- Is religion genetic? or at the least survive as memes? Or is it
completely a matter of choice?
If from a long line of descendants of one religion, one of them
suddenly switches to another, can we say he still has the blood of the
former religion? In such cases, can religion act as hereditary markers?
Can religion transform us genetically in any way?
Thank you. - well, in amplification of the qualitative idea of 'cruor', which is a hereditary spiritual correlative of
the blood (i.e. a sort of astral fluid that is passed down with the blood plasm or genes) there is what
I would describe as a quantitative aspect to Guénonian metaphysics - namely, the 'degree of
materialisation' of the human species or its sub-species over time. If some sub-species ('races') have
progressed further in the direction of 'materialisation' than others, then this would be a result of the
degeneration of their spirituality, i.e., their 'religion'. How one would detect this increased
'materialisation' I don't know - there would be as it were less aura to their blood corpuscles, or
something.
___________________________________________________________
WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html - Politics can also be propagated by something approaching a religious fervour. Many people have compared Christianity and Marxism by examining key stages in their development that contain similar aspects:
Eden - Primitive Communism
Passion of Christ - Growth of Capitalism
Second Coming - Revolution
Heaven - Communist Utopia
Two more important factors come to mind:
a) Both follow the linear interpretation of history.
b) Both were founded by the same people.
kshonan88 <kshonan88@...> wrote:
Yahoo! Model Search - Could you be the next catwalk superstar? Check out the competition now
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail - In ancient Rome, 'religion' was indissociable from race : "This
religion could be propagated only by generation. The father, in
giving life to his son, gave him at the same time his creed, his
worship, the right to continue the sacred fire, to offer the funeral
meal, to pronounce the formula of prayers. Generation established a
mysterious bond between the infant, who was born to life, and all the
gods of the family. Indeed, these gods were his family - theoi
eggeneis ; they were of his blood - theoi sunaimoi" (Fustel de
Coulanges). This "domestic religion was transmitted only from male to
male". No one ever 'converted' to the Roman religion. No one would
have been allowed to do it. W don't think that we are going too far
in saying that it wouldn't even have occurred to anyone to 'convert'
to it, nor would it have occurred to any Roman to let anyone convert
to it. The same thing applied to any other 'religion' in the Nordic-
Aryan world.
Religion started to dissociate from race with the coming of
Christianity, for which, as is well-known, "Here there is no Greek or
Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or
free, but Christ is all, and is in all". From then on, any kind of
conversion became possible. In this respect, Christianity can be
considered both as a consequence and as a cause : as a consequence,
because, as is also well-known, most of those who converted to it in
the beginning were people without racial background, with neither
hearth nor home, namely the dregs of Roman society, for whom belief,
feelings, devotion took the upper hand on rites which they didn't
have and whose meaning and rôle they couldn't understand. As a cause,
because it contributed to the increasing spiritual uprooting of those
who converted to it.
Nowadays, religion is a matter of personal choice to a large extent,
in a sense that, if, at birth, one is assigned de facto the religion
of one's parents, one can change religion, at will, later. In the
modern world, there is even an increase in conversions, not only of
Westerners to Islam, Buddhism, and so on, but also, for instance,
(mass) conversions of Hindus to Buddhism, etc.
Basically, 'conversion' seems to be the key-word of today, both in
the religious field and at the stock-exchange. Not to mention re-
conversion, multi-conversion, and - let's put it this way - pluri-
conversion, of which Guénon showed us an example, by embracing Sufism
as he was still a Catholic, if it is true that, to be initiated to
Sufism, one needs to convert to Islam first ( we have asked various
people who are supposed to be qualified to confirm or to infirm it,
but we only got vague and inconclusive answers).
It doesn't mean that that personal choice is always dictated by
contingent and superficial reasons. After all, it may be that, by
converting, for instance, to Islam, the Westerners who do it only
yield to the call of their race of the soul and/or of their race of
the spirit, which, in their case, is of a Semitic nature.
Another clue is given by Evola in this respect in 'Presentation of
the Jewish problem', when he points out, with respect to the Jew,
that "the persistence of an idea, of an attitude, of a belief through
generations ends up finding expression in an instinct, in something
which penetrates into the blood, lives and acts in the blood, and, in
many cases, completely irrespective of everything that the
individual, as reflexive consciousness, thinks and believes he wants".
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "kshonan88" <kshonan88@y...>
wrote:>
the
> Is religion genetic? or at the least survive as memes? Or is it
> completely a matter of choice?
>
> If from a long line of descendants of one religion, one of them
> suddenly switches to another, can we say he still has the blood of
> former religion? In such cases, can religion act as hereditary
markers?
- yes, well on those terms, you have no argument against the jews, who have developed from whatever
heterogenous genetic basis an equally exclusive cult of heredity.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com - "It is in the nature of fire to burn, and yet no one sensible will
blame the fire for burning ; the fact remains nonetheless that those
who do not want to be burnt will take suitable measures and will
limit or paralyse the power which proceeds not so much from
the 'intention' of the fire as from its nature".
Julius Evola, 'Presentation of the Jewish Problem' (
http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id16.html )
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:>
who have developed from whatever
> yes, well on those terms, you have no argument against the jews,
> heterogenous genetic basis an equally exclusive cult of heredity.
new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all
- But again like so many of Evola's clichés this one sounds good but contains no actual data. It is the
nature of fire to burn, of water to moisten, etcetera, so what? Show us the factual difference between
the jew and the aryan, instead of playing with abstractions. In my view racial mysticism is a a dead end.
It is doubtless the case that for whatever reasons (about which the individual is free to form any
fantasy he wishes) the jews have become the masters of global speculative finance - so let's set our
political sights against speculative finance, instead of chasing racial moonbeams.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/ - Wasn't it you who, a few days ago, condescended to draw our attention
to the fact that "'Cruor' is by definition indemonstrable" and, not
content with this, spoke of "circular logic"? In fact, you are going
in circles, and, having sensed that your logic, which is not
necessary everyone's logic, nor, a fortiori, Logic with a capital L,
it's you who tries to evade the question by asking us to demonstrate
what cannot be demonstrated and what you know cannot be demonstrated
and what you ackowledged explicitly cannot be demonstrated, and, by
doing this, it's actually you who play with abstractions, all the
more as, unlike us, you never substantiate your personal views with
historical facts.
A mind possessed with the incubus of dialectics and the succubus of
logic may find truths such as "it is in the nature of fire to burn"
too simple. But that's the way it is, and there is nothing people can
do about it, whether people like it or not.
This forum was set up to discuss in a constructive manner the theory
of race put forward by Evola and which becomes more and more true as
years, as months, as days go by. If you think, or rather if you've
been led to think that that theory is mere 'fantasies', why on earth
do you waste your energy in making your point every two weeks or so
on this forum? Please let us know : we are deeply interested.
It's the third time that the following considerations are posted onto
this forum : "The reactions of this or that person towards the racist
idea are a sort of barometer which show us the 'quantity' of race
which is found in the person in question. The one who says yes to
racism is the one in whom race still lives : the one who has been
internally defeated by the anti-race and in whom the original forces
have been stifled by ethnic waste, by processes of cross-breeding and
degeneration, or by a bourgeois, weak, and intellectualistic style of
life which has lost for generations any contact with anything which
is really originary, opposes it and searches in all directions for
alibis in order to justify his aversion and discredit racism." They
shall be posted again each time we find it necessary, if you don't
mind.
Finally, this forum is especially designed for people who say yes to
racism, and not only intellectually. The rest is free to leave it.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:>
contains no actual data. It is the
> But again like so many of Evola's clichés this one sounds good but
> nature of fire to burn, of water to moisten, etcetera, so what?
Show us the factual difference between
> the jew and the aryan, instead of playing with abstractions. In my
view racial mysticism is a a dead end.
> It is doubtless the case that for whatever reasons (about which the
individual is free to form any
> fantasy he wishes) the jews have become the masters of global
speculative finance - so let's set our
> political sights against speculative finance, instead of chasing
racial moonbeams.
>
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars -
- Your reactions are exactly the same as those of the religious dogmatists I correspond with : we possess
the mystic flame, love us or leave us, and if you leave, be assured that you are spiritually inferior to
us and merit the contempt of all our disciples, who are at least on the way to joining the superior ones.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com - --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:
> I would describe as a quantitative aspect to Guénonian metaphysics -
namely, the 'degree of
> materialisation' of the human species or its sub-species over time.
If some sub-species ('races') have
> progressed further in the direction of 'materialisation' than others,
then this would be a result of the
> degeneration of their spirituality, i.e., their 'religion'.
But why does that have to be an inverse relation?
The Rig-Vedic belief was greater and stronger spirituality "showed"
itself in materialisation, proofs of strength, visible creations of
power...
Thanks and regards. - --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
<evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
> Another clue is given by Evola in this respect in 'Presentation of
through generations ends up finding expression in an instinct, in
> the Jewish problem', when he points out, with respect to the Jew,
> that "the persistence of an idea, of an attitude, of a belief
something> which penetrates into the blood, lives and acts in the blood, and,
in
> many cases, completely irrespective of everything that the
wants".
> individual, as reflexive consciousness, thinks and believes he
Thank you for all the excerpts and your views.
I recalled today, Nietzsche wrote something similar in Beyond Good
and Evil, 231 -
"But at the bottom of us, `right down deep', there is, to be sure,
something unteachable, a granite stratum of spiritual fate, of
predetermined decision and answer to predetermined selected
questions. In the case of every cardinal problem there speaks an
unchangeable `this is I'; about man and woman, for example, a thinker
cannot relearn but only learn fully - only discover all that is `firm
and settled' within him on this subject. One sometimes comes upon
certain solutions to problems which inspire strong belief in us;
perhaps one thenceforth calls them one's `convictions'. Later - one
sees them only as footsteps to self-knowledge, signposts to the
problem which we are - more correctly, to the great stupidity which
we are, to our spiritual fate, to the unteachable `right down
deep'. ..."
Regards. - --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Troy Southgate
<arktoslondon@y...> wrote:>
fervour. Many people have compared Christianity and Marxism by
> Politics can also be propagated by something approaching a religious
examining key stages in their development that contain similar aspects:>
Thank you, I get the drift.
> Eden - Primitive Communism
> Passion of Christ - Growth of Capitalism
> Second Coming - Revolution
> Heaven - Communist Utopia
A valuable line of thought I didn't think about. Religion "actuali-zes"
itself through us through politics.
Regards.
Yes, that's an interesting way of putting it. Incidentally, I first came across this comparison when I studied a Politics & Religion course under David McLellan, a leading expert on Karl Marx.>Religion "actuali-zes" itself through us through politics.
kshonan88 <kshonan88@...> wrote:- II am inclined to agree that religion and race would be associated on some level.Along similar lines, I have begun speculating that if the corruption of race begins in its spirit, then does this not also imply that that it begins in a dwindling of belief or religion? This of course then implies that any racial disagreements are also religious/cultural/spiritual ones.I don't see how associating religion and race nullifies any argument against the Jews - Judeo-Christian religions are totally alien to those traditions that follow an Aryan lineage - the Indo-European belief systems all have common factors which permits one to trace their mythological ancestry.
evola_as_he_is <evola_as_he_is@...> wrote: - I wonder if a lack of faith and the concomitant growth of materialism can also be attributed to a certain race?
And what about the Zoroastrian religion, which is based on Aryan scriptures but contains important dualist facets which essentially predate the three main monotheistic - and Semitic - religions of the modern world?
Savitar Devi <savitar_devi@...> wrote:
Win a Yahoo! Vespa NEW - Yahoo! Cars has 3 Vespa LX125s to be won Enter Now! - We grasp this opportunity you have given us to point at other
significant differences between pre-Christian cults of Aryan nature
and Christianity, already stressed by Evola, for isntance, in 'Revolt
against the Modern World' : love, which is one of the key notions of
the latter, was unknown to the former, which, as for it, was free
from mysticism. The Roman cult was devoid of dogmas - and the mistake
of the emperor Julian in his attempt to restore heathenism in Rome
was precisely to try to give dogmas to it, in imitation of that
Abrahamic religion.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:>
dogmatists I correspond with : we possess
> Your reactions are exactly the same as those of the religious
> the mystic flame, love us or leave us, and if you leave, be assured
that you are spiritually inferior to
> us and merit the contempt of all our disciples, who are at least on
the way to joining the superior ones.
>
new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all
- oh, come on, what is the idea of aryanism if not a dogma?
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com - Zoroastrian - I'm afraid you have found my academic Achille's Heel; I know sadly little of that religion I am afraid. Is Ahriman and Ahura Mazda part of that duality or have I got that confused with something else? Perhaps the duality could result from tales of the conflict between the Asura and Devas? Some texts report of 'fallen Aryans' who adopted the ways of their enemies so maybe the Zoroastrians have a 'steeping stone' role? I'm afraid I have more questions than answers there without examining it closer.The growth of materialism and lack of faith - yes, in that certain race there is still faith, but it is the wrong kind of faith, the kind that is based more on dogma and servility than on the genuine acquisition of knowledge and experience.
Troy Southgate <arktoslondon@...> 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.
- 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@...> 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 Guenons case, it seems not to have done so.
- 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 più
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 possibilità e la realtà 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 possibilità e la realtà 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:>
based on
> An unfortunate misunderstanding has been propagated on the Internet
> a misreading of a passage of "Heidnischer Imperialismus".
this
>
>
>
> On page 252 of the Mediterranee edition, we would like to translate
> passage as such:
and more
>
>
>
> <<We, on the contrary, basing ourselves on a tradition much older
> 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".>>
difference
>
>
>
> This paragraph appears in the context of a discussion of the
> between "knowledge" and "Wisdom" -- a distinction that is absolutely
traditional
> foundational to any understanding of Guénon, Evola, or any other
> metaphysician.
metaphysical
>
>
>
> It is simply the claim that there is a higher faculty of the mind
> ("intuition") than mere reason, and that without this faculty,
> 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.
would make
>
>
>
> As such, this claim is hardly outrageous to misunderstand it
> 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.
in a
>
>
>
> What is more interesting is how, for Evola, this "seeing" took him
> racial direction, whereas in Guenon's case, it seems not to have
done so.
- I agree that the translation could be less florid, Tony, but it is the underlying thoughts I question :
(1) the idea that there is a special spiritual heritage to aryanity
(2) the idea that we are the inheritors of this aryanity
-- both these ideas are subjective and arbitrary in my opinion.
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com - '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:>
mind. I do not have got the German version, but the incriminated
> Well, sometimes it's difficult to gain an insight into the Evola's
Italian word is "veggenza"; Evola uses many archaic terms, also
Latinisms, hard to translate.>
to see deeply' or 'to look against the light'.
> I think the context shows that the meaning is simply 'being capable
>
based on a misreading of a passage of "Heidnischer Imperialismus".
>
>
> Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@b...> wrote:
>
> An unfortunate misunderstanding has been propagated on the Internet
>
this passage as such:
> On page 252 of the Mediterranee edition, we would like to translate
>
and more effective than that which the "faith" of Western man can lay
> <<We, on the contrary, basing ourselves on a tradition much older
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".>>>
difference between "knowledge" and "Wisdom" -- a distinction that is
> This paragraph appears in the context of a discussion of the
absolutely foundational to any understanding of Guénon, Evola, or any
other traditional metaphysician.>
("intuition") than mere reason, and that without this faculty,
> It is simply the claim that there is a higher faculty of the mind
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.>
would make the works of Guenon and Evola opaque; to reject it puts
> As such, this claim is hardly outrageous . to misunderstand it
one in the rather odd position of accepting their conclusions while
rejecting the path that led to them.>
in a racial direction, whereas in Guenon's case, it seems not to have
> What is more interesting is how, for Evola, this "seeing" took him
done so. - re : "'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'."
-- 'clairvoyance' ONLY means 'extrasensory (visual) perception' in English. However, the supposed special
powers of the rishis are to me entirely mythical anyway, and the question of 'clairvoyance' is merely
symptomatic of Evola's specious supernaturalism.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com - In the most authoritative Italian dictionaries like the Zingarelli, the term 'veggenza' is in fact considered the archaic form of the modern 'chiaroveggenza', but curiously, in my English dictionaries, the word 'veggenza' is more willingly translated as 'prophecy'. A subtle difference of view, innit?<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:'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. - We could discourse for hours, for days, for months, on how to
translate accurately 'veggenza' into English, basing ourselves either
on "one of the most renowned Italian dictionaries" or on the "most
authoritative Italian dictionaries", whose authors have probably
never heard of the rishis.
Whatever word is chosen to translate 'veggenza', it's got to convey
the idea of a special power hold by the rishis. To convey this idea,
the English language has more than one word.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok" <vandermok@l...>
wrote:>
the term 'veggenza' is in fact considered the archaic form of the
> In the most authoritative Italian dictionaries like the Zingarelli,
modern 'chiaroveggenza', but curiously, in my English dictionaries,
the word 'veggenza' is more willingly translated as 'prophecy'. A
subtle difference of view, innit?>
renowned
>
> in evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> <evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
>
> '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
> Italian dictionnaries, 'veggenza' is translated by 'clairvoyance',
Yet,
> which, in English, means 'perceptiveness', 'clear-sightedness'.
> the English 'clairvoyance' renders quite well the idea,
say?
> as 'esp', 'extrasensory perception', 'second sight'. Wouldn't you
>
it
> 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
- Joseph Campbell and Hans Zimmer hypothesized that some contradictions of the Zoroastrianism show just the presence of a pre-Aryan matriarchal cult in Iran.You can find more in 'Corps spirituel et Terre céleste' by Henry Corbin, Buchet-Chastel, Paris 1979, knowing the perspective is the one of Eranos: Hillman, Neumann, Miller....this is Jewish made, oh sorry: Swiss made.<savitar_devi@...> wrote:Zoroastrian - I'm afraid you have found my academic Achille's Heel; I know sadly little of that religion I am afraid. Is Ahriman and Ahura Mazda part of that duality or have I got that confused with something else? Perhaps the duality could result from tales of the conflict between the Asura and Devas? Some texts report of 'fallen Aryans' who adopted the ways of their enemies so maybe the Zoroastrians have a 'steeping stone' role? I'm afraid I have more questions than answers there without examining it closer.The growth of materialism and lack of faith - yes, in that certain race there is still faith, but it is the wrong kind of faith, the kind that is based more on dogma and servility than on the genuine acquisition of knowledge and experience.
To try to put this to rest, Garzanti has this definition of “veggenza”:
1 (rar.) facoltà di vedere
2 (fig.) capacità di prevedere il futuro: la veggenza dei profeti.Unfortunately, in English, clairvoyance evokes images of gypsies and crystal balls, that is, it implies the “seeing” of contingent things, so we prefer the first (and primary) definition of the term.
Clearly, Evola, in the context of the quote, was not concerned with contingencies at all, but on the level of gnosis (or Sapienza) that transcends any such consideration.
Mr. Berkeley’s comments, both here and elsewhere, simply disqualify him from any intelligent discussion of this topic.
- You still haven't understood the spirit of this list.
The welcome message says : "Not a moment of our time will be wasted
upon the "demon of dialectics", rambling about questions which were
solved ages ago. For instance, we do not intend to waste time trying
to determine whether or not this or that ethnic, political, economic,
or social entity or force played a part in the movement of subversion
which led to the destruction of the traditional Western world. Our
aim will be, rather, to study the method by which this subversion was
conducted by this well-known entity, according to what strategies,
and by means of what tactics". In the same way, we do not intend to
waste time trying to determine whether or not Aryanity, whose
concept, by the way, didn't exist in ancient Rome, exists. Instead,
we work on the principle that Aryanity does exist, that there is a
special spiritual heritage to Aryanity, and, on that basis, we study
it, especially through the works of an author who was a living proof
of the reality of Aryanity. Call it a 'subjective idea' if that makes
you feel better.
Is it fu-lly understood?
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:>
the underlying thoughts I question :
> I agree that the translation could be less florid, Tony, but it is
>
new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> (1) the idea that there is a special spiritual heritage to aryanity
>
> (2) the idea that we are the inheritors of this aryanity
>
> -- both these ideas are subjective and arbitrary in my opinion.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all
I never even mentioned the existence of a “rough draft”, both because it seemed to me to be a private matter never intended for publication and also because it was accompanied by some unflattering remarks that revealed more about the character of the poster than of the target of the remarks. Besides, I did not want to encourage a private dispute that was made public under the pretext of a critique of Evola.
The draft was posted to the yahoo [evola] group, which I seldom read anymore. I stumbled upon the quote, because I was curious about the cause of the sudden drop in quality of some of the recent posts to this group. I did feel the need to correct such a shocking and fundamental misunderstanding of Evola – that is why I brought the issue up; the existence of a rough draft was only incidental.
My text has a typographical error – it reads “affermiano”, which could be taken either as “affermiamo” or “affermano”, depending on where the error lies.
So I quickly and mistakenly took it as “the fatti ed opera affirm [to us] …”. But if the correct text has “affermiamo”, that would make more sense. Thanks for noticing that.
(It does read “affermiamo” in the original Italian edition on page 115.)
Finally, I wasn’t accusing you of the misreading. The misreading clearly originated in the gentleman who instigated this exchange.
[Note that I referred to it as a “misreading”, not a “mistranslation” – the translation was clear to anyone who is actually familiar with Evola.]
-----Original Message-----
From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of evola_as_he_is
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:13 AM
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Heidnischer Imperialismus
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 più
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 possibilità e la realtà 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 possibilità e la realtà 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.
>
I believe, Tony, you did not intend to stir up a nest of hornets; anyway just a little addition.
The whole chapter has a series of plural verbs: affermiamo, sosteniamo, etc because Evola normally uses the "pluralis maiestatis" like Guénon, so doubts cannot exist.
We see the German version has "la fede dell'uomo occidentale" (the faith of the western man) instead of the Italian "l'eresia cristiana" (Christian heresy), an adaptation to the German mentality, while evidently the term "veggenza" did not require such a change, in spite of what Evola wrote on the northern race in 'Il Mito del sangue' (objective, realistic, cold, and so on). Then the word cannot have only an occultist connotation, but voices something more.
Sometimes also the best gentlemen can suffer of claustrophobia.
Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@...> wrote:I never even mentioned the existence of a rough draft, both because it seemed to me to be a private matter never intended for publication and also because it was accompanied by some unflattering remarks that revealed more about the character of the poster than of the target of the remarks. Besides, I did not want to encourage a private dispute that was made public under the pretext of a critique of Evola.
The draft was posted to the yahoo [evola] group, which I seldom read anymore. I stumbled upon the quote, because I was curious about the cause of the sudden drop in quality of some of the recent posts to this group. I did feel the need to correct such a shocking and fundamental misunderstanding of Evola that is why I brought the issue up; the existence of a rough draft was only incidental.
My text has a typographical error it reads affermiano, which could be taken either as affermiamo or affermano, depending on where the error lies.
So I quickly and mistakenly took it as the fatti ed opera affirm [to us] . But if the correct text has affermiamo, that would make more sense. Thanks for noticing that.
(It does read affermiamo in the original Italian edition on page 115.)
Finally, I wasnt accusing you of the misreading. The misreading clearly originated in the gentleman who instigated this exchange.
[Note that I referred to it as a misreading, not a mistranslation the translation was clear to anyone who is actually familiar with Evola.]
- J. Campbell, Philosophies of India (The Bollingen series, XXVI) New York 1951.Also H.S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des Alten Iran, Leipzig 1938.I have not them; I' m simply quoting the sources of Corbin.<savitar_devi@...> wrote:In which of Campbell and/or Zimmer's works can the information on pre-Aryan matriarchy be found?
- I'd be very interested to read more about this, too, if anyone else can provide quotations.
vandermok <vandermok@...> wrote:
Play Santa's Celebrity Xmas Party, an exclusive game from Yahoo! - It reads "affermiano", but we corrected spontaneously that
typographical mistake in our previous message. In Italian, personal
pronouns are not always necessary. Fortunately, here, "affermiano" is
preceded by its pronoun personal, that is "noi", so that there is no
ambiguity whatsoever as to the form of the verb.
Typographical mistakes are always possible, and, as a matter of fact,
happen, no matter how serious the publisher. Yet, there are limits to
the number of typographical mistakes which can be tolerated in a
book, limits which, when reached, not only give the impression that
the work of edition was dealt with in an offhand manner, but make
some passages obscure, not to say incomprehensible. The fourth
edition of 'Imperialismo pagano', which comprises 'Imperialismo
pagano' and its German version, 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', has
reached those limits, it has even gone far beyond them. In short, it
has beaten records in this respect : typographical mistakes,
misprints, missing words, duplicated paragraphs and sentences, and so
on. This is not so much a problem with 'Imperialismo pagano' , since
you can always check its previous editions. As far as 'Heidnischer
Imperialismus' is concerned, on the contrary, it is impossible,
unless you are lucky enough to come across a second-hand copy of the
first edition of that work, published by Centri Studi Tradizionali,
Trevise, in 1991, and which is currently out-of-print. Of course, the
original, 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', can still be checked, but
Evola made it clear that he was not satisfied with the work of the
German translator who would translate his works into German at that
time, namely Friedrich Bauer.
An Italian member of this forum, who never posts onto it, who has
been reading again and again Evola's works for 40 years, and
according to whom some passages were deliberately removed from some
of Evola's books, especially from his books on race, after his death,
would not hesitate to speak of 'sabotage' in this respect. What is
certain, for instance, is that the comments which Evola made on
Reghini in the second issue of Krur (February 1929) cannot be found
in the various Italian editions of the writings of the 'Ur and Krur'
group, nor can they be found in 'Introduction to Magic'. They shall
be posted onto this list in due time.
While we are at it, it should be stressed that Evola never forbid
expressly and legally the re-publication of 'Imperialismo pagano',
contrary to the assumptions made on the InterNet by some 'Mrs I-know-
everything' on the basis of partial information which they got from
an introduction written to 'Men among the Ruins' by the current
translator of Evola's work in German. The problem is far more complex
than assumed. The man who was in charge of Fondazione Evola for
years, Gianfranco de Turris, who, a few years after having upheld
that debatable thesis in 'Elogio e difesa di Julius Evola', accepted
to be the editor of the fourth edition of 'Imperialismo pagano', has
come to realise it.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Ciopa"
<hyperborean@b...> wrote:>
because it
> I never even mentioned the existence of a "rough draft", both
> seemed to me to be a private matter never intended for publication
and also
> because it was accompanied by some unflattering remarks that
revealed more
> about the character of the poster than of the target of the remarks.
made public
> Besides, I did not want to encourage a private dispute that was
> under the pretext of a critique of Evola.
cause of
>
>
>
> The draft was posted to the yahoo [evola] group, which I seldom read
> anymore. I stumbled upon the quote, because I was curious about the
> the sudden drop in quality of some of the recent posts to this
group. I did
> feel the need to correct such a shocking and fundamental
misunderstanding of
> Evola that is why I brought the issue up; the existence of a
rough draft
> was only incidental.
could be
>
>
>
> My text has a typographical error it reads "affermiano", which
> taken either as "affermiamo" or "affermano", depending on where the
error
> lies.
[to us]
>
> So I quickly and mistakenly took it as "the fatti ed opera affirm
> ". But if the correct text has "affermiamo", that would make more
sense.
> Thanks for noticing that.
115.)
>
> (It does read "affermiamo" in the original Italian edition on page
>
clearly
>
>
> Finally, I wasn't accusing you of the misreading. The misreading
> originated in the gentleman who instigated this exchange.
a "mistranslation" the
>
> [Note that I referred to it as a "misreading", not
> translation was clear to anyone who is actually familiar with
Evola.]
>
[mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> On Behalf Of evola_as_he_is
people
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:13 AM
> To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Heidnischer Imperialismus
>
>
>
>
> Some people tend to assume that "fatti ed opere dipotenza e di
> veggenza" don't exist and are mere 'fantasies', because those
> are devoid of any "potenza" and "veggenza". Once again, it seems
that
> even the mere intellectual understanding of Evola's work is largely
is
> determined by the presence or not in the reader of a quality which
> not based on mere analytic intelligence and discursive reason.
più
>
> Now, where exactly on earth did you read that first draft of the
> translation of "Noi, per contro, fondandoci su una tradizione ben
> antica ed effetiva di quella che non possa rivendicare la "fede"
sentence : "noi
> dell'uomo occidentale, su una tradizione non testimoniata su
> dottrine, ma per fatti ed opere di potenza e di veggenza, noi
> affermiamo invece la possibilità e la realtà 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
> affermiamo invece la possibilità e la realtà effetiva di cio' che
not
> abbiamo chiamato Sapienza", which would have been reinserted, if
> at the first stage, at least at the second stage of proof-reading.
and
> This being said, 'noi affermiamo' means 'we affirm', 'we assert',
> not "they affirm" ('essi/esse affermano').
provided
>
> 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,
> that you correct "they" and replace it with 'we'.
Internet
>
>
>
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Ciopa"
> <hyperborean@b...> wrote:
> >
> > An unfortunate misunderstanding has been propagated on the
> based on
translate
> > a misreading of a passage of "Heidnischer Imperialismus".
> >
> >
> >
> > On page 252 of the Mediterranee edition, we would like to
> this
claim
> > 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
> to, a
power
> > tradition not proved by doctrines, but by deeds and works of
> and
absolutely
> > 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
> > foundational to any understanding of Guénon, Evola, or any other
power
> 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
> of
the
> > "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
> rather
him
> > 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
> in a
subject=Unsubscribe>
> > racial direction, whereas in Guenon's case, it seems not to have
> done so.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "evola_as_he_is
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evola_as_he_is> " on the web.
>
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> evola_as_he_is-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:evola_as_he_is-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
To Whom It May Concern:
Southgate would like someone else to do the research for him, since he does not feel up to doing it himself.
He will then probably cross-post it to all his other lists under his own name.
-----Original Message-----
From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Troy Southgate
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:54 AM
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [evola_as_he_is] ReligionI'd be very interested to read more about this, too, if anyone else can provide quotations.
vandermok <vandermok@...> wrote:J. Campbell, Philosophies of India (The Bollingen series, XXVI) New York 1951.
Also H.S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des Alten Iran, Leipzig 1938.
I have not them; I' m simply quoting the sources of Corbin.
<savitar_devi@...> wrote:
In which of Campbell and/or Zimmer's works can the information on pre-Aryan matriarchy be found?
- To be more specific, both 'Imperialismo pagano' and 'Heidnischer
Imperialismus' have five chapters, of which four bear the same
title :
I. 'We, anti-Europeans'
II 'Conditions for Empire'
III. 'The democratic Mistake'
IV. 'The Roots of European Evil'
In 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', the fifth chapter of 'Imperialismo
pagano', 'Heathen values and Christian values', is called 'Our
European Symbol'. Beyond this, there are major differences between
both texts, and most readers agree that the German version is far
more accomplished than the Italian one.
Are you sure that 'H.I.' was designed to fit with the German
mentality? Rather, wasn't it designed to capture the mind of the best
elements in the German hierarchy of that time in the name of a
synthesis between the German eagle and the Roman eagle?
If 'veggenza', a word which Evola seldom used, doesn't only have
occultist connotations in that excerpt from 'H.I.', what kind of
other connotations does it have, then, according to you? Before
speculating and worrying about the connotation(s) of a word,
shouldn't we start with focusing on its denotation?
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok" <vandermok@l...>
wrote:>
anyway just a little addition.
> I believe, Tony, you did not intend to stir up a nest of hornets;
>
sosteniamo, etc. because Evola normally uses the "pluralis
>
>
> The whole chapter has a series of plural verbs: affermiamo,
maiestatis" like Guénon, so doubts cannot exist.>
faith of the western man) instead of the Italian "l'eresia cristiana"
> We see the German version has "la fede dell'uomo occidentale" (the
(Christian heresy), an adaptation to the German mentality, while
evidently the term "veggenza" did not require such a change, in spite
of what Evola wrote on the northern race in 'Il Mito del sangue'
(objective, realistic, cold, and so on). Then the word cannot have
only an occultist connotation, but voices something more.>
because it seemed to me to be a private matter never intended for
>
>
> Sometimes also the best gentlemen can suffer of claustrophobia.
>
>
>
> In <evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com>
> Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@b...> wrote:
> I never even mentioned the existence of a "rough draft", both
publication and also because it was accompanied by some unflattering
remarks that revealed more about the character of the poster than of
the target of the remarks. Besides, I did not want to encourage a
private dispute that was made public under the pretext of a critique
of Evola.>
read anymore. I stumbled upon the quote, because I was curious about
> The draft was posted to the yahoo [evola] group, which I seldom
the cause of the sudden drop in quality of some of the recent posts
to this group. I did feel the need to correct such a shocking and
fundamental misunderstanding of Evola - that is why I brought the
issue up; the existence of a rough draft was only incidental.>
could be taken either as "affermiamo" or "affermano", depending on
> My text has a typographical error - it reads "affermiano", which
where the error lies.>
[to us] .". But if the correct text has "affermiamo", that would make
> So I quickly and mistakenly took it as "the fatti ed opera affirm
more sense. Thanks for noticing that.>
115.)
> (It does read "affermiamo" in the original Italian edition on page
>
clearly originated in the gentleman who instigated this exchange.
> Finally, I wasn't accusing you of the misreading. The misreading
>
a "mistranslation" - the translation was clear to anyone who is
> [Note that I referred to it as a "misreading", not
actually familiar with Evola.] - Would it not be wise for the monitor of this group to
delete all the "ad hominems"?
--- Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@...> wrote:
> To Whom It May Concern:
__________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Southgate would like someone else to do the research
> for him, since he does
> not feel up to doing it himself.
>
> He will then probably cross-post it to all his other
> lists under his own
> name.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Troy Southgate
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:54 AM
> To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [evola_as_he_is] Religion
>
>
>
> I'd be very interested to read more about this, too,
> if anyone else can
> provide quotations.
>
>
>
> vandermok <vandermok@...> wrote:
>
> J. Campbell, Philosophies of India (The Bollingen
> series, XXVI) New York
> 1951.
>
> Also H.S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des Alten Iran,
> Leipzig 1938.
>
> I have not them; I' m simply quoting the sources of
> Corbin.
>
>
>
>
>
> In <evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com>
>
> <savitar_devi@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> In which of Campbell and/or Zimmer's works can the
> information on pre-Aryan
> matriarchy be found?
>
>
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com - We tolerate 'ad hominem' attacks to a certain extent, to the extent
that, as pointed out by Seneca, as well as by Evola in 'Sintesi di
dottrina della razza', only an individual who is weak inside can be
hurt by an 'ad hominem' attack : if someone is hurt by an 'ad
hominem' attack, he has to figure out what's wrong with himself, why
he got hurt, and then he has to cure himself. For more about this,
please see 'The Doctrine of Awakening', as well as some works of
Nietzsche.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, caleb afendopoulo
<afendopoulo@y...> wrote: - I' m sorry today you are all in a black mood, anyway, to me, it is better to express frankly and loyally our ideas rather than do it slipping away to another list or environment.Since as even Troy shows following wisely the Latin proverbs on the idleness (Otium utile est, referre se in otium, otium litteratum, et cetera...) please, do not force me to break my sacred idleness making a hard research on every time and context in which Evola used the word "veggenza". I simply assumed he did not intend that word like Rudolf Steiner or Papus, but from a point of view a bit wide. That's all.<evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:To be more specific, both 'Imperialismo pagano' and 'Heidnischer
Imperialismus' have five chapters, of which four bear the same
title :
I. 'We, anti-Europeans'
II 'Conditions for Empire'
III. 'The democratic Mistake'
IV. 'The Roots of European Evil'
In 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', the fifth chapter of 'Imperialismo
pagano', 'Heathen values and Christian values', is called 'Our
European Symbol'. Beyond this, there are major differences between
both texts, and most readers agree that the German version is far
more accomplished than the Italian one.
Are you sure that 'H.I.' was designed to fit with the German
mentality? Rather, wasn't it designed to capture the mind of the best
elements in the German hierarchy of that time in the name of a
synthesis between the German eagle and the Roman eagle?
If 'veggenza', a word which Evola seldom used, doesn't only have
occultist connotations in that excerpt from 'H.I.', what kind of
other connotations does it have, then, according to you? Before
speculating and worrying about the connotation(s) of a word,
shouldn't we start with focusing on its denotation? - thank you for your reply. it just seemed to us that
some of the replies bordered on childishness and/or
based upon previous personal encounters which we are
not familiar with.
otherwise your note is enlightening.
thanx.
--- evola_as_he_is <evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
>
__________________________________________
> We tolerate 'ad hominem' attacks to a certain
> extent, to the extent
> that, as pointed out by Seneca, as well as by Evola
> in 'Sintesi di
> dottrina della razza', only an individual who is
> weak inside can be
> hurt by an 'ad hominem' attack : if someone is hurt
> by an 'ad
> hominem' attack, he has to figure out what's wrong
> with himself, why
> he got hurt, and then he has to cure himself. For
> more about this,
> please see 'The Doctrine of Awakening', as well as
> some works of
> Nietzsche.
>
>
>
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, caleb
> afendopoulo
> <afendopoulo@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Would it not be wise for the monitor of this group
> to
> > delete all the "ad hominems"?
> > --- Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@b...> wrote:
> >
> > > To Whom It May Concern:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Southgate would like someone else to do the
> research
> > > for him, since he does
> > > not feel up to doing it himself.
> > >
> > > He will then probably cross-post it to all his
> other
> > > lists under his own
> > > name.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> > > On Behalf Of Troy Southgate
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:54 AM
> > > To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [evola_as_he_is] Religion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd be very interested to read more about this,
> too,
> > > if anyone else can
> > > provide quotations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > vandermok <vandermok@l...> wrote:
> > >
> > > J. Campbell, Philosophies of India (The
> Bollingen
> > > series, XXVI) New York
> > > 1951.
> > >
> > > Also H.S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des Alten
> Iran,
> > > Leipzig 1938.
> > >
> > > I have not them; I' m simply quoting the sources
> of
> > > Corbin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In <evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com>
> > >
> > > <savitar_devi@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In which of Campbell and/or Zimmer's works can
> the
> > > information on pre-Aryan
> > > matriarchy be found?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com - Instead of trying to evade them by referring, in the most detached
manner, to the current mood of the members of this forum, or rather
to what you assume their current mood may be, would you be kind
enough to answer the simple questions we asked and which your
convoluted message led us to ask : "if 'veggenza', a word which Evola
seldom used, doesn't have only occultist connotations in that excerpt
from 'H.I.', what kind of other connotations does it have, then,
according to you? Before speculating and worrying about the
connotation(s) of a word, shouldn't we start with focusing on its
denotation?"
Please note that we are not so much interested in finding out about
your current mood as we are in your answer to the first question and
your reaction to the second question.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok" <vandermok@l...>
wrote:>
better to express frankly and loyally our ideas rather than do it
> I' m sorry today you are all in a black mood, anyway, to me, it is
slipping away to another list or environment.>
idleness (Otium utile est, referre se in otium, otium litteratum, et
> Since as even Troy shows following wisely the Latin proverbs on the
cetera...) please, do not force me to break my sacred idleness making
a hard research on every time and context in which Evola used the
word "veggenza". I simply assumed he did not intend that word like
Rudolf Steiner or Papus, but from a point of view a bit wide. That's
all.>
best
>
> in evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> <evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
>
> To be more specific, both 'Imperialismo pagano' and 'Heidnischer
> Imperialismus' have five chapters, of which four bear the same
> title :
>
> I. 'We, anti-Europeans'
> II 'Conditions for Empire'
> III. 'The democratic Mistake'
> IV. 'The Roots of European Evil'
>
> In 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', the fifth chapter of 'Imperialismo
> pagano', 'Heathen values and Christian values', is called 'Our
> European Symbol'. Beyond this, there are major differences between
> both texts, and most readers agree that the German version is far
> more accomplished than the Italian one.
>
> Are you sure that 'H.I.' was designed to fit with the German
> mentality? Rather, wasn't it designed to capture the mind of the
- Some sort of detached metaphysical vision, not religious or mystic, without any identification with the object, a knowledge deprived of the pathos of the faith. As Evola said in that book: "better to know that we do not know than to believe".
- My own research speaks for itself:
http://www.rosenoire.org
(thanks for the chance to plug my website, Tony)
Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@...> wrote:
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail - Thanks again, Tone.
Tony Ciopa <hyperborean@...> wrote:
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail - <evola_as_he_is@...> wrote:
that, as pointed out by Seneca, as well as by Evola in 'Sintesi di dottrina della razza', only an individual who is weak inside can be hurt by an 'ad hominem' attack : if someone is hurt by an 'ad hominem' attack, he has to figure out what's wrong with himself, why he got hurt, and then he has to cure himself. For more about this, please see 'The Doctrine of Awakening', as well as some works of Nietzsche.> We tolerate 'ad hominem' attacks to a certain extent, to the extentI agree that ataraxia is the best thing, but perhaps a justified feeling of hurt can rise when an 'ad hominem' attack comes by treachery from a person before considered by our side or from which one could expect some gratitude.Let's consider what happened between Evola and Reghini. In reality, the first never loved the latter because of his Masonic esotericism, but he accepted him as contributor. When they quarrelled, Reghini tried to render ridiculous Evola publicizing a personal information he got by Sibilla Aleramo, who had an affair with J. E. It seems to me that Evola did not remain completely indifferent, even till to the point to deny a true thing (I'm referring to the teasing by Reghini on the signature 'Jules Evola' that in reality Evola really used for juvenile poems and in a post card to the publisher Gobetti of Turin). This shows that it is not always possible to treat as equal a disloyal personal attack even to the point to retort and use the same weapons of the betrayer person against himself.By the way, Evola, in that occasion, called Reghini "cervello di gallina" (brain of hen or fly), thing that recants the conviction of some old friend of mine (just for making a retort, because I'm a weak and evil person, as the owner knows) that Reghini had a lot of clout with Evola. - --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
<rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:>
The Roman:
> oh, come on, what is the idea of aryanism if not a dogma?
>
hostem cum fugeret, se Fannius ipse peremit.
hic, rogo, non furor est, ne moriare, mori?
"As he was fleeing the enemy, Fannius killed himself. I ask you! Is
this not madness - dying so as not to die?" (Epigrams of Martial,
2.80)
The Japanese:
"The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to
either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not
particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying
without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous
way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death,
it is not necessary to gain one's aim.
We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to
what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live
is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaming
one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in
this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting
one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as
though his body were already dead, he pains freedom in the Way. His
whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his
calling." (Hagakure)
The Indian:
"Know naught! Life cannot slay. Life is not slain. ...This Life
within all living things... hides beyond harm... do thy
part. ...Either being killed, thou wilt win Swarga's safety, or alive
and victor - thou wilt reign an earthly king. Therefore, arise,...
nerve thy heart to meet as things alike to thee - pleasure or pain,
profit or ruin, victory or defeat: gird thee to the fight, for so,
thou shalt not sin!" (Krishna; Bhagavad Gita, 2)
What is common to them?
Honour?
1) I am Aryan, so I should want this.
2) Because I wanted this, I am Aryan. (This includes - Because I
wanted to be Aryan, I am Aryan.)
Honour is in the honesty of never moulding your dreams to fit in with
the thought, to do this is Aryan, to do this is un-Aryan...
I am a Warrior, so I should fight - This WAS Arjuna's thinking before
Krishna appeared.
I fight, therefore I am called a Warrior... This IS Arjuna's thinking
after.
Be it even the highest ideal, I think real Honour is in pursuing with
honesty, after our own nature... after that, whatever we may become,
whether we fit into that ideal or not, it does not matter anymore. We
become who we are, what we are.
I don't think Aryanism, or even the idea of it, has ever been
dogmatic.
Regards. - As a matter of fact, in Sanskrit, 'jiv' means 'life, 'life-
force' ; 'ji', 'to struggle', 'to beat', 'to win', to 'conquer'.
Needless to elaborate.
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "kshonan88" <kshonan88@y...>
wrote:>
dying
> --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Rowan Berkeley"
> <rowan_berkeley@y...> wrote:
> >
> > oh, come on, what is the idea of aryanism if not a dogma?
> >
>
>
>
> The Roman:
>
>
>
> hostem cum fugeret, se Fannius ipse peremit.
> hic, rogo, non furor est, ne moriare, mori?
>
> "As he was fleeing the enemy, Fannius killed himself. I ask you! Is
> this not madness - dying so as not to die?" (Epigrams of Martial,
> 2.80)
>
>
>
> The Japanese:
>
> "The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to
> either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not
> particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that
> without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous
death,
> way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or
> it is not necessary to gain one's aim.
to
>
> We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according
> what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to
live
> is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaming
setting
> one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in
> this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by
> one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as
alive
> though his body were already dead, he pains freedom in the Way. His
> whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his
> calling." (Hagakure)
>
>
>
> The Indian:
>
> "Know naught! Life cannot slay. Life is not slain. ...This Life
> within all living things... hides beyond harm... do thy
> part. ...Either being killed, thou wilt win Swarga's safety, or
> and victor - thou wilt reign an earthly king. Therefore, arise,...
with
> nerve thy heart to meet as things alike to thee - pleasure or pain,
> profit or ruin, victory or defeat: gird thee to the fight, for so,
> thou shalt not sin!" (Krishna; Bhagavad Gita, 2)
>
>
>
> What is common to them?
>
>
> Honour?
>
>
>
> 1) I am Aryan, so I should want this.
>
> 2) Because I wanted this, I am Aryan. (This includes - Because I
> wanted to be Aryan, I am Aryan.)
>
>
> Honour is in the honesty of never moulding your dreams to fit in
> the thought, to do this is Aryan, to do this is un-Aryan...
before
>
>
>
> I am a Warrior, so I should fight - This WAS Arjuna's thinking
> Krishna appeared.
thinking
>
> I fight, therefore I am called a Warrior... This IS Arjuna's
> after.
with
>
>
>
> Be it even the highest ideal, I think real Honour is in pursuing
> honesty, after our own nature... after that, whatever we may
become,
> whether we fit into that ideal or not, it does not matter anymore.
We
- http://heidensimperialisme.wordpress.com/ is meant to feature the untranscribed parts of the German edition of Imperialismo Pagano.
Hopefully to be continued. - In the meantime a few more chapters have been added. (http://heidensimperialisme.wordpress.com/)
A table of contents will be added in order to provide the necessary clarity on the book's structure.
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
From: g.vdheide@...
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:28:06 +0200
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Heidnischer Imperialismus
http://heidensimperialisme.wordpress.com/ is meant to feature the untranscribed parts of the German edition of Imperialismo Pagano.
Hopefully to be continued. - Given its content it is hardly worth mentioning, but for the sake of completeness: a Dutch review of 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', published on July 29, 1934, can be found at http://nsalternatief.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/nieuwe-middeleeuwen-gevraagd/ or http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/braa002verz05_01/braa002verz05_01_0038.php
Authored by the liberal publicist and novelist M. ter Braak, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/76583/Menno-ter-Braak, http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?/en/collecties/ter_braak/biografie.
To summarize: the review compares the figure of J. Evola with that of Oswald Spengler. It argues that the main similarity between the two is their anti-modern, reactionary and aristocratic philosophical stance. The consistency of Evola's doctrinal views is observed. The author sees herein another similarity with the work of Spengler, but stresses the radical differences that exist between them on a theoretical level. Evola's Weltanschauung is being described as a "reactionary faith"; the author is downright sceptical, but notes how pleasing these beliefs are on an aesthetic (!) level - all things considered -, calling into question the idea of a 'solar' tradition and Nordico-Aryan heritage. The worth of both Evola and Spengler is to be found in their resistance to any form of equalisation as it appears in either democratic and fascist societies. Precisely in the latter society their value as 'opposition figures' should be considered due to the existing ideological similarities. Therefore their presence is tolerated and through their critique the most serious 'errors' of the fascist regime would be equally impaired.
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
From: g.vdheide@...
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:28:15 +0200
Subject: RE: [evola_as_he_is] Heidnischer Imperialismus
In the meantime a few more chapters have been added. (http://heidensimperialisme.wordpress.com/)
A table of contents will be added in order to provide the necessary clarity on the book's structure.
To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
From: g.vdheide@...
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:28:06 +0200
Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Heidnischer Imperialismus
http://heidensimperialisme.wordpress.com/ is meant to feature the untranscribed parts of the German edition of Imperialismo Pagano.
Hopefully to be continued.
evola_as_he_is@{{emailDomain}}