AMA about Evola or Traditionalism. Studied it for a few years...

AMA about Evola or Traditionalism. Studied it for a few years. I like talking about this stuff and getting this information out to people who need it.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)
evolaasheis.wordpress.com/
claudiomutti.com/index.php?url=6&imag=1&id_news=130
youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Can you summarize his solution to the problems of living in modern society?

Do you have any thoughts on Marxism and its particular schools? What do you like/dislike most about it and why?

adherence to a transcendental, unified will in oneself. the cultivation of a calm, detached, rational principle that affirmed in and through contact with corrupting influences. apolitical to the extreme. he does not reject so much modernity as he does succumbing to its degenerative slope in mind, body, and spirit

an acute analysis of capitalism but deficient in Evola's view. Marx believes in man's inter-determination with nature through labor, but I think he privileges the material's potentiality for change through political revolution. Evola sees a collectivizing, materialistic streak in even the notion that solution to human suffering is social in dimension, and not ontological - as its source is ontological, in the nature of becoming, etc. The only solution must be a change of state in the self, in the "I" prior to social determination.

>the cultivation of a calm, detached, rational principle
what principle?
>through contact with corrupting influences.
like what?

Would Evola approve of Veeky Forums

Why is he a Nordicist and a Shitalian?

why are you so fucking spooked?

The transcendental strength and confidence acquired through periods of extreme suffering and deprivation, the passing through a "zero-point" where you are shorn of attachment and revealed to yourself in the dimension that you are without the support of the "life-narrative", the discursive, empirical ego and ultimately the figure of the Other that structures time/experience through the anticipation of an eternally deferred desire. Is this too much? When you go through shit you find something in you that's beyond any one thing that you can take away from it. The groundlessness of relative identities is the ground of the one absolute identity.

>through contact with corrupting influences.

Getting drunk without getting to your head, acting in a way decided by yourself instead of your conditions and adhering to this in the face of fear, doubt, anger, pain. Facing the chaos of experience as a point of stability that can, and if you can retain yourself through the onrush of perception you become something more than it by definition. You get it.

So, becoming holy through unholy means? See through the "illusion" of morality and principles by going against your own morality, controlling it? What's the end game really?

Why didn't Evola become a Hindu? This sounds so similar to Indian doctrines such as Jivanmukta and self-identification with the transcendent Atman.

Allow me to add: I'm referring to the Indian tradition of Advaita Vedanta. I'm wondering why didn't Evola go deeper into this philosophy / worldview, instead going into his own track of "Traditionalism".

Why did you waste so much time on a meme phisopher

>Why did you waste so much time on a meme phisopher

>if you don't like this meme man, it means you like this other one

The alt right was a mistake

What are the greatest flaws or weaknesses of his line of thought?

What were his views on God and religion?


What is your view on Max Stirners Egoism?

What would he think of modern quantum mechanics in relation to transcendentalism?

"The blood of the Heroes is closer to God than the ink of philiosophers and the prayers of the faithful"
- Evola

>When you go through shit you find something in you that's beyond any one thing that you can take away from it. The groundlessness of relative identities is the ground of the one absolute identity
This was really profound, please keep asking him questions user's im learning alot here, i dropped out of HS a long ass time ago now.

He was quoting this from an anonymous Islamic saying. Thankfully he didn't do a Guenon and convert to Islam.

The true "You" is non-corporeal. You aren't really your name. You aren't your memories either, nor your consciousness. Think about it, if you weren't given a name at birth, you'd still be alive, right? Also, there are things that you did, but you've forgot them, right? So even if you don't remember events, you are still here. Also, when you sleep, you are still there, you are still alive, even though you aren't conscious. So, who are you really? You are Ātman .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)

Realizing that you are Ātman is the first step. Then you can go even further and realize that Ātman is identical to Brahman (but that's advanced shit). Sometimes i wish i never got this far.

I don't know much about Islam but i know it contains its fair share of redpills. Guenon was based.

can I hear your thoughts on guenon?

Because you don't have to be a Nordic to admire the Nordic race.

Why do some people take this guy seriously? He was obviously batshit insane.

That is actually a mistranslation, as the Muslim Evolian scholar Claudio Mutti showed. It actually says the opposite.

>Babbys first LSD trip

You lads ought to do yourselves a favour and read the translations here and get their booklets (the racialist stuff the mainstream publishers won't touch, including Arktos): evolaasheis.wordpress.com/

I would like to see a source for that statement.

You can achieve Atma knowledge / Atma jnana completely without the use of drugs. Drugs might help, but i did it through only reading and contemplation.

What I'm saying is you don't need to read or study because that's what LSD did to me and several of my friends when we took it for the first time, not too long ago.

Disassociating 'you' from your physical vessel is something LSD does.

Many different paths lead to the same mountain peak.

eh, Claudio Mutti. But if you insist:
claudiomutti.com/index.php?url=6&imag=1&id_news=130

Perhaps, just as there are different paths, on different mountains.

And some mountains are bigger than others. (To paraphrase Morrissey)

True, to be honest. Glad there's other people 'on my level,' it's refreshing to know (and not just assume and take for granted) that others are on the same page.

Psychedelics only allow you to visit that dimension of existence for a limited period of time. To truly become one you have to transcend through other means.

But you understand the idea of it after taking lsd, no? What a few dudes were talking about was 'ego death' which they feel has changed them, as a person, to which I'm inclined to agree.

Once you've experienced it, you won't be the same. This isn't me saying that anyone should take this drug though, it's a very difficult experience and a lot of people just arn't ready to be themself as a person without everything their 'identity' imply. I know one of my friends, by far the most spiritual and most soul-searching of us, ended up with an actual identity issue because of what LSD did to him.

Why did Ebola start an epidemic in africa?

Wouldn't it be relevant to discuss the views of Evola on drugs, in the chapter aptly entitled "On Drugs" since this is a thread dedicated to his thought, no?

I havn't actually read about Evolas view on drugs, please spoonfeed me.

I'd guess that he wouldn't like drugs as a blanket term for 'substances currently illegal,' but I really don't know.

It's in 'Ride the Tiger', read it yourself. He discusses an array of substances in mostly general terms although it is known that he himself experimented with a number of drugs in his youth.

Okay, I will (later)

I can also guess that he'd like smart people to experiment as long as they are mature enough to handle it.

That's only what he recommends if you're looking for that transcendence unique to our time. The end game is the conquering of death: where the vast majority of beings simply "become" all their lives and dissolve at death, the initiate acquires "being" and achieves immortality upon death in the form an eternal monistic consciousness.

Morality is an illusion insofar as it's conducive to cultivating a certain state of being, goodness, light, truth, calm, stability, these are in no way just "spooks".

It pretty much is, but he denied that the East had a monopoly on these ideas. For example, the transcendental center in man that raises itself above the mire of becoming is pretty much what Mithraism is about.

1. He's a bit futzy on the nature of the soul and where it begins, where it ends. In Ride the Tiger he implies a man incarnates into particular spatiotemporal conditions according to the quality of his soul - that if you have an affinity for these ideas in these times you incarnated in modernity to test your adherence to these principles in a time in history where they are totally ignored and ridiculed.

In his Introduction to Magic, he says consciousness is something like an appendix of the body, that I don't have a body, that my body has me, and I'm just along for the ride. Very Gnostic.

2. He believed in a transcendent, metaphysical "God" as opposed to the sentimental-moral personal God of theism. God as both the source of the "I" and its transcendent culmination.

3. Mine? Poor man's Evola. Spooks are only spooks when they interfere, hinder with one's self-directed development. The ideas of a metaphysical God, spirit, overcoming, solarity, these are the farthest things from an oppressive moral doctrine.

A formalization disconnected from the truth of sensible reality; the atomizing, materialistic impulse of capitalism applied to matter, where the scientist hopes to penetrate to some truth about nature the more and more he breaks it down to its component parts. Found it useless and too abstract to be of any use.

That said the ideas of quantum mechanics would in fact support his metaphysics: consider the quantum void as an all-generating nothingness and Evola's reference to Nietzsche's "deep, pure eternity" that wills everything into being.

I like him, he's on the money, but a bit dryer than Evola.

Because he displays a keen understanding of the human condition from the perspective of one who considers it only a stepping-stone to the infinite, instead of being yet another Marxist theorist with yet another critique of the political economy who seem to be constitutionally incapable of seeing beyond the horizon of the social, the political, the economic.

Evola represents me a full-blooded love of life grounded in what is higher than life, instead of promoting rustic quietism or being yet another "drink and be merry" hedonist

What's the point of supporting Fascist regimes or caring about politics at all if society is stuck in the deterministic cycle of yugas and will irreversibly continue to fall until the next era no matter what you do.

A political solution is and will always remain a non-solution. The problems of the universe are intrinsic to the nature of the universe itself. At most a political solution can provide is an amelioration of conditions while someone's still alive, but death remains eternal.

The initiate is apolitical. Evola never said you have to support fascism to save your soul or whatever nonsense.

Bump

first there has to be an 'I'

This belief that the "I" can never be anything but a confluence of external forces is the most insidious aspect of neoliberal ideology. Yes, you don't have any reality in yourself but the one we give you. What self-respecting human being would accept this? How are the social apparatuses that determine my self possibly constructed without the intervention of an "I" into the natural order? Language wholly determines man insofar as he remains a merely linguistic being. Death is the abolishment of anything the self might rely on as a crutch to support itself.

What do you think about catholicism?
I was planning to become a catholic traditionalis

Because he was capable of using a toilet.

How do you transcend in to an immortal, all-knowing soul by being a degenerate? What is his problem with materialism and modern society if they're vehicles for enlightenment anyway?

most humans dont have an ''I'', they have dosens of instinctive, conditioned or learned subsystems that pretend to be a self from moment to moment, egoconstructs identifying with this and that and manifesting some persona or other, even our motorics, verbalisation, cognition and emotional proceses are all separate but conected subsystems, we are not ''whole'' in any way, we are contraptions, and most contraptions have no singular, allenconpasing, intergrated self, any of us can percieve this clearly, you just have to observe for a while

you guys cannot into gurdijeff

He saw Christianity as representing a degeneration of the transcendental centrality of Tradition. Where traditionally man would embody divinity, now he entreats it, prays to it, surrenders to it. He explicitly rejected needing some mediating agency between you and the divine, since is the divine is nothing but the monadic nature of selfhood.

I find Evola's semi-dismissal of Christian thought a bit half-baked. He wasn't able to really understand what was so exemplary about Christ. That said, he does cite the works of Christian mystics like Eckhart and Boehme, who, if you ask me, are absolutely fucking based and anyone interested in this shit should read pronto.

First of all, this was just one method to the mountain peak, as it were, exclusive to our times.

It's not about being a degenerate and thinking you're enlightened, it's exposing yourself to conditions that reduce others to degenerate states and not succumbing as a test of spirit. Transforming what is poison for the vast majority of human beings into medicine through sheer strength of self. Browsing porn without feeling the urge to jack it. Getting drunk without getting sloppy. Social isolation without heartache and mental illness. Failure and rejection without giving in.

This is more a practice than a system, though, no one's transcending samsara browsing pornhub.

Absolutely no disagreement here, Evola says the same thing. My contention is that we are nothing BUT these ephemeral "I"s, while for an integrated human type there is a continuity of self that asserts itself in and through the vicissitudes of consciousness.

>Absolutely no disagreement here, Evola says the same thing. My contention is that we are nothing BUT these ephemeral "I"s, while for an integrated human type there is a continuity of self that asserts itself in and through the vicissitudes of consciousness.

theres a fun part about that that

you go trough the lower parts of society, working class and war veterans and criminals and sick and the generaly not well off, and often these are all the same people, you routinely find people who are highly integrated, there realy is a continuity of self and its often not someone you want to fuck with, individuals hammered into iron by life day after day for decades, mostly oblivious to what that actualy means

then you meet the so called ''elite'' people, political or financial or whatever, most of those people dont know who the fuck is carrying their head around, most of them, especialy low ranking ones, run on a hypocritical combination of generaly accepted good intentions and positive attitudes, obedience, and personal ambitions and complexes

that explains a lot

So basically put yourself through a lot of shit and if you have the discipline to see through the "illusion" of it you could become enlightened.
I like having casual sex and doing drugs, what is lacking in the mix for me to gain some knowledge?

What you learn performing these acts in accordance with an inner transcendental law. I can't tell you what that is for yourself. It's who and what you are without the masks you have to wear for your hook-up or drinking buddies or whatever. The cultivation of a continuity of awareness.

Yup, it's why I don't have any respect for academics, intellectuals, politicians businessmen, just people submerged in glorified machinic activity whose heads never break the surface of spirit.

bump

But how do you cope in daily life without a mask? If you don't put on a role and suddenly become one with everything, wouldn't you be sitting in a corner staring aimlessly out in the open air?
No feelings of separation, therefore no feelings of hunger, sleepiness or motivation for anything?

That's the rub, innit? You ever have experiences when you were totally in the zone, even when you were interacting with others? Everything happening without deliberation or inhibitions, as smoothly as muscle memory? Aren't we just astounded by what athletes can do with their body, and how easy they make it look? This path is all about that skillfulness and ease applied to the whole being.

It's not about rejecting the game, it's learning how to play it, and realizing most people who think they're "winning" are doing no such thing, not in any absolute sense.

I get the philosophy. Now, how do you turn it into practice?

Meditation. Detachment from the conditioned. Thought control. Self-remembering. Acting without hope of any particular result. Study. Clean diet, physical exercise (goes without saying).

Not saying it's easy.

LSD

I know what meditation is. But exactly what is thought control and self-remembering? How do you practice it?

Any path worth taking shouldn't be easy I guess.

Evola describes some thought control techniques in his book on Buddhism. Basically once you begin to identify with that "I" in you above all relative "I"s, you realize there are certain thoughts you want to have vs. others, and that the nature of thought is to persuade and suggest, never force you into doing anything.

By thought control we mean a discriminatory awareness that does not engage with any thought patterns not in conformity with its self-project.

So if you're on a train and you start having sexual thoughts about the girl across from you, and it's not something you want to engage in, there are a number of visualizations and techniques to defuse the thought's "charge" and root it out. A Buddhist one is visualizing that you are tied to the corpse of a dog or human being or whatever, representing the futility and emptiness of that desire you don't want to feed. Desire isn't bad, excessive indulgence of desires is.

What did he think of ethno-nationalism?
What did he think of the holocaust?

The only thing to be proud of is the light in one's soul, and even then.

I don't recall reading anything about his views on the holocaust. He considered jews exemplary of the modern mentality but didn't advocate discrimination, let alone extermination. A man should worry about himself.

bump

Can a jolly african american get a screencap

What i Evola's thoughts on vamachara, the left hand path?
How do one attain happiness according to his beliefs?

Evola is more left-hand than right-hand. He agrees with Crowley that if the purpose of the individual is to simply melt back into the divine then reality is a sick joke. Born of the womb, only to return to it, with all that suffering in the interim being just what is supposed to make us crave the bliss of self-annihilation.

He believes the individual must enter into the divine, primordial state, but only to be baptized in it, not to return to it.

It's difficult to describe happiness in his system. I can tell you despite extreme personal difficulties I've never felt more at peace with the big picture. It's like once you've grasped what is true and beautiful in existence you've grasped it for all time, even if the day-to-day you still loses its temper or pigs out.

So, it's trying to become your own god, freed from the shackles of the demiurge-kind of thing?
I feel like I have moments when I do feel one with it all and at peace, but I always come back to "reality" sooner or later. Does it even exist such a thing as a sure path to enlightenment I get that you can't have any doubts in this kind of business, but how do you quiet the "rational", thinking western mind?

Meditation helps. Really, it comes down to a distinct awareness of your "I" as the "I" that it is. The apperceptive self, that "I" in you that is over and above the flux of content in daily consciousness. There is a character or essence to your consciousness that is not reducible to any one thing you can say about it.

Someone can say, "oh it's just the brain", and from a third-person perspective that's true, but you are not a third-person perspective, what you are is not (just) a brain, but the actuality of that brain's experiencing of itself as a brain.

If you have an internalized understanding of yourself as this contingent being, made up of chemicals, bound by natural law, doomed for death, etc. then you are positing something in you that is not "just" these things, that is superior to them insofar as it apprehends them.

bump

Thanks for responding.

Do you find his arguments convincing/ live your life based on them?

Did he make much of a distinction between Catholics, Protestants and Muslims/Pagans or did he view all the sentimental-moral personal religions the same?

How "Orthodox" is he within the general traditionalism movement?

Yes, I've studied many other philosophers and they only serve to verify his views. For example, Kierkegaard's knight of infinite resignation is Zizek's zero-point of being is Hegel's tarrying with the negative is Evola's nigredo. In all three cases, differences in terminology notwithstanding, the subject is affirmed in and through the experience of its nullity AS nullity.

I try to live by them and fuck up every day.

The only substantial distinction is between exoteric Christianity - mega churches, fundamentalists, creationism, you get it - which is what they fill the food trough for plebs with, and esoteric Christianity - the true dimension of Christ's teachings, the great Christian mystics (Boehme, Eckhart, Silesius, Weil) who recognized one must embody Christ and not slavishly worship him. Seriously by the way if you're interested in Christianity in any capacity, read Simone Weil, she's an absolute spiritual genius.

He takes some liberties with these doctrines, occasionally is accused of overlooking consistencies between mythologies to serve his worldview. But these are superficial differences, I have not read a single substantial criticism of his ideas that don't involve his politics or moderns averse to anything spiritual.

I'd be legit stoked to a read a book tearing Evola apart as long it was written at the level he's writing at, but yeah good luck with that.

Bumperino

Bump

Bump

>what principle?
people don't even understand the idea of "principle" in the abstract anymore
we're so fucked
so
fucked

kek

What religion did Evola ascribe to/ recommend? Was it Hinduism, paganism or Christianity I am genuinely confused. Didn't he say that religions cant be revived or something like that?

Only Tradition, the catch-all term for the primordial wisdom represented by the esoteric aspect of all religions. Labels inhibit true knowledge though. All these religions deal with the same problems of existence in different dimensions.

What country are you from?

wasn't he a "spiritual racist" though? If all religions present the same wisdom, couldn't an African practice Hinduism? I thought he was opposed to stuff like that.

Why did you waste your time with pseuds?

Not necessarily the same wisdom, they place the accent mark on different aspects. Some represent a more passive, lunar religiosity, others more self-affirming, solar.

also his spiritual racism isn't as scary as it sounds: some people are a higher type than others. to the degree you recognize this, you participate in what makes them great (and no it's not predicated on worldly success, sexual conquests, whatever, but what any person in their right mind would consider worthy of respect and admiration). to the extent you don't, well, it's not gonna bother you then is it?

America.

He writes at a level higher than 99% of """intellectuals"""" touted around on the internet, so.

Dissociatives are better than psychedelics for personal """growth""" tbqh

How would an Evola-like philosophy improve the material condition of the poor and prevent the rich from retaining all the power and resources on the planet?

It wouldn't, it is hyper-individualistic, every man is left to his own salvation. If a rich person could internalize it, he would immediately stop doing what he's doing. A poor, would at least cultivate the inner resources to minimize the suffering of his condition. But a political solution? Nah. For Evola, all a man has in this world is the integrity of his soul.

Oh. Fuck him.

>muh utopian political solutions to everything

Scat

bump

bump

Jonathan Bowden did a fantastic talk on Evola

youtube.com/watch?v=4YqKf3v2aPs

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm which one should i believe