> i'm fairly certain he's not saying anything that would support the idea of "unification did not always lead to a complete equilibrium." that's because it's a given. it's a truth that underlies vedanta itself. polarity exists because of this sort of antagonism/complementarism, and if their tension were to be totally resolved into equilibrium, then the polarities from which they originally derived their reality ultimately vanish or "resolve" themselves. the idea that one principle is subordinate to the other in a sort of cosmic correspondence/harmony, that was central to evola's work. think of it like...this sort of "hierarchy" evola describes allows each polarity to retain their existence or reality rather than vanishing, and that since they exist in this complementary-ness, they now correspond to what is "natural order" and reach their full, proper expression in line with cosmic principles. i am butchering it because honestly, i'm in a rush to get to work. but thought i'd try my best to explain it. > the only problem is that this does not exist. the supernatural, the forms, the archetypes, magick, etc. is not derived from the supra-rational. it is derived from the unconscious. and we have actual, empirical evidence for that. dreams predicting the future, etc. i'd recommend reading guenon's "reign of quantity" for a more coherent explanation of the difference between waking consciousness, subconscious, and supraconscious in which he addresses this exactly. i know we're talking about evola, but i'm much more in line with guenon's work these days. evola just began my preparation to that stage by allowing me to retain some right-wing radicalism in my metaphysical beliefs when i was younger, some of which i believe are valid still, but i overall don't think he ever reached guenon's level. overall, good talk and thank you for your contributions.
United States