Tradition?

>He's a jew
Enough said.

You have to know the transcendental Tradition directly, no amount of explaining can substitute that. This not an idea or a theory, you're looking at it the wrong way.

My favorite

How does one understand it directly?

Initiation, ascetism, meditation among other things

Traditionalism is a form of Neoplatonism. It is ultimately about the subordination of the material to the spiritual, and the quantitative to the qualitative. Hence why commerce and plebean work is lower on the hierarchy where transcendence in battle and order, and spiritual pursuits take up the top places. It is essentially based on the argument that matter is fleeting and destructible, where spirit is more permanent and indivisible, hence we should value spirit over matter. Humeans won't like it, that's for sure.

Equality is about leveling everything out, drawing us downward towards materialistic nihilism and an existence based around quantity. Hierarchy is about quality, and drawing us upwards towards the transcendent through treating difference, rather than sameness, as what is important socio-politically. Democracy vs Traditional Authoritarianism for example shows one system which treats each individual's say equally, and bases political authority on the mere quantity of votes put forward for one position over the other. It is about collectives at the lowest common denominator pushing a group will. In contrast, an Evolian authoritarian system generally bases authority on some sort of quality - perceived nobility, strength in battle, spiritual virility, etc, it demands different kinds of lifestyles and chains of authority and legitimacy based on different qualities of different peoples, and views the differentiation that comes with hierarchy as liberating and "natural", where egalitarian leveling is seen as stifling everyone but the most common, and inherently violent.

why are you so stupid that you think the only argument for heirarchy can be found in references to older works?

that's a better question to ask

Could you provide some?

These are good posts, more helpful than any one else who posted, thank you

knowledge itself is a heirarchy arranged by the ordination of cardinal truths.

knowledge is constructed via the very careful and selective ordination of power to the things which are reproducible.

the scientific process itself is a heirarchy

heirarchy is everywhere, unless you are blind and simply want to think happy thoughts

I understand hierarchy exists, personally I think society should have leaders who possess characteristics of virtue, similar to early Rome. With that said, the fact that hierarchy exists doesn't justify a hierarchy in a society.

I find something like a "priest caste" or the Brahmanas caste in Hindu, for example, to be hard to implement in any society unless the spiritual tradition was present prior to the founding of the civilization. I think that was Evola's primary criticism of Fascism was that it was unable to manifest the Traditional authority, but I fear the world simply isn't fertile for that now.

I just feel like Evola and Guenon never really provide any plans of action to implement something like a society based on Tradition - Evola even ultimately giving up in doing so near the end.

Yeah the thing is, Guenon was a hardline determinist. He didn't think that anything could be done because it was simply the cosmic cycles doing what they do. Evola attempted it in " Men Among the Ruins" - it is still vague in its prescriptions, but he at least layed down a solid blueprint in just exactly what he wanted and didn't want.

I think the best way to approach Evola is the way he did himself. In 'Revolt..." he claims that all his mention of past societies are idealizations meant to highlight features that fit with his general worldview. It is not correct to think of "returning to this society x" when trying to do an Evolian political project. It is best to just keep the focus on transcendence and hierarchy in mind ( and also freedom, Evola felt that despotism was in opposition to his "voluntarist" style of hierarchy where everyone felt they belonged and had a unique role to fill in society - that they were expressing their own nature, as opposed to feeling that there was a political force pressing them into subservience, a loose balance of powers with a clearly definable center, like in the feudal middle ages, may actually be more appropriate than an absolute monarchy in his case).

>With that said, the fact that hierarchy exists doesn't justify a hierarchy in a society.
but heirarchy DOES exist. it exists in logic. if building a society requires logic, then building a society requires subordination of the less logical, to the more logical.

bada-boom: heirarchy

you're burying your head in the sand

heirarchies can be better or they can be worse, but you're insane if you think you can get rid of them, or that it would be "good" to do so

if you're reading evola and guenon I gotta admit that I think you're the type of guy that's permanently off-track because he gets distracted by verbal sleight of hands, where they build these gigantic, arbitrary structures around words that are politically expedient, such as "tradition" without any concern fo whether the enterprise is ever true. you lke flashy words, user.

consider that my warning to you

You forgot a few quotation marks.

>"logic"
>"better"
>"worse"
>"arbitrary"
>"true"

No need to thank me, I'm just doing my part to rid the world of others' illusions

user, if you like studying semi-insane people like evola who probably rocked themselves to sleep hugging their knees at night, be my guest.

some indians meditate over burning cow dung and "see the reality of interrelatedness in the cosmos."

some people read deepak chopra.

some people are just wrong, no matter how elaborate the bullshit they invent is.

The true traditionalist has no care for words