The Truth is too high to receive the least insult.
It is unfortunate that we don’t have Evola’s letter to Guenon, although we can surmise what it contained. We see in this dialog, that Guenon is always the master. We have to agree with Guenon that Evola misunderstands certain principles that discolor his work in unfortunate ways. As for the inability to clearly distinguish the esoteric, or metaphysical/initiatic aspects from the religious/exoteric, Evola has created confusion in those whose understanding of Tradition is limited to Evola. It is not a matter of choosing or preferring one exoteric form over another. Hence, there are the mindless debates of paganism vs Christianity that are pervasive in counter-Traditional circles; the very fact of debating is itself an indication of the counter-Tradition.
It also makes Evola’s understanding of the Middle Ages quite confused, since he admires that period as Traditional, yet fails to adequately grasp its spiritual foundation. Yet Evola makes it very clear that what is required is an inner transformation, so this corrective would not radically alter his overall project.
Evola apparently wasn’t clear about the distinction between mysticism and the ascetic or initiatic path, although he referred often to it. For Guenon, they belong to different spheres, so there is no point in criticizing mysticism, if that path is proper for a given person. This is also related to the distinction between salvation, which is meant for the many, and liberation which is restricted to the few. Again, there is no value in disputing this question.
In practice, Evola’s choice seems to lead to a dead end, viz. to “ride the tiger”. Yet that is not at all the goal of an ascetic, heroic, or initiatic path. Rather, it seems to me, a man should devote his efforts toward Liberation, the Supreme Identity, that is, an overcoming of the modern world, rather than an uneasy accommodation to it. The rest of the letter speaks for itself, although I do not know who “P. A.” is.
Added 22 July MMXX
(1) Re Guenon’s aphorism: in the Act of Contrition, the fear of hell or the desire for Heaven are considered imperfect motives. Make of that what you will.
(2) Re RTT: The comments were harsh on this point. The question is does it proceed beyond individual possibilities or not.
23 February 1934
Cairo, Egypt
Forgive me once again for being so late in responding to your letter that I received with pleasure after such a long silence. But I have suffered from an acute eyesight weakness, and your letter reached me exactly at the moment when I was able to read it only after a very long time. The quantity of things of every type that had accumulated while I found myself in that impossible situation of working is such that, ever since, I have not yet succeeded in freeing myself from it and to regain that lost time.
I thank you for all your appreciations in regard to my works; and I think that in effect we can find ourselves in agreement, at least, on what concerns the conditions of the current world and the necessity of a return to the tradition and spirituality, if indeed it is still possible for the West, at the point in which things have currently reached.
As far as living far from Europe, I cannot perhaps precisely take into account certain tendencies; I must confess that I do not excessively trust in a “renewal” that, as much as I know of it, remains up to this point very superficial and somewhat confused: above all, except for rare exceptions, it is about vague and poorly defined aspirations, and it is very difficult to say what will result from it. But what is certain, is that we notice in very general lines how the people are no longer so satisfied with their own modern “civilization”, and that some begin to doubt the “progressive” pretense: as far as that goes, it is insufficient, nevertheless it is already at least something …
Regarding the problems brought up in your letter, permit me to tell you with great frankness that these difficulties appear to me especially to derive from the fact that you do not make a very clear distinction between the religious point of view of the one hand, and the metaphysical or initiatic, on the other. Whatever their relationships might be in certain respects, it is never necessary to confuse or mix them, since they refer to totally different domains, and they cannot consequently interfere with each other. The domain that defines religious truth belongs to what Hindu doctrine calls “non-supreme” knowledge; it is sufficient to put everything in its place and in its order because there is no conflict possible. Above all, it is necessary not to forget that mysticism belongs totally to the religious ambit; any comparison is therefore not possible between mysticism and metaphysics.
The two ways, without considering the very relevant differences of their modalities, are not, in reality, absolutely marked out to reach the same goal; and the “mystical union” is not the jivan mukta, no more than “salvation” is “Liberation”.
Everything that is religious, including mysticism, concerns individual possibilities, in the indefinite extension of which they are susceptible and does not go beyond them; on the other hand that is its reason for being. On the contrary, the reason for metaphysical realization is to proceed beyond [individual possibilities]; and this is why the one can serve as the base of the other. Nor was it the case for Christian esoterism of the Middle Ages, as it was always for Islamic esoterism; and, in this regard, I cited this aphorism that seems to me to be perfectly adapted to the argument: “As long as a man desires Paradise or has fear of Hell, he will not be able to aspire to the least grade of initiation”.
I must moreover bring to your attention the fact that the religious point of view is necessarily tied to certain historical contingencies, while the metaphysical point of view refers exclusively to the order of principles. To speak of “multiple avatars”, is to stick to the domain of appearances; nevertheless, in absolute reality, they are “the same thing”; the Christ principle is not multiple, whatever it can be made of its terrestrial manifestations or other types. The “Mediator”, according to all traditions, is the “Universal Man”, which is also the Christ; whatever the name by which he is called changes nothing, and I do not see what difficulty there can be in regard to this.
The “ascetic” way would be, in its type, more comparable to the initiatic way of what is not mysticism, if only in that it implies a method and a positive effort. Mysticism, for its part, is instead totally the opposite because of it passive character. The ascetic way can therefore be a preparation for a realization of another order, much more that the mystical way, which would even seem even incompatible with that goal.
But I do not think on the other hand that we can assert that some of what passes beyond elementary religion is open to all; asceticism belongs only to some, and mysticism to some other. As to what is beyond the religious domain, it is obvious that it concerns a much more restricted number of persons. Whoever finds his fulfillment at a certain level would make a very great error to try to pass beyond it. That concerns the question of a necessary hierarchy, against which all sophisms of democratic egalitarianism are impotent, though many of Catholics themselves today unfortunately are affected by it: and there are perhaps still a few of them who even suspect it.
In regard to your objection inherent to the domain of pure intellectuality, is it quite certain that it is even what it has as a goal? In that case it is still necessary to make an essential distinction: the texts that you cite are revolts against profane knowledge, not against sacred knowledge; and we absolutely do not confuse what is simply rational with what is purely intellectual. When I speak of profane knowledge, I understand by it, naturally, everything that is philosophy; the less the spirit is blocked from all those things, the better, certainly, and from the initiatic point of view even more than the religious. It would be necessary perhaps to include also a good part of theology, insofar as it contains many useless subtleties and is of a still quasi-philosophical nature. In any case, everything that is discussion and controversy is of a purely profane spirit. That said, it is necessary to add that pure intellectuality eludes on the other hand the religious domain; this is another thing and it stands to reason that sentiment and action have their part in it. Yet again, it is necessary to put all things in the place that belongs to them, without allowing them any influence over a domain that is not their own.
Finally, pure intellectuality is in the same way indifferent in regards both to pride and humility, two opposed notions that are of a sentimental order in the same manner; those who pretend the contrary show clearly in that case that they do not have the least idea of what is truly intellectuality.
I see that you consider as valuable the incomprehension of P. A.; it would be somewhat difficult to find a more limited spirit than his. Moreover, what a fine way of defending Christianity by continuing to deny that its doctrine reaffirms a higher meaning, instead of the nonsense of moral and social character that one admits to often see in it! I don’t see in what a similar vulgarity would presuppose the intervention of a superhuman principle; fortunately, I have for my part a better idea of Christianity than his.
It is sad to see how persons of this type look to diminish all that is higher than them … The Truth is too high to receive the least insult.
I am an impartial student of Traditionalism and so as such do not pick sides, but I must say that this letter is very informative and I thank Cologero for translating it.
All in all, I find Guenon’s critiques of Evola to ring true. Evola, genius that he was, nonetheless seems to have not fully had the distance, uncaring, and clarity of thought that is necessary in a well bred man. He became too passionate about certain issues that he later had to back away from, his embrace of Fascism and National Socialism being one of them. Guenon’s skepticism and keeping a distance from the politics of his time was certainly correct, given the end result of WW2.
I also think that Evola overall suffered from an unhealthy worship of Germany and anything German, Guenon pointed out once that Evola was under too much influence of German vitalism which caused him to distort eastern doctrines. I think that his anti-Christianity is a result of his residual Nietzscheanism. It would be interesting to read if Guenon ever engaged with Nietzsche’s philosophy in his writings.
Yes, jokes and disagreements aside, thanks to Cologero for translating these very informative texts.
zero,
The absurdity and silliness of the sheer spectacle that was Britian’s Olympic opening ceremony serves as a fairly stark contrast to the one that China had and surely to the one that Russia will hold when their turn comes.
Speaking of riding the tiger wasn’t it wonderful to witness a member of the highest and royal caste, Her Majesty Imperial Queen Elizabeth, seizing life by the horns and paragliding for the great flame of the olympic spirit.
Yes, notwithstanding our criticism, amerika still has a place in our bookmarks. Though if you wanted to be really patriotic, and possibly risk deportation from your present residence, you could have recommended that they read (about) René Gagnon instead!
It is well that you have begun to study the oeuvre of the distinguished M. Guénon in depth. May the words he has set down profit you. So too those of the upstanding Baron. Godspeed then, in both your physical and spiritual peregrination.
With regard to your apologia, permit us to judge it as most understandable. In the eleventh hour of this quantitative dominion, who in our midst has not stumbled at least twice?
All praise therefore to the Almighty, the Merciful, the One.
I am pleased, though, that you are reading through my back catalog so thoroughly, so in response I’ve improved upon the nonexistent biography on my blog.
http://avery.morrow.name/blog/about/
I understand Amerika.org for what it is: a place for the New Right generally (a term that includes newborn Nietzscheans) to post unfiltered thoughts not meant for publication in more serious places. Certainly Brett Stevens writes a new post every day just so that he can get his thoughts down on paper, not because the blog is his life’s work, or at least hopefully not. My first post there was about current events– Occupy Wall Street– and was written when I was starting to really understand Spengler, and before I had discovered Evola (hence the “atheist traditionalists” comment). Now that I’ve gotten into Guenon and I am starting to understand what is really meant by Tradition, I read Amerika.org only rarely, and write more rarely, such as my recent post asking folks to read Guenon for themselves.
A small correction, lest we besmirch our reputation for hermeneutics:
We should say some, not all, of Mr Morrow’s writings stick out like sore thumbs at that blog; others are tailored to fit right in.
Apropos, we cannot resist quoting a snippet that will hopefully shame him into rectifying his misunderstandings (or his sloppy expression, if that be the case). Under a particularly ill-named article, he comments “The audience of this post [includes] atheist traditionalists.”
Surely we can be excused for believing that beings as contradictory as “atheist traditionalists” would implode faster than a Higgs Boson were they ever to materialize! What sense can there be in writing articles for them?
Yes, you are precisely an example of one ‘riding the tiger’ Cologero; what you describe in your attempt to distinguish Gornahoor’s offerings actually confirms their correspondence! To suggest that Gornahoor goes further, in enabling a complete abandonment of the modern world, only applies to the intellectual level, but the same can be said for RTT. If, however, you secure a château in the Tuscan mountains and invite us new men to totally, physically abandon the modern world, we shall willingly pack our bags and sing your praise to the heavens on the way there, even if this aspect of things is only of secondary importance.
Also, allow us to suggest that you should not be annoyed by the trifling dissent expressed in comments; know that we appreciate your work, and respect Gornahoor as a forum where we can exchange with like-minded fellows. To see you attempt to curtail discussion and scatter those present instils us with trepidation at the possible silencing or dispersion of good men who congregate here, which has happened in the past.
Mihai, since you mention amerika.org inter alia, we can only agree with you. Much writing there exhibits a certain typical (modern) Anglo-Saxon trait, namely a kind of ‘robotic’, systematic fixity that tends to ossify whatever it touches, and is trapped at the psychological level. It is singularly odd that Avery, apparently an American gentleman living amongst the Nipponese, submits his writings for publication there; they stick out like sore thumbs, and his personal situation is only mentioned because it could be taken to conflict with certain perspectives espoused by amerika. The same can be said, with respect to another blog, of one among a certain group of ‘traditionalists’ presently living amongst the Hindus. Perhaps they are simply ‘riding the tiger’, acting in ways appropriate to the realization of their particular projects or just doing as they please as an end in itself.
The fact that you own a website and engage in debates on it and that you also live in Italy, a very (post)modern country, makes me think that you are not very different from the rest of us. You have not been able, until now, to leave this situation (materially), but are trying to do so on a higher level, which corresponds exactly to the concept of riding the tiger.
PS: ridingthetiger.org is a very sorry example of how profound thinkers such as Evola and Guenon can be hijacked to serve views that aren’t very distinguishable from contemporary neo-nazism. It is clear that the authors of that site don’t have the slightest idea of what Tradition and traditional mean and are only employing such terms for their own (short-sighted) political beliefs.
Another such example is amerika.org, as well, I imagine, every “new-right” blog out there.
This is getting quite tedious. Tradition has no place for those with a partisan mentality. Since intelligent men don’t seem to be able to come to terms with some simple concepts, I have to berate myself for my poor rhetorical skills.
Ride the Tiger is intended for those “who cannot or do not wish to abandon the contemporary world”.
This is beyond dispute as it is a direct quote. So RTT is quite appropriate for those types of men.
Yet, there are, by implication, other men who both are able and willing to abandon the contemporary world. This is equally a sophisticated thesis; furthermore, much of what Evola says can be adopted and used by such men. Do you commentators seriously believe we provide so much Evola material simply to defame him?
So far, there is nothing disputable and this should be comprehensible to anyone sophisticated enough to read Gornahoor. If a reader is among those for whom RTT is intended, read Gornahoor for the material it provides you and move on.
But as for the rest, who understand that “sophisticated” thesis in its depth, the time has come for a new type of man, a man with the power to abandon the contemporary world, a man who is no longer emotionally attached to the values, art, and arrangements of that world. As they say, the devil is in the details. Guenon points out that the path of liberation requires well-defined and precise steps; the new men can no longer be satisfied with emotional, or bhaktic, appeals to transcendence and liberation.
Rather, these must be understood in an exact way, and this understanding results from self-understanding, not from reading books or hero worship. The spiritual warrior must understand in detail the forces arrayed against him, he must know his strengths and vulnerabilities, he must develop his virtues, he must be indifferent, even cold, to the emotional tugs of the world, his intelligence must dominate his life, and so on. This are not vague generalities, but rather specific tasks that must be accomplished by each man in his own way.
You understand this message or you do not. You resent it or you accept it. You are offended by it or you are motivated by it. It makes no difference to me, but it should to you.
We have noticed before, and must agree with others here, that Cologero has too readily dismissed the sophisticated thesis in RTT; we stand beside BigLegs and Mihai in defence of what is, for us, a very valuable and still valid exposition of strategic renunciation.
As for ridingthetiger.org, its almost exclusive focus on political banalities, despite a whole section describing apoliteia in the actual book, is curious to say the least. We feel that a comment by ‘mastoidpelican’ under Evola’s interview video on Youtb is apt, and reproduce it here:
“This outer, ‘stylistic’ misunderstanding of what Evola tries to evoke by terms such as ‘aristocratic’, as if it simply were a question of some kind of aesthetic, seems to be very common among certain people, perhaps inevitably so for those approaching him from a worldly,? political perspective.”
What a cheat you are, originally your comment only said “Good points all around, Mr. Big Legs.”; but apparently your gnomes made you return to edit it.
Thank you, and thank you for proving this translation to begin with.
I would like to mention another point, not directed at anyone in particular: It is not necessary to destroy the Mundane or Modern World; it is not necessary to ban its music, its movies, its activities (so far as they don’t ruin Earth). What suffices would be to sub-ordinate it.
Consider this:
Why did the old Romans not ban foreign cults?
Why did the Romans have superior material technology and tactics?
Good points all around, Mr. Big Legs. I remember the good old days when you used to flatter us.
You address those who “cannot” abandon the world, although to say that means they cannot abandon the world “materially” is trivially true, short of suicide. That seems hardly worth saying.
But what about those who “do not wish to abandon” the world? Does not leave open the question of those who do indeed wish to abandon it?
It is indeed possible to “enjoy” the material world; but the real issue concerns the desire to enjoy it. A man must become indifferent to enjoying it or not, lest he permanently delude himself.
You are welcome to pursue the path you have chosen, Mr. Big Legs, so Gornahoor may not be the right vehicle for you. There is really no point to continue this conversation.
There’s nothing that made it so appear that I would have forgotten this sentence. This is not personal, except to the degree that you attack other personas. You are a poor rhetorician, it doesn’t suit you tryin to be a smartass, you are bad at it, so it would be best for you to give it up. Speaking of absurdity. Previously you wrote posts in which you attempted to shame Evola for him not recommending family life. Now you try to shame him for the opposite! Do we need to cite your previous writings?
You confuse two categories. What Evola means is: Riding the Tiger is for those who cannot abandon the world MATERIALLY but are prepared to abandon it, or rather overcome it, SPIRITUALLY by using it against itself (MATERIA VERSUS MATERIA). As I said, one can be in, and enjoy, the world MATERIALLY, while not being of it MATERIALLY.
How is this possible?:
{To sum up, the man for whom the new freedom does not spell ruin, whether because, given his special structure, he already has a firm base in himself, or because he is in the process of conquering it through an existential rupture of levels that reestablishes contact with the higher dimension of “being” – this man will possess a vision of reality stripped of the human and moral element, free from the projections of subjectivity and from conceptual, finalistic, and theistic superstructures. This reduction to pure reality of the general view of the world and of existence will be described in what follows. Its counterpart is the return of the person himself to pure being: the freedom of pure existence in the outside world is confirmed in the naked assumption of his own nature, from which he draws his own rule. This rule is a law to him to the degree that he does not start from a state of unity, and to the degree that secondary, divergent tendencies coexist and external factors try to influence him.}
Precisely, Mr. Big Legs, men have different capacities and possibilities.
As you pointed out initially, but then apparently forgot, riding the tiger is for those who “who cannot or do not wish to abandon the contemporary world”.
We write for those who are both able and willing to abandon the contemporary world. Nothing personal, so please don’t try to make it so.
Nice try, Old C; but Evola always considers different beings with different natures and situations (suum cuique pulchrum est), so he wrote this particular book for such particular people with such particular natures, and other particular books or other particular people in their particular situations. You previously tried to make it look like Evola meant by Riding the Tiger that one should abandon everything around one, and now you try to make it look like he meant one should be attached to everything around one. Come on; mostly yourself would benefit from you exorcizing the gnome inside that makes you spew out such ersatz rhetoric.
Anyone however who has a soul fit for understanding Baron E. will see that he means by this concept that one can be in, and enjoy, the world, while not being of it (cf. Yoga of Power).
{…ours is often described as a time of crisis and decline; yet few attempt to define just what it is that is affected by this crisis and decline. Is it the world of Tradition? Certainly not. Rather, it is the world of the bourgeoisie, which represents the antithesis of the world of Tradition. Hence, the contemporary crisis might be described, in Hegelian terms, as a ‘negation of negation’: as a phenomenon, that is, not of an exclusively negative nature.}
{this very process might be seen as putting to the test certain individuals whom it historically affects with its nihilism (the test of fire or emptiness, as it were): for nothingness and freedom can either be the cause of inner defeat, or provide the incentive for the manifestation of a hidden and superior dimension of being. In the latter case, new inner developments occur, such as the transcendence of both theism and atheism: for the individual comes to realize that the only god who ‘is dead’ is the humanized god of morality and devotion, and not the god of metaphysics and traditional inner doctrines.}
Good try, Mr. Big Legs, but Liberation is precisely for those “who can abandon the contemporary world.”
Transcendence, by definition, means to be above the forces of the world, whether destructive or positive. If you cannot abandon the world, you lack power. If you do not wish to abandon the world, then you are still attached to it.
But as a preparatory stage, the neutralizing of negative forces, otherwise called drinking poison, handling snakes, or transmuting lead into gold, is certainly necessary. But it is likewise necessary to understand it is still far from the ultimate goal.
You are right Mihai. As with many concepts E. presents, Cologero miserably fails to understand the concept of Riding the Tiger (a term from Traditional Chinese lore). Cologero says Riding the Tiger is a dead end, opposed to Liberation, which is absurd since Riding the Tiger is about overcoming dead ends through Liberation. As Evola says it is for those “who cannot or do not wish to abandon the contemporary world, but are ready to face it and to experience it even in its most feverish aspects, all the while preserving a differentiated personality and avoiding any capitulation. It is precisely this approach which the expression ‘riding the tiger’ refers to: for the individuals in question are to take those forces that cannot be directly opposed upon themselves and neutralize them, along with those processes which have become unstoppable and irreversible. The forces and processes, therefore, which, for the overwhelming majority of our contemporaries, represent a cause of destruction, must firmly be allowed to act in such a way as to foster transcendence and liberation.”
As has been said before, this site is probably the greatest defamer of Evola in the West.
Perhaps here is another pretender, we haven’t had a look: http://www.ridingthetiger.org
I would never have thought of accusing you of anything like this, nor did I ever say anything that would hint such a thing, so I don’t know why you made this assumption.
As for the path, I think it is necessary to clear up what I mean by this. I am referring to an active participation to a traditional spiritual path. This is a personal quest and the answer to it certainly cannot be found on the internet.
I think the website provides a starting point in seeking and an orientation.
I have been revealing a path, Mihai. Do you think I do this for fun and profit?
“It has been 50 years since “ride the tiger” was published, so it is time to move beyond.”
For us, who live in the modern world, Ride.. is an important principle to understand and apply. It is about living in the modern world, participating in some of its activities because of necessity without letting this brake your will and right orientation.
This is most important from the spiritual point of view. Nowadays, all that is left to western man is a formalized and bureaucratic Christinity, almost entirely devoid of its deeper, intellectual elements. It is not easy to find one’s path under such conditions. So until the path reveals itself, one will have to keep one’s cool amidst the chaos and survive it without despairing. This is why I consider this to be Evola’s most important work.
Also, it is important to realize that Evola refined and deepened his views with the passage of time. However, he lacked a participation to a spiritual path, as far as I know he had no initiation, so it is obvious that he couldn’t penetrate into the deepest meanings of symbolism and Tradition as Guenon did.
That is the point, Mihai. If it is a necessary “step”, what, then, is the next step after it?
It has been 50 years since “ride the tiger” was published, so it is time to move beyond. Certainly, there should be agreement by now about what is the opposite of the “disordered, anti-spiritual world”, but, due to the great influence of pseudo-Traditionalists, that is not the case. Unfortunately, there is a rather vocal segment who know nothing of Tradition except what they find in Evola.
That is why this letter is important. It is the only time when Guenon provides a clear critique of what is lacking in Evola’s perspective. And Guenon’s points are necessary and fundamental. Properly understood, they make most of Evola’s points stronger, not weaker.
The task now is no longer just to criticize the modern world, but rather to describe what comes next in terms of order and spirit.
Cologero doesn’t know. Obviously it would have had to have been someone in the circles of both Guenon and Evola in 1934.
PS: Who is the P.A. that Guenon refers to in the last part of the letter ?
“In practice, Evola’s choice seems to lead to a dead end, viz. to “ride the tiger” ”
To ride the tiger doesn’t have to be an “uneasy accomodation to the modern world”. It is a necessary step to take in the disordered, anti-spiritual world of today, for the person who cannot yet escape it, until the conditions for an effective initiation can be reached. There are not really many options for the western man, so riding the tiger can also be seen as a challenge of worth, of patience, and of serious orientation.
“So long as a man desire Paradise or fear Hell, he cannot aspire to the least grade of initiation”
Cf. Evola’s statement that the aspirant must be able to sustain “severe blows upon one’s self, without being hurt thereby.”
P.S. Thanks for the articles and translations.