/RG/ Rene Guenon General

[Anonymous No.14395216]

Don't stop posting and posting in other based Guenon threads.

Where to read Guenon Bodhitsattva's work:
https://archive.org/details/reneguenon

Guenon Bodhitssattva Chart:
WIP

[Anonymous No.14395222]

Have you taken the brown pill yet, mateys? it's a tough pill to swallow! Forget red and blue pills, brown pills are the way of the future.

[Anonymous No.14395289]

>>14395222
and they say physiognomy don't be real

[Anonymous No.14395302]

>>14395289
Imagine getting transmigrated into this fine beast

[Anonymous No.14395303]

Is Sufism still a viable tradition or is it pozzed now like the rest?

[Anonymous No.14395408]

>>14395303
It is not pozzed. It has the spirit of Guénon guarding it.

[Anonymous No.14395971]

>>14395303
Yes it's still viable, although you may have to try a few different orders befroe you find one that has what you're looking for. There are mountains of excellent Sufi writings you can self-study on the side as well

[Anonymous No.14396061]

>>14395216
I'm loving it. When I first read Guénon nobody on /lit/ talked about him. Now... Well people almost don't talk about him but at least they create threads about him so I think beginning to talk about him will be the next logical step

[Anonymous No.14396145]

>>14395303
it's pozzed to shit, dont know how people can honestly say otherwise

many orders are filled with charlatans and you'll get bombed by wahhabists anyway

[Anonymous No.14396159]

>>14396061
Let's talk about Rene Guenon.

Guenon and Evola had a disagreement about social hierarchy. Guenon believed in spiritual authority; Evola advocated for the union of spiritual authority and temporal rule in the form of the pontifex-maximus. Guenon believed in contemplation over action; Evola the contrary. Evola believed that the rule of the priestly cast was characteristic of a lunar, feminine spirituality typical of the Silver Age, and that the original state of affairs in the Golden Age was that the warrior king was at the same time the head of the religion. Many people don't get this point and think that Evola advocated for the rule of the pure warrior. If that were the case, then Guenon would be right, but the rule of brute force is a further generation introduced in the Bronze Age.

I believe that the historical evidence is on Evola's side on this one. As each civilization recapitulates the Yuga cycles, we can see this in the history of Ancient Greece and Rome.

According to Fustel de Coulanges' Ancient City, in archaic Greece the head of the household was simultaneously the priest of the family religion; the chief of the tribe was chosen among these patriarchs and was the officiating priest of the tribal religion; finally the king chosen among these tribal chiefs and he was the "pontifex maximus" as it were of the civic religion.

There was no "professional" priestly class separate from the duties of the household (which included war and defense) until a much later and decadent period.

[Anonymous No.14396181]

>>14396159
There was no "professional" priestly class separate from the duties of the household, tribe and city*

I believed this was the case in early Islam as well.

[Anonymous No.14396219]

>>14396159
This all hinges on short count for the yugas where they last only a couple thousand years tops. The long count for the current kali yuga would place its beginning sometime deep in to the palaeolithic era and the previous golden age over 2 million years ago.

Evola's account and you assessment of it are stronger than Guenon's if we accept short count. But if we accept the long count then the pointifex-maximus Evola describes could easily be seen as vestigial scraps of tradition holding on for dear life, using brute force to construct a simulacra of something that was older and much more effortless in a previous age.

[Anonymous No.14396275]

>>14396219
>the pointifex-maximus Evola describes could easily be seen as vestigial scraps of tradition holding on for dear life
It can in a certain way it is, as we are in the Kali Yuga according to the long count. However tradition states that there are recapitulations of the Yuga cycles inside each Yuga (something Acharyaji also teaches), and I believe we can gain insight of the large cycle by observing what happens in the small. It seems that it is a trend for the cycle to begin with a priest-king or priest-chieftain.

I was just reading the wikipedia entry into the Eleusinian Mysteries, which was the initiatic center of ancient Greece, and the founder was a Thracian by the name of Eumolpus, which was priest and king.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eumolpus

[Anonymous No.14396373]

the root ontology of Traditionalism is a hodgepodge of late 19th century esotericism and hermetic syncretism, post-Kantian Religionswissenschaft and Protestant theology, the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule and its early 20th century offshoots, which also had a post-Kantian epistemology, and a healthy dose of Romantic theory on religion and myth, which has been described by Beiser and other scholars as "neo-Platonist," or as the "archetypal" strand of Kant interpretation. Read any myth-related text of Schelling and you will see Traditionalism. Actually, read Paul Bishop's book _The Archaic_ for a decent discussion of the core concept(s) from which Traditionalism sprang. Its ontology is part of a general response to Kantian rationalism that involved a re-introduction of archetypal (i.e., Platonic) metaphysics with a vaguely emanationist structure -- that is, bootleg neo-Platonism.

This movement was (and remains) deliberately syncretic because when you identify the primary forms or archetypes with a symbolic and mythic structure (as ALL of the traditions I just outlined did), you get a philosophy and history of religion that makes all traditions into particular instantiations of underlying immutable principles (as all of the traditions I just outlined concluded). Just read _The Oriental Renaissance_ by Schwab, which was praised highly by Mircea Eliade, about whom both Guenon and Evola complained in correspondence that he was a Guenonian Traditionalist who wouldn't cop to the fact and that he was getting credit for Guenon's ideas especially. Eliade agreed; so Guenon, Evola, and Eliade agree that Eliade is a reasonably faithful transposition of Guenonian philosophy, and Eliade embraces Schwab's diagnosis of syncretic, Fruhromantik neo-Platonism as the basis of the Traditionalist worldview, e.g., as its syncretic neo-Platonist framework effortlessly reduces and re-appropriates Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, and everything else to be simply an emanation of its own "central, really real" myths and archetypes. That is why "Hinduism looks like neo-Platonism," a favourite line of Traditionalists -- real similarities between the two systems, perhaps owing to some real underlying Indo-European metaphysics, are in fact bowled over and destroyed by Traditionalism's extremely lazy neo-Platonist framework, which has been called "all-reducing." Traditionalists did not save or invent the method of comparative religions -- they killed it, and laminated its corpse.

tldr: Traditionalism is an esoterically-oriented synthesis of scholarly paradigms that go back to Kant, under which paradigms traditional neo-Platonism, and Christian and especially German mysticism were reinterpreted by the early Romantics. And it's a late-comer to the game at that.

[Anonymous No.14396398]

>>14396373
This is so wrong. Guenon rejected the whole of modern philosophy, but specially Kant, the Romantics, and Orientalists (which he is wrongly accused of being one). This can be learned by reading even just the forewords to his major works. Put some effort into it Anon!

[Anonymous No.14396614]

bump

[Anonymous No.14396926]

Kant claimed that it wasn't possible for humans to have intellectual intuition because he couldn't think of how it was possible (Guenon succinctly and accurately flays him in 'Intro to Hindu Doctines' for wishing to impose the limits of his own ignorance upon others). The supreme irony is that Kant himself in his first critique admitted that God would have to have intellectual intuition because otherwise He would be subject to limits which could not be true as any true supreme God is unlimited. As the Upanishads state that God is really the inner Self of all beings it provides the explanation in accordance with Kant's thought for how they can experience intellectual intuition (i.e. it's really God inside their consciousness who has this intuition) but because Kant never left Konigsberg he never had the chance to be initiated into the metaphysical teachings and associated spiritual practices which allow someone to do this.

[Anonymous No.14397075]

Where do I start with Gweenon?

[Anonymous No.14397350]

>>14396398
A stated material opposition does not necessarily mean one has completed the opposition in spirit. Schmitt correctly points out how the Christian conservatives retained Kantianism as a method even in their reaction against modernity. This is most clear in de Maistre's "legitimate usurpation", an obvious irony in the very name, yet one can still analyse where its Kantian limits are. Authority is no longer a thing-in-itself, not a being or force that can be known or even sensed, thus a further justification is required. The justification comes in the form of duration, a conceptionof time which follows Kantianism.

The same can be said of reactionary elements aware of the problem created by Kantian thought. Schopenhauer, for example, solves the thing-in-itself by replacing it with the will. Nietzsche does the same with power. We never know what power is, and this is why Nietzsche is incapable of ever defining it - it is merely a function, a series of its elemental responses, but never a force which achieves dominion nor acts as a diplomatic factor establishing peace between multiple dominions. According to this method one must look at power from its effects, hence the mathematical mind which looks towards genealogy only from the present: a taxonomy of great men who achieve power sans phrase. Paradoxically, Nietzsche relies upon a romantic Christian and Darwinian understanding (unconsciously, no doubt) and is incapable of seeing the form of power in modernity - his proximity obscures the details. Even the greatest opponent of rationalism saw the world through its artificial eyes, his romanticism was nothing more than a desperate attempt to escape the inevitable.

Totality is impossible after Descartes/Kant. All that remains is completion, a certainty of territories within, yet dominion and essence are beyond reach. This is captured perfectly in Junger's image of the maxima/minima of a thermometer: precision which is capable of measuring the data of a substance even as it changes, however nothing may even be measured beyond these parameters. The instrument achieves a living quality while eliminating all essence of form from itself. Only technology overcomes the Kantian limitation.

Understanding this it is much easier to arrive at Guenon's Kantianism. There is no divine-in-itself, thus a complete religion must act in its place. It is as if the remaining traditions may be sought out as a replacement for pilgrimage, an entire world religion accumulated from scattered parts - then reverse engineering returns us to God-in-itself.

[Anonymous No.14397708]

>>14397350
This is a really good reading of Schmitt and Junger and of the situation in general, nice man. What have you been reading?

[Anonymous No.14397796]

>>14395216
I like being a European Balkan Muslim and Guenon's ideas just complinent my world view.

I love that guy.

[Anonymous No.14397822]

>>14397796
Are you the Albanian guy? What do you think of the Turks?

[Anonymous No.14397830]

>>14397822
No but turks are an extremely diverse group of people and they are not limited to one peoples/ethnic group

[Anonymous No.14398884]

>>14395216
real g

[Anonymous No.14399191]

>>14396373
> Traditionalism is an esoterically-oriented synthesis of scholarly paradigms that go back to Kant,
Explain the perennial philosophy of the renaissance then, kant shill.

>>14397350
Jesus Christ, look at this guy go. Just come up with some obscurantist nonsense and hope it seems impressive enough to convince someone. The amount of shills and shitposters in these threads are ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.14399465]

>>14399191
there is nothing obscurantist about that post, are you retarded? reply with substance, say something actually critical of it. of course you won't, you'll admit defeat by replying that you don't have to or it's not worth it etc.

[Anonymous No.14399782]

>>14399465
i notice you didn't reply to my point about the perennial philosophy. Is it because you spent too much time reading philosophy so now your head is full of abstract jargon that sounds very impressive to all your philosophy buddies but absolutely retarded to anyone who has done even a quick reading of history?

[Anonymous No.14399840]

>>14399782
i'm not the schmittposter, and sure i'll reply to the renaissance thing in a bit because i find that interesting, and i actually know about renaissance hermeticism and neoplatonism unlike you. but thanks for dodging and conceding defeat exactly as i predicted you would.

again, reply with substance to the schmittposter or you're a pathetic faggot. you don't have to agree with him or even majorly engage him, just actually make a critique of substance of what he said. can't even do that can you?

[Anonymous No.14400011]

>>14399840
Alright, just for (You)
>first paragraph
Guenon extensively criticizes modern Christianity and conservatism, so I do not see what is the point in bringing this up.

>second paragraph
Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are example of what he considered to be "profane" thought, so again it seems irrelevant

>third paragraph
Why is totality impossible? This is the type of abstract thinking that I despise and will continue to ridicule as obscurantist. It often has very little do with the topic at hand and is just an attempt to seem impressive to those that are not initiated into the jargon that is used.

>fourth paragraph
i already touched upon this in my previous posts, and I am eagerly awaiting your reply where you finally retroactively refute Guenon, and all guenonposters will have to commit sudoku out of shame.

[Anonymous No.14401090]

>>14400011
again i am not schmittposter so i do not necessarily represent his position. but it seems to me:

>Guenon extensively criticizes modern Christianity and conservatism, so I do not see what is the point in bringing this up.
do you mean "bringing up" christianity/conservatism? the point of >>14397350 in his first paragraph seems to be that guenon's position is similar to modern christianity/conservatism in respect of a specific logical or ontological commitment underlying their philosophical positions. this (onto)logical commitments seems articulated well-enough to me:
- "kantianism" (which here seemingly stands in for general post-kantian, secular, natural-scientific philosophy and the "modern worldview" associated with it) makes a permanent cleavage between the thing-in-itself and the world as we experience it, roughly analogous to pre-critical philosophy's distinction between noesis (intuition into real essences) and dianoia (technical/discursive knowledge and reasoning).
- this cleavage has become habitual, it is presumed not only by modern viewpoints which would actively advocate for it, but even by their opponents, who tacitly presuppose it even while claiming to rebuke it. (this is an old nietzschean insight and has been made by many others.)
- when one wants to conceptualize a thing-in-itself, one no longer feels instinctively like one can appeal directly to noesis, being thoroughly infected with this "kantian" outlook. so one finds a way of "detecting" the invisible essences of real things indirectly, a method also contained in (and therefore well represented by) kant's philosophy.

this is the (onto)logical content which the poster calls kantianism as a shorthand. let's call this content "X." the poster says "traditionalism is part of a family of other things, such as A and B, which rely on X without even realizing it." your response to this is "but guenon criticized A and B," which is not engaging with the logical form of the schmittposter's statement. this is, again, a nietzschean insight but almost a cliche by now: one can be a representative or instantiation of a position while also thinking one is violently against that position. (chesterton makes similar remarks about christianity vis-a-vis atheists in The Everlasting Man, for example. a true atheist would be indifferent to christianity; modern atheists are so violently anti-christianity precisely because they are still "christian" in a much deeper sense.)

[Anonymous No.14401097]

>>14400011
>>14401090
>Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are example of what he considered to be "profane" thought, so again it seems irrelevant
this is the same problem. schmittposter's point was, again, something like: "X is a position. C and D, who thought they were escaping X, really reified X without realizing it. guenon is like C and D." it's frankly somewhat baffling that you don't get this - i will assume it's because you're being disingenuous and uncharitable on purpose, and not because you're bad at detecting the logical content underlying a person's argument, the chief requirement for philosophical thought. either way, it seems like you are not reading what you're pretending to have read, which is an important requirement for dismissing it. by the way, the whole logical form i keep referring to is helpfully encompassed in this remark: "his [very] proximity obscures the details."

>Why is totality impossible? ... [this is jargon]
yeah, it could reasonably be said to be jargon, and that is a fair critique to an extent. but as schelling and heidegger said, in so many words, jargon is sometimes necessary. sometimes jargon is a useful tool for simplifying. on the one hand, a single word can stand in for a whole definition or discussion. (this can of course become dangerous when people learn the simplifying shorthand term, and neglect the actual definition underlying it, so that their thought becomes unrigorous.) on the other hand, and more importantly, abstractions are necessary for inviting or tantalizing a person's cognition to bridge the gap between the information (presumably) condensed in the abstraction and the individual mind which does not yet have access to this information. in this case the word is not just a tool for simplifying and representing what is already known, but a sign saying that you don't know something. since i know you are an esoteric, you could call this process initiatic.

all that said, because of your aversion to the jargon, you ignored the best part of the paragraph. the thermometer metaphor not only explains the jargon, it helps explain the preceding paragraphs (and their discussion of the logical content "X," whose representative is kantianism).

[Anonymous No.14401104]

>>14401097
>>14401090
>>14400011
the fourth paragraph of schmittposter's post is quite interesting. because guenon is a representative of X (therefore "guenon is a kantian," "Guenon's Kantianism"), he repeats the mistakes of A, B, C, D. he needs a thermometer, and his thermometer is tradition. dianoia-as-if-representing-noesis, noesis as the evidence and evidencer of noesis, replaces actual noesis. the result is the same folly as A, B, C, and D: LARPing in dianoia precisely because of the pain of X.

frankly it's not particularly difficult to rebuke the point schmittposter is making - it would put he and you in a position of aporia, with both of you adopting mutually incommensurable stances as to the point he's making, but that still makes it a valid rebuke. there are also subtler critiques possible, ones which i feel easily emanate from (what i presume is) your own position on kantianism. so if you read this post, or decided to finally read (reread?) what schmittposter wrote, i would be interested in your actual position - not the irrelevant pseudo-position "guenon hated B and D so how can B and D possibly be relevant??" but i strongly feel that you will not respond genuinely to either post, instead dodging the issue again, whether because you are deliberately disingenuous or because you lack the capacity. so i note here that i wrote this mainly as a response to schmittposter, whose thoughtful post made an interesting point, and i think deserved a response. but i would still love to hear yours - as long as it's philosophical, which means correctly identifying the logical content and ontological commitments of your opponent BEFORE dismissing them.

since the rest of the guenon spam threads seem to have died off, maybe other people will enter and discuss as well. doubtful but hey, always a chance.

[Anonymous No.14401547]

[Anonymous No.14401561]

>>14395222
I've missed you.

[Anonymous No.14402749]

>>14395216
I just woke up. What happened to all the Guenon threads, bros?

[Anonymous No.14402794]

>>14402749
Locked into oblivion I think.

[Anonymous No.14402817]

>>14402749
They realized their non-duality with the archive.

[Anonymous No.14402818]

>>14402749
Guenonfag is taking a breather. I think he got the ol' "VPN/proxy" ban on a few too many of his devices and now he has to be a bit more careful with his main IP. Or at least it's inconvenient to keep resetting it. He's been on this morning but not doing his customary pic related where he makes several threads even though there are already several.

Remember to report Guenon threads other than this general for spam/flooding. Multiple reports get priority in the mod's queue.

For the record Guenonfag, no one minds if you make a general thread and keep it bumped. People just didn't like your spamming.

[Anonymous No.14402851]

>>14397075
Here ya go, anon

[Anonymous No.14403665]

>>14395216
If Rene Guenon was a rapper his name would be Real G

[Anonymous No.14403764]

>>14402818
We are all Guenonfag now...

[Anonymous No.14404085]

>>14396373
>>14397350
All I'm getting from this is that everything and everyone, even those who express their disagreements with Kant, are Kantian.
What isn't Kantian?
Were Aquinas and Lao Tzu Kantians in disguise?

[Anonymous No.14404123]

>>14397350
>>14401090
Very good, but I've two questions. 1) Should this approach be classified as "uniquely" Kantian? The idea that the thing in itself ought to be known through a "thermometer" (in religious terms, wouldn't we say "the absolute through the manifested?") seems pretty ancient - it's for example in the bible. 2) Is this really injurious to Guenon's philosophy?

[Anonymous No.14404156]

why does this thread have fewer posts than the whitehead general

[Anonymous No.14404198]

>>14404156
We had enough of Guenon threads in general.