Philosophy tries to impose on us what is advantageous to itself. Here lies the source of male cunning, his striving to absolutize himself, and, accordingly, to exclude the female principle [beginning], and “the other” principle [or: another beginning]. Behind this, we can discern a complete and total lack of understanding of the woman. Hence the ascription to woman of properties she does not in fact possess. Thus the male formats under himself that which he excludes from the intellectual process. Logos refuses Khôra the quality of intelligibility, but it doesn’t understand it only because it doesn’t want to. It prefers to deal with representations instead. A man thinks that the sole means to get to know a woman is to hide her in inner repose, to deprive her of her public, social dimension, and then to banish her altogether, destroying her traces through the torment of lonely male askesis. Hence, Logos’s opinion about Chaos is obvious falsity. It is violence, subjection, hegemony, and the exclusion of Chaos as other. Since Logos is everything, Chaos becomes nothing.27
If we want to understand the possibility of “another Beginning” of philosophy, we must come to the birth of Logos and fasten upon this transition across the border, discerning the details and semantics of this rite du passage. How is it that Logos got out, and separated itself, and who allowed it to issue its exclusive decrees regarding Chaos? Most interestingly, if we sense the inadequacy of dissipative logical and post-logical structures, we must become aware that it is necessary to turn to Logos anew, since Logos itself produced, by its exclusivity, all the preconditions of this dissipation. We cannot simply pick up and return to Platonism: there is no path backward [obratnogo puti]. Logos only moves in one direction: it splinters and splinters (and splinters and splinters…).28 Gilbert Durand calls this logic the regime of the “diurne”: it won’t stop until it reduces everything to a crumb.29 This schizomorphe30 leads directly to Deleuze and Guattari’s “schizomass” concept.31 It is wonderfully depicted in the films of Takashi Miike, for instance in Ichi the Killer or Izo. In Izo, having started a battle against the world, a mad samurai does not stop until he cuts into pieces absolutely everything that falls into his hands. Izo is the Logos.
Logos will not help us. If we are not pleased by the way the contemporary, post-logical world is ordered, like it or not, we must turn to Chaos. We have no other alternative: we must step fundamentally back to the first Beginning of Greek culture in order to take at least the slightest step forward, truly forward, and not along the infinite arc of the world eternally ending without ever coming to an end (“not-yet”). If we fail to do so, we fall into the eternal dead-end of the endless return of dissipative structure-confusions. The choice: either contemporary post-logical Chaos of confusions, or going beyond them, a way beyond them that can only be found in Chaos, which precedes Logos and is located radically beyond its limit, beyond the line of its peripheral agony.
Chaos can and must be regarded as inclusive order, as order based on a contrary principle to Logos, i.e. a principle of inclusion, inclusiveness. That is why it is very important to understand what inclusiveness means. Once we understand that, we will learn whether it is possible at all to build the philosophy of Chaos, the philosophy of “another beginning.”
It won’t work for us to view Chaos as logocentric models view it. There is nothing logical, exclusive, or masculine in Chaos (no Wille Zur Macht), so for Logos and Onto-Logos it becomes the ouk on (Greek: pure non-being), the French rien, the Spanish nada. Precisely the ouk on, as Greeks called non-being, can produce something from itself (“pregnant non-being”). Since Logos sees nothing but itself, then by a principle of Aristotelian logic there is nothing we can oppose to it: either A is equal to A and we are within logical boundaries, or A is not equal to A and we are beyond those boundaries, in nothing. According to Aristotle, the latter means that A just does not exist; the A that would not be equal to A does not exist, in contrast, for example, to the philosophy of the Japanese Kitaro Nishida, who, despite Aristotle, elaborated a special logical place, “basho,” based on Zen Buddhist models of thought.
Outside of Logos and its hypnotic suggestions, however, Chaos can full well be conceptualized — as the principle of absolute inclusion or of inclusive philosophy. Why is this possible? Because if we disregard the political propaganda of the Logos, under which we have lived for two and a half millennia, we will be able to see Chaos as it presents itself, and not as it is presented by Logos. Chaos reveals itself as that which is inclusive and carries in itself all possibilities, including the possibility of exclusion, right up to the exclusion of itself. Indeed, in Chaos there is Logos, and [the Logos is] precisely as it thinks itself. Like an embryo in the womb of a woman, it is and will be born, without fail. It will be torn away. It will mature and leave, but behind the scenes something more important will remain, the one that enables it to live, produces, nurtures, and feeds it.
Logos can be thought of as a fish swimming in the waters of Chaos. Without this water, discarded on the surface, a fish will die. That, in effect, is how the structures of Logos have “died.” We are dealing only with its dissipative vestiges, the bones of the fish discarded on the shore, and it is no accident that many are speaking about the symbolism of the new waters of Aquarius, without which the old fish could not live.
The philosophy of Chaos is possible because, being all-inclusive and all-embracing, Chaos precedes any exclusion, containing this exclusion in itself, but only relating to it, and to itself, differently than exclusion, i.e. Logos, relates to Chaos and to itself. We only know one perspective on Chaos, the philosophical perspective from the position of Logos, but if we want to look at Logos from the perspective of Chaos, we are told that it is impossible, since we have become accustomed to looking only from the perspective of Logos. It is thought that only Logos has sight, while Chaos is blind. No, this is not right; Chaos has a thousand eyes, it is “panoptic.” Chaos sees itself as that which contains Logos in itself; hence, Logos is within Chaos and can be in it always, but containing Logos in itself, Chaos contains it entirely differently than the Logos contains itself. Logos rejects that it is contained in anything, even itself, and accordingly pushes Chaos outside the limits, equating it to nothing, disclaiming it. Thus, becoming aware of itself as something distinct from the waters surrounding it, the fish concludes that it no longer needs the water and throws itself on the shore. However often one might throw this stupid fish back, it will repeat its leap over and over again. This insane fish was called Aristotle.
Water, however, is the beginning of everything. It contains the root of other elements and other entities. It carries in itself that which it is and that which it is not. It includes in itself that which recognizes this fact, and that which does not.
From the foregoing we can draw the following conclusions: first, the philosophy of Chaos is possible; secondly, it is not possible to save Logos through Logos; Logos can be saved only through the correct appeal to Chaos.
Chaos is not simply not “old,” it is always “new,” because eternity is always new; the eternity (l’éternité) that Rimbaud found (a retrouvé), c’est la mer allée avec le soleil. Note, la mer. Chaos is the newest, freshest, and most fashionable, the very latest from this season’s collection (Il faut être absolument moderne. Point de cantiques: tenir le pas gagné). Precisely because it is absolutely eternal: time becomes antiquated very quickly, yesterday’s time looks archaic (there is nothing older than “news” from last month’s newspaper); only eternity is always new. That is why the disclosure of Chaos does not mean going deep into history, into structures that seem overcome by historical time; no, it is an encounter with the eternally young. Chaos was not sometime before, back then. Chaos is here and now. Chaos is not that which was, as Logos propagandizes it. Chaos is that which is, and Chaos is that which will be.
In conclusion, let us return again to Heidegger. It is only possible to break through to the truth of being (Wahrheit des Seyns) at two moments of history: at the Beginning, when philosophy is just being born, and
at the End, when the disappearance and liquidation of philosophy is occurring. Of course, separate individuals could accomplish this breakthrough at other stages, too, but they could do this or content themselves with something else — they lived in the magic of Logos, warming themselves in the rays of the solar seed.
Today this is the only thing left for us; everything else has been exhausted, and to be contented by dissolution in the world eternally ending and never coming to an end, in the “not-yet,” is the lot of nobodies [nichtozhestv]. Moreover, it is easier to do so today than ever before. We live together in an astonishing time, when the once completely unexpected possibility of getting to know Chaos directly is opening before us. The experience is not for weak souls. After all, our task is the construction of the philosophy of Chaos.
Other Books Published by Arktos
Visit Arktos.com/shop to see our latest titles.
Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya
The Dharma Manifesto
Joakim Andersen
Rising from the Ruins: The Right of the 21st Century
Winston C. Banks
Excessive Immigration
Alain de Benoist
Beyond Human Rights
Carl Schmitt Today
The Indo-Europeans
Manifesto for a European Renaissance
On the Brink of the Abyss
Runes and the Origins of Writing
The Problem of Democracy
View from the Right (vol. 1–3)
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck
Germany’s Third Empire
Matt Battaglioli
The Consequences of Equality
Kerry Bolton
Revolution from Above
Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey
Isac Boman
Money Power
Ricardo Duchesne
Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age
Alexander Dugin
Ethnos and Society
Eurasian Mission: An Introduction to Neo-Eurasianism
The Fourth Political Theory
Last War of the World-Island
Political Platonism
Putin vs Putin
The Rise of the Fourth Political Theory
Edward Dutton
Race Differences in Ethnocentrism
Mark Dyal
Hated and Proud
Koenraad Elst
Return of the Swastika
Julius Evola
The Bow and the Club
Fascism Viewed from the Right
A Handbook for Right-Wing Youth
The Mask and Face of Contemporary Spiritualism
Metaphysics of War
The Myth of the Blood
Notes on the Third Reich
The Path of Cinnabar
Recognitions
A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism
Guillaume Faye
Archeofuturism
Archeofuturism 2.0
The Colonisation of Europe
Convergence of Catastrophes
A Global Coup
Sex and Deviance
Understanding Islam
Why We Fight
Daniel S. Forrest
Suprahumanism
Andrew Fraser
Dissident Dispatches
The WASP Question
Génération Identitaire
We are Generation Identity
Paul Gottfried
War and Democracy
Porus Homi Havewala
The Saga of the Aryan Race
Lars Holger Holm
Hiding in Broad Daylight
Homo Maximus
Incidents of Travel in Latin America
The Owls of Afrasiab
A. J. Illingworth
Political Justice
Alexander Jacob
De Naturae Natura
Jason Reza Jorjani
Prometheus and Atlas
World State of Emergency
Roderick Kaine
Smart and SeXy
Peter King
Here and Now
Keeping Things Close
On Modern Manners
Ludwig Klages
The Biocentric Worldview
Cosmogonic Reflections
Pierre Krebs
Fighting for the Essence
Stephen Pax Leonard
The Ideology of Failure
William S. Lind
Retroculture
Pentti Linkola
Can Life Prevail?
H. P. Lovecraft
The Conservative
Norman Lowell
Imperium Europa
Charles Maurras
The Future of the Intelligentsia & For a French Awakening
Michael O’Meara
Guillaume Faye and the Battle of Europe
New Culture, New Right
Brian Anse Patrick
The NRA and the Media
Rise of the Anti-Media
The Ten Commandments of Propaganda
Zombology
Tito Perdue
The Bent Pyramid
Lee
Morning Crafts
Philip
William’s House (vol. 1–4)
Raido
A Handbook of Traditional Living
Steven J. Rosen
The Agni and the Ecstasy
The Jedi in the Lotus
Richard Rudgley
Barbarians
Essential Substances
Wildest Dreams
Ernst von Salomon
It Cannot Be Stormed
The Outlaws
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Celebrating Silence
Know Your Child
Management Mantras
Patanjali Yoga Sutras
Secrets of Relationships
George T. Shaw
A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders
Fenek Solère
Kraal
Troy Southgate
Tradition & Revolution
Richard Storey
The Uniqueness of Western Law
Oswald Spengler
Man and Technics
Tomislav Sunic
Against Democracy and Equality
Homo Americanus
Postmortem Report
Titans are in Town
Abir Taha
Defining Terrorism: The End of Double Standards
The Epic of Arya (2nd ed.)
Nietzsche’s Coming God, or the Redemption of the Divine
Verses of Light
Bal Gangadhar Tilak
The Arctic Home in the Vedas
Dominique Venner
For a Positive Critique
The Shock of History
Markus Willinger
A Europe of Nations
Generation Identity
Alexander Wolfheze
Alba Rosa
Notes
[←1 ]
pra = “pre”, istok = “source” or “origin”. So, the illusion of the tree is the pre-origin of materialism. — Tn.
[←2 ]
Alfred Schütz, The Phenomenology of the Social World (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1967).
[←3 ]
And when he does use it, he interprets it in the spirit of Hegel, as an artificial joining of atomized, modern individuals, which does not evoke the least sympathy in him.
[←4 ]
Martin Heidegger, Logic as the Question Concerning the Essence of Language (Albany: SUNY Press, 2009).
[←5 ]
Martin Heidegger, Ponderings II–VI: Black Notebooks 1931–1938 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2016), Martin Heidegger, Ponderings VII–XI: Black Notebooks 1938–1939 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2017).
[←6 ]
Heidegger, Logic as the Question Concerning the Essence of Language.
[←7 ]
Heidegger, Logic as the Question Concerning the Essence of
Language.
[←8 ]
Destruction or phenomenological destruction as Heidegger understands it in Being and Time is the placement of ideas, theories, and statements into their historico-philosophical context, which, according to Heidegger, is the concrete process of the forgetting of being and abandonment of being.
[←9 ]
Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit.
[←10 ]
[The Russian text includes the original German passage. Here is Rojcewicz’s translation of the original: “The people: the guarding and carrying out of the empowerment of being. The empowerment out of the fearfulness of thrownness, whose first essential individuation remains precisely the people — and their great individuals. The essence of these individuals is to be grasped out of and in the individuation as people.”] Martin Heidegger, Ponderings II-VI: Black Notebooks 1931–1938 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014): 74 (230) [page 74, entry 230].
[←11 ]
Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Way: Introduction to the Fourth Political Theory (Moscow: Academic Project, 2014).
[←12 ]
[The Russian text includes the original German passage.]
[←13 ]
[The Russian text includes the original German passage. Here is Rojcewicz’s translation of the original: “The proper, but most remote goal: the historical greatness of the people in the effectuation and configuration of the powers of being. The more proximate goal: the coming to themselves of the people on the basis of their rootedness and their assuming of their mission through the state. The most proximate goal: the provisional creation of the community of the people — as the self of the people.” 100, sections 42–3.]
Political Platonism- the Philosophy of Politics Page 11