Quote notes (#10)

At The Brussels Journal, radical traditionalist Thomas F. Bertonneau — a reactionary’s reactionary — has posted an absorbing study of René Guénon and Eric Voegelin on the Degeneration of Right Order. The final paragraph summarizes some general conclusions:

The Gnostic rebellion against reality denies limitations, but it is, of course, subject to them because it is subject to reality; the rebellion is moreover radically maladapted to reality (denying logic and repudiating knowledge are bad bets in the Darwinian game) and it will eventually have to pay its penalty to Anaximander’s “Unlimited.” Or, we might say, to God. When the rebellion will reach its limit, however, only God knows.

An approximate English translation of Anaximander’s sole, cryptic fragment reads:

Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.


July 27, 2013admin 5 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized


5 Responses to this entry

  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    “All of this results from any morality that founds itself on its own selective transgression. The very selection of its location of inapplicability, becomes the fulcrum around which it unravels, the logic of exclusion and dissolution, essentially being one and the same.”

    (from an earlier comment , here – http://www.xenosystems.net/hitlers-legacy/#comment-7008)

    Haven’t forgotten the ‘Science’ post, have unfinished response, but busy with organising)


    Posted on July 27th, 2013 at 3:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    Thank you very much, admin, for “René Guénon and Eric Voegelin on the Degeneration of Right Order”. Very interesting.


    admin Reply:

    It’s probably not usefully described as ‘neoreaction’, but it’s a neighbor, and — as you say — “very interesting”.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    I haven’t read it all, but I can see that the theme of ‘wisdom’ (as applied to social governance is appealed to by ‘NeoReaction’. What constitutes such ‘wisdom’ is something you’ve all been working through. It’s not an easy task. The question of whether ‘modernity’ changes things is another consideration – are classical modes of ‘wisdom’ no longer sufficient? But what else do we have? And do we even have those?

    The author’s positioning of ‘deconstruction’ as an example of “a baroque anti-epistemology” is interesting. Especially so, since Buddhist epistemology is more radical than Derrida and Buddhist apoha linguistics is differential, like Saussure’s.
    In a way, though, the author could say that that confirms his thesis: Buddha, after all, was a Kshaitriya. But it should be kept in mind that the earlier Kshaitriya rebellion, exemplified by the Upanisads, occured because the Brahmins no longer knew the meanings of the words they intoned: hence, the going into the forest and thinking things through, oneself, of the Upanisads.


    Posted on July 27th, 2013 at 3:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thos Ward Says:

    Thank you for this. I wouldn’t have found it otherwise and it is indeed quite interesting. Voegelin makes for a good neighbor.


    Posted on July 28th, 2013 at 3:42 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment