In Stage One, man is in what we could call the "natural" state, that is, he functions in a state of Nature. As such, he performs just as Nature asks: he breathes, eats, reproduces, and dies. As far as Nature is concerned, the Stage One man is complete. Whether or not man develops his Will or gains Wisdom, makes no difference to Nature. There is no gene to encourage higher states of consciousness, there is no natural process that will lead to the “evolution” of the spirit.
In Stage One, there is no firm sense of the "I", and the natural man is not autonomous. His instincts, his desires, his likes and dislikes, his opinions have their sources outside him and the I is passive in relation to them. For example, he won’t eat Brussels sprouts because that is just “the way I am”. Or if he desires something, he acts to fulfil it and does not question the desire itself. His opinions are absorbed from his milieu – family, church, clubs, friends, political parties – and serve more as a way to bond with his community or to maintain certain positions of power. His worldview comes from idle chitchat (Heidegger: "gerede") with neighbours or commentary in the media.
Thus, for natural man, there is no burning issue of certainty. He seldom seeks to justify his opinions and beliefs. In debate, he is quick to begin with "I think" or "I believe" as though that were sufficient warrant for belief. He seldom sees a need to justify his opinion with facts or logic, nor to refute a contrary opinion. Even when through experience, he attempts such a justification, he argues as would a lawyer or sophist – that is, simply to defend a point of view – and not as a genuine seeker of knowledge. Nietzsche’s claim that "the courage of one’s convictions is not sufficient, what is necessary is the courage for an attack on one’s convictions" has no impact on him.
In this passage, Evola uses the word "singolo" instead of "individuo", both of which I have translated as individual (though I marked the former). A singolo is like one stick in a pile, whereas an individuo is an independent centre of awareness. This type of individual is part of his environment and is not yet separated, that is, as a detached consciousness, the observer, Aristotle’s unmoved mover. Such a one has no Will as such, what he calls "free will" is merely a spontaneity, or what Goethe called "disorderly self will".
n stage two, man begins to awaken from the naive realism of stage one that posits a "real" world "out there, right now" based on nothing but his animal faith. Evola describes the attempts to account for this, first in the metaphysico-religious realm and then in science. Finally he ties this in to the quest for certainty and proposes how to ground this certainty.
Evola next proposes science as the solution to the awakening into Stage Two. The attempt is made to tame the chaos of phenomena through scientific laws. Yet, by the nature of the scientific method, even these laws are uncertain, since new theories always arise to replace earlier ones. Furthermore, science cannot answer the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
At this point, through self-awareness, the naive view of a "subject" knowing an "object" is no longer tenable. Evola accepts Schopenhauer's view that phenomena are simply representations in consciousness and there is no "real" thing standing behind phenomena or causing them. Then the only certainty left is this self-awareness of the "I". This is the threshold to Stage Three.
In the initial brief, but rich, paragraph, Evola details the requirements to proceed from Stage Two to Stage Three. If we take literally the Traditional teachings that our ordinary life -- if you can call our life in the Cave "ordinary" -- is illusion, then all that we naively accepted as obviously true needs to be questioned and discarded. This path is only for those who "have the courage for an attack on their convictions" (Nietzsche).
In the second paragraph, Evola points out that every experience is somehow one of "my" experiences. So that which is constant and unchanging among the changing world phenomena, is the sense of "I", whether implicit or explicit. Evola likens it to the Vedic concept of ahamkara, defined as:
I-maker. Personal ego. The mental faculty of individuation; sense of duality and separateness from others. Sense of I-ness, "me" and "mine." Ahamkara is characterized by the sense of I-ness, sense of mine-ness, identifying with the body, planning for one's own happiness, brooding over sorrow, and possessiveness. So this I presupposes some other experience, that is, the experience the I is conscious of. He relates it to the Vedic teachings on the Observer ... that is never observed.
Evola then rejects all new age and philosophical teachings that postulate a "higher self" that must be reached. There is only the "I" and its experiences or representations. Evola then poses this challenge. First he points out that there can only be one such "I", and so there cannot be any other "I". Therefore, while we are accustomed to regard others as independent centres of awareness, for Evola, the “others” are again representations, that is, objects, and not other subjects. This is a crucial challenge made by Evola, and it must be understood and seen, in order to move forward. Evola links the failure to grasp this to sentimentality or a lack of critical reflexion; complete detachment is the only way. Finally, Evola concludes:
He is not yet ready for the passage to the third stage since those who have first not known how to doubt everything, can have absolute certainty of nothing.Here again is the reminder to let go of all theories and opinions, in order to base certainty only on what the I can verify for itself.
Since the "I" cannot be known as an object, Evola next describes what the "I" could be. As expected, he does not see the "I" as simply the passive observer of phenomena, but relates it to the will-to-power: the I is the centre of will. Therefore, unlike objects -- which are what they are -- the I must create itself through its activities ("self-positing"). The "I" therefore has no static being. Though not explicitly stated here, Evola has in mind the Tao of the Tao Te Ching. Hence, the activity the I is the action - non action (wei wu wei) of Taoism.
Evola likens the transition to stage 3 to the fate of a Robinson Crusoe, who must now create a new world in order to survive. Once all the theories, opinions, beliefs, and creeds have been discarded in stage 2, the individual is now in a similar position to the castaway and is also forced to create a new reality.
Evola now concludes the discussion of the stages before moving on to the relationship between the individual and the becoming of the world.
He points out the the awakening of the I -- or "still point" -- in the second stage is now understood in the third stage.
This happens not through learning some theory or studying some philosophy, but rather through a process of self-analysis, that is, of one's consciousness.
So, what started out (in stage one) as an independent reality is now understood in its relationship to the "I" -- both as its representations and also as subject to the will of the I.
Hence, the only principle of certainty that Evola is willing to admit is what can be verified in the consciousness and will of the I.
In the next section – which I have titled “Privation” – Evola consolidates the understanding gained by the man at stage three. This involves the refutation of realism and an answer to its arguments against the position taken by Evola. The realist claims that there is a something behind the appearances or representations that somehow causes or accounts for them. Evola denies this and reasserts his claim that the appearances are from the “I”. But certainly there are things that are impervious to my will. Evola claims that they are not real things but rather a privation, something that reveals my own insufficiency. Along the way of explaining this, a new, and perhaps greater and more heroic, meaning is given to activity in the world.
In a note, Evola points out the limit at which philosophy as such must end; what is then required is self-realization, to which no study of philosophy can lead. Evola asserts that such a transformation is “not a myth but a real possibility”. This cannot be overemphasized – it is insufficient to study Evola, one must work to achieve such a realization by other means; otherwise, nothing will be understood.
The rejection of realism, the elevation of self-realization over rational thought, and the centrality of the will, freedom, and power have far reaching implications. This short work does not draw out all such implications, but it is an interesting exercise to ponder them.
Evola then turns to the position of the realist in order to refute him. Bear in mind that Evola is here concerned with the problem of certainty: that is, how do I know -- that is directly -- with certainty. For this, Evola only allows what happens in consciousness, my self-awareness or sense of "I", and, derivatively, what I have power over and can control.
Therefore, a "thing" is whatever appears in my consciousness as "representation". The realist, on the other hand, speculates that there is something that accounts for that appearance and thus causes it in my consciousness. Since what I can know with certainty is whatever is in my own consciousness, the theory of the realist must necessarily be speculative.
The objection of the realist is that you have no experience of directly causing or bringing about the appearances of the world. To counter this, Evola returns to the distinction between spontaneity and will that was made in the discussion of the stages. The appearance of the world is "spontaneous", in the sense that it arises of necessity without the full consent of my will. So whatever resists my will is not something that has an independent existence -- as the realist would claim -- but rather it represents a "privation", something that lacks being, and merely indicates an insufficiency on my part.