'Veggenza' is one of those Italian words which are extremely
difficult to translate into English. Its synonyms in Italian are
(needless to
translate) : 'precognizione', 'preveggenza' / 'chiaroveggenza',
'premonizione', 'divinazione'.
In the Italian/French dictionnary 'Il Boch', one of the most renowned
Italian dictionnaries, 'veggenza' is translated by 'clairvoyance',
which, in English, means 'perceptiveness', 'clear-sightedness'. Yet,
the English 'clairvoyance' renders quite well the idea,
as 'esp', 'extrasensory perception', 'second sight'. Wouldn't you say?
In any case, whatever word is chosen to translate 'veggenza', it's
got to convey the idea of a special power hold by the rishis, and it
seems to us that that special power is often called 'clairvoyance'.
In any case, the translation of a text is the result of a long
maturation process.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok" <vandermok@l...>
wrote:
>
> Well, sometimes it's difficult to gain an insight into the Evola's
mind. I do not have got the German version, but the incriminated
Italian word is "veggenza"; Evola uses many archaic terms, also
Latinisms, hard to translate.
>
> I think the context shows that the meaning is simply 'being capable
to see deeply' or 'to look against the light'.
>
>
>
> Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@b...> wrote:
>
> An unfortunate misunderstanding has been propagated on the Internet
based on a misreading of a passage of "Heidnischer Imperialismus".
>
> On page 252 of the Mediterranee edition, we would like to translate
this passage as such:
>
> <<We, on the contrary, basing ourselves on a tradition much older
and more effective than that which the "faith" of Western man can lay
claim to, a tradition not proved by doctrines, but by deeds and works
of power and vision, they affirm instead the possibility and the
concrete reality of what we have called "Wisdom".>>
>
> This paragraph appears in the context of a discussion of the
difference between "knowledge" and "Wisdom" -- a distinction that is
absolutely foundational to any understanding of Guénon, Evola, or any
other traditional metaphysician.
>
> It is simply the claim that there is a higher faculty of the mind
("intuition") than mere reason, and that without this faculty,
metaphysical doctrines simply cannot be understood. The claim to a
special power of "seeing" is similarly the claim of the rishis
(literally "seers") who composed the Vedas.
>
> As such, this claim is hardly outrageous . to misunderstand it
would make the works of Guenon and Evola opaque; to reject it puts
one in the rather odd position of accepting their conclusions while
rejecting the path that led to them.
>
> What is more interesting is how, for Evola, this "seeing" took him
in a racial direction, whereas in Guenon's case, it seems not to have
done so.
>