Julius Evola on New Age Movement, Spiritual Decay

The New Age "movement" (or whatever you wish to call it) is just materialism disguised as spirituality. It's just another facet of modernism, not any kind of religion in it's own right.

It's no wonder that New Agers are rarely coherent, and don't seem to have any unifying thread in their ramblings beyond some vague idea of "energy" and "oneness".

_________

"According to Spengler, one of the phenomena that consistently accompanies the terminal phase of a civilization is the "second religiosity." On the fringes of structures of barbaric grandeur - rationalism, practical atheism, and materialism - there spring up sporadic forms of spirituality and mysticism, even irruptions from the super-sensible, which do not indicate a re-ascent but are symptoms of decay. Their expressions no longer take their stamp from the religion of the origins, from the severe forms inherited from the dominating elites who stood at the center of an organic and qualitative civilization (this being exactly what I call the world of Tradition). In the phase in question, even the positive religions lose any higher dimension; they become secularized, one-dimensional, and cease to exercise their original functions. The "second religiosity" develops outside them - often even in opposition to them - but also outside the principal and predominant currents of existence, and signifies, in general, a phenomenon of escapism, alienation, and confused compensation that in no way impinges seriously on the reality of a soulless, mechanistic, and purely earthly civilization. [...] One might also use an expression of Aldous Huxley, who speaks of a "self-transcendence downwards" as opposed to a "self-transcendence upwards."

a reply to: DiggerDogg

This thread seems more like politics than metaphysics.

You didn't explain who Julius Evola was.

Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola (Italian: [ˈɛːvola];[1] 19 May 1898 – 11 June 1974), better known as Julius Evola, was an Italian philosopher, painter, and esotericist. Evola regarded his perspectives and spiritual values as aristocratic, masculine, traditionalist, heroic and defiantly reactionary.

Evola believed that mankind is living in the Kali Yuga, a Dark Age of unleashed materialistic appetites, spiritual oblivion and dissolution. To counter this and call in a primordial rebirth, Evola presented his world of Tradition.

Entry into esotericism

Around 1920, his interests led him into spiritual, transcendental, and "supra-rational" studies. He began reading various esoteric texts and gradually delved deeper into the occult, alchemy, magic, and Oriental studies, particularly Tibetan Lamaism and Vajrayanist tantric yoga. He had also used hallucinogenic drugs to experience altered states of consciousness during this period, but later came to criticize such drugs in Ride the Tiger, as he did not consider stimulation as a means to transcendence.

In 1927, along with other Italian esotericists, he founded the Gruppo di Ur (the Ur Group). The group's aim was to provide a "soul" to the burgeoning Fascist movement of the time through the revival of an ancient Roman Paganism.

What we in 2015 may label as "second religiosity on the fringe" could very well be very much different from what he considered it to be from the 1920s thru mid 1970s.

Their expressions no longer take their stamp from the religion of the origins, from the severe forms inherited from the dominating elites who stood at the center of an organic and qualitative civilization (this being exactly what I call the world of Tradition).

For Evola, religion of the origins would be the Ancient Mesopotamian Mythology interpreted through Roman mythology including founding of Rome. World of tradition would be the accumulated tradition of values handed down from "the fathers" through the elders.

In this context, 1st-5th century Christianity and associated mystery religions would have been the fringe secondary religion.

a reply to: pthena

World of tradition would be the accumulated tradition of values handed down from "the fathers" through the elders.

Its through "traditions" where we can find most of the misdirection we find today that was never part of the past's truth .imo creeds give rise to newer understanding for the culture and time at which they were constructed and by those who thought it out to have been put into a dogmatic statement that suspends the growth of the spirit . Only through the historical context of the origins and their audience do we find the truth .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Only through the historical context of the origins and their audience do we find the truth .

I've been reading a bit more about this Evola character. Quite influential in the esoteric and magic areas. He actually identifies two strands of tradition:

In Revolt, he expounds according to the ancient texts that there is not one tradition, but two: an older and degenerate tradition that is feminine, matriarchal, unheroic, associated with the telluric negroid racial remnants of Lemuria; and a higher one that is masculine, heroic, "Uranian" and purely Aryo-Hyperborean in its origin.
- wikipedia

I think that anything anyone today might say about the guy's views, taken out of context, would be either meaningless or even contradictory to his actual views.

creeds give rise to newer understanding for the culture and time at which they were constructed and by those who thought it out to have been put into a dogmatic statement that suspends the growth of the spirit .

As a topic separate from the threads title, Creeds are an establishment of a new doctrine. From a Christianity context, tradition (conservatism) would be the purview of elders, whereas the progressive would be the prophets and other ecstatic types.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: pthena

World of tradition would be the accumulated tradition of values handed down from "the fathers" through the elders.

Its through "traditions" where we can find most of the misdirection we find today that was never part of the past's truth .imo creeds give rise to newer understanding for the culture and time at which they were constructed and by those who thought it out to have been put into a dogmatic statement that suspends the growth of the spirit . Only through the historical context of the origins and their audience do we find the truth .

To me, that doesn't make much sense at all. "Tradition" is exactly that- truths recognized by our forebears. Those truths may later be distorted, but that's the result of human error. They were preserved because they had some application, sometimes universal, and sometimes not. Yes, times change, but universal truths cannot "suspend spiritual growth"- we would only end up coming to the same conclusions, all those years later.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Only through the historical context of the origins and their audience do we find the truth .

I've been reading a bit more about this Evola character. Quite influential in the esoteric and magic areas. He actually identifies two strands of tradition:

In Revolt, he expounds according to the ancient texts that there is not one tradition, but two: an older and degenerate tradition that is feminine, matriarchal, unheroic, associated with the telluric negroid racial remnants of Lemuria; and a higher one that is masculine, heroic, "Uranian" and purely Aryo-Hyperborean in its origin.
- wikipedia

I think that anything anyone today might say about the guy's views, taken out of context, would be either meaningless or even contradictory to his actual views.

creeds give rise to newer understanding for the culture and time at which they were constructed and by those who thought it out to have been put into a dogmatic statement that suspends the growth of the spirit .

As a topic separate from the threads title, Creeds are an establishment of a new doctrine. From a Christianity context, tradition (conservatism) would be the purview of elders, whereas the progressive would be the prophets and other ecstatic types.

I'm quite sure that much, if not most of what he says is 100% applicable to the world today. Regardless of the more eccentric and unnecessary aspects of his philosophy (that you also quoted out of context), he was speaking fundamentally about the modern world, the world we are living in. The base upon which it's all built, hasn't changed at all.

So the social coherence of the elites following rigid dogmas is the height of civilization with a capital "C"?
How that leads on from the orphaned subject child of self transcendence would be the negation of the false positive.
True civilization is personal in the sense that the true self is undistorted, usually the product of groups of evolved individuals, not a product of nation states which rise and fall like the waves of thought lapping at the shores of your mind.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

a reply to: DiggerDogg

I don't agree with your take on tradition. Instinct has changed little in our species, the terrain has changed dramatically. It's rapidly evolving through culture, for instance, and tradition is best set aside in order to make way for the new. Tradition has many assumptions which are no longer evidenced. It's only fit that someone who holds onto these assumptions passes on his own in the process. Not my deal.

Tradition

Nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with belief.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

from the severe forms inherited from the dominating elites who stood at the center of an organic and qualitative civilization (this being exactly what I call the world of Tradition).

Except that isn't where his "tradition" came from, but rather his own idealism of Hindu mythology. As far as "organic and qualitative civilization" goes, the West hasn't had that since the 1st century. Even Augustus was dragging ideals out and presenting them as revivals of "tradition". Ovid called him on it and got exiled as a result.

It isn't true organic tradition if it's idealism retroactively labeled tradition.

The irony is that some of his own esoteric beliefs ended up being merged with pseudo-masonic ideas of people like Crowley then rebranded as part of the amorphous "spirituality" called "New Age", emphasis changed from individual "supra-human" to a collective "enlightenment".

There's nothing much organic about Western Civilization at all since the Dark Ages. It's all been idealism of one form or another branded as "tradition". Even much of neo-Paganism is invented by Freemasonry and its precursors and affiliates.

Having said all that, he did have some very good observations, such as:

Then power shifts to the mercantile caste, represented by the Italian comune, Freemasonry, the Jewish financial oligarchy of the Renaissance, and New World American Judeo-Protestant plutocracy. By the beginning of the twentieth century, organized labour and Marxist-Trotskyite subverters sought to transfer power to the last caste of slaves or sudras, or the consumer-pariah, reducing all values to matter, machines, dysgenic egalitarianism and the reign of abstract quantity.
en.wikipedia.org...

Except that the whole world economy is still in the grip of "the mercantile caste, represented by ... Freemasonry, the Jewish financial oligarchy..., and New World American Judeo-Protestant plutocracy," and the rest of the West, "the consumer-pariahs" are left with "egalitarianism and the reign of abstract quantity" and abstract spirituality.

"Western Civilization" is a boatload of colonists on a desert continent with five or six "discoverers" waving around notebooks yelling out "I've uncovered the traditions of the elders of this land."

To the ones who do not understand what the energy and oneness means it is vague. To those who have experienced the energetic body states it is not vague at all.

And New Age is inspired by eastern philosophy and quantum physics so the whole being materialistic is a lie. It is in fact opposite to materialism since it believes that the being changes the world around them with their being, and many scientist are very unhappy with Quantum Physics being interpreted in this way. The fact is that every being changes the world around them, the only question is how much even if we only use gravity as an example.

Op just because you do not like New Age do not mean you are objective in your views. You might think religion/conditioned spirituality as a good thing. For some religion is a curse word not a blessing and can be seen as Idol worshiping. The sins of the fathers continuing thru the ages. Bad trees that have given of bad fruits long enough and should be rejected for something that is real/true on all levels of creation.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

In many ways what you are saying is true but I want to give a example how a tradition excepted as true that is not can nullify what is deemed a spiritual act .We are familiar with the whaling wall in Jerusalem where Jewish peoples go to pray towards the site of their temple . What they are doing is considered being spiritual and if they were to face in another direction would loose the spiritual significance .

Move forward to modern research on the temples former location and it is to the south of the temple mount .The mount was the site of the Roman Garrison and is now the site of the Muslim Mosque and never had a relation to the Temple other then where Jesus was taken from and judged before Pontis Pilate which was on the mount . www.askelm.com...

a reply to: pthena

You didn't explain who Julius Evola was.

Nor Spengler!

"According to Spengler, one of the phenomena that consistently accompanies the terminal phase of a civilization is the "second religiosity." On the fringes of structures of barbaric grandeur - rationalism, practical atheism, and materialism - there spring up sporadic forms of spirituality and mysticism, even irruptions from the super-sensible, which do not indicate a re-ascent but are symptoms of decay.

Who the heck is Spengler and why should I care what he/she thinks? What is barbaric grandeur? Isn't that what the Holy Roman Catholic Church represents? And......what's wrong with practical atheism? I happen to identify with practical atheism!

a reply to: DiggerDogg

OP, can you give us an example of how super-sensibility is a symptom of spiritual decay?

a reply to: windword

Who the heck is Spengler and why should I care what he/she thinks?

Oswald Arnold Gottfried Spengler (29 May 1880 – 8 May 1936) was a German historian and philosopher of history whose interests included mathematics, science, and art. He is best known for his book The Decline of the West (Der Untergang des Abendlandes), published in 1918 and 1922, covering all of world history. Spengler's civilization model postulates that any civilization is a superorganism with a limited lifespan.
. . .
His book was a success among intellectuals worldwide as it predicted the disintegration of European and American civilization after a violent "age of Caesarism", arguing by detailed analogies with other civilizations. It deepened the post-World War I pessimism in Europe.[9] German Kantian philosopher Ernst Cassirer explained that at the end of World War I, Spengler's very title was enough to inflame imaginations: "At this time many, if not most of us, had realized that something was rotten in the state of our highly prized Western civilization. Spengler's book expressed in a sharp and trenchant way this general uneasiness".[10] Northrop Frye argued that while every element of Spengler's thesis has been refuted a dozen times, it is "one of the world's great Romantic poems" and its leading ideas are "as much part of our mental outlook today as the electron or the dinosaur, and in that sense we are all Spenglerians".[11]

Spengler's pessimistic predictions about the inevitable decline of the West inspired Third World intellectuals, ranging from China and Korea to Chile, eager to identify the fall of western imperialism.[12][13] In Britain and America, however, Spengler's pessimism was later countered by the optimism of Arnold J. Toynbee in London,[14] who wrote world history in the 1940s with a greater stress on religion.[15]

Isn't that what the Holy Roman Catholic Church represents? And......what's wrong with practical atheism?

I think I'll let the OP try to answer that. However in comparing "tradition" vs human instinct I'll mention one place RCC fits. In answer to another poster.

This could get rather fun and interesting.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

A star for providing a link.

Instinct has changed little in our species, the terrain has changed dramatically.

Tradition - Invention_of_tradition
The term "invention of tradition", introduced by E. J. Hobsbawm, refers to situations when a new practice or object is introduced in a manner that implies a connection with the past that is not necessarily present. A tradition may be deliberately created and promulgated for personal, commercial, political, or national self-interest, as was done in colonial Africa; or it may be adopted rapidly based on a single highly publicized event, rather than developing and spreading organically in a population, as in the case of the white wedding dress, which only became popular after Queen Victoria wore a white gown at her wedding to Albert of Saxe-Coburg.[21]

An example of an invention of tradition is the rebuilding of the Palace of Westminster (location of the British Parliament) in the Gothic style.[20] Similarly, most of the traditions associated with monarchy of the United Kingdom, seen as rooted deep in history, actually date to 19th century.[12] Other examples include the invention of tradition in Africa and other colonial holdings by the occupying forces. Requiring legitimacy, the colonial power would often invent a "tradition" which they could use to legitimize their own position. For example, a certain succession to a chiefdom might be recognized by a colonial power as traditional in order to favour their own candidates for the job. Often these inventions were based in some form of tradition, but were exaggerated, distorted, or biased toward a particular interpretation.

Invented traditions are a central component of modern national cultures, providing a commonality of experience and promoting the unified national identity espoused by nationalism. Common examples include public holidays (particularly those unique to a particular nation), the singing of national anthems, and traditional national cuisine (see national dish). Expatriate and immigrant communities may continue to practice the national traditions of their home nation.

Collective Unconcious
Jung contrasted the collective unconscious with the personal unconscious,...Psychotherapy patients, it seemed to Jung, often described fantasies and dreams which repeated elements from ancient mythology. These elements appeared even in patients who were probably not exposed to the original story. For example, mythology offers many examples of the "dual mother" narrative, according to which a child has a biological mother and a divine mother.
. . .
Jung also distinguished the collective unconscious and collective consciousness, between which lay "an almost unbridgeable gulf over which the subject finds himself suspended". According to Jung, collective consciousness (meaning something along the lines of consensus reality) offered only generalizations, simplistic ideas, and the fashionable ideologies of the age. This tension between collective unconscious and collective consciousness corresponds roughly to the "everlasting cosmic tug of war between good and evil" and has worsened in the time of the mass man.[18][19]

Organized religion, exemplified by the Catholic Church, lies more with the collective consciousness; but, through its all-encompassing dogma it channels and molds the images which inevitably pass from the collective unconscious into the minds of people.

Mass Society
Mass society is any society of the modern era that possesses a mass culture and large-scale, impersonal, social institutions.[1] A mass society is a society in which prosperity and bureaucracy have weakened traditional social ties." [2] Descriptions of society as a "mass" took form in the 19th century, referring to the leveling tendencies in the period of the Industrial Revolution that undermined traditional and aristocratic values.

In the work of early 19th century political theorists such as Alexis de Tocqueville, the term was used in discussions of elite concerns about a shift in the body politic of the Western world pronounced since the French Revolution. Such elite concerns centered in large part on the "tyranny of the majority," or mob rule.
. . .
Mass society as an ideology can be seen as dominated by a small number of interconnected elites who control the conditions of life of the many, often by means of persuasion and manipulation.[3] This indicates the politics of mass society theorists- they are advocates of various kinds of cultural elite who should be privileged and promoted over the masses, claiming for themselves both exemption from and leadership of the misguided masses.[4]

RCC as an example of dogma placing itself as middleman to interpret for people what rises from the collective subconscious. Vilifying some elements, denying the existence of others. The Bible itself allows only a very narrow "acceptable" view of reality, all "foreign" (even when native to humanity) influence demonized.

Maybe a bit of mood music. I didn't write it, so some elements seem a bit off to me, but I like the spirit and some of the characters.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

The New Age Movement is religion reinvented. The cross has been replaced by Crystals; Prayer by meditation; God with enlightenment; The devil with ego; Hell with karma; etc.

Most new agers regurgitate teachings that fit their own beliefs. Most do not speak from knowledge of transcendence arrived at by interior intuitive means. Yet, many like to pretend they do...

It's no wonder that New Agers are rarely coherent, and don't seem to have any unifying thread in their ramblings beyond some vague idea of "energy" and "oneness".

I agree.

Most speak from their arse instead of from Gnosis.

I cannot stand the new age thought movement.

There, I said it!

a reply to: LittleByLittle

And New Age is inspired by eastern philosophy and quantum physics so the whole being materialistic is a lie. It is in fact opposite to materialism since it believes that the being changes the world around them with their being,

I personally don't react well when people start spouting quantum physics, probably because the people spouting it aren't physicists.

Here's a link to Category:New Age spiritual leaders. There are 39 listed here. Of those, I've watched some taped seminars of Deepak Chopra and read one book by Eckhart Tolle. 'In 2008, a New York Times writer called Tolle "the most popular spiritual author in the United States".'[Wikipedia]

Eckhart Tolle Inner transformation

One night in 1977, at the age of 29, after having suffered from long periods of suicidal depression, Tolle says he experienced an "inner transformation".[8] That night he awakened from his sleep, suffering from feelings of depression that were "almost unbearable," but then experienced a life-changing epiphany.[12] Recounting the experience, Tolle says,

I couldn’t live with myself any longer. And in this a question arose without an answer: who is the ‘I’ that cannot live with the self? What is the self? I felt drawn into a void! I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and the fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved. The next morning I woke up and everything was so peaceful. The peace was there because there was no self. Just a sense of presence or “beingness,” just observing and watching

Tolle recalls going out for a walk in London the next morning, and finding that “everything was miraculous, deeply peaceful. Even the traffic."[12] The feeling continued, and he began to feel a strong underlying sense of peace in any situation.[7] Tolle stopped studying for his doctorate, and for a period of about two years after this he spent much of his time sitting, “in a state of deep bliss," on park benches in Russell Square, Central London, "watching the world go by.” He stayed with friends, in a Buddhist monastery, or otherwise slept rough on Hampstead Heath. His family thought him “irresponsible, even insane."[14] Tolle changed his first name from Ulrich to Eckhart; by some reports this was in homage to the German philosopher and mystic, Meister Eckhart.[10][15] A 2012 interview article states that he saw the name Eckhart on one of a pile of books in a dream, and knew he had written the book; soon after in real life he ran into a psychic friend who called him Eckhart out of nowhere, so Tolle changed his name.
. . .
In his book A New Earth, Tolle describes a major aspect of the human dysfunction as "ego" or an "illusory sense of self"[39] based on unconscious identification with one's memories and thoughts,[40] and another major aspect he calls "pain-body"[8] or "an accumulation of old emotional pain".[41]

I think the biggest objection I have to New-Age spirituality is the "lose of self" as some sort of technique or goal. To me, finding the self, and defining the self, and building the self through struggle of collective unconscious, personal unconscious, collective conscious ( consensual reality ), personal conscious, should be the goal. Then, if time and energy permit, guide someone else through this not quite identical ( because selves are unique after all ) process.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: pthena

You didn't explain who Julius Evola was.

Nor Spengler!

"According to Spengler, one of the phenomena that consistently accompanies the terminal phase of a civilization is the "second religiosity." On the fringes of structures of barbaric grandeur - rationalism, practical atheism, and materialism - there spring up sporadic forms of spirituality and mysticism, even irruptions from the super-sensible, which do not indicate a re-ascent but are symptoms of decay.

Who the heck is Spengler and why should I care what he/she thinks? What is barbaric grandeur? Isn't that what the Holy Roman Catholic Church represents? And......what's wrong with practical atheism? I happen to identify with practical atheism!

a reply to: DiggerDogg

OP, can you give us an example of how super-sensibility is a symptom of spiritual decay?

As pthena said, the Catholic Church functioned as a kind of "middle man", or perhaps more appropriately called a spiritual anchor or axis.
In the Catholic Church, there was an esoteric core or interior that necessitated higher thought, but this was not open to the general populace. Without something like the church to interpret theology and the mysteries, the masses would simply revert back to rustic anthropocentrism- which is perhaps the "older, feminine, unheroic" tradition that Evola speaks of. I think what he meant is that it's essentially the phallic worship stage of spirituality- the most unenlightened and primitive phase of our understanding.

In fact, I would say that this "telluric tradition" is still a defining characteristic of these times, seemingly in an upswing or resurgence- "self-transcendence downward". Very little has changed, no matter how rational you think you are.

Materialism (or practical atheism or whatever) is indeed barbaric grandeur. It's the opposite of wisdom and understanding- it's the overt, flat out denial of it. It's the path for people who are mentally lazy; a self-inflicted, self-perpetuating false axiom.

Though, I do think pthena makes a good point about idealism being rebranded as tradition. Tradition that has to be rigidly codified seems far less likely to express a general truth than a tradition that is self-regenerative.

Also, I apologize for not explaining who Evola and Spengler etc. are, I just assumed anyone who clicked on the thread would either already know who they were, or would look up the names themselves.

a reply to: pthena

When he says "fringe secondary relgion", I think he refers to beliefs that are not self-evident. Christianity proliferated itself so well because it's philosophy was evident to the people of that era. "Fringe secondary religions", like many today, are the opposite- they require a good deal of tedious decoration and superficial intricacies.

Like I said before, lots of aimless word-play on the part of "New Agers", with very few unifying threads.

Sure, someone might say "Well, Christianity was obviously not evident to the Romans who crucified it's God"...... And to that I would say, "Well, you are clearly wrong".

a reply to: DiggerDogg

Christianity proliferated itself so well because it's philosophy was evident to the people of that era.

What philosophy would that be? The evidential philosophy that was proliferated by the end of a sword; "Profess Jesus is Lord or die!"?

There is nothing evident about Christianity. What is evident is that people are comforted by the (immoral) idea of a scapegoat who supposedly paid for their sins.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DiggerDogg

Christianity proliferated itself so well because it's philosophy was evident to the people of that era.

What philosophy would that be? The evidential philosophy that was proliferated by the end of a sword; "Profess Jesus is Lord or die!"?

There is nothing evident about Christianity. What is evident is that people are comforted by the (immoral) idea of a scapegoat who supposedly paid for their sins.

I'm not going to humor someone who has a personal bone to pick with some religion. There are plenty of like-minded people on this website who would be happy to indulge you.