Critique of Devilopolis: Opening the “World Egg” from Below
Another highly significant conclusion from the traditionalist congress concerned the understanding of the phenomenon of postmodernity. Guénon describes the historical process as three states of the “Cosmic Egg,” a figure adopted from the Orphic and Hindu traditions; there are echoes of this symbolism in the tradition of painting eggs during Easter. In the normal case (traditional society), the “World Egg” is open from the top, and rays of the primordial (God) penetrate into the world directly, making each thing a symbol, a reflection, a manifestation of higher being. That is the sacral world, the Universe [Vselennaya] awash in the sacred light. The second condition corresponds to the modern world: the “World Egg” is closed at top. Rays no longer reach things. Each thing begins to signify only itself. That is the profane (non-sacral) order, the epoch of materialism, rationalism, and humanism, but in his book, The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, Guénon describes another condition, which he locates in the future (he died in 1951). That is the opening of the “World Egg” from below, when things begin to serve as support not for divine [nebesnykh] influences, but for the direct invasion of democratic essences. Things become not only non-sacral (profane), but “possessed,” “demoniac.” Guénon calls this last phase of history “the great parody.” In Christianity, it is described as the epoch of the Antichrist. The Antichrist parodies Christ.
This corresponds to the traditionalist interpretation of postmodernity. Instead of the ideal traditionalistic caste republic [gosudarstvo, state], described also by Plato, instead of Platonopolis we are witnesses of the appearance of the anti-republic, and the anti-polis, the Devilopolis. This is a type of socio-political system in which all threads lead not to the unified source [edinoe nachalo] (“symbol,” in Greek, means “uniting”) but to division, corruption, decomposition, entropy, and dispersion (and in Greek this is “devil,” from “diabol-,” i.e. “dividing,” “disuniting.”)
Thus, traditionalists should reconsider somewhat the classical critique of modernity, which the founders of this philosophy formulated, and move towards a critique of postmodernity, which means that not profanism, but parody, simulacrum, and counterfeit become the main enemies of traditionalism and the main features of Devilopolis.
Not the profane, but the pseudo-sacral, not atheism, but pseudo-religion, not the strict dictates of materialistic dogmas, but the soft “permissiveness” of an indifferent open society — this is what represents the main challenge for traditionalism.
The Devil is described in Tradition as a mocker and as an ape of God. Today’s cult of humorists, whose jokes are gradually becoming less funny, more stupid and base, and from that more ominous, is highly significant in this regard.
One presentation suggested the idea that in the structure of Devilopolis things acquire a common quantitative equivalent, a price. The reduction of things to money, and money to collections of numbers or to a barcode, is the expression of their integration in Devilopolis, a mechanism of their penetration by a ray from “beyond,” breaking forth from under the bottom of the “World Egg.” A thing loses its real value the moment when it acquires a price and, accordingly, a price tag, but our civilization is built wholly and completely on money. It is the civilization of Mammon. It is not possible to serve God and Mammon simultaneously.
Thus, the traditionalist and conservative approach leads us to the field of social criticism, the calcification of capitalism, and opposition to the modern economic system.
Russia’s Eschatological Choice
Surprisingly, little was said at the conference about Russia (compared to similar events where Russian intellectuals gather). This is significant. Russia is a part of the modern and post-modern world. Whether we like it or not, the processes occurring in the West exert a strong influence on us. Whether we strive to imitate the West openly (modernization, liberalization, Westernization) or think about adapting Western technologies to national interests, we are captive to Western concepts, Western sciences, Western theories, and Western language. Since that is so, we are on the periphery of Devilopolis, not an alternative to it, but one of its remote provinces preserving, by inertia, some ties with traditional society, not through our own will, resolve, or choice, but because the tendencies and directives from the “center” reach us with difficulty and haphazardly. Russia is not the anti-West, but the not-quite-West [nedo-Zapad, nedo, under, as in under-developed, on its way towards, but falling short of]. Elites would like to see it as “the West,” but they understand it very poorly, while the masses, it seems, don’t understand anything at all.
Postmodernity comes to us through mass media, styles, habits, modes, computer networks, and youth culture but at the same time it is far from being understood or sounded out. What is more, society on the whole is in a state of indecision: it no longer strives “beyond the border,” as it did in the 90s, nor does it yearn to imitate the West in everything, but it also cannot consolidate itself around some sort of alternative, cannot insist on its unique identity [samobytnost’, self-being; originality, identity], since this unique Russian identity is elusive and distinct.
Yes, we have not proceeded as far along the path of collapse as Western society has done, but that does not mean that we are full of resolve to avoid that path, or to consciously choose Tradition. Of course not, and that is wrong.
If Russia wants to survive spiritually, it must stand under a different banner, under the banner of Tradition, radical conservatism, Orthodox faith in union with other traditional confessions, and, if you like, under the banner of “Revolution against the post-modern world.” Those who have discovered for themselves the traditionalist worldview have made such a choice.
Ahead are a crisis and the quick end of the known order. Guénon asserted with full justification that this wretchedness cannot last long. All the signs of the times are present. The people of Platonopolis have made their choice. The powers of Devilopolis have chosen a different fate for all the others.
Does Russia have a chance to turn to another path? This chance always exists where there is will, intellect, and resolve. We need only transform our apparent deficiency (lag) into our merit and take the decisive step, not forward (the abyss is there), but… into eternity (you thought backwards, but not backwards).
5.
Plato’s Relevance for Russia and the Platonic Minimum
1. Plato’s teaching is an account of the Universal [Vselennoy] Logos, thorough and exhaustive. All philosophy is constructed in relation to Plato. It is always either a continuation of him, a contestation of him, or both. This is evident already in Aristotle, where he does exactly this: he both continues and contests him. He is the first post-Platonist. Knowledge of Plato is the fundamental basis for all knowledge of the humanities [gumanitarnogo znaniya; gumanitarnoe can mean, liberal in the sense of liberal education, thus classical, also humanitarian, humanistic]. If we fail to pay due attention to Plato, we will never be full-fledged participants in the scientific Universe. Anyone who does not know or understand Plato cannot know or understand anything. Plato is the creator of the fundamental field [bazovoy topiki] of philosophy. Philosophy, in its turn, is the field [topika] of theology, science, and politics. Plato, then, lies at the basis of theology, science, and politics. Lying at the basis, however, does not mean that Plato exhausts philosophy. He is not the end, but rather the beginning. All initial contact with science, religion, politics, philosophy, or sociology begins with precisely Plato. This fact, however, has become effaced. Among us, Plato is forgotten and not understood. With him forgotten, we do not exist [nas ne sushchestvuyet].
2. Today we often meet scholars, politicians, sociologists, religious figures, or intellectuals who are not familiar with Plato or do not understand him. Such people should be promptly removed from the state. Even traffic police must know Plato.
3. The most important works of Plato are the Timaeus and Republic. Here the very field [topika] of his philo
sophy is set forth, the framework in which everything else unfolds. Of secondary concern is the question: is Plato the creator of this field? This is not ultimately important: it is known in connection with his name. Judging by the chain Plato-Plotinus-Gemistus Pletho, “Plato” could full well be a “status,” “office,” or even “function” (similar to what Guénon has said about Zoroaster and the many “Zoroasters”).
4. The work [topika] Timaeus depicts a hierarchy of three principles [nachal]. This is a vertically differentiated symmetrical world with three ontological layers. All three layers are eternal and exist always. Where one exists, the other two also exist. Plato is trichotomous. The three principles are ideas-phenomena-space (Khôra).
5. Ideas are blinding, flying sparks of the eternal and immutable light. They are the most important. They are the ones that are, that exist. They are models, paradigms, and rays. They comprise the Logos. Ideas are grasped by the higher intellect or intellectual intuition. When a person encounters the ideas, they paralyze him. It is like erotic feeling in its culmination, but intensified a hundredfold. Encounter with the ideas changes a person irreversibly. The idea is the highest value. It serves nothing, and it belongs to no one. It has no practical significance. On the contrary, everything that exists serves the ideas. The idea is Master [Gospodin].
6. Phenomena (appearances) are mere copies of the idea. They are slaves of the idea. They are corrupt ideas, vague ideas, and they are clothed in burdensome dust. They are perceived by the senses. Phenomena do not have their own being. Their individuality is a defect in relation to their idea. A good slave serves well, a bad one badly. In a good slave, the will of the Master is apparent, but in a bad slave, only his own laziness is apparent. Bad phenomena are individualistic, while Good ones are functional. Rain is either Divine Rain, and good, or a source of obtrusive wetness. Phenomena are set out in eidetic ranks. The threads connecting copies with ideas unite things into these ranks. Some phenomena ascend the eidetic chain to one idea, while other groups of phenomena ascend to another.
7. On the border between copies and ideas stands the Platonic “god-demiurge.” He injects ideas into phenomena; he is on the side of the ideas. On the side of the phenomena, the philosopher-person, a phenomenal God, fulfills the symmetrically reverse function. He elevates phenomena through the eidetic ranks to the ideas. He injects things into the sphere of the origin. He consumes and devours [zhret]. The philosopher is a king-sacrificer [tsar’-zhrets; zhrets: priest, sacrificer]. He returns things to the zone of primordial fire. Plato’s republic is divine, philosophical, fiery, and eschatological. The republic is fire. It must consume things so that from them ideas are born, as their masters.
8. There is also Khôra. Khôra is a receptacle, a mother, and a wet nurse. It is matter. Khôra is the place where phenomena (appearances) are disclosed. The Timaeus argues that for there to be an appearance, there must be a place where the appearance appears. Khôra is the most difficult [principle]. It is grasped not by intellectual intuition like the ideas and not by the senses (perception) like phenomena, but by a “bastard Logos,” (logos nothos). It is connected with the element of sleep [or dream]. (“We are such stuff as dreams are made on,” says Prospero in Shakespeare’s Tempest). Khôra is chaos seen from without, from the perspective of Logos. In Plato’s topography [topika], Khôra has no depths; it is the lowest layer of the world of copies, phenomena.
9. Plato’s topics [topika] are learned through initiation. This is initiatory knowledge. At its basis lies the experience of the idea [and] the capacity for a trichotomous division of appearances into idea, appearance itself, and Khôra. An appearance breaks down into the components: what appears and to whom, but the idea is not a subject or a property of a subject. The idea is that which constitutes subject and object. Both subject and object are appearances, i.e. copies. The idea is radically transcendent. Contact with it is the remelting of the phenomenon in the fire of the intellect. Science is based on the dramatic and traumatic experience of initiation.
10. A few conclusions about the relevance of Plato follow from the preceding:
Without a thorough comprehension of Plato, science is not actual even in relation to the so-called natural sciences; accordingly, in our country, where there is a problem with the Logos, it is necessary to introduce a Platonic minimum, without which the professional occupation of science and full participation in the Higher School should be made unacceptable. One can reject, critique, refute, develop, or overthrow Plato, but he must first be understood.
Without a correct understanding of Plato, politics is not satisfactory. All politicians should likewise pass a Platonic minimum; since the Republic is an idea and politicians are part of the Republic, they must be familiar with the experience of the idea, otherwise they should get out of politics and sell mobile phones.
Without knowledge of Plato’s foundations, religion is intellectually powerless. Even Orthodox theology is based on the Platonic teaching [topika]. Without knowledge of Plato, Christianity remains approximate. For ordinary Christians, this is not obligatory and they can absorb elements of Platonism through sacred tradition, i.e. mediately and fragmentarily, but for the clergy it is obligatory.
The philosophy of chaos is bound to the Platonic field [topika] in an opposite way: it is built within Khôra as a volumetric principle, overturning the Platonic field [topika] and considering it de profundis. Heidegger proposes to create a “philosophy of another beginning” on an anti-Platonic revolution; to effect such a revolution, it is necessary to know and understand Plato.
11. Without Plato, Russian society can [sc: last, continue, exist] no more. Everything will be mixed: conservatism, modernization, technology, science, economics, politics, innovation, social problems, efforts to create something worthwhile of its own or to accurately copy something foreign.
12. The project of a New Russia must begin with the Platonic announcement.
6.
Christianity and Neo-Platonism
Theses by Alexander Dugin
1. Neo-Platonism is the intellectual milieu in which the formation of Christian theology took place. It is incorrect to reduce Neo-Platonism only to Origen or Dionysus the Areopagite and to the Christian mystics. It is much broader than that. Neo-Platonism, understood in a Christian way, is precisely the foundation of the conceptual apparatus of the entire Nicene dogmatics [dogmatika; there is a usual Russian term for the Nicene Creed, and this isn’t it], so familiarity with Neo-Platonism as a philosophy, and also as a way of thought and even way of life, is absolutely necessary for the Christian.
2. Neo-Platonism relates to Orthodoxy in various ways, and we can understand it to mean different things, both broadly and narrowly:
In the broadest sense: as the thought of the Hellenes, and Hellenism as such, i.e. the milieu (social, intellectual, cultural, philosophical, aesthetic) in which Christianity was established;
as the Alexandrian school of thought from Philo of Alexandria to Clement and Origen (like Plotinus, Origen was a student of Ammonius Saccas);
as the allegorical and symbolic interpretation of the Bible (in opposition to the exegetical practices of the School of Antioch);
as Philo of Alexandria’s Hellenistic interpretation of the Bible (as a Jewish precedent for later Christian exegesis);
as Origen and the origin of Origenism;
as the framework of the Cappadocian Fathers (Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and Saint Gregory of Nazianzus);
as the influence of Plotinus, Porphyry, Amelius, etc. on Christian authors (those same Cappadocian Fathers);
as Dionysus the Areopagite and Proclus’s influence on him;
as John Philoponus and his polemic with Proclus from Christian positions;
as Saint Maximus the Confessor;
as Michael Psellos and John Italus;
as Hesychasm and the theory of uncreated light;
and as Gemistus Pletho and the Mystras School.
3. These concern Orthodoxy i
n its Greek derivation. There was also Neo-Platonism in the West, and it is not possible to make a sharp distinction before the Great Schism, so we should include also the Western fathers, Saint Augustine, Boethius, Scotus Erigena.
4. Platonism also influenced scholasticism after the great schism (but in a different, Post-Schism, Catholic context) and served as a specific worldview in the Renaissance (Ficino, Pico della Mirandola).
5. In the era of the emergence of Russian religious philosophy (in the 19th and 20th centuries), all these lines one way or another influenced sophiology and everything connected with it. That means, first, that Russian philosophy is inextricably connected with Neo-Platonism and, second, that so too is the entire culture of the Silver Age.
6. It is appropriate to ask: where is the place of Neo-Platonism in all its senses in contemporary Christian self-consciousness? In the West, Catholic thought, even in its most conservative form, as a rule, stops with Thomism and scholasticism, while the mystical tendencies of a more radical Platonism are examined in a different, either scientific or spiritualistic, context. In the East and in Orthodoxy on the other hand, one gets the impression that the theme of Neo-Platonism is not systematically emphasized at all.
7. For contemporary Russian Orthodoxy, a new familiarity with Neo-Platonism and its topics [topiki] is vitally important. We can draw up a plan for its step-by-step realization:
Platonic studies (including study of the Greek language and original Platonic terminology);
the study of the Neo-Platonic heritage (Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus);
the delineation of Neo-Platonic tendencies in the most important lines of Orthodox thought and dogma;
the reconsideration of Russian religious philosophy (Solovyov, Bulgakov, Florensky, Losev) from the perspective of a broad knowledge of Platonism;
Political Platonism- the Philosophy of Politics Page 5
