I agree with this views, crualty is not worthy of a real Tradition ,
this kind of cynical thinking seems more like ultra-modern libéralism
selfish way of life ! and this under the name of tradition! MAybe
Evola insist on the égalitarien cult of progressiv society because
the virtue of générosité was deviate by the modern view for - it is
right to destroy the great and promote the inferiors ! But iss not an
raison for fall in extremism point of view
---- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Toni Ciopa"
<hyperborean@...> wrote:
>
> There is little to dispute in the realm of ideas, but some care
must be
> taken in their interpretation.
>
>
>
> First of all, ideals can be compared to other ideals, but it is
illegitimate
> to compare the ideal to the actual, as if they were on the same
plane. The
> actual embodies the ideal (or principle), to a greater of lesser
degree of
> fidelity. This requires judgment – we can focus on the fidelity or
on the
> infidelity of a particular civilisation to a set of principles,
but to
> understand the principles probably requires both.
>
>
>
> For example, rather than looking at the "chivalric code" (is there
a Latin
> version available?) through modern eyes, we can look through
medieval eyes.
>
>
>
> Dedication to feudal duties, not lying, begin loyal, unceasing war,
love of
> country --- there is nothing at all to dispute here.
>
> As for (1) and (2) – devotion to church teachings and its defence --
we can
> consider that to be a manifestation of the virtue of "piety", a
virtue even
> to the Romans. (As to the relative dominance of the pope and the
sovereign,
> that will have to wait for a discussion of de Maistre and Donoso
Cortes in
> relation to Evola.)
>
>
>
> As for "respect" for weakness, that is either a mistranslation or
> misunderstanding. Yet, of course it is a duty to protect the weak.
What
> Roman father would fail to protect his wife and children? Wasn't
it an
> obligation for the lord to protect his serfs? The King to protect
his
> subjects? Did not even the Romans supply bread to the poor? Or, to
be a man,
> does it mean one should kick a beggar in the street while walking
by?
> Protecting the weak maintains the proper relationship between the
strong and
> the weak and makes clear their hierarchical relationship. It was
not the
> Medieval civilisation that reversed that … it was the (pseudo)
Reformers and
> Jacobins.
>
>
>
> To be generous and give largesse? This is nothing but the Roman
virtue of
> hospitas, or hospitality. To give largesse -- when it is not a
duty -- is
> magnanimity, another virtue.
>
>
>
> As mentioned, the relationship between the Knight and Lady does
indeed
> reflect Hindu and Buddhist Tantrism. If it eventually assumed a
sentimental
> attitude, that is indeed unfortunate, but that does not indicate the
> complete absence of Principle … only its imperfect or incomplete
> application.
>
>
>
> It is hardly obvious that a "flesh and blood" woman was considered
to be
> required for spiritual fulfilment. We can start with the Knightly
devotion
> to Mary – hardly "flesh and blood". For the Knights and
troubadours, as a
> matter of fact, a "Platonic" love was considered superior. At a
time of
> arranged marriages, this sort of love was allowed, and did not
manifest
> erotically. To criticise it when it did become sexual and
sentimental, is
> again to attempt to compare the actual to the ideal. In its higher
> manifestations, it remained unrequited. We need not go further than
Dante
> and Beatrice or the Persian poet Hafiz and the princess to see that
> spiritual realisation does not depend on a "flesh and blood" woman.
>
>
>
> Closer to our own time, one should track down Leopardi's "Dialogo di
> Torquato Tasso e del suo genio familiare" – if one has a sense of
humour --
> but that will take as a little far from the subject at hand.
>
>
>
> The only real objection I hear is that the Middle Age was not the
Roman
> Empire, but neither was the Roman Empire the Vedic civilisation.
Both Evola
> and Guénon had high regard for Medieval Europe. In our era, which is
> absolutely devoid of virtue, it behooves us to look very carefully
at the
> most recent period in European history when an authentic
civilisation did
> manifest.
>