{"id":7048,"date":"2013-12-18T16:21:35","date_gmt":"2013-12-18T21:21:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gornahoor.net\/?p=7048"},"modified":"2021-12-18T07:58:46","modified_gmt":"2021-12-18T12:58:46","slug":"evola-on-emile-coue-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gornahoor.net\/?p=7048","title":{"rendered":"Emile Coue \u2014 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Section II, Julius Evola<\/strong> offers a critique of Emile Cou\u00e9<\/strong>‘s explanation for the successes of his method, and then provides his own explanation.<\/p>\n

Making the connection between the “deep conviction of the subconscious” and “faith”, Evola then relates it to the “vexed question” of “grace”. In other words, why do some have faith and others do not? Or, in more practical terms, why are some healed by couism while most are not? However, Evola here is interested only in a psychological explanation, not a metaphysical one. So “grace” means only that its origin seems to come from outside rather than from one’s own powers. This is a different question from the metaphysical meaning of grace.<\/p>\n

First of all, while faith is the belief in something unseen, it is more than that since it reaches deeper that our everyday I that we consider to be conscious. This I, however, is engaged embroiled in dualisms: subject-object, true-false, right-wrong. The deeper I, on the other hand, is non-dual: it simply is and it wills one thing. There is a certain seemingly “heroic” attitude that sees doubt as concomitant with faith. But that is to remain perpetually at the level of that “I of awakening” while never penetrating to depths.<\/p>\n

Rather, the proper development of faith is gnosis, i.e., the direct realization that has been mentioned several times in Evola’s essay. In this regard, Valentin Tomberg is a more reliable guide as we have shown in The Elements of Sacred Magic<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To his credit, Evola does not deny the numerous preternatural and miraculous accounts of the saints, and, growing up in Italy, he would have heard of many. Therefore, he rejects a glib positivism that rejects miracles out of hand. In contrast, he develops a “metaphysical positivism” that would account for the reality described in those stories. Nevertheless, in the final analysis even metaphysical positivism leaves out something essential.<\/p>\n

He rightly rejects the claim that the method of couism is sufficient in itself, apart from the person of the patient. Otherwise, if the method worked indifferently, there would be couism centers in every city instead of hospitals. At some point, it is up to the patient to develop faith or the image of his healing. Every suggestion, to be effective, eventually becomes an auto-suggestion. Not only the belief in couism, but also the belief in any ceremonial, ritualistic, sacramental, or symbolic forms have no power in themselves other than to motivate faith in those who need it.<\/p>\n

Some, however, do not require any such aids. This would mean, fundamentally, that a man can do without a Tradition. Such a man, however, would not know what to have faith in, and hence would not find gnosis. Typically, he would actually be a secularist. The symbols cannot be discarded so readily. Yet, any psychological explanation can never be complete as long as something supernatural or transcendent remains unaccounted for (which it must, in psychology).<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Evola’s emphasis that a personal realization is somehow always involved and that repetition for its own sake is useless is sound. Yet, there is one miracle that Evola’s purely psychological explanation does not capture. That is Peter’s raising Tabitha from the dead and the dead, presumably, are immune to a hetero- or auto- suggestion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u21d0 Part 2<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Part 4 \u21d2<\/a><\/p>\n

Section II<\/h2>\n

The great problem that comes into play in couism is that of the construction of faith. In fact, it becomes clear to everyone that that deep conviction of the subconscious that Cou\u00e9 speaks of is nothing other than faith. Fundamentally, it comes back to the vexed theological question of grace. The principle that faith, once reached, is an irresistible power, which immediately realizes what it believes is true, has been known from the most remote times and, at least in a certain measure, has since been scientifically sanctioned by modern psychology. And the significance of faith is not only subjective, it is also objective. The accounts of the miraculous phenomena that envelopes the figures of saints and creators of religion \u2014 so lightly discarded by so-called positivism \u2014 in reality take inspiration from faith. Of the similar phenomena of yoga and magic, the principle, in the final analysis, is faith or, if one prefers, autosuggestion. Explanation:<\/p>\n