Hello,
I'm not able to read Italian, but explicitly talked about the
available English translations to make it clear that I based myself on
these.
Still it must be said that I wrongly assumed that there could be such
an hierarchy as the one I wrote down in my previous message in which
the expression 'organic' would have it's place, as I based myself too
much on vaguely remembered passages of Evola's writings.
Re-reading 'Ride The Tiger' I had to conclude that it was a passage
wherein Evola quotes Nietzsche, that dealt with the particular
subject. As far as I know Evola himself thus never used the expression
'inorganic' in this particular writing. He still agreed here with
Nietzsche:
"This is the sense in which nature can speak to us of transcendence.
Our attention automatically shifts from some principial aspects of
nature to others that are more propitious for opening us up to the
nonhuman and nonindividual. Nietzsche also spoke of the 'superiority'
of the inorganic world, calling it 'spirituality without
individuality'. For a 'supreme clarification of existence' he refers
as an analogy to the 'pure atmosphere of the Alps and ice fields,
where there are no more clouds or veils, where the elementary
qualities of thing are revealed naked and uncompromising but with
absolute intelligibility' and one hears 'the immense, ciphered
language of existence,' 'the doctrine of becoming made stone'."
Ch. 18 - The "Animal Ideal" - The Sentiment of Nature.
In common language 'inorganic' and 'anorganic' indeed have pretty much
the same meaning, it is only Nietzsche here that is giving it a
transcendental meaning, probably defining here the word 'organic' as
the mere physical/natural in contrast with Evola.
Sincerely,
GERKE
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
>
>
> Since you say that "In the available English translations of Evola's
> work, his use of the word 'inorganic' and related expressions comes
> less to the foreground", we assume that you can read Italian and you
> have compared these translations with the original texts. We haven't
> really noticed such a discrepancy (the Italian for 'organic' is
> 'organico', it is thus very easy to translate it into English words) .
> Could you please give examples?
>
> Based on Evola's writing the following hierarchy can indeed be made :
>
> I. The Supra-rational
> II. The Rational
> III. The Irrational
>
> Does the following hierarchy correspond to Evola's view?
>
> I. The Inorganic
> II. The Organic
> III. The Anorganic
>
> The rational belongs to the organic but the organic is not limited to
> the rational. Because of the usual meaning of the prefixes 'in' and
> 'a', the inorganic seems to correspond to the 'irrational and the
> anorganic to the supra-rational. In any case, there is what is beyond
> form ; what is form ; and what is below form.
>
> If our memory serves us right, the adjective 'anorganico' is not found
> in Evola's work.
>
>
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "lordofthespear"
> <hailtocryptogram@> wrote:
> >
> > Evola uses various expression to describe certain layers of reality.
> > His view on rationality are enlightening and correspond more to
> > reality than Nietzsche's "irrationalism".
> > Based on Evola's writing the following hierarchy can be made:
> >
> > I. The Supra-rational
> > II. The Rational
> > III. The Irrational
> >
> > In the available English translations of Evola's work, his use of the
> > word 'inorganic' and related expressions comes less to the foreground.
> > Does the following hierarchy correspond to Evola's view?
> >
> > I. The Inorganic
> > II. The Organic
> > III. The Anorganic
> >
> > Cordial greetings,
> >
> > GERKE
> >
>