The Verbs of the Magus
Depending on their ways of thinking and worldviews, people shape not only their actions but also their speech.
In this sense, it is interesting to divide people into those who emphasize nouns in conversation and those who emphasize verbs.
A simple example: some say, «I did it», others: «I did it», and a third group: «I did it».
One might ask — what difference does it make? Yet there is a significant difference: for the first group what matters is that they were the source of the action; for the second, the result of the action; and for the third, the action itself.
Consider the last two cases. It is very characteristic for a person to focus on the result of an action, even to the idea that “the end justifies the means.” At the same time, it is clear that a means leads to something beyond itself; and that other thing relative to it is its goal. Therefore, if some thing serves or must serve as a means to a certain goal, the goal is not within it but external to it. In other words, stressing the goal of an action moves activity away from the action and into the future, which will arrive when the action is completed.
Moreover, separating the goal from the action that realizes it leads to a devaluation of existence. A dairy cow is no longer seen as an animal and is valued only for its milk, and a dairy cow in a peasant’s yard is tolerated, fed, tended, and sometimes even loved only because you cannot keep an udder alone without the cow.
Any one-sided overdevelopment in the development of a particular aspect of a person is a sign that the person has devoted their life to a single task. For example, one might say of a philatelist that he has become obsessed with collecting stamps if there are only stamps in his life.
For the Magus, a fundamental understanding of the essence of being is the idea that value is found in the process itself — the game of life. Although the Magus’s actions are directed toward the acquisition of Power, precisely because this process is infinite, Power is not, in fact, a goal, since one can never master all Power (indeed, one can identify oneself with Power itself, but that is a matter for a completely different discussion). It is crucial that the Magus not become the same kind of “machine for accumulating Power,” and for that he must understand that he is not merely a means, he himself is the end. This is why Magi are so prone to utterances emphasizing “I” (the first case at the beginning of the article), and we have often said that such accentuation leads to megalomania and a halt in development. Instead of megalomania, the emphasis on “I” should signify the Magus’s responsibility — an acknowledgment that his actions belong to him, with all the consequent ramifications.
We repeat that “Power” as a concept is a description of development, of the Magus’s self-realization.
Two very important conclusions follow from the foregoing. First: for the Magus action matters more than the goal. We have said enough on this point, and it is precisely this conclusion that underlies the Magi’s understanding of life as war — a series of battles — for their development.
The second conclusion: for the Magus the Magus’s being is more primary than knowing how to act. We have said a good deal about this as well. “Being” means extending oneself, existing as a process, as action. “Knowing how” means achieving a goal. It is not to say that skills are unimportant for the Magus — they certainly are — the question is only one of primacy: for the Magus a list of skills follows from his being and situation, whereas for the ordinary person — unfortunately — it is skills that often shape his character.
Moreover, it is precisely the emphasis on actions that the Magus places which allows him not to be a “means” for realizing someone else’s goals, since the Magus’s activity is not only about setting goals; he does not defer his activity to the future, he does not live by anticipation of some forthcoming accomplishment, he lives in the present, at the heart of events, in the flow of life and Power.
Nevertheless, goal-setting is not foreign to the Magus; his strategy is, of course, directed toward moving from battle to battle, and at every moment there is a goal and it is clearly set — but once the goal is set and the intention to achieve it is formed, the Magus stops focusing on it, and dives into action.
That is why verbs matter more than nouns for the Magus; he lives by action, by movement, by the flow of Power.
It’s not attachment to the result, enjoyment of the action itself – that’s clear… but how do we add “… faith – even as small as a mustard seed, and, by your word…” because the term “Faith” is not synonymous with Intention. What do you think they meant?
The attitude of Tradition towards faith is very heterogeneous. Sometimes it’s considered a necessary condition for movement, sometimes a brake. I think it all comes down to the individual characteristics of the Travelers – for some, such a state is harmonious, for others – it is not. In truth, when some say, ‘I believe in this,’ while others say, ‘I know this,’ they often actually mean the same thing. Therefore, both assertions that ‘by faith it shall be rewarded’ and ‘knowledge is power’ are justified…
A simple example, some say: ‘I did this’, others: ‘I made this’, and others: ‘I did This’. It seems – what’s the difference? Yet, there is a difference, and quite substantial: for the first ones, what matters is that the action came from them; for the second, the result of the action is important; while for the third, the action itself is what matters. Dear Enmerkar, I am trying to understand and come across the feeling that the sequence of enumeration in the text is violated. Is it correct like this? ‘I did this’ – for the first, it is important that the action came from them; others: ‘I did this’ – the action itself is important; and the third: ‘I did This’ – the result of the action is important. By the way, an interesting observation that in English, ‘I’ is always written in uppercase. The English captured many lands, maintained their empire for a long time, and as a result, their language became international, a sort of cultural hegemony. In German, names are always written with a capital letter (which signifies results?) – German quality and efficiency as a standard for all. I have not encountered any language where verbs are written with a capital letter – have you? Perhaps there was something like that among ancient languages?
In Old Slavic, there are letters – verbs: V – I know, G – I speak, Z – I live, M – I think.
And indeed, how often do people live in expectation of something… constantly waiting, speeding up time which is already little for life without fully experiencing the present…