Semite / Aryan: For the Semite, everything begins with Revelation, and consequently with faith and submission; man is a priori a believer and consequently a servant: intelligence itself takes on the color of obedience. For the Aryan on the contrary – and we are not thinking of the Semiticized Aryan – it is intellection that comes first, even if it be kindled thanks to a Revelation; Revelation here is not a commandment which seems to create intelligence ex nihilo while at the same time enslaving it, but appears rather as the objectivation of the one Intellect, which is both transcendent and immanent. Intellectual certainty has here priority over obediential faith; the Veda does not give orders to the intelligence, it awakens it and reminds it of what it is. Grosso modo, the Aryans – except in cases of intellectual obscuration in which they have only retained their mythology and ritualism – are above all metaphysicians and therefore logicians, whereas the Semites – if they have not become idolaters and magicians – are a priori mystics and moralists; each of the two mentalities or capacities repeating itself within the framework of the other, in conformity with the Taoist symbol of the yin-yang. Or again, the Aryans are objectivists, for good or ill, while the Semites are subjectivists; deviated objectivism gives rise to rationalism and scientism, whereas abusive subjectivism engenders all the illogicalities and all the pious absurdities of which sentimental fideism – over-zealous and conventional – is capable. It is the difference between intellectualism and voluntarism; the first tends to reduce the volitive element to the intelligence or to integrate it therein, and the second on the contrary tends to subordinate the intellectual element to the will; this is said without forgetting the fluctuations necessarily comprised in the concrete reality of things. It is sometimes necessary to express oneself in a schematic manner for the sake of clarity if one is to express oneself at all. (GTUFS: SufismVQ, The Exo-Esoteric Symbiosis)
The Aryan, insofar as he is observer and philosopher, has a tendency to describe things as they are, while the Semite, who is a moralist, readily presents them as they ought to be according to his pious sentiment; he transcends them by sublimizing them before having had time to extract from them the arguments comprised in their nature. This tendency obviously does not prevent him from being a philosopher when he wants to be, but we are speaking here of the most immediate and most general predispositions. (GTUFS: SufismVQ, Paradoxes of an Esoterism)
It is perhaps not too hazardous to say that the Aryan spirit tends a priori to unveil the truth, in conformity with the realism – sacred or profane – that is proper to it, while the Semitic spirit – whose realism is more moral than intellectual – tends towards the veiling of the Divine Majesty and of its secrets that are too dazzling or too intoxicating; as is shown, precisely, by the innumerable enigmas of the monotheistic Scriptures – in contrast with the Upanishads – and as is indicated by the allusive and elliptical nature of the corresponding exegesis. (GTUFS: SufismVQ, The Exo-Esoteric Symbiosis)