We have been at pains to point out that the mentality of man is not constant. It varies over the course of cosmic cycles. It varies between the different castes. It varies between nations and races, whose spiritual makeups may be quite different. It varies within an individual who is involved with an initiatic path.
We have provided examples. We have described in some detail, as best we can to those who have no notion of it, the interiority of the men still in the Primordial State of consciousness. We have used St Anthony to demonstrate that the spiritual makeup of the knower radically differs from those sleepwalking through life. We have repeatedly referred to the levels of consciousness described by Evola in The Individual and the Becoming of the World. We have tried to show how the man’s consciousness changed from the Hyperborean to the Vedic period. We have described the orders of chivalry and their difference and independence from the religious orders.
Many readers may be incredulous, but none of this is a matter of theory, reason, science, philosophy, or discursive thought. It is a result of an intuition, that is, a direct realization of such states. No logic, no argument can dissuade us, just as no logic, no argument can dissuade us that the banana tree outside the window does not exist. Don’t believe me. Instead, believe the generations of spiritual writers who have described higher states of consciousness. Believe the traditional authors who have brought that to our attention. That should motivate you to seek such states yourself. On the other hand, the weak and the indifferent will prefer to take refuge in their various belief systems and ideologies.
Thus the attempts of a Kant to discern a philosophical critique applicable to all men at all times, a Heidegger to discover the meaning of Dasein for all men at all times, of a Hegel, Marx or Comte to reveal the ineluctable evolutionary movement of history are ultimately misguided. In Chapter 19 of Revolt Against the Modern World (my translation), Evola makes this clear and confirms what we have claimed above.
We have already brought your attention to the fact that traditional man and modern man are different not simply in terms of their mentality nor their type of civilization. Rather, the difference concerns the very possibilities of experience, the manner in which the world of nature is experienced, therefore the categories of perception and the fundamental relationship between the I and the not-I.
Therefore, space, time, causality in traditional man had a character quite different from what is present in the experience of the men of more recent times. The error of gnoseology (or theory of knowledge) beginning with Kant is to presume that these fundamental forms of human experience have remained always the same, specifically those forms familiar to men of today. Instead, in regard to that, one can also observe a profound transformation, consistent with the general involutionary process [tr: that is, the cosmic cycle].
Perhaps a page compiling those spiritual writers would be a good idea?
Also, another point, since we are dealing with Western philosophy. Evola has a negative view of the Renaissance, but wasn’t it the Renaissance that brought back virtu, not virtue.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid) – Nietzsche
“G.P. Gooch claims that the supreme qualification for the ruler in the eyes of Machiavelli ….. is virtu, which means not virtue but virility, energy, force of character, remorseless vigor, the head to plan and the arm to strike.”
I hope this is not too much of a tangent
Kant is an excellent philosopher, and Transcendental Idealism should be seen as Traditional from a philosophical perspective in that it competes with materialism. This does not mean that Kant is perfect. The twelve categories of understanding are based upon the 12 logical judgments, so a Wittgensteinian critque would be that this is just a language game, which takes away from the universality of these categories for all rational beings, but does not take away from the core of Transcendental Idealism, which is that just as the sounds, colors, textures, odors, and flavors have a strong subjective element, the same exists for the ideas and the concepts that we use to understand reality.
So, the primary qualities of Locke which are the basis for a atomistic materialism become part of the mind’s activity, and just as subjective as his secondary qualities. Materialism then is seen as having problems.
Also, there tends to be a very good response to his antinomies from a Traditionalist perspective. The first two are seen as “asking the wrong questions”, thus questions about the infinity or finiteness about space and time, and whether there are smallest possible particles become incorrect knowing, and thus similar to a veil of Maya. The other two, which deal with causation and freedom, and whether there is, or is not a necessary being are both true from the natural and transcendental perspective.
So, there is freedom and determinism, but the freedom is transcendent and sets in a series of causes in this world. The article that Cologero has called Karma and Reincarnation by Evola actually is a great answer to this problem. There is also a necessary being, and only contingent beings. From the phenomenal perspective, it is all conditioned (paticca samupadda), whereas from the noumenal perspective it is unconditioned.
This line of think takes us heavily into Vedantic metaphysics, with the idea of what this noumenal unconditioned is.
Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, Anandam, Amalatava
So, given that there we are conditioned beings, that are not pure Being/ Truth (Satyam), that do not have pure knowing (Jnanam), that are not unlimited time, space, and causation (Anantam), that are not pure Bliss (Anandam), and that are not in a state unstained by karma (Amalatava), there is also an unconditioned state that is Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, Anandam, and Amalatava.
Heidegger does have some benefits as well in that he shows problems inherent in what he calls “metaphysics”, which I always thought should be called a “decontextualized metaphysics”. When I quoted from Evola the idea of a solar and lunar soul, you could have a “Platonic metaphysics” for both, but does that make them the same. I would say, no. The “existential” context is very important to understand Being. This is why I think just as Heidegger deconstructs other philosophers to show that his hermeneutic phenomenology is more primordial, I would like to show how an Indo-European Traditional outlook is more primordial to his.
I typed this quickly, so it might seem sloppy, but just ask questions if certain things might seem unclear.