I am sure that 'darkiexx' will excuse your impurity, as he will mine
not only for the eyes, but for the double-sin of having yellow hair:
yellow which, after all, is the color of urine and of the asian
invader!
The question in my initial post concerns the political aspect of a
military engagement, which cannot be ignored. "Se sacrifier, pour
l'homme, est un bonheur: et l'art suprême du commandement consiste à
lui désigner des buts dignes de ce sacrifice (p.108)." Can we today
still speak of political objectives worth any sacrifice? I doubt
it. The first question can thus be reforumlated: can the sacrifice in
case of a "total mobilization" be carried out as an end in itself?
While the sacrificial death can no longer today be made in the name of
the State or the Imperium, it can, I am inclined to think, for the new
type of man, be carried out as an end in itself. It must be recalled
that for 'the worker', all of existence must be sacrificed: it is not,
however, the romantic 'mors triumphalis' that is meant by sacrifice
here, but the sacrifice of one's petty individuality for absolute
impersonality:
"C'est à ce type qu'appartient l'impersonnalité. Il n'est pas
irremplaçable: chaque tué peut être immédiatement remplacé par un
autre "travailleur", dans l'esprit d'une même tradition ou d'une même
fonction (pp.190-196). De même que l'individu disparaît, ainsi la
masse comme pure quantité disparaît - on va au contraire vers de
nouvelles formations organiques, et même qualitatives."
"Le monde du "travail" engage tout l'être, toute la vie. Et il aime,
il veut cet engagement total, jusqu'au bout, jusqu'à la destruction."
Thus, the 'furor belli' you referred to is activated as an end in
itself. One must seek out the elementary and dominate it ("ride the
tiger"):
"Il en résulte la nécessité d'un nouvel ordre, d'un ordre fondé, non
pas sur l'exclusion du danger, mais sur une nouvelle union de la vie
et du danger. Pour l'individu, le nouveau monde du "travailleur"
signifiera, non pas une diminution, mais une augmentation du travail:
mais il disposera de forces nouvelles pour maîtriser ces nouveaux
fardeaux (p.91)."
As you recalled me saying, there is really one way of getting a true
answer to my inquiry, and that is by trying and seeing for oneself. I
must admit, though, that I was hoping I would get more insights into
the matter before I try and see if being turned into fragments on the
battefield is an effective method for transcendence...
--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok" <vandermok@l...> wrote:
>
> Hoping that 'darkiexx' do not be shocked at the fact my eyes are not
'ice blue' but only green/grey, I confirm that the warrior
civilisation of the ancient Rome had nothing to do with the 'Papist
Latin'.
>
> Today the 'war of machines' can teach mostly the sense of discipline
and hierarchy but hardly could involve the sacred 'furor belli' (war
fury). The 'furor' drove some warrior till to sacrifice himself to the
underworld's gods for achieving the collective victory (see for
instance the episode of the consul Decius in Titus Livy, Historiae
VIII, 9,1).
> Evola wrote about, but on the light of the alchemical process, here
and there in 'La Tradizione Ermetica'.
> Anyway, the 'furor' of the warrior, after the victory, was ritually
'closed' into the temple of Janus (Mars, Hercules, Quirinus and Janus
being hypostasis of the same 'force') to avoid every backstroke to the
fatherland, because after the possibility of a 'mors triumphalis'
(triumphal death) during the battle, there was also a temporary 'pax
triumphalis' (triumphal peace).
>
> Since the only existing god or force is the one we can experience
inside, it seems to me not being indiscreet to remember you (H. F.)
already answered in part by yourself the interrogative on the Army and
the today's approach to the 'war of machines' when time ago you said
me personally: "I might have to try and see for myself".
>
>
> In <evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com>
> frederick_of_hohenstaufen <slugg3r@h...>
> wrote:
>
> In 'Le Chemin du Cinabre', Evola writes:
>
> "Dans la guerre moderne se déchaîne l'élémentaire (le terme est à
> prendre comme lorsqu'on parle des forces élémentaires de la nature),
> l'élémentaire lié au matériel c'est-à-dire à un ensemble de moyens
> techniques d'une extrême puissance destructrice (les "batailles de
> matériel"). C'est comme une force non-humaine éveillé et mise en
> muovement par l'homme, à laquelle l'individu-soldar ne peut échapper:
> il doit se mesurer à elle, il doit devenir l'instrument de la
> mécanique et lui tenuir tête en même temps: spirituellement, et non
> pas seulement physiquement. Cela n'est possible que si l'on se forge
> soi-même en tant que type humain nouveau qui, précisément au milieu de
> situations destructices pour tout autre, sache saisir un sens absolu
> de la vie." (p.191)
>
> The same analysis can be found in "Le "Travailleur" et les falaises de
> marbre" at http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id59.html. English-only
> speakers can refer to Jünger's 'The Worker' ('Der Arbeiter'). Briefly,
> the main idea from the quotation above is that the destructive,
> elementary discharges of modern war may be used for the man with the
> right spiritual qualification for a transcendent -- or mehr-als-leben,
> to use an expression Evola borrowed from Simmel -- experience.
>
> Those considerations become truer as the years go by and as every
> aspect of existence increasingly depend on technology and
> mechanization, to the extent that today, in the field of war, we may
> objectively and non-figuratively speak of a "war of machines."
>
> Considering the above, the following questions might not be out of
> place: is the military today still a legitimate direction for the man
> seeking an opening to transcendence, and if so, to what extent?
>
> Regards
>