The Reign of Quantity and The Signs of the Times

by René Guénon

  After having enclosed the corporeal world as completely as possible, it was necessary, while guarding against the re-establishment of any communication with superior domains, to open it up again from below, so as to allow the dissolving and destructive forces of the inferior subtle domain to penetrate into it. It is the ‘unleashing’ of these forces, so to speak, and the setting of them to work to complete the deviation of our world and effectively to bring it toward final dissolution, that constitutes the second part or second phase referred to. It is right to regard the two phases as distinct, though they have in part been simultaneous, for in the total plan of the modern deviation they follow one another logically and only reach their full effectiveness successively; moreover, as soon as materialism had been established, the first phase was in a sense virtually complete and could be left to take its course in the form of a development of everything implied in materialism as such. That is the moment at which the preparation of the second phase began, and none but its first effects have as yet become apparent, but they have become sufficiently apparent to allow their sequel to be foreseen, and to make it possible to say with no exaggeration whatever that the second aspect of anti-traditional action moves from now onwards into first place in the designs of what was at first comprehensively described as the ‘adversary’ but can now, and with greater exactitude, be named the ‘counter-initiation’.

  29

  Deviation and Subversion

  The anti-traditional action by which the modern world has in a sense been ‘manufactured’ has hitherto been considered as an operation designed primarily to bring about a deviation from the normal state, that is, from the state normal to all traditional civilizations whatever may be their particular forms, something easy to understand and requiring no further comment. On the other hand, there is a distinction to be made between deviation and subversion: deviation can be regarded as comprising an indefinite multiplicity of degrees, so that it can go to work gradually and imperceptibly; this is exemplified by the gradual passage of the modern mentality from ‘humanism’ and rationalism to mechanism, and thence to materialism, and again in the process whereby profane science has elaborated successive theories each more purely quantitative in character than the last. This makes it possible to say that all such deviation, from its earliest beginnings, has steadily and progressively tended toward the establishment of the ‘reign of quantity’. But when deviation reaches its limit, it ends by being a real ‘contradiction’, that is to say a state diametrically opposed to the normal order, and only then can ‘subversion’ in the etymological sense of the word properly be spoken of; needless to say, ‘subversion’ in this sense must in no way be confused with the ‘reversal’ referred to in connection with the final instant of the cycle, it being indeed the exact opposite since the ‘reversal’ actually happens after the ‘subversion’ and at the moment when subversion seems complete, and is really a rectification whereby the normal order is re-established, and whereby the ‘primordial state’, representing perfection in the human domain, is restored.

  As against this, it could be said that subversion, thus understood, is but the last stage of deviation and is its goal, or, in other words, that deviation as a whole has no tendency other than to bring about subversion, and that is true enough; in the present state of affairs, though it cannot yet be said that subversion is complete, the signs of it are very evident in everything in which the special characteristic of ‘counterfeit’ or ‘parody’ is conspicuous. This characteristic has already been mentioned more than once, and is to be dealt with more fully later. For the moment no more need be said than that this particular characteristic affords by itself a very significant indication of the origin of anything that shows it, and consequently of the origin of the modern deviation itself, the ‘satanic’ nature of which is thus brought out very clearly. The word ‘satanic’ can indeed be properly applied to all negation and reversal of order, such as is so incontestably in evidence in everything we now see around us: is the modern world really anything whatever but a direct denial of all traditional truth? At the same time, and more or less of necessity, the spirit of negation is the spirit of lying; it wears every disguise, often the most unexpected, in order to avoid being recognized for what it is, and even in order to pass itself off as the very opposite of what it is; this is where counterfeit comes in; and this is the moment to recall that it is said that ‘Satan is the ape of God’, and also that he ‘transfigures himself into an angel of light’. In the end, this amounts to saying that he imitates in his own way, by altering and falsifying it so as always to make it serve his own ends, the very thing he sets out to oppose: thus, he will so manage matters that disorder takes on the appearance of a false order, he will hide the negation of all principle under the affirmation of false principles, and so on. Naturally, nothing of that kind can ever really be more than dissimulation and even caricature, but it is presented cleverly enough to induce an immense majority of men to allow themselves to be deceived by it; and why should we be astonished at this, when it is so easy to observe both the extent to which trickery, even of the crudest sort, succeeds in imposing itself on the crowd, and also the difficulty of subsequently undeceiving them? Vulgus vult decipi was already a saying of the ancients of the ‘classical period’, and no doubt there have always been people, though never as many as in our days, ready to add: ergo decipiatur!

  Nevertheless, anyone who speaks of counterfeit thereby suggests the idea of parody, for they are almost synonyms; there is invariably a grotesque element in affairs of this kind, and it may be more apparent or less so, but it ought never to escape the notice of observers, even observers of only a very moderate perspicacity, were it not for the fact that natural perspicacity in that direction is abolished by the ‘suggestions’ to which they are unconsciously subjected. This is the direction in which falsehood, however clever it may be, cannot do otherwise than betray itself; it is also of course a ‘label’ of origin, inseparable from counterfeit itself, which should normally make it recognizable as such. If it were necessary to give examples chosen from the various manifestations of the modern spirit, there would be only too many from which to choose, beginning with the ‘civic’ or ‘lay’ pseudo-rites that have developed so extensively in the last few years, and are intended to provide the ‘masses’ with a purely human substitute for real religious rites, down to the extravagance of a self-styled ‘naturism’, which in spite of its name is no less artificial, not to say ‘anti-natural’, than are the useless complications of existence against which it lays claim to react by means of a ludicrous comedy having as its real purpose to make people believe that the ‘state of nature’ is to be confused with animality; meanwhile, something more than the mere comfort of the human being is now threatened with denaturation by the growth of the idea, so contradictory in itself but conforming well to a democratic ‘egalitarianism’, of an ‘organization of leisure’.[125] The things mentioned here are intentionally only such as are known to everyone and they undeniably belong to what may be called the ‘public domain’ and can be grasped without trouble by anyone; is it not strange that those who feel the absurdity of all this, to say nothing of its danger, are so rare as to be really exceptional? Such things as these ought to be spoken of as ‘pseudo-religion’, ‘pseudo-nature’, ‘pseudo-comfort’, and the same is true of many other things; if one wanted always to speak strictly according to truth, the word ‘pseudo’ would continually have to be put in front of the name of all the products of the modern world, including that of profane science itself — for it is only a ‘pseudo-science’ or imitation of knowledge — in order to give a true indication of what it all amounts to: falsifications and nothing else, and falsifications of which the objective is only too clear to anyone still capable of reflection.

  So much for that; and now let us return to considerations of a more general kind. What is it that makes this counterfeit possible, and even increasingly possible and increasingly perfect of its kind, if indeed any such words ca
n be used in such a connection, as the descending course of the cycle proceeds? The profound reason lies in the relation of inverse analogy that exists, as explained, between the highest and the lowest points: it is this that makes possible in particular, and in a degree corresponding to that of the approach to the domain of pure quantity, the realization of those sorts of counterfeits of principial unity as are manifested in the ‘uniformity’ and ‘simplicity’ toward which the modern spirit tends, and in which its efforts to bring everything down to the quantitative point of view are most completely expressed. This perhaps shows more clearly than anything else that deviation has, so to speak, only to be developed and allowed to pursue its course to the end in order finally to lead to subversion properly so called, for when that which is most inferior (it being in this case a question of something inferior even to all possible existence) seeks to imitate and make a counterfeit of superior and transcendent principles, then is the time when real subversion can justly be spoken of. Nevertheless it is as well to recall that in the nature of things the tendency to pure quantity can never produce its full effect; therefore, in order that subversion may reach its term the intervention of something else is necessary. At this stage what was said earlier on the subject of dissolution could be repeated, but from a slightly different point of view; obviously that which appertains to the final point of cyclic manifestation is equally concerned in both cases; and that is exactly why the ‘rectification’ of the ultimate instant must appear precisely as a reversal of all things, when it is seen in relation to the state of subversion existing immediately before that instant.

  Bearing in mind this last point, this much more can be said: the first of the two phases that have been distinguished in anti-traditional action represents simply a work of deviation, the particular end of which is a materialism of the crudest and most complete kind; as for the second phase, it could be specially characterized as a work of subversion (for that is the point to which it leads most directly) destined to end in the setting-up of what has been called an inverted spirituality, as will be seen more clearly from what follows. The inferior subtle forces that are called in during this second phase can certainly be described as ‘subversive’ from every point of view; and it was considered right to apply the word ‘subversion’ above to the ‘inverted’ utilization of the remains of ancient traditions abandoned by the ‘spirit’; and the two cases are in any case similar, for under such conditions corrupt vestiges themselves necessarily fall into the lower regions of the subtle domain. Another particularly clear example of the work of subversion will be given in the next chapter, in the form of the intentional inversion of the legitimate and normal meaning of traditional symbols; this will afford in addition an opportunity to give a fuller explanation of the double meaning usually contained in symbols themselves; for so many references to double meanings of this kind have already been made in the course of this study that a little more detail on the subject will not be out of place.

  30

  The Inversion of Symbols

  Surprise is sometimes expressed at the fact that one and the same symbol can be taken in two senses, which are, at least apparently, directly contrary one to the other. This question is not merely one of the multiplicity of meanings that can, generally speaking, be carried by any symbol according to the point of view or the level from which it is considered, any kind of ‘systematization’ of symbols being made impossible by this very adaptability, but is a question more particularly of two aspects linked together through a mutual correlation, taking the form of an opposition, in such a way that one is so to speak the reverse or the ‘negative’ of the other. In order to understand this, duality must in the first place be considered as presupposed by all manifestation, and consequently as conditioning manifestation in all its modes, and it must always be traceable therein in one form or another;[126] it is true that any such duality is in truth a complementarism and not an opposition; but two terms that are really complementary can appear from a relatively exterior or contingent point of view to be opposed.[127] All opposition only exists as such at a certain level, for there can be no such thing as an irreducible opposition; at a higher level it is always resolved into a complementarism, in which its two terms are found to be reconciled and harmonized, until they return at last into the unity of the common principle from which they both proceed. It can therefore be said that the point of view of complementarism is in a certain sense intermediate between that of opposition and that of unification; and each of these points of view has its good reason and its own value in the order to which it applies, although the three are obviously not situated at the same level of reality; what matters therefore is to know how to put each aspect into its proper hierarchical place, and not to try to carry it over into a domain in which it would no longer have any valid significance.

  That being so, it is understandable that there is nothing in any way illegitimate in taking account of two contrary aspects in a symbol, and in addition that the consideration of either of these aspects in no way excludes the other, since each of them is equally true in a particular relation, and lastly even that by virtue of their correlation their existence is a single existence. It is therefore a mistake, and incidentally rather a common one, to suppose that the special consideration of one aspect or the other must be peculiar to doctrines or to schools that are themselves in opposition.[128] In such cases everything depends solely on the predominance that may be assigned to one or the other, and sometimes also on the intention with which the symbol is used, for example as an element taking part in particular rites, or again as a means of recognition for the members of particular organizations; but this is a point to which we shall return. The fact that the two aspects may be united in one and the same complex symbolical figuration shows clearly that they are not mutually exclusive and can be considered simultaneously; and in this connection it will be well to note, although there can be no question of developing the subject fully, that a duality, which can be an opposition or a complementarism according to the point of view adopted, can be arranged, so far as the relative situation of its terms is concerned, either vertically or horizontally, this being an immediate consequence of the cross-shaped arrangement of the quaternary, which can be resolved into two dualities, one vertical and the other horizontal. The vertical duality can be related to the two extremities of an axis or to the two contrary directions in which that axis may be followed; the horizontal duality is that of two elements situated symmetrically on either side of that same axis. As an example of the first case the two triangles of the seal of Solomon can be cited (as well as all other symbols of analogy disposed according to a similar geometrical arrangement), and as an example of the second the two serpents of the caduceus; and it will be noticed that only in the vertical duality are the two terms clearly distinguished one from the other by their reversed positions, whereas in the horizontal duality they can appear completely similar or equivalent when considered separately, although their significance is not really any less contrary in this case than in the other. It can also be said that in the spatial order the vertical duality is that of up and down, and the horizontal that of right and left; though this observation may perhaps seem rather too obvious, it nonetheless has its importance, because symbolically (and this leads back to the intrinsically qualitative value of the directions of space) these two pairs of terms are themselves susceptible of multiple applications, traces of which could without difficulty be found even in current language, showing that matters of very general application are here in question.

  So much being established in principle, certain consequences may easily be deduced in connection with what could be called the practical use of symbols; but here a consideration of a more special kind must first be introduced, namely, that of the case in which the two contrary aspects are taken as ‘benefic’ and ‘malefic’ respectively. It must be made clear that these two terms are used for want of any better, as on a previous occasion; they have in fact the disadvantage of
leading to a supposition that some more or less ‘moral’ interpretation is admitted, whereas really there is nothing of the kind, and the words must be understood here in a purely ‘technical’ sense. Furthermore, it must be clearly understood that the ‘benefic’ or ‘malefic’ quality is not attached absolutely to one or the other of the two aspects, because it appertains only to a special application which is such that all opposition, of whatever kind, could not possibly be brought indifferently within its range, and also because this quality would in any case necessarily disappear when the point of view of opposition is replaced by that of complementarism, to which any such consideration is wholly strange. Within these limits and after taking account of these reservations, the point of view of ‘beneficence’ or ‘maleficence’ has its normal place among all others; but it is also from this very point of view, or rather from the misuses to which it leads, that the subversion of the interpretation and use of symbolism now to be referred to may arise, a subversion constituting one of the ‘marks’ characteristic of everything that is derived, consciously or otherwise, from the domain of the ‘counter-initiation’, or is more or less directly subject to its influence.

  This kind of subversion may consist either in attributing to the ‘malefic’ aspect, while continuing to recognize it as such, the place that normally belongs to the ‘benefic’ aspect, even to the point of giving it a sort of supremacy over the latter, or alternatively in attributing to symbols a meaning opposite to their legitimate meaning, by treating as ‘benefic’ the aspect that is really ‘malefic’, or the other way round. It must also be noted that, in accordance with what was said above, a subversion of this kind may not appear visibly in the representation of the symbols, because there are some in which the two contrary aspects are not marked by any outward difference recognizable at first sight. Thus, in the figurations related to what is commonly but very improperly called ‘serpent-worship’, it would often be impossible, at least if only the serpent itself were considered, to say a priori whether the Agathodaimón or the Kakodaimón is symbolized; hence many misunderstandings arise, especially on the part of those who are ignorant of the dual significance of the serpent and are tempted to see in it everywhere and always only a ‘malefic’ symbol, as has been in fact the case for a long time past with the generality of Westerners;[129] and what has been said of the serpent could equally well be applied to many other symbolical animals, for it has become a habit for one reason or another no longer to consider more than one of the two opposed aspects in reality borne by these animals. In the case of symbols that can be made to take up two opposite positions, and especially those that are reduced to geometrical forms, it might be thought that the difference ought to be much more clearly apparent; nevertheless it is not always so, because the two positions of the same symbol are each capable of carrying a legitimate meaning, also because their relation is not necessarily that of ‘beneficence’ and ‘maleficence’, for, let it be said once more, that relation is only a particular application among all others. What it is important to know in such a case is whether there can be said to be a real intention to ‘invert’ in such a way as formally to contradict the normal and legitimate value of the symbol; that is why, for example, the use of the inverted triangle is very far from being always a sign of ‘black magic’ as some people think,[130] although it certainly is so in some cases, namely, whenever it is accompanied by an intention to adopt an attitude opposed to what the triangle represents when its apex is turned upward. Incidentally, it may be remarked that an intentional ‘inversion’ of this kind can also be applied to words or to formulas, in such a way as to form various sorts of reversed mantras, as may be seen in certain of the practices of sorcery, even in the simple ‘country witchcraft’ such as still exists in the West.