Evola now asserts that the view of magical idealism reveals the cosmic value to human action. For the realist, everything already is, so that activity is little more than rearranging the furniture. Opposed to this view, action is heroic. The True Man creates being, where previously there had only been non-being or privation.

This perspective is difficult to grasp for anyone who hangs on to the tenets of realism, even if unconsciously. Evola is describing the True Will, the noumenal will, the unifying principle of the individual, transcendent to subtle and gross manifestation. The two views are antithetical.

Control

• The realist can only understand this view as the self-affirmation of the ego with all that implies as far as control and domination over others for merely profane ends.
• To the contrary, this is about control and domination over oneself to overcome one’s own insufficiencies.

Lack

• The realist experiences lack and tries to fill it from the things of the world.
• Lack represents insufficiency and privation, to be overcome by creative action.

Eros

• The realist takes as real the primal forces of eros and thumos and seeks to satisfy them from the things in the world.
• Eros and thumos are energies to be used to make my actions effective. As such, I control and dominate them to my own ends.

Fate

• By his involvement with the things of the world, the realist submits his will to the Destiny of the World Process.
• The True Will is Free and seeks to make itself manifest in the World Process.

This is how Evola expresses it:

Now only in a view like this does the act of the individual have a cosmic value, whereas in the view of realism every true meaning and purpose is removed from activity — this should be clear to everyone. In fact activity truly has meaning and value only where it exists to make something real, that is not yet such. This case is verified precisely where the “other” — or that which reflects the limit of my freedom — is understood not as a reality, but rather as a negation and a void: then the world appears as something incomplete, as something that demands its integration in that act of the individual, so that necessity is made freedom, to that development of self-assertion so that the potent actuality of the Unique one is laid out and re-asserted inasmuch as it is its privation.

If instead one posits that the “other” as such — that is, exactly as that principle which limits my freedom — is not a privation and a non-being, but rather a positivity and a reality — then everything is already perfect, everything is already “being”, and it is not necessary to do anything else. Every purpose and every value of activity and of becoming, every responsibility fails — since the voids of my being are not also voids of being in general: the “other”, with the reality attributed to it, fills them up. Instead, in the other case the whole world appears as a dark, painful claim to the “I” so that one gives these to oneself according to power and, in that way, enacts it into being, redeems it from privation, and makes it real. And the becoming — that which I make — now has a value, a cosmic value.