Wondering if anyone has read Philosophy of Right and had a good comprehension of it as to explain how others came about to be influenced by it, such as Marx, and what suppose to be taken from it (or what it's actually leaning towards). Before I read it I had read about Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre to which the author, in reference to Marx and Hegel, said that Marx took his philosophy, turned it upside down, inverted it, and made it materialistic (I don't remember the quote exactly), which must have really been the case. I'm 50 pages in, and thus far I actually find parallels with his views to that of praxeology and the subjective nature of Austrian economics. Throughout references to Kant are made, and I wonder if people like Menger and Mises took the same from Kant what Hegel did. But in no way can I understand how Marx took influence from Hegel besides Marx believing he was the next in line in the history of philosophy and that his philosophy would be the final in line. Any thoughts on this work of his?
You commented in my recent thread so I felt obliged to give some sort of response to yours. Unfortunately I haven't yet read any of Hegel (and as you probably could tell, atm am attempting to finish Menger and part of Bohm Bawerk). I have an Austrian School oriented friend however who has been quite interested in Hegel's philosophy, and I believe sees in it a kind of liberalism. Here's the link to his site:
http://www.jacobroundtree.com/
In any case, he might be a useful person for you to get in touch with.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
I haven't reached the section on the state yet, which is at the end, but so far when it comes to individuality, free will, and morality, it comes off very libertarian-ish and at this point I'm surprised he hasn't been discussed much more on the subject of classical liberalism. The link you posted seems pretty thorough.
Haven't read the particular book in question, but I kind of know Hegel, and I'm familiar with Kant. Kant's ideas about choice set the ground for the rest of the existentialists, and I read it as a reinforcement of positive liberty instead of just strong negative liberty. Satre has always been my preferred cup of tea though.
I used to have a bit of interest in existentialism, or at least agreed with some of it, til I read Ride the Tiger from Julius Evola. Gives some interesting critiques on Nietzsche and Sartre.
At this point it'd be pretty hard to get me off the existential train, but I'll give that book a look. What's the basic premise?
deleted
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
What's the basic premise?
You can read about it here, and probably get an idea from the chapter/section titles. He's a controversial figure though due to his views on culture, race, and politics, which puts him in the "fringe" section of the Traditionalist school, but this actually has increased his popularity.
Mods: Disregard this, I thought I was on my "banned" account thinking the ban was up.
Wow, sounds pretty intense. From glancing it seems pretty reactionary.
Sounds like nonsense to me.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Reactionary? Yes. Though I see existentialism a by-product of the modern world, and the modern world is lost and in decay, and trying to find a meaning to an existence already fallen is no more closer to "truth" than the current state. Modern philosophy and sub-cultures are just reactions trying to find a purpose in something that's far from living, but only pushes itself further away from the truth.
You'll assume it's nonsense without reading it? Elaborate? You won't be the first to critique Evola without ever reading his works on this forum.
Bert:You'll assume it's nonsense without reading it? Elaborate? You won't be the first to critique Evola without ever reading his works on this forum.
This struck me as nonsense:
Wikipedia:Evola believes that the modern world has become totally corrupt and that the institutions and traditions of the ancient world that once allowed a person to fully realize his being have been lost. [Emphasis added.]
So yeah, why should I even bother reading it?
"Wondering if anyone has read Philosophy of Right and had a good comprehension of it as to explain how others came about to be influenced by it, such as Marx, and what suppose to be taken from it (or what it's actually leaning towards). Before I read it I had read about Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre to which the author, in reference to Marx and Hegel, said that Marx took his philosophy, turned it upside down, inverted it, and made it materialistic (I don't remember the quote exactly), which must have really been the case."
This is a really good question. Here is the answer from my understanding.
Both Marx and Hegel both believed in an underlying animus in the development of history. For Hegel is what the "Spirit," for Marx it was the division of labor. They were both dialectical thinkers which makes they conceived of a systematic model that would explain whole episodes. Now the difference between the two is that Hegel thought in the abstract. The spirit or will exist throughout human history but it isn't something actually tangible. Marx thought in the material world and had a strong dislike of the abstract. Hegel believed that philosophy could only explain the past while Marx thought it would explain the past, present and future.
A great book on this topic is Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism volume I The Founders or you could also try Robert C. Tucker's Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx
If you are interested in knowing more about Hegel then I suggest listening to David Gordon's lecture on him which can be found here
I wouldn't suggest reading the Philosophy of Right unless you REALLY REALLY want to use a primary source. Hegel's writing is just terrible and some think he does it on purpose to further obscure the fact he doesn't know what he is talking about.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
"I haven't reached the section on the state yet, which is at the end, but so far when it comes to individuality, free will, and morality, it comes off very libertarian-ish and at this point I'm surprised he hasn't been discussed much more on the subject of classical liberalism. The link you posted seems pretty thorough."
For Hegel?
No no. Hegel is definitely not a libertarian or even a classical liberal. To him the state is the greatest expression of the will and all must be subservient to that.
Hegel is a very complex thinker. On a personal note he may be the most difficult reading I have ever encountered. He has his own lingo and terminology, and if you are in this to learn “What Hegel was actually thinking”, or you are just trying to “study Hegel” - be prepared for a time consuming hobby. Seriously some people spend the better part of their academic careers just studying the dude. The people who are recommending reading a books (or even worse 1 book) immediately against Hegel – or the “quick and easy libertarian/ Rothbardian dismissal of “The true philosophy of Hegel” ought be ignored as quickly as the recommendation is read. It's counter productive at this point.
As for Menger:
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/book/austrian_philosophy/CH10.pdf
This is a good start
Also as an inference – Max Weber does have his influence on the Austrian school. He was certainly an idealist, but I think he was more Kantian, though I wouldn't doubt he was influenced by Hegel positively some way or another.
In regards to your confusion of Marx and Hegel. As I said Hegel is a complex man. And here we are getting into the whole stream of Left-Hegelian. There is a process here and the end result is the three giants of Feuerebach, Stirner, and Marx. All of them used the dialectic and they all used Hegelian terms and concepts (alienation, master-slave, etc). Marx himself also had an evolution of thought where he tended to use less and less direct Hegelian words...but the concepts are still there. The geneology is still there. From Hegel to Marx. If you really want to get into Marx's relation with the German Idealism maybe read his work “The German Ideology” where it shows his relation with various left-Hegelians and shows a critical moment in his thought process.
As for what comes directly from “The Philosophy of Right”. I don't know, as I haven't read it. If you really want I guess I can tell you most of the concepts of Bauer and Feuerbach.; perhaps everything by Stirner, and at least some of the things by Marx. I have enough references at my house to look up what came from where. It would take some time, but it may be a fun little project.
As for the Evola stuff. If you get into this whole dilectic thing, and follow it down to the down and dirtiest of the left-Hegelians - you should see why anything he says will not stand. I think all of these guys in a sense take precedence over not only lightweights such as Dawkins,Comte, Russel or whoever but due to their keen psychologisms, insights on nature(including human), and amazing systematic thinking they are better than the heaviest of the heavy weights be it the postivists or Nietzsche himself (but to be fair I think Mises is probably better at dispelling "spooks" than Nietzsche - so take that as you will). But that's your own project, and my own two cents on that. I'm not here to argue it, and that will be my last word on such a thing.
I once tried to read Hegel, the thing I could understand is that he has some sick spirit fetish.
I'll probably check those two books out. I first read about Hegel before reading Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre and I thought it explained his philosophy pretty well. I got sidetracked from reading, but I'm up to the section on civil society, but everything he said about the individual, property, and subjectivity didn't seem tolitarian or heavily statist. I can understand what people mean in him being rather complex and the way he words things seems overly complex to explain a basic point.
As for the Evola stuff. If you get into this whole dialectic thing, and follow it down to the down and dirtiest of the left-Hegelians - you should see why anything he says will not stand.
What do you mean?
Wikipedia: Evola believes that the modern world has become totally corrupt and that the institutions and traditions of the ancient world that once allowed a person to fully realize his being have been lost. [Emphasis added.] So yeah, why should I even bother reading it?
Why shouldn't you bother reading it? I don't have to argue one position or another, but I agree with that statement.
"I'll probably check those two books out. I first read about Hegel before reading Hegel in From Socrates to Sartre and I thought it explained his philosophy pretty well. I got sidetracked from reading, but I'm up to the section on civil society, but everything he said about the individual, property, and subjectivity didn't seem tolitarian or heavily statist. I can understand what people mean in him being rather complex and the way he words things seems overly complex to explain a basic point."
Well Hegel's writing is so confused that it doesn't surprise that someone thinks Hegel leans towards liberal ideas. Keep reading about him, you will come to understand what I mean.
That the dialectic is the most appropriate method to find any supernatural position wanting. Like I said, that was more of an appendix to anything, and I'm not concerning myself with discussing it any further.
"That the dialectic is the most appropriate method to find any supernatural position wanting. Like I said, that was more of an appendix to anything, and I'm not concerning myself with discussing it any further."
Well the dialectical model itself is found wanting. So to say that dialectical method finds fault with anything beyond the material is a misnomer.
OK.
Have you read Evola's critique on Sartre and Nietzsche or just assuming a position?
C'mon man, I already stated I am not looking for a fight. I was pointing out a systematic approach to talking about reality - and than I made one passing comment how it might relate to Evola (and said it was up to you to think about it, not me)...and I got a Rothbardian and an Evolite itching for a debate because I am not in line with their hobby. This is not my purpose for this thread. This type of attitude ought to set off alarms in your head.
This is my final word on any of this so a couple comments:
1) To answer your direct question, I have no clue. I have read bits and chunks of Evola and all I can remember was he believed in ghosts and had another "grand theory" of history (I think he put in gold silver bronze ages no less). I am pretty sure I've ready many of his types before, many focus on a critique of "modernity", "the Enlightenment", or bring up Descates and make him the whooping boy on a long and pointless narrative work. This happens from "spiritualists" (whatever the hell that means), to pretentious cranks like Walter Kaufmann, to left wing Frenchmen who have nothing to say and are pissed aboutthat very fact like Lacan. This is the "moral" hazard of "continetal" philosophy.
2) More to the point, everything Evola said about Nietzsche and Sartre is 100% moot to anything I said. They have nothing to do with Hegelianism of any stripe. I am no Nietzschean (nor do I consider him a philosopher outside of Geneology of Morality, just a brilliant social critic - which makes everyone of these dudes who focus on Nietzsche odd to me, and maybe even dubious.) I certainly have nothing good to say about Sartre or existentialism. I was talking about a systematic philosophy with systematic philosophers, and I made one passing comment how it could relate to Evola.
C'mon man, I already stated I am not looking for a fight.
Neither am I, I'm looking for a discussion. Evola came up in subject, you made a statement, seems like a good discussion piece.
I have read bits and chunks of Evola and all I can remember was he believed in ghosts and had another "grand theory" of history.
I'm a bit lost on that. Maybe you were reading something from him on his interest in Eastern religions, or you snabbed something from him about occultism, but that doesn't reflect him on a whole (or Traditionalism on a whole).
Everything else you said is all I need, just an elaboration on what you previously stated.
Bert:Why shouldn't you bother reading it? I don't have to argue one position or another, but I agree with that statement.
Wait, which statement do you agree with?
The one you posted from Wiki, "Evola believes that the modern world has become totally corrupt and that the institutions and traditions of the ancient world that once allowed a person to fully realize his being have been lost."
That quote is true, depending on how you define "lost." I hate marx, but his linking of the alienation of modern society to a job is what supports his bankrupt ideology, even today. To deny that modern humans are spiritually broken is to deny the modern world.
OK cool, sorry if I sounded pissy. To clarify, Evola is nowhere near what I wanted to focus on for this thread - just dry falsifing or verifing sources / clarification points in Hegel and how it relates to people you mentioned.
just an elaboration on what you previously stated
Are you asking me to elaborate on something I said, or stating you are content with all the info I provided on Hegelianism?
I'm content with what you posted.
Bert:The one you posted from Wiki, "Evola believes that the modern world has become totally corrupt and that the institutions and traditions of the ancient world that once allowed a person to fully realize his being have been lost." [Emphasis added.]
What does the emphasized part mean to you? I can't make any sense of it myself.
This is one of those things where you have to figure it out yourself. It can mean a lot to me, but to someone else who doesn't know, they won't know (it's redundant, I know). You can ask yourself if you've reached your full being, or a higher state of [insert whatever here]. What the point of your existence is, what your world view is, how you stand in "society", what you represent, etc
Bert:This is one of those things where you have to figure it out yourself. It can mean a lot to me, but to someone else who doesn't know, they won't know (it's redundant, I know). You can ask yourself if you've reached your full being, or a higher state of [insert whatever here]. What the point of your existence is, what your world view is, how you stand in "society", what you represent, etc
But I asked what it means to you. So what's your take on it?
Anytime I hear/read statements like Wikipedia's paraphrasing of Evola's thesis, I sense an implicit claim that "fully realizing one's being" is an objective notion - that is, "fully realizing one's being" is claimed to be a fact about the world. I see absolutely no evidence for such a claim being true.
What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.
A lot of things. Fully realize my being? Not being conditioned by materialism and "lower" culture, finding a "higher" sense of being, living, and "enlightment" that has a positive impact on myself. To not succumb to the modern world and it's problems. Not being dictated by forces outside of my knowing.
I don't take it as objective.
...and here lies the active nihilism of existentialism.
Bert:[It means a] lot of things. Fully realize my being? Not being conditioned by materialism and "lower" culture, finding a "higher" sense of being, living, and "enlightment" that has a positive impact on myself. To not succumb to the modern world and it's problems. Not being dictated by forces outside of my knowing.
... Okay then. As long as you're not trying to force that meaning on others.
Bert:I don't take ["fully realizing one's being"] as objective.
Then you necessarily agree with me that there's no objective point to anyone's existence.
Bert: Autolykos:What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it. ...and here lies the active nihilism of existentialism.
Autolykos:What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it.
Can you explain what you mean by "active nihilism", or even just "nihilism"? Then can you explain why it's apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply?
Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.
Far from it. Forcing anything on anyone doesn't work, and forcing something that can be seen as rather abstract is far from productive.
I meant that to fully realize one's being is subjective, it can be subjective to the individual to what they may reach. When you ask if there's an objective point to someone's existence I feel like these are those questions that have sprung up in the past hundred (or 2 or 3 hundred) years when people forgot what they lived for (or maybe the past thousand years during the conversion of NW Europe), and you have existential philosophies trying to find the answer that push further into an abyss and far from an answer.
Can you explain what you mean by "active nihilism", or even just "nihilism"? Then can you explain why it's apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply? Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.
Well, to this statement:
By defining by whatever laws you want you can make up as you go regardless of anything. What structure and foundation do you have? You could change it at any time to fit your wants or needs, and what is the purpose, what's the goal, what do you build towards with that? What ethics do you fall upon?
I'll quote Evola from Ride the Tiger on the extreme end of that spectrum:
This trend appeared with the "teddy boys," with their German analogs the Halbstarken, and the generazione delle macerie [generation of rubble]. Their style was one of aggressive protest, expressed through vandalism and lawless actions valued as "pure acts" in cold witness to their otherness. On the Slavic countries there were the "hooligans." More significant was the American counterpart, the "hipsters" and the Beat generation. Rather than intellectual attitudes, these were existential positions lived out by the young, of which a certain type of novel is merely a reflection. Compared to the British types, they were more cold and unadorned, more corrosive in their opposition to everything pseudo-orderly, rational, and coherent-everything that was "square," meaning solid, justified, and safe. They showed "a destructive, voiceless rage," as somebody put it, a contempt for "those incomprehensible characters who are capable of being seriously involved with a woman, a job, a cause". The absurdity of what is considered normal, "the organized insanity of the normal world," seemed all the more evident to the hipsters in the climate of industrialization and frenetic activity that, despite all the triumphs of science, was meaningless. Alienation from their surroundings, absolute refusal to collaborate or to have any defined position in society were the rule in this milieu, which did not only include the young, and which recruited its members not only from the lower classes but from all social levels, including the wealthy. Some preferred a new form of nomadic existence; others, to live at the most elementary level. The methods used by the hipsters to survive the existential void through strong sensations included alcohol, sex, jazz, high speed, drugs, and even acts of gratuitous criminality like those suggested in Breton's surrealism. They did not fear experiences of any kind, but sought them out to "receive tremendous blows on their own selves". The books of Jack Kerouac and the poetry of Allen Ginsberg were inspired in part by this climate.
To the existentialist, or to anyone with ethics that are not grounded, not held up by tradition or established cultural norms, or are essentially made up out of thin air, what position is their to do anything, except live for the moment with no thought for the future? The quote about would be an example of a nihilistic position lived out by people who see that their purpose and ethics can be changed to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. It seemed Sartre even had trouble and was conflicted with the position of existential ethics, because in the end there's nothing to fall back on (what's the foundation?).
Bert:Far from it. Forcing anything on anyone doesn't work, and forcing something that can be seen as rather abstract is far from productive.
Well at least we agree on this. So it looks like our ensuing discussion will be "academic".
Bert:I meant that to fully realize one's being is subjective, it can be subjective to the individual to what they may reach. When you ask if there's an objective point to someone's existence I feel like these are those questions that have sprung up in the past hundred (or 2 or 3 hundred) years when people forgot what they lived for (or maybe the past thousand years during the conversion of NW Europe), and you have existential philosophies trying to find the answer that push further into an abyss and far from an answer.
If "fully realizing one's being" is subjective, then there's no objective grounding to it, is there? So then what (objective) position is there to reach for anything, except for the next moment with no thought for the future? Of course, I'd say that there is none and be done with it.
Bert: Autolykos:Can you explain what you mean by "active nihilism", or even just "nihilism"? Then can you explain why it's apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply? Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here. Well, to this statement: Autolykos:What's the point of my existence? Objectively speaking, there is no point. So that means it's up to me to define it however I want, and there's no way to be (objectively) wrong about it. By defining by whatever laws you want you can make up as you go regardless of anything. What structure and foundation do you have? You could change it at any time to fit your wants or needs, and what is the purpose, what's the goal, what do you build towards with that? What ethics do you fall upon?
Autolykos:Can you explain what you mean by "active nihilism", or even just "nihilism"? Then can you explain why it's apparently necessarily a bad thing, as you obviously imply? Nevertheless, and as I noted above, you seem to implicitly agree with me here.
Objectively speaking, there is no necessary structure or foundation. However, human nature neither infinitely variable nor infinitely malleable. My own ethics follow from the notions of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, but those are just premises in terms of formal (logical) reasoning. There's no force in the universe which makes us bound to hold those premises, and no other, as true.
Bert:I'll quote Evola from Ride the Tiger on the extreme end of that spectrum: [Snipped quote.] To the existentialist, or to anyone with ethics that are not grounded, not held up by tradition or established cultural norms, or are essentially made up out of thin air, what position is their to do anything, except live for the moment with no thought for the future? The quote about would be an example of a nihilistic position lived out by people who see that their purpose and ethics can be changed to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. It seemed Sartre even had trouble and was conflicted with the position of existential ethics, because in the end there's nothing to fall back on (what's the foundation?).
[Snipped quote.]
No system of ethics is grounded. They all rely upon one or more premises - propositions that are simply assumed as true. People are, at least in theory, physically able to indeed change their purpose and ethics to suit whatever current trend or sensation they want to live out at that moment. The apparent fact that more people don't actually do so is a testament to the power of our "moral instincts" IMHO. Of course, that has nothing to do with philosophy.
I suppose until I finish Philosophy of Right this will be of discussion.
Do you think or believe there is something more to the material to reach a "higher" state of being, or that this plane is it, and you can only move forward in time not transcending states of knowledge and worth?
Would a foundation or structure be necessary? I have ethics regarding the material which is also self-ownership and non-aggression, but as you say nothing bounds me to those, but I can explain a foundation and structure for those and why I believe they are in some way superior, or more noble or moral or honorable than another.
If more people don't act according to their own will to whatever suits them (for whatever sensations they want) then they fall back on moral instincts, but it could also fall back on social/cultural/traditional norms they have formed a structure and foundation.
I want to use another quote that I find rather relevant from Plato's Republic.
Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent.
There is no "higher" What is, is... all and all unto itself as itself, for itslef, and from it's own "creative nothing" from which it sprung. This is basic, basic, basic sociological and obvious thinking. At the very "least" everyting else self refutes, and the best I can do is come up with word limiters like "determinism", "materialism", "will to power", or 100 other such terms to counteract nonsense phrasing - as a blood pressure medication can constrict or dilate the flow of blood to a various heart diagnosis, I can at best determine the type of category of nonesense. "Higher" or "lower" to self makes no sense... time to being, makes no sense. Logic of words and consequences of actions does .. Basic observation ought to confirm that at all times, at every time (if not I will say you are lying or mad). The funny thing is how this apes and flips idealism and rationalism on it's head i nto a radical empiricism hat the "hobby horse" scientism critics critics of Austrianism just don't get, nor do I expect them to...in the end, it is good to sound like the bastard grandchild of Spinoza though.
This is fairly mainstream stuff- the problem is people just tend not to associate it with economics, sociology, or psycology because it happens to not quite be in the priestly language of our time
Look here the three sociological basics in life:
1) War of all against all. barbarians in loin clothes . This won't happen as it simply isn't our nature, we're to smart and self interested for such silly notions - and not enough people play D&D and care about Norse myths that aren't real norse myths.
2) Small tribal communal orginizations. This won't happen in full either. We are too smart, self interested, or prosperous for this at this point. Leftist priestly language can hurt us, but not fuck us over this bad, as this is essentially a nonsense sociological position.
3) "boring' technocratic, bourgoise, epicurean, capitalistic, modern, rationalistic, liberalism. This is essentially the world, and forever more probably always will be. We are just trying to figure out the minor details the details at the moment and find out how to deal with the "leftist priestly language' that dominates culture. After that we are even more set and in the gravey than we already are...bonus!
Due to the amazing wealth created and division of labor -this world gives schlubs like us leisure time to do our worthless metaphysics on the state of "man' and 'the world'
There is no "higher"
Do you ever look at culture and see it as "higher" or "lower", that something could degenerate over time, and what or how that culture could have affected or conditioned someone to think a certain way?
This won't happen as it simply isn't our nature, we're to smart and self interested for such silly notions - and not enough people play D&D and care about Norse myths that aren't real Norse myths.
Uh, what? As far as my 'religion' goes I'm a [reconstructionist] Heathen, so I'm a bit confused on this. (Probably because I don't equate a board game with myth and culture and it's embarrassing when I get these comparisons because people aren't familiar with Heathenry and now people are more familiar with a myth-butchering comic book movie about a Teutonic god than the actual myths.)
Small tribal communal orginizations. This won't happen in full either. We are too smart, self interested, or prosperous for this at this point. Leftist priestly language can hurt us, but not fuck us over this bad, as this is essentially a nonsense sociological position.
In Heathenry there's kindreds which probably could count as "small tribal communal organizations", but I don't think kindreds are any different than a church or temple gathering.
On the rest of what you said I'm a bit confused on the point you're trying to make, seems to be a battle of semantics.
Nothing is more to me than myself. And that is not an aesthetic, but a very real inescapable ontological fact.
As far as the other stuff - I guess when I get really drunk I like to ramble on in internet theology. Either way, all these forms of thinking about "transedence" are the same to me - they are all just as wrong no matter how "sophisticated" they think they feel. The fact that they retreat to esotericism is even more baffling to me.
The only use/ way I can call one better in some way over the other is if they can make more money for their entertainment value via art, psychologism, or whatever. Though I do find it odd one would call themselves an ultra reactionary term like heathen - not even the "heathens" you aren't imitating called themselves that...unless you are reading crazy revisionist history to support your aesthetic. If so, whateves.
If you want to call your self an "aristocrat of the soul" or the emperor of China - sure...but there is nothing you can say or do to make that relevant in any way that matters. Esotericism is bunk, everything conservative/reactionary, religous, transendental "poetic", immeterial or whatever has been refuted in practice, word, and basic basic everyday observations seven ways to Sunday. Say what you will about leftists, at least they know how to manipulate "priestly"/psychological languages to gain in actual social position and currency - which is real power. Not only that I bet their best "priests" sell better than Evola anyway which makes them better.