It’s probably more a case of Evola being involved in the occult, thereby making his writings pariahic for most. Occultic thinkers in general tend to be involved too deeply with the Djinn and black magic anyhow, so consuming their content would be problematic for most people.
I suppose that's possible! But if so that's too bad.
Evola (and his Traditionalist colleague Guenon) strongly differentiated between initiation (a spiritual path aimed at theosis) and counter-initiation (an occult path aimed at power). I'll discuss that more in the next essay.
BTW, Rene Guenon (the inventor of Traditionalism) eventually concluded that Islam was the last remaining religion maintaining true Tradition. He felt that Christianity had failed because it had destroyed its equivalent of Sufism. In 1930, he converted to Sufi Islam, married an Egyptian woman, and lived the last two decades of his life as Muslim religious scholar. When he died in 1951, his last words were "Allah". I don't know what denomination you are or what your stance is on Sufi, but I thought it was interesting.
Based on how you have spent extra effort and nuance (which I appreciate) on the matter (again, I have never read Evola myself) certainly that looks to be the case (i.e. that these gentlemen did not seek to pursue the occult for 'mere power'). I definitely look forward to your next essay to build on that further!
We do not have "denominations" since most of the Islamic world is unified on doctrine.
Shiite Islam's original disagreements with Sunni Islam was more political than theological; however in later years that changed.
That being said, most of the world is Sunni. Said Sunnis have 4 madhabs (i.e. Schools of Law) to which the Ulema/Scholars belong to and make rulings under.
The disagreements amongst said majority (i.e. roughly 80%+ of all Muslims) is juridicial; and even then the "big picture" is always agreed upon.
One easy way to think about it would be to say that there are 4 'methodologies' that are pursued, which yield different answers when it comes to secondary and tertiary matters (e.g. When does the afternoon prayer time enter and how do we measure its duration?), but on primary matters they all agree on the lynchpin being the Quran and Sunnah.
So in essence, Sufism/Tassawwuf which comprises Ihsan (Excellence) is one of the necessary pursuits for the Believer who wishes to practice his religion properly. In fact, in a snippet of the Hadith of Gabriel (which basically summarizes The religion in a very concise manner) we get the emphasis that Ihsan is indeed one of the three lynchpins of the Faith:
>> Narrated Abu Huraira: One day while the Prophet (ﷺ) was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, 'Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, (the) meeting with Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan." Then he further asked, "What is Ihsan (perfection)?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "To worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you cannot achieve this state of devotion then you must consider that He is looking at you." <<
So in conclusion: A "Sufi" is just someone who practices Tassawwuf and tries to cultivate Ihsan. It's not really a sect or "aberration" of any sort. Though of course, certain individuals who pursue Perrenialism (in the guise of practising Tassawwuf) do exist; and they are to varying degrees sinful and/or even in some cases stepping outside the faith entirely.
Thanks for the explanation! As a military history major I had of course studied the rise of Islam, the Sunni - Shi'a split as a military and political matter, but I have not ever looked closely into the theology.
Some of this reminds me of the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff, who taught that you needed a certain level of consciousness in order to get past death. I have been told that Gurdjieff picked up some of his ideas from Eastern Orthodox mystical traditions.
I haven't read G.I. Gurdjieff but the thinking sounds similar. Eastern Orthodoxy is probably the most esoteric of the contemporary Christian churches and most in line with what Evola would have wanted in a church. More recently, Alexander Dugin has apparently written a number of books proclaiming the unity of Russian Orthodoxy and Tradition although I have not read them, simply heard of them.
Most of the understandable writings on Gurdjieff's ideas were written by disciples. P.D. Ouspensky being the one I read back in the day.
There is some overlap between the Objectivist movement and Gurdjieff's Fourth Way in that they both aspire towards mental unification: Objectivism on unification of ideas and values, the Fourth Way on maintaining a unitary consciousness.
(I've personally come to the conclusion that non-unitary human nature is a feature, not a bug. Taking rational ideas to their logical conclusion often results in great evil. Academics can be worse than mere thugs when given great power. Better to operate on context driven fuzzy rules which match the relevant contexts even if there is some contradiction at the edges.
As for unitary consciousness, that eats up a ton of brain power. Hard to get things done while maintaining continuous awareness of Self. Going into Flow is more productive. But maybe some of the exercises to strengthen executive function are worth doing now and then. There are times when being more conscious is very useful, such as when presented with junk food...)
Fascinating stuff. I have lately begun to consider whether we didn't go astray when we abandoned the concept of Nous as distinct from Logos, that is of "Intellectual Intuition" as a separate and higher way of knowing than Reason. Roger Penrose made what I thought was a good case that mathematicians aren't operating using reason when they discover new mathematics; instead discover the mathematics through supra-rational means, and then use reason to explain it to others.
That distinction formed an opening theme of "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky, where he detailed his time with Gurdjieff. Intellect vs. Essence were the terms, I believe. This book also covers the whackdoodle aspects of Gurdjieff's thinking. Be forewarned.
The Fourth Way teaching is more distilled in Ouspensky's "The Fourth Way". Or for a quicker take, his "The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution" is shorter, but includes some other ideas.
WIth all this said, I trashed my copies of these books years ago as a matter of getting away from non Christian ideas. While some of the exercises may have origins in Eastern Christianity, there are other sources.
Also, for reasons I'll give in a future post, I have come to the conclusion that the mystical aspects of religion are of relatively minor concern for core Christianity. Do what brings you closer to the teachings; avoid those practices which drive you away. I write these even if it does take summoning the True Self to have sufficient focus on a prayer for it to have impact. See Matthew 7:21, for example. Performing miracles does not indicate salvation. See 1 Corinthians 13 as well.
I have never read Evola before, but there is something quite familiar with how he appears to speak about "initiation". Especially when we crack the etymology:
>>initiate (v.)
c. 1600, "introduce to some practice or system," also "begin, set going," from Late Latin initiatus, past participle of initiare "to begin, originate," in classical Latin only in the sense "to instruct in mysteries or sacred knowledge." This is from initium "a beginning; an entrance," also in plural initia "constituent parts; sacred mysteries," a noun use of the neuter past participle of inire "to go into, enter upon, begin," from in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + ire "to go" (from PIE root *ei- "to go").
In some senses the English word is a back-formation from initiation. Related: Initiated; initiates; initiating; initiator.<<
The PIE root of *en breaks down as follows:
>> *ei-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to go."
It forms all or part of: Abitur; adit; ambience; ambient; ambit; ambition; ambitious; andante; anion; cation; circuit; coitus; commence; commencement; concomitant; constable; count (n.1) title of nobility; county; dysprosium; errant; exit; initial; initiate; initiation; introit; ion; issue; itinerant; itinerary; janitor; January; Janus; Jena; Mahayana; obiter; obituary; perish; praetor; Praetorian; preterite; sedition; sudden; trance; transient; transit; transitive; viscount.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit e'ti "goes," imas "we go," ayanam "a going, way;" Avestan ae'iti "goes," Old Persian aitiy "goes;" Greek ienai "to go;" Latin ire "to go," iter "a way;" Old Irish ethaim "I go," Irish bothar "a road" (from *bou-itro- "cows' way"), Gaulish eimu "we go;" Lithuanian eiti "to go;" Old Church Slavonic iti "go;" Bulgarian ida "I go;" Russian idti "to go;" Gothic iddja "went." <<
.... Notionally you have this move from "going" toward "begin/originate". The Adjective breaks down as:
>> initial (adj.)
1520s, "of or pertaining to a beginning," from French initial or directly from Latin initialis "initial, incipient, of the beginning," from initium "a beginning, a commencement; an entrance, a going in," noun use of neuter past participle of inire "to go into, enter upon, begin," from in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + ire "to go" (from PIE root *ei- "to go"). Related: Initially. <<
So we have the PIE "going" notion moving into the Latin "begin/originate" which in turn moves to Old French "commencement/enter upon".
The trend prima facie seems to be toward "direct acquaintance". More specifically, know-how, knowledge, etc that is directly acquainted with or "entered upon".
This then is "notionally" what " *ei -> initiate & initial " maps onto; if we track the etymologies like so. Evola appears to be someone who spent a lifetime trying to make concrete (in writing) said Notion.
My training is in Philosophy (Phil of Mind + Phil of Science are the key ones and Epistemology + Ethics are secondary) and Cognitive Science.
I am currently trying to learn/acquire Mediaeval Languages (Old & Middle English, Gothic, Latin, Old Icelandic/Norse are currently the ones being studied).
To do that properly, I am engaged in self-study, and am also enrolled with a virtual academy which focuses on that area (i.e. Ancient + Mediaeval languages and literatures).
So it's not quite a hobby, and it tilts more in the scholarly direction. Though for myself, I am far too much a novice to count as an Indo-European Scholar.
I would only be able to make that claim if 10 years down the line I can fully learn one of the Larger "boughs" of the Indo-European family (i.e. those being Romance, Indo-Iranian, Germanic & Slavic). To do that, at minimum a dozen or so languages need to be acquired!
That's very impressive. I have personally found learning languages to be the hardest academic subject. Everything else, physics to philosophy, I sail through, but learning a language... woof.
Related to Gnosticism in a sense but is not actually Gnosticism. As far as I can tell, Perennials don't believe in an evil demiurge and so on. But my knowledge of both is quite incomplete.
I am by far not an expert or even an interested amateur , but I've done some reading on the subject. Also, I have some direct experience with what can (and in my opinion should) be taken as Gnostic influences in my social circles.
I think what unifies various strands of Gnosticism is the idea that the material world is purely evil and irredeemable. Not just having an admixture of evil. Not just fallen, or concealing the Divine, the Good, and the True. Purely evil. Thus there is no point in engaging with this world. You have to get out. But "the spiritual powers that be" won't let you out easily. Hence to get out you have to know "the code", be initiated.
I am not saying that Evola's ideas are Gnostic. I am trying to find the aspects of his ideas (as presented by you) that rhyme with things in which I have some grounding.
-----
In a separate development: What claim does Evola have on truth? Why do we trust or believe him? How does he substantiate his claims? Why should we be taking his ideas seriously? [I understand that you are not necessarily endorsing his ideas.]
Also, who are the people (besides Bannon) who have been influenced by him and why?
TFW when your recent article is so far outside the Overton Window that even your substack readers are like wtf bro
It’s probably more a case of Evola being involved in the occult, thereby making his writings pariahic for most. Occultic thinkers in general tend to be involved too deeply with the Djinn and black magic anyhow, so consuming their content would be problematic for most people.
I suppose that's possible! But if so that's too bad.
Evola (and his Traditionalist colleague Guenon) strongly differentiated between initiation (a spiritual path aimed at theosis) and counter-initiation (an occult path aimed at power). I'll discuss that more in the next essay.
BTW, Rene Guenon (the inventor of Traditionalism) eventually concluded that Islam was the last remaining religion maintaining true Tradition. He felt that Christianity had failed because it had destroyed its equivalent of Sufism. In 1930, he converted to Sufi Islam, married an Egyptian woman, and lived the last two decades of his life as Muslim religious scholar. When he died in 1951, his last words were "Allah". I don't know what denomination you are or what your stance is on Sufi, but I thought it was interesting.
Based on how you have spent extra effort and nuance (which I appreciate) on the matter (again, I have never read Evola myself) certainly that looks to be the case (i.e. that these gentlemen did not seek to pursue the occult for 'mere power'). I definitely look forward to your next essay to build on that further!
We do not have "denominations" since most of the Islamic world is unified on doctrine.
Shiite Islam's original disagreements with Sunni Islam was more political than theological; however in later years that changed.
That being said, most of the world is Sunni. Said Sunnis have 4 madhabs (i.e. Schools of Law) to which the Ulema/Scholars belong to and make rulings under.
The disagreements amongst said majority (i.e. roughly 80%+ of all Muslims) is juridicial; and even then the "big picture" is always agreed upon.
One easy way to think about it would be to say that there are 4 'methodologies' that are pursued, which yield different answers when it comes to secondary and tertiary matters (e.g. When does the afternoon prayer time enter and how do we measure its duration?), but on primary matters they all agree on the lynchpin being the Quran and Sunnah.
Sufism is simply a synonym for Tassawwuf. Relevant: https://seekersguidance.org/answers/general-counsel/what-is-sufism-tasawwuf/
So in essence, Sufism/Tassawwuf which comprises Ihsan (Excellence) is one of the necessary pursuits for the Believer who wishes to practice his religion properly. In fact, in a snippet of the Hadith of Gabriel (which basically summarizes The religion in a very concise manner) we get the emphasis that Ihsan is indeed one of the three lynchpins of the Faith:
>> Narrated Abu Huraira: One day while the Prophet (ﷺ) was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, 'Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, (the) meeting with Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan." Then he further asked, "What is Ihsan (perfection)?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) replied, "To worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you cannot achieve this state of devotion then you must consider that He is looking at you." <<
So in conclusion: A "Sufi" is just someone who practices Tassawwuf and tries to cultivate Ihsan. It's not really a sect or "aberration" of any sort. Though of course, certain individuals who pursue Perrenialism (in the guise of practising Tassawwuf) do exist; and they are to varying degrees sinful and/or even in some cases stepping outside the faith entirely.
Thanks for the explanation! As a military history major I had of course studied the rise of Islam, the Sunni - Shi'a split as a military and political matter, but I have not ever looked closely into the theology.
Some of this reminds me of the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff, who taught that you needed a certain level of consciousness in order to get past death. I have been told that Gurdjieff picked up some of his ideas from Eastern Orthodox mystical traditions.
I haven't read G.I. Gurdjieff but the thinking sounds similar. Eastern Orthodoxy is probably the most esoteric of the contemporary Christian churches and most in line with what Evola would have wanted in a church. More recently, Alexander Dugin has apparently written a number of books proclaiming the unity of Russian Orthodoxy and Tradition although I have not read them, simply heard of them.
Most of the understandable writings on Gurdjieff's ideas were written by disciples. P.D. Ouspensky being the one I read back in the day.
There is some overlap between the Objectivist movement and Gurdjieff's Fourth Way in that they both aspire towards mental unification: Objectivism on unification of ideas and values, the Fourth Way on maintaining a unitary consciousness.
(I've personally come to the conclusion that non-unitary human nature is a feature, not a bug. Taking rational ideas to their logical conclusion often results in great evil. Academics can be worse than mere thugs when given great power. Better to operate on context driven fuzzy rules which match the relevant contexts even if there is some contradiction at the edges.
As for unitary consciousness, that eats up a ton of brain power. Hard to get things done while maintaining continuous awareness of Self. Going into Flow is more productive. But maybe some of the exercises to strengthen executive function are worth doing now and then. There are times when being more conscious is very useful, such as when presented with junk food...)
Fascinating stuff. I have lately begun to consider whether we didn't go astray when we abandoned the concept of Nous as distinct from Logos, that is of "Intellectual Intuition" as a separate and higher way of knowing than Reason. Roger Penrose made what I thought was a good case that mathematicians aren't operating using reason when they discover new mathematics; instead discover the mathematics through supra-rational means, and then use reason to explain it to others.
That distinction formed an opening theme of "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky, where he detailed his time with Gurdjieff. Intellect vs. Essence were the terms, I believe. This book also covers the whackdoodle aspects of Gurdjieff's thinking. Be forewarned.
The Fourth Way teaching is more distilled in Ouspensky's "The Fourth Way". Or for a quicker take, his "The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution" is shorter, but includes some other ideas.
WIth all this said, I trashed my copies of these books years ago as a matter of getting away from non Christian ideas. While some of the exercises may have origins in Eastern Christianity, there are other sources.
Also, for reasons I'll give in a future post, I have come to the conclusion that the mystical aspects of religion are of relatively minor concern for core Christianity. Do what brings you closer to the teachings; avoid those practices which drive you away. I write these even if it does take summoning the True Self to have sufficient focus on a prayer for it to have impact. See Matthew 7:21, for example. Performing miracles does not indicate salvation. See 1 Corinthians 13 as well.
Interesting!
I have never read Evola before, but there is something quite familiar with how he appears to speak about "initiation". Especially when we crack the etymology:
>>initiate (v.)
c. 1600, "introduce to some practice or system," also "begin, set going," from Late Latin initiatus, past participle of initiare "to begin, originate," in classical Latin only in the sense "to instruct in mysteries or sacred knowledge." This is from initium "a beginning; an entrance," also in plural initia "constituent parts; sacred mysteries," a noun use of the neuter past participle of inire "to go into, enter upon, begin," from in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + ire "to go" (from PIE root *ei- "to go").
In some senses the English word is a back-formation from initiation. Related: Initiated; initiates; initiating; initiator.<<
The PIE root of *en breaks down as follows:
>> *ei-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to go."
It forms all or part of: Abitur; adit; ambience; ambient; ambit; ambition; ambitious; andante; anion; cation; circuit; coitus; commence; commencement; concomitant; constable; count (n.1) title of nobility; county; dysprosium; errant; exit; initial; initiate; initiation; introit; ion; issue; itinerant; itinerary; janitor; January; Janus; Jena; Mahayana; obiter; obituary; perish; praetor; Praetorian; preterite; sedition; sudden; trance; transient; transit; transitive; viscount.
It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit e'ti "goes," imas "we go," ayanam "a going, way;" Avestan ae'iti "goes," Old Persian aitiy "goes;" Greek ienai "to go;" Latin ire "to go," iter "a way;" Old Irish ethaim "I go," Irish bothar "a road" (from *bou-itro- "cows' way"), Gaulish eimu "we go;" Lithuanian eiti "to go;" Old Church Slavonic iti "go;" Bulgarian ida "I go;" Russian idti "to go;" Gothic iddja "went." <<
.... Notionally you have this move from "going" toward "begin/originate". The Adjective breaks down as:
>> initial (adj.)
1520s, "of or pertaining to a beginning," from French initial or directly from Latin initialis "initial, incipient, of the beginning," from initium "a beginning, a commencement; an entrance, a going in," noun use of neuter past participle of inire "to go into, enter upon, begin," from in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + ire "to go" (from PIE root *ei- "to go"). Related: Initially. <<
So we have the PIE "going" notion moving into the Latin "begin/originate" which in turn moves to Old French "commencement/enter upon".
The trend prima facie seems to be toward "direct acquaintance". More specifically, know-how, knowledge, etc that is directly acquainted with or "entered upon".
This then is "notionally" what " *ei -> initiate & initial " maps onto; if we track the etymologies like so. Evola appears to be someone who spent a lifetime trying to make concrete (in writing) said Notion.
Are you a scholar of Indo-European language, or is it just a hobby? Very interesting!
My training is in Philosophy (Phil of Mind + Phil of Science are the key ones and Epistemology + Ethics are secondary) and Cognitive Science.
I am currently trying to learn/acquire Mediaeval Languages (Old & Middle English, Gothic, Latin, Old Icelandic/Norse are currently the ones being studied).
To do that properly, I am engaged in self-study, and am also enrolled with a virtual academy which focuses on that area (i.e. Ancient + Mediaeval languages and literatures).
So it's not quite a hobby, and it tilts more in the scholarly direction. Though for myself, I am far too much a novice to count as an Indo-European Scholar.
I would only be able to make that claim if 10 years down the line I can fully learn one of the Larger "boughs" of the Indo-European family (i.e. those being Romance, Indo-Iranian, Germanic & Slavic). To do that, at minimum a dozen or so languages need to be acquired!
That's very impressive. I have personally found learning languages to be the hardest academic subject. Everything else, physics to philosophy, I sail through, but learning a language... woof.
> This transformation is acquired by initiation
Sounds Gnostic to me
Related to Gnosticism in a sense but is not actually Gnosticism. As far as I can tell, Perennials don't believe in an evil demiurge and so on. But my knowledge of both is quite incomplete.
I am by far not an expert or even an interested amateur , but I've done some reading on the subject. Also, I have some direct experience with what can (and in my opinion should) be taken as Gnostic influences in my social circles.
I think what unifies various strands of Gnosticism is the idea that the material world is purely evil and irredeemable. Not just having an admixture of evil. Not just fallen, or concealing the Divine, the Good, and the True. Purely evil. Thus there is no point in engaging with this world. You have to get out. But "the spiritual powers that be" won't let you out easily. Hence to get out you have to know "the code", be initiated.
I am not saying that Evola's ideas are Gnostic. I am trying to find the aspects of his ideas (as presented by you) that rhyme with things in which I have some grounding.
-----
In a separate development: What claim does Evola have on truth? Why do we trust or believe him? How does he substantiate his claims? Why should we be taking his ideas seriously? [I understand that you are not necessarily endorsing his ideas.]
Also, who are the people (besides Bannon) who have been influenced by him and why?