What did Evola mean when he spoke of transcendence? I'm reading his work right now and I'm a bit stumped by this.
transcendence means bringing together all your energies and capacities under the discretion of a unified will, which is founded on the absolute, unconditioned nakedness of one's Being, the consciousness that presupposes all mental content, the I-that-is-I
Thank you for giving me an answer...but I'm still not 100% sure if get it because I don't really speak continental. So, is transcendence like a combination of all of your will that is based around some higher idea of the self? Am I understanding this correctly or am I way off?
Yes, it's bringing everything in your power towards the embodiment of an ideal, of what is the highest realization
of yourself. It's aligning yourself to what is unconditioned and ground of the conditioned.
It's not exactly Nietzche's ubermensch per se. Both affirm the individual's primordial Being in a messy world of Becoming, but while Nietzche is only interested in "living more", Evola's Aryan is always moving towards what is "more than life"
Sure, but the reason why it's so high quality is because it's lived in accordance to what is higher than life. So an action is done well for its own sake, and not for any other reason. It's what the Bhagavad Gita and Tao mean by the "action of non-action", or Kierkegaard's "moving with infinity". The action is maximally lived, done with pure motive, and totally expends itself and leaves nothing behind, like worrying about the result
Thanks again. Evola isn't really the monster j was expecting him to be. I think I'm getting a better understanding of it. I'm not sure why doing the action most effectively for its own sake is higher than life though. Are you an Evolian/Radical Traditionalist?
I like what he has to say but I'm not crazy about labels.
When you're detached, paradoxically, you perform better, and this eventually translates to your whole life. The idea is the pull or gravity of samsaric existence just doesn't drag you down as much anymore, so even though you're in it, you're not of it, and that's what's meant by living more than life
No. just read the book.
The union is only an explanation for how egos could cooperate. You could live your entire life with spooked individuals and take advantage of all their spooks.
The upward stuff has to do with searching for a higher purpose, right? And that but about the inner struggle, is that about self-discipline and resisting the temptations of modernity?
If I dong make threads about him on /lit/, where do you suggest I go to learn about him?
>If I dong make threads about him on /lit/, where do you suggest I go to learn about him?
You shouldn't listen to some faggot on /lit/ saying whether you should be making threads on /lit/ or not.
Evola would have agreed.
Also I have Guenon complete works on my Kindle
>anything remotely masculine, intellectual AND non-modern
zero awareness: the post
All I hear from them are complaints about non-white people, jews, plebs, so-called "degenerates" and "SJWs"
They seem to wish to rid society of these things, but how would they do this without going towards fascism/nazism/etc.
If they don't wish for Fascism or nazism or anything similar, then, what do they want?
>lol hurr Nazis hurr
For once I'd like to come on this board and have someone disagree with me by actually refuting points instead of posting buzzfeed-caricatures of philosophies they never read
First of all, don't confuse /pol/ autists with actual men of Tradition. A real man doesn't spend half his day posting about niggers, cucks, and jews.
Second, nothing external can save you. Nazism and fascism have nothing to do with this. The solution is a new, inner orientation towards what uplifts oneself as a human being, and not hoping for some pie in the sky government to make all the bad men go away
Read Moldbug's gentle intro to UR.
also this: http://freenortherner.com/2015/11/06/what-is-neoreaction/
The way to achieve Moldbug's aims is accelerating the current "decline" which is where Nick Land comes in. Land built an entire metaphysics that is purely materialist. For this, read Fanged Noumena, then Land's blog.
/pol/'s Meme-magic would be an example of the accelerationist methods currently used on 4chan.
all essential reading. I'd throw in Esther Vilar for good measure since /lit/, being a bunch of bookish nerds with little experience regarding the fairer sex, still harbors enlightenment-period white knight delusions about women
No, neoliberal atheists / humanists / feminists / euphoric buzzfeed enthusiasts like yourself are fedora
Not that anon but the reasoning goes that if Trump wins it would only slow things down, not end them, and in order for there to be a revamp of the system we need to skip to the Rome-tier collapse. Hillary is not only the embodiment of the status quo but she is such a bad candidate she actually has the potential to accelerate the decline and cause the eventual collapse of the West. She is everything wrong with the Western neoliberal system
Left wingers outrank pretty much everyone in terms of pathetic levels.
But Evolafags are usually just hipster autists anyway, more interested in saying that they read things, than actually understanding things. Like most /lit/izens but right wing.
>world history never changes, it only ever repeats meme
>we're totally going to get invaded by the modern Visigoths because Hilary won
If Hilary wins all she'll do is enforce greater government surveillance, and attempt to ban guns, and speech however she can.
Also, start bombing any country that doesn't tow the line.
The US will keep on running and it will for at least 50 more years unless someone in the government get's cocky and wants to go full dictator.
You won't have your Rome tier collapse, things will keep on running, maybe a bit shittier than before.
How about, get off of your high fucking horse, people will post whatever they want. How the fuck else am I supposed to hear about Evola and his re-wording of a recycled philosophy. if anything, he merely makes something that should be simple to understand, sound a lot more complex than what it really is. This statement is based off of what I've ascertained so far in this thread. His philosophies align with those judeo-christian lifestyle teachings, it's funny really. Everyone who stumbles upon this ideology thinks they're the shit.
I can smell your machiatto from here
Living life in reference to what is more than life, the transcendent. The expansion of consciousness, not in a hippy sense, but awakening. It's conquering your lower nature. It's basing your integrity as a human being on one's Being, the still, unshakeable point that is the master of itself.
A man like this is too dignified, has too much integrity to fap to futa like a degenerate, or lose his temper over little things, or have a million different things in his mind when he should be focusing on what he's doing in the present moment.
Caring about what makes a Real Man (tm) is for nigger single mothers and involuntary celibates exclusively, and the definition of Real Man (patent pending) always boils down to "doing what passes as noble by my made up bullshit standards"
Evola didn't bring his work into Academia through the front door with peer review so much as throw it over the fence. But he did utilise a positive nihalist epistemology influenced heavily by heideggerian Dasein. I suggest Dugin's Fourth Political Theory, he considers it an extension of Evolian thought
Is this where you start pretending I don't live in the inner city because I don't hate blacks? That's where you new right retards usually go when you baselessly accuse people of being rich.
The American so called Left and Right are both really just factions of the Liberal Capitalist hegemony. Only radicals on the periphery of todays metaideology will have any footing for thinkers like Evola
You're right that in the sense that evola preaches the spirit of Jesus' teachings in some respects, but he feels the theistic god is an obstacle to true awakening. The externalisation of anything, even as something as sacred as one's felt relationship with the Absolute, is also it's bastardization
I was walking past this degenerate black today when he had the pittance of false-guilt to muster an excused and breathless apology. Naturally according to the translocation of my vastly superior will I struck back. A gesture of post-conceit "thanks I guess" and he was gone - thank the devil for that!
I can't figure out what Evola is supposed to believe regarding God. It sounds like he's just "spiritual". I also don't see what his teachings have in common with Jesus, who was a pacifist proto-AnCom
Well Evola didn't think that God was an allegory for this neutrality of logical thinking. Am I on the right path so far? Evola believes in that right? Neutral logical thought that drives excellence naturally? or am i way off? lol
Only a pampered little baby thinks being a noble person and a pillar of the community is just a meme. I'm tired of hipster faggots like you debating with /pol/ phantoms soon as anything vaguely reactionary gets brought up. Make an argument or fuck off
He makes the distinction between the external, theistic God, and the inner, metaphysical one which is founded on the experience of the eternal "I" that presupposes all the small, contingent Is of the ego. A metaphor I like to use is you are not your thoughts - or else you would cease to exist the next time you're "in the zone" - you are the space your thoughts take place in.
A man who roots himself in this principle, who affirms himself in the deepest, metaphysical sense, is beyond getting pulled around by the vicissitudes of the conditioned reality
It's a microcosm of /lit/ as a whole
2 or 3 people arguing who have actually read the material being discussed and the rest of the thread is meme responses from retards who don't even read
So he believed in a personal God that is within all of us and is an extension of our identity? And belief in this God and in yourself allows you to overcome the challenges and pettiness of modernity?
His works on National Bolsheivism are not that interesting for the Occidental reader, plus his anti-Transatlanticism means Anglo-Americans of all colours hate him; the primary reasons he hasn't been published much in English until recently (although his work in Germany has been available much longer).
Personally I'm ambivilant towards him, he's much less considered than ENR thinkers like de Benoist but there is a reason he is the foremost thinker in Russia today, 4PT is certainly a must read for anyone with an interest in Traditionalism and alternative anti-capitalism
As though it were a question of essentialist geopolitical splits in a scientific approach?
His philosophy is an ideological crutch for a post-soviet state. He's not published because there is nothing worth publishing.
I'm reading both and both are perfectly clear , even if Heidegger is a bit long-winded. Christ the reading level on this board is pathetic
Yes, personal in the sense that what can save us only exists inside us. You're not literally talking to yourself instead of praying to cross or whatever.
Evola constantly remarks about how his books are only for a certain race of the spirit. the man who has a certain tendency of character or core of identity that persists through and beyond lust, anger, passion, greed etc. All men have an ape and a man inside of them, as Evola writes, but the Tradition is for the man whose disgusted with the ape's appetite when he comes to his senses.
When you finally make a decision to not feed the mechanicities of your consciousness - literally what is blind, insatiable, and conditioned within you, your little slice of animal nature that all humans have by virtue of being biological organisns - then you're on the path to awakening.
When forces no longer act through you ("it's not you that decides to have another shot of Hennessy, it's the Hennessy that wants another shot of Hennessy), but you act upon THEM, that's when you know something's changed. The balance has shifted
The western scaremongering over his vague role in Russian politics greatly contrasts with the reality of his writing sorry to inform you. If he was Pro-West but still with the same principles as Putins "Rasputin", he's be much more celebrated among the Anglocentric elite
Okay, feel free not to give him a look. I have the challange the notion he's not accesible though, his work has been widely translated online since the mid 90's, his 4PT site has hundreds of hours of reading in english
It is. Which is why we are not worshipping our earthly selves, but the transcendent consciousness that presupposes all atomized consciousnesses. Even then, worship is the wrong word
I'm glad it makes sense. Explaining this stuff to you helps me order my thoughts too. Evola is very dense
Dude like for real I read ride the fucking tiger, I can understand why you people might appreciate his works but consider the fact that some professor has to lecture to you and a trenchcoat is very off putting and holy fuck hahahahaha yeah okay so let's see a list of ethnographic studies utilizing his work oh - oh - oh - oh no oh dear...
It's the I-that-is-I. Let me give you an example. You have a lot of Is, the I you show to your parents, friends, Co-workers etc. It's obviously not the case that in between these meeting your friend and going to work or whatever you cease to exist. There is a consciousness that is the space for all of your contingent selves. It's not the I-that-is-a-student-and-lover-and-valedictorian whatever yadda yadda , it's the I-that-is-I, the mind that presupposes the existence of many minds in the first place. It is the ineffable, transcendent state of a consciousness whose object is consciousness itself. What can harm consciousness? How could the weight of conditioned existence ever harm that original purity of your Being, unless of course, you let it?
It's very Buddhist. And it's not something you can intellectualize yourself into feelings. You have to know it in your bones.
I was going through a really tough time in my own life when I imagined on a whim one day, what the day would look like the morning after my death. I imagined the sky I was looking at would be the sky of that morning and then something clicked. I felt someth inside me that was so much higher, so much purer and more beautiful than all my little faggy bullshit down here on earth. Just pure, lucid awareness. I never forgot it
So it's like how you have multiple side to your personality and then a higher state of mind that is above all of that?
>It's very Buddhist
This might be why I'm having sub a difficult time wrapping my head around it. I no almost nothing about eastern philosophy. I was expecting Evola to just be Nietzsche 2.0 with extra racism/elitism. I've been pleasantly surprised.
>I was going through a really tough time in my own life when I imagined on a whim one day, what the day would look like the morning after my death. I imagined the sky I was looking at would be the sky of that morning and then something clicked. I felt someth inside me that was so much higher, so much purer and more beautiful than all my little faggy bullshit down here on earth. Just pure, lucid awareness. I never forgot it
Dude...I think I know what you're talking about. Theres this moment that I have always rememered when I was sitting outside a library and thinking to myself. I got this glowing feeling of acceptance. It's the last time I rememeber being really, truly happy. I'm currently striving to get back to that place or possibly, beyond it.
>This might be why I'm having sub a difficult time wrapping my head around it. I no almost nothing about eastern philosophy. I was expecting Evola to just be Nietzsche 2.0 with extra racism/elitism. I've been pleasantly surprised.
Nietzsche also espoused "the Self is merely a conglomerate of conflicting drives fighting for expression (will to power)," so Evola is still within the Nietzschean framework. It's just much like Kierkegaard, they went past the line Nietzsche stopped at and posited some transcendental aspect.
Your saint is lost to a history it can't properly reflect on within the focus of the canon of your orthodox.
It's pathetic, really. Keep trying though; maybe there's a spot for bourgeois stooges that you can fill!
You have a really good point there. Neoliberalism just freely doing its thing is so much of the problem (although Trump's brand of free market capitalism is a part of all that as well, in its own way, make no mistake).
It's just, when shit really hits the fan, things will likely be so dysfunctional and miserable that I don't know if people are going to even be able to have the presence of mind to adopt a smart alternative. It's probably a good time for theorists to begin conceiving the best guesses of how things will be looking 70 years down the road (and I would recommend Neoreactionaries get real and acknowledge the reality of climate change and the societal impact it will have) and conceiving strategic models for those situations, so it can be done as effectively and cleanly as possible.
Neoreaction - in some of its aspects - is probably the most on-point and sane outlook at this time. And they have a much, much more informed understanding of geopolitics than progressives do, who pretty much only focus on certain theoretical texts and Western social matters, all of which don't speak to - or even have an averse impact on - things developing .
Progressives are still hung up on how they think things should be, and try to control the way people talk in order to bring that vision about (as if not discussing reality directly will change it), Reactionaries face the way things are. I'm not saying their response or attitude is always good - I don't actually agree with them on probably 70% of their ideas and sentiments, but I find them much more useful for getting a clear account of world events.
NRx doesn't predict a total collapse, rather that the fissures in American society are getting wider (and they definitely are, the USG is currently in a civil war with itself) and this situation should be encouraged
America is very very sick at the moment
Climate change would probably fall under the Great Filter
Climate change is also a dead issue at the moment and will likely stay that way until people actually start drowning
This poster is congenitally fucking blind to relative association in discourses - especially oxymorons.
I asked for ethnographic work from anthropologists not far up and someone takes it to mean studies in ethnicity it's like, really tho.
It was in reference to the poster who is supposed to have "read him"; which betrays the fact that even the retards who post here haven't understood him...or maybe his philosophy makes no - sense?
>tfw Evola is our great philosopher
>tfw kikes and their sjw minions are terrified
>tfw the day of the rope is on the horizon and we western men will ride the tiger to it
It feels good. It feels very good to know that the real cleansing is coming.
We still have at least another century of Kali Yuga and the new golden age will most likely not be the cate system Evola fetishizes. Technological progression will ensure that. It is more likely that we will arrive at a stateless, classless, moneyless society with a life affirming culture akin to the pre-Socratic Greeks.
What are you reading by him?
Just a heads up, Novatore is a bit of an odd one out amongst those guys. Where Evola read Nietzsche and decided to go to the far right, Novatore did the opposite and became an anarchist. I think it's interesting to compare the two.
I highly doubt that.
For in another century the western world will be filled with people of no discernible race and will have no connection to god nor tradition. Only the state. A perfect slave race society.
The day of the rope must occur in this century or all is lost.
>mfw the pure concentrated retardation in this thread
>mfw probably 1% of posters here have even read a work by Evola, and those probably didn't understand it because they didn't read the works he references
>Your saint is lost to a history it can't properly reflect on within the focus of the canon of your orthodox.
"Because the philosophy of those thinkers posted in this thread is so limited, the (general) comprehension of history by use of their thought is limited; yet still, the very thinker idolized - Evola - exists as part of this history it cannot properly reflect on. The loss of the saint is thus unknown".
Nietzsche predicted that the peak of western nihilism will be in 200 years and that was a century ago. From the perspective we have right now, which is what should be the halfway point, I think that we are not deep enough into dissolution to begin rising back up. In small groups and individuals? Yes. As a whole? No. The Brave New World society you predict could potentially be what we will have to rebel against.
How do you think modernity can be undone within the decades to come? I can't see anything in the near future happening. The right is filled with plebeian nationalists and the left is filled with spineless SJWs.
That brave new world society is being created in front of your eyes today. Multiculturalism in all western nations is being pushed harder than ever before with forced immigration and constant waves of propaganda in every form of media.
Many western nations have lost their capital cities to these migrants. It is all in an effort to breed out tradition and history in order to create a race that is easier to control. A race with nothing to rely on or call to other than the state.
>How do you think modernity can be undone within the decades to come?
Blood and thunder. That is the only way. Other than that humanity will suffer from a silent slavery until we hand off consciousness to sentient life that we create.
Also nationalism is a good way to keep humanity alive. For it breeds competition against other countries. It spurs technological progress and efficiency.
Globalization is death to free men. It is death to the dream of touching the face of god and exploring the cosmos.
I agree that nationalism is good but I think we should differentiate between a healthy nationalism and a pleaibian nationalism. Both value their people but plebs tend to worship the state, are distracted by scapegoats (the jooos), and have trouble understanding deeper ideas that are associated with the right. Limbaugh is a pleaibian nationalist. Spengler is the good kind of nationalist.
Can you elaborate on your blood and thunder? That doesn't really sound like a strategy.
But I believe to compare Nietzsche's time frame to Evola's time frame for predictions isn't the right way to go.
We are well past the halfway point.
I believe that society is reaching a boiling point where large scale uprising will occur in western nations.
Small groups are bursting into into larger and larger catalysts for revolt because of how easy it is to communicate with each other in this era.
I don't think so. The deconstruction of gender has only just begun entering the mainstream and the deconstruction of morality surrounding sex and nation have only become solidified in the past 30 or so years.
I completely agree with your assessment of the difference between a pleb nationalist and a sound one.
But the problem is that you need to have the pleb nationalists be your front line and then breed them out by educating their children to be individualistic and set up programs for them similar to what Gadaffi did.
>Can you elaborate on your blood and thunder? That doesn't really sound like a strategy.
False flag a massacre then either convince the military to defend its people by deposing the sitting government or sway the people towards a massive armed revolt.
NRx isn't right-accelerationism, and NRx don't really see themselves as advocates, more as adherents to an analytic method. The more sensible of the NRxers doubt bicameralism etc could possibly come off pre-singularity, making it only a hypothetical ideal against which to compare. But most are right-accel, yeah, and Clinton is the accelerationist ticket, you're right.
I'm not the one repeating myself again and again tho (lmao)
Why ain't I seeing Titus Bruckhardt, both Ananda & Rama Coomarasany and Seyyed Hossein Nasr in those traditionalist threads?
this is what is known as autism - someone who is misusing and misaligning words inadvertently, though i think he (or xe, it's a sissy communist) is trying to sound intellectual despite communism being the ideology for brainless and soulless materialist mass men
It's only your particular cynical biases that reads "strive for the best version of yourself" as saccharine Oprah shit, especially when Evola makes no secret his disdain for sentimentalism and superficial, emotional spiritualism
REMINDER THAT EVOLA, GUENON AND ALL OTHER "RIGHT WING" 'THINKERS' ARE FAGGOT GAY SHIT
all you need is William Pierce, lads
All you're describing at the end there's the mechanism of the grit-filter. Believing in transcendent, absolute selves and the possibility of objective, categorical purpose in self-actualisation is hippy-tier; it's pop-philosophy; it's McDonald's campaigned as 'How very unMcDonald's'. Continentalism stripped of its pathos and process, with just the conclusions sans the working-out remaining, then repackaged as rigorous analytics. The dude's got to face the void at some point.
I'd just like to first postulate that there is a strong effort, organized effort at that to discredit and weakened the rise of right wing groups on various sites across the internet. so Threads like this are drowned in shitposting with some genuine interest in between the rest. The reason they use this fedora imagery stuff is because it is supposed to associate certain thoughts and the imagery at hand. It is the same reasoning as enlightening people to philosophy through art.
At least from my perspective, evola is popular with the NRx crowd because he is essentially the most right wing thinker one can find. He is entirely aristocratic. For him, the bourgeois have been utterly destructive of society.
It has to be remembered that he comes from a hereditary line of people born to rule, whom nature evolved towards the traits which are needed to rule. People who were once given the privileges, responsibilities and expectations of leadership. He is essentially butthurt with the state of order in fascist Italy. To him, it is the rule of the bourgeios and petty men. His ideas are almost entirely alien to the 21st century, and that is part of his attraction.
Considering that essentially liberalism and marxism have achieved cultural victory and we now live in a culturally left wing capitalist society, orientated around the masses in which there is only the state in people's lives, in which many of us find great unease.
Evola shows something so entirely alien that it attracts such movements as NRx.
Even then though, neo-reactionaries are also rather delusional. The fundamental truth of our age is that politicization is the only major development which can happen within our society. The growth of government action in response to the failures of society and the enormous problems we face. Has anyone noticed the increasing movement towards leadership of nations by the executive and in particular by a single man? Or the fact that modern globalism and economic connection renders an extraordinary centralizing power into the hands of high finance.
The truth is that the Nrx are entirely irrelevant unless they can found a new Singapore, which I highly doubt. Maybe some of their ideas, like the circle of state might be of use. Otherwise, it is the posturing of men who believe in their own superiority and not in the noblesse oblige.
"Ride The Tiger" was shit, like all of Evola's post-WWII works. The crippling wounds he received in the service of the SS changed his outlook for the worse. He lost sight of the truth he'd grasped earlier in life and succumbed to a sort of idealized defeatism.
"Revolt Against the Modern World" is all you need of Evola.
>he believes in some weird stuff. I don't totally understand that aspect of his philosophy.
I used to feel that way, but came to realize that Evola's belief in magic and the gods is really central to his whole philosophy and its absence from the writings of other reactionaries of the time is why they haven't had the lasting impact that Evola has had.
A secular traditionalism can only ever be a hollow and nostalgic thing. In the era they look back to, kings ruled by divine right and societies were animated by the belief that our lives and our civilizations were more than just material things.
Without that, the argument between tradition and progressive liberalism is little more than an aesthetic choice, and the position of traditionalists becomes untenable.
>Has anyone noticed the increasing movement towards leadership of nations by the executive and in particular by a single man?
I think the upcoming is going to be a great signal for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpof96pVx-c
You are entirely right in this stuff. But people have wrongly interpreted how this new imperium will be achieved.
It will not be a military conqueror, but it will be a man of high finance. Consider it this way.
The interconnection of the internet, the development of globalism, the increasing financializiation of western life provide the tools for the new caesars.
You can sit in your mother's basement and trade stocks at the speed of light, growing great wealth without actually working. However, the real mastery of finance is in algorithmic trading which allows one to automate the making of money. Traditionally, pensions funds, mutual funds and other methods of massive money investment were based on the manual investment of stocks, commodities and currencies to make generally slow growing and continual profits. But there have recently been developed asymmetric methods for trading with minimal risk and great profit. But the far more interesting side is the development of geometric investment and market making, in which one can become so wealthy that they can make or break markets entirely.
We will likely see a speculator caesar, who financially destroys other speculators, probably through actively murdering them. He will institute universal basic income, probably based off the profits made from his massive wealth to create work and make himself incredibly popular. I suspect he will also exterminate academics, because the marxist orthodoxy of the academics is a real threat through ideological perversion.
Whilst the decline of family, church and community are the major issues of this time. Mass immigration is also part of this, but relatively isn't an issue. I'll explain how these problems will be politicized and 'solved'.
Mass immigration is here to stay, but he will cut a line which says "westernize or fuck off". He will probably ban islam due to its illiberal and absolute nature. He will most likely attempt to reinstitute the family through the state, likely because of technological unemployment, using it to reduce the ability of women to work as a part of natalist policies. Without a welfare bureaucracy and with the end of the democracy, women don't have the same advantages they have now and will quickly find themselves servile again.
He will likely move towards a force based authority for religion as a method to westernize non-westerners. He will likely engage in massive military campaigns to stabilize other nations. He will likely semi-annex the anglosphere through a common cultural connection.
Because Burckhardt and Nasr are Muslim and /pol/fags don't want to get called cucks for reading them (but they'll mention Guenon even though he was a Muslim with a bunch of half-Arab kids).
As for the Coomaraswamys, they aren't mainstream enough for /pol/ to have heard about.
This. It's also why they never talk about Tage Lindbom even though he wrote some excellent works on why democracy and leftism are bullshit (far superior to anything produced by Neoreaction). Admitting that a Swedish Muslim convert had better right wing thoughts than them kind of fucks with their ideology.
Burckhardt wrote little on politics, but he has some great work on the esoteric meanings of alchemy and astrology (well in line with Evola's work), and the spiritual significance of traditional art.
I'd recommend his Introduction to Sufi Doctrine and Sacred Art in East and West. All of Burckhardt's books are good, but those two give a good overview of what he's about. His book on alchemy is great as well.
As for Nasr, his work is too vast to summarize, but he furthers Guenon and Schuon's critique of modern with his vast erudition and truly impressive knowledge of eastern and western philosophy. He's probably the most intelligent and most philosophically aware of the Traditionalists.