In spite of everything that I know of Evola, especially from you, I was a little surprised by his refusal to use your article [for Ur]. I ask myself, under these conditions, why he is so insistent that I send him something, because he must certainly think what I would write would also be totally traditional, and consequently, would not satisfy him at all. Continue reading →

the use of symbols comparable to Hermetic symbols is also totally general, and these symbols are not opposed at all to natural symbols, but, on the contrary, they are connected very normally. Furthermore, the symbolic character of all manifestation permits us to give to historic facts, as well as to all the rest, a value completely different from what they have in themselves. Continue reading →

As for what Evola wrote you, I agree with him that there used to exist a Western initiatic tradition; but, unfortunately, I strongly doubt that it can be considered as still currently living. I certainly encounter, from time to time, the assertion of the existence of spiritual centres in this or that region of Europe, but, up until now, I have had no proof that that assertion is justifiable. Continue reading →

A fascinating letter on various topics, involving psychic attacks and a concern for Leon de Poncins, who turned out to be OK. Continue reading →

The problem of the possible and the real seems very simple and obvious to me, but, of course, under the condition of examining it from the metaphysical point of view. It is obvious that, from the philosophical point of view, one can always think anything whatsoever and discuss a problem endlessly without ever reaching a conclusion; it is even what characterizes profane speculation, and I have never been able to entertain any interest for those so-called “problems” that fundamentally have only a verbal existence. Continue reading →

According to what you explained to me this time, it seems that you consider the words “possible” and “real” in the sense of “non-manifested” and “manifested”; if that were so, one could say that it is merely a question of terminology and that, in spite of this expressive difference, we are basically in agreement on the point in question. However, such a use of the words “possible” and “real”, in a sense much different from how we use it, does not seem to be acceptable, because the non-manifested is not only just as real, but even more real than the manifested. Continue reading →

every “true man” has realized all the possibilities of the human state, but each one following a way that is congenial to him and thanks to which he differentiates himself from the others. Moreover, if it were not so, how could there be a place here, in our world, also for other beings that have not reached this level? The same thing can also be applied, at another level, for the “transcendent man” or the jivan mukta; but then it is a matter of the totality of the possibilities of all the states. Continue reading →

The correspondence between Rene Guenon and Julius Evola was broken after 1934 and resumed in 1948, where there was a regular and frequent correspondence between them. Letters 3 through 6 and the first several paragraphs of Letter 7 were concerned primarily with topics only of interest to authors: books in … Continue reading →

The Truth is too high to receive the least insult. It is unfortunate that we don’t have Evola’s letter to Guenon, although we can surmise what it contained. We see in this dialog, that Guenon is always the master. We have to agree with Guenon that Evola misunderstands certain principles … Continue reading →

I have to tell you how little I was able to understand at all the interest that you showed in the reading of my books. Continue reading →