traditionalism c daly king

i was looking at a book by a gurdjieff follower
c daly king
states of consiousness or something like that
he was a psychologist
and, i suspect, not consiously a traditionalist, in that he was lowkey in a way traditionalists aren't
but some of the things he said
were kind of telling of traditionalism, in a way that gets obscured in the more strident traditionalists writing
he subscribed to a theory that the egyptians secretly worshiped or beleived in a supreme god who created all the other gods

and the egyptians were 'aristocratic' because (in his telling) they took a veiw that the material existance of things like the sun, was also the god the sun, unlike the idolitrous and inferiour "mystical" greeks
because the egyptian word for the sun and name for the sun god were the same #deep
but
the real telling thing, that all this gushing conveyed
was this fixation on the idea of an "objective" truth
in this case a scientific one
but
i think it's an important, and easy to overlook, aspect of all traditionalism
like a central lynchpin
that's easy to overlook, since it's less ugly, and less directly addressed, than most other traditionalist beleifs

once you have this desire for an objective truth, then it becomes about who controls access, or who is granted access, to this objective truth
(spoiler) rich men
but this idea of "objective truth" in the arena of the spiritual
is also used in his argument to designate the 'aristocratic', the 'valid'
against the 'mystic', the 'inferiour'
it echoes what evola dances around in 'against the neopagans'

that "nature worshipers" aren't real valid pagans, unlike emperor worshipers
nature worshipers here, largely being romantics of various degrees
maybe some very early pagan revivalists, of the kind we would recognise as pagan revivalists now (specially in germany)

his attack in 'against the neopagans' isn't very pointed
because he doesn't really understand his target
but in as much as the soft blob of an argument has form, you can see a disdain for (and dismissal of) their mysticism
i don't think religion is a good basis for organising society at all tbh
it breaks society and breaks religion
you have to dilute and tame religion to a point where it's potency is utterly suppressed to get to the point where the idea it's a model for a functioning society is remotely tenable
i don't think traditionalism is compatible with even christianity taken as it is
rather than cherry picking the bits that fit the traditionalist narrative
there's vast swathes of classical and celtic paganism it's incompatible with
frankly i don't even think traditionalism is internally consistent, outside of it's perenalist claims (that rely on being consistent with every religion)
i don't think you can deify the family (which the entire notion of aristocracy rests on) then pretend that these heirachical  social orders that traditionalism demands aren't immensely destructive to huge numbers of families, by design

science and magic

any attempt of science to interface with the occult will always be occult with the veneer of science
the opperation of the markers of the scientific
but it's not science

it's just using the ritual language of science to achive it's effect

homer and writing again

I like to think there are false representations of all human created gods that act with the flaws humans ascribed to them


i think the conception of the "flaws" as defining isn't inherant

it's a side effect of writing


the first people to do a writing didn't really know what they were doing
how writing changed things


before writing the idea that the primary way of understanding the gods was their relationship amongst each other would have been totally incoherent

before homer the way gods were understood was in the relationship between gods and man

because the idea of a pantheon of 12 was pretty novel when homer was writing... in most communities there would be like 3 gods max who were really really relevant to everyone in the community

but once you have writing

you can take stories from all over the world

and sow them into one grand tapestry

and then it becomes about stories about what the gods do to each other
and you step back and look at it and go, oh no, this is immoral
like morality and spiritual potency have anything to do with each other
and you end up with philosophers
who misunderstand everything
but yeah... when you have one, or two gods, who really matter to you, if one of them murders his lover, or strikes a chap down for seeing them naked, that's not immorality, that's a religious mystery
when you have 12 or more... 9 or 10 of them only of tangental interest to you, then it becomes gossip
then it becomes jockeying for status '-i'm- better than that, some god'
you can't seriously contemplate 100 stories of the petty squabbles of the gods
some of which sprang into being becuase they make narrative sense when you are forcing them all into a family tree
i.e. they only exist because they make sense in the context of this story you have accidentally created, because you are the first person to write a whole big story that people can come back to and go over with a fine tooth comb