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

[sdi]

Good morning, and a sunny Wednesday to you all! Now we're really getting into the meat of it, so let's pick the puzzle-box back up, shall we?

VI. On Gods Cosmic and Hypercosmic.

Of the Gods some are of the world, Cosmic,* and some above the world, Hypercosmic. By the Cosmic I mean those who make the Cosmos. Of the Hypercosmic Gods some create Essence, some Mind, and some Soul.† Thus they have three orders; all of which may be found in treatises on the subject.

Of the Cosmic Gods some make the World be, others animate it, others harmonize it, consisting as it does of different elements; the fourth class keep it when harmonized.

These are four actions, each of which has a beginning, middle, and end, consequently there must be twelve gods governing the world.

Those who make the world are Zeus, Poseidon, and Hephaistos; those who animate it are Demeter, Hera, and Artemis; those who harmonize it are Apollo, Aphrodite, and Hermes; those who watch over it are Hestia, Athena, and Ares.‡§

One can see secret suggestions of this in their images. Apollo tunes a lyre; Athena is armed; Aphrodite is naked (because harmony creates beauty, and beauty in things seen is not covered).

While these twelve in the primary sense possess the world, we should consider that the other gods are contained in these. Dionysus in Zeus, for instance, Asklepios in Apollo, the Charites in Aphrodite.

We can also discern their various spheres: to Hestia belongs the Earth, to Poseidon water, to Hera air, to Hephaistos fire. And the six superior spheres to the gods to whom they are usually attributed. For Apollo and Artemis are to be taken for the Sun and Moon, the sphere of Kronos should be attributed to Demeter, the ether to Athena, while the heaven is common to all. Thus the orders, powers, and spheres of the Twelve Gods have been explained and celebrated in hymns.

* Gilbert Murray notes, "I translate κόσμος ['cosmos'] generally as 'World,' sometimes as 'Cosmos.' It always has the connotation of 'divine order.'"

† Arthur Darby Nock translates this line differently: "Of the supramundane some make the essences of the gods, some the intelligence, some the souls." (Emphasis mine.) That is, they don't just make Essence, Mind, and Soul generally, it is that the Hypercosmic Gods make the Cosmic Gods, which in turn go and make other things.

‡ Thomas Taylor notes, "Such of my English readers as are capable of ascending to a knowledge of the gods, through a regular course of philosophic discipline, may consult my translation of the Elements of Theology, by Proclus [p. 300], my Introduction to the Parmenides of Plato, and my Notes on the Cratylus, where the orders of the gods are more fully unfolded." I was unable to find a full online scan of Taylor's Cratylus, Phædo, Parmenides and Timæus of Plato, but it's still in print and easy to find.

§ Once again, here and below, Taylor uses the Roman deities: Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan, Ceres, Juno, Diana, Mercury, Venus, Apollo, Vesta, Minerva (also Pallas), Mars, Bacchus, the Graces, and Saturn. Note that Taylor has swapped the order of Mercury and Apollo!

Comments

[sdi]

This discussion of the Twelve is very elegant! I saw it, of course, the first time I went through OTGATW, but somehow it didn't "click" for me then. When I transcribed this chapter a few days ago, it got stuck in my mind and I've been pondering it since.

These four actions, of course, correspond to the elements: fire creates, air animates, water blends, and earth stabilizes. The three qualities also have their astrological correspondence. Probably derived from this, I've seen the division of the world into threes of fours pretty commonly in occult philosophy (e.g. Papus).

But while the astrological associations are a bit abstract, for some reason tying these qualities to the Olympians makes them feel a lot more direct and sensible to me. For example, I've been trying to make sense of Athena for almost as long as I've been reading Greek myth (as a Millennial growing up in America—a civilization as toxic as any there have been—perhaps this is unsurprising). Sallustius casting her as the one who defends the edifices Hestia builds, though, for whatever reason makes Her conception "gel" in my mind: while I frankly think most of what we've built is more in need of Ares' talents, Athena's the one to turn to for preserving anything that's worth saving through the Dark Age to come.

I'll be meditating on these for a long time, I think.

[sdi]

While I'm making astrological associations, maybe for fun let's tie Sallustius' view of the Olympians to the zodiac and see what we end up with?

Zodiac	Quality	Element	Olympian
Aries	Cardinal	Fire	Zeus
Taurus	Fixed	Earth	Athena
Gemini	Mutable	Air	Artemis
Cancer	Cardinal	Water	Apollo
Leo	Fixed	Fire	Poseidon
Virgo	Mutable	Earth	Ares
Libra	Cardinal	Air	Demeter
Scorpio	Fixed	Water	Aphrodite
Sagittarius	Mutable	Fire	Hephaistos
Capricorn	Cardinal	Earth	Hestia
Aquarius	Fixed	Air	Hera
Pisces	Mutable	Water	Hermes

Some of these are very traditional: for example, Manilius also assigns Hestia to Capricorn and Hera to Aquarius. Some of them make sense if you turn your head and squint: for example, Zeus to Aries certainly fits his mythos and Demeter opposite him is logical enough. Most of the rest are pretty strange to me at first blush, and I'll need to think about it.

[sdi]

And, heck, why don't I make a table of the associations that Sallustius gives explicitly, too?

Sphere	Olympian
Stars	<common to all>
Saturn	Demeter
Jupiter	Zeus
Mars	Ares
Sol	Apollo
Venus	Aphrodite
Mercury	Hermes
Luna	Artemis
Æther	Athena
Fire	Hephæstos
Air	Hera
Water	Poseidon
Earth	Hestia

[sdi]

Murray puts Apollo in the "beginning" slot, and Hermes in the "ending" slot, of the harmonizing deities. Nock does the same. I found it interesting that Taylor swaps them, but I'm not sure what to make of it.

[sdi]

While I really like the discussion of Cosmic deities, the mention of the Hypercosmic deities is a bit cryptic. Given its brevity, and that Sallustius mostly just says "look it up," I'm assuming that it's considered an advanced topic that is too complex and not essential enough to warrant a discussion in an introductory text?

[boccaderlupo]

Yes, I also find this discussion of the 12 (four triplicities) to be very useful. I found it fruitful also to meditate on these relationships with regard to the four primeval gods mentioned by Hesiod (Tartarus, Ge, Eros, and Chaos). For example, we could conceivably correlate the "makers" with Chaos, as imposing order on the cosmos, and the "harmonizers" perhaps with Eros. The "defenders" we could see as standing athwart the menace of Tartarus, and the "vivifiers" as corresponding to Ge. These were useful avenues for meditation for me, although it is a simplification for sure—the gods undeniably have a super-plenitude of aspects no covered by these correspondences.

As for the hypercosmic, that really requires one to delve into Proclus and Elements, as Taylor notes. Edward Butler's commentary on Proclus really gets into the nitty gritty of it, although it is exceedingly complex (I can't say I full grasp it myself).

Axé!
Fra' Lupo

[sdi]

Oh! The primevals are a good suggestion, I'll have to go back over Hesiod with that in mind.

[boccaderlupo]

In this passage, think the important thing is not that any of correspondences we notice are exhaustive (for who could exhaust the aspects of the gods?) but rather that these associations give us mortals some limited purchase on how the functions of the cosmic gods become manifest in the natural world.

We could also relate this back to Timaues in which the Demiurge (perhaps deemed "hypercosmic") gives rise to another class of gods that bring order the material world ("cosmic").

[sdi]

Naturally. Returning to my notion that the gods are causal fixed-points, the only being that could fully conceive of a god would be the god themself: not even other gods could do so (or else the axioms that we started with would have been violated).

(And how much less we mortals can conceive of! I can't even remember my own birthday.)

[boccaderlupo]

Regarding that notion, and the idea of non-duality discussed last week: I suspect that the gods do violate this axiom (as they are direct participants in the ever-elusive One), and indeed could arguably conceive of all other gods—indeed they must, as each one, being a self-perfect unit, effectively contains the cosmos. My hypothesis: It's at this level that logic beings to break down entirely, and in fact this is suggestive of the various "manifestations," for lack of a better word, of a god.

Example: Zeus is represented as having x-attribute in the myths. At the mythic level, this allows us, the naive listener, to have some simple purchase on the god, to envision, in terms we can readily understand, a particular quality that the god espouses, perhaps a peculiarity that is one of his pronounced idiosyncrasies. As we mature along the path, we begin to recognize more and more correspondences with a given deity, picking up on the various aspects of their person, largely through myths, symbols, and various other tokens—that is, through meditation. But then there is a point at which, as we enter into sustained philosophical reflection on these topics, that we begin to contemplate "the higher mysteries," for lack of a better term. We begin to recognize the tokens as a means whereby we can traverse the exceedingly (indeed, infinitely) complex landscape of Deity as it approaches The One—the ineffable and transcedent.

Slippery concepts to articulate, and may these words not provoke The Divine.

[boccaderlupo]

And, given that I cannot seem to make a comment without tossing in some Pseudo-Dionysius these days, here's a fragment from The Divine Names that seems to, channeling Proclus, speak to the distinction between the henads (gods) and The One/The First Cause (the same sort of approach, that of "nesting" or participation, might be adapted to approaching the further distinction between hypercosmic and cosmic). It must be emphasized that here Pseudo-Dionysius is talking about the angels and their relation to The Godhead (the Beautiful and Good), but it's similar to Proclus's approach (the latter of which is more expressly polytheistic).

And the Heavenly Minds are spoken of as moving (1) in a circular manner, when they are united to the beginningless and endless illuminations of the Beautiful and Good;285 (2) straight forward, when they advance to the providential guidance of those beneath them and unerringly accomplish their designs;286 and (3) with spiral motion, because, even while providentially guiding their inferiors, they remain immutably in their self-identity,287 turning unceasingly around the Beautiful and Good whence all identity is sprung.

Apologies to our host and other guests, as usual, for the rambling ruminations.

[sdi]

(Once again, no apologies necessary: I like meandering, meditative monologues and approve of them in this space. :) )

[sdi]

I suspect that the gods do violate this axiom (as they are direct participants in the ever-elusive One)

Yes, that certainly follows from what Sallustius has said! I'm not sure how something can exist beyond existence, though, and I think at that point logic is out the window.


Regarding Pseudo-Dionysius, I don't think I'm following him, here. Perhaps I just have difficulty with physics metaphors—I found The Cosmic Doctrine to be similarly impenetrable.

[sdi]

You know, I was just re-reading the next chapter of Sallustius in preparation for getting together next week's post, and came across this line: "Of the bodies in the Cosmos, some imitate Mind and move in orbits; some imitate Soul and move in a straight line, fire and air upward, earth and water downward."

Clearly there's some kind of tradition behind these analogies! I find Sallustius no less confusing here than Pseudo-Dionysius, though. Why does Mind go in circles? Why does Soul go in straight lines? What does either even refer to?

[barefootwisdom]

Why does Mind go in circles? Why does Soul go in straight lines? What does either even refer to?

For starters, circular motion is perfect (in the literal sense of "complete"): when a circle revolves about its center, there's nowhere that it goes to that it wasn't already, and nowhere that it used to be that it isn't anymore. In the Timaeus, Plato calls the circular motion of the heavens "the moving image of eternity"—where "image" is in the sense of an icon, a copy, etc.

Contrast that with rectilinear (straight-line) motion, which lacks that sort of perfection, always going from one thing to another.

Circular motion, therefore, is the middle term between the unmoving/unchanging (eternity, ever complete in itself), and that which changes in a way that involves incompleteness (rectilinear motion).

[boccaderlupo]

Exactly. Might be something for you folks who are taking up the Sacred Geometry.

As barefootwisdom mentioned, Timaeus includes several references to shapes and motions, including 33b, which has this line, discussing the Demiurge giving a spherical shape to the world:

This of all shapes is the most complete and most like itself, which he [the Demiurge] gave to it because he believed likeness is incalculably more excellent than unlikeness.

A bit of a digression, but that last bit ties back into a previous theme we've seen elsewhere.

Later on, discussing motion, in 89a:

Now the best of the motions is one that occurs within oneself and is caused by oneself. This is the motion that bears the greatest kinship to understanding and to the motion of the universe.

Using the Zeyl translation, FWIW.

[sdi]

Thank you both for this. But what does it mean for Mind or Soul to be moving? (I would have assumed that, as the animating process, Soul to be the thing that "gives rise" to motion, and so only things "below" or "contained within" it to be mobile.) Further, why is Mind considered to be more complete than Soul? (Are they not both Gods, and therefore both self-complete?)

(Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself and should simply dig into these next week, where they appear in the text itself...)


Might be something for you folks who are taking up the Sacred Geometry.

Ha! You know, I never considered sacred geometry to have anything to do with motion or change: it seemed to me to be representative of eternally static properties of numbers. Of course, one actually has to do the constructions... for some reason, I always considered that a metaprocess or epiphenomenon having nothing essential to do with the geometry itself. Maybe I've been a computer programmer for too long—we maintain very strict boundaries between "code" and "data" :)

[boccaderlupo]

For the record, I don't have any knowledge about Sacred Geometry, and my coding is strictly ad hoc, so take my comments for what they are worth!

[barefootwisdom]

You're most welcome. Regarding "motion": the Greek philosophers' use of "motion" is much more broad than our modern English term; for the Greeks, motion includes change of all kinds. "Local motion," or change of place/location, is only one kind of motion, and generally speaking, one of the least interesting kinds, since it's pretty far down the metaphysical hierarchy.

Perhaps that's enough of a seed to prepare for next week. ;)

[sdi]

Thank you! Yes, that helps. In the material, it's circles and lines. In the astral, it's Luna and Mars. Presumably the higher process is Mind and Soul.

[sdi]

Quick note: I've added a crucial footnote related to Arthur Darby Nock's translation of this chapter, which provides added nuance and makes this line a little less cryptic.

[boccaderlupo]

That is interesting, indeed.

[temporaryreality]

Here's where I hit the limits of my "meditation ability" (which is really neither) - so even if it hadn't been a busy week preventing me from adding to the conversation, I don't have much to add other than that I need more practice...

[sdi]

One can see secret suggestions of this in their images.

Porphyry wrote an essay on this topic, of which several fragments are extant.

[sdi]

Looking at this again today, it strikes me as noteworthy that the three gods who figure prominently in the Judgement of Paris myth—Hera, Athena, Aphrodite—are all "middle" actions, those who sustain.