>Contrarily, however, one who proceeds from the basis of “pure action” is fundamentally unperturbed by any undesirable (or desirable) outcome.
This is very tricky. Not being dependent on the results of actions is ok, and is actually practiced by people in various aspects of life. There is nothing very special here, although it is ok to mention it.
If you focus on "no results will bother me", every action becomes a practice of "mindfulness" or "non-attachment", etc. I think this is not the point. It might be for a monk of the world of Tradition, but in an incredibly different context.
What you call "pure action" I think is about to what extent does this action reflect who you really are, from the perspective of the root of the Self. This is a big challenge for the differentiated man: in a world of pure contingency, how can he make his actions "pure" in any environment. Very tricky.
I would say that one cannot read Ride the Tiger and then do what Evola writes about. This book makes sense only to those who already have experience with these things. Evola did great job at conceptualizing these things and putting it in a larger context, as he did with many other things.
Main characteristic of the differentiated man is that he simply cannot cope with the structures of the bourgeois world. Because of that he is "forced" to go through trials of self-knowledge. As Evola said, outcome of these trials has always been undetermined, even in the world of Tradition.
Main problem when coping with bourgeois structures is not possible, and when passive acceptance of anti-traditional ways of living does not work, is to be able to resolve the conflict of why to do something, but not something else, or why to be something and not something else. Every particular thing is a limitation. I think one has to be born to experience these things and be able to surpass them.
The problem with the concept of the differentiated man is that it is very general, so one cannot never really prove that one is this kind of man. As you mentioned, this proof can only be done experimentally, and then dynamically in every action one takes.
Technically Evola's concept is very sound. In an environment of the world left to itself, if one does not cope with the bourgeois world, one simply has to take lethal blows, but not be destroyed. Evola's hierarchical structure of the Self certainly can handle those blows, because supra-individual part stays untouched.
Thank you for reading through the whole piece and for the comments. I believe I've said all that I need to in my one longer reply regarding the correct understanding of what Tradition is. I think, as well, that we may just have to disagree on some points (as I mentioned in my other replies) as well as your overall assessment of what Evola puts forth in Ride the Tiger and in his other works - I am more optimistic about the whole situation with regards to the differentiated man.
I certainly agree that the vast majority who read Evola will be unable to do as he says. I am sure that if one actually is of a differentiated type (and I know that he currently exists) then it is indeed possible to do what Evola prescribes. Whether a particular person is or isn't of a differentiated type isn't for me to say, but I believe a deep inner sense of the memory of the transcendent dimension is enough for them to confirm (in a preliminary sense) this reality. The rest relies on, as you say, undertaking various trials, and for organizing one's practical life in a way that affirms one's highest nature.
Speaking for myself, I genuinely have felt the call towards spiritual realization and so finding a path towards that is assured no matter how much time in this human life or others that it takes. Any "failure" or "mistake" in this regard - no matter how severe - is only of relative degree and is effectively resolved as quickly as it arises. Take care.
It is also worth pointing out that real challenges are yet to be overcome by the differentiated man. It is in many ways easy to be "differentiated" in a system which tries very hard to keep everybody alive. There are some tricky things in the pipeline to deal with, maybe very soon, for this kind of man. Guenon predicted that Kali Yuga ends in 1999, but his student Georgel said it is 2030.
Regarding initiation, I first ask where are initiators? If there are none, or if there are those who got "initiated" without initiators, then we are dealing with neospiritualism.
>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.
I don't think the question of meaning can be resolved here. It makes sense only after this question is already resolved by different means. Then one can challenge oneself to prove that one is "in shape" from time to time. Otherwise, there are infinite number of things one can "challenge" oneself with.
>Just ask yourself, what are some things which I fear - dreadfully, desperately fear -taking action on or encountering?
I think Evola did not mean "things we fear". How do you define "fear"? There are infinite amount of things we are incompetent at, and therefore have some "fear" about because we are not familiar with them.
Again, the question of meaning cannot be resolved here because how do you decide what you are afraid of?
>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?
I do not think that Evola wants anything of their readers. Ride the Tiger makes sense only to those who already went through these kind of experiences. I do not think that somebody can read Ride the Tiger and then "do" what Evola writes about. Evola did a great job at conceptualizing differentiated man and his approach to survival. This kind of man is basically "forced" to have these experiences and to survive in this way because for him there is no other way. Either he goes through it, or he collapses.
>Could he accept the greater rewards without taking the greater risks?
I do not think that coping with "rewards" is the way to go. Differentiated man has to act in a way he does because there is no other way he can act. The question is, is this enough to survive in the most basic and in a more elevated sense where the question of meaning is crucial (if he does not resolve it, he will collapse).
>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
I think there is no enthusiasm here. The only way to do it in our world, and maybe even in the world of Tradition, is that you have to be "forced" to do it. You come to do point where either you do it and pass the trial, or you collapse. If you pass this "trial", you can later seek these experiences to confirm that you are strong enough, but that's a different thing.
>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.
I think this is not enough. It does not resolve the problem of meaning. Very tricky. Why would you do anything? Who cares? Because everything you do, you could have done something else instead, or in a different way.
>Buddhist mindfulness practice referred to as satipatthāna. He writes:
The most important part of this is "he writes". The problem is that our language is very lacking in describing processes which mindfulness refers to, and not just those but generally processes which we call "mind". Evola mentions this in Ride the Tiger, where even he gets inconsistent in terminology he uses.
In other words, these things were practiced by men of very special kind. Noble blood, inborn tendencies and available initators are absolutely necessary. And general traditional environment in which takes place.
>Evola himself wrote an excellent book titled The Doctrine of Awakening
Here I think we have to be careful. Evola in The Path of Cinnabar notes that these books should not be read with the idea to actually implement the content. These things were always for a tiny minority.
So e.g. mindfulness practice. How do you know that you are practicing it correctly? What if you are doing the wrong thing and deceiving yourself? Sports analogy is interesting here. People do sports as recreation. They think they are good after some time. And then comes a professional sportsman, and they realize they are zero. Same thing would probably happen when monks of the past appear in our world. Problem is, they do not exist, and for a very long time, so you cannot measure yourself against anything interesting.
>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”.
I think it is difficult to avoid slipping into self-improvement territory. If "self-discipline" does not come natural to a man reading Evola, then he might just stop reading. But again, it is hard to define these ideas because we live in a world in which everything is questionable. This is the biggest problem.
>On a practical level, the cultivation of these qualities must be gradual and even circumstantial to an extent.
I agree that those qualities are good and were important in all traditions, but the problem is there are so many of them and their meaning changed in bourgeoization of the world. Here arises the issue of mixing the right-hand and left-hand path. It is not easy to resolve these issues. I am not sure that Evola did in Ride the Tiger.
>for the initiated Evolian student
I would be careful with the term "initiation". Evola was also in Ride the Tiger and elsewhere.
You'll see later in the essay that I present the correct view of this term and am using it in a more colloquial sense in my intro.
Yeah, I will comment as I go through it. Sounds very good so far.
Excellent article, Rajan. Great work.
>Contrarily, however, one who proceeds from the basis of “pure action” is fundamentally unperturbed by any undesirable (or desirable) outcome.
This is very tricky. Not being dependent on the results of actions is ok, and is actually practiced by people in various aspects of life. There is nothing very special here, although it is ok to mention it.
If you focus on "no results will bother me", every action becomes a practice of "mindfulness" or "non-attachment", etc. I think this is not the point. It might be for a monk of the world of Tradition, but in an incredibly different context.
What you call "pure action" I think is about to what extent does this action reflect who you really are, from the perspective of the root of the Self. This is a big challenge for the differentiated man: in a world of pure contingency, how can he make his actions "pure" in any environment. Very tricky.
Big thumbs up for the comprehensive essay.
I would say that one cannot read Ride the Tiger and then do what Evola writes about. This book makes sense only to those who already have experience with these things. Evola did great job at conceptualizing these things and putting it in a larger context, as he did with many other things.
Main characteristic of the differentiated man is that he simply cannot cope with the structures of the bourgeois world. Because of that he is "forced" to go through trials of self-knowledge. As Evola said, outcome of these trials has always been undetermined, even in the world of Tradition.
Main problem when coping with bourgeois structures is not possible, and when passive acceptance of anti-traditional ways of living does not work, is to be able to resolve the conflict of why to do something, but not something else, or why to be something and not something else. Every particular thing is a limitation. I think one has to be born to experience these things and be able to surpass them.
The problem with the concept of the differentiated man is that it is very general, so one cannot never really prove that one is this kind of man. As you mentioned, this proof can only be done experimentally, and then dynamically in every action one takes.
Technically Evola's concept is very sound. In an environment of the world left to itself, if one does not cope with the bourgeois world, one simply has to take lethal blows, but not be destroyed. Evola's hierarchical structure of the Self certainly can handle those blows, because supra-individual part stays untouched.
Thank you for reading through the whole piece and for the comments. I believe I've said all that I need to in my one longer reply regarding the correct understanding of what Tradition is. I think, as well, that we may just have to disagree on some points (as I mentioned in my other replies) as well as your overall assessment of what Evola puts forth in Ride the Tiger and in his other works - I am more optimistic about the whole situation with regards to the differentiated man.
I certainly agree that the vast majority who read Evola will be unable to do as he says. I am sure that if one actually is of a differentiated type (and I know that he currently exists) then it is indeed possible to do what Evola prescribes. Whether a particular person is or isn't of a differentiated type isn't for me to say, but I believe a deep inner sense of the memory of the transcendent dimension is enough for them to confirm (in a preliminary sense) this reality. The rest relies on, as you say, undertaking various trials, and for organizing one's practical life in a way that affirms one's highest nature.
Speaking for myself, I genuinely have felt the call towards spiritual realization and so finding a path towards that is assured no matter how much time in this human life or others that it takes. Any "failure" or "mistake" in this regard - no matter how severe - is only of relative degree and is effectively resolved as quickly as it arises. Take care.
It is also worth pointing out that real challenges are yet to be overcome by the differentiated man. It is in many ways easy to be "differentiated" in a system which tries very hard to keep everybody alive. There are some tricky things in the pipeline to deal with, maybe very soon, for this kind of man. Guenon predicted that Kali Yuga ends in 1999, but his student Georgel said it is 2030.
>Final Phase: Initiatic Possibilities
Regarding initiation, I first ask where are initiators? If there are none, or if there are those who got "initiated" without initiators, then we are dealing with neospiritualism.
>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.
I don't think the question of meaning can be resolved here. It makes sense only after this question is already resolved by different means. Then one can challenge oneself to prove that one is "in shape" from time to time. Otherwise, there are infinite number of things one can "challenge" oneself with.
>Just ask yourself, what are some things which I fear - dreadfully, desperately fear -taking action on or encountering?
I think Evola did not mean "things we fear". How do you define "fear"? There are infinite amount of things we are incompetent at, and therefore have some "fear" about because we are not familiar with them.
Again, the question of meaning cannot be resolved here because how do you decide what you are afraid of?
>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?
I do not think that Evola wants anything of their readers. Ride the Tiger makes sense only to those who already went through these kind of experiences. I do not think that somebody can read Ride the Tiger and then "do" what Evola writes about. Evola did a great job at conceptualizing differentiated man and his approach to survival. This kind of man is basically "forced" to have these experiences and to survive in this way because for him there is no other way. Either he goes through it, or he collapses.
>Could he accept the greater rewards without taking the greater risks?
I do not think that coping with "rewards" is the way to go. Differentiated man has to act in a way he does because there is no other way he can act. The question is, is this enough to survive in the most basic and in a more elevated sense where the question of meaning is crucial (if he does not resolve it, he will collapse).
>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
I think there is no enthusiasm here. The only way to do it in our world, and maybe even in the world of Tradition, is that you have to be "forced" to do it. You come to do point where either you do it and pass the trial, or you collapse. If you pass this "trial", you can later seek these experiences to confirm that you are strong enough, but that's a different thing.
>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.
I think this is not enough. It does not resolve the problem of meaning. Very tricky. Why would you do anything? Who cares? Because everything you do, you could have done something else instead, or in a different way.
>recommend starting with satipatthāna practice
This might work for you, but you will never know are you doing it correctly. This is a big problem. Have you really be challenged enough?
>Buddhist mindfulness practice referred to as satipatthāna. He writes:
The most important part of this is "he writes". The problem is that our language is very lacking in describing processes which mindfulness refers to, and not just those but generally processes which we call "mind". Evola mentions this in Ride the Tiger, where even he gets inconsistent in terminology he uses.
In other words, these things were practiced by men of very special kind. Noble blood, inborn tendencies and available initators are absolutely necessary. And general traditional environment in which takes place.
>Evola himself wrote an excellent book titled The Doctrine of Awakening
Here I think we have to be careful. Evola in The Path of Cinnabar notes that these books should not be read with the idea to actually implement the content. These things were always for a tiny minority.
So e.g. mindfulness practice. How do you know that you are practicing it correctly? What if you are doing the wrong thing and deceiving yourself? Sports analogy is interesting here. People do sports as recreation. They think they are good after some time. And then comes a professional sportsman, and they realize they are zero. Same thing would probably happen when monks of the past appear in our world. Problem is, they do not exist, and for a very long time, so you cannot measure yourself against anything interesting.
>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”.
I think it is difficult to avoid slipping into self-improvement territory. If "self-discipline" does not come natural to a man reading Evola, then he might just stop reading. But again, it is hard to define these ideas because we live in a world in which everything is questionable. This is the biggest problem.
>On a practical level, the cultivation of these qualities must be gradual and even circumstantial to an extent.
I agree that those qualities are good and were important in all traditions, but the problem is there are so many of them and their meaning changed in bourgeoization of the world. Here arises the issue of mixing the right-hand and left-hand path. It is not easy to resolve these issues. I am not sure that Evola did in Ride the Tiger.