Mysticism || Civilization || Goornahoor

Is there a meaningful cross-connection between Western Mysticism (conjectured directional force) & Western Civilization (historical cultural inter-play) or do they counter each other, maybe run parrallel independently?  Are certain authors in or out of evolutionary horizons? 

Take into acount Goornahoor: https://collegium.fandom.com/wiki/Gornahoor
Are 19th Century Authors; Guenon, Evola, Berdyaev, & Spengler, speculated links to negative spiritual forces?

You need to be a member of somathread to add comments!

Join somathread

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Have never read anything by Evola, Spengler or Berdyaev. I have read a fair amount by Rene Guenon at this stage and I admire his work for the most part.

    • In current 'Western' civilization, does there exist any principle of a higher order to follow?

      Re Guenon: https://youtu.be/TmbkfTiLQ58

      • This reply was deleted.
        • He is very good at describing many of the deeper issues that manifest now, and from his vision of it 100 years ago, much of which has come to pass.

          People sometimes implicate him with Evola's politics, as Evola was veering at least towards being a fascist if not actually one, but I do not see the mirroring. They were two philosophers studying and writing at the same time, who corresponded and followed each others work, and yes it seems they were friends - but it was a small world and I guess in those times people were allowed to disagree profoundly and still be respectful.

          Guenon criticised some of Evola's ideas. Evola also criticised Guenon but Evola said he owed his development as a traditional thinker to Guenon. Guenon was a very quiet person, who lived almost like a hermit, became a Sufi. Evola was much more boisterous and aggressive. Guenon has many faults of course - he could be extremely detached from ordinary suffering, dismissing it even, plus his justification of caste by saying it was ''Traditional'' is not something i can agree with at all. Many other things I would disagree with im sure. Nonetheless he had important things to say. My next book I will read of his is on Taosim and Islam so i will be interested to read his ideas - they are not summaries his books, just touching on various themes. To be honest i will have to read his books again as they are quite complicated and I have a trouble remembering things clearly.

          I think his most important idea was to criticise the modern idea of evolution - that is to say there is a notion now that man is constantly evolving towards something better, something greater and that mankind is doing that under their own steam. Someday we will evolve to be so great. But this is an inversion of the truth acording to Guenon. In fact man is a spiritual being, perfect by virtue of how we partake of God, and we have experienced a fall. We are not ''evolving'' but trying to return. What was before is not to be despised but rather was often life/culture that existed and abided according to the fundamental truths - it is now that we have forgotten the truths and the founding principles of Being.

          A quote of his on this that I wrote elsewhere to preserve it for myself, is this...

          Guenon says this mentality '' consists in effect of supposing that all things must have originated in the most rudimentary and crude fashion, to subsequently undergo a progressive elaboration, such that this or that conception would appear at a determined moment, the later (appearance) being judged the most elevated (or accomplished)….to this way of seeing things, it is necessary to oppose the view that, on the contrary, it is at the beginning that all which appears in the intellectual and spiritual domains is found in a state of perfection, from which it has only afterwards fallen away through…obscuration. (The evolutionist mentality) implies a fixed bias denying every supra-human element.'' This approach, he said, was a thoroughly modern idea.''

           

          This idea of his changes many things about ones approach to life if one accepts it - and that is not to say it aught to be accepted.

          • Just high-lighting your comment in hope that our now 'larger' & closer (via communications) cultures / principles do just that:

            "... but it was a small world and I guess in those times people were allowed to disagree profoundly and still be respectful ..."
            .
            As for me, I see 'evolution' only as a path - perhaps one of other paths - leading yet & hopefully to 'respect'.

            • I mention the disagreeing and respecting part as it is my struggle - I post to teach myself. I think it is a wider struggle in an increasingly polarised world also.

This reply was deleted.