[Discussion] On the Gods and the World, Ch. III

[sdi]

Happy Wednesday, everyone! Let's pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

III. Concerning myths; that they are divine, and why.

We may well inquire, then, why the ancients forsook these doctrines and made use of myths. There is this first benefit from myths, that we have to search and do not have our minds idle.

That the myths are divine can be seen from those who have used them. Myths have been used by inspired poets, by the best of philosophers, by those who established the mysteries, and by the Gods themselves in oracles. But why the myths are divine it is the duty of Philosophy to inquire. Since all existing things rejoice in that which is like them and reject that which is unlike, the stories about the Gods ought to be like the Gods, so that they may both be worthy of the divine essence and make the Gods well disposed to those who speak of them: which could only be done by means of myths.

Now the myths represent the Gods themselves and the goodness of the Gods—subject always to the distinction of the speakable and the unspeakable, the revealed and the unrevealed, that which is clear and that which is hidden: since, just as the Gods have made the goods of sense common to all, but those of intellect only to the wise, so the myths state the existence of Gods to all, but who and what they are only to those who can understand.

They also represent the activities of the Gods. For one may call the World a Myth, in which bodies and things are visible, but souls and minds hidden. Besides, to wish to teach the whole truth about the Gods to all produces contempt in the foolish, because they cannot understand, and lack of zeal in the good; whereas to conceal the truth by myths prevents the contempt of the foolish, and compels the good to practice philosophy.

But why have they put in the myths stories of adultery, robbery, father-binding, and all the other absurdity? Is not that perhaps a thing worthy of admiration, done so that by means of the visible absurdity the Soul may immediately feel that the words are veils and believe the truth to be a mystery?*

* Thomas Taylor notes, "In addition to what the philosopher has said in this chapter concerning the utility of fables, we may observe farther, that fables when properly explained, call forth our unperverted conceptions of the gods; give a greater perfection to the divine part of our soul, through that ineffable sympathy which is possesses with more mystic concerns; heal the maladies of our phantasy, purify and illuminate its figured intellections, and elevate it in conjunction with the rational soul to that which is divine."

Comments

[sdi]

I remember when I first read OTGATW at boccaderlupo's suggestion, the myth chapters (this one and the next) were really surprising to me: it had never occurred to me to take the myths at anything other than face value. Obviously, there's quite a bit of meditative value in them, but I guess I had always just assumed this was incidental (e.g. that anything makes good meditation fodder).

[temporaryreality]

I want to thank you all for last week's conversation thread. I didn't have a chance to reply to the last few meaty comments, but I've been thinking on them (mostly I had to concede that I very much resemble the almost-talking dog sdi brought up, and I have to simply take all the discourse on gods on faith that somebody knows something even if I don't!).

I still haven't quite moved all that far beyond the myths-as-literal mindset (ok, I admit, I haven't been actively trying, but that's why I'm reading Sallust), but this conversation https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/64329.html?thread=5493321#cmt5493321 (in which I inexplicably posted anonymously) was very helpful at disabusing me of the notion that the gods really are literally the way they appear in the myths.

[sdi]

I very much resemble the almost-talking dog

We're all Genevieve. (It's good company, she's the "noblest dog in France!")

Thank you for linking that thread, it's good food for thought. I think I'm behind in all this since the deities I have a relationship with are the ones who sought me out—and they don't belong to any pantheons I'm aware of!—so I never ended up really thinking about pantheons in anything other than an abstract way (e.g. characters in a play, or perhaps if you twisted my arm, wedges of the cosmic pie that is existence). Perhaps this is why I've been spending so much mental energy on pondering gods-vs-dæmons, and how the Neoplatonic notion of gods relates to the pantheons...

[boccaderlupo]

Here's an interesting take from Butler on some of the craziness depicted in them that echoes both the thread linked from temporaryreality and Sallustius's final point above.

[sdi]

For one may call the World a Myth, in which bodies and things are visible, but souls and minds hidden.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Neoplatonism essentially states that this right here is the one Big Idea™ of Neoplatonism: everything—everything!—has an inner aspect and an outer aspect, and the outer aspect is in some sense the byproduct of whatever is happening internally. It hadn't occurred to me until now that it's quite natural to apply the same lens to creative works as we do to the world. After all, what is the world but a creative work?

[barefootwisdom]

After all, what is the world but a creative work?

I'll see that and raise you one. The cosmos is (a) creative work in the fullest, most perfect sense possible. All human acts of creation (or what Tolkien called "sub-creation") within that cosmos are, in some sense, a pale imitation of that divine cosmogony.

[boccaderlupo]

Since all existing things rejoice in that which is like them and reject that which is unlike...

Sallustius slips this one in there, but it's worth bearing in mind, as it's a theme repeated elsewhere, and could potentially fall under his earlier caveat about "common conceptions." I'm trying to find a better source for clarifying it, but in short, it's that like things congregate together harmoniously, whereas unlike things repulse (I'm basically just restating what he said above, so will try to find a better source).

This idea, however, underlies sympathetic magic in general: the sunthemata (tokens) of the gods, whether they be myths or language or actual physical objects, have some affinities to the god(s) in question.

[sdi]

The point is worth raising!

I agree that this is another axiom, introduced without justification and intended to be used to justify other things.

To be honest, when I saw it, I thought it was a bit suspect since it's not clear to me at all that it's true—I always thought opposites attract and likes repel—but held my tongue since it feels like this is one of those areas where I'm probably just weird.

[boccaderlupo]

No, I think you raise a cogent point. It's worth reflecting on, though there's also that old saw, "birds of a feather flock together." It may be that opposites attract, in a sense, but not in the same way that similarities congregate--the former perhaps creating a sort of antagonistic harmony (?).

Some references on similarities and its use in rites, from Iamblichus (online translation): "The explanation which is now made is far superior, which does not assume that divine operations are accomplished by means of contrary or different natures, as things of nature are wont to be effected; but, instead, that every work is rightly accomplished through sameness, oneness and conformity of nature."

And again: "Indeed, there is a certain creative activity of various kinds extending from the whole universe into the parts either from sympathy through similarity of powers, or from the adaptation of the active to the passive principle."

Emphases mine.

[boccaderlupo]

Wracking my brain (and the Internet) to find other examples of this "same unto same" belief expressed in ancient philosophy and Platonism in particular, but it's worth noting that sentiments like this were expressed even earlier, in Timaeus. I'm looking in particular at the reference to vision:

When the light of day surrounds the stream of vision, then like falls upon like, and they coalesce, and one body is formed by natural affinity in the line of vision, wherever the light that falls from within meets with an external object. And the whole stream of vision, being similarly affected in virtue of similarity...

[boccaderlupo]

I will apologize to and beg leave of sdi as a host for too many comments (and comments-to-myself, to boot), but the larger theme here, of congruence between similarity, likely bears on the ideas of emanation from The One (and the gods) and the idea of "participation," which is not explicitly mentioned (I think) by Sallustius, but is relevant background.

To your point above about the relationship between the inner and outer aspects: yes, but in particular I would suggest it has to do with the gods, at the highest level of ontological reality (barring The One, which is not accessible to us), and their attributes "trickling down," as it were, through all the other layers (including this last one, the material plane). Perhaps not unlike object-oriented programming, in a crude sense, but I digress.

Thus, a given object manifest here on the material plane bears certain spiritual resonances with the gods dwelling "upstream" of it on a higher plane.

[sdi]

I will apologize to and beg leave of [personal profile] sdi as a host for too many comments (and comments-to-myself, to boot)

No apology necessary, and please proceed by all means! Self-dialogue is how I meditate. :)

[barefootwisdom]

It may be that opposites attract, in a sense, but not in the same way that similarities congregate...

I think "opposites" may be a bit of a red herring here, since strictly speaking, a given term/property/etc. can only have a single proper opposite. Black is unlike all the other colors, but only opposite of white.

It seems to me that an important part of the contrast between likeness and unlikeness is that there is (plausibly) only a single way for a pair of things to be alike, while there are indefinitely many ways of being unlike. So in the Pythagorean Table of Opposites, likeness would belong in the first column, and unlikeness in the second. And its axiomatic (to a Pythagorean) that the things in the first column are preferable to the things in the second.

[sdi]

Ah, excellent! Thank you, this makes sense of it. You are correct, "opposite" implies that something is on the same axis (so to speak) as something else: that they are two poles of the same quality. (In a sense this is a kind of likeness itself, hence why "opposites attract.")

[temporaryreality]

"May the universe within me and the universe around me be in harmony..." from the Sphere of Protection ritual is certainly an extension of Iamblichus's point.

[barefootwisdom]

I think our translator is over-translating here. Nock simply has "all things in existence rejoice in likeness, and turn away from unlikeness," and I see nothing in the Greek that we should render in a reflexive or self-referential way as "like them."

So, initially this makes me simply think along the lines of "delighting in harmony, and being averse to discord."

There's a passage in the last section of Plato's Phaedo (109a) that uses the same term for "likeness" (or, as Taylor renders it, "similitude"). Here's Taylor's rendition of that passage. We're getting a report of the speech of Socrates:

I am persuaded, therefore (says he), in the first place, that if the earth is in the middle of the heavens, and is of a spherical figure, it has no occasion of air, nor of any other such-like necessity, to prevent it from falling: but that the perfect similitude of the heavens to themselves, and the equilibrity of the earth, are sufficient causes of its support. For that which is equally inclined, when places in the middle of a similar nature, cannot tend more or less to one part than another, but, subsisting on all sides similarly affected, it will remain free from all inclination.

Here, likeness/similitude is what's necessary (and all that's necessary) for the earth to maintain is equilibrium, rather than being pushed or pulled to one side or another.

Maybe this sheds some light on Sallustius' principle, too.

[sdi]

Thank you, I think this helps clarify things immensely.

[temporaryreality]

I have to admit, I'm quite smitten with the verb choice, "rejoice."

[barefootwisdom]

It points to something really potent, doesn't it? ;)

The Greek verb is khairein, which is the same term astrologers use when they discuss the "planetary joys": e.g., "The Moon rejoices in the third house/place."

To your other comment above, this rejoicing connotes a kind of resounding in harmony.

All of which may also help deepen some esoteric connections here...

[temporaryreality]

Nice!

[barefootwisdom]

This idea, however, underlies sympathetic magic in general: the sunthemata (tokens) of the gods, whether they be myths or language or actual physical objects, have some affinities to the god(s) in question.

Here too, I think the Platonist can agree about this affinity, while making the case even more strongly. Everything in the cosmos both proceeds from the Gods, and desires to revert back to its divine source.

[boccaderlupo]

Yes, and it's in this sense that this fundamental idea--that all things proceed from the gods and the return--is the foundation of Western esotericism and magic (divination, invocation, et al.)

Axé

[temporaryreality]

Playing around with the dyads (and without further comment at this time)...

speakable : unspeakable

revealed : unrevealed

clear : hidden

sense : intellect

existence of the gods : who and what they are

bodies and things : souls and minds

visible absurdity : mystery
or
words are veils : truth is a mystery