Evola’s oscillatory relationship replaces prayer with wishing- a form of magic. However, Evola regards his oscillatory relationship to be a form of high magic, to be distinguished from graded lower forms of magic such as superstition.
In relating the ensuing event to the wish at the very moment of the wish calls for a denial of the law of causality and goes beyond any potential planning on the individual’s part. For even though one could plan past this point and try as hard as he could to obtain the result, the chances that it would occur in the very moment of the wish could be very slim calling for a denial of the law of causality. For example, suppose one has just lost a tennis match to a 3.5 tennis player at the local country club at the age of 18 and then makes the wish that he will become a top ranked tennis player- and then it actually happens. Nothing at the moment of the wish would suggest that this is a genuine possibility- in this extreme hypothetical case. The chances could be 1%. Once it becomes true, it is only a 1 in 100 chance that the wish was not involved. One thus, under this form of metaphysical realism gains a metaphysical intuition and attempts this again and if it happens again, he can assume it is working. What is really involved here is luck and Evola really gives a way of controlling luck. Luck means the exterior circumstances involved that are beyond one’s control. If there were no such thing as luck, this would seem to make less sense, although in actuality, it would still make sense. But once luck is involved, it is impossible to know at the moment of the wish whether he will be lucky or not without the wish. Evola was in fact working off of the I-Ching when he wrote the books.
Further considerations
The law of causality still holds except at a singularity and so tables, maps, and so forth and other forms of discursive knowledge can still be used. However, Evola’s maneuver can still work even if it creates a hindrance to discursive reasoning. And this is what many people do not realize that a philosophy can still work even if it creates a disturbance to discursive reasoning. Many contemporary professionals deny that there is any amount of luck in an individual’s attempt at development and attempt to gain full control over the law of causality. However, this is really nonsense and denying luck if there is such thing as luck leads to as much of a cognitive error as affirming luck when there is no such thing as luck. What comes across as bizarre to the American pragmatist or realist sits real cozy to the European foundationalist and makes complete sense to the Chinese- the inventors of luck.
Evola’s idea makes sense as a cognitive enhancer if even if claims to metaphysical realism are dismissed. The cognitive device found in many current self-help books was in fact invented by a metaphysical realist about 100 years ago and the original form of the claim was as a form of metaphysical realism. The cognitive version is that when you are at a low point, always believe you will be able to get to a high point again. Many cognitive devices found in self-help books were in fact invented by idealists- such as solipsism. What is the basis behind acting only for yourself and asserting yourself over others? – believing you are the only perception that exists. The metaphysical realism version of these claims has a harder edge, however, than the cognitive version. The realistic version is more akin to prayer and the individual truly believes that it is ontological that he will Get up when he is down and treats it as a real phenomenon.
Back to British and Continental Idealism; back to Traditionalism
Idealism Studies 