So much for that; and now let us return to considerations of a more general kind. What is it that makes this counterfeit possible, and even increasingly possible and increasingly perfect of its kind, if indeed any such words can be used in such a connection, as the descending course of the cycle proceeds? The profound reason lies in the relation of inverse analogy that exists, as explained, between the highest and the lowest points: it is this that makes possible in particular, and in a degree corresponding to that of the approach to the domain of pure quantity, the realization of those sorts of counterfeits of principial unity as are manifested in the ‘uniformity’ and ‘simplicity’ toward which the modern spirit tends, and in which its efforts to bring everything down to the quantitative point of view are most completely expressed. This perhaps shows more clearly than anything else that deviation has, so to speak, only to be developed and allowed to pursue its course to the end in order finally to lead to subversion properly so called, for when that which is most inferior (it being in this case a question of something inferior even to all possible existence) seeks to imitate and make a counterfeit of superior and transcendent principles, then is the time when real subversion can justly be spoken of. Nevertheless it is as well to recall that in the nature of things the tendency to pure quantity can never produce its full effect; therefore, in order that subversion may reach its term the intervention of something else is necessary. At this stage what was said earlier on the subject of dissolution could be repeated, but from a slightly different point of view; obviously that which appertains to the final point of cyclic manifestation is equally concerned in both cases; and that is exactly why the ‘rectification’ of the ultimate instant must appear precisely as a reversal of all things, when it is seen in relation to the state of subversion existing immediately before that instant.
Bearing in mind this last point, this much more can be said: the first of the two phases that have been distinguished in anti-traditional action represents simply a work of deviation, the particular end of which is a materialism of the crudest and most complete kind; as for the second phase, it could be specially characterized as a work of subversion (for that is the point to which it leads most directly) destined to end in the setting-up of what has been called an inverted spirituality, as will be seen more clearly from what follows. The inferior subtle forces that are called in during this second phase can certainly be described as ‘subversive’ from every point of view; and it was considered right to apply the word ‘subversion’ above to the ‘inverted’ utilization of the remains of ancient traditions abandoned by the ‘spirit’; and the two cases are in any case similar, for under such conditions corrupt vestiges themselves necessarily fall into the lower regions of the subtle domain. Another particularly clear example of the work of subversion will be given in the next chapter, in the form of the intentional inversion of the legitimate and normal meaning of traditional symbols; this will afford in addition an opportunity to give a fuller explanation of the double meaning usually contained in symbols themselves; for so many references to double meanings of this kind have already been made in the course of this study that a little more detail on the subject will not be out of place.
30
The Inversion of Symbols
Surprise is sometimes expressed at the fact that one and the same symbol can be taken in two senses, which are, at least apparently, directly contrary one to the other. This question is not merely one of the multiplicity of meanings that can, generally speaking, be carried by any symbol according to the point of view or the level from which it is considered, any kind of ‘systematization’ of symbols being made impossible by this very adaptability, but is a question more particularly of two aspects linked together through a mutual correlation, taking the form of an opposition, in such a way that one is so to speak the reverse or the ‘negative’ of the other. In order to understand this, duality must in the first place be considered as presupposed by all manifestation, and consequently as conditioning manifestation in all its modes, and it must always be traceable therein in one form or another;[126] it is true that any such duality is in truth a complementarism and not an opposition; but two terms that are really complementary can appear from a relatively exterior or contingent point of view to be opposed.[127] All opposition only exists as such at a certain level, for there can be no such thing as an irreducible opposition; at a higher level it is always resolved into a complementarism, in which its two terms are found to be reconciled and harmonized, until they return at last into the unity of the common principle from which they both proceed. It can therefore be said that the point of view of complementarism is in a certain sense intermediate between that of opposition and that of unification; and each of these points of view has its good reason and its own value in the order to which it applies, although the three are obviously not situated at the same level of reality; what matters therefore is to know how to put each aspect into its proper hierarchical place, and not to try to carry it over into a domain in which it would no longer have any valid significance.
That being so, it is understandable that there is nothing in any way illegitimate in taking account of two contrary aspects in a symbol, and in addition that the consideration of either of these aspects in no way excludes the other, since each of them is equally true in a particular relation, and lastly even that by virtue of their correlation their existence is a single existence. It is therefore a mistake, and incidentally rather a common one, to suppose that the special consideration of one aspect or the other must be peculiar to doctrines or to schools that are themselves in opposition.[128] In such cases everything depends solely on the predominance that may be assigned to one or the other, and sometimes also on the intention with which the symbol is used, for example as an element taking part in particular rites, or again as a means of recognition for the members of particular organizations; but this is a point to which we shall return. The fact that the two aspects may be united in one and the same complex symbolical figuration shows clearly that they are not mutually exclusive and can be considered simultaneously; and in this connection it will be well to note, although there can be no question of developing the subject fully, that a duality, which can be an opposition or a complementarism according to the point of view adopted, can be arranged, so far as the relative situation of its terms is concerned, either vertically or horizontally, this being an immediate consequence of the cross-shaped arrangement of the quaternary, which can be resolved into two dualities, one vertical and the other horizontal. The vertical duality can be related to the two extremities of an axis or to the two contrary directions in which that axis may be followed; the horizontal duality is that of two elements situated symmetrically on either side of that same axis. As an example of the first case the two triangles of the seal of Solomon can be cited (as well as all other symbols of analogy disposed according to a similar geometrical arrangement), and as an example of the second the two serpents of the caduceus; and it will be noticed that only in the vertical duality are the two terms clearly distinguished one from the other by their reversed positions, whereas in the horizontal duality they can appear completely similar or equivalent when considered separately, although their significance is not really any less contrary in this case than in the other. It can also be said that in the spatial order the vertical duality is that of up and down, and the horizontal that of right and left; though this observation may perhaps seem rather too obvious, it nonetheless has its importance, because symbolically (and this leads back to the intrinsically qualitative value of the directions of space) these two pairs of terms are themselves susceptible of multiple applications, traces of which could without difficulty be found even in current language, showing that matters of very general application are here in question.
126
As it is one of the linguistic errors that are of common occurrence and are not without serious inconveniences, it may be useful to state clearly here that ‘duality’ and ‘dualism’ are two quite different things: dualism (of which the Cartesian conception of ‘spirit’ and ‘matter’ is among the best known examples) properly consists in regarding a duality as irreducible and in taking account of nothing beyond it, thereby denying the common principle from which the two terms of the duality really proceed by ‘polarization’.
128
Attention has been drawn elsewhere to a mistake of this kind in connection with the representation of the swastika with its arms turned so as to indicate opposite directions of rotation (