The Hourglass Analogy

In order to analogically illustrate the unique philosophical and civilizational situation of our times, and the peculiar position in which Tradition finds itself in the modern world, it is appropriate to employ what we have come to call the "Hourglass Analogy".

The general trajectory of a given civilization can be determined at its inception by the semantics upon which it was founded; these are the formative and defining principles that lie at the heart of a civilization, and determine its fundamental reference points and source of legitimacy. The semantics of a given civilization are the principles by which that civilization defines itself, and whereby it acquires the distinct combination of morals and ethics that determine its identity. They are those values upon which a civilization places an unyielding emphasis as being central to its character, regardless of how well it adheres to them in any substantial form; they are found and can be identified in the social maxims and in the common axiomatic proclamations that a civilization deems integral to its righteousness, the transgression of which is seen by its citizens and moral authorities as a betrayal of Truth itself, regardless of the true validity of this viewpoint. Regardless of whether or not they are commonly upheld in routine activity, these semantics are what legitimize all civilizational activity, and determine the “good” from the “bad” from the point of view of a particular civilization. Eventually the civilization directly reflects its semantics, and all of the contradictions in its moral or ethical standards are remedied accordingly. In other words, the semantics are the general philosophic principles that underpin the worldview of a particular civilization, established at the inception of that civilization, and supersede any preexisting standard, regardless of whether or not they are truly proper in any ontological sense.

Civilizational semantics can be distinguished either as Traditional or as Anti-Traditional by the way in which the principles they espouse possess the fundamental character of either category. Once any semantics of either type are adopted by a given civilization, they become formative of both its general attitude, and the trajectory on which that civilization is set. The fundamental difference at the center of this dichotomy is the way in which they answer the question of what we may call "True Ontological Propriety": the question of Essence and Existence, and which of these precede or derive from the other in an ontological sequence. It is this divide that determines whether or not that which is centrifugal to a given civilization is the Absolute or the Relative, the Universal or the Conditioned, Truth or Untruth, and whether or not their understanding of Reality is that of hierarchical integrity or of disassociated coincidence. Traditional semantics are those by which Essence is understood as ontologically precedent and qualitatively superior to Existence, and Anti-Traditional semantics are those by which Existence, understood in this sense as the temporal domain of physical bodies, precedes any type of Essential principle. In this clarification we must take special care to note that when we say "Existence" here, we are not referring to the "subsistent act of true Existence" by which God is understood according to Traditional philosophy, or outlined by Aquinas's Cosmological Argument; what we refer to here is strictly the temporal domain, which is understood in the contemporary zeitgeist as the highest degree of existence.

It is necessary to emphasize the importance in the fundamental difference between the general notions that differentiate Traditional from Anti-Traditional semantics. Readers of our other works will be familiar with the notion of the Traditional understanding of the relationship between Essence and Existence, or what we have clarified as Essence and Substance. According to the Traditional understanding of Reality itself, all things which possess existence derive their existence from a source, which is more fundamental and more universal than that to which it provides existence, and in turn this source also derives its existence in such fashion from an even more fundamental and universal principle, and this sequence continues until the point is reached at which there is a most fundamental and universal ontologically antecedent principle that provides existence to all things, including itself. This principle is the Total Unicity of All Things, which in philosophic terms we may characterize as the Monad, and which in religious terms is called God. According to this understanding, the supreme Total Unicity is Universal and Absolute; it is the a priori Total Universality by which all individuated principles and beings are provided their existence, and into which these principles and beings are incorporated in a particular way. Therefore, each individuation should be understood as a particular aspect of this Total Universality, necessitating a particular way in which it must become manifest in its existential mode. In other words, Total Universality exists first, and, in proper sequence, aspects of this Universality are isolated and subsequently removed from it, and from this process of removal results individual principles and beings, from which are removed even more relative and less universal principles and beings. The more universal and fundamental principle is, therefore, incorporative of the less universal and fundamental principle, including all of its properties, and thus it determines the way in which the lesser principle must be. In other words, the essence of a thing is produced from an ontologically superior position to that position in which the thing itself becomes manifest or is provided existence; Essence is a priori to Existence.

The importance of this is in the understanding that the essence of a given thing is the most ontologically proper version of that particular thing, that beings themselves are not accidental, and that their existence is not the result of a coincidence, but instead that they have a particular design into which they are incorporated, and a particular function to which they must adhere. Anything other than the complete and total alignment of a being with its essence or design is, in Traditional terms, and using this logic, considered improper. To adhere to its design is to properly participate, according to its mode, in the total design of Reality, and to transpose its archetype from the higher to the lower plane. Therefore in the Traditional understanding, the Archetype is the Real, and the being itself is merely a momentary manifestation or incarnation of the Archetype. Everything that exists has a proper function, is integrated some way into the total design of Reality itself, and has a way in which it may access, through its own archetypal fulfillment, the highest mode of being: in other words, the Monad. This type of activity is what we would consider to be a beings proper praxis.

When Essence is understood as a priori, the examination of principles is elevated to the objective and metaphysical plane that provides a positive affirmation to the existence of a "proper way of being" for any given thing. In other words, there is a proper way for a thing to be in the first place, prior to its existence.

On the other hand, when Existence is understood to precede Essence, then Essence does not exist but as a purely psychological notion produced by the human necessity to categorize subjects. According to this understanding of Reality, things exist to which we provide a purpose or function, and their existence outside of that is rather coincidental or accidental. There is no Total Universality, but rather different physical bodies that happen to exist at the same time as one another. Therefore, there is no proper way of being, according to these terms. Leaving aside the self contradicting nature of the non-existence of a source of existence, everything in this consideration is relegated to subjectivity, and no true conception of objective propriety even exists. Therefore, under this paradigm, there is not simply a negative affirmation to the question of ontological propriety, but a total negation of a valid objective standpoint from which to observe such a propriety.

Each of these notions are the product of a corresponding type of philosophical universalism by which Reality in its totality can be understood. These two types of universalisms supplement each other through a relationship of superiority and subordination in which one is incorporated within the other; each type concerns a particular domain, and the limited domain of the subordinated type is wholly incorporated into the wider domain of the superior type. Therefore, when the subordinated type is considered individually, outside the context of the superior one, it takes on a new significance as an incomplete point of reference lacking a holistic frame of consideration.

The superior type of universalism is what we call Holistic Monism, a consideration of Reality in its entirety as a singular unit that possesses a specific internal operation and corresponding formula to which all things must adhere. This is that same worldview by which all things are understood to be the result of a particular part of the Total Unicity of all things, metaphysically preordained to partake of existence according to a preestablished formula, and it is therefore the type of universalism from which Essence is determined to sequentially precede Existence. It is a consideration of All Things as they exist as Total Universality, in an a priori and essential state, prior to their existential state. Conversely, the subordinated type of universalism, which we may call Relativistic Atomism, is entirely focused on temporal Reality, and it relegates all metaphysics to the level of a purely notional or even merely mental significance. This is the type of universalism according to which all things partake of the same "ontological level" or "plane of existence", independent from any unicity, as this type is lacking the conception of any true Total Unicity to begin with. According to this type, as has been said, there is no truly proper way of being, and therefore all things are considered to be proper from their own particular point of view, equally valid, in an ontological sense, in a strife for hegemony among everything else; the quiddity of a thing does not manifest from an archetype, but instead represents the agency of a thing as a being that is independent of any ontological hierarchy of necessity or contingency, rendering any relationships it has with other things as accidental.

However, this conception of Relativistic Atomism, properly speaking, exists within the conception of Holistic Monism, at the existential, temporal, and quantitative degree; that is, the level at which existence is no longer eternal or archetypal, but cyclical and manifest. As long as the civilizational reference points are in that which is most fundamental, universal, and absolute, and as long as Reality itself is understood according to the conception of Holistic Monism, as a singular unit in which these various relativistic conceptions have a proper place, such conceptions pose no issue. The issue arises when those relativistic conceptions themselves become the key reference points themselves.

Returning to the subject matter of civilizational semantics, we can make the following outlines:

Traditional semantics are the product of the type of universalism we have called Holistic Monism. They revolve around the notion of a "proper way of being", which is understood as the activity necessary for a being to align correctly with its ontoloigcally superior archetype. Essence is understood to sequentially precede Existence, inasfar as Existence as understood in terms related to the temporal degree, as one might reference the existence of Essence in the first place, which is irrelevant here. Therefore, the most fundamental idea of Traditional semantics is that there is a single Quintessential Truth to Reality, which might also be described as that total design of Reality into which all things are incorporated, with which all things must be aligned. According to these semantics, this Truth is the most unquestionable principle of Reality itself, and it is understood that there are components of civilization that, when aligned with this Truth, provide a path to spiritual and physical actualization; likewise, this Truth is understood as the source of legitimacy for any type of activity whatsoever, including the equally unquestionable notion of Law. Everything about Traditional civilization is therefore oriented towards ensuring that every archetype is properly fulfilled. Nothing is understood to be the result of accident or happenstance. This permeates everything: the State is the mediator between Divinity and the people; Castes are understood as very real spiritual preordainments that persist as supra-personal aspirations which, in a dormant form, are the predispositions that are present in every individual to a certain proclivity; Man and Woman have an interdependent and distinct spiritual and physical purpose; hierarchy is understood as inherent to Reality itself, and therefore as a necessary adoption into human social organization. Therefore, Traditional societies are religious, spiritual, hierarchical, disciplined, and highly philosophical in the truest sense.

Anti-Traditional semantics are characterized by a relative quality: the rejection and repudiation of Traditional semantics. They are a product of a rejection of holism, and the adoption of the conception of Relativistic Atomism as the sole point of reference. The most important thing about Anti-Tradition is that it does not stand on its own; it lacks any substantial understanding of Reality, and is based in empirical observation and human reason alone, not only disregarding metaphysics entirely, but actively opposing them in conception. Thus, according to these semantics, there is no Absolute quality, and as an extension, there is no archetype necessitating fulfillment. The source of legitimacy cannot be identified, because it is completely relative, everything there-within is a psychological or social construct. There is no Quintessential Truth, nor is there any true design to Reality itself; Law is considered synonymous to contingent policy; castes do not exist, and aspiration is a completely spontaneous event; Man and Woman are completely interchangeable, and their differences are the fault of imperfect biological evolution; hierarchy is unnatural and unjust; actions are not made for the spiritual or metaphysical result they produce, but for the material one; physical pleasure is the legitimate reason behind all action, and any authority that restricts one's ability to receive this is oppressive and illegitimate. Therefore, Anti-Traditional societies are secular, materialistic, egalitarian, progressive, and ultimately idealist.

The main differentiating aspect between Tradition and Anti-Tradition is that Tradition sees the origin of Reality and all its components, including semantics themselves, as Divine, and Anti-Tradition cites a material source for all things. According to Tradition, there is a particular formula to Reality itself, with which it is one's duty to align, and according to Anti-Tradition, all human activity is composed of different constructs which can be changed on a whim; everything is at the behest of popular opinion, as opposed to anything truly substantial.

The dichotomy of Tradition vs. Anti-Tradition in the context of civilizational semantics can be represented by an hourglass, one end of which represents Traditional semantics, the other end Anti-Traditional semantics; the sand within represents the substance of the civilization, that is, its various formalisms and customs. When the hourglass is set upon one side, whether it be one or the other, those are the semantics that are present in that civilization, regardless of whether or not all the sand is at the base, or, in other words, regardless of whether or not the substance of that society is completely representative of its semantics. When the hourglass is flipped, there is a period of time in which the sand remains on one side, slowly falling to the other; the substance of the civilization does not immediately match its semantics once they are upset, rather it meets them over time, modifying its customs and institutions to fit their new criteria, and morphing from being the embodiment of one type of semantics to the other.

For most of human civilization, the hourglass was set upon the Traditional side. The sand fell towards it, and civilization remained the embodiment of Traditional semantics. At some point, whether it be the 8th Century BC, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment, the hourglass was flipped, and Anti-Tradition became the base of the hourglass. In due fashion, the sand fell from the Traditional half of the hourglass to the Anti-Traditional one, as society gradually transformed into the embodiment of its new orientation.

Modern societies and nations are built upon Anti-Traditional semantics, their source of legitimacy is popular approval and everything is oriented downwards onto the pleasures of the individual. Whether or not this is manifest in the formal substance of the society is dependent upon how deteriorated the traditions of the respective society is, or much sand is in the lower half, so to speak. The reason efforts to conserve a traditional viewpoint fail in the modern age is due much to the fact that the orientation of these "conservatives" is the same as the times in which they live, they hold and value the same semantics and try somehow to convince people to operate their way within them. Conservatism, in the American sense especially, does not want to flip the hourglass back to the Traditional side, but instead to put the sand back in the top half and attempt to hold it there. Liberty, individualism, human rights, equality, these are still the primary values of most "conservatives", not religiosity, noble aristocracy, authority, conformity, and most importantly, archetype and the total submission thereto, in both a biological and spiritual sense. While these semantics are still in use, conservative efforts will always be fighting on the back foot, virtue signaling the same way as its opponent, and failing at it, because they are attempting to defy their source of legitimacy while still retaining it, using the same terms and arguments.

Our goal must therefore be to flip the hourglass, not to move the sand. We must act upon different semantics, redefine "Good" and "Evil" as they stand to us, not attempt to embody them as they stand to our opponents. As long as we attempt to reason with or pander to those with whom we fundamentally disagree, we may as well not be doing anything. This is the first and most necessary step to establishing a Traditional order on a civilizational scale.