Dialogue ~ 47

Previously I asked “… is it possible that Theia is referring to the illumination (wisdom) of an ‘aeon’, possibly the first aeon of our planet to have emerged?”

It might be helpful to revisit the information which I could find relating to her name: “Θεός or theós (divine, a deity, goddess), from Proto-Hellenic *tʰehós (whence also Mycenaean Greek  (te-o)), Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s, from *dʰeh₁ (to do, to put, to place) + *-s, cognate with Phrygian δεως (deōs ‘to the gods’) … with reference to ‘Θεός or theós’ … the Greek goddess Theia or Θεία (also known as Euryphaessa or in ancient Greek Εὐρυφάεσσα), is such that the name Theia Euryphaessa effectively means ‘wide or far shining/brightness of light’.”

It is important to consider that ‘what is’ (in truth and just) and ‘that which the goddess has put into place’ is not only suggestive of a ‘wide shining brightness of light’, but is suggestive of a state (or inclination) of one’s being. If we relate this to a ‘first aeon’ to have emerged from Gaia, one in which there is wisdom, what can we know of its syzygy?

The definition of syzygy is: a pair of connected or corresponding things. In astronomy, a syzygy is a roughly straight-line configuration of three or more celestial bodies in a gravitational system; a conjunction or opposition, especially of the moon with the sun.

Theia is given as being the mother of the sun and the moon; if aspects of these celestial bodies are in conjunction, does it give rise to a ‘wide (far) shining’ (illumination) of light – ergo ‘dawn’, one that is wisdom? Theia was sister of Rhea and Cronus, which I have interpreted as representing ‘flow of time’.

Demeter was daughter of Rhea, represented as a chthonic goddess and of the regenerative mysteries. To gain insight into Demeter, it is helpful to look at her Egyptian equivalent, the goddess Isis.

The child of Isis and Osiris (once she has restored him to life) is Horus, who represents that which is the restoration of his father. Isis is portrayed as wearing a ‘sheath’ dress and having a solar disk and cow’s horns on her head.

The sheath dress is typically suggestive of her role in mourning Osiris, her late husband, but it could equally represent a virginal state as might for instance, be suggestive of the dawn. What is interpreted as cow’s horns could be the representation of the ‘wet moon’, when the ‘horns’ of the crescent moon point upwards at an angle away from the horizon, so that the appearance of the moon takes on the resemblance of a bowl. 

Interestingly, the name Isis is a Greek form of an ancient Egyptian word for ‘throne’; effectively then, she has a triple aspect (as did Demeter), in that she represents the dying of, the process of regeneration and as ‘that which has been raised’ (has a crown).

The Greek equivalent of Horus is Asclepius (Latin Aesculapius), the child of Apollo and Coronis. Apollo is associated with an aspect of the sun, whilst Coronis is associated with the moon (as is Isis). Asclepius may mean to ‘cut open’ as it is suggested that Apollo had to deliver him by caesarean section at his birth (or that he emerged from the side of Coronis), which is suggestive of a new moon or transition as arising.

In looking at definition of ‘corona’, it is given as a part of the body resembling or likened to a crown; a faint glow adjacent to the surface of an electrical conductor at high voltage; the gaseous envelope of the sun and other stars. The sun’s corona is normally visible only during a total solar eclipse, when it is seen as an irregularly shaped pearly glow surrounding the darkened disc of the moon.

Interestingly, the recognition of a ‘glow’ around a body is recognised in the ‘halo’ (also known as a nimbus, aureole, glory or gloriole): which is ‘a crown of light rays, circle or disk of light that surrounds a person in art. It has been used in the iconography of many religions to indicate a holy or sacred figure’.

To revisit my earlier question, “… is it possible that Theia is referring to the illumination (wisdom) of an ‘aeon’, possibly the first aeon of our planet to have emerged?” Having explored some of the aspects of the (risen) child of Demeter, Isis and Coronis - I am considering whether Rhea (together with her consort Cronus), which I had attributed as representative of ‘flow of time’, is akin to the ‘watery abyss’ which the gnostic Sophia had looked into prior to her alleged fall from grace (of knowing)?

Is Rhea representative of a current aeon of Gaia, one which is involving the transcendence of ‘time’? 

Dialogue ~ 46

Previously I wrote, “Consider that the myth of Prometheus is representative of ‘first thought or an idea’ in real time as it is emerging from ‘what is’ (is knowable, in truth and just). As these ideas which are grounded in one’s knowing emerge, they are connected together as if forming an ‘adamantine’ chain of one’s truth.

If one’s truth is abandoned, that is to say, if one fails to discern between ideas of ‘what is’ and opinions ... Epimetheus (hindsight) has become the guide of one’s way … Effectively it is to enter into the toil of coming to know ‘what is’ (one’s truth) through an ‘extended journey’ - a circuitous route (of time).”

The ‘great abyss’ of one’s truth (to infer from Parmenides) ‘is to fail to discern between ‘what is’ and opinions. If 'what is' is less than clear for us, does it follow that we are hapless victims of our fate? Do we orient ourselves towards ‘progress’ and be indoctrinated into a ‘brave new world’, effectively making our truths as we go? Or is there a (cosmic) guide that is available, providing that we learn how to attune? 

We are informed from texts that Epimetheus was the brother (or syzygy) of Prometheus and that together, they were Titans who acted as representatives (helpers) of humanity. We are also informed that Prometheus was the clever one, whilst Epimetheus was foolish.

Prometheus’ name is typically given as meaning 'foresight', although I have suggested that it is 'representative of ‘first thought or an idea’ in real time as it is emerging from ‘what is’ (is knowable, in truth and just).’ Epimetheus’ name is typically given as meaning 'hindsight’.

It might be helpful to explore the name of Epimetheus to see if it is possible to gather information as to what it represents.

The etymology of ‘epi-‘ is from ancient Greek ἐπί ‘on top of’ or ‘above, over’. μή is from Proto-Hellenic *mḗ, from Proto-Indo-European *meh. Cognate with Old Armenian մի  (mi), Sanskrit  मा (mā), Old Persian (m-a /mā/) and Albanian mos (not, or negative in clauses expressing will, wish or thought). Θεός or theós (divine, a deity, goddess), from Proto-Hellenic *tʰehós (whence also Mycenaean Greek  (te-o)), Proto-Indo-European *dʰéh₁s, from *dʰeh₁ (to do, to put, to place) + *-s, cognate with Phrygian δεως (deōs ‘to the gods’). 

What is interesting is that with reference to ‘Θεός or theós’ of Prometheus and Epimetheus, we find that the Greek goddess Theia or Θεία (also known as Euryphaessa or in ancient Greek Εὐρυφάεσσα), is such that the name Theia Euryphaessa effectively means ‘wide or far shining/brightness of light’.

Is it possible that Prometheus represents a state of ‘for/towards’ (as in Latin ‘pro’) the wide shining light of ‘what is’, whilst Epimetheus is that of ‘going beyond’ (as in to overlay one’s own truth upon something – as in Protagoras’ relativism of ‘man is the measure of all things’)? Is it the ‘directionality’ of one’s will (as in being) which the goddess was referring to when she said to Parmenides that ‘mortals wander in two minds’?

What can we know about the goddess Theia? She is given as being the eldest daughter of Gaia (Earth) and Uranus (Sky). What can ‘daughter’ be referring to, particularly one that is associated with light? Given as we experience ourselves within cycles of time, is it possible that Theia is referring to the illumination (wisdom) of an ‘aeon’, possibly the first aeon of our planet to have emerged? Homer portrays her as the mother of the sun, the moon and the dawn, whilst the Roman poet Catullus describes these lights as ‘Theia’s illustrious progeny’.

Pindar said of Theia, “… for your sake men honour gold as more powerful than anything else; and through the value you bestow on them, o queen, ships contending on the sea and yoked teams of horses in swift-whirling contests become marvels.”

There is the recognition of reciprocity within Pindar’s words, in that as one orients oneself so as to recognise the eminence of the divine, so does the beneficence of that ‘which is’ provide blessings upon oneself. Theia represents ‘the highest good’ of all that is visible through the material world. This concurs with an understanding that I was once given of ‘I am to you as you are to me: we are one’.

Theia was said to be the consort of Hyperion and the sister of Rhea and Cronus. Cronus (or Cronos, Kronos) was said to have ruled within the ‘Golden Age’ of humanity until he was overthrown by Zeus and imprisoned in Tartarus.  Cronus was identified with the Roman deity Saturn (god of time, regeneration and liberation). An etymology of Rhea as embodied in Plato and in Chrysippus, connected her name with ῥέω (rhéo, 'flow, discharge'). It is interesting that we often use the term ‘flow of time’ as if intuitively associating the coupling (or syzygy) of Rhea and Cronus – perhaps they are representative of an aeon as it is existing within Theia – a wheel within a wheel?

The daughter of Rhea and Cronus was Demeter, the law-giving mother. There is conjecture as to the etymology of her name, but it is interesting that her name includes (de) as in away from, méh₂tēr (possibly ‘meh’ as in the negative in clauses expressing wish, will or thought) and ‘ter’ as in thrice? Demeter was associated with the Eleusinian Mysteries and regeneration of life – interestingly, her Egyptian equivalent was Isis.

What can we comprehend from Parmenides’ revelation of the goddess as ‘that which is’ (is just and in truth), the ‘wide shining brightness’ or ‘highest good’ of Theia and the sacred laws of Gaia? If there is teleology of our earthly existence, is it that of light which knows itself through form?

Dialogue ~ 45

By way of the goddess, Parmenides was brought to see the nature of the highest good as ‘it is’, it being just and in truth (containing all things simultaneously within itself).

Time has been conceived of by humans as a medium through which they have ‘free will’ to create the world in a reflection of their own image (of perfection).

Remember that Spinoza wrote (concerning the nature of the highest good) “… we must bear in mind that … the same thing may be called both good and bad according to the relations in view, in the same way as it may be called perfect or imperfect. Nothing regarded in its own nature can be called perfect or imperfect; especially when we are aware that all things which come to pass, come to pass according to the eternal order and fixed laws of nature.

However, human weakness cannot attain to this order in its own thoughts, but meanwhile man conceives a human character much more stable than his own … he is led to seek for means which will bring him to this pitch of perfection, and calls everything which will serve as such means a true good.”

Is it true that ‘a weakness of humanity is that it cannot attain to eternal order and fixed laws of nature’ within its own thoughts’? Remember that the goddess had said to Parmenides that mortals ‘wander in two minds’; she said that this occurs when mortals do not discern between ‘what is and can exist’ (given as it is true and just) and ‘what is not’.

Is the goddess referring to the faculty of imagination, in that one forms new ideas, images and concepts of things which are not immediately present to the senses? It is one thing to hold an image of what one would like to bring into the world to be able to experience (experience being to know); it is quite another to behave as if one is in possession of knowing these things when one is not (by venturing opinions for example).

Do we misinterpret the consequence of our thoughts (which is the justice of ‘the orderly fates’) as chaos and wrestle with ‘what is’ to bring what appears into submission? Do we believe that we are ‘recreating’ a pathway or entry into ‘what is’ (a state of grace) through our own efforts, most notably defining for ourselves what perfection is?

Previously I wrote, “… the intellect recognises what is true and just and that only right thinking can proceed from this; also that ‘untruth’ breaks (or diverges) from the intellect (the gnostic Sophia/wisdom was said to have ‘leaned over’ to look into the abyss of what is unknowable), creating trails within the temporal.”

If the intellect is a guardian of one’s truth, in that as it is anchored within the reality of ‘what is’, it can only recognise truths in relation to ‘what is’. If we formulate opinions about ideas and think and live in such a way as to ‘make these opinions our truth’, we have compromised ourselves and our faculty of knowing is ‘split in two’ as it were - it could even be said that we have ‘fallen from grace’ which is only to say that we are entertaining a thought form about ourselves and of life which is not grounded in reality.

How often do we say that we ‘know things’? Can we be certain that we do know what it is that we think we know, particularly if we have neglected to discern between our own experience of something and of other people’s interpretations and say-so?

If we have not validated information that we are given through our own experience, it follows that what we assume is knowledge (and any subsequent means of obtaining it) moves out of orbit of one’s intellect. Certainly, there are highly intelligent people in the world but that are questionable with regards to their wisdom – is it belief of ‘an untruth’ (with subsequent ‘untruths’) at cause? An untruth cannot become truth; it is crucial to be able to discern between truth and untruth as only when one is grounded in the reality of ‘what is’ can one see things (oneself) clearly and have wisdom.

Consider that the myth of Prometheus is representative of ‘first thought or an idea’ in real time as it is emerging from ‘what is’ (is knowable, in truth and just). As these ideas which are grounded in one’s knowing emerge, they are connected together as if forming an ‘adamantine’ chain of one’s truth.

If one’s truth is abandoned, that is to say, if one fails to discern between ideas of ‘what is’ and opinions (including of consequences of one’s actions), then one has bound Prometheus in chains. Epimetheus (hindsight) has become the guide of one’s way in the darkness of a material world. Effectively it is to enter into the toil of coming to know ‘what is’ (one’s truth) through an ‘extended journey’ - a circuitous route (of time).

I am considering what Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

A common interpretation of what Jesus meant is that he intended to divide between belief and non-belief (as in relation to one’s faith), but I am considering whether what he was referring to instead was the discerning between what can be known (what is) and what is unknowable (and of opinion) – effectively, of what is generally understood as Gnosis.

Consider that as a person loses touch with the truth of what is, so too will an understanding of why life is as it is (knowledge brings understanding). A person might believe that they understand the world but this perception is only in accordance with how clear is their vision.

It is as a person engages with the world as an autonomous being that they will encounter events which are representative of that which they cannot see (remember that Epimetheus is akin to their walking through the world in reverse or with blindfold). Entering into conflict with such events (which in the classical world might have been interpreted as chaotic) is as if they are battling with what are viewed as inconvenient or undesirable aspects of life (of themselves). Conflict contains within itself an opportunity of integration (given as all things exist simultaneously within ‘what is’).

There is much that has been written with regard to hubris and the ‘fall of humanity’ from the grace of ‘what is’. The toil of redemption has been denoted as virtuous, in that it identifies the flaws of humanity. This idea is especially pertinent in relation to the displacing of guilt of one’s actions upon a sense of ‘other’.

We are informed that knowledge which has been given to us is inviolable – that there are certain truths which are sacrosanct; we have been/are persecuted for questioning such, but whose or for what purpose does that fulfil?

If faith is an experience of hope which is bound up in an imaginary idea of ‘the future’ and it does not engage with moving into one’s truth in the present, the future cannot arise and the ‘serpent will continue biting its own tail’.

Dialogue ~ 44

The story of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll, follows how Alice, who is either confused or else dissatisfied with the mundane or predictability of events in her life, follows a rabbit who is ‘preoccupied with time’ into a hole in the ground, whereupon Alice experiences a world of fantasy, later to emerge all the wiser through her experience.

The story engages with imagination, as if to explore meaning in a realm which is beyond any certainties or constraints of time itself. It has all of the characteristics of mythology, the ‘quest’ or ‘hero’s journey’.

It is fascinating in that as humans, we appear to strive for certainty and increasing efficiency in the world, fashioning the very tools and machinery to bring this goal about; yet at the same time, we seem to need and to create stories and opportunities for ‘time out’ and for the chaotic to emerge from the very orderly mode of our thinking. Are we our ‘best selves’ in the midst of uncertainty? Why then, are we not collectively joyous in what we are experiencing – why do we continue to search for and to hold a space for something ‘better’ and for meaning? Do we exist for any given purpose or is that for us to decide?

The philosopher Parmenides, in his work ‘On Nature’, reveals that the goddess informs him that ‘justice and the right’ has put him on his current trajectory, which is to know what is true and of what is opinion (opinion is given as of not believing in what is true but is also shown as being necessary through what is just).

Consider as is revealed through the poem: justice is not in conflict with untruth or opinion (or imagination) but creates ‘space’ (and here I will add ‘time’ as being representative of movement of mind) in which one’s belief can play out. There are no adversaries of ‘light and dark’ or ‘good and evil’ (or order and chaos) other than in the nature of one’s own thoughts whereby one can experience and come to know what is just.

Going back to the human malaise or otherwise urge to improve upon ‘what is’, does this indicate not for one to change the world but to adjust the lens of how one perceives the world? Most people are familiar with Gandhi’s quote “We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change.”

How then, are we called to perceive the world and to recognise what is just, which is to say truth? The goddess informs Parmenides that the starting point of one’s thoughts should be in the knowing and conviction of ‘what is’ and that it could not be otherwise. This is the knowing that has arisen from within one’s own experience and is not derived from the experience or ‘truths’ of others or otherwise by conjecture.

I will add that knowing one’s experience (which is to say, truth) is not as straightforward as it sounds, given as one has to weed out one’s bias or prejudice and this can require unwavering focus and contemplation – hence the space or time as is necessary for this transition to occur.

The goddess informs Parmenides that the path of ‘is not’ or ‘could otherwise be’ is untrustworthy – that is to say, it is not in truth and is unjust.

Is this ‘diversion of paths’ from that which is true and just, to that which is not, representative of one’s will or inertia? Is one literally escaping into ‘fantasy’ to avoid having to acknowledge what is true? Is it that as one does this, one will find it increasingly hard to discern one’s truth and of what is just: as if one is stood in a hall of mirrors trying to discern which mirror is one’s true reflection or ‘one true good’? Further, does one enter into conflict with the reflections of others who are equally convinced of their ‘one truth’?

Consider for a moment the gnostic tale of Sophia or wisdom, said to be the lowest aeon as she had fallen from grace in some way and had helped to create the material world. In some versions, it is given that Sophia (wisdom) had tried to emanate without her syzygy or because she had endeavoured to go beyond what is knowable (which was to compromise her truth). A higher aeon had to restore wisdom, which is to say that which had been thought to truth.

The goddess advised Parmenides that all thought and what is spoken of in the world must proceed from ‘what is’, as it is only possible for ‘what is’ (just and true) to be (to exist); it is not possible for ‘what is not’/untruth to exist.

Consider how ‘what is not (in truth or just)’ is impermanent – time effectively is the great healer – unless the nature of the will resists ‘what is’ and employs force, given as it is trying to paddle upstream?

What is particularly interesting is that the goddess, in urging for Parmenides to know how to discern between ‘what is’ and what can exist (given as it is true and just) and ‘what is not’, points out that mortals, when they do not know this, literally ‘wander (as in dwell or meander) in two minds’.

This implies that the intellect recognises what is true and just and that only right thinking can proceed from this; also that ‘untruth’ breaks (or diverges) from the intellect in some way (as Sophia did?), which is what creates trails within the temporal. The intellect is anchored in truth and can be our guide back to ‘what is’, providing that we can locate its essence as within ourselves and differentiate from all of the untruths.

The goddess informs Parmenides that the point of departure from the knowing (the truth) of ‘what is’ is through uncertainty – ergo to question and to abandon one’s truth and to propose that something else might be true or is preferable instead.

Is this ‘departing of one’s truth’, as the goddess describes it, a coping mechanism of the mind, intended so as to process an experience which has occurred? The thought around which it revolves becomes an origin of itself, proceeding into what is an unconscious (blindfolded) web of untruths? It would suggest that the human psyche is divided, finding its abode between what is true and what is not.

Gandhi suggested that all the tendencies found in the outer world are to be found in the human body, particularly of strife and conflict. Consider that conflict arises because it is not possible to ‘prove’ (to make certain), that ‘what is not’ is – an untruth cannot become truth, no matter how much pressure or force is exerted; the destiny of an untruth and of what is not just is to fall.

Jesus said, “… Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” Matthew 12:25

The goddess advises Parmenides not to sway from what ‘is’, that is not to stray back into his old habits of speculative terrain and in particular to pay attention to when another is refuting the path of ‘what is’ (known to be true). She informs Parmenides that within ‘what is’, he will find tokens (or the understanding) such that: ‘what is’ is all things existing simultaneously within itself; it is uncreated and indestructible; it is unified and not in opposition to itself; it is immoveable; it has no origin of itself and is not becoming.

To those intimating that they will not believe in an all pervading and universal truth unless it is proven to them – given as truth has no prior cause (we do not create it), it cannot be reduced to within context; it follows that ‘what is’ is recognised from within oneself, we literally stand ‘in the presence of’, ergo it is ‘knowing’: we can accept this or otherwise and for however long that thought of ‘what is’ takes.

There are many who suggest that the cosmos and all manner of form is growing in complexity and that from within this complexity emerges consciousness; that is to say that the universe is awakening to or is becoming conscious of itself. Clearly, this reduces the cosmos to ‘something’ which ‘came into existence’, necessarily within time. It does not address the manner through which we perceive the cosmos, in that if we are as the goddess suggests, fluctuating ‘between two minds’: that which is timeless and that which is temporal - then it follows that we do not see things as they are, but rather how we have judged them to be.

The goddess spoke to Parmenides about time as well as of the quantifiable in general: she said that if something has already come into being or is going to come into being in the future, then it ‘is not’ (in truth or just): that ‘what is’ is not born and does not die, although we can have a thought that it is so – yet within such thought is the present moment, given as it is immovable. Nor can there be any more or less of ‘what is’ in any given location (or in anyone’s possession) than of any other (given as ‘what is’ is all things existing simultaneously within itself).

It appears from what the goddess has said that that which we promulgate or retract from are simply superficial impressions and ideas, most of which have no basis in truth.

I find this especially interesting: the goddess said that these things are but names which mortals have given, believing them to be true: being and not being, change of place, alteration of hue (colour). We often use the phrase ‘being this or being that or even not being’, particularly to discern what it is that we are feeling or thinking about. Have we created a ‘roadmap’ to complement the complexity or nature of our thought – what idea of ourselves is our ‘being’ in relationship to?

What about ‘change of place’ – it’s a given surely, that we can move about and traverse any distance on the planet, and for that matter away from it? Or is movement that which has been collectively agreed upon in thought, firmly entrenched and projected upon human reality, so as to convince ourselves that our body exists as that which is other than ‘what is’?

What about alteration of colour – light, dark – seasons – for that matter, all of the material world as we know it? If we remove all differentials, then we are removing the potential of a multitude of ideas about things – so it seems as if the material world is assured, at least for however long it takes for all thought to align with ‘what is’ - what world might we find ourselves in then, I wonder (wink)?

Dialogue ~ 43

I have been thinking about the words of Jesus, “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17 20-21)

Together with what the Dutch philosopher Baruch (de) Spinoza was referring to, some 360 years ago, when he said, “I will here only briefly state what I mean by true good, and also what is the nature of the highest good. In order that this may be rightly understood, we must bear in mind that the terms good and evil are only applied relatively, so that the same thing may be called both good and bad according to the relations in view, in the same way as it may be called perfect or imperfect. Nothing regarded in its own nature can be called perfect or imperfect; especially when we are aware that all things which come to pass, come to pass according to the eternal order and fixed laws of nature.

However, human weakness cannot attain to this order in its own thoughts, but meanwhile man conceives a human character much more stable than his own, and sees that there is no reason why he should not himself acquire such a character. Thus he is led to seek for means which will bring him to this pitch of perfection, and calls everything which will serve as such means a true good. The chief good is that he should arrive, together with other individuals if possible, at the possession of the aforesaid character. What that character is we shall show in due time, namely, that it is the knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature.”

Incidentally, Spinoza was excommunicated from his Jewish community due to his ‘abominable heresies’ and 'monstrous deeds'.

Most people would agree that knowledge about how things are (reality) comes through perception, whether this is from observation of a physical world or through contemplation of its material. We presume that knowledge is cumulative, that it can be taught and we transmit what we know through language. Further, how we experience life (based upon this knowledge) is recorded within our genetics. This is understood when we say ‘they (the next generation) shall inherit the sins (iniquities) of their fathers’.

We effectively ‘pass the baton’ of what is ‘known’ from one generation to the next, whether this is in the guise of our ‘truths’ or iniquities; it is essentially why many are inspired to leave the world in better shape than how they found it.

Knowledge has always been a prized asset of any community and as such has been carefully preserved as well as manipulated. Language has been appropriated through the ages by various authorities or self-proclaimed ‘guardians’ of the truth. This has been the cause of tyranny and considerable anguish.

Consider for instance, that if a person acted against the ruling classes or monarchy they were (are) deemed as treasonous (this includes trespass upon/break the law). If they said (say) other than the official religious or cultural narrative they were (are) heretical (hate speech). If they attempt to break out of the cultural norms, they were (are) shamed or ostracised (excommunicated or nowadays cancelled).

Clearly, it became (is) a recognisable offence, according to how one goes about challenging authority/those in power regardless of whether this is done through speech or action.

Interestingly, the etymology of the word ‘heretic’ is: from Middle English heretyk, heretike, from Old French  eretique, from Medieval Latin or Ecclesiastical Latin haereticus, from Ancient Greek αἱρετικός, (hairetikós, “able to choose, factious”), itself from Ancient Greek αἱρέω (hairéō, “I choose”).

Effectively then, what we can also recognise is that a person has been (is) judged and found guilty of exercising their individualism (freedom of choice) if done in such a way as it threatens the prevailing authorities of ‘truth’, that is to say, the cultural norm.

Occasionally a person has been martyred for having created an opportunity for change to emerge; after they’ve been sufficiently persecuted so as to deter a good many others.

The philosopher Ervin Laszlo has spoken in the past of systems change always coming from the disenfranchised or very fringes of society. This suggests that pressure builds up in a system and the ones who are less embedded in preserving the status quo of a system are the ones who are most likely to instigate or to engage with the dynamics of change.

Is this progress or simply history repeating itself? There is a difference between what constitutes systems change and what brings about a new paradigm (think ouroboros).

A new paradigm is an expression of an entirely different way of constructing and processing of information (cognitive) and of relating of oneself in relation to community; it involves one’s thoughts and behaviours.

Is there always a period of tyranny before any new paradigm can emerge? Is it that humanity is averse to change and if this is so, what is the cause of this inertia?

Spinoza suggests that ‘all things come to pass according to the eternal order and fixed laws of nature’ – effectively JUSTICE. Spinoza suggests that it is a weakness (instability) of the human mind in that it cannot attain to this order and so it conceives of a figure as outside of itself which can. Concomitant with one’s own judgment of oneself is conflict; to resolve this dichotomy which has arisen is the pursuit of virtue and of the highest good.

Is that which constitutes inertia (the will) a matter of one’s own hubris – of shame? For this to occur, one must already have perceived of oneself as being that which is other than (as Spinoza puts it) ‘the whole of nature’.

Paradoxically – time, it appears, is a representation of inertia – of what constitutes the will and of any movement of mind. In measuring time, we have found a way of diverting ourselves from recognising and attending to the fracture as it exists in our perception of being ‘other than’. Such is the human timeline, indeed of what denotes history. We cannot create what is already and always just and good; this is essentially truth.

Justice is a new paradigm in itself, in that it is as Jesus puts it, ‘the kingdom of God that is within’. How then, does one navigate when one’s world (as it appears) has been turned upside down or inside out?

Dialogue ~ 42

Previously I asked, “Are Prometheus, Athena and Hephaestus representative of aspects of one’s inclination, as it charts the course of one’s will?”

To explore this further, it might be an idea to look at the relationship of Prometheus and his brother Epimethius. Whereas Prometheus was said to represent ‘forethought’, his brother Epimethius was said to represent ‘afterthought or hindsight’. Together, the brothers were said to act as representatives of humanity. Prometheus has often been referred to as a ‘culture hero’ or instigator. The association of his ‘being at the vanguard’ or at the forefront has been attractive to the notion of any given society or organisation as having supremacy over others or of being progressive.

The myth of Prometheus has it that Zeus had him bound to a rock, presumably as a form of punishment for his having stolen fire from the gods and/or of being a champion of humanity. It would take a ‘strong man’ i.e. Heracles (Hercules), to shoot the eagle that was tormenting Prometheus on a daily basis and to free him from his chains.

Wikipedia gives this reference to Prometheus and Epimetheus, attributing Leo Strauss, “Prometheus decided that humankind’s attributes would be the civilising arts and fire, which he stole from Athena and Hephaestus. Prometheus later stood trial for his crime. In the context of Plato’s dialogue, “Epimetheus, the being in whom thought follows production, represents nature in the sense of materialism, according to which thought comes later than thoughtless bodies and their thoughtless motions.”

Consider that if Prometheus (as representative of a timeless aspect of the syzygy) is bound, that one’s experience of time is doomed to repeat. ‘Epimetheus, the being in whom thought follows production’ – effectively, as if the ‘hindsight’ of Epimetheus has been put at the helm of humanity and an ‘idea’ of the absentee brother of Prometheus is being deployed as an ongoing corrective of course. Was it the hubris of Prometheus that was in question or instead the short sightedness of Zeus?

How do we look beyond Epimetheus as being “representative of nature in the sense of materialism, according to which thought comes later than thoughtless bodies and their thoughtless motions”? It is civilisation which has given rise to the megalith of our scientific and technological endeavours as well as of materialism in all of its superficial glory.

Perhaps Prometheus and Epimethius do not ‘spin in the same circle as one another’ as in a lateral or ‘same’ axis of time, but function in much the same way as the mechanism which we conceive of as a gyroscope? It is not that materialism (or physicality as we perceive it) is flawed, so much as it has obscured reality or a ‘larger wheel of our being’ – and one in which Prometheus invites us to wisdom?

Previously I asked, “What is the purpose of time? Does time provide a ‘medium or space’ for a person to recognise themselves as (in relationship with) life – and for however long that shift of thought and comprehension takes? Even that imagery is flawed, in that it suggests something (time as a medium or as space) exists which is ‘other’ than self. Perhaps time as space IS synonymous with movement of mind? Not quantitative (which is how we are accustomed to measuring time) but qualitative?” and, “Consider that when infinity gives way to necessity, there is an opening for one’s truth (aleithia).”

Epimetheus brings something into focus, much as does the tale of Sisyphus, in that there are growing fractures in the modalities of knowledge and intellectual pursuit, so diligently crafted in the West; patching them up with quick fixes in the name of progress is slowly driving us into an era of authoritarianism and tyranny, much as has occurred in the past with Zeus.

In his book ‘What is Political Philosophy?’, Leo Strauss wrote, “Philosophy as such is nothing but genuine awareness of the problems, i.e. of the fundamental and comprehensive problems. It is impossible to think about these problems without becoming inclined towards a solution, toward one or the other of the very few typical solutions. Yet as long as there is no wisdom but only quest for wisdom, the evidence of all solutions is necessarily smaller than the evidence of the problems.”

The famous quote, often attributed to Einstein (although it looks as if he never said it), “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” says much the same thing.

Strauss continues, “Therefore the philosopher ceases to be a philosopher at the moment at which the ‘subjective certainty’ (quoting M. Alexandre Kojève) of a solution becomes stronger than his awareness of the problematic character of that solution. At that moment the sectarian is born.”

“The danger of succumbing to the attraction of solutions is essential to philosophy which, without incurring this danger, would degenerate into playing with the problems. But the philosopher does not necessarily succumb to this danger, as is shown by Socrates, who never belonged to a sect and never founded one. And even if the philosophic friends are compelled to be members of a sect or to found one, they are not necessarily members of one and the same sect: Amicus Plato.”

(“Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas” is a Latin phrase, translating to “Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend (literally: Plato is friend, but truth is more friend (to me than he is)). The maxim is often attributed to Aristotle, as a paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics 1096a11-15.

Effectively then, as soon as we think we ‘are certain’ about something or have found ‘a solution’ to whatever problem is at hand, the mirage before us disintegrates and we are left with as many pieces as before. What does this say about science or the religions of the world? That they are not to be trusted, or rather, that they are not intended to be intransigent? It is not change per se that is in focus here, as in ‘rearranging the same furniture in the room’ but transforming the way that everything in the room is seen – would that be to follow in the footsteps of Heracles, to meet with Prometheus and to escape the ‘gimbal lock’?