18+ 
Antikeimenos [7]
08.08.2022
Radical Ontology
Finally, we come to the most important thing, the possibility of interpreting the figure of the 'Antichrist' as a certain ontological unity that possesses a being that is independent of cultural and religious contexts, but, on the contrary, influences them. Such a figure requires accepting traditionalism and its generalizations not as an a posteriori technical construction, but as a field of reference to a real being structured in a particular way. Such an approach requires us to treat Genon or similar theories of universal sacral ontologies (especially the Neo-Platonists and, in particular, Proclus' reconstruction of Plato's Theology [62] or Primordial Theology [63]) with the utmost confidence. This means that we are willing to accept traditionalism as a radical language, i.e. not only as a morphological scheme, but as an ontological field of radical denotations. The radicality lies in the fact that this field precedes a chain of (always relatively) homologous figures from specific traditions or socio-cultural contexts, just as a root precedes a trunk and branches.
However, it should be remembered that such radicality does not necessarily mean chronological precedence: after all, roots do not exist before the tree, but together with the tree. Therefore, Guénon's notion of primordial Tradition should not be interpreted as a reference to an indefinitely distant past. Primordiality - at least that which is ontologically understood - is always contemporary. It may be more or less open and manifest - or, on the contrary, hidden and concealed (depending on the cyclical situation) - but it cannot help but be here and now. If we accept the basic thesis of traditionalism, it is the existence of the Primordial Tradition that makes any particular empirically fixable tradition valid and sacred, and for this reason the Primordial Tradition must not be prior to the historical tradition, but within it, together with it, synchronous with it.
Another clarification. It is not correct to consider any of the existing traditions as a perfect example and direct identity of the Primordial Tradition, while others should be considered as its distortions, variants or deviations. Each historical tradition is always a specific semantic and semiotic context, and therefore cannot be a paradigm at the same time. Guénon himself follows this conception, clarifying it in the case of Hinduism as the most primary tradition and Islam as the ultimate and final tradition. Precisely this refinement can be controversial, as is evident, for example, in Guénon's acceptance of Nestorian Christology - reflected in Islam - as the final solution, but on the whole, with some corrections, Guénon's definition of universality and primordiality is correct and balanced.
Just as it is practically difficult to refrain from attributing 'primordiality' to a single tradition, the temptation to hypothesis the existence of another - separate - religion or tradition alongside all those known and existing ones, however secretive or difficult to reach, which would carry within itself the whole of the radical structures, is also great. Guénon's sometimes overly detailed and formalized descriptions of esotericism and its associated initiatory practices can lead to this - perverse - conclusion. An esoteric dimension can be - and even should be - in every authentic sacred tradition, but none of them can represent this 'esoteric tradition' in its entirety, and at the same time this 'esoteric tradition' cannot exist alongside the others as something special and separate.
True primordiality (i.e. true radicality) has a different nature: it cannot precede the empirically fixed traditions, nor coincide with any of them, nor exist alongside them as something separate. It represents a particular vertical dimension present in the datum of a particular tradition, but never coinciding with this datum.
The "radical Antichrist" and his experience
Having accepted the existence of a radical ontology, we can approach the figure of the "Antichrist" from another perspective. This can be defined as the identification of the figure of the 'radical Antichrist'. The 'radical Antichrist' appears when we accept the hypothesis of the existence of a hypostatized denotative for traditionalist language.
In this case, we must fix a certain zone in this field of traditionalism, where we identify that radical gestalt, which reveals itself in an indefinitely wide variation of homologous figures. These figures are central to the eschatological narratives of various traditions, from calendrical and ritual to religious and socio-cultural. "Radical Antichrist" is that commonality that is inherent in the typical images and situations known to us, but not as a result of observation and comparison, of comparative and analytical operations, but as a moment of special metaphysical experience. The presence of this essence passes through the religious and cultural forms that we have briefly listed, but it never completely coincides with them. Nor does it have an existence independent of and separate from their contexts: we can speak of an 'esoteric Antichrist', but not of an 'esoteric Antichrist'. The 'radical Antichrist' transpires through the traditions, combining certain images of them. At the same time, he is actually present in these images and entities as their inner dimension, as their spiritual vertical. He is the common root, which is for each branch of the tree its own root. Thus, the encounter with the figure of the Antichrist (Dajjal, Ahriman, Erev Rab, with the Titans, with the demon Kali, Mara, etc.) and with similar socio-cultural moments of dying societies can be limited to a specific context, or it can penetrate through it - into the inner dimensions, into the root region. This is how radical experience is structured.
The recognition of this dimension and the unique experience associated with it is based on the recognition of the special - also radical - ontology of traditionalism. Therefore, we can define this type of experience as primordial.
Antikeimenos as a concept
In order to give the gestalt of the 'radical Antichrist' a more formal character, one could propose another neutral technical term which, given all the previous considerations, could become an effective concept. With this concept one could avoid direct connotations with a specific religious context - in this case Christian - that would inevitably lead us - to one extent or another - away from the metaphysical experience of the "Antichrist" in its radical - primordial - dimension. The Greek term ὀ ἀντικείμενος is suggested as such. Its basic meaning is 'adversary', 'enemy', 'opponent'. Its etymology is transparent: it is a participle of the verb ἀντίκειμαι, itself composed of the prefix ἀντῐ- ('against', 'opposite') and the root κεῖμαι ('to put'). ὀ ἀντικείμενος, he who 'opposes', 'opposes', is the 'opposite'. The semantic core also includes the idea of resistance, opposition, hostility and even malice. All in all, this is quite close to the semantics of the Hebrew word Satan (śāṭān).
It is significant that the term ὀ ἀντικείμενος is used in the same fundamental for all Christian eschatology as St Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, which speaks of katechon, 'who rules now'. We quote:
3. Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come, until the apostasy has come first and the man of sin, the son of perdition, has been revealed,
4. He who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is holy, so that in the temple of God he sits as God, claiming to be God[64].
5. μήτις ὑμα̃ς ἐξαπατήση̨ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθη̨ ἡ ἀποστασίαπρω̃τον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθη̨̃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τη̃ςἀνομίας ὁ υἱòς τη̃ς ἀπωλείας
6. ὁ ἀντικείμενοςκαὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεòν ἢ σέβασμα ὥστε αὐτòν εἰς τòν ναòν του̃ θεου̃ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτòν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.
It is the Antichrist who is called the "man of sin" (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τη̃ς ἀνομίας), the "son of perdition" (ὁ υἱòς τη̃ς ἀπωλείας - note, that here too the Antichæmenos parodies Christ, who expresses himself by calling him "son"), "exalted" (περαιρόμενος) and "opposed" (ὁ ἀντικείμενος). Antichæmenos is the Antichrist. And in this sense the term fully retains its connection with the entire complex of these figures in their Christian context.
However, if this correspondence is not deliberately sharpened, it is possible to operate more freely with the notion of 'anti-Keimenos'. It can mean anything contextually, but in a necessarily broad and convincing way, we can understand by 'enemy', 'adversary'. And the 'main enemy', the fundamental, the absolute - the root, the radical, the primordial. This correlates perfectly with the Devil, Satan, who in the Christian tradition is also sometimes called 'the enemy', 'the enemy force', 'the enemy of the human race'. Antikemenos is the gestalt of the absolute enemy. In this sense, the term applies to the Antichrist proper, Dadjal, Erev Rav, Ahriman, the demon Kali, titans, giants and other forces of darkness, which pose a deadly challenge to people, religions, societies and cultures.
At the same time, in the quoted passage from St Paul, the Antikemenos is logically linked to the figure of the katechon, because it is the presence of the katechon (ὁ κατέχων) that prevents the coming of the Antikemenos. The two gestalts are inextricably linked by the structure of the eschatological scenario. katechons very being has as its main purpose to prevent the appearance of the Antikeimenos, but the opposite is also true: the purpose of the Antikeimenos is to break katechon's resistance.
Translation by Lorenzo Maria Pacini
