16071990]

>>16071640
>>16071706
If you feel you don't fully understand Revolt Against the Modern World, there is absolutely no point in reading Ride the Tiger until you do, you're just in for more confusion.

So in order for me to better advise you, what specifically did you struggle with in Revolt?

[Anonymous No.16072002]

>>16071752
>logic and math are either material or incomprehensible
You can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.16072041]

>>16071706
Ride the Tiger is more "difficult" than Revolt. If you struggled with Revolt you won't get anything from Ride the Tiger, like >>16071990 said.

>>16071733
Also this.

[Anonymous No.16072047]

>>16071640
A darker cover than online apparently.

[Anonymous No.16072122]

>>16071752
Guenon would like to have a word with you.

[Anonymous No.16072140]

>>16071990
>So in order for me to better advise you, what specifically did you struggle with in Revolt?
What exactly is Evola's ideal system of governance? Rome/Holy Roman Empire type of society? How old is the Earth according to Evola? Also, isn't the Kali Yuga supposed to last tens of thousands of years? Because seems like the other ages have only lasted a couple centuries at most each. Also, how exactly does Evola view religion? Is he pantheistic?

[Anonymous No.16072160]

>>16071670
Dilate

[Anonymous No.16072164]

i'm going to fuck that tiger

[Anonymous No.16072196]

>>16072140
>What exactly is Evola's ideal system of governance? Rome/Holy Roman Empire type of society?
Yes, based on spiritual kingship.
> How old is the Earth according to Evola?
Not relevant.
>Also, isn't the Kali Yuga supposed to last tens of thousands of years? Because seems like the other ages have only lasted a couple centuries at most each.
Depends on the interpretation, I don't think Evola ever gave them definite durations.
>Also, how exactly does Evola view religion? Is he pantheistic?
He's a Traditionalist.

[Anonymous No.16072214]

>>16072196
Fuck off and let me answer the questions pleb

[Anonymous No.16072228]

>>16072214
Too bad, shlomo

[Anonymous No.16072250]

>>16072164

[Anonymous No.16072256]

>>16072140
Allow me to tackle your questions regarding timespan first
>How old is the Earth according to Evola? Also, isn't the Kali Yuga supposed to last tens of thousands of years? Because seems like the other ages have only lasted a couple centuries at most each.
First and foremost, questions about time are largely irrelevant to the core of Evola's thought as well as that of perennialists and related authors and traditions. I'll expand on direct experience, what Evola refers to as "solar spirituality" later, but essentially the foundations of "tradition" as these authors speak of it is eternal. It's worth understanding the meaning of "eternal". Eternal does not mean an infinite span of time, nor a finite yet indeterminably long span of time. Eternal means timeless, beyond time. I find it easier to talk about this in terms of God. God is said to be omniscient, yet what does that mean? Most people will naturally comprehend the idea of spacial omniscience, the idea that God can see everything every-where, and yet - in spite of the fact that what I'm about to say has direct basis in scripture - it hardly occurs to people that this omniscience also means God can see everything every-where every-when. It's not so much that God HAS instantaneous, direct experience of every single moment in time as much as God IS that. When reformed Christians talk about predestination and the Biblical verses about how God knew you before you were born, they suppose that God is still subject to the passage of time, but carries a mediate (rather than immediate) intellectual knowledge of what will happen in the future. That's wrong. God is present in all moments as one moment and is outside time, not subject to time.
So first understand that when the Vedic texts, for example, describe the Kali Yuga in terms of time, this is an example of religious, theological, mediate and objective language, an attempt to convey the infinite by finite analogy. That's all it is and all it can be, because the nature of our languages is that of being finite and conditioned, and one cannot contain the infinite in the finite.
The second point regarding the passage of time, and perceived cycles, is the idea of the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm. There are many purely material analogies for this, for example, how the orbit of the Moon around Earth is a microcosm of the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, is a microcosm of the orbit of the Sun around our galactic centre, or, for example, how the development of the human from foetus to adulthood is a microcosm of the evolution of humanity. Within time, you have cycles within cycles. But your focus shouldn't be on what is within, and subject to, the passage of time.

[Anonymous No.16072336]

>>16071640
Read it, then get Crisis of the Modern World by Guenon. CotMW gives you a good backdrop for the implicit assumptions that Evola makes, since he basically takes Guenon's observations for granted.

[Anonymous No.16072361]

>>16072336
Do I have to read The Decline of the West as well?

[Anonymous No.16072371]

>>16072140
>What exactly is Evola's ideal system of governance? Rome/Holy Roman Empire type of society?
Evola disagreed with the perennialists on many of the finer details of social order, and comparing Evola to Guénon is an interesting exercise in itself. However, it's beneficial to establish what they agreed upon.
First and foremost, it falls outwith the remit of humans (especially those who have not realised their true identity, as it were, and are not in direct spiritual communion with God), to make judgement calls on what is "good" and what is "bad" within creation.
Whilst the perception of free will and separateness from God is essential to the creation, it bears reminding that nothing - absolutely nothing - happens, which is not the will of God. If the entire world should find itself plunged into a dystopian communist hellscape, as anti-religious as Stalin's Russia and as anti-intellectual as Pol Pot's Cambodia, if that were to actually occur, it would do so because it has its place in creation.
In 'Ride the Tiger', Evola directly addresses this misplaced desire of people to petrify a given social order within time, and to live within it as their utopia. He specifically refers to the want of bourgeois classical liberals, who largely find themselves considered conservative in this day and age, wanting a return to the good old days of picket fences and keeping up with the Jones'.
Traditionalism is not, as this fuckwit >>16072196 would suggest, a reactionary movement extending itself to the values of a time even earlier than that of the classical liberals, in an attempt to cement such a social order as a static utopia.
The traditionalist will nevertheless see themselves as being born a certain 'type' of person who may be inclined to such social orders as have existed in the past, but must accept that it is their lot in life to experience being such a type of person in a time not suited to them. And this, in itself, can be a great gift if such a person realises that such a life, where they feel compelled to turn away from this mismatch in their external predicament, can in fact lead them to seeking out the true foundation to what they suppose would be their "ideal" society. Those who go far enough will then realise that this foundation is so much more precious than any social order to exist in time and will be thankful that the time and place in which they lived, brought them to such a realisation.

[Anonymous No.16072386]

>>16071752
>Read Wittgenstein.
No i'll pass. If I can come to logical conclusions that surpass his work without requiring his work, then I've surpassed that "master".
I have better things to do with my valuable time.

[Anonymous No.16072395]

>>16072386
Produce masters that are worth my time.
Become better masters that are worth my time.

Quit praying to old petty "gods".

[Anonymous No.16072523]

>>16072140
(continued from) >>16072371
This is not to say, however, that traditionalists are world-denying Manichaeans. They do in fact consider a society build in this world, on traditional foundations, as a desirable good.
To this end, the traditionalist social order is unanimously defined as one in which its leaders have direct experiential knowledge of the divine - people who are in effect, in direct communion with God. This realisation comes too with the realisation that no matter how short-lived a "Kingdom of Heaven" on Earth may be in time, it is in fact eternal. And not only is it unconsciously eternal, as even the dystopias of the Kali Yuga are, but it is a conscious manifestation of the eternal.
I'd like to now return to exploring the differences between Evola and Guénon on this matter, in terms of the outward form such traditional societies can be expected to take.
These men had fundamentally different understandings of the ontology of the outward cycles we experience in time. You ought already to know that traditional societies will usually embody in their social structure, an outward manifestation and a macrocosm, of the different types of man within that society. Caste, for example, with the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra - or in European terms, these are associated with the Church & Clergy, the Monarchy & Aristocracy (who at their foundation were a warrior caste), the Merchants & Burghers, and the Serfs & commonfolk.
Guénon believed that:
1) Direct knowledge, direct communion with God, is the sole preserve of the Brahmin, and the traditional initiatic organisations through which the Brahmin transmitted a means to this direct knowledge.
2) That involution, that degeneration, had its origin with the caste below the current ruling caste - that is, he believed the Brahmin to be infallible and involution to begin with the revolt of the Kshatriya.
3) That even once involution had begun, and traditional institutions had begun to outwardly degenerate, those initiatic organisations founded by the Brahmin are still the only proper means of any spiritual attainment.
I take exception to Guénon's beliefs, as did Evola, and as too did Toynbee although he was not aware (as far as I know) of the traditionalists, or that his own philosophy of history could have any bearing on traditionalist thought. The notion that an infallible and divine caste could be toppled by an inferior one is nonsense.
By contrast, Evola believed:
1) That the revolt of the caste below was always preceded by the caste above losing the élan by which it legitimised its rule
2) That is to say, the Brahmin (or the Papacy) losing direct communion with God as pontifices of God on Earth (solar spirituality), and reverting to the mediate and analogical language of devotional religion (lunar spirituality)
3) This precipitated a revolt by the caste below, sensing that they were being ruled illegitimately
4) Rinse and repeat for every involution

[Anonymous No.16072528]

>>16072371
>Traditionalism is not, as this fuckwit >>16072196 (You) would suggest, a reactionary movement extending itself to the values of a time even earlier than that of the classical liberals, in an attempt to cement such a social order as a static utopia.
How did you gather that from my post? I merely stated Evola was a Traditionalist - which he was. You're delusional. You really think OP, who had difficulty with Revolt, is going to read your overly verbose ramblings? Lol. I was correct in answering the way I did.

[Anonymous No.16072614]

>>16072140
(continued from ) >>16072523
Implicit to Evola's beliefs is that the Brahmin can only lose communion with God if God wills it - and so that traditional societies come to pass, despite our best efforts, means that it must be intrinsic to the process of creation.
I also forgot to mention in my bullet point list of Evola's beliefs, that he believed once involution had so thoroughly degenerated traditional institutions (such as in the kali yuga), that the social DISorder inherent in the kali yuga renders such institutions and caste delineations useless. He believed that in times such as ours, the path to realisation is not the preserve of these old degenerated institutions, but the pursuit of individuals of a certain quality (which he associated with the kshatriya), rendering such people capable of spontaneous realisation without formal initiation.

>Also, how exactly does Evola view religion? Is he pantheistic?
No, not at all. There is but one truth that all traditions tend toward. But I don't feel I'm in the best position to refute any notion of pantheism in traditionalism, I'd rather recommend you a book that does a fantastic job of explaining a lot of these things in plain language. It might surprise you, given the banality of his latter lectures, but Alan Watts wrote a fantastic book after having become familiar with the works of Guénon and Coomaraswamy. He was careful enough in stating that he did not wish to mislead people into thinking his own book could be taken as an honest representation of their beliefs, and you don't really hear of Alan Watts "the perennialist", yet I consider his book 'The Supreme Identity' to be one of the most important books you could possibly read if you're trying to understand perennialist/traditionalist thought. I read it years after I had begun reading Evola, and it was like the final puzzle piece that made the whole conceptual framework I had developed from reading Evola et al, fall into place and make sense.

>>16072528
If OP cannot understand my "verbose ramblings" (which pale in comparison to entire books), then perhaps he should give up on Evola altogether.

[Anonymous No.16072663]

>>16072614
>If OP cannot understand my "verbose ramblings" (which pale in comparison to entire books), then perhaps he should give up on Evola altogether.
Oh, maybe that's why I answered in the way I did? You're just sucking your own autistic dick here if you hadn't noticed. And yes, overly verbose ramblings. You're not even wrong in your content, your delivery is just horribly misplaced. Evola has an extensive vocabulary but at least he uses it functionally. Most books, including Evola's, are exciting to read, your wall of text isn't. Know your audience.

>'The Supreme Identity'
Thanks for the rec though.

[Anonymous No.16072680]

>>16072614
>If OP cannot understand my "verbose ramblings" (which pale in comparison to entire books), then perhaps he should give up on Evola altogether.
Go suck yourself off some more you massive faggot. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.16072739]

>>16072256
>>16072371
>>16072523
>>16072614
Good posts, thank you for taking your time to write them t. OP

[Anonymous No.16072770]

>>16072336
>Read it, then get Crisis of the Modern World by Guenon. CotMW gives you a good backdrop for the implicit assumptions that Evola makes, since he basically takes Guenon's observations for granted.
I don't doubt that Crisis of the Modern World is a good book, but by the time I got round to reading it, I had read so much else that I didn't feel it really added anything to my understanding, I felt I'd read it all before. Which is of course, unfair, given CotMW pre-dates a lot of the books I had already read and which leant on it heavily for inspiration.
However, as far as other Guénon books go, I have to say first I'm woefully under-read in Guénon. I haven't read Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta, for example, which I'm sure most Guénon proponents would say is a must. But I have read The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, and that book was fantastic, really enjoyed it. I also feel that The Reign of Quantity is a good bridge between Guénon and Eliade. I intend on reading The Reign of Quantity again, as well as reading Eliade's The Myth of the Eternal Return, and The Sacred and the Profane, because I've started to forget which of those three books contained certain concepts bouncing around my head. Fascinating stuff.

>>16072361
Depends. He's not necessary for understanding traditionalist thought at all, he was a fundamentally different sort of person writing for a fundamentally different audience, suggesting different paths in life to different ends for a different purpose. But that's not to say that there's any contradiction between Spengler's works and that of the traditionalists. In fact, regarding my rec of 'The Supreme Identity', Alan Watts explains this well - that there isn't a dichotomy between the infinite and the finite, that the infinite contains the finite, and in that way, Spengler's worldview can very easily occupy the world as the traditionalists understand it. Spengler is a good read for understanding the qualitative differences between different peoples and different cultures, and the way he explains it as understood from the traditionalist perspective is quite interesting. Spengler posits the espousal of different "Ur Symbols" as lying at the qualitative foundation of nascent cultures, and he describes these Ur Symbols as a peoples' response to a fear of death. From the traditionalist point of view, this fear of death already marks the "fall" as symbolised in Adam and Eve's explulsion from the Garden of Eden, it suggests the separateness from God and the offending fault that inevitably dooms each fledgling culture from birth.

>>16072663
>Thanks for the rec though.
To be honest I shouldn't have called you a pleb and a fuckwit, you were trying to be helpful to OP at all so my bad for being mean spirited and confrontational.

>>16072680
I'm not apologising for my textwalls though so get fucked you daft prick.

>>16072739
No problem.

[Anonymous No.16072790]

>>16072770
>my bad for being mean spirited and confrontational.
>get fucked you daft prick.

[Anonymous No.16072832]

>>16072790
Aha, you have fallen prey to my big brained antics. What you observed as hypocrisy was, in fact, an astute theological observation on my own total depravity. It is in my nature to sin, I can only ask for forgiveness.

[Anonymous No.16072846]

>>16072832
i 4give u bby xoxo

[Anonymous No.16072850]

>>16071752
Cringe post, can you measure speed with a termometer? No. Can you discuss metaphysics (literally beyond physics) with physical instruments or through your own senses? Of course not, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. After englightment and Decartes the western POV was shifted towards physics and muh science which is just one of type of knowledge but the average Joe thinks it's just the only way of knowledge. Maybe I'm too much of a tradutionalist but I just can't stand the muh science muh atheism smart ass dudes.

[Anonymous No.16072868]

>>16072770
>To be honest I shouldn't have called you a pleb and a fuckwit, you were trying to be helpful to OP at all so my bad for being mean spirited and confrontational.
Somehow you still managed to make your apology condescending. I guess it will have to do. (I was not that second anon who criticized you by the way.)

Guenon; his two books on initiation are some of his best. As for Eliade, Sacred & Profane is a good introduction but there's not much in there that's not also in Myth of the Eternal Return.

[Anonymous No.16073972]

[Anonymous No.16074010]

>>16072850
Not that guy, but:
>can you discuss x through anything you have access to
How else could I discuss metaphysics except through some kind of physical instrument. Under your argument, any language, logic, or anything else would be entirely pointless in metaphysics. At that point, is discussion of anything simply beyond anyone's capability? And if that is true, then how can we know absolutely anything (even your spiritualism) beyond vague guessing? You cannot say "when you try to understand x using your tools, you will always find the wrong answer, but when I use extremely similar and similarly flawed tools, I can find the right answer."

[Anonymous No.16074111]

>>16071640
No idea, but that's a fucking awesome book cover. Maybe my favorite of all time.

[Anonymous No.16074127]

>>16071640
>>16071706
>>16071733
>>16071990
>>16072041
>>16072336
>>16072361
Make your answer simple for me.
I haven't read René Guénon, but I really want to read Evola first. Of the 4 works i mention below, whom of those books should i read first
Option
1 Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul
2 Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist
3 Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga
4 A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.16074144]

>>16074127
read intro to hindu doctrines and crisis first

[Anonymous No.16074161]

>>16074144
Really?

[Anonymous No.16074172]

>>16074127
I'm the textwall autist. In my opinion, I would start with Revolt Against the Modern World.
It explains Evola's traditionalist worldview as outwardly manifest in history, giving you a tangible point of departure. When you read it, it will refer to certain esoteric concepts and traditions without explaining them in full to you, so you won't get an understanding of traditionalism from it, but you don't need that to develop the framework of understanding in which the esoteric doctrine fits.

The other anon rec'd Guénon's Crisis of the Modern World, which is basically Guénon's equivalent text to Revolt.

That's the simple answer. After that, you will have to decide whether you care more about the outward historical and metapolitical side of things, or the spiritual realisation, esoteric doctrine and understanding myth side of things, and depending on which path you'd rather take, I'd rec two completely different book lists (although nothing would stop you from reading both directions).

[Anonymous No.16074237]

>>16074172
Okay, thank you.

[Anonymous No.16074245]

>not posting the chart

[Anonymous No.16074259]

>>16074245
meh i want to dig in his famous and main works

[Anonymous No.16074281]

>>16074245
>not posting the other chart

>>16074259
but that's silly, anon. You have one guess at my personal favourite Evola book.

[Anonymous No.16074305]

>>16074281
the doctrine of awakening

[Anonymous No.16074333]

>>16074172
Good advice from evolautist.

>>16074245
The chart isn't complete though.

[Anonymous No.16074342]

>>16071733
I disagree. It's better to first read at least one of his expositions on a single tradition (Yoga of Power, Hermetic Tradition, Doctrine of Awakening, etc.) before jumping into Revolt, because that one cites a myriad of traditional sources and uses a lot of jargon that even an autistic /lit/izen probably won't be too familiar with. It is much more helpful to understand at least part of the terminology well, otherwise it will read like:
>We understand, then, that the bhavana atman in Samkhya Hinduism is equivalent to the lorem ipsum dolorum est in ancient Mediterranean eschatology (ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς γεωμετρεῖ); or, to use an Aztec-Nahua idea, the counter-sublimation of the sacred metaphysic via the warrior aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.16074389]

>>16074305
Good book but nah, it's quite dry and technical. Definitely one to read after you understand what you're actually reading.
I'd have to say my fave Evola book is The Mystery of the Grail. I don't understand why that chart recs starting with it, I personally wouldn't because it's such a specific case study, but it really captured my imagination when it comes to the Matter of Britain, the Grail/Post-Vulgate Cycle etc. I actually bought all of the Post-Vulgate Cycle and intend to study them more deeply.

>>16074342
Ok ok I get what you're saying. I personally felt more comfortable reading the general overview first, before reading The Doctrine of Awakening, The Hermetic Tradition, The Yoga of Power and The Mystery of the Grail.
But I'm going to suggest a compromise. Before reading any Evola, the anon could read Alan Watts' The Supreme Identity, which satisfies both of our wants because:
a) It clearly explains the fundamental elements of traditional doctrine, which I like
b) But it does so with a general focus on the Christian tradition, contextualising it within a single tradition as you like
Reading The Supreme Identity was really rewarding I think, because it finally returned meaning to a tradition which so many of us pass off as mere exoteric slave-mentality proselytising tripe.

[Anonymous No.16074430]

Unironically a good thread
>>16074389
I will remember to get that book by Watts, thanks anon. It's rare to see someone actually know his Evola.