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
>