A Myth about the Relativity of Myth
We have already spoken more than once about how important maximum loyalty and tolerance are for the Magus’s effective way of acting. Yet it continually turns out that this idea — so simple at first glance — has great difficulty reaching the awareness of those seeking themselves and their path.
A Magus not only does not condemn any system different from his own way of describing reality; he clearly understands that his own system is no more than one of many variants, each equally entitled to exist.
This view is supported by the Magical Myth both ontologically and practically.
From the standpoint of describing existence, this Myth emphasizes that since, in “reality,” there is only the infinite impersonal and undifferentiated field of potentials of the Absolute Spirit, any picture that arises in the perceiving mind is nothing more than an arbitrary combination of elements from that field and the resulting construction of a more or less convenient description of the objective world in which that mind can actualize itself.
From this point of view, discussions about the “truth” and the “reality” of any images or ideas become meaningless.
In other words, the Magical Myth adheres to absolute relativism and insists that the perceived object fundamentally depends on the perceiving mind. The Myth thus completely rejects the idea of the “thing-in-itself,” holding that the self-image formed in any mind is as much a convention as the image of that mind in other accounts.
For example, the dispute over the “truth” of religions is absurd from the perspective of Magic, since it is perfectly clear that the perceived object itself changes with the mode of description — including the god. It follows that it is pointless to argue whether Perun, Thor, or Tlaloc actually exist — one can equally say they all exist, or none of them do.
Nevertheless, the Myth also insists that effective action is impossible if one is constantly aware of this relativism, and that for an anchor in this activity the Magus must adopt the way of describing reality that is most suitable for him personally and most effective for him personally.
It does not matter which way that is — any of them can be good, and the sole criterion of “truth” is the effectiveness of a given way of description for a particular traveler at a given stage.
Another important element in creating one’s worldview is its systematic nature — that is, the mutual coherence of its parts. A worldview ‘stitched together with white thread’ is usually ineffective, because its separate components may interfere with one another’s expression. This is precisely why Magic prefers to use traditional, time-tested descriptive systems, those tried by many generations of travelers, which have demonstrated internal coherence and harmony. Although, of course, this does not imply automatic ineffectiveness of new myths; it simply requires careful and measured “stress-testing” of them.
Dear Enmerkar, if you meet a person with a rigid description of their world (willful and strong) who tries to influence the description of the world of the Walking, is this a sign of a destructor’s presence, or is it a test of the strength of the created worldview, or perhaps it is best not to pay attention at all, remaining ‘each in their own way’?
The mage should never forget for a second the relativity of their worldview and should continuously check its effectiveness. And if they see that a different worldview will allow them to act more effectively, they will unhesitatingly discard their habitual views and adopt the new description. Furthermore, they can embrace a different description for other reasons – with a ‘trial’ purpose, or out of trust in the one who offers this (new) description. Personally, I have always acted this way – for me, the key has always been not the system, but the one who presented this system, and I have always learned not ‘something’, but from someone. However, each has their own Path, and the main thing is not to get stuck in it, but to test and check it by any suitable criteria. So if the person who offers a different worldview is indifferent to you, or if you doubt the effectiveness of this worldview for yourself – stay ‘with your own’. But if the probability of increasing effectiveness exists – then why not try? The main thing is to accurately assess your chances of success.
Judging from your description of the Myth, in this world, there is a whole heap of predators, both internal and external; some of them have lived here for a very long time and possess quite good intelligence. Therefore, if you follow someone else’s description, there is a huge danger of receiving their beautiful illusion (stagnation) instead of real progress, and eventually, a very real loss of that warrior/fighter spirit, which enabled development in the first place. Rather, I think it is better to trust only oneself; it may indeed be necessary to invent the wheel anew, but at least it is done independently – that alone is somehow encouraging 🙂 Listening to the ideas of others – consciously depriving oneself of fantasy and creativity, taking on faith is far from always the better choice than what one would find alone, as often ‘wise ones’ lie… 🙂 This refers specifically to a complete idea of the world…
This is also a choice for everyone, after all, the idea of predators and parasites is just one description, although a very effective one. At the same time, the most dangerous predators and parasites, as a rule, have ‘direct’ access to consciousness, so with insufficient criticality, one can fall into their clutches with no less probability by only listening to oneself. The point is precisely in sobriety and honesty. If a mage is critical and honest, they will not be deceived by either external or internal liars; if their integrity is insufficient, then the likelihood of being deceived from within is no less than from without…
Enmerkar, what is the criterion for trust? Can one trust completely, not fearing, for example, that a teacher will turn into a ‘teacher’, or a friend into a ‘friend’? If the Path is common, can one not waste time on doubts and ‘sober assessment’ of influence?
It is impossible to unite energies without trusting. Therefore, the ‘checking’ process must be extremely meticulous and strict before uniting energies; after that, the common Path begins, and mistakes on this Path are already also common.
The article is just wonderful. I pondered over this all day long; however, I can say that the article is somewhat incomplete – I would like to hear a conclusion.
All articles on this blog leave the opportunity for the reader to draw conclusions themselves 🙂
What can help preserve the personal myth in its entirety and safety? Because if one moves from one myth to another, their power may dissipate. Since others’ myths can sometimes ‘crush’ one’s own, it becomes necessary to hold on with all hands and feet literally to air.
The condition for preserving the personal Myth is its personal effectiveness. A mage must always hold not to the description but to the most effective image of action.
Indeed, if you look at it this way, there are quite a few myths that are mutually exclusive. For example, from the standpoint of the orthodox Judeo-Christian myth, the Serpent that tempted Adam and Eve is the Enemy of the Human Race; from the perspective of the Gnostic Ophites’ myth – on the contrary, the Liberator from the power of the evil Demiurge. From the perspective of those Gnostics who interpret Gnosis in a ‘light key’, the liberator is Jesus Christ; from the perspective of ‘dark Gnostics’, the liberator is Lucifer. Again, satanognostics believe that the Klippot are friends and allies in the struggle against the Demiurge, with which they relate the entire Tree of Life, including Ain-Sof. At the same time, again going against God, whom they consider their enemy, they invest the concept of ‘God’ with a complex of their representations of what ‘God’ is (and this is exactly the God who, according to Nietzsche, is dead, and according to Julius Evola, is a crutch for human weaknesses). From the perspective of a Kabbalist-Jew, even Osiris and Isis are Klippot, as are all Gods, except for Yahweh. From the perspective of a Kabbalist of the ‘Golden Dawn’, Egyptian and Greco-Roman gods are not at all Klippot. But from the perspective of that same Kabbalist, Klippot are Babylon and Therion. From the perspective of a Thelemic Kabbalist, Babylon and Therion are not Klippot at all, and these archetypes acquired their negative character due to a misunderstanding of Apostle John. And for a pro-Thelemic satanognostic, they still remain Klippot – ‘So what? That’s cool!’ Overall, one should stop being part of Someone Else’s myth))) because within it, all are just regular people (not mages)))) Some say that the ‘Necronomicon’ and ‘Cthulhu Myth’ are fiction created by Lovecraft; others firmly believe the opposite, that there are authentic Sumerian sources for it. Based on the reports of some people about their experiments, it is observed that applying these myths has indeed yielded results for them. From the perspective of the ‘daily myth’, a Solar Hero is born, who performs feats, then encounters some Ancient Serpent and fights it. The serpent swallows him, but the Solar Hero tears through the Serpent from the inside and continues his path. From the perspective of the ‘night myth’, the Serpent gives birth to the Solar Hero, the Solar Hero walks his path, performing feats, but then grows old and frail. The Serpent then swallows him and gives birth to a new Hero. In general, there’s such a massive amount of myths that attempting to determine which myth is true and which is false could lead one to drown in confusion. Therefore, indeed, perhaps it is correct to acknowledge everyone’s right to live in their own myth (meaning, not necessarily one created by the subject themselves, but one that already exists to which the subject feels a certain affinity). At the same time, the myth must be tested. And the criteria are as follows: – Integrity, absence of contradictions. Essentially, analyze for ‘white threads’. For example, I have found many white threads in the concepts of ‘left-hand pathists’ and satanognostics, such as the concepts of Thomas Karlsson or the constructs of ‘The Order of the Black Light’. Of course, it goes without saying – the effectiveness of the myth on the path. The absence of a myth as such, constant destruction – this is also not always a plus. Complete absence of a myth is unlikely to be possible, as there will always be some description of the Universe. Representatives of Chaos Magic say, ‘There is no Truth, everything is permitted’, do not recognize any dogmas or fixed descriptions; nevertheless, they still use fragments of one myth or another for practical work. However, they often create a complete hodgepodge of cinema, wine, and dominance.
By the way, there is also Buddhism, Hinduism… 🙂 According to legend, the Buddha said, even if you worship a stone, you will still be worshiping Me… :)!
“I would like to express my admiration for the work you have done. Thank you for the information. Perhaps we will meet. And may the winds of good fortune be with you!”
I cannot fully understand the article. 1. What is meant by reality? Is it a description of the surrounding world or a description of the journey of the traveler at the present moment? 2. ‘The object changes according to the way it is described…’. Perhaps I exaggerate, but let’s imagine that the trees in my vision stand in the shape of a ‘G’. I will see them that way, but others will not. And this does not say that I will pick the fruits standing on the ground when others will need a ladder?
1. From the point of view of Myth, reality is the field of consciousness – which includes both explicit and implicit elements of description. 2. If you truly (in the sense mentioned above) describe trees as in the form of a ‘G’, then you certainly won’t need a ladder.
From the perspective of your Myth, are there ideas, matrices of objects that will affect consciousness independently of description?
Each group of energies has its own internal logic, but the description of this internal logic can still be completely different.
The question of the interaction of myths and their bearers is interesting. For example, upon encountering an ‘inorganic predatory entity’, a practitioner of Western magical myth will see it as a demon (a clipotic spirit) and can drive it away with Goetic actions, while a practitioner of Northern magical myth will see the same (!) entity as a dwerg or troll and can effectively drive it away using Galdr methods. Will, for instance, the Pentagram Ritual (MRIP) or the Star Ruby act in an expelling manner on any incorporeal entity?
Or what then determines the boundaries of the effectiveness of the myth – the magician himself (his Power) or the objects/subjects around?
Is radical materialism, the “scientific view of the world,” and antitheism also a kind of myth, at least for the leaders of these movements? Or are they trapped in their own ideas?
What is behind the increasing negativity against Catholicism in recent years (not entirely related to the topic of the article, but connected to the previous question)?
Of course, any more or less coherent description of the world is a Myth, and the value of this Myth is determined by the adequacy of the actions of those who adhere to it.