The Evolian Path for Confronting the Modern World

A guide to concrete forms of individual action

This essay attempts to outline Julius Evola’s critique of the modern world alongside a detailed overview of the concrete guidelines he prescribes for those seeking to overcome the meaninglessness of modernity.

Part 1 explores the specifics of Evola’s critique and Part 2 covers four guidelines in detail. The third and final part discloses a unique course of action reserved for only the most exceptionally “qualified” individuals.

For those unfamiliar with Evola’s work, this essay can serve as a starting point for further inquiry as well as a practical guide for the initiated Evolian student who seeks to apply his deeper insights.

---

For quite some time now it has become almost commonplace to talk about the “decline of the West” and the crisis of contemporary civilization, its dangers, and the havoc it has caused…In all this concern there is generally very little that goes beyond the amateurishness of intellectuals. It would be all too easy to show how often these views lack true principles, and how what is being rejected is often still unconsciously retained by those who wish to react, and how for the most part people do not really know what they want, since they obey irrational impulses.¹

In the present time, not much has changed vis a vis the attention given to the topic of the “crisis of modernity”.

Much of this attention manifests as zoomed-in analyses of timely phenomena or developments and while this can be useful for constructing and reinforcing narratives, there’s much left to be desired on the level of genuine perspectives. Even when serious attempts are made on this front, we find that the ultimate scapegoat of the crisis ends up as one of the social ideologies or their offspring - I’m talking about the “isms” here: Capitalism, Consumerism, Marxism, Liberalism etc. From there these kinds of examinations often spiral back into analysis culture, or outline vague programs for collective action that don’t have a higher set of principles to start from nor a clear vision that can inform that action.

At a pragmatic level, too, the various dissident movements that would be the vanguard for outlining new perspectives are just as ill-equipped as the rest to do so. Their program, whatever might be publicly stated or implied, amounts to low-level analysis as mentioned before or exuberant, but ultimately dissipative, forms of activism: “culture war” agitation, dopamine dealing (through internet/meme culture), ideological turtling, or simply just glorifying a historical aesthetic that cannot be actualized in today’s world on any meaningful level.

After all this, let me be clear: I don’t claim to have a complete system of solutions, and I’m certainly not trying to discourage those with the talent and energy for “map-building” to channel their efforts otherwise. There is a definite place for on-the-ground investigation of modernity’s landscape when it’s done in the spirit of earnestness and diligence. But horizontal analysis is only one part of the way forward. What’s just as important, if not emphatically more so, is effort made towards attaining a higher level view of the crisis of modernity. Only then can the two perpendicular directions, horizontal and vertical, attain some level of cohesion with the latter setting the boundary conditions of the former. Rather than exclusively focusing on the details of the map, what is needed is a view from the heights.

Thankfully, there are individuals who have fully understood this requirement and have given us genuine reference points from which to start— not only in terms of analysis and insight, but also concrete directions and actions that can be undertaken on the individual, “existential” level.

One of these rare individuals is Julius Evola.

Evola the Topographer

The past decade has seen a surge of interest in the works and life of this unique esotericist-philosopher. Some of it involves an earnest, open-minded effort to study them. Much of the interest, however, relates to the air of controversy surrounding Evola’s tenuous involvement with National Socialism and Fascism - an involvement which has been greatly exaggerated by the rank-and-file of the current mass-media regime. Also, there have been a few “dissident” figures in recent times whom cite Evola as one of their influences - to what extent they genuinely understand his worldview is also questionable.

As a result, the curious outsider who learns of Evola is given a one-sided picture of him. Even when this picture is (correctly) rejected, the least interesting aspects of his writings (namely, those on National Socialism and Fascism) are emphasized, while his truly important works sidelined. To be fair, much of Evola’s boldness and originality shines through in his metapolitical works, but where he really sets himself apart is through his systematic exposition of the values, categories, and principles of a different world - a world that represents the antithesis of modernity. It is his uncompromising fidelity to this world and the examination of its various doctrines, civilizations, and teachings that qualifies him to give us the proper view from the heights.

Always keeping a higher reference point in mind, then, Evola assumes the role of intellectual topographer. He’s able to zoom in and describe the surface features of modernity’s landscape and then, just as easily, zoom out to arrange each of these features in their proper “vertical” relation to each other. His in-depth analyses of the various philosophical and “spiritualist” currents of his time attest to this much.² More than this, however, Evola zooms further out and presents the entire landscape in one frame and defends the superiority of this vantage point with consummate precision. Throughout his corpus, the parameter of elevation remains the most effective tool in defining, building, and viewing the map of modernity.

It’s for these reasons that I’ve chosen Evola’s ideas to be the focal point of this essay; they provide us with the proper view from the heights as well as a glimpse into the reality of the plains. Consequently, then, the first part of this essay will outline the Evolian orientation towards the modern world. In the second part, I’ll be outlining specific forms of action that Evola himself prescribes for the man who feels at odds with modernity and strives to remain true to himself while all others are ground up by it.

This essay will not present any programs or suggestions at the collective level. My aim here is for a certain type of individual (essentially, the same “type” that Evola addresses in many of his later works to) to come away with a clear idea of some concrete directions and practices he can take to address his overall existential situation. I should mention that, for obvious reasons, I can’t provide hyper-specific precepts or literal instructions, and I certainly won’t claim that this essay is any kind of “solution” to someone’s particular circumstances. That would only cheapen the value of Evola’s ideas and subject them to that particular corrosive tendency of modern society i.e. the tendency for quick formulas, nostrums, and palliatives.

To that end, most of the ideas I’ll be drawing from come from Evola’s later works, primarily his book Ride the Tiger as well as other titles and various essay compendiums - The Doctrine of Awakening, The Bow and the Club, and The Fall of Spirituality.

Before we can get to the concrete disciplines to be undertaken, however, we must understand Evola’s worldview and the “type” of person he is primarily appealing to. We must understand the base on which rests the complete rejection of the modern world.

Part 1: Essential Orientations

The Antithesis of Modernity

Perhaps the best place to start with Evola’s critique is to reframe the question “What is the modern world?” to “What exactly constitutes the non-modern world?” What is the world that sets itself up as the antithesis of modernity?

Simply answered, it is what Evola refers to as the world of Tradition.

Now for those who aren’t familiar with the particular way this term is used - and it’s designation with a capital “T” - let me be emphatically clear that I’m not referring to the forms and features of some specific historical civilization. In actuality, many of the civilizations which Evola would describe as Traditional were indeed situated in the distant past, but that is far from the denotative aspect of this term. Nor am I using Tradition in the affective way that a modern day “conservative” would, namely, as an extension of the affinity for the particular institutions, customs, or values of the bourgeois world (we will see just how “relative” this world is for Evola). As a result, then, there’s nothing in the elaboration and exaltation of the Traditional world that betrays a “let’s just return to X time/place and all is well” attitude.

To give us a succinct answer as to what Tradition actually is, Evola himself is best quoted here in the opening chapter of his magnum opus - aptly titled Revolt Against the Modern World.

In order to understand both the spirit of Tradition and its antithesis, modern civilization, it is necessary to begin with the fundamental doctrine of the two natures. According to this doctrine there is a physical order of things and a metaphysical one; there is a mortal nature and an immortal one; there is the superior realm of “being” and the inferior realm of “becoming.” Generally speaking, there is a visible and tangible dimension and, prior to and beyond it, an invisible and intangible dimension that is the support, the source, and true life of the former.³

So there we have it. The starting point here is a world constituted by the superior realm of Being and another by the inferior realm of Becoming. Being and Becoming, used in this way, require a bit more explanation than I can give here, but for those who don’t have the proper reference points we can simply think of them as proxies for two polar opposite principles: one that is “metaphysical” and the other “material”. Other dichotomies such as matter and spirit, eternity and temporality, absolute and relative, and even order and chaos can be used to symbolically evoke the correct distinction as well.

Beyond these labels however, we should try to understand what they mean in terms of their respective realities. Essentially, what were the fundamental differences in the experience of reality of Traditional vs. modern man? On what grounds can we further justify the antithesis between a world oriented towards a material vs. a metaphysical order of things?

On this, Evola writes:

As difficult as it may be for our contemporaries to understand this, we must start from the idea that the man of Tradition was aware of the existence of a dimension of being much wider than what our contemporaries experience and call “reality.” Nowadays, after all, reality is understood only as something strictly encompassed within the world of physical bodies located in space and time. Certainly, there are those who believe in something beyond the realm of phenomena. When these people admit the existence of something else, however, they are always led to this conclusion by a scientific hypothesis or law, or by a speculative idea, or by a religious dogma; they cannot escape such an intellectual limitation. Through his practical and immediate experiences, modern man, no matter how deep his “materialistic” or “spiritual” beliefs may be, develops an understanding of reality only in relation to the world of physical bodies and always under the influence of his direct and immediate experiences. This is the real materialism for which our contemporaries should be reproached. All the other versions of materialism that are formulated in scientific or in philosophical terms are only secondary phenomena.⁴ (emphases mine)

The modern man, then, is rooted in his sensorial reality to the exclusion of all else - in other words, a fundamentally materialistic reality. Furthermore, we now have a standard for comprehending all of what Evola describes as “metaphysical” and “spiritual”. We are, once again, coming back to a wider “dimension of being” not to be taken as a proxy for an otherworldly domain or something supernatural or even mystical, but a sense of a fuller experience of being in the world.

On this, Evola writes:

What is truly “spiritual” should come to be felt as a present reality, not exceptional but natural, not miraculous or sensational but evident in the context of a sensation of the world that is vaster, freer, and more complete. How far this spirituality then stands apart from man, as something properly “supernatural,” is of no importance. What is important is the clarity and the naturalness of the knowledge.⁵

In summary, then, we have two qualitatively distinct and antithetical worlds: Traditional and modern. The former is defined by a metaphysical order of reality and the latter, conversely, is devoid of all genuine contact with this reality.

The First Negation

Hopefully we now have a rudimentary understanding of the thrust of Evola’s critique and can, accordingly, add more weight to the claim that the Traditional world corresponds with modernity’s exact antithesis when seen through the aforementioned perspective.

At this point, it’s worth saying a few things about the “bourgeois world” that I mentioned above - the world so staunchly defended by the “traditionalists” and conservatives of today. For Evola, this world constituted one of the first negations of the remnants of the Traditional world and, expectedly, does not correspond at any level to something “anti-modern” . He emphasizes this in many of his works, and most succinctly in the first few pages of Ride the Tiger:

There is an important point to clarify at the outset regarding the attitude to be taken toward "survivals." Even now, especially in Western Europe, there are habits, institutions, and customs from the world of yesterday (that is, from the bourgeois world) that have a certain persistence. In fact, when crisis is mentioned today, what is meant is precisely the bourgeois world: it is the bases of bourgeois civilization and society that suffer these crises and are struck by dissolution. This is not what Ι call the world of Tradition. Socially, politically, and culturally, what is crashing down is the system that took shape after the revolution of the Third Estate and the first industrial revolution, even though there were often mixed up in it some remnants of a more ancient order, drained of their original vitality.⁶

Furthermore, Evola maintains that there is no compromise with the bourgeois world even as a potential strategy to combat its more virulent and extreme offspring - Marxism and Communism in the previous century and perhaps all of the various expressions of “Wokeism” in the current year.

He writes:

In view οf this, there is one solution to be eliminated right away: the solution οf those who want to rely οn what is left οf the bourgeois world, defending and using it as a bastion against the more extreme currents οf dissolution and subversion, even if they have tried to reanimate or reinforce these remnants with some higher and more traditional values.

In the first place, considering the general situation that becomes clearer every day since those crucial events that are the two world wars and their repercussions, to adopt such an orientation signifies self-deception as to the existence οf material possibilities. The transformations that have already taken place go too deep to be reversible. The energies that have been liberated, or which are in the course οf liberation, are not such as can be reconfined within the structures οf yesterday's world. The very fact that attempts at reaction have referred to those structures alone, which are void οf any superior legitimacy, has made the subversive forces all the more vigorous and aggressive. Ιn the second place, such a path would lead to a compromise that would be inadmissible as an ideal, and perilous as a tactic. As Ι have said, the traditional values in the sense that Ι understand them are not bourgeois values, but the very antithesis οf them.⁷

So there we have it. Adherence to the world of Tradition can only mean a rejection of not only the most obvious forms of decadence today, but also, the world which these extreme forces sought to supersede: the bourgeois world.

As I mentioned above, I can only give a brief outline of the subject, but the whole point here was to provide the reader with the essential background of Evola’s orientation because, as we will see, his objective is not simply to provide information and enumerate the various differences between the two worlds. In his later works, it’s clear that Evola has in mind the project of “existentially guiding” those who understand his views, those who are fundamentally constituted in a way that rejects all of the various expressions of the modern world and who would forge their lives in a way that affirms this orientation. He embarks on this project during the later years of his life and in a piecemeal manner, but with the same degree of confidence, skill, and perspective that characterize his earlier works.

It’s worth our time, now, to clarify some points about this certain type of individual or “differentiated type”. This is a truly rare individual whom Evola identifies as one able to keep himself steady in an age of dissolution.

The Differentiated Human Type

One of the most consistent threads running through Evola’s works is the remarkable congruency between the views he puts forth and the degree to which they come into play in his works rather than lingering as conceptual abstractions. If Evola exalts a particular principle of the Traditional world - “aristocratic values” for example - he also recognizes that the practical consequences implied by this principle must be adhered to when any specific guidelines are suggested. In other words, if “aristocratic values” are a fundamental truth, then only a small number of individuals would be capable, at any given point, of adequately exploiting these values.

Consequently, Evola makes it clear that the positive directions for action that he prescribes in his later works cannot be undertaken by just any individual who happens to be interested in his works. Indeed, his program, if we are to remain true to its spirit, cannot hold as a valid course of action for all except a highly mature and internally developed type of individual.⁸ Evola, in Ride the Tiger (and in other works) denotes this individual as the differentiated type. As this type’s distinguishing feature he writes:

What I am about to say does not concern the ordinary man οf our day. On the contrary, Ι have in mind the man who finds himself involved in today's world, even at its most problematic and paroxysmal points; yet he does not belong inwardly to such a world, nor will he give in to it. He feels himself, in essence, as belonging to a different race from that of the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries.⁹ (emphasis mine)

So we have, then, the rare kind of individual who possesses an internal recognition of being deeply rooted in the world of Tradition. For Evola, “the essential thing is that such a man is characterized by an existential dimension not present in the predominant human type of recent times - that is, the dimension of transcendence.”¹⁰

Here, it’s also worth mentioning this type’s relationship with the bourgeois world. This, I personally believe, is important to clarify especially so as to avoid those fashionable ideologies and currents that wear the mask of “anti-modernity” though, in truth, are only less entrenched in it than the rest.

On this, Evola writes:

What kind of relationship can the human type whom I intend to treat here have with such a world? This question is essential. Οn it depend both the meaning to be attributed to the phenomena of crisis and dissolution that are ever more apparent today, and the attitude to be assumed in the face of them, and toward whatever they have not yet undermined and destroyed. The answer to this question can οnly be negative. The human type I have in mind has nothing to do with the bourgeois world. He must consider everything bourgeois as being recent and antitraditional, born from processes that in themselves are negative and subversive.¹¹

We are then left with a picture of the differentiated type’s reality as that which requires a deep interior recognition of the “distanced” relationship with the modern world. This recognition would not only serve as a robust and continual source of strength, but just as much a reminder to break free from any delusions regarding external sources of support.¹²

Evola further isolates the realities of the differentiated type:

He can in truth find nο further support from without. There nο longer exist the organizations and institutions that, in a traditional civilization and society, would have allowed him to realize himself wholly, to order his own existence in a clear and unambiguous way, and to defend and apply creatively in his own environment the principal values that he recognizes within himself. Thus there is no question of suggesting to him lines of action that, adequate and normative in any regular, traditional civilization, can no longer be so in an abnormal one-in an environment that is utterly different socially, psychically, intellectually, and materially; in a climate of general dissolution; in a system ruled by scarcely restrained disorder, and anyway lacking any legitimacy from above.¹³

What we should gather from all of this is not a doom-and-gloom feeling that the differentiated type is left to his own and should remain passive and retreat to the forest or mountains. On the contrary, it forms the preliminary background for Evola’s positive “solution” to the differentiated type’s existential situation. On this Evola writes:

But this does not resolve the practical, personal problem-apart from the case οf the man who is blessed with the opportunity for material isolation-of those who cannot or will not burn their bridges with current life, and who must therefore decide how to conduct their existence, even οn the level οf the most elementary reactions and human relations.¹⁴ (emphasis mine)

After all this, then, the “problem” for the differentiated type starts to become clear: what lines of action can he take, while remaining and moving within the modern world, so as to affirm himself as a man of Tradition and to realize his highest possibilities in this life - in the here and now? For Evola, the positive solution to this problem appears in the form of a trial or task, and it is the differentiated type who is best equipped to shoulder the demands of this trial - this trial being the only truly worthy course of action in an age of dissolution.

The Outline of the Task

We come now to the crucial point of determining what exactly this task is. We must first disclose the matter broadly before we can get into any details. On this, Evola writes:

The problem will then be to maintain one's essential direction without leaning οn any given or transmitted form, including forms that are authentically traditional but belong to past history. In this respect, continuity can οnly be maintained οn an essential plane, so to speak, as an inner orientation οf being, beside the greatest possible external liberty.¹⁵

What does this really mean?

In short, it amounts to nothing less than a reformulation of the ancient maxim of “being oneself”. The crucial point to note here, though, is that the idea of “being oneself”, rather than invoked as a surrogate for modern-day, banal individualism applicable to the abstract everyday man, can only be fully understood and applied by a rare kind of person who has preserved in himself the capacity to be more than merely human - in other words, the differentiated type. It is the differentiated type who, by virtue of being deeply rooted in the world of Tradition, can tap into the transcendent center within himself and remain steadfast when encountering even the greatest challenges and obstacles - this center understood as something beyond the totality of his psychophysical limitations and dependencies. On the other hand, the modern man cannot lay claim to a true center. Within him, there are multiple, often divergent tendencies all clamoring for his attention - tendencies which are barely kept in check and themselves the product of external influences.¹⁶ One has a definite form, even if there may be peripheral contrasting tendencies, and the other is formless.

In any case for Evola, the maxim of “being oneself” is only one part of the task. This is because in order to truly “be oneself” one must also “know oneself”. For Evola, these two ontological imperatives form the foundation of this essential task and consequently, provide the overarching framework through which all of his guidelines and prescriptions can be understood. Any line of conduct or action undertaken ultimately serves the purpose of addressing one of these two aspects. Together they constitute the entirety of the “solution” to the existential problem outlined in the previous section.

With these preliminaries out of the way, we’ll now get into Evola’s specific guidelines and themes for actually addressing these two imperatives - for solving the existential problem of engaging with modernity while remaining true to oneself. How can one begin to know oneself and use this knowledge to be oneself? Obviously, I cannot provide an exhaustive list and much what follows will involve my own interpretations and suggestions, but I will try to stay true to the spirit of Evola’s ideas while doing so.

I’ve organized the program into three phases, the first two of which correspond to the aforementioned categories of being/knowing oneself. This should not necessarily be taken as a requirement for strict sequential adherence - there will always be an individual’s own circumstances that come into play - but the second phase does build on elements of the previous one so as to facilitate favorable conditions for its execution. This sequence parallels Evola’s own prescriptions in Ride the Tiger and elsewehere. Seen in this light, there is a degree of synergy and a sense of gradual progression to the program as a whole.

The third phase represents a very exclusive possibility. It involves a path that Evola devoted much of his career to outlining in its manifold forms (and probably even sought after himself) - that of the path of Initiation. We’ll get to what this term means in the corresponding section, but for now I’ll simply say that this path represents the pinnacle of any and all human endeavors.

Part 2: The Program

Phase 1: Forging One’s Own Law (Being Oneself)

The problem of being oneself has a particular and subordinate solution in terms of a unification. Once one has discovered through experiment which of one’s manifold tendencies is the central one, one sets about identifying it with one’s will, stabilizing it, and organizing all one’s secondary or divergent tendencies around it. This is what it means to give oneself a law, one’s own law.¹⁷

In the preceding quote Evola states that one can discover one’s central tendency “through experiment”, but this already assumes a baseline level of self-discipline is present to address the subsequent tasks of identifying, stabilizing, and organizing this tendency. For the differentiated type it very well may be the case that they possess a basic internal form and the requisite self-discipline. In that case, they can proceed to channel their energy towards finding their central tendency and to begin giving themselves an inner law. For the sake of completeness, however, it’s worth our time to outline some basic themes and lines of conduct if the aforementioned qualities rest on a shaky foundation - especially so in these times when “distraction” is the byword of the age.

First Guideline: Right Conduct

The first guideline I want to emphasize concerns the field of ethics. In every great tradition, whether spiritual, religious, or philosophical, a focus on ethics and character building lays the foundation for all subsequent initiatives. This is simply because following a firm line of right conduct requires developing and mastering positive habits while allaying and removing superfluous ones. This process is then applied at successive levels so as to polarize one’s being towards a particular objective or principle.

To get started at ground zero, I’ll reiterate my point above that in the current year “distraction” and “diffusion” are the first obstacles to overcome if one hasn’t done so already. These obstacles take a thousand varied forms, but I specifically want to focus on the media and information technologies which have become a counterpart to our daily lifestyles - the screens, the platforms, the “content” all yearning to hijack our attention and keep us plugged into a world of meaningless noise and superficiality.

The most obvious negative consequences of this development are the compulsive use of social media, video games, and pornography. The abuse of these in particular, apart from detrimental neuro-physiological effects, lead to a kind of fragmentation of the mind in which it becomes nearly impossible to concentrate deeply on anything. With prolonged abuse, psychological and emotional well-being start to become seriously hindered with the result being a “person” reduced to an aggregate of their most basic impulses, reflexes, and desires. A self that is enslaved by its lowest nature.

It’s cliché to mention all this, but once again, I must emphasize what we’re trying to achieve: a baseline level of self-discipline which can be effortlessly recruited towards forming an inner law.

So then the first fundamental task, in my view, involves setting clear and strict boundaries with these forms of personal technology - there’s simply no compromise here. They should really only be used towards very specific ends (like work or when actual information needs to be accessed) or in those rare cases where communication by other means isn’t possible or feasible. I won’t go into details about all of the various practices and tools that can be implemented towards this end, but a good place to start might be Cal Newport’s book Digital Minimalism.¹⁸

The next step after all of the various “distractions” have been minimized involves developing positive lines of conduct. Rather than outlining some kind of self-improvement, Andrew Tate-esque, monk-mode protocol, I want to emphasize the cultivation of those rarer, subtler qualities that, when taken as a whole, immediately convey the mark of a nobler type of man.

To get into the specifics, Evola himself is best quoted here in a rare moment where he zooms down to the level of everyday life and conduct. In an essay titled “The Breed of the Evasive Man”, Evola describes the average human type who has come to predominate in modern times and especially so with the advent of democracy and liberalism:

The type of man belonging to this breed not only cannot stand any inner discipline and hates the prospect of facing himself, but he is also incapable of taking any serious commitment, of following a well-defined line of conduct, of showing any character…Feebleness, evasiveness, light-hearted irresponsibility and casual unfairness are also displayed in relation to trivial, everyday matters of life. One promises something — to write, phone, take care of this or that — and then fails to act on it. One is not punctual. In more serious cases, memory itself is affected: forgetfulness, absent-mindedness, a difficulty to concentrate. Specialists have noted that the young generations have a poorer memory, and various bizarre or adjunct reasons have been invoked to explain this fact.¹⁹

We don’t have to reach too far to recognize that nothing has changed in our day and has, expectedly, accelerated to reach an almost baffling degree of ubiquity. The average person today, too plugged into their digital simulacrum, can barely remember what they did the previous day and could hardly muster the effort to concentrate deeply if their life depended on it. “Feebleness, evasiveness, light-hearted irresponsibility and casual unfairness” are also the rule rather than the exceptions in the current year.

My emphasizing of these matters should not be glossed over. Although this is just “level 1”, there is no real progress towards being oneself without this foundation already developed and made robust. If the reader has read all of the above and acknowledges personal deficiencies, yet can take sober look at himself and say, “there’s still more work to be done here” then all the better. There’s a wisdom to recognizing where you’re currently at and not falling for self-deception or complacency. These are important aspects of integrating oneself, following a firm line of conduct, giving oneself form - essentially all of the phrases that Evola himself invokes and identifies as those fundamental tasks worth pursuing for the differentiated type. In short, they are of the utmost importance and must constantly be addressed, refined, and mastered.

Speaking of giving oneself form, Evola also enumerates several qualities or virtues that one should always strive to embody. Specifically, he writes:

A distinction must be drawn in this respect. There are certain values which have a conformist character and a purely exterior, social justification — not to mention those values which have come to be regarded as such because their original foundations have been completely lost. Other values instead simply present themselves as a means to ensure a genuine form and steadfastness. Courage, loyalty, lack of deviousness, an aversion to falsehood, an incapacity to betray and superiority vis-à-vis any selfish pettiness or lowly interest may be counted among those values which, in a way, transcend ‘good’ and ‘evil’, as they are situated on an ontological rather than ‘moral’ level: precisely because they bestow or strengthen ‘being’, by contrast to the condition represented by a feeble, elusive and shapeless nature. No ‘imperative’ applies here.²⁰ (emphasis mine)

Many of these qualities align with those virtues exalted by various ancient traditions and for good reason. The distinct point to note in the selection above, however, is that these qualities such as courage, loyalty, and an aversion to falsehood are not to be understood as derived from arbitrary precepts or some moral framework. They are “instrumentally” valuable in the sense that they contribute to unifying one’s being vs. passively allowing oneself to be torn apart by several disparate tendencies and impulses. In our modern societies where the overwhelming majority of people are “feeble, elusive, and shapeless” our task is to obey, and to be worthy of commanding, ourselves.²¹

On a practical level, the cultivation of these qualities must be gradual and even circumstantial to an extent. They cannot simply be willed into existence. Especially with something like courage, for example, where only particular circumstances lend themselves to its exercise (contrasted with more routine, everyday affairs) one shouldn’t expect an immediate and linear development. All this is to say that if we finds ourselves lacking in a particular virtue then it makes sense to give ourselves time and space to allow it to develop, to not think of it as something to be rushed or half-heartedly acquired, but rather a precious skill to be continuously and diligently trained. Once again, there is a wisdom to starting at the level one is at - granted a meaningful effort is made. In all honesty, as well, given the pitiful ethical constitution of the average man, even a modest but consistent level of adherence to any of these virtues already signals the mark of a superior type.

To reiterate, then, this foundation of conducting oneself with uprightness and cultivating a baseline level of self-discipline must be the first step - this running in parallel or after the minimization of one’s personal “distractions”. It’s only with a firm foundation built from exercising our own level of agency that we begin to trust ourselves and our trajectory. This is simply because following a line of right conduct is, and has always been, the sole heritage of the few rather than the many and there is no surer way of proving our worth to ourselves than by doing exactly this. In short, we begin to move from a “reactive” to an active orientation of being.

Second Guideline: Sidereal Awareness

Building on what I mentioned above, the next guideline will focus on reinforcing this active orientation through the use of an ancient, but supremely effective, practice.

Before I disclose it, however, I want to pose a question to the reader: to what degree are you consumed by the external and internal objects of your experience?

What I mean is, in those moments when you’re with yourself where does your mind go (without your conscious intent) and to what degree does it linger there? When going for a casual walk, for example, are you immediately absorbed by scenarios of the past? Of hopes and plans for the future? Are you weighed down by doubt, restlessness or worry? Or are you just somewhere else most of the time? Does the mind simply amble around in fleeting thoughts and memories, submerging itself in the sea of its own private imaginarium?

If you can identify some of the above as concrete facts of your experience then you can likely intuit my main point here. To be explicit, I want to draw attention to the fact that our mind - that irreplaceable instrument of ours - is not fully in our control. Even in the best of times when we’re not weighed down by any mental hindrances and can just be present, we ultimately come to acknowledge and appreciate this state of presence by the lack of its ubiquity in our lives, of the seemingly spontaneous nature of its arising within the scope of our day-to-day experience.

This state of being present, and the quality of mindfulness upon which it relies, however, is far from a spontaneous event occasionally - fortuitously - bestowed upon us by Chance, though for the vast majority of people it does appear this way. The truth is that mindfulness is nothing less than a skill to be diligently trained and mastered. Consequently, any degree of proficiency acquired can only hold true for those who would exercise self-effort and persistence.

Now you might have felt the inclination to roll your eyes here or shift uneasily in your seat upon reading the word “mindfulness” and, frankly, I can sympathize. When I first encountered this idea, it was from the mouths and words of the most insipid kind of people: vapid celebrities and corporatists, Silicon Valley techdorks, moronic stoner-types, Reddit midwits, and generally just the kinds of people least qualified, by virtue of what they are, to intelligently present mindfulness.

To set things straight, mindfulness as a distinct discipline was a cornerstone of Traditional mental and spiritual practice. It enabled one to develop the means by which a centered, calm state of mind arose - the state of mind most conducive to being present. Accordingly, an individual could keep a close watch over their senses, feelings, and mind to prevent themselves from being commanded by the various ephemeral and contingent impulses they gave rise to. Essentially, when practicing mindfulness, one would stand apart from oneself in order to know oneself and, therefore, be able to act from the depths of oneself. The “active act” vs. passive reaction or activity.

Beyond all this, however, some forms of mindfulness practice were acknowledged as a direct path to the highest goal itself - namely that of Initiation and Realization. In the Pāli texts of early Buddhism, for example, the Buddha gives a discourse expressing this idea (the establishment of mindfulness as a direct path to Nibbāna) and gives detailed instructions on how to proceed with its development through the use of various contemplation exercises.²²

Evola himself wrote an excellent book titled The Doctrine of Awakening where he presented a systematic exposition of the early Buddhist ascesis based on the Sutta Pitaka of the Pāli Canon. In the chapter which bears this section’s name (Sidereal Awareness) he elaborates on the central goal behind the particular form of Buddhist mindfulness practice referred to as satipatthāna. He writes:

The aim of the discipline with which we shall now deal is, in fact, to begin to disengage the central principle of one's own being by means of an objective and detached consideration, both of what makes up one's own personality and also of the general content of one's own experience. The very fact of standing apart from all this, as if it were something external or foreign, purifies and stimulates the consciousness, brings one back to oneself and further develops impassive calm.²³

It is the attainment of this “impassive calm” that constitutes our main objective. It is the attainment of a way of thinking and acting in the world that proceeds from the depths of ourselves - not the usual state of passive reactivity by which most people engage with their environment and thoughts. It is the ability to be present and to recognize the subtle joy that accompanies it.

To be clear, then, we are not using mindfulness as a palliative to be half-heartedly applied in order to “reduce stress” or as a coping mechanism (usually how it’s presented in modern contexts). What we are trying to emphasize, instead, is that mindfulness, in order to be truly effective in the terms we just spoke of, must be pursued after we have already attained some degree of internal unification. It is the natural consequence of already having achieved a baseline level of “form”. Hopefully now the reader can understand why I chose to precede this section with one on following a firm line of ethical conduct so as to already set up the most favorable conditions for mindfulness practice. In short, mindfulness practice is most amenable to an already resilient and integrated person - it is not for the neuronally-challenged, the depressed and the anxious, the over-stressed and the “burned-out” or any other kind of person who doesn’t have a firm grip on their own being.

Before I get into some actual practical steps, I want to draw on one of Evola’s points emphasizing the need to pursue this practice in connection with his general theme of “being oneself”:

For many people it is as though they have to relearn how to act in the true sense, actively, as one might say, and also typically. Even for the man whom we have in mind, taken in his worldly aspect, this is an essential requirement today. We might note the corresponding discipline that is so important in traditional "inner teachings": that οf self-remembering or self-awareness. G. Ι. Gurdjieff, who has taught similar things in our time, describes the contrary state as that of being "breathed" or "sucked" into ordinary existence without any awareness οf the fact, without noticing the automatic or "somnambulistic" character that this existence has from a higher point of view. "Ι am sucked in by my thoughts, my memories, my desires, my sensations, by the steak Ι eat, the cigarette Ι smoke, the love Ι make, by the sunshine, the rain, by this tree, by that passing car, by this book." Thus one is a shadow of oneself. Life in a state of being, the "active act," "active sensation," and so on are unknown states.²⁴ (emphases mine)

Hopefully, we now understand the need for incorporating some form of this practice into our life as a natural extension of cultivating an active orientation of being.

Regarding how and where to get started, I’ll first reiterate my points above to avoid most (if not all) modern sources. Specifically, all pop-mindfulness material where a secularized, therapeutic and dilettantish mode of presentation is taken up. In my view, then, one should look to ancient traditions and any contemporary sources which draw from the modes of practice outlined in those traditions. Now while mindfulness as a distinct contemplative practice is not the unique possession of a single tradition, there are none that so clearly and systematically address its development - both in theoretical and practical terms - than early Buddhism. Specifically, then, I would recommend starting with satipatthāna practice.

The term satipatthāna is a Pāli term commonly translated as “the establishment of mindfulness”. The specific book that I’ve found helpful (and am currently using in my own daily practice) is called Satipatthāna Meditation: A Practice Guide written by the Buddhist scholar-monk Bhikkhu Anālayo. Anālayo is an excellent communicator and his presentation is grounded in a deep understanding of the early Buddhist tradition. This guide itself draws from the specific discourse where the Buddha outlines his instructions for establishing mindfulness; we are introduced to the same categories of objects that are used as the basis for early Buddhist Satipatthana practice, namely, contemplation of the body, feelings, the mind, and the dharmas²⁵

As a final clarification for this section, I want to address some common misconceptions regarding isolated mindfulness practice and Eastern-based meditation in general. There’s this popular notion -foolishly advanced by modern dilettante practitioners - that these kinds of practices give rise to extraordinary or unique experiences. These experiences can range from sensations similar to a kind of “high” all the way to euphoria and a whole bunch of intermediate variants. Even when the experience amounts to something pleasant or soothing we should still not view this as the central aim of the practice. It is worth quoting Bhikkhu Anālayo here (from the book above) regarding our primary objective with this practice and how we should view “special experiences”:

Progress in satipaṭṭhāna meditation is not just about having special experiences…Special experiences certainly have their place, but they are not the goal itself. The goal is rather inner transformation. Even the experience of an absorption or a stage of awakening has its true value in the extent to which it produces lasting inner transformation. Meditation practice should result in an improvement in the way we are, how we relate to others, and how we deal with outer circumstances. Such internal changes are more important than appropriating spectacular experiences as markers of our meditative expertise.²⁶

So there we have it. Practice as a natural extension of our general program of inducing inner transformation - for forming our inner law. Practice as a conscious path to attaining clarity of the mind - a mind resembling a crystal-clear, tranquil river in which no mud, coloring, or overgrowth is present. To drive the point further, we can recall Evola’s quote from a few sections back regarding the correct attitude to be applied to “spiritual” and “metaphysical” experiences - an experience of a “world that is vaster, freer, and more complete” instead of a proxy for mystical or supernatural domains or even just “special experiences”.

We have, up to this point then, addressed two stages of the first imperative of “being oneself”: following a line of right conduct and some form of consistent mindfulness practice.

Through the firm foundation built during this phase, we start to acquire the confidence necessary to confront any everyday situation (internal or external) that may present itself. We start to understand our own strengths and capabilities so as to recruit them towards the project of discovering and stabilizing our central tendency. Beyond all this, too, a subtle kind of joy starts to arise within us - a rejoicing in our ability to exercise our self-effort and agency everyday.

And it is by virtue of this emergent reality of “being ourselves” that we feel ready to take the next step. It is in light of the work already done up to this point that we feel prepared to step into unfamiliar territory with an unshakeable confidence to face and surpass all obstacles. It is here that we begin to want to “know ourselves”.

Phase 2: The Transcendent Imperative (Knowing Oneself)

Up to now we have been establishing the rule for being oneself. Now we must bring to light the rule for proving oneself…Just as this type is dual in its essential structure- in its determination as an individual, and its dimension of transcendence - being itself, and knowing itself through proving itself, present two quite distinct degrees…The only actions that can be valid for this purpose are those that arise from the depths.²⁷

The initial phase of our program involved setting guidelines at the individual level for the differentiated type. Essentially, the unification of one’s personal tendencies was the first step in the Evolian “trial of self-knowledge”: being oneself. The next phase, and the subject of the next couple of sections, involves going further than individual unification and tapping into the “dimension of transcendence” within oneself. This is what it means to know ourselves and consequently, to resolve and overcome the existential meaninglessness that pervades the modern world.

Before I outline Evola’s specific example, I want to introduce his understanding of how the Traditional world regarded the idea of “action” in general. As we will see, the ability to apply a higher form of action constitutes the most immediately accessible practice available to the differentiated type without the slightest change in external habits or circumstances.

First Guideline: Pure Action

This higher form of action finds expression in two Traditional maxims. On this, Evola writes:

The first of these is to act without regard to the fruits, without being affected by the chances of success or failure, victory or defeat, winning or losing, any more than by pleasure or pain, or by the approval or disapproval of others. This form of action has also been called "action without desire."…the second traditional maxim is that of "action without acting." It is a paradoxical, Far Eastern way of describing a form of action that does not involve or stir the higher principle of "being" in itself. Yet the latter remains the true subject of the action, giving it its primary motive force and sustaining and guiding it from beginning to end.²⁸

“Action without desire” and “action without acting”, then, can be consolidated into a single principle denoted as “pure action”.

Let’s try to work out the implications of this formula within the context of our modern lifestyles. We are considering the domain of actions here which involve an explicit goal/objective or just an area in which a certain level of consistent attention is required. The most common examples are work, relationships, and non-work projects and enterprises.

In most of these areas, it may seem counterproductive and even nonsensical to approach our actions without regard for “success or failure, victory or defeat”. There are many tasks associated with our jobs, for example, which would yield undesirable repercussions where we to simply avail ourselves of any concern relating to the outcomes of those tasks. Most people, even if they can’t fully apply themselves through their job, still strive to maintain a degree of professional diligence and a sense of duty as relates to the quality of their actions. Essentially, right action is defined as such by its capacity to advance a course of action towards the attainment of an outcome.

Well, what I’d like to argue for here - and what Evola is implying from the two maxims above - is that external outcomes do not constitute the true actuating motive for the differentiated type with regards to his actions, and, paradoxically, this enables him to perform with greater rather than lesser capacity. This is simply because the notion of “pure action” is constituted by a complete shift in attitude towards outcomes rather than any change on the objective plane that concerns the content of specific actions and operations. Instead of anchoring the telos of our actions to an external object or outcome (which itself can be a moving target), we re-anchor ourselves to a supra-individual “source”. It is by virtue of this source being situated at a higher plane than the “merely human” that the actions undertaken on the objective level become imbued with a “more than human” justification and are supplied with an inexhaustible reserve of energy.

This may be a strange notion to grasp for those unfamiliar with Traditional doctrines relating to action,²⁹ so I’ll try to clarify things with an example. Before I get to that, I should emphasize, once again, that the fundamental shift in attitude implied here should not at all be confused for an esoteric kind of aloofness or apathy. Evola, himself, echoes this:

Pure action does not mean blind action. The rule is to care nothing for the consequences to the shifting, individualistic feelings, but not in ignorance of the objective conditions that action must take into account in order to be as perfect as possible, and so as not to be doomed to failure from the start. One may not succeed: that is secondary, but it should not be owing to defective knowledge οf everything concerning the conditions of efficacy, which generally comprise causality, the relations of cause to effect, and the law of concordant actions and reactions.³⁰

This is the major thrust behind the idea of “pure action”. It involves the capacity to apply ourselves without our center being “moved” or stirred by any externality. It is being able to perform, not with less, but with more autonomy precisely because we recognize that a “more than human” motive has become our anchor.

To give a concrete example, let’s imagine we are training to achieve some particular goal or outcome in a sport. For most people, their actuating motive is the possibility of attaining the goal which itself serves a teleological function and the axis around which all efforts revolve.

Now, while an external outcome can reliably supply the impetus for our actions leading up to the event, the attainment of the goal is contingent upon what actually happens on the day of and involves factors outside our control. What if we sustain an injury? What if something goes wrong during our prep? And of course, what if we fail/lose? A mature type will obviously react to any of these with a stoic attitude, but deep down they will have felt the blows of any undesirable consequences. They will carry with them the memory of any setbacks or failures and allow it to penetrate past the surface level of objective consideration. They may even conduct themselves, after the fact, so as to avoid or minimize the negative feelings associated with an undesirable outcome. All of this is understandable at a certain level.

Contrarily, however, one who proceeds from the basis of “pure action” is fundamentally unperturbed by any undesirable (or desirable) outcome. He will always return to the center and imbue his subsequent actions with a superior, almost impersonal quality. In our sports example above, the attainment (or non-attainment) of the goal itself has a negligible effect on his capacity to feel fulfilled or happy and certainly makes no impact on the level of objective consideration.

Although it may seem like I’m describing something specious and even soulless, I’d bet that anyone reading this has experienced an adumbrated version of what I’m talking about - possibly in the field of sports, too. Those moments where you gave something your all, where every aspect of your being came into play and you left it all on the field, court, ring etc. The almost otherworldly pleasure that you may have felt as a result of being pushed beyond your limits, where the particulars of the external outcome faded into the background. How about those moments when you were working by yourself on a personal project or venture which no one had ever seen, but that you gave every ounce of your effort and soul to? I’ll bet you’ve had several of these experiences. Is there not a potent, almost ethereal, kind of pleasure that arises - a pleasure sustained in the present moment and which wants for nothing more?

It’s this higher pleasure - a concomitant of pure action - that I really want to highlight, because all too often the modern mind cannot conceive of any higher course of action without invoking abstract frameworks or moral imperatives. As a result, an obligatory character pervades the attitude taken towards action and which conjures up a mechanical, almost desiccated way of being shunning both pleasure and pain. Indeed, even with “stoicism” this kind of framing comes into play.

This is not at all the attitude implied by pure action with regards to pleasure/pain. On this, Evola writes:

In any case, the important thing is to make the distinction, well known to traditional teachings, between the happiness or pleasure that is ardent, and that which is heroic - using the latter term with due reserνation. The distinction corresponds to that between two opposite attitudes and two opposite human types. The first type of happiness or pleasure belongs to the naturalistic plane and is marked by passiν­ity toward the world of impulses, instincts, passions, and inclinations. Tradition defines the basis of naturalistic existence as desire and thirst, and ardent pleasure is that which is tied to the satisfaction of desire in terms of a momentary dampening of the fire that driνes life onward. Heroic pleasure, on the other hand, is that which accompanies a decisiνe action that comes from "being," from the plane superior to that of life…The pleasure and pain that are not to be taken account of, according to the rules of pure action, are those of the first type, the naturalistic. Pure action inνolνes the other kind of pleasure or happiness, which it would be wrong to imagine as inhabiting an arid, abstracted, and soulless climate. There, too, there can be fire and νigor, but of a νery special kind, with the constant presence and transparency of the higher, calm, and detached principle-which, as Ι haνe said, is the true acting principle here.³¹ (emphasis mine)

We should, by now, grasp the distinction between the heroic pleasure that accompanies pure action vs. the merely human pleasure associated with the attainment of an external objective.

To close off this section I want to recall what I mentioned above - that this principle of pure action can be applied immediately by anyone under any circumstance. Now that we understand it to mean a fundamental shift in attitude, imagine how it can apply to even the smallest and most trivial actions. A routine chore, a prosaic errand, a mundane obligation. All of these can be imbued with a higher quality if we anchor ourselves to the principle of pure action. In essence, every intentional action incites an occasion to detach ourselves from the constantly changing world of individual motives and readjust our orientation towards the unconditioned (we can see how the practice of satipattāna mentioned above can dovetail nicely with this as well).

All of what I’ve advocated for in this section may seem obscure and tertiary, even if a positive dimension is acknowledged. I can understand this. I’d invite the reader to consider, though, how embodying the principle of pure action might be relevant if not absolutely necessary in today’s world for the differentiated type.

In the present time, when the most insubstantial kinds of actions are encouraged and even glorified simply due to their capacity to sensationalize, to dramatize, and to just garner any kind of reaction, what better way to affirm one’s complete rejection of this superficial world than through acts that do not have externality as their fundamental basis? When the rest of the worthless mass of human beings act in accordance with their most fleeting desires and are swayed by the vicissitudes of their mind, the fickleness of the moment, and the whims of the crowd, what better way to affirm ourselves than to imbue our actions with internal, transcendent meaning? When the entire population is bent on whoring itself for the smallest scraps of attention and adulation, why not act in the superior manner?

Pure action, in my view then, provides us with a basis for immediately reinforcing our internal rejection of the trappings of the modern world, and more importantly, to defend and apply that deepest part of ourselves belonging to a higher, more meaningful plane. Pure action, if we are to take it seriously, is the first step to “knowing ourselves” through intentional acts that originate and culminate in the deepest parts of our being.

Up to now, all of the guidelines mentioned (Right Conduct, Satipatthāna, Pure Action) have proceeded from the conscious, active part of our being where our will played a decisive role in how we confronted the modern world. We will see in the next section how this knowledge of ourselves can be acquired from the other side of life - from the experiential, the unfamiliar, and the dangerous.

Second Guideline: Dionysian Experiments

We’ve arrived now at our final guideline for the two-fold, Evolian program that I’ve been outlining. In keeping with the custom of saving the most unique item for last, much of what follows introduces a set of ideas and attitudes peculiar to Evola himself - more precisely, to his “personal equation”. Consequently, I’ll be quoting Evola at length in this section (primarily from Ride the Tiger) and will let the force of his ideas shine through his own words.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, though, it’s worth reiterating our initial objective with this program - what was Evola’s solution for the crisis of modernity? In short, our goal was to chart a course that affirmed the spiritual roots of the differentiated type amid the dissolutive processes of the current age. In doing so, he could confidently overcome the existential crisis of “being in the modern world, but not of it”. We distilled things further by defining two imperatives: knowing oneself and being oneself. The first three of our guidelines presented lines of action which sought to address one of these two imperatives but - and this is crucial here - an active, as opposed to a receptive, disposition was emphasized throughout. Essentially, one would initiate lines of action in accordance with one’s own tendencies and circumstances - an individual was granted full autonomy to exercise his agency and the question of “progress” and “results” was left entirely up to him. Most of these guidelines as a whole addressed the broad task of “self-unification” or being oneself.

Now for Evola, this task of self-unification is of fundamental importance, but does not, in itself, resolve the existential crisis of a differentiated type submerged in the modern world and left to himself. To clarify, Evola writes:

This brings us to the consideration οf the second degree οf the trial through self-knowledge, which belongs to the transcendent dimension and which conditions the final solution οf the existential problem. With the first degree, in fact, with the recognition of "one's own nature" and the making of one's own law, this problem is only resolved partially, on the formal plane. That is the plane of determination, or, if one prefers, individuation, which furnishes one with an adequate base for controlling one's conduct in any circumstances. But this plane has no transparency for one who wants to get to the bottom of things; absolute meaning is not yet to be found therein. When the situation remains at this stage, one is active in wanting to be oneself, but not with regard to the fact of being thus and not otherwise. Το a certain type, this can seem like something so irrational and obscure as to set in motion a crisis that endangers everything he has gained hitherto along the lines indicated. It is then that he must undergo the second degree of self-proving, which is like an experimental proof of the presence within him, in greater or lesser measure, of the higher dimension of transcendence…After the whole superstructure has been rejected or destroyed, and having for one's sole support one's own being, the ultimate meaning of existing and living can spring only from a direct and absolute relationship between that being (between what one is in a limiting sense) and transcendence (transcendence in itself).³² (emphasis mine)

My understanding of all this, then, is that the differentiated type, by virtue of being rooted in a “more than human” anchor, must seek out a particular class of experiences with the understanding that they may incite occasions for affirming this anchor - this can be undertaken alongside or after the task of self-unification. Were he to neglect this domain he would look around at all he had accomplished and ask “what was all this truly for?”…“self-unification for what”? Hence, the need to prove himself in the manner outlined above. For Evola, this is what it truly means to fully “know oneself”, to undertake the trial “which conditions the final solution οf the existential problem”.

Now we should grant Evola credit in that his proposal of “pure action” as outlined above suggests a potential way by which one can affirm one’s transcendent center - I admitted just as much by suggesting we can start to know ourselves through adopting “pure action” as a fundamental attitude in our day to day lives. But Evola also recognized that “pure action” applied to exactly one-half of the full realm of existence: that of intentional decisions and developments where an outcome (though it may be lofty and demand a remarkable degree of self-effort) is EXPECTED. Pure action did not address that dimension of life in which we are faced with or seek out situations outside of our control - in other words, the unexpected dimension with all of it’s accompanying features and forms. At the individual level, this side of life involves those domains which expose our human fears, aversions, anxieties, and unfamiliarities. And for Evola, the final task coincides with a manner of experimentation that directly - enthusiastically - involves facing the unexpected dimension of life (albeit with more assurance and purposefulness than the average person on account of all the work done up until this point). I’ve chosen to designate this particular mode of engaging with certain experiences and encounters with the term “Dionysian Experiments” for reasons that I’ll touch on later in this section.

Aside from all this, too, Evola specifies a second reason for the necessity of engaging in “Dionysian Experimentation”. He writes:

This unity with the transcendent is also the condition for preventing the process of self-unification from taking a regressive path. There is in fact a possibility of a pathological unification of the being from below, as in the case of an elementary passion that takes over the whole person, organizing all his faculties to its own ends. Cases of fanaticism and possession are no different in kind. One must consider this possible reduction to absurdity of "being oneself" and of the unity of the self. This is a further reason to require our particular type of man to undergo the trial of self-knowledge at the second degree, which concerns, as we have said, the presence of the unconditioned and the supra-individual as his true center.³³ (emphasis mine)

This notion of “pathological unification” fascinates me because, at first glance, it almost appears nonsensical. Why would a person who has endured and overcome so much through the application of his own will fall prey to negative forces from below were he to continue his trajectory? This isn’t the place to work out my own thoughts, but I’ll mention one line of thinking concerning the practice of asceticism (as it was originally understood). In the Traditional world, severe ascetic practices were justified insofar as they were directed upwards - in other words towards the transcendent dimension. Asceticism, pursued for any other worldly outcome or even just an “ascesis for ascesis’ sake” invariably coincided with the dangerous path mentioned above. On this Evola writes:³⁴

Α lifelong discipline and an asceticism pursued inexorably for better or worse, through extreme trials, regardless of oneself and others, may have the mere value of an increased and exasperated sensation of "life," of an ''Ι" whose sense of itself comes only from this savage and embittered sensation.³⁵

Very interesting. Instead of anchoring ourselves to something greater than our own mortal selves, self-unification (when taken to this extreme) can result in merely reinforcing and hyper-inflating the ego.

To be clear, then, self-unification - though an absolutely essential and worthy task - cannot be enough for the differentiated type if he seeks to fully resolve his existential condition. Simply acknowledging the potential for “pathological unification” can act as a safeguard for making sure he stays on the right path, but what remains of the positive benefits? Is “Dionysian Experimentation” just a corrective measure or does it carry a higher, fundamentally positive justification? After all, if one has faithfully and tirelessly carried out a course of action - like Evola’s program - with the expectation that it will yield nothing less than the ultimate solution to the crisis of modernity, then he should have some assurances that the final goal corresponds to a remarkable, almost sublime, state of fullness commensurate with the trials and tasks he has undertaken.

Thankfully, Evola provides us with a glimpse of the fruits:

In a meaningless world, the absolute sense of being depends almost exclusively on this experience. If it has a positive outcome, the last limit falls away; transcendence and existence, freedom and necessity, possibility and reality coincide. Α centrality and invul- nerability are realized without restriction in any situation, be it dark or light, detached or apparently open to every impulse or passion of life. Above all, the essential conditions are thereby created for adapting, without losing oneself, to a world that has become free but left to its own devices, seized by irrationality and meaninglessness. And this is exactly the problem with which we began.³⁶ (emphasis mine)

This is quite the pitch. Yet, it should make sense, right? If what we seek is nothing less than unshakeable calm during any situation, it would make sense that the means adopted require some degree of uncertainty, unfamiliarity, and even danger. It should make sense that an “experimental proof” of our transcendent anchor implies trials commensurate with the sublime state of being that awaits us on the other side of it all. For someone like the differentiated type, too, would he accept anything less? Could he accept the greater rewards without taking the greater risks?

Beyond the pragmatic requirement of engaging with “Dionysian Experimentation”, however, and the potential reward of overcoming one’s existential limitations, Evola alludes to another possibility: the attainment of a state of transcendent confidence as a general orientation towards life. He writes:

The state in question is that of the man who is self-confident through having as the essential center of his personality not life, but Being. He can encounter everything, abandon himself to everything, and open himself to everything without losing himself. He accepts every experience, no longer in order to prove and know himself, but to unfold all his possibilities in view of the transformations that they can work in him, and of the new contents that offer and reveal themselves on this path…Moreover, the capacity to open oneself without losing oneself takes on a special importance in an epoch of dissolution. It is the way to master every transformation that may occur, even the most perilous ones…In this state, outside events that might affect or upset his being can become the stimulus that activates an ever greater freedom and potential…Detachment coexists with a fully lived experience; a calm "being" is constantly wedded to the substance of life. The consequence of this union, existentially speaking, is a most particular kind of lucid inebriation, one might almost say intellectualized and magnetic, which is the absolute opposite of what comes from the ecstatic opening to the world of elementary forces, instinct, and "nature." In this very special inebriation, subtilized and clarified, is to be seen the vital element necessary for an existence in the free state, in a chaotic world abandoned to itself.³⁷

Regarding outcomes then, we are talking about two distinct - yet intimately coupled - rewards associated with “Dionysian Experimentation”. The first involves the final solution to a fundamental existential problem by means of “knowing oneself” via proving oneself in the realm of the unexpected. The second reward manifests as a general orientation towards life which enables one to go beyond oneself without losing oneself. This latter reward arising precisely and only because one has fully affirmed one’s transcendent anchor through realizing the former. To use Evola’s own terminology, this general orientation towards life is referred to under the heading of “Dionysian Apollonism” (hence my use of the symbol Dionsyian when referring to the specific mode of experimentation to be carried out).³⁸

Hopefully now, we’ve clarified the reasons why the differentiated type must take it upon himself to engage in some manner of experimentation a la Evola’s framework.

You may be asking at this point, what exactly does Evola want us to do here? Are we expected to seek out a particular kind of experience and then just…see what happens? Well, yes and no. “Seeking out” these kinds of experiences would contradict all of what I’ve mentioned above regarding the central “unexpected” quality that distinguishes them. We can, however, seek out experiences and activities which may have a higher-than-normal probability for inciting an occasion for us to prove ourselves - in that way we remain receptive, but also take some kind of active initiative.

Evola himself describes the characteristics of these experiences in very general terms: experiences “that are already differentiated, that have a certain intensity, while still being defined in a chaotic ambience, in the domain of pure contingency”.³⁹ I believe that the kinds of encounters which would merit an occasion for proving oneself - which would qualify as “Dionysian Experiments” - are highly situational, then, and subject to a particular individual’s strengths, interests and style most of all. Moreover, the reactions and outcomes produced in these kinds of special encounters are not subject to the same causal processes as the rest of our everyday acts precisely because they draw on a “more than human”, transcendent principle. “Seeing what happens” takes on a different meaning when the self that’s doing the “seeing” is undergoing inner transformation as a result of a special encounter.

All this does not mean, however, that we can’t get a better feel for the idea through some further probing. Regarding my own interpretations and as a potential starting point for the reader to further reflect on, we can simply consider a class of experiences and encounters which directly involve the elements of uncertainty, unfamiliarity, and risk. Just ask yourself, what are some things which I fear - dreadfully, desperately fear -taking action on or encountering? If I could imagine my ideal self, what would he be capable of which my current self is unequipped to handle? Is it a courageous act that needs to be taken that penetrates to the core of my psychophysical self? A difficult decision need to be made that evokes the same thing? A necessary confrontation with someone or something which may result in a temporary state of stupefaction? Obviously, the specifics of this kind of guideline have to be taken into account and I can’t go into much further details here. I can, however, cite some real events from Evola’s life as potential examples of engaging in “Dionysian Experimentation”.

One of the most noteworthy incidents relates to the spinal paralysis that Evola sustained during the midpoint of his life. Basically, when Evola was working in Vienna during WWII, he would intentionally walk the streets during air raids on the city instead of hiding in underground shelters - supposedly “pondering his destiny”. I cannot imagine this as anything less than Evola walking the walk and opening himself up to a Dionysian Experiment so that he could confront the deepest parts of himself. Another example concerns Evola’s interest in high-altitude mountaineering.⁴⁰ We can easily see how the crucial elements of uncertainty, unfamiliarity, and risk would come into play during a pursuit such as this.

It should go without saying as well that my point is not to take any of the above as permission to engage in blind, reckless behavior (we can recall Evola’s clarification in the previous section regarding “pure action” vs. “blind action”). Even worse is if the reader has taken the aforementioned remarks as sanction for some kind of esoteric anarchy, criminality or other “merely human” pathology. He’d do well to recall that any endeavor taken up in the true Evolian spirit must recruit his highest and most developed faculties conveying the overall sense of a person which has, as his center, absolute clarity, courage, and concentration of energy vs. some confused frenzy of impulses that wear the mask of “overcoming” yet amount to nothing more than impotent exuberance.

What I believe is most important here - and what I believe Evola wants us to understand - is that the more we place trust in ourselves to seek out and bravely face the unexpected, the more we will acquire the unique kind of orientation towards life that in and of itself becomes an attenuated version of the final goal. Let each individual go forth, then, and encounter all that he can in order to prove himself to himself.

Final Phase: Initiatic Possibilities

Formally, we’ve come to the end of our program with the elaboration of the previous guideline. For Evola, if one were to accomplish all of what has been proposed, he would have surpassed the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries and secured for himself a life unperturbed by any discord, anxiety, hindrances or melancholy. He could say to himself, without a shred of pretense or exaggeration, “I know myself and can truly be myself”.

And yet, if we are to live up to Evola’s own vision - insofar as the greatest goal is concerned - we can (and must) look to even higher peaks.

As I mentioned at the start of this essay, the central aim of Evola’s works are bound up with the values, doctrines, and categories of the world of Tradition. It is only to the extent that we arrange our lives in accordance with the “metaphysical order of things” concomitant of that world that we truly overcome the meaningless of modernity. Regarding the higher goals, then, the Traditional world had it’s own version of “overcoming” a “merely human” state. In fact, for many of these Traditional civilizations, the possibility of attaining this goal supplied the impetus for arranging all of society in a particular way, where all things were “ordered from above and directed upwards”. Moreover, this goal found expression in the civilizations of both East and West, though obviously denoted under a variety of traditions, symbols, myths and paths.

The conceptual designation that Evola assigns to this goal, and which has fallen under innumerable other signs, is referred to as Initiation.

Now, before I disclose Evola’s understanding of this term, it’s crucial to get a clear view on what Initiation - used in the specific way intended here- is not so as to avoid any misunderstandings. We are not referring to any kind of “coming of age” tribal initiations or rites of passage that also bear the same name. Nor are we referring to those particular rituals, ceremonies, and rites related to hierarchical orders or carried out for religious purposes. The goal of these kinds of initiations, as Evola himself states, consists of taking an individual through a kind of trial or formality so as to - upon its successful completion - affirm his place within a particular collective. These do not qualify as true Initiations although they derive from the original concept.

Initiation, used in the higher sense, means nothing less than a change in the ontological state of a human being. Giving a full-fledged analysis of this formulation would be impossible within the scope of this essay so I’ll simply offer a brief description from Evola:

Etymologically, ‘to initiate’ means to establish a new beginning. In this respect, one might also speak of a ‘rebirth’; but then it would be necessary to give this term a strictly ontological meaning. Indeed, the fundamental premise of initiation is that the human condition, along with the limits which define the common individuality, can be surpassed. It is a change of state, a passage from one way of being to another, in the most objective sense. This is why in some testimonies initiation is described almost as a physical event, so as to stress its real, ontological character. The opposition between ‘superman’ and ‘initiate’ can be helpful to explain the concept of initiation. The term ‘superman’ has been presented as the extreme and problematic strengthening of the species ‘man’. However, in principle, the initiate no longer belongs to this species at all. With reference to high initiation, it may be said that the ‘superman’ belongs to a Promethean plane (man remains as he is but illegitimately seeks to gain a superior dignity and power), while the Initiate in the proper sense belongs to an Olympian plane (he has acquired a different, innate and legitimate dignity). The premise of the concept of initiation is therefore formed by the theory which holds that there are multiple states of being, of which the human is only one.⁴¹ (emphasis mine)

It may be useful to enumerate a couple of examples here. What we are referring to with an ontological “change of state” is in fact identical with the spiritual goals of various ancient Traditions; Buddhism and Yoga are familiar reference points. For the former, the highest level of Initiation corresponds to the ultimate goal of the “Great Liberation” signified by the negative term Nibbāna (Sanskrit: Nirvāna). Accordingly, for a discipline such as Astanga Yoga the equivalent designation is termed Kaivalya. For the aforementioned traditions, the attainment of these goals coincided with a complete departure from ordinary, relative consciousness and was held to be identical with the highest recognitions of Peace, Joy, Power, Sureness etc. known by any modality of existence (human AND divine).

In the Traditional world, the paths relating to the pursuit of Initiation could be grouped under two broad categories: those of Contemplation and Action. These paths further informed two fundamental “archetypes” of individuals who’s natures aligned with one of the two categories, namely, the ascetic or the warrior/hero. The main point to note, however, is that even in these Traditional societies in which “all was directed upwards”, the actual possibility of attaining this goal, of becoming an “Initiate”, was understood as the exclusive right of a select few. Essentially, an individual had to possess exceptional qualifications or vocations in order to even consider walking the Path of Initiation. For this reason, Evola generally only wrote about this topic for the purposes of educating and intellectually enriching his reader, and not as an incitement towards striving for a goal which was, for all practical purposes, outside of his reach. It’s worth our time to read exactly what Evola’s position on “Initiatic Possibilities” entails:

Well then, if initiation is taken in its highest, metaphysical sense, one must assume a priori that it is not even a hypothetical possibility in an epoch like the present, in an environment like the one we live in, and also given the general inner formation of individuals (now feeling the fatal effect of a collective ancestry that for centuries has been absolutely unfavorable). Anyone who sees things differently either does not understand the matter, or else is deceiving himself and others. What has to be negated most decisively is the transposition to this field of the individualistic and democratic view of the "self-made man," that is, the idea that anyone who wants can become an "initiate," and that he can also become one on his own, through his own strength alone, by resorting to various kinds of "exercises" and practices. This is an illusion, the truth being that through his own strength alone, the human individual cannot go beyond human individuality, and that any positive result in this field is conditioned by the presence and action of a genuine power of a different, nonindividual order.⁴² (emphasis mine)

So an overall bleak picture. Yet, for Evola - who was nothing less than a realist - to give any false pretenses or hopes with regards to this domain would have constituted a reprehensible act of the highest order. He spent a good portion of his career admonishing the foolish - often sinister - spiritualist currents of his time for leading people down the wrong paths and deluding them into believing that Initiation was within their reach.⁴³ In my view, then, we should feel grateful that Evola treated his readers as adults and sought to remove any delusions that may have resulted from an engagement with his treatments of various Traditional doctrines.

Now, regarding my personal feelings on the matter, I am on board with Evola’s assessment, though possibly a few degrees more optimistic - especially regarding the differentiated type. And in fact, Evola himself admitted a slightly more optimistic picture for this type. On this, he writes:

Referring now to the man who concerns us, if the idea of an "initiation" is to figure on his mental horizon, he should clearly recognize the distance between that and the climate of neospiritualism, nor should he have any illusions about it. The most he can conceive of as a practical possibility is a basic orientation in terms of preparation, for which he will find a natural predisposition in himself…Α realistic view of the situation and an honest self-evaluation indicate that the only serious and essential task today is to give ever more emphasis to the dimension of transcendence in oneself, more or less concealed as it may be. Study of traditional wisdom and knowledge of its doctrines may assist, but they will not be effective without a progressive change affecting the existential plane, and more particularly, the basic life force of oneself as a person: that force that for most people is bound to the world and is simply the will to live…When the orientation toward the transcendent no longer has a merely mental or emotional character, but has come to penetrate a person's being, the most essential work is done, the seed has penetrated the earth, and the rest is, in a way, secondary and consequential.⁴⁴

This should inspire, rather than discourage, us to continue along the general lines of action that have heretofore been outlined in this essay. Essentially, do what must be done at the existential level (through knowing and being ourselves) and, in doing so, set up the most favorable conditions by which the actual “event” of Initiation becomes a genuine future possibility. The most important attitude, in my view then, is not to anxiously pursue or “anticipate” this goal and to simply deem it as something to be gotten over and done with. Initiation is not something to be merely acquired and then we just continue on with our lives. In fact, the word “goal” itself is quite inappropriate here. What is to be attained is not something external or even internal, but a Realization of the Unconditioned.

On a practical level, then, we can follow Evola’s advice by earnestly and diligently studying the various teachings of Traditional doctrines and by employing those practices and disciplines which are most relevant to our lives. We are fortunate, as well, that Evola wrote several works giving a masterful treatment of many of these doctrines and so that can serve as a starting point for the curious reader.⁴⁵ Of course, much of the material that I release on this blog will serve a similar function.

Our Sublime Challenge

Hopefully, you’ve made it to the end of this essay with some clear guidelines and attitudes that can be integrated within your own life. At the very least, my sincere hope is that a reader has, at the very least, come away with a deeper appreciation for the scope and clarity of Evola’s ideas and his resolute commitment to confronting the crisis of modernity in the here and now.

For Evola, though modernity represented the antithesis of all that he valued and sought to embody he, nonetheless, saw its fundamental condition in positive terms. For him, it represented an opportunity - the eternally recurring opportunity - for a Task to be carried out, a Trial to be undertaken, and a Challenge to confidently confront. For the differentiated type who clearly identified himself with this same attitude - and quite easily so given his basic structure - a sense of destiny, a gravitas, would operate in the background of his very existence and supply him with a continual source of strength in whatever path he chose to adopt for himself.

I’ll leave the reader with this final quote from Evola, capturing the spirit of this opportunity, this challenge, on the final page of Ride the Tiger:

If one can allow one's mind to dwell on a bold hypothesis- which could also be an act of faith in a higher sense-once the idea of Geworfenheit⁴⁶ is rejected, once it is conceived that living here and now in this world has a sense, because it is always the effect of a choice and a will, one might even believe that one's own realization of the possibilities I have indicated - far more concealed and less imaginable in other situations that might be more desirable from the merely human point of view, from the point of view of the "person" - is the ultimate rationale and significance of a choice made by a "being" that wanted to measure itself against a difficult challenge: that of living in a world contrary to that consistent with its nature, that is, contrary to the world of Tradition.⁴⁷

---

References

---

Works Cited

1. Bhikkhu Anālayo, Satipatthāna Meditation: A Practice Guide (Windhorse Publications, 2018).

2. Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World (Inner Traditions Bear And Company, 1995).

3. Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul (Inner Traditions Bear And Company, 2003).

4. Julius Evola, The Bow and The Club (Arktos Media Ltd., 2018).

5. Julius Evola, The Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery According to the Earliest Buddhist Texts (Inner Traditions Bear And Company, 1996).

6. Julius Evola, The Fall of Spirituality: The Corruption of Tradition in the Modern World (Inner Traditions Bear And Company, 2021).

Notes

1. From the Foreword of Revolt Against the Modern World.

2. Evola takes apart Existentialism, psychoanalysis, the whole spectrum of socio-economic ideologies, theosophism, anthroposphy etc. with exacting rigor. See his works Revolt Against the Modern World, Ride the Tiger, The Fall of Spirituality, and The Bow and the Club for specifics.

3. Revolt Against the Modern World, 3.

4. Ibid., 3-4.

5. The Fall of Spirituality, 192.

6. Ride the Tiger, 4. Evola is, of course, referring to the French Revolution here with its concomitant doctrines and ideologies of Liberalism, Democracy, Egalitarianism etc.

7. Ibid., 5.

8. Evola does in fact describe grades of “differentiated types”. The compendium published by Arktos titled Handbook for Right-Wing Youth expands on this. Evola’s definition of “non-conformist” youth aligns with the first layer of those who would be sympathetic to his own values and ideas. The “differentiated type” is a more mature and exclusive grade within the the “non-conformist” youth hierarchy.

9. Ride the Tiger, 2.

10. Ibid., 44.

11. Ibid., 4.

12. This should not be understood as going “lone-wolf” or a call to complete seclusion or passivity. Quite the contrary as Evola describes in the first couple of chapters of Ride the Tiger that a primary task of the differentiated type should be to measure oneself against modernity while “remaining inwardly determined and governed by a completely different spirit”. This would imply an active, but detached, engagement rather than any evasion, aloofness or passivity.

13. Ride the Tiger, 3-4.

14. Ibid., 3.

15. Ibid., 6.

16. The degree to which the average man’s desires or tendencies can be called “his own” is suspect. In an age of mass indoctrination and 24/7 propaganda pumped into the minds of the populace what remains of the average man that’s truly his?

17. Ride the Tiger, 61.

18. Newport’s idea of “Deep Work” - and his book bearing the same title - presents the notion that in order for a human being to produce truly outstanding “works”, the ability to ruthlessly cut out distractions is an absolute necessity and first step.

19. The Bow and the Club, “The Breed of the Evasive Man”, 12.

20. Ibid., “The Youth, The Beats, and Right-Wing Anarchists”, 293.

21. For more on the ontological value vs. moral value of developing qualities the reader should reference Evola’s The Doctrine of Awakening in which he elaborates on the Buddhist ascesis and its embodying of the “instrumentality” of ethical precepts.

22. Refer to the Majjhima Nikāya, Satipatthāna Sutta (MN 10). For an intro to the Pāli Canon of early Buddhism the reader can reference the articles here and here.

23. The Doctrine of Awakening, 130.

24. Ride the Tiger, 61.

25. A sanskrit term which has a multi-dimensional meaning, but in this context can be taken to mean the higher “ascetic” processes and factors related to the goal of Awakening.

26. Satipatthāna Meditation: A Practice Guide, 140.

27. Ride the Tiger, 60.

28. Ibid., 68.

29. Karma Yoga is one of the best examples of this principle of “pure action” taken to the highest level: that of a veritable Path to Realization.

30. Ride the Tiger, 71.

31. Ibid., 70.

32. Ibid., 62-63.

33. Ibid., 63.

34. Much of this quote draws on Evola’s critique of the Nietzschean “Overman”. He views Nietzsche’s project as lacking the fundamental ingredient towards a higher dimension which contains, in itself, the seeds of its own failure since its highest anchor is “Life” and not “Being”. For more on the specifics of Evola’s critique of Nietzsche’s philosophy, the reader should reference Chapters 3 - 10 of Ride the Tiger.

35. Ride the Tiger, 51.

36. Ibid., 64.

37. Ibid., 66-67.

38. If the reader is curious about Evola’s own justification for invoking these two ancient symbols (Dionysus and Apollo) he should read Chapter 10 of Ride the Tiger.

39. Ride the Tiger, 65.

40. See Evola’s Meditations on the Peaks for specifics.

41. The Bow and the Club, “The Concept of Initiation”, 123-124.

42. Ride the Tiger, 214. What Evola means here is that an individual, through his own individual will, cannot command the actual event of Initiation himself since that would presuppose that he already possesses a “power” or “ability” proper to that plane.

43. See Evola’s The Fall of Spirituality for more on this.

44. Ibid., 216-217.

45. Evola’s major works outlining a few of the Traditional Initiatory paths are The Hermetic Tradition, The Mystery of the Grail, The Doctrine of Awakening, The Yoga of Power, and Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex.

46. This is a Heideggerian term roughly defined as the condition of human existence as “being thrown into the world”.

47. Ride the Tiger, 227.