Section III. "Horizons of the new metaphysics and the Radical Self"

1. Concept Radical Self (Radikalniy Subyekt  in Russian – later RS)  is justified by the need to find a foothold in the situation of a global paradigm shift. When we, traditionalists, wonder why the Tradition gives way to the squalor of the modern world, we must give an absolute answer. Non-absolute answer does not suit us. The absolute answer is that there is something more important than Tradition, and this “something” wants the Tradition in a moment gone, and something that "wants" mean ... Thus was born the concept thesaurus of New Metaphysics basing on RS,  postsacral Will and the impossible reality.

2. What looks like a RS in the conventional tradition? It is similar to some the disturbing figure of very ancient persons who are still living, who are still present in the world... Such are Enoch, Idris, Melhisidek, Khizr, "the king of the world." In this case the PC corresponds to the immanent  but unchanging aspect of reality. That's the subtlety. We know that the transcendent does not change. This we readily admit, and there is no problem. On the contrary, all immanent changes,  is eternally mutating. All, but not all. Something remains unchanged in the flow of changes. Paradigm, the peoples, kingdoms, political systems, ideologies, even religions follow each other, but it's something all the same as it was. And not somewhere, but here, exactly here.

3. On the Neoplatonic language there is triad of monh, proodos, epistrofh. Persistence of high apophatic One, the procession of cosmogony (emanation) and return to One (enosis, Tawheed, qeosis). RS - it's monh, but not outside the world, but inside the world. It is the permanence and immutability, and secretly co-presence with proodos and epistrofh. This is vertical to the vertical (because the axis proodos - epistrofh  is vertical time, perpendicular to the usual - cycling - time, linear time does not exist). So it is monh but very particular one.

4. RS can be described in a shivaistic topic. Exhaling of Shiva  is the constitution of reality (as illusory separate). Inhalation of Shiva is the annihilation of reality (as illusory separate). But there is still hold of breathing, and this time it is Shiva as he is. The supreme identity can be reached by using anupayi, “lack of method”. The difference between "I" and Shiva is a pure illusion. It is not even worth destruction, because it has never happened in reality. This is a lightning strike. And all paths are equal - in penance and delight, in the meditation and disgust, in life or in death, either up or down. Nothing. Aghora’s and other kapalakas’ paths are an illustration of this attitude to peace.

5. Manifestation suggests that it has internal borders. This is a matter. When we reached this borders of cosmological manifestation our the soul should reverse its movement. And starts to climb. Or delay: so do the demons and Satan; they stick to the matter and are no in hurry to push from it as from the bottom. Thus is a hell created. It is logical: the absolute possibility explores its own limits, reaches them and come back to itself. But if there is another way than  this one? And if  there is no inner border? Then there is a way leading  below the matter, demons and hell. One breath below. RS is that who makes such a metaphysical experience on  the ontology of the border and the "border states".

6. Now, some words about the denotative multitude of New Metaphysics. New Metaphysics does not speak the language of Tradition, but the language of traditionalism. In short: denotations of traditionalism and neo-Platonism are the same. Accordingly, the New Metaphysics denotations are the same ones that denotations of Neoplatonism. This important statement: it is useless to think about the RS in other kinds of context, from there we will just slide down. RS makes sense as that which stands behind the veil of Neoplatonic world. This veil is woven by denotata. RS is hiding behind them. But it is behind them, not behind anything else.

7. Where the New Metaphysics is possible? In theory, everywhere. But in practice, only the here and now. It doesn’t transpire through the worlds of semantic consistency, which is replete with dense veil of denotations. Only when the reality is decomposed as a corpse, there appear the first features of RS. All the floors of the world are similar. They reflect the Original. Only at the bottom, at the end of Kali Yuga all resemblance to the Original is lost. It is a simulacrum - a copy without an original (by the way, purely platonic definition, though paradoxical). When world finally grew stupid, true consciousness is no longer overshadowed by a half consciousness. It's really possible to think only in the heart of Nothing.

8. The question of the legitimacy of using the word 'subject' in RS (“Radikalniy Subyekt”, literally Radical Subject). Evola, referring to something similar, says "I" or "radical I." He meant  not  "idealism," but something spiritually empiric. The same is the sense of Self or Subject in a New Metaphysics. If we turn to Gilbert Durand and his concept of "traject", which is taken as a starting point, we can speak of a “radical traject”, or even a radical Da-sein (Heidegger). This remark tries to precise that RS is not related to conventional philosophical subject or to the empirical human "I".

9. The problem of correlating the New Metaphysics and chaos. The concepts of chaos and of  structure (as fixed constants that elude the direct intellection) evoke vague associations with the  RS. RS is hiding behind the veil of intelligible sense of the world, and chaos is moving under the world, threatening from time to time its order. But the similarity doesn’t mean identity. Let us recall the problem of passing of the lower boundary of the world. Chaos is a matter,  xalled also space, cwra, flattened in the "Timaeus" to flat inintelligibily film. RS goes deeper into chaos, breaking down the film of matter, puncturing it. For RS all is the chaos. It provokes chaos wherever he drops his regards. And vice versa? Whether chaos provokes on RS? The essai on "corrosive waters” by Evola from "Introduction into the magic": sometimes evokes, but as usually not at all.

10. Where can we think about RS? Today, everywhere. We and the world are in the same position. Without a RS effectiveness of traditionalism and its struggle with post-modern world will be zero. It is equally central concept for social and geopolitical protest, as the "Capital" of Marx in XX century.