Points that all traditionalists share in common

Discussion in 'Political Theory & Philosophy' started by Manu, 6 October 2018.

  1. Manu

    Manu Señor Member Sustaining Member
    1. Norden
    2. Knights of the Iron Cross

    We all know that traditionalist can mean a whole plethora of things, and more often than not we have divergent opinions on a whole host of matters ranging from religion to how a society or a family is run.

    There are, however, a few common threads that almost everyone in our crowd seem to share. For once, I will not present a big text and lots of statements, but instead just ask a question:

    What, in your opinion, are those common ideas that are shared by almost every traditionalist?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. RabGospodnyy

    RabGospodnyy Member

    You'll have to define the word 'traditionalist' first. It can mean anything from US or UK traditionalist conservatives, Guénonian / Evolaian / Schuonian / Duginian Traditionalism (or integral Traditionalism, which does not limit itself to one author but draws on all of them), (neo)reaction, some forms of NatSoc, religious traditionalists etc. etc.
     
  3. Arboreality

    Arboreality Member

    The Traditionalist school as a whole can be defined by six axioms that practically all Traditionalists can agree upon:
    1. There is a singular, universal, and absolute Truth that is simultaneously inborn and transcendent in all things, existing first and foremost in the metaphysical and eternal but manifesting in the physical and temporal as well.
    2. Tradition is the viewing and enacting of Truth in human affairs whether on the scale of a civilization or an individual. By following Truth one is living in a way that is attuned to the metaphysical and eternal.
    3. Tradition is transmitted and made accessible primarily through Traditional religion, these religions are worth following and maintaining for this reason.
    4. Different religions are different lenses through which Truth is viewed and carried out Traditionally, while not all lenses are necessarily equal, especially in Modernity, they all carry some way of living in Truth as close as one can do so.
    5. The Enlightenment era, particularly its focus on forces which are anti-Traditional is an event that had an overall negative effect on the human experience. Traditionalists return to Tradition.
    6. Syncretic, Revivalist, New Age, Occult, Techno-Spiritual, and other modern spiritual movements are extremely flawed lenses at best, but at worst are abominations of Modernity that are to be denounced thoroughly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. JonhOliver

    JonhOliver Member

    I think he is talking in the general evolian/guénonian sense, with him also referring to the underlying beliefs that have sustained traditional civilizations throughout history.

    In my opinion, the most focal and central belief that separates the modern worldview from the traditional, is the belief in a immutable and eternal metaphysical reality, that is ontologically superior to our world and that it gives order and directs this world. Not only that, but that these other degrees of existence can be known by man, and that obtaining/preserving this knowledge and living in accordance with it, is one of the main goals of civilization. Thus all laws and institutions must have a divine origin, and not be made according to man made opinion and the whims of the masses.
    Man, along with other living beings, isn't merely a composite of atoms, that appear to have consciousness due to eletro-chemical processes in the brain, and whose actions are determined by the would outside of him or the genes that he has. Instead, man is a tripartite being having a body, soul and spirit, that is the immanent principle of god inside of him, and that allows him to have knowledge of divine things. The soul, is the part of man that is connected with his sense of free will and action, and that can either be directed towards the transcendent and eternal, or towards the multiplicity and pleasures of the material world.This division has different names according to different traditions, but in the end that doesn't matter.
    This free will of the human soul, is what separates man from animals or plants, that can only live in accordance with their essence and that have to obey to the final causes that rule over them. Thus, man has a special place in the universe, and is given the choice to turn towards his source in god, or to live in the darkness of the world, without higher principles to order his life, living in chaos and disarray. This mean that man has a choice, which can be called a moral choice, between either living by his spirit or living enslaved to the desires of body.

    What i said until now, can be summarized in these 3 principles, taken from gornahoor:

    • The world is an ordered whole.
    • The world order is of a moral nature.
    • Mankind is called to arrange its own life in harmony with the moral world order.
    From this we can derive the way that politics and human society should be ordered, the principle of hierarchy, namely the doctrine of the 3 castes:
    Living in accordance with metaphysical knowledge and the production of people with said knowledge, whether you called them sages,saints,yogis or whatever, as to be one of the primary goals of Traditional society. The problem is however, that reaching such stages of consciousness is very hard, a path as sharp as a razor, which means that these people should be provided for by the rest of society, so that they don't have to be preoccupied with wordily concerns and can instead turn their whole attention to the divine, by having many years of education and lots of encyclopedic knowledge on their tradition and on the doctrine, in order to properly practice an ascetic way of life and spiritual exercises. The whole society benefits from this, as these sages by their mere existence, can influence society and lead normal people towards the good. Thus is born the brahmin/priestly caste.
    The warrior caste, is created from the fact that some people are born with a great will, strength, courage and irascibility , that makes them fit to rule over other people, that live under control by their desires and passions, and that thus need to be ruled over by others. They have to rule according to divine law and the benefit of all though, they shouldn't use their might for their own benefit as then they would merely be tyrants. The third caste, the producers, should accept this arrangement as being for their own benefit, as if they didn't maintain the brahmin caste then they would be deprived of knowledge and higher meaning in life, and if they overturned the warrior and administrative caste, their societies would lack order, leading to the rule of chaos and the rule by the whims and desires of the masses.

    The fact that human society should be hierarchical, can also be deduced from the fact that there also exists a divine and ontological hierarchy of being, that separates different degrees and modes of existence. Thus, since as above so below, and in the same way as man's soul is hierarchically arranged, so to should society be hierarchical, if it is to be an organic institution, and not some abstraction based around some hypothetical contract.

    I think that i might have gotten way to much into specifics, especially with the part about the castes, but i think that in general, what i said here is accepted by almost all traditionalists, and constituted the worldview of every sane and well bred man before the french revolution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Manu

    Manu Señor Member Sustaining Member
    1. Norden
    2. Knights of the Iron Cross

    In essence, I agree. But I believe that one part about the castes is more of a recent nature than divine truth. It is a widely practiced thing in the more recent centuries that the priestly caste is freed from material and martial concerns. This, however, is a clear folly. It detaches them from the world and leaves them open to mental-spiritual rot, like the Ivory Tower syndrome of today's universities. It makes the highest caste unable to appreciate the value of things like physical work, courage, fortitude and other forms of sacrifice. Furthermore, it physically weakens the highest caste, when they are not required to be all that of the lower castes, and more. Someone who does not make decisions and live in the world is essentially just serving himself, which is exactly that: selfish. It has never been about personal salvation. That is a reward for many lives of sacrifice and service. It has many names, Nirvana being the most well-known. Although it is the same as Gnosis, if one understands that reincarnation is real and that a state of permanent Gnosis - oneness with God - takes many lives and immense sacrifice to achieve.

    A true higher caste must be physically, mentally and spiritually apt to a degree which is in general superior to that of the lower castes. Physically, they must be strong and agile, martially they must be masters. Spiritually, they must be privy to the timeless secrets which govern the universe as well as regular practicioners of meditation/prayer etc. Furthermore, they must at times work in all kinds of physical labors with the lowest castes, as to understand them and not grow scornful of those who feed all and enable life. A man of the highest caste should be like an index of all those under him. Perhaps not a master of all of their jobs, but certainly an adept of many. In the martial and spiritual aspects lies the Noble's main focus, of course, but how is a man able to rule a village or a kingdom unless he has tossed hay, harvested crops, worked metal, cared for the sick and elderly, dug ditches, laid bricks or traded in the markets for his daily bread? The answer is that his judgement will not come from a position of understanding. He will not have a grasp of reality.

    If a king or a noble becomes detached from reality, you eventually get what happened with the monarchies in Europe. The nobles grew rotten and weak, incorporated merchants into their gene pool and were replaced or reduced to an irrelevant position to serve as ribbon-cutting figureheads instead of valiant defenders of their peoples. That is probably it, a highest caste member is a servant of the people, not the other way around. Much like a father or a mother serves and guides a child in the family unit, which is a smaller-scale example of nature's pattern. While a child can make itself useful, its primary purpose is not a one-sided servitude towards its parents. The purpose for the weak is to be guided towards positive growth in all aspects within their ability. This also serves the people as a whole.

    The main point is that every member of every caste does everything they are able to, but in different measures. The noble obviously does not spend every day working the fields, whereas the peasant maybe only practice with arms, pray, meditate or go to mass once a week. A good example of the latter would be medieval England, where after Mass, the farmers practiced with their longbows. I am not so certain the nobles of the day reciprocated and joined the commoners in labor during planting or harvest, but such a combination would have been ideal.

    This has something to do with the old adage of separating the warriors from the scholars. Don't separate anything, it leads to rot. The higher the degree of division of labor, the higher the corruption will be. A tribe or nation needs to work more like a family unit, with a father and mother with their firm guidance, older relatives with their wisdom, older siblings, younger siblings and so forth. There is natural hierarchy, given by God. This is only possible in a tribal world, not the current industrial-mercantile world order, which is unnatural and therefore evil.
     
    Last edited: 7 October 2018
  6. JonhOliver

    JonhOliver Member

    By implying that the initiates of the tradition, should be given the necessary conditions for their task, i wasn't saying that they should simply sit around in a cave and do nothing. That's a way of life that might be chosen by some, but what i was trying to say, was that they shouldn't have to be restricted by earthly concerns like not having food. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't do physical labor, for example christian monks would grow their own food and some sufis would willingly chose physical labor for the potentially spiritually beneficial aspects of it, but that that's not their goal in life or function. I also don't really agree with the idea that someone that merely focus on achieving spiritual enlightenment is selfish, as even if he remains isolated, he will irradiate joy towards other people, like the four radiant contemplation's in Buddhism. Not only that, but for someone to achieve gnosis, they will almost surely need to be saintly, not egotistic and with a strong sense of compassion for other people.

    I do agree with the idea that engaging in some of the peasant activities is good for the upper classes, although i wouldn't say that they should be an index of them, as it is simply way to much for someone to be a great warrior and a master craft-smith. It's also a bit demeaning towards these crafts, as in traditional societies each one of them would have an almost initiative character with their own secrets,traditions and history, they weren't simply a collection of men united to earn money. For example in medieval Portugal, each one of the guilds, representing a certain craft, would have their own patron saints that would represent them on a procession. By saying that a noble should try all of them, you're implying that they're simply work in order to produce material goods, without any higher dimension.

    Also, i checked your post on the shoutbox, and congratulations on managing to buy the farm. I live in a 4000 square meter terrain and i already find it pretty big, so 70000 should be pretty huge. Do you or your wife, have any sort of knowledge on farming, or are you going there blank.
     
  7. Manu

    Manu Señor Member Sustaining Member
    1. Norden
    2. Knights of the Iron Cross

    Although that's usually what happens when someone doesn't need to do basic things. They won't. Basically it is an unnecessary temptation. Much like keeping a brothel in a monastery. I am not saying indefinitely or day in and out for anyone, even those who do it full time, but at least mandatory in youth and probably from time to time to get a reminder. The measure shouldn't be industrial or even medieval society in many cases. A measured amount of work. Hardship is great for the soul, living in a vaccuum has its benefits, but only after hardship. Strength wanes in ease, though.
     
    Last edited: 8 October 2018
  8. Bast

    Bast Member Sustaining Member

    I think Traditionalists are all kindred spirits of Mishima Yukio; we're all closer to Sun and Steel than to sophists and money. You read that book, and you know you"re one of Us. We're the Last Redoubt in Hodgeson's Night Land, the last of the "Sun People" in a world of nocturnal monsters.

    I don't mean we just agree with Mishima. We know what he's talking about, when he contrasts words and body, and we attain to the ideal world primarily through our bodies and deeds. He was the archetypal, post-war Traditionalist.
     
    Last edited: 11 October 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice