Light and Consciousness

I'm pretty slow, but I think I finally realized why consciousness is likened to light. Empedocles says,

We see Earth by Earth, Water by Water,
Aither by divine Aither, Fire by destructive Fire,
Love by Love, and Strife by baneful Strife.

This implies that Empedocles, like Plotinus, assumes that one has a body composed of each and one's experience is mediated by each body. But Fire is sharp and pierces more-or-less easily through the other roots, and so:

• When you have an air body, a water body, and an earth body, light passes through the first two and impacts on the third, which is why you experience having an earth body.

• When you only have an air body and a water body, light passes through the first and impacts on the second (having nothing further to impact upon), which is why you experience having a water body.

• When you only have an air body, light impacts on it (having nothing further to impact upon), which is why you experience having an air body.

That is, light travels as far from Fire as it can, reflecting or scattering itself on whatever is furthest away from it, and it is the reflection or scattering which finally returns to Fire itself that we finally experience.

Isis and Osiris VIII: The Dismemberment of Osiris

Photograph of Athena, Nike, and Dionysus by @franditaynch.

---

As in my last essay, I have compared the myth of Osiris to its precise Greek equivalent, the myth of Dionysus. For being perhaps the most discussed myth of late antiquity, it is very difficult to find a comprehensive, authoritative version of that myth! The best I've managed to find is Thomas Taylor's synthesis (The Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries II) of the myth from "a variety of authors:"

#	Plutarch, Isis and Osiris	Thomas Taylor, Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries
C1	Set and seventy-two conspirators trick Osiris into a beautifully ornamented box, seal it with molten lead, and push it into the Nile.	The Titans distract Dionysus with toys and especially a mirror.
C2	Isis grieves, wanders, searches for the box, finds it, brings it back to Egypt, and hides it.	[cf. C5]
C3	Set finds the box, opens it, divides Osiris into fourteen pieces, and scatters them across Egypt.	The Titans tear Dionysus into pieces.
C4	Fish eat Osiris's penis.	Athena secretly hides Dionysus's heart.
C5	[cf. C2]	The Titans boil and roast the pieces of Dionysus and eat some of them. Zeus destroys the Titans. Mankind is formed from their ashes.
C6	Isis recovers the remaining pieces of Osiris.	Zeus recovers the pieces of Dionysus and gives them to Apollo.
C7	Isis makes a replacement penis, reassembles Osiris, and by him (and magic) becomes pregnant.	Athena restores Dionysus's heart.
C8	Isis buries each piece in a different place and institutes the mysteries in commemoration of Osiris.
C9	Isis gives birth to Horus the Younger, but he is born premature and lame.
C10	Horus defeats Set and becomes king of Egypt.	Dionysus returns to life.

I mentioned before that I think Isis and Osiris are universal, and hence the mysteries of Isis and the story of her wandering represents a universal process. Similarly, I think that Horus is the individual soul, and hence the mysteries of Horus and the story of his war with Set represents an individual process. In the same way that Plato (Symposium 202E ff.) mediates gods and men with daimons, and Iamblichus (cf. E. R. Dodds, Proclus: the Elements of Theology pp. xix, xxii) relies on the "law of mean terms" to unite disparate principles, I think that this myth acts as a mediator between the two other myths; so if the mysteries of Isis describe the macrocosm and the mysteries of Horus describe the microcosm, then the mysteries of Osiris must describe the mesocosm. In that sense, it is no wonder that Apuleius (Golden Ass XI) says that the mysteries repeat themselves: they are describing the same process over again from three perspectives.

Recalling that the Isis myth is universal in scope, it refers to a global reunification, in which Earth becomes able to reflect Fire as perfectly as it is capable of, in humanity. We haven't talked about the Horus myth yet, but given that Horus is the individual soul, it refers to the reunification of the individual soul with Fire, it's father and source. Therefore, the Osiris myth is between them in scope, and if it is to preserve a sort of fractal self-similarity, it must refer to a reunification in human society. I don't think this is a stretch at all: we clearly see these three scales reflected in the myth when Isis institutes the mysteries [C8], explicitly linking the parts of Osiris (the universal) with the parts of Egypt (the societal) and with the parts of Man (the individual). (For a listing of which part is which, see E. A. Wallis Budge, Legends of the Gods p. 224 fn. 2). We also see this fractal self-similarity in the very structure of Egyptian architecture, as R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz discusses.

Therefore the pieces in which Set divides Osiris refer to the division of humanity into parts of whatever sort (regions, classes, professions, individuals, etc.), while Isis gathering them back into a whole refers to the organization of society in a "natural" fashion, according to the skills and abilities of each part of society, so that each might work towards the benefit of all. (Presumably, the specific number of fourteen refers to the major cult centers of Osiris; because each of these refers to a specific body part, and each body part has a particular function, it is plausible that there was once some formal association with certain professions or skills, which I can only guess at. I have conjectured that the specific number of fourteen may have a geometric mnemonic related to it; but that, too, is only a guess.) Such an ordering of society, like Plotinus tells us, causes society to mirror Mind as perfectly as possible, creating peace and leisure. Not only is this rewarding of itself, but freeing that part of humanity which is capable of reascent at a given time from animal concerns allows them to focus on spiritual concerns, which is represented by the fish eating Osiris's penis and Isis making and consecrating of a new one. Therefore, the cultivation and education of individual souls from the abundance produced by a civilized society is how Isis draws the essence of Osiris from the fragments and gives birth to Horus the Younger, those souls who have reached the point of reascent and have the freedom to be able to do so. Thus the universal becomes individual and the One becomes many.

I don't think this cultivation necessarily refers to an explicitly priestly class; Empedocles says of those who are drawing near to reascent:

εἰς δὲ τέλος μάντεις τε καὶ ὑμνόπολοι καὶ ἰητροί
καὶ πρόμοι ἀνθρώποισιν ἐπιχθονίοισι πέλονται·
ἔνθεν ἀναβλαστοῦσι θεοὶ τιμῇσι φέριστοι.

Finally they become prophets and hymn-singers and doctors
and leaders among men who dwell on earth;
thence they sprout up as most-exalted gods.

Plotinus speaks of lovers, aesthetes, and philosophers in a similar way. Presumably there are as many avenues for individuals to develop as there are individual souls, and this is why any organization of society must be done along "natural" lines by Isis (that is, by evaluation of each individual's talents, interests, and capacities), rather than forced by some other means of classism. To be honest, I really wonder about all this: our "leaders" are the most dangerous enemies of their nations, our "physicians" promote sickness rather than healing, our "singers" sing only the most vapid "poetry," our "philosophers" have taken a nosedive into nihilism, and so our society is almost the photographic negative of an ordered one; and yet, here I am, trying my very best to do as my angel bids, and they would not push me so if there were nothing to be gained from it. Indeed, I'd imagine that the making of a heaven-on-earth would prevent people from seeking that higher Heaven—after all, it is well said that "man's extremity is God's opportunity." So while it's clearly a good to have a society that reflects divinity as clearly as it can and we might wish to live in such a society, we should be careful what we wish for and trust that Providence knows what it is doing when it places us here. Still, we know so little about Egypt's material accomplishments even when they were literally set in stone—how much less can we know about its spiritual accomplishments, which leave no record behind? So I suppose I should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, I think we see the exact same process in the Dionysus myth. Dionysus ("Zeus of Nysa," that is, the god of the upper world) is Osiris. The Titans are the separatory forces of the lower world ("matter"). I think Dionysus becoming fascinated by his reflection is a cute development of Set's beautiful box, showing Mind wishing to reflect itself in matter. Similarly, the boiling of Dionysus in water (the last of the roots) and roasting in fire (the first of the roots) is a cute description of the loss of Mind in matter and the restructuring of matter to form a reflection of Mind to form humanity, just as Zeus does from the ashes of the Titans. Athena is civilization, and her snatching away and restoration of Dionysus's heart is the structuring of civilization to reflect the order inherent in Mind as closely as possible. Apollo is Horus, and the giving of the pieces of Dionysus to Apollo indicates that, by so structuring society in an orderly manner, its parts—individual souls—can become as Apollo (who fell to Earth, served Admetus for a time, and reascended to heaven).

Another related myth is that of Attis and Kybele: Attis falling in love with a nymph is the same as Dionysus becoming fascinated with his reflection; leaving Kybele to live with her is the Mind's descent into matter; the cutting off of his penis is the turn from material concerns to spiritual concerns; and finally Attis returns to Kybele's side, that is, Mind reascends to heaven. Plutarch doesn't specify where Set scatters the pieces of Osiris, but since Isis is said to search up and down the Nile in a reed boat, I must suppose that the pieces are scattered beside the Nile, which is just the same as Attis lying by the Gallus ("Galaxy," i.e. Milky Way), indicating the scattering of Mind at the border of the material world now that matter can reflect Mind (however imperfectly).

Perhaps because of the apalling time in which we live, I've always found politics somewhere between distasteful and outright dangerous, and so I have paid very little attention to the political side of the philosophical tradition (and, indeed, have expressed my bewilderment at Plotinus's involvement in it). But there is a very important political side to it: the Pythagoreans were destroyed because of it, Plato's most acclaimed books concern themselves with it, Plotinus's great regret was his failure to implement it, Plethon's life work was its attempted restoration, etc. If my interpretation of the Osiris myth is correct—and I'm not the first to propose Plato got his politics from Heliopolis—it's clear why it is such an important thread woven through the tradition: is Plato's wish for a philosopher-king really any different from Egypt's (admittedly imperfect, but remarkably durable) example of a Horus-Pharaoh? I suppose I'll have to hold my nose and make a close reading of the Republic, Laws, Epinomis, and the remaining fragments of the Book of Laws one of these days...

---

I've focused on the myth itself and ignored all the really weird shit they say about the cults and festivals of Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Baal, Adonis, and so on. It would take a book to do so and I'm not the one to write it, since I can't even make heads or tails of my own culture, let alone those of three thousand years ago! But let me at least spend a brief moment on an anecdote which I was reminded of lately: the story of Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great. If you're not familiar, Plutarch tells us a very silly story about her and her snaky cuddle-buddy in his Life of Alexander:

We are told that Philip, after being initiated into the mysteries of Samothrace at the same time with Olympias, he himself being still a youth and she an orphan child, fell in love with her and betrothed himself to her at once[. ... After the marriage,] a serpent was once seen lying stretched out by the side of Olympias as she slept, and we are told that this, more than anything else, dulled the ardour of Philip's attentions to his wife, so that he no longer came often to sleep by her side, either because he feared that some spells and enchantments might be practised upon him by her, or because he shrank from her embraces in the conviction that she was the partner of a superior being.

But concerning these matters there is another story to this effect: all the women of these parts were addicted to the Orphic rites and the orgies of Dionysus from very ancient times [...]. Now Olympias, who affected these divine possessions more zealously than other women, and carried out these divine inspirations in wilder fashion, used to provide the revelling companies with great tame serpents, which would often lift their heads from out the ivy and the mystic winnowing-baskets, or coil themselves about the wands and garlands of the women, thus terrifying the men.

However, after his vision, as we are told, Philip sent Chæron of Megalopolis to Delphi, by whom an oracle was brought him from Apollo, who bade him sacrifice to Zeus Amun and hold that god in greatest reverence, but told him he was to lose that one of his eyes which he had applied to the chink in the door when he espied the god, in the form of a serpent, sharing the couch of his wife.

(Philip lost his right eye a couple years later, during the siege of Methone.) This whole story is almost certainly completely false, but apparently, Alexander took it to heart, as Aulus Gellius (Attic Nights XIII iv, paraphrased) tells us:

Alexander had written a letter to his mother addressed as, "King Alexander, son of Zeus Amun, to his mother Olympias, greetings." Olympias replied, "My son, please be silent in such matters and do not slander me before Hera, for she exacts cruel vengeance upon her husband's paramours." This courteous reply from the wise and prudent woman was meant to dissuade her son from his foolish arrogance, stoked by his great successes in battle and the flattery of his courtiers, without herself earning his ire.

Snakes, which periodically shed their skin and so appear to become young again, are representative of immortality: they are therefore a fitting symbol of the mysteries, which teach that humans are essentially immortal and attempt to show them how they may attain to higher Life, which is, in fact, the meaning behind the myth of Cadmus and Harmonia being turned into snakes (by Dionysus, no less!) before being led to Elysium (cf. Pseudo-Apollodorus, Library III v).

How many initiates—to say nothing of the masses!—attain to that degree of understanding, though? It is no wonder, especially given the association of the mysteries with maenads and orgies and phallic idols, that all sorts of silly stories concerning snakes crop up. Presumably, if Olympias was known for her wisdom then she made something of her initiations!

But the reason I mention all this (besides the story being amusing) is because it made me remember something about Apollo's own Revealer of the Mysteries:

Of Plotinus's last moments, Eustochius has given me an account. He himself was staying at Puteoli and was late in arriving. When he at last came, Plotinus said: "I have been a long time waiting for you: I am striving to give back the Divine in myself to the Divine in the All." As he spoke a snake crept under the bed on which he lay and slipped away into a hole in the wall; at the same moment Plotinus died.

(Porphyry, Life of Plotinus II.)

The snake should have been a hint: Plotinus never died! Like Cadmus, he merely shed his skin.