Honored Miss Marina writes from the Femmekin nest...

Part 1

"I hope this reaches someone, as it would be most unfortunate if this place is dead, and not being updated, and therefore my words reach empty space. At any rate, these words come to you from a lady who finds herself in the interesting position of holding very similar opinions to those of Aristasians in many areas without identifying with the movement as such.

Namely, I am a monarchist of the old school, having found, over time, a contempt for the modern political field, and a reverent awe for the days of universal monarchy. I am a defender, therefore, of the Old European Order, and adherent to the political theories of the Comte de Maistre, and an ardent Royalist who hews to the traditionalist Stuart line as a necessity (being of the colonies of the New World which lately have revolted from the rule of the House of Hanover and then foolishly chose to institute Republican rule rather than offer the throne to His Majesty, Charles Stuart, the King across the Water).

I had the fortune as a child to not attend the modern public school system, which is an atrocious system of propaganda, and instead am primarily an autodidact. I have read all the works of philosophy from Socrates and Plato through Aristotle, the principle Stoics, Aquinas and the other church fathers (though I am not Christian, I approve, in the fashion of Action Française and Charles Maurras, of the social institution of religion in society, as necessary to providing the fundamental underpinning of the State, and legitimizing a hierarchy of rule founded ultimately in the Divine, of whom the old Byzantine title for the Emperor describes the position best: “The Shadow of God upon the Earth.”

Forward from the medieval philosophers I found myself naturally hewing to the line of Kant and the Transcendental Idealists; Hegel is to me the final form of his thought, and the Teutonic system of Metternich’s counterrevolution such of a state as there needed no improvement upon, nor could there have been (that this makes me a Right-Hegelian almost goes without saying).

Now, the Pit as you prefer to call it (and I prefer the more expansive designation of ‘Anglo-Consumerist Society’ which has become the centrepiece of a deranged world-civilization), you assert only began in the 1960s. I’m curious as to why. To someone of my sort, who certainly rejects the whole of modern society–finding the village Mir preferable to the independent farmstead (and may the reward of the noble Alexandr Solzhenitsyn be great, who stood up against our consumerist society and condemned it as he did communism), the orders of medieval society as the natural expression of a people, and authoritarian monarchy limited only by traditions established ab antiquo, the normative government for the vast bulk of humanity–the creation point for the present domination by the consumerist English-speaking peoples, over the Teutonic civilization of the Hohenzollerns and Habsburgs, is necessarily a result of military victory by the Entente over the Central Powers in the First World War.

So why do you prefer to set the date for the beginning of the Pit to the 1960s, rather than the seemingly more explicit (to traditionalists of my vein) point of the military defeat of the Central Powers (and to a lesser extent, Russia)? Cannot it not be said that the defining events were the Kerenskyite revolution, the failure of the Caporetto Offensive to take Venice (even as successful as it was), and the failure of Operation Michael to seize the rail-junctions of Amiens?

I am, of course, very much also inclined to regard modern Tellurian civilization, as you would put, as being quite transient. Their own economic “science” is based on the ludicrous proposition that infinite growth is possible, whereas realistic science indicates to us that our energy resources on this planet are necessarily finite. We may therefore abstain from participating in the system (which to me very much includes refusing to vote, and appealing to such divine powers as I hold dear, to restore the King, as the Cossacks of the Caucasus do for sake of the Tsar) and wait with fervent hope for the day when the dictates of science in fact, with delightful irony, condemn the scientific-religion and mass consumerism of the Pit."

Honored Miss Marina continues...

"Plagues and famine will sweep the Earth, governments will collapse and civil wars will commence over the dwindling resources and chaos. At this point those of traditionalist bent, well prepared for the coming crisis, may ignore such political systems as remain, speak directly to the desperate population, and dare to put the chances of a successful counterrevolution to the test on the field of war. It is a necessary result of the beliefs of traditionalists of my bent to see this as the only natural way for the resumption of something in most ways resembling the old order, which will of course have to take place in the same way that the Caesars of the early Empire became the Avtokrators of the Dominate: Through a long period of transitional dictatorship in which the twilight of this modern civilization is guided down to a ’soft landing’ from its heights of terrible brilliance, terrific folly, and arrogant, democratic power.

Having in this communication therefore broadly laid out the specifics of which I may hope to see in our future, and what I believe, I would like to simply say that I am much interested in conversing in detail (and ultimately through electronic relay text communications, with several others, if you are interested) on matters of Aristasian metaphysics, and in particular, your philosophical critique of modern democratic-consumerist civilization."

http://otherkin.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/the-opium-of-the-suburbs/#comment-31

Honoured Miss Marina, thank you very much for the work you must have spent on your analysis.

Before I attempt to respond, I would like to make sure I have understood correctly the questions you are asking:

1. Why do we say the Eclipse took place in the 1960s instead of at
a. the military defeat of the Central Powers (and to a lesser extent, Russia).
or
b. the Kerenskyite revolution, the failure of the Caporetto Offensive to take Venice (even as successful as it was), and the failure of Operation Michael to seize the rail-junctions of Amiens

2. What is our philosophical critique of the Pit as it is right now?
3. What do we see in the Pit's future?

Is this correct?

Greetings, and thank you very kindly for the invitation to come here and discuss these matters of philosophy. People of a traditionalist mindset are very few and far between, such to the point that I first saw a reference to Aristasia on a Catholic Traditionalist website, which was not uncomplimentary. There are very few of us left, it seems. Forgive me if my knowledge of the board format here is a tad uneven at first, as I've not used one of these before.

At any rate, to clarify in response to Miss Yu's inquiry, I sometimes indulge in a winding path through history, and the references to the specific tactical failures serve merely to add colour to the explicit cause of traditional society's collapse, as I have tended to evaluate it, and those in my circle of friends. As with the beautiful Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1911, there must be a hint of bias and drama to history to give it the proper tint. These days, of course, textbooks and encyclopaedias today have been so ruthlessly pared down to a dry recitation of 'facts' which actually consists of a compromise between the sundry interest groups of consumerist society, as to render them useless. It is often difficult to grasp, in reflection, that the works of Gibbon and Churchill coexist in the English language with what I see around me today.

So, just as I suppose I indulge my own propensity for detailed explanation right now, the list of specific events (the Kerenskyite revolution, Case Michael, and the Caporetto offensive) is merely an elaboration, and even then still a simplification, of the details of the collapse of the Central Powers' military effort in the First World War. So A and B of the first statement are fundamentally related, rather than alternates.

The second and third statements are correct in all particulars. In general, my hope is they prove sufficient to generate a very enlightening and stimulating conversation about the philosophical underpinnings of our respective and shared beliefs and understanding of this world.

Honoured Miss Marina; rayati and thank you for your long and fascinating disquisition.

I hope you will find us here, as indeed the Femmekin Nest seems to have grown very quiet of late, and I thank honoured Miss Niami for bringing your communication to our attention.

There is much to consider in all that you say; but let me begin by explaining that the allegiance of Aristasia is not to any aspect of Telluria, but to the Celestial Empire; and while we are clearly Imperial Monarchists within our own polity we neither advocate nor deprecate this position for any other nations.

The simple reason for this is that, as representatives of the Empress and the Novarian Crown, it would be improper for us to interfere in foreign politics. The Celestial Empire has neither alliance nor enmity with any Tellurian State.

Our criticisms of Tellurian polity are intended as educational exercises for Aristasians in Telluria who may have become confused by late-Tellurian dogmatics or ideologies.

It would also be inadvisable for us to advocate the application of Aristasian polities to Tellurian States, because the conditions prevailing in Telluria are very different from those prevailing in Aristasia, and there is no guarantee (to put it as mildly as that) that Aristasian methods would work.

Now some may object here that something closer to Aristasian polity did work in the past in Telluria. Possibly, although the comparison between schizomorphic patriarchal States and intemorph ones, despite resemblances both of superficial appearance and underlying principle, can be deceptive.

Now, with this important groundwork laid, let us consider your question:

So why do you prefer to set the date for the beginning of the Pit to the 1960s, rather than the seemingly more explicit (to traditionalists of my vein) point of the military defeat of the Central Powers (and to a lesser extent, Russia)?

This raises the issue of precisely what is meant by "the Pit". It is not a synonym for philosophical aberration (otherwise we should have to move the date back by a very great deal further than you do); nor for its application to politics (in which case we should have to move it back at least to the mid-17th century). It refers to the spread of tamasic culture to all levels of society.

At this point I wish we could all have the Feminine Universe in front of us, since this book covers all the points I wish to make in considerable depth. However I do advise reading the chapter on the three gunas in history which is available on-line and which gives some background on this.

As is explained in the book, from an Aristasian (and Traditional) point of view, the philosophical aberration of the West began in the so-called "Classical" period, was somewhat rectified in the Middle Ages and returned in a much more virulent form at the time of the Renaissance, becoming triumphant at the time of the absurdly misnamed "Enlightenment".

The "Divine Right of Kings" claimed by the Stuarts had already taken the concept of thamë as applied to Royalty (what the Chinese call "the Mandate of Heaven") and translated it onto an individual and personal level. In other words - whatever our emotional reaction to regicide - the Stuarts were no less aberrant and even "revolutionary" than the overt revolutionaries who opposed them.

This is one of the reasons that it is inadvisable to apply Aristasian - or even Tellurian Traditionalist - standards to the events of "modern" West Telluria.

For the entire story of how and why the Eclipse came so late as the 1960s I warmly recommend chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Feminine Universe.

In a nutshell, even after the promulgation of the Darwinist Pseudomythos, which gave the modernist revolution its "myth/story", there was a resurgence on the moral and aesthetic level in the form of the Art-Neo movement, which while it lacked true philosophic principle (as, indeed did all "political" reactions against modernism - including, we would say, the bourgeois monarchies of the 19th century) it allowed a brief resurgence on the aesthetic and moral plane to the Forces of Light.

Being unfounded in Principle, it could not last, and the decline into moral and aesthetic anarchy was inevitable - as a movement affecting the very fabric of society, as opposed to what Miss Trent terms "an intellectual's disease", this began to take hold toward the end of the 1960s.

This - terribly briefly - is our analysis.

-- continued --

But I must stress that it is only an analysis. It is not a Programme for the Reform of Telluria. It is not at all certain that such a reform is possible, or (I hope I do not shock you) that it would necessarily serve the purposes of the Celestial Empire.

I do not say that it would not, or that the Celestial Empire takes any stance on the matter, but, for example, if a "liberal" Tellurian polity makes it easier for Exiled and Adopted Aristasians to operate in Telluria and for the Bridgehead to do its work, then that would be the Tellurian polity the Empire would favour if it favoured any (which it does not).

I mention this simply to make it clear that Aristasians in Telluria are not "political" one way or another in Tellurian terms. They are servants of the Motherland.

Certain modernists have accused the Catholic Church of being "hypocritical" because it supported the Establishment of the Church by the State in States where the Church established would be the Catholic Church, but opposed it in States where it would not.

This accusation comes from the hyper-politicisation of the modernist viewpoint. The Church, in fact, was entirely correct to take the stand it did, for its only duty is to further the Faith. To take sides in matters of secular "political principle" would be beyond its brief and thus illegitimate.

Similarly for Bridgehead Aristasians, our only allegiance is to the Empress. Our actions as an Aristasian body are dictated by what is right for the Empire, not by what is right for Telluria and its internal politics.

Thus it is not our job to hope for the collapse of the Pit or to make Tellurians think and act like Aristasians.

It is our job to go about the Empress's business in whatever terrain we find ourselves deployed in.

I hope this makes our perspective a little clearer, and I should be more than happy to discuss these and related ideas further.

Thank you again for taking the time to tell us your thoughts in such detail. Believe me, they are much appreciated.

May Dea bless you.

Thank you, Your Ladyship, for a dissertation which unfolded with more brilliance each time I read it, in the fashion, I suppose, of the sacred form of the onion (to use an analogy popular among the Hindus). There is certainly a great truth in the three Gunas which I cannot (and would not) deny. The text provided certainly makes clear the broad reason for regarding the formation of the Pit in the 1960s and it is perhaps a more correct understanding I have that the causation of the Pit was in a series of events which well proceeded its actual development. Is this impression I have gathered a reasonable one, from your own point of view? From my perspective the Rajasic society of Telluria (to use, respectfully, your terminology) was fatally wounded before that point, but clung to life.

Obviously there are some details in which we differ. For a westerner, however traditionalist, our golden age is the Greco-Roman world, and it requires some considerable bravery, if I dare say, to criticize it. But the criticism may certainly be levied. The Hellenistic Age certainly exceeded in spiritual qualities (and even absolute quality of life) the more talked about age of democratic Athens, which slaughtered its wards and the innocent of its enemies alike, and brought plague upon its own people, for the sake of Imperial aggrandizement. The late Republic of Caesar and Augustus was reviled by the likes of Cato with good reason.

But I will admit that the distinctly western sin of imagining history as progressive informs me; an idea which certainly existed even in the high medieval period, and seems to be at the fundamental core of what makes western civilization distinct from the other civilizational patterns of this world. It is from this, of course, that the traditionalist in the Tellurian sense, from a western culture, at any rate, would see the present age of the Pit as being fundamentally an aberration rather than an inevitable plunge of the historical cycle. However, I don't think that is as much of a difference as it might first seem, as reading through the material you have provided it would seem that this Tamasic period has taken on a particularly depraved and twisted aspect even by the expected standards thereof.

Certainly we may have some confidence that it will be no more long-lived than those before it, even if its magnitude is disquieting. Of the fact that traditionalists recognized what you see, though, let me speak about a very unique individual we know as Mishima Yukio, the public name of Hiraoka Kimitake. This fascinating individual, raised by his aunt for the first twelve years of life (during which, I must add, he was raised as a girl, with his cousins and their dolls and feminine things, and dressed as one, forbidden to go outside or be exposed to the sunlight), proved from the first moment an absolute genius of the written word and as a playwright. The culmination of his life's work, of course, was The Sea of Fertility, an epic of Buddhist religious contemplation, of considerations of cycles of reincarnation and ultimately a direct reference to the Mahamayurividyarajni (Sutra of the Great Golden Peacock Wisdom Queen). The last book, completed in 1970, shortly before his death at the age of 45, contains a profoundly negative assessment of his own influence and legacy.

It was correct, and his death was besides a violent one. Following the traditional Japanese path of the warrior for the last fifteen years of his life in continuous, rigorous, and absolute preparation, he had formed a paramilitary organization called the Tatenokai, or Shield Society. He led them, on 25 November 1970, his affairs assiduously prepared in the traditional fashion, in a raid on the headquarters of the JSDF in Tokyo, seizing the commandant of the garrison and demanding on pain of his life the opportunity to address the troops. He addressed them, and they jeered and mocked him. Undeterred, he finished his speech, exhorting them to march on the government offices, and restore the Emperor to his proper place over Japanese society.

The Emperor, to Mishima (and this is what makes reference to him so important), not representing the reigning Emperor in particular, but rather the abstract essence of the state, its legacy, traditions, history, culture, and society. All the things being annihilated as a very westernized Japan was ground up into the Pit as well. And I see in that view a very strong congruence with the reference where you, however uncomfortably to me, nonetheless pointed out that the personalized idea of the Divine Right of Kings was an innovation. Mishima Yukio seems to have seen things identically, and, perhaps understanding that all the effort he was capable of would have no further influence on the Pit, he retreated into the headquarters building, and with one of his closest associates, committed ritual suicide.

(continued)


The case of Mishima Yukio therefore certainly allows me to place your own analysis in the context which I am most comfortable with from my own experience. It certainly provides a powerful influence upon me, and I'm willing to agree with you wholeheartedly that when focusing on all aspects of society there is little question of a terrible collapse in the 1960s, which the more sensate among us realized and faced as best they could. Quite frankly, though, the 25 November Incident, death with honour before the corrupting ways of the Pit deform you as well, must have certainly seemed like the only solution to those gifted with such an almost terrible knowledge of our society's collapse.

That separatism exists, and allows us to maintain ourselves in hope of a better future, at least in my case (though the principle is the same for Aristasians, I would understand), is certainly a relief now. The shock of exposure must have been terrible at the time, but the masses had indeed been dulled by a drug as effective as opium, particularly in the form of our mass consumerism, so that they scarcely noticed the grinding down of their spirits.

I can certainly see the highest examples of the Sattwa, in the western cultural tradition, as being represented by the incredible heights of the Christian Empire of Byzantium, as before it the sacred mysteries of Diana at Ephesus graced the Hellenistic world with a touch of holiness which is undeniable, and through the art of both periods, different and yet showing the same qualities, breathes down to us today. I am not sure if it is even possible to claim, when being perfectly rational, that the sublime qualities of Byzantine religious iconography and architecture, particular when combined, can be rivaled anywhere in the world.

This certainly hearkens back to a series of documentaries I watched when much younger, which influenced me considerably. They were done by a John Romer, and to hear his very fine voice speaking of the subjects at hand (interesting, the first two were on putting the Seven Wonders of the World into the socio-cultural context of the Hellenistic world, including the powerful influence of spirituality) was to have them suffused with life. The third was on the "Lost Empire", Byzantium. And to hear him speak still strikes me with a shudder down through the days, to think that I live in age when all of these things are gone, when the attitudes he describes have been washed away. In a similar and more poignant vein, the early colour photographs of the Tsar's Empire made by one Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii are very worthwhile in shocking one with the clarity, the beauty, the life of those scenes he captured in a still functional society of the "old order". There is much awe and sadness in seeing them, realizing the immediacy of the past, and knowing it has been obliterated.


That is, for the moment, the extent of the reflections I'm capable of in answer to you. More thought is required for anything of substantially greater depth.

Rayati and deep reverence to you, honoured Miss Marina. I am honoured to address so noble an Outlander.

I too am an autodidact, having been spared all but the briefest and most sporadic contact with the official "education" systems of the Pit.

I have, however had the benefit of the company of some of the finest minds of my nation as well as what seem to be recollections of my former education in my homeland of High Novarya - for I seem to know and understand certain things that I can in no other wise explain.

Listening carefully to your words, I ponder upon what separates your High West Tellurian position from ours, and I shall try to enunciate this - not in order to stress our separation, but rather that we may understand each other better.

First and most important, we do not think as Tellurians. Our allegiances are not to Telluria's past (far less its present or future), but to our Holy Motherland. This gives us a very different perspective. Painful as it is to me to be living among the contemptible ruins of one of Telluria's greatest nations (and the one most defiled of all), I also see my deployment here as an Act of Providence, which severs me from any temptation to form Outland allegiances (which does not mean I shall not shake the dust of this place from my feet as soon as I can - I believe Providence has done her work!)

The second difference is perhaps an allegiance to the West. West and East have "meanings" similar - or at least analogous - in our world and in yours, for the directions are universal symbols, and all material existence is but the crystallisation of symbols in matter.

However, Bridgehead has put us under the rulership of Novarian Governesses, and Novaria stands at the junction of East and West; and this too, I think Providential.

The separation of East and West in Telluria is a complex matter, and I highly reccomend East and West by M. René Guénon for more on this. But it is a fact that any Aristasian must confess that the Tellurian East is superior to its West in point of philosophy, for it has retained truths that even the more recent Sattwic eras of the West had lost.

These Truths are not specifically Eastern. They were once common to all humanity, but for reasons too complex to enter into here they were lost more easily in the West than in the East.

The third difference revolves about the question of "progressive history" and has many ramifications.

May I recommend that you read some of the writings of M. Guenon, M. Schuon and Sri Coomaraswamy? I think these would help you to understand some aspects of our perspective from a Tellurian point of view I will be happy to discuss a reading list with you! I also (at risk of of seeming to promote one of our own Mistresses) recommend The Feminine Universe for this purpose. It is not written from a specifically Aristasian point of view.

Now, I am not competent to discuss the philosophy, but somewhere M. Schuon describes Kant as "bourgeois unintelligence organised into a doctrine".

Now, I think I can say safely (if very sketchily) that by "bourgeois" he means belonging to the "modern" world that has destroyed the traditional Estates and by "unintelligence" he means being fundamentally influenced by the Rationalist Revolution of the 17th century rather than being a traditional philosophy founded in Pure Intellect.

Here your keen mind will see, is a crux of the difference between our thinking. While you allow for an undiminished continuation of Tradition in the Tellurian West up to its destruction by the defeat of the Central Powers, we hold that it was by that time long since radically compromised.

The defeat of the Central Powers certainly marks an epoch - the ending of that war that began with the French Revolution; or more properly with the Great Rebellion of Cromwell, or more properly still with the overthrowing of monarchy and the establishment of republics in the Hellenic world. This war ended in the utter defeat of the forces of Tradition - or of an already fundamentally compromised quasi-tradition, depending upon how one views it.

Emotionally one cannot but weep at the spectacle of the great Empires of Europe trodden down by the all-destroying power of Money, tricked out in the mud-coloured robes of "democracy".

And yet (call this a blonde aside if you will) when the ineluctable downward pull of Kali Yuga is combined with the aberrations of patriarchy and the Rationalist Revolution, is not the result already "written".

Was it by mere coincidence that "practicality" forced, at this precise point, every contesting army to abandon its symbolic reds and blues and golds and dress in the colour of mud?

You speak of:

"the orders of medieval society as the natural expression of a people, and authoritarian monarchy limited only by traditions established ab antiquo, the normative government for the vast bulk of humanity"

(Emphasis mine). Contrast this with what - by another "coincidence" - was posted at the Chapel Chronicle yesterday:

"In Deanic thinking, a true monarch is never a ruler according to her own personal will, but a servant and mediatrix of the Divine Thamë."

The difference may be one of stress, but it is nevertheless vital. For the "modern" rajasic view and even perhaps the late-Western sattwic view, Tradition is a mere curb on a personal autocracy, while from the Aristasian point of view the monarch exists simply to implement the Golden Order.

Compare both with the words of Ananda Coomaraswamy, a Tellurian who lived very much at the intersection of traditional Eastern and Western thought:

A democracy is a government of all by a majority of proletarians; a soviet, a government by a small group of proletarians; and a dictatorship, a government by a single proletarian. In a traditional and unanimous society there is a government by a hereditary aristocracy, the function of which is to maintain an existing order, based on eternal principles, rather than to impose the views or arbitrary will (in the most technical sense of the word, a tyrannical will) of any "party" or "interest".

I hope, in my bumbling blonde way I have managed to throw a little light on some of these fascinating subjects.

[PS - lest that last point seem too blonde, let me refer my honoured readers to this piece on the symbolic importance of colour]

But to continue

Honoured Miss Marina, you speak of:

"the orders of medieval society as the natural expression of a people, and authoritarian monarchy limited only by traditions established ab antiquo, the normative government for the vast bulk of humanity"

(Emphasis mine). Contrast this with what - by another "coincidence" - was posted at the Chapel Chronicle yesterday:

"In Deanic thinking, a true monarch is never a ruler according to her own personal will, but a servant and mediatrix of the Divine Thamë."

The difference may be one of stress, but it is nevertheless vital. For the "modern" rajasic view and even perhaps the late-Western sattwic view, Tradition is a mere curb on a personal autocracy, while from the Aristasian point of view the monarch exists simply to implement the Golden Order.

Compare both with the words of Ananda Coomaraswamy, a Tellurian who lived very much at the intersection of traditional Eastern and Western thought:

A democracy is a government of all by a majority of proletarians; a soviet, a government by a small group of proletarians; and a dictatorship, a government by a single proletarian. In a traditional and unanimous society there is a government by a hereditary aristocracy, the function of which is to maintain an existing order, based on eternal principles, rather than to impose the views or arbitrary will (in the most technical sense of the word, a tyrannical will) of any "party" or "interest".

I hope, in my bumbling blonde way I have managed to throw a little light on some of these fascinating subjects.

I'll first generally address the point raised by several of you that you don't see yourselves as involved in Tellurian affairs. Though this is certainly a reasonable position (and the straightforward reference to the stance of the Catholic church is undeniable in its logic) which I won't proclaim any dissent to, I will confess some hope of your seconding yourselves to our efforts. A practice which, of course, was universal among the likes of the European monarchies of old. de Tolly commanded the Tsarist army in the Napoleonic Wars, and the service of Gordon even in the distant array of the Ever-Victorious Army of the Chinese Emperor may be duly noted. If those sorts of allowances (obviously, I am not suggesting direct combat, but rather as a sort of allegory, for any direct action against the Pit can only lead to a repeat of the 25 November Incident at this stage) are not customary among Aristasians, well, that is that.

However, that was certainly never my real intent. It's better to say that my goal was to speak to some sane people for a change. The little group to which I belong has perhaps twenty or thirty members, after all, and probably four-fifths of them are men. In that sense I suppose that my initial focus entirely on political developments is a limitation of those I converse with. Certainly it seems like the natural response of men who grasp the enormity of the Pit (particularly young ones without families) is to imitate Mishima Yukio. But that I suppose is just one of those fundamental differences which we both acknowledge but which this modern world does not.

At any rate, trying to remain true, let alone pure, in the heart of Mystery Babylon the Great (for all the religious implications one runs afoul of, I still cannot think of a better term for the modern United States) is a trying struggle, and I compliment you all for your success in that regard. I'll conclude by adding that though our goals don't precisely intersect (We traditionalists are trying, after all, are trying to outlast the Pit so that a torch, of the legacy of the old order, may be passed on into new age which will follow its collapse) in regard to your efforts to secure your bridgehead and expand it, nonetheless a mutual respect is possible, and would remain so, one imagines, even into a future where we have recovered a measure of ourselves.

I remember, very touchingly, the story of Austrian man who worked for a British firm in China in 1914. Returning home to serve in his nation's army, he was killed as a Lieutenant on the Russian front. Though his nation and Britain were at war, a flood of messages from his former employers and co-workers were immediately sent via Switzerland with many offers of support, when the war had come to an end, to his widow and infant child. This kind of chivalry, the last vestige of the old order, is impossible in the mass-propaganda society of the Pit, where wars are fought by motivating the population to rage at the enemy rather than by traditional loyalties. That sort of shared perspective means, I would say, that regardless of the tumult of the future we may remain friendly with each other.

So, in that vein, I do not find the idea proposed by Her Ladyship that the Celestial Empire might find a revival of traditional society on Telluria as a hindrance to its own goals, as anything other than quite normal and honest. It's quite true that the restoration of an established church would be one of our first actions, and though many variances in behaviour are permitted in traditional states, they are not permitted publicly, because the preservation of social consensus is crucial to the health of such a society. This would hamper your efforts, and so I would scarcely expect the Celestial Empire to render us aide. For all that the appearance of a squadron of Æther Ships over Washington D.C. would be regarded justly as a Divine Surprise, well, more or less exactly so. Traditionalists would be better placed to hope for Barbarossa to arise from his slumber below the Kyffhauser and King Arthur to return from afar in the service of our cause. Though those two particular fond hopes do suffuse one with optimism when things take on an otherwise particularly hopeless air.

Greetings and Salutations to you, Miss Madonna (forgive me if the Japanese tint of Sushuri means I should be addressing you in a different way; though I'm scarcely following protocol here in my own refusal to provide a surname, but I must be more than a little circumspect).

I've devoted an entire post specifically for addressing your points, with the exception of the restatement of the disconnect between Aristasian and Tellurian politics which I've already covered to a satisfaction, I do believe. On a personal level it's nice to meet someone else who is self-educated. I imagine our experiences were not dissimilar, nor, in truth, were the conclusions.

As you observe on the connection of Novaria between east and west, I cannot help but recall a strange and interesting novel I read once, of recent composition. Called The Peshawar Lancers, it postulated an asteroid strike in the 1870s spattering across the Atlantic and bringing about the collapse of western civilization, but forming, in the process, the solid structure a fusion of east and west in the Indian Raj, to whence millions of Britons were evacuated as the northern hemisphere was plunged into cold lasting decades. This society had developed on very different technological lines, and society remained very much refined. And I can't help but think that by putting much of my hope in the modern consumerist culture destroying itself through overstretch there is some similarity there.

M. Guénon is known to me; I believe I have seen some of his writings on Islam, though not in a complete form. The recommendations in favour of M. Schuon and Sri Coomaraswamy are delightfully noted. My precious library already fills my lodgings and I do so love to make additions to it (there is of course no television in the house, and I suppose my use of a Macintosh reflects my horror at commercial electronic gaming of this era).

The critique of M. Schuon against Kant is one that must be considered seriously (and I will take the opportunity to read his works as soon as possible). I would, however, refer you to the works of Arthur Schopenhauer in reply. Hegel created from Kant a stern defence of the character of the organic State and dismissed ably the notions of the 'social contract theory' which infect modern rationalist philosophy in favour of a more organic concept of civil society. His vision was also optimistic in final origin. However, Schopenhauer, as the other of the great students of Kant (and it is so sad that they were often in great opposition to each other!) took an extremely eastern view to his philosophy. I would say that of all the philosophers of recent western history, his is the closest in its touch to the east.

His conclusion about the ultimate response to the nature of Der Wille is rather depressing, and extremely Buddhist, to the western eye. In this I do not find much comfort, for I do find some unease in the readiness of Buddhism to hew to a rather nihilistic line, as does Schopenhauer. However, he did make an intense and fascinating observation that for most average people, the only connection to the transcendental and absolute is through Art. Art is the only way that most people may appreciate these qualities, and the loss in our art of such qualities is certainly a component in causing our civilization to rush headlong off the precipice as it has. In comparison to the glorious and Holy aspect of Iconography or other works of art, modern and 'postmodern' art can only be recoiled at, with one's mind aghast at the terrible depiction of Mystery Babylon the Great which seems absolutely manifest in every part of such horrid displays.

Certainly, if I could make any intellectual contribution to the world I would like to see it in the form of my attempt (which I have been working on for three years now) to reconcile the differences of Schopenhauer and Hegel, and in doing so point the direction toward a suitable philosophic development to be taken up by someone, in a better age, who possesses my capability than I. So in that respect I certainly do not claim the absolute right of Kant or his adherents (and the disagreements among them have, of course, weakened the strength of Kant, and prevented anyone from building on his observations in Transcendental Idealism toward a more spiritual system). They ignored some of the implications of their own work, a fact which certainly is related to the rationalist mindset of the period in which they worked.

(continued)


Terrible it was, true, to turn to the next aspect of your work, and consider those muddy gray uniforms (spirits unbowed, as Ernst Juenger so poetically wrote in his work In Stahlgewittern, of the sad and lonely challenge of human will and soul against the vast concentration of destructive machinery), adorned in gas masks, in which the last stand of the Old Order was carried out. There is something of strength and courage in the blues and whites and reds and infinite variations from regiment to regiment, of a beauty and grandeur even to the horrid aspect of War which they lent, and redeemed those who fought.

But I can't help in the final reference you make to observe that we also feel that tyranny is inappropriate and horrid. Certainly, tradition is absolute and necessary for mediating the power of the sovereign. The casting aside of tradition in monarchy was what brought it low, and why the case of Austro-Hungary, by far the most traditional of the monarchies left in 1914, is particularly horrible. That her last Emperor is likely to be made a saint by the Catholic Church is a small recompense for the sad spectacle of the fall of the Habsburg crownlands, and the replacement of a peaceful order of thousands of years, of Universal Monarchy crowned and ordained by God, with an endless cycle of oppression and genocide which has continued down to the present day.

We certainly agree that our principles are also universal, and to be upheld by the aristocracy. It is, I think, only the western tendency of individualism which makes us tend to nonetheless give the Divine Right of Kings a personal air, to say that tradition restrains (or, more properly, counterbalances) an unrestrained right. For, certainly, even in the most recent of monarchies of the old type there remained a real sense that the King was indeed the representative of God on Earth, and as beholden to that divine Will as anyone else could be, though in western terms this attitude was still filled best by the Byzantines and their attitude, so perfectly summed up in my aforementioned reference to the title of "The Shadow of God upon the Earth", a phrase which to me carries an incredible and sublime beauty. I would say, from that, that though it may be crucial, the difference is still slight, and the reverence of the old position was to some extent maintained.

Rayati and reverences, honoured Miss Marina,

Please forgive me for taking so long to add to this thread. There is quite a lot of material to consume, and I am currently in the middle of final papers and exams.

As honoured Aquila-chei and Madonna-chei have addressed your questions quite completely, I would like to pose a few of my own. After all, questioning is key to philosophy. I do apologize if I am asking too many things! Please do not feel obligated to answer anything I have asked.

You said that you hope we may second ourselves to your efforts. What are these efforts? You have given us a very detailed account of some Tellurian history, but you have not told us about the traditionalist group you are a member of, nor what your goals are! I understand that you personally are looking for a female community that will provide some intellectual stimulation. I understand the observations you have made about past religious empires and monarchies. It would help us formulate a stimulating conversation for you if we knew a little more about your group. For example, what do you mean when you say that you are traditionalist? Whose traditions? What are these traditions? Are you looking for a return of religious monarchies, or are they an example you are using to illustrate something else? You have made many references to the Catholic Church—what religious tradition do you identify with, if any?

What sense of “nihilism” do you mean when you say that Buddhism is “nihilistic”? Are you referring specifically to Theravada or Mahayana, or are you grouping them both together? I ask this because nihilism can have both positive and negative connotations.

If I have read correctly, you see Kant (and, proceeding from Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer) as the culmination of Western philosophy. Have you studied post-Hegel philosophers and rejected their findings? If this is the case, what did you find disagreeable?

While I do not find “modern” or “postmodern” art pretty to look at, I have to politely disagree that it can only be recoiled at. Heidegger said that art is one of the most basic ways that truth is revealed to us. This truth may be something different than the image that is shown in the painting or sculpture. Reinforcing this, Danto wrote that most people cannot appreciate “modern” art because they have not been taught (or tried to teach themselves) how. Art must be interpreted in its proper context. A piece of modern art should be appreciated, not for what it represents, but for what it is. Therefore, Mark Rothko’s “Blue, Orange, Red” should be experienced not as a picture of something, but for its expression of blue-ness, red-ness, and orange-ness. This does not mean that anything in the world is art if someone calls it art, nor that we must like it all! However, the fact that a painting is not an Icon does not necessarily mean that it has nothing valuable to say. The truth can be difficult to find if we do not know how to go about looking for it.

As text does not convey tone of voice, this next question may appear snide—I assure you that it is asked out of genuine curiosity, not out of ill intent. I find your choice of Mishima Yukio ironic, as his botched seppuku could be seen as a blow to the mood of Japan at the time rather than an uplift. It certainly did shock, but not quite in the way he had intended. If memory serves me correctly, neither Mishima nor his kaishaku had practiced properly (apologies to everyone for the following details, but they are important for understanding the situation); as a result his head was lopped completely off after several tries instead of neatly severed with a flap of skin remaining to keep it from rolling away. What do you find valuable about his political demonstrations? What do you think this lack of preparation could say about his motives and honour?

I hope that I have provided something fun for your brain to snack on, or at least that I have not offended.

Thank you for the questions posed, Miss Yu. Let me assure you that they are not in any sense offensive to me nor problematic. They address very fair points, indeed, and I'll respond to each one in turn.

The vague hope in reference to "seconding" yourselves was simply my wistful expression of how useful, though equally impossible, unity in the traditionalist movement would be nice. And, by extension (for you're not part of it, but similar to it), some of your support. I know this is not possible--and the reasons why are perfectly legitimate and proper ones--so the comment was just an offhand statement of some gentle regret. It is the same way I feel, really, toward Islam, which, wounded and threatened by modernism, as armed itself for War. It is a pity that closer discourse between western traditionalism and the sons of the Prophet is not possible under those circumstances, considering that their society as a whole is likely the one least damaged by modernism. But we are weak, and they are in a desperate struggle. No other path of development is possible there.

My group, such as it stands, is as noted a small group of about two or two and a half dozen intellectuals who reject the basic formulation of modern society, regarding conservatism in the modern age as sheer farce. We are united predominantly by monarchist sentiments and distributivist economics. The bulk of us are from the United States, several from Britain, one from Germany and two from Russia, with a single good friend from Hong Kong. For a solid six years we've had regular and almost continuous exchanges on the political and sociological developments of the age in which our opinions have hardened (and some good friends of turned away from us in a very permanent fashion) in regard to modern society and its ability to be saved. Within those boundaries, we have a fairly wide range of opinion. I would say that G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc's work on distributivism and the Catholic role in society is most influential, though both ethnic and personal belief mean that Orthodoxy is also well represented.

I'll confess to being a social Catholic in the sense that I regard the imposition of Catholic traditionalist values on society to be the only workable solution, but my private religious views are quite different. I am simply practical enough to recognize that they are rare enough that they will never form the basis for society, at least within any conceivable span of my life, and that the practice of of my faith would have to be of the utmost privacy in any world where our thoughts are accepted. This is, to me, simply the personal price that must be paid for loyalty to the fundamental ideals which lay at the heart of all healthy religions and their expression in society. So while I'm not personally Catholic I'm willing to support the Catholic Church out of necessity, just as the agnostic Maurras did so.

In terms of Buddhist nihilism the idea, in principle, at the ultimate goal of the individual is Nirvana, which in the absolute fundamentals of the religious philosophy, is nothingness, is to what I was referring to. I was not necessarily criticizing it as such. As you observed there is positive nihilism as well as negative nihilism. I am just not personally convinced that it works well in the western cultural continuum. Beyond that, the influence of such thought on existentialism is problematic; only Kierkegaard really had a solid grounding out of all the existentialists, and I acknowledge him thusly despite his disagreements with Hegel.

Which brings us to the next question; no, I don't see Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer as the culmination of western philosophy. I do, however, believe that it began to go off-course after them, and that there has been no serious development of their works in the past one hundred and fifty years, give or take. Work toward a culmination of that tradition would have to begin again at some sane point in the future, perhaps with the lessons of the Pit mercifully behind us. I have certainly studied post-Hegelian philosophies and I must remark on the sort of meditations, as it were, provided in Heidegger's Der Ister, and some disquiet, as it were, at Spengler, who certainly correctly predicted that western civilization was in a period of severe decline.

Your reference on the viewing of modern art is fascinating, and there I will, in reply, only ask you, if you have some time, to expound upon it in the form of an essay that you might be willing to permit some distribution of. I find the proposition immediately interesting and worthy of some consideration, particularly as to how it reflects on our views of the proper way to view the holistic knowledge contained in art in general.

(continued)


As for Mishima Yukio, my own understanding was that he himself had practiced properly but his kaishaku was unable to complete the act. A second in his number then took over the role and finished the job, but as he was unprepared for the position and did execute it properly. I do not think this reflects on Mishima himself but rather on the fact that moral character by that period was sufficiently decayed that not even all of a group of but four handpicked men could be relied upon.

This interpretation may be optimistic, or generous to him, but I nonetheless think that at least in his effort he proved himself honourable, and he was failed (in part) by those around him. One problem with looking into the perspective of how well he may or may not have been prepared is how the surviving members of the Tatenokai have understandably been very tight-lipped about the events.

I have read several more personal accounts (the more conventional biographies tend to dismiss the importance of the event), and all of them, at least, were clear that Mishima had rigorously prepared for at least a year for the act of ritual suicide. Unfortunately, Hiroyasu Koga, who actually carried out the kaishakunin duty, refuses to speak on the matter. And I have every reason to suspect that the Japanese authorities, understandably terrified of the prospect of a revival in fervour of the old order, or more mundanely a repeat of the 1920s and 1930s in Japanese politics, would have been tempted to obscure the precise facts.

Regardless, to act as he did was, I contend, honourable simply because he knew that it would likely mean a considerable destruction of his legacy in the culture of the Pit, but that the gesture was still a necessary one. Few people today can find in themselves the understanding to admire such an act; but that, I would say, is the point. To do what is right when, not only will none aide you, but none will even recognize what you have done as right, and all will dismiss you as a lunatic, requires incredible spirit. To do that, and to do it to the extent of the end of your life, and the destruction of much of your personal legacy in the eyes of your peers and the world, is honourable, and surely something which lends a tint of nobility even to the lowest pauper. And that lonely example will stand for a generation in which the flames of righteous behaviour may be relighted.

Honoured Miss Marina,

Thank you very much for answering all those questions. Now I have a much better understanding of where you are coming from and why you are here. I hope we will be able to provide what you are looking for!

It is very late, so I will keep this short for now.

I would certainly be willing to write an essay for you! You will have to give me some time to check my books and do it properly. If you have access to a big bookstore and don't want to wait, I can give you the names of the books I will probably be referencing.

Again to Mishima Yukio, I think that it still shows lack of care on his part that his kaishaku were incompetent. He was leading the mission, therefore he was in charge of making sure that his followers were up to their tasks--which they were not. However, this is all pretty much irrelevant to an Aristasian.

Have you studied much Japanese history? I think you would find the bakumatsu interesting. My studies have been more into the shogunate side (especially the Shinsengumi) but I think the Isshinshishi might appeal to you. You might also look at Hijikata Toshizou and Saitou Hajime, though they fought on the shogunate side.

I find Saitou an admirable figure because he really and truly put the good of his country first in his life. He fought as hard as he could for the shogun during the bakumatsu. When the Shinsengumi were finally defeated, Saitou changed his name, assumed a new identity, and became a police officer in the new government, loyal to the side that had defeated him. He did whatever he thought was necessary for him to continue working to protect Japan.

Miss Yu, I'll readily cede the fact that Mishima's effort was far from perfect. I do, however, tend to hesitate criticizing overmuch those who were there in the heat of the moment from the distance of historical vantage. Everything goes right in retrospect, and I suppose, considering the fitful way that our whole world plunged into the Pit, without even one last convulsive shudder, it's natural to seek out in that moment someone who stood against the current. No doubt that's why traditionalists like me tend to focus (excessively, I'll readily acknowledge) on World War One. It at least offers the uncertainty of the battlefield rather than the inevitability of a great cultural shift, which when facing one may easily give in to despair.

As it happens I've been studying Japanese culture rather heavily as late, but my history has been rather remiss. This is in no part due to the fact it was undertaken for personal reasons which would be quite lengthy to repeat here, and which tend to direct me toward cultural details first. My history of Japan from around the 1890s forward is good, as well as the period of initial European contact. The other gaps must be addressed in time.

And time is something I have precious little of, at the moment, due to my simultaneous study of the fields of Industrial Engineering and Environmental Science & Resource Management, which I ultimately plan to both study at the doctoral level as well. My personal ambition is to combine the study of industrial arrangement and efficiency with a sound knowledge of the holistic interconnections of natural ecosystems in the hope of doing some systematic research into creating both ecologically sound and internally holistic methods of manufacture. As I personally believe that the collapse of the Pit will begin in less than twenty-five years, I or those I have the opportunity to teach may well be able to contribute to the future by bringing the revival of our industrial development more in line with, say, the industrial practices of Novaria, for purposes of creating genuinely sustainable methods of production.

On top of my philosophical indulgences and other writing, this places a high demand on me, though I have very fond support in it all. Sadly, the best bookstores are furthermore an hour's sail (quite literally) away, at the end of a twenty minute bus ride on this side. As it so happens, my peculiar home in the Fjords of the Pacific Northwest overlooks the anchorage of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, which is through and through an industrial town without the slightest pits of what pass for refinement, and separated by the Sound from Seattle with the sole connection by ferry. On the other hand, the natural beauty is certainly unparalleled here, with just a few miles away the cities melting into the primordial forests around the Hood Canal and the Olympic peninsula beyond. So for the moment, the acquisition of the books recommended here is, I must confess, much a secondary priority.

Rayati, honoured friends.

How the discussion has burgeoned since last I was here.

If I may refer back to the question of alliance between Aristasia and Tellurian traditionalists and the military analogies used, I think that is a question that should be addressed.

The Tellurian customs you speak of are not reflected in Aristasia, because our Vikhelic, or military, history is very different. On no occasion have we ever made war against our own kind. In Aristasia a maid who kills another maid is called a "wild dog", and is normally possessed by an evil spirit. "Wild dog" activity has never been conducted at the level of the State, and if it were the State would clearly be athamë and illegitimate.

I understand that the case is very different in patriarchal Telluria, and, within its terms, legitimately so.

This distinction means, that the concept of a noble and worthy enemy (which I admire in Telluria and is far superior to the proletarian "propaganda war" which paints the enemy as a devil). Most of our enemies were literally devils, and where they were not were of a species that had no common ground with ourselves.

Our wars have all been defensive simply because we have no ambitions outside our own nations, and insofar as there is manoeuvring between them, that does not and cannot include recourse to arms.

We fight only when the Motherlands are threatened. We commit torture or cruelty against no creature - not even a demon. We take no prisoners. And all who attack the Motherlands must die. Such is the stern code of the Daughter Knights of Caire.

Such being the case, the complexities of military alliance are unknown to us (The Princess and the Captain depicts an imaginary scenario in which Aristasian-settled worlds find themselves embroiled in a complex military situation including enemies and potential allies, but that has not actually taken place in Aristasian history - and the story is predicated on the premise of interplanetary travel).

In current Telluria, Operation Bridgehead is indeed a military operation, but it is not an offensive - not at least in any ordinarily-understood sense. We are not at war with Telluria or with any Tellurian nation or faction. We are, in a sense, at war with certain subtle forces that operate in Telluria and elsewhere.

Intervention of the Empire in any internal Tellurian conflict is highly unlikely.

On the other hand, Miss Trent, in The Feminine Universe stated that she wished her work to be used by any Tellurian traditionalist who found it helpful.

Friendly co-operation between people who have some degree of spiritual affinity should always be a possibility.

Incidentally, if you would like - without sailing - to read the Chapter of The Feminine Universe which precedes the one about the Gunas - entitled "Cycles of Time" and which gives the basis for the Aristasian interpretation of history, you have only to sign up for the free Daughters of Dea "Elektrazine". They are offering it as an on-line "free gift" to subscribers.

Rayati, honoured friends.

How the discussion has burgeoned since last I was here.

If I may refer back to the question of alliance between Aristasia and Tellurian traditionalists and the military analogies used, I think that is a question that should be addressed.

The Tellurian customs you speak of are not reflected in Aristasia, because our Vikhelic, or military, history is very different. On no occasion have we ever made war against our own kind. In Aristasia a maid who kills another maid is called a "wild dog", and is normally possessed by an evil spirit. "Wild dog" activity has never been conducted at the level of the State, and if it were the State would clearly be athamë and illegitimate.

I understand that the case is very different in patriarchal Telluria, and, within its terms, legitimately so.

This distinction means, that the concept of a noble and worthy enemy (which I admire in Telluria and is far superior to the proletarian "propaganda war" which paints the enemy as a devil). Most of our enemies were literally devils, and where they were not were of a species that had no common ground with ourselves.

Our wars have all been defensive simply because we have no ambitions outside our own nations, and insofar as there is manoeuvring between them, that does not and cannot include recourse to arms.

We fight only when the Motherlands are threatened. We commit torture or cruelty against no creature - not even a demon. We take no prisoners. And all who attack the Motherlands must die. Such is the stern code of the Daughter Knights of Caire.

Such being the case, the complexities of military alliance are unknown to us (The Princess and the Captain depicts an imaginary scenario in which Aristasian-settled worlds find themselves embroiled in a complex military situation including enemies and potential allies, but that has not actually taken place in Aristasian history - and the story is predicated on the premise of interplanetary travel).

In current Telluria, Operation Bridgehead is indeed a military operation, but it is not an offensive - not at least in any ordinarily-understood sense. We are not at war with Telluria or with any Tellurian nation or faction. We are, in a sense, at war with certain subtle forces that operate in Telluria and elsewhere.

Intervention of the Empire in any internal Tellurian conflict is highly unlikely.

On the other hand, Miss Trent, in The Feminine Universe stated that she wished her work to be used by any Tellurian traditionalist who found it helpful.

Friendly co-operation between people who have some degree of spiritual affinity should always be a possibility.
___

On a different note, may I suggest that the very phrase "the culmination of Western philosophy" begs an important question. It contains the assumption of the modernist position that Western philosophy is a progressive movement rather than a process of decline from Truth.

If I may quote (from memory, I fear) M. Schuon:

"It is said that if St Thomas Aquinas were alive today he would think very differently. On the contrary: if St Thomas Aquinas were alive today he would merely have a hundred more errors to refute."
____

Incidentally, if you would like - without sailing - to read the Chapter of The Feminine Universe which precedes the one about the Gunas - entitled "Cycles of Time" and which gives the basis for the Aristasian interpretation of history, you have only to sign up for the free Daughters of Dea "Elektrazine". They are offering it as an on-line "free gift" to subscribers.

Thank you, Your Ladyship, for the understanding of those rather important differences.

If I may explain, for a moment, that tendency of mine, my father was a long-service officer who retired with the rank of Colonel and many members of the ad-hoc intellectual group to which I belong are serving in the military, which does tend to attract the most traditional members of society. They are, after all, those who value warlike virtues the highest. I was, frankly, raised in a masculine way very typical of girls of my age in the Pit; I do think my parents remain vaguely confused at how their efforts to raise me in the brave age of "equality" failed (it was due to their own bohemian refusal to get us a television, I personally think), and I'm now the one in skirt, stockings, and ruffled blouse even in the likes of physics and engineering lectures and, with a rather pretty (If I dare say!) mauve lab-coat donned, even doing my experimental work necessary for my studies.

Personally, modern war is horrible, whereas traditional combat holds a certain breathless air to it. It is ironic that the best example of it is perhaps Chattanooga in the Civil War; the Cavalier, Thomas, loyal to his government at the expense of his home state of Virginia, leading his troops up Missionary Ridge. Sherman's stymied flanking manoeuvre, just months before he began the first systematic campaign of industrial destruction against civilians ever made. It's very frightening to think that these two men, an exemplar of the old age and an evil foretaste of the new, fought side by side at one battle, and I was much confused by this dichotomy, but gradually came to understand that in days before the systematic machinery of "scientific war" had come to pass, that frequently the greatest of emotions and exertions were brought forth in people by war and these things hold, in terrifying spectacle, a certain captivating power. I can only imagine the same is true for the record of your own conflicts, considering that your cause is utterly righteous in all respects and perfect clarity replaces any moral doubts.

Of course, if military action to destroy the Pit was possible, I would not hesitate, nor would anyone I respect. That much is obvious. It is not possible, of course, and I've developed a sharp and persuasive tongue in explaining to hot-headed men why more direct actions, even as simple as politics, other than simply talking and preparing for our own survival, separate from this dying society, indeed play perfectly into the hands of its surveillance and control apparatus! Wise are the Cossacks of the Caucasus who bide their time in their villages, praying for the return of the Tsar.

As for the idea of western history as a progression, that as a common attitude dates at least to Hobbes, which, I suppose to the Aristasian view, is indeed modernist. It was certainly elucidated earlier. I am not sure; on one hand, the idea of a plunge down from an ideal age is more or less universal among all peoples. It certainly has a grain of truth. But if, as in the Christian tradition, it meant the gaining of wisdom, of terrible knowledge aside, should we set this gift aside? We paid a price that was far to steep for it, after all, as it was, to let it lay fallow.

Can we ever approach those heights again? Certainly not; we will always be hampered by the very depraved condition that the fall, however you wish to phrase it, has caused. A culmination of philosophy, therefore, does not mean to imply that we have regained the knowledge that was before, the divine wisdom in actual form. Rather it means we have achieved the best approximation possible, as in calculus one works with numbers always approaching the infinite and never reaching it. Indeed I would say that Kant and Hegel had such advanced knowledge of the subject precisely by the formulation that the Noumenon, absolute truth, existed, and was also unknowable. We may interpret that as being a representation of how in its fallen state humanity can never regain the golden age, however it may be portrayed.

Or, in short, I agree that there was a better age, in primordial times, which we cannot again obtain. But in western philosophy, I suppose, there is the optimistic assessment that we can in our understanding, if far less than our application, approach, and vaguely ascertain, the aspects of Divine Wisdom, even if we will never gaze up it in full. We are reduced to ornate descriptions and Iconography, in short, to depict and describe and understand things which could be gazed on directly and immediately in that lost time. I hope this serves as a fair summation of both the differences and the similarities there.

I certainly should sign up for that Elektrazine, though as it happens I have business in Seattle on this coming Thursday, and will be on the hunt for some better bookstores, since with the length of the crossing considered, one might as well make a day-trip of it.