Julius Evola on New Age Movement, Spiritual Decay

a reply to: DiggerDogg

That's okay. It was really a rhetorical question anyway.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

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.

This ^^^ sounds just like the goobly gook that you accuse "new agers" of! I have no idea what you mean by "older, feminine, unheroic" tradition. Certainly pagan female goddesses were heroic. The Jesus narrative mimics many of the heroic Pagan stories as well.

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.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Teaching a disconnect with nature is not a healthy tradition, and Christianity depends on the unnatural; the virgin birth, walking on water, changing water to wine, feeding 1000s with 1 basket of bread and fish, raising people from the dead, even the trinity is a truncated and unnatural representation of the Hebrew YHVH, leaving out a crucial "wall of reality".

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.

Pffft. Says you. First of all, materialism and practical atheism are not mutually exclusive. I still have no idea what barbaric grandeur is, other than the pompous hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and the Vatican.

Where is the wisdom in believing that someone died, magically for the sins of the world, but only for those of the world's population who believe the story?

Tradition that has to be rigidly codified seems far less likely to express a general truth than a tradition that is self-regenerative.

Such is religion.

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.

Never heard of either of them, and your OP wasn't invigorating enough for me to want to research somebody whose theories don't align with my own understanding of "new age" thought, how varied the people and their ideas really are. There are some who focus on UFOs and alien saviors, some who focus on Celtic, Egyptian even Hebrew mysticism, Pagans and Wiccans, some are into past lives, esp and astral projection and some are into quantum physics. There is no unified "new age" community.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
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.

I think that the two centuries 100 B.C.E - A.C.E.100 were very revolutionary times, with the appearance of many leader/teachers and the formation of many mystery cults. It took 500 years or so for Orthodox Christianity to crystalize through absorbing some while marginalizing or eliminating others. New Age is now attempting to become the new "secular Western religion". Very little "tedious decoration and superficial intricacies" required.

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

The unifying thread (for Tolle at least) seems to be timeless, egoless, being-ness in the now, with an underlying monistic panentheistic mysticism. Not complicated at all really.

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".

I'm afraid that just went over my head.

Can you explain "telluric tradition"? Is that "Chthonic" as opposed to "Olympian"?

I'll probably take a break from writing, I'm better at that in the morning. I'll read up on Evola some more.

a reply to: windword

I have no idea what you mean by "older, feminine, unheroic" tradition. Certainly pagan female goddesses were heroic. The Jesus narrative mimics many of the heroic Pagan stories as well.
. . .
Teaching a disconnect with nature is not a healthy tradition,

Here comes the chauvinism, the crux between two kinds of Paganism. The fantastical "masculine/heroic/warrior" vs the "feminine/Earthly" people who stay home, grow crops, tend animals, irrigate, harvest, weave, give birth, bury the dead, in short: all the mundane chores without which there would be no civilization.

I think that's what's coming up. I'll read some essays by the man himself. The Races of the Spirit, Julius Evola

Wicca and some other Pagan traditions are primarily gender duality. There does not need to be an either/or.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DiggerDogg

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.

This ^^^ sounds just like the goobly gook that you accuse "new agers" of! I have no idea what you mean by "older, feminine, unheroic" tradition. Certainly pagan female goddesses were heroic. The Jesus narrative mimics many of the heroic Pagan stories as well.

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.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Teaching a disconnect with nature is not a healthy tradition, and Christianity depends on the unnatural; the virgin birth, walking on water, changing water to wine, feeding 1000s with 1 basket of bread and fish, raising people from the dead, even the trinity is a truncated and unnatural representation of the Hebrew YHVH, leaving out a crucial "wall of reality".

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.

Pffft. Says you. First of all, materialism and practical atheism are not mutually exclusive. I still have no idea what barbaric grandeur is, other than the pompous hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and the Vatican.

Where is the wisdom in believing that someone died, magically for the sins of the world, but only for those of the world's population who believe the story?

Tradition that has to be rigidly codified seems far less likely to express a general truth than a tradition that is self-regenerative.

Such is religion.

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.

Never heard of either of them, and your OP wasn't invigorating enough for me to want to research somebody whose theories don't align with my own understanding of "new age" thought, how varied the people and their ideas really are. There are some who focus on UFOs and alien saviors, some who focus on Celtic, Egyptian even Hebrew mysticism, Pagans and Wiccans, some are into past lives, esp and astral projection and some are into quantum physics. There is no unified "new age" community.

Oh boy, here we go again.

-Do you know what the words old, feminine, and unheroic mean? I meant exactly what I said.

-Whether pagan goddesses were heroic has nothing to do with what I said. They were usually part of a male-dominated pantheon, anyway (in European paganism at least).

-You seem to be confused, becuase I never said anything about a disconnect with nature. This "older telluric tradition" was just primitive anthropocentrism. Hardly encompassing nature as a whole. Your rambling about Biblical miracles is as vapid as ever, and it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

-"Materialism and practical atheism are not mutually exclusive"
Yeah, and I don't remember saying they were. They are intimately related, in fact. Are you even reading what I'm typing?

-"Where is the wisdom in believing that someone died, magically for the sins of the world, but only for those of the world's population who believe the story?"

Who believes that? Who are you referring to? I haven't once said I believe anything like that. Why are you even assuming I'm Christian, as such?

-I don't care if you hadn't heard of them. Your ignorance and laziness isn't my concern.

-"There is no unified "new age" community."

Yep, as I've already said twice in this thread.....

originally posted by: pthena

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
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.

I think that the two centuries 100 B.C.E - A.C.E.100 were very revolutionary times, with the appearance of many leader/teachers and the formation of many mystery cults. It took 500 years or so for Orthodox Christianity to crystalize through absorbing some while marginalizing or eliminating others. New Age is now attempting to become the new "secular Western religion". Very little "tedious decoration and superficial intricacies" required.

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

The unifying thread (for Tolle at least) seems to be timeless, egoless, being-ness in the now, with an underlying monistic panentheistic mysticism. Not complicated at all really.

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".

I'm afraid that just went over my head.

Can you explain "telluric tradition"? Is that "Chthonic" as opposed to "Olympian"?

I'll probably take a break from writing, I'm better at that in the morning. I'll read up on Evola some more.

Look man, I will put this as succinctly as possible: In my view, the New Age stuff is just a corruption of certain Eastern teachings. The stuff you posted seems like it's some distorted interpretation of the Buddhist concept of extinguishing desire. Except now they call it "extinguish the ego", which is ridiculous (and impossible).

IMO, it's just an infantile understanding of the Middle Way, tantra, sublimity etc. Personally I don't understand it and never have. It seems like they're trying to make what is fundamentally immaterial, fit into a materialist world. They are just rebranding older traditions to make them palatable to modern "consumer-pariahs".

a reply to: DiggerDogg

-You seem to be confused, becuase I never said anything about a disconnect with nature. This "older telluric tradition" was just primitive anthropocentrism. Hardly encompassing nature as a whole. Your rambling about Biblical miracles is as vapid as ever, and it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Look Dude, this is what YOU wrote, and ALL you wrote in your OP.

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".

Then you quoted somebody named "Spengler". Other than in your thread's title, you never cited or even mentioned Julius Evola.

I disagree with YOUR opinion, regardless of what Spengler or Evola have to say.

Who believes that? Who are you referring to? I haven't once said I believe anything like that. Why are you even assuming I'm Christian, as such?

You said this.

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

You seem to be confused, becuase I never said anything about a disconnect with nature. This "older telluric tradition" was just primitive anthropocentrism. Hardly encompassing nature as a whole. Your rambling about Biblical miracles is as vapid as ever, and it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Christianity is unnatural, not "evident" as truth to people, but a philosophy that comforts people who believe in a magical savior.

What you see as a downward spiral of decay, I see as introspection and searching within for self empowerment, instead of helplessly looking to celestial magical beings to intervene.

-"Materialism and practical atheism are not mutually exclusive"
Yeah, and I don't remember saying they were. They are intimately related, in fact. Are you even reading what I'm typing?

No they're not! Atheism is merely the denial of a supreme being. There are all kinds of atheists, even spiritual atheists that believe in ghosts and reincarnation......just not a supreme being(s).

a reply to: DiggerDogg

Look man, I will put this as succinctly as possible: In my view, the New Age stuff is just a corruption of certain Eastern teachings. The stuff you posted seems like it's some distorted interpretation of the Buddhist concept of extinguishing desire. Except now they call it "extinguish the ego", which is ridiculous (and impossible).

Sorry about that. I got a bit carried away. There's a bit of a scale actually as far as how people describe their viewpoints and which words they use. But check this out, the SBNR lifestyle:

Spiritual but not religious

"Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR) is a popular phrase and initialism used to self-identify a life stance of spirituality that rejects traditional organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth.

The term is used world-wide, but is most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious.
. . .
SBNR is commonly used[8][9] to describe the demographic also known as unchurched, none of the above, more spiritual than religious, spiritually eclectic, unaffiliated, freethinkers, or spiritual seekers.
. . .
Younger people are more likely to identify as SBNR than older people. In April 2010, the front page of USA Today claimed that 72% percent of Generation Y agree they are "more spiritual than religious".[8]

Those who identify as SBNR vary in their individual spiritual philosophies and practices and theological references, referencing some higher power or transcendent nature of reality, without belonging to a religious affiliation
. . .
One possible differentiation among the three constructs religion, religiosity, and spirituality, is to view religion as primarily a social phenomenon while understanding spirituality on an individual level. Religiosity is generally viewed as being rooted in religion, whereas this is not necessarily the case for spirituality. A study of the differences between those self-identified as spiritual and those self-identified as religious found that the former have a loving, forgiving, and nonjudgmental view of the numinous, while those identifying themselves as religious see their god as more judgmental

It seems like they're trying to make what is fundamentally immaterial, fit into a materialist world. They are just rebranding older traditions to make them palatable to modern "consumer-pariahs".

And it seems to be working. Read one of Tolle's books, or hear an interview on Oprah or whatever and then you feel it's okay to be SBNR.

Back to Evola:

From the ‘ordeal by fire’ of the primordial forces of race heroic experience, above all other experience, has been a means to an essentially spiritual and interior end. But there is more: heroic experience differentiates itself in its results not only according to the various races, but also according to the extent to which, within each race, a super-race has formed itself and come to power. The various degrees of this creative differentiation correspond to so many ways of being a hero and to so many forms of awakening through heroic experience. On the lowest plane hybrid, essentially vital, instinctive and collective forces emerge – this is somewhat similar to the awakening on a large scale of the ‘primordial horde’ with the solidarity, the unity of destiny and of holocaust which is peculiar to it. Gradually, this mostly naturalistic experience is purified, dignified, becomes luminous, until it reaches its highest form, which corresponds to the Aryan conception of war as ‘holy war’, and of victory and triumph as an apex, since its value is identical to those of holiness and initiation, and, finally, of death on the battlefield as mors triumphalis, as not rhetorical but effective overcoming of death.

Race & War, Julius Evola

Evola wrote that before WWII, as a looking forward to WWII. In hindsight, I would say the winners, the "Super-race...come to power" were those who used their dead and made them the centerpiece of a reworked religion, with holy shrines museums worldwide, thereby making themselves untouchable by any group wanting to obstruct their agenda. The Italians didn't win, nor the Germans, nor even the Americans.

Weird, that.

I better stop right here before I get booted.

a reply to: pthena

Using a term like gender duality at this time in history is going to be really hard for historians in the future to put into context . she/hes and he/shes ...For some reason I never had a problem considering a feminine masculine spirit of something or someone ,without having to be confused about gendure . I guess the big boys club have tied a not they may not be able to unravel ,even if their life may depend on doing so .

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
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.

Culture, and by extension tradition, are tightly linked with human evolution. Tradition is just the preservation of culture that's assumed to be beneficial for later generations. If a tradition is dropped because it has lost it's practical application, then so be it. It's up to the individual/group to decide whether it's still applicable to their lives. It's hilarious how modernists criticize "tradition", but yet try to force their own mores on others in the same way. But I am guessing that just goes right over your head.

Mutual reciprocity (morality) and the pragmatic aspect of culture contributed immensely to our survival as a species. We are social creatures, thus culture and tradition are a necessity in most ways. They provide the framework for all reciprocity and social cohesion. In the strictly practical sense, culture is anything from wearing a specially crafted coat to surivive in the winter, to implied rules of conduct (politeness etc).

Evola on modern civilization's contagion:

[…] This present "civilization," starting from Western hotbeds, has extended the contagion to every land that was still healthy and has brought to all strata of society and all races the following "gifts": restlessness, dissatisfaction, resentment, the need to go further and faster, and the inability to possess one's life in simplicity, independence, and balance. Modem civilization has pushed man onward; it has generated in him the need for an increasingly greater number of things; it has made him more and more insufficient to himself and powerless. Thus, every new invention and technological discovery, rather than a conquest, really represents a defeat and a new whiplash in an ever faster race blindly taking place within a system of conditionings that are increasingly serious and irreversible and that for the most part go unnoticed. This is how the various paths converge: technological civilization, the dominant role of the economy, and the civilization of production and consumption all complement the exaltation of becoming and progress; in other words, they contribute to the manifestation of the "demonic" element in the modem world." (1)