Some people tend to assume that "fatti ed opere dipotenza e di
veggenza" don't exist and are mere 'fantasies', because those people
are devoid of any "potenza" and "veggenza". Once again, it seems that
even the mere intellectual understanding of Evola's work is largely
determined by the presence or not in the reader of a quality which is
not based on mere analytic intelligence and discursive reason.
Now, where exactly on earth did you read that first draft of the
translation of "Noi, per contro, fondandoci su una tradizione ben piů
antica ed effetiva di quella che non possa rivendicare la "fede"
dell'uomo occidentale, su una tradizione non testimoniata su
dottrine, ma per fatti ed opere di potenza e di veggenza, noi
affermiamo invece la possibilitŕ e la realtŕ effetiva di cio' che
abbiamo chiamato Sapienza", which "has been propagated on the
Internet, and which is "based on a misreading of a passage
of "Heidnischer Imperialismus""?
Where?
In that first draft, a part is missing, in the first sentence : "noi
affermiamo invece la possibilitŕ e la realtŕ effetiva di cio' che
abbiamo chiamato Sapienza", which would have been reinserted, if not
at the first stage, at least at the second stage of proof-reading.
This being said, 'noi affermiamo' means 'we affirm', 'we assert', and
not "they affirm" ('essi/esse affermano').
That misunderstanding is not based on a misreading : both
translations - yours and the one which has been "propagated on the
internet" -, convey the same meaning, that of the original, provided
that you correct "they" and replace it with 'we'.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "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.
>