I've studied Evola's metaphysics extensively and feel like some sharing some knowledge. AMA

I've studied Evola's metaphysics extensively and feel like some sharing some knowledge. AMA

Attached: evola-3_0.jpg (348x480, 21K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Have you read any other works on metaphysics?

What’s up with black people?

What led you to be interested in him?

knowledge of yours-----------mine

and so forth

a class of people made redundandt by the advances of another, which make increasingly the independence of this class into the dependence of THIS class

Plenty, I've got a working knowledge of both Eastern and Western metaphysical traditions, exoteric and esoteric.

Evola was pretty unambiguous about his dislike of inferior, negroid races. He believed they were of a denser, darker metaphysical stock than the ariyan-type.

However, that said, and the last thing I want to do here is sanitize Evola for the PC reddit crowd, but he knew, at best, this was only a general description of the spiritual condition of negroids. Just like an absolute woman is superior to the mechanical man, so does it all come down to the quality of one's self. Appeals to racial identities or the collective are, ultimately, a fiction. You are alone with your soul and responsible for it.

He has an acute understanding of the human condition that is ontological as opposed to economic, social, political, or "merely" existential and religious. He knows what's up. He knows suffering is a problem of reality and not a problem of contingent social circumstances, though the latter definitely contributes.

He's able to step outside the ring of desire and (un)fulfillment and diagnose the world from a perspective that understands matter as the cyclic, self-propelled (and therefore senseless arbitrary) movement of energy. There is no all-abiding cosmic harmony: the universe is agon, eternal conflict, the boil of unconscious forces.

The ego of the human being is that through/by which these forces legitimate themselves in the human. My ego tells me to fuck, eat, sleep, kill (if I have to), because the system that I am has been engineered by eons of evolution to fuck, eat, sleep, kill, etc.

the planet is warming. dark skin is a warm climate adaptation. dark skinned people are moving north, displacing the cold adapters.

literally BTFO every type of evola idea about race, tradition or ethnic superiority.

climate > western civilisation.

Does Evola have much to say about Taoism?

I don't remember him talking about it, but I haven't read Evola in some time.

>the spiritual condition of negroids

He seem to me to speak almost mythically at times.
This thought came to me while I was reading his Revolt.

>There is no all-abiding cosmic harmony: the universe is agon, eternal conflict, the boil of unconscious forces.

How could you assume there isnt a cosmic harmony ie cosmological idealism when your intellect is premised off the very causality that it comes to understand in nature in and of the understanding itself. How do you indiscriminately form reason/consequent cause and effect without this harmony

Attached: 1521200618416.jpg (571x540, 347K)

>the universe is agon, eternal conflict, the boil of unconscious forces

There is harmony in eternal strife. Evola understood this.

Also, read some Heraclitus.

He admired the Taoist ideal of wu-wei, and the coinciding of immanence and transcendence in its philosophy.

That is, the identification of the self not with its aggregate but with the fertility of the void, that reality is fundamentally change and as such is always-already beyond itself, always-already dissolving the forms it creates. This flux is peace because suffering, unease, restlessness is only ever identification with determinate facticity. Life is this balancing act between the determinate and the unmanifest. An immanent-transcendence: I struggle with the Law of the world in full recognition of its groundlessness, its irreality.

As Lacan puts it, there is no meta-language for being, it just is, analytical thought is only an articulation of the "is" (generally programmatic, in the form of the "ought" of ethics), and as the Tao abides the froth of manifestation, so does the initiate abide the tantrums of the false self, because he (as subject) is fundamentally the void of his identity with himself, A = A (which Evola calls the I-that-is-I).

Let me know if this is a bit over your head. I'm trying not to dumb this down.

How do I get laid?

(I know this sounds toungue in cheek but Evola wrote a lot about sex, curious how he thinks female attraction works)

How does Evola think a state should function? Like how do we collectively move forward as a society. The common trope these days seems to be put more in science and tech and we move on, but we have seen all that does is reward a culture of flashiness and creates vacuous imbeciles with no interest in what’s around them.

How should we then move forward on the bigger questions like morality, labour and course art.

From what I skimmed from Revolt Against the Modern World, Evola seems to be invested in some strain of Platonism, as in the first chapter he states,
"In order to understand both the spirit of Tradition and its anithesis, modern civilization, it is necessary to begin with the fundamental doctrines of the two natures.
According to this there is a physical order of things and a metaphysical one ... a mortal nature and an immortal one ... a superior realm of 'being' and the inferior one
of 'becoming'."

If this is the case, i.e. the division of finite and infinite, how do you defend this from traditional attacks on Platonism, say for example, the problem of how there is causality
between two kinds which are different in a radical sense. Or, do you not agree with Evola on this point, or do you think I am misinformed?
I ask this as I feel the question of how a person deals with being qua being in their greater systems is an important cornerstone.

Attached: 1518141189616.png (545x443, 34K)

He explicitly rejected naive, exoteric ideas of harmony (the "stain" of evil contributes to the harmony of the whole, etc.)

No, there is no default harmony, this harmony is only achieved in the self as the integrality of the self. I've already read Heraclitus. Heraclitus and Eckhart and Evola are saying the same thing: all is fluxion, but the fact of change is itself eternal and immutable, and so can serve as the basis for stability-within-flux. This is the peace of the wheel, not a peace beyond the wheel.

Of course at the basic level he assumes a correlation between thought and world, but 1) this distinction breaks down at higher levels of self-realization and 2) of course there is (temporary) equilibrium within flux or else there would be no basis for our thematizing agon /as/ agon. Like Schelling's point: meaning can only exist as meaning in a background of non-meaning. Or Deleuze: sense emerges, is gauranteed, validated, by non-sense.

Your point actually touches on his larger idea of nature as a "purposeless purposiveness", but that's another story

What are his metaphysical beliefs

>This is the peace of the wheel, not a peace beyond the wheel.

Classical metaphysics is a lot more monistic than you seem to realize and, like it or not, Evola is an heir to classical metaphysics.

It's actually funny because a lot of what initiatic literature has to (indirectly) say about this topic is just an occult formulation of shit like "don't be thirsty" and "do not show need".

Well, first, Evola distinguishes between the phallic male (what we're seeing in a society inundated with porn and sexualized imagery that holds up the surface masculinity of sexual conquests as the paragon of manhood) and the male of the ariyan-type. There's also another type of male, the kind /pol/ calls "soyboys", that are fascinated with femininity/the image, but that's another story for another day.

Very simply put: the phallic male covers up his insufficiency and need with a woman, the ariyan requires nothing outside of himself to complete him. To move towards something outside of oneself is to testify to your need for this thing, and hence your lack. He has a very Plotinian idea of desire: I create my lack in the desire, my lack does not pre-exist my desire. Like Orpheus resisting the urge to look back: only when you refuse the narrative of lack can you truly transcend it. Or, in other words, only when you stop checking to see if the Thing is with you (the object of longing, striving, etc.), is it actually with you.

The proper male spirituality involves self-integration, self-consolidation. The becoming of: a center, a monad, a pole star, as the sun exerts its "will" on the planets without it itself becoming involved in the annular movement of matter. Like Nietzsche says through Zarathustra, "wisdom loves a warrior".

Become your own principle, do not look for it in others. But this is just a platitude you're reading on Veeky Forums, which is why Evola says the self has to encounter the void to be violently purified of attachment, there is no other way.

Political solutions are phantoms, strive after your soul. The individual goes into death as the individual, be involved in the world, sure, but be individuated.

There is no way these teachings will resonate with the masses. "We" don't move forward, you do.

did he actually support rape or is that a wikipedia meme?

Tell me Evolas views of the decline of western civilization

How does Buddhism tie in with his philosophy?

He doesn't reify the Forms. He is mum about the metaphysical status of his "ontology of layers": whether or not the initiate "goes" somewhere or simply experiences another dimension of consciousness is, at the end of the day, the difference that makes no difference.

I believe he subscribes to something like Eckhart's univocal causality: the just man does not "participate" in justice, he actualizes justice in his being just. Justice "participates" in him as much as embodies a justice to "participate" in. Or, as Alan Moore puts it, "God is just the idea of God [in the void]". That last bit is mine.

Analogical correspondences are legitimate; different things reflect the same ontological principles, but principles that are immanent to a universe of space-and-time.

There is no going "anywhere", the initiate simply learns to stop experiencing the universe as the correlate of his ego. He describes this as the "signless" void-state, signless because objects no longer appear as they appear in the dimension of "for-me".

Fairly complex, but if I had to sum it up: the spirit must evolve into the Sun of the system that one is. Notions of centrality, polarity, peace, detachment, and superiority abound.

Evola isn't a dualist. More a dual-aspect monism. One primal, undifferentiated force that either descends, or ascends.

No, he didn't support rape, dude. I guarantee you if you post the passage in question I can give you a reasonable explanation.

Quality degenerating into the worship of quantity. Depth and intensity of consciousness being slowly replaced by breadth of worldly power and influence.

He thought modern society's collapse was as unavoidable as a falling object hitting the ground, that the forces that are precipitating its collapse are as objective, contingent, and mechanical as any other. The Western delusion is believing they are not.

He offers one of the best expositions on Buddhist doctrine out there imo.

Not OP, but I believe he alluded the act of rape is a result of degeneration of the self.

>consciousness being slowly replaced by breadth of worldly power and influence.

How do I liberate myself from these vile powers?

Realtalk? Exercise, meditation, eating clean, mindfulness, solitude.

ok I clicked on the link in the wiki article and it just links to some liberal article clearly misrepresenting his beliefs. his wiki has always been an inside joke to me and a couple of friends fro how radical and crazy it makes him seem right out of the gate, altho after having read revolt against the modern world his ideas are very well put and poetic. how much does his metaphysics of history differ from spenglers? im nearly done with decline of the west and I notice a lot of similarities. thanks for your help, user!

Methods for meditation? There are so many.

I crave liberation beyond all else. It's all it think about.

Where does one start in understanding metaphysics?

Someone posted pic related in regards to Evola's thoughts on rape.

If you look at the same (((wiki))) page from three years ago, he sounds a lot more reasonable, and his flirtation with fascism is portrayed much more fairly.

Attached: evola_rape.jpg (1852x359, 236K)

I believe him and Spengler are in good agreement, this idea of a central, spiritual nucleus gradually dissipating itself into mechanized, bureaucratized collectivity through time (culture -> civilization in Spengler's system).

Simple breathing meditation is a good start. Follow your breath, learn to observe thoughts instead of reacting to them.

Lots of study, suffering, and solitude.

Yeah I don't understand how anyone can read this and assume he's supporting rape. It makes perfect sense.

my last question, not trying to waste ur time but very curious

how hegelian would you call evola?

I forgot to mention, the user clarified later he was quoting Evola from his perspective why a man would justify rape. Evola actually condemns the act itself.

oh, that makes a lot more sense. surprised no ones deleted it yet.

I just want to say I appreciate your reply. You are the first person I have seen to not only give a substantive response on this
point, but to also to not shy away from using determinate terminology in you explanation versus the usual misdirecting mysticism
and toothless aestheticism.

Though I am uncertain whether I agree with the possibility of the 'signless' void-state, a concept which strikes me as something akin to 'the night in which all cows are black' and losing sight
of the necessary rungs of the ladder of consciousness, I do find the notion of univocal causality plausible, and as it ostensibly 'leads to' the void-state or the completion of the circle of sorts it does at least show
as far as I am concerned there is actual concrete work in place.

I would like to congratulate you for single-handedly reforming Evola's reputation as a serious metaphysician in my mind.

I'm liking this. Go nuts.

A very good question.

If we take the standard historicist reading of Hegel, Evola's is an inverted teleology: the Spirit doesn't evolve from unconsciousness into consciousness as orthodox Hegel would put it, it degenerates from its primal condition of identity with the noumenal (another way of saying, ancient man's immersion/coalescence with the immediacy of being) into the morass of thought.

However, the more Zizekian, unorthodox Hegel is more in line with Evola's views. The universe is contingent, agonic, without ontological gaurantee? Check. Spirit is not some transcendent oversoul but immanent, processual, a phenomenon of reality and reality alone? Check. Necessity is only narrativized contingency ("everything happens for a reason...")? Check. Essence is only appearance qua appearance, ie objects appear only as the appearing of themselves and don't participate in some transcendent platonic Form? Check. The subject is nothing but the infinite power to say "no", which paradoxically doubles as the infinite "yes"? Check.

However, where Evola and Hegel somewhat diverge: for Hegel, the self-mediation of reality is all there is, and is fulfilled by Absolute Knowledge (which is the knowledge that all there is /is/ this eternal arising and passing away of shapes of consciousness, which kinda takes away the sting of negative a bit since we're no longer in denial of this fact), while for Evola the negative /itself/ must be negated. In other words, the circle of the dialectic is only fulfilled by its cutting, while for Hegel the closure of the circle is fulfilled/"soothed" by our recognition that it is a circle, and there's no other reality to go "to". Hegel kinda comes close, but he's not a big mystic.

What would Evola think of Arnold Schwarzenegger's life?

Thank you! one of the best threads ive seen on this board. I’m going to revisit this thread after some sleep over a cup of coffee, it’s very informative

>Though I am uncertain whether I agree with the possibility of the 'signless' void-state, a concept which strikes me as something akin to 'the night in which all cows are black'

You've described the fundamnetal obstacle to the Path: how to let go of a universe that is a correlate of, and thus fascinating for, the ego. How do I conduct myself in a universe divested of the libidinal charge I used to give it?

Evola puts the 'signless' void state another way: everything becomes the extreme case of itself. A return to the "is" or "that-ness" of reality that is not muddied by an "ought", and yet obviously not a pre-reflective, unconscious "that-ness". Instead of all the cows being black, every cow becomes vividly, irreplaceably itself, and yet in such a way that this multiplicity doesn't look like a banquet for the desirous ego.

I've experienced fleeting glimpses of this state. it is as beautiful and profound as all these guys say, but it really is like trying to hold rainwater in your lap.

He would admire his dedication to bodybuilding (and probably have some really great insights as to how weightlifting has become something of an ersatz substitute for transcendence on the battlefield, etc.) but probably not be too stoked about his political career. Not that he's a finger wager, though.

Pro-tip: Read Guenon if you want to understand the traditional metaphysics taught by eastern Traditions. Evola's are heavily influenced by his own opinions and biases and are more a personal philosophy rather than an impersonal exposition of timeless metaphysics like Guenon's.

I'm not saying he isn't worth reading but it's an important distiction to make.

The rest of the perennialists don't resonate with me as deeply as Evola for some reason. Though they are all definitely on the money, no question.

wouldn’t evolas ideas about desire be the opposite of nietzsches?

A lot of these so-called metaphysical questions are close to being solved by physics. Do we live in a universe where tome is circles, spirals, a straight line into infinity, a spiraling line, etc.? These are ultimately speculative physics at this point but they trouble me regardless insofar as they relate to metaphysics. Eliade's eternal return is best explained by astrology, IMO. Nietzsche is an inspiring thought experiment. And yet it seems the ancients imply there is an epistemological validity to certain experiences that do not, despite traditional claims otherwise, line up all the time. I have had such experiences as well, but idk if I believe my immortal soul is preparing for an afterlife journey... maybe there was a common source for the belief, doesn't mean it's true.
Pic related is a good exposition of similarities and differences between ancient metaphysical systems. Does not reduce things to "true tradition" and "false tradition".

Attached: A1AA20AF-30EB-494C-93EE-FD7350001023.jpg (341x499, 43K)

Hey I'm starting my spiritual journey for the first time and need general advice for someone who is brand new to these topics. I have "The Hermetic Tradition" book, since a Evola chart recommended reading it first, but have a hard time understanding many of the topics since I'm not well read. Any advice you can give me on this topic would be greatly appreciated.

Their respective philosophies are different but, no, Nietzsche understood the will-to-power as the strife of different "wills"/centers of experience that is uniform across the universe. That consciousness and culture is an epiphenomenon of this unconscious will. The will doesn't create forms for these forms, it creates them only so it can know the joy of overcoming them. Evola admired Carlo Michelstaedter (a brutal, underrated thinker) for saying precisely the same thing: "man is enriched by negation". The No is the true Yes because the No is the No to the inhibiting Yes of the world (the Yes to determinate structures, a determinate self-image, way of being, doing the same shit day after day and being unable to think yourself out of your rut).

Here's, really, the fundamental, fundamental understanding behind all this, and all the Path really involves you learning: the freedom from x is always greater than x itself. Mull that over.

I do not believe physics has anything to say about the dilemmas in the post you quoted, but I get you.

What are you having trouble with? You have to develop a feeling for these truths that really only comes with a lot of self-awareness and study. Are you completely new to this stuff? I'd start with some Zen, really, to snap you out of the circle of thought and the need to conceptualize.

I guess I am confused about how far to take the doctrine of eternal return. We know the sun is gonna burn out and kill everyone on earth... but we're supposed to feel better because the universe recreates itself billions of years from now (which may or may not happen depending on which cosmological theory is confirmed by astrophysics)?

I mean, I get generational cycles and organism life cycles and astrological cycles but idk it kinda bums me out to think I have to live again. Also, this is relevant to the questions of colonizing other worlds and technological immortality, no? I would rather have a more teleological universe where it is not so flat and deterministic but freely choosen and willed and utterly unique.

I'm completely knew to these subjects completely. I've watched a few videos on youtube from "The Modern Hermeticist" but that is far as my knowledge extends. What I have trouble is figuring out what to start reading and places I can discuss these topics with. I honestly don't know anything on philosophy, metaphysics, and everything else brought up in this thread.

This is more a Nietzschean thing. Evola himself doesn't buy it. Objective, "clock time" keeps on ticking after your death, propelling you to the appropriate afterlife state. What if you do live again? What if I'm wrong? Then stand on infinity and know that you do, and that all eternity is affirmed in this moment, repeated eternally.

You're diving in pretty deep if Evola is your absolute first introduction to not only metaphysics but philosophy in general.

I don't want to give you a reading list, but start with some of Crowley's basic stuff:


If you're feeling ballsy, read maybe the first quarter of the Book of Lies. /Don't/ try to understand all of Crowley's references and correspondences, just focus on the text and try to absorb the philosophy


Also, Colin Low's introduction to Kabbalah:


Finally, the Chaldaean Oracles and Corpus Hermeticum (they're beautiful):


What philosophers are most antithetical to Evola?

Also, what 21st century phenomenons do you think he would consider most destructive or poor for the soul?

Bataille, Land, Zizek all explicitly reject transcendence and are thoroughly pessimistic, and yet Evola is no stranger to any of their premises.

As for your second question: identitarianism, mindless consumption, the mocking of any and all spiritual pursuits, and the watering down of mindfulness into some corny Buzzfeed one weird trick!! when it's foundational to ascesis and spirituality

>Also, what 21st century phenomenons do you think he would consider most destructive or poor for the soul?
Just take a look around you. A better question is, what would Evola not think is destructive to the soul in the 21st century?

Agreed with your second point. I would also add
"This hit me right in the feelz"/melodrama/consumerist tourism/non-spiritual competition(sports)/narcissism.

I should have added the general quality of diet, a sedentary lifestyle, and an over-fascination with the image (people can only talk about pop culture/sports/he-said-she-said).

However that said I personally really try to not think of myself as a True Man of Tradition in these Dark Times Heh *tips fedora*. I just gotta do me

Did he said something on Tarot?
There are concrete rules on the spiritual way or is something strictly personal?

I'm reading all your answers, thanks for the info.

Did he promote Occult Buttsex or any homo crap whatsoever?

Can you explain Evola's critique of Christianity, especially monastic Christianity (probably the closest to his ideal)?

Unfortunately, he didn't. I'd kill for an Evola book on the tarot of Tree of Life, but what're ya gonna do? However, I have no doubt in my mind he'd understand the Major Arcana as the states of consciousness they are meant to represent (the Fool is the unmanifest, the Magus is the first stirring in the Ain, etc.)

There are concrete rules and it is personal. You are the singularity of you, only you can know what is fullness and vacuity in you. But the rules to understand this are universal: mind-fullness, self-consciousness at all times. What fills you with life and love? What raises you up out of the ontological rat race? Go to it.

Attached: ToL.jpg (1826x2483, 346K)

nice bait

I believe Evola does say homosexuality is a perversion, but also recognizes the classical ideal of a kind of conjugal spirituality between men, that, who knows, could probably lead to the carnal. He's not crazy about this though, there's no mention of homosexuality or sex stuff anywhere outside of the works dedicated to it.

He believes Christianity represents a degeneration of the active, ariyan spiritual element where the initiate identifies himself /as/ his patron deity instead of supplicating himself before it.

Also he considered Christianity a more sentimentalized, devotional, and hence feminine/lunar religion. Especially the emphasis on the suffering-God, Christ as the patron deity of Being's lowly and downtrodden.

However, like all great spiritual traditions, it does hit on its own truths, and I sense a deep respect in Evola for Meister Eckhart's mysticism (which is itself some of the most potent Christian spirituality around; Eckhart knew what was up).

Attached: ToFToD.jpg (492x750, 63K)

>he didn't
Isn't that strange?
>I have no doubt in my mind he'd understand the Major Arcana as the states of consciousness they are meant to represent
Can you elaborate on this? Or provide me some links (I know I can look it up myself, but maybe you know reliable sources).
>There are concrete rules and it is personal...
Is there an specific text where he talks about this?

I would also add scientism, neo-spirituality (New Age), lustful behavior (sexual or otherwise), homosexuality, modern forms of music, and material attachment.

>neo-spirituality (New Age)
Why tho? I'm not baiting, but New Age is such a large group, do you think is all crap?

Why didn’t he like porn?

>Can you elaborate on this? Or provide me some links (I know I can look it up myself, but maybe you know reliable sources).

Tarot resources are the ones most notoriously filled with new age goop. However, with a background in esotericism, it's pretty clear what the major arcana represent.


This is Crowley's take on the tarot.

There was another site that I unfortunately can't find right now.

>Is there any specific text where he talks about this?

Introduction to Magic is fantastic. But if you want it quick and easy:


Go there, open "Doctrine of Awakening", read the chapter on Zen, where he goes over the principles that make Zen an authentic tradition, that also doubles as more or less a summary of not only the entire book but probably his whole ouvre on praxis.

No doubt about it.

terrific thread, thanks OP

What were his thoughts on the use of art?seeing as he was involved with dada for a while.

Not philosophically rigorous enough, no grit or edge or any real willingness to face the darkness of experience. Evola's views on death and the self for example are very sobering.

Because they are modern spiritual movements which have no roots in an unbroken chain of tradition. Evola and the Traditionalists as a whole were very critical of New Ageism.

What kinds of music and why?
What’s wrong with the gay sex?

>However, with a background in esotericism, it's pretty clear what the major arcana represent.
So, it's basically a rehashed explanation of the Hero's Journey or path to initiation?

not OP, but imho it's not something that you can easily learn how to do. sorry for "dude acid lmao" but for me at least it did take tripping to be able to abstract enough away from everyday physicalist reality to actually comprehend what metaphysics is about. It was necessary but not sufficient of course, you actually have to study and dedicate yourself afterwards

You're stimulating your sexual organ to the image. To literal non-being. You're offering your essence on the altar of form, of matter put in a pleasing shape. Nothing wrong with sex. Sex is beautiful. Women are beautiful. He understands the sexual need, it is as biological as hunger. But he understands also the need for sexual purity. Masturbation is almost always a reaction against boredom. An extreme expression of desire for the Other, because you yourself are not complete without it.

It is also the submission to a force inside you that is not you. Being horny is only what your dick's biological imperative feels like in consciousness. Learn to disassociate yourself from the complexes of your body, each thirsting for its gratification.

He had a distaste for the insipidity of bourgeoisie art, especially at the turn of the century, where the traumatized modern is sent reeling into the narcissistic free-for-all of modern subjectivity.

He liked art, but he wanted art to represent something objective. Not realism, mind you, but a communication of principial realities, the universe, the truths of self and being, and not this ho-hum puttering around in the minimalist trough. Neither self-fascinated subjectivity or dry objectivity, but a wedding of the two, as spirituality properly is.

Attached: tzimtzum.jpg (628x628, 75K)

OP, you're not the guy studying Nietzsche for his phd in flordia, are you? The way you write is similar

Or Campbell's Hero's Journey is a rehash of initation.

Yes. You got it, though. What is the Path? The bildungsroman of the Absolute.

I'm not. Does he write good stuff?

what would evola say about my life quest of integrating metaphysics with science/technique through study of dynamic systems and their relation to qualia? Also just want to know your opinions since you're a smart guy

>Tarot resources are the ones most notoriously filled with new age goop
That's the problem I've always had.
Nice content there, thanks. Gonna delve in Crowley so, it's all pointing to him (But: what's the relation between Crowley and Evola?).
>Introduction to Magic is fantastic. But if you want it quick and easy

Sounds about right, well stated.

I guess I was asking more specifically for literature. I've been trying to pin down a concrete understanding of exactly what extramundane knowledge might look like but I've only found peices of it from a few different authors.

How do you think we would go about responding to the gender spectrum?

>the freedom from x is always greater than x itself

Isn't this essentially a form of asceticism? I.e. being free of wants is better than reaching your want and continuing the cycle of 'wanting'

Posts on here occasionally, he writes in a style similar to you, also very interested in pedagogy

Do you read on your own or academically trained?

OP here. Not gonna lie to you bro, a lot of this stuff was very accessible for me because I'd smoke blunts to the head while reading Evola.

You really need to get some meditation under your belt, because none of this makes any sense without an experience of what your mind is like beyond thought, even if it's just for a few seconds (like me). Once that clicks the rest falls into place, because the rest of esotericism (literally everything) is an articulation of this awareness, how to achieve it again, its hypostatization, what it says about the self, what it says about reality, etc.

Sounds interesting m8, he only had a problem with science worship, everything else was killer. In fact I find science to be the number one supporter of all this stuff he's talking about. The idea that the self, for example, is nothing but the dynamism of its parts is supported by modern neuroscience, Aquinas, and motherfuckin' Hume (besides Evola and the rest of 'em, of course).

Specialization is for insects. Don't fall for the "you have to think in boxes" meme. Weininger said genius is the microcosm's perfect mirroring of macrocosm.

What is recommended reading for a further look into this phenomenon?

He says we possess both the masculine and the feminine within ourselves in varying ratios, and a transgendersim is a collapse of the dominant sexual trait (masculinity in men and femininity in females).

Here's what I'd think Evola would say: there is a spectrum, there is a continuity of gender, but the poles remain male and female. What's going on with these kids now is they think every gradation femininity and masculinity is its own gender.

Basically, men are born with a transcendental slant of soul (which is being thoroughly repressed and demonized nowadays), and women exist to devote themselves to a noetic, male principle. There is no sexism in this (couldn't care less about feminism, but when it's distasteful it's distasteful), because if the male is up to snuff, the woman would never experience this as a compulsion.

This is why women today scoff at the idea of an unconditional devotion to a man: because they, rightly, don't see a man who merits it.

Essentially, yes. Well put.

I read on my own.

Attached: 1.gif (240x228, 2K)

Have you completed the instructions given in Knowledge of the Waters, in Introduction to Magic? Have you accomplished much with the information in that book?

Doctrine of Awakening, near the end, is where he talks about. Outside of Evola, any and all Zen scriptures. It won't be as philosophical but it's on the money.

Music has degenerated to "pure musicality" or a science of harmonies. As a result, music possesses a Dionysian quality. To him, this has become very pronounced in jazz and it's successors, Rock and Rap music, and their offshoots. For your second question, see

Evola's Traditional vs. Modern Man

Great question. I drove up into the mountains this past weekend, threw the lights off in my car and just sat there and soaked in the night, telling myself these are the Waters, that I am alone in the world and I have nothing but my soul.

I can't really say what counts as experiencing it or not. I've had realizations of its truth all the time, but what officially counts as experiencing it? You know what I've learned about these spiritual truths? There's grades to them, they repeat themselves at higher and higher potencies the more knowledge and experience you attain.

>2 min. in
>he hasn't said anything

What is this, a guy smoking and driving?

>Only 3 chapters in RAtMW
>Addicted to the tobacco jew
>Makes a video while driving

Attached: 1522206122679.jpg (415x392, 51K)