Void and Fullness
Since the Way of Magic is a way of actions, a way of realization, it is vitally important for the Magus to understand the very nature of action as an actualization of potentials.
We have already pointed out two central ideas in Magic: first, according to this Myth, the development of consciousness occurs through actions, through active correspondence of the psychocosm with the macrocosm; and second, all of the Magus’s activity is contained within action — the Magus’s action has no other aim than to be complete, realized, and accomplished.
The very concept of realization is so central to Magic that it deserves another moment of attention.
Realization, as the word itself makes clear, is the bringing something into reality.
For the Magus, reality means the capacity for interaction — objects are real to the extent that they can affect one another.
Accordingly, realization is the transition of a system from a state in which its interactions are not possible to a state in which they are possible.
Conversely, one can speak of going beyond reality when interactions are absent, which can happen in two cases — either when those interactions have not yet arisen, or when all possible interactions have already been realized, and therefore there is no longer any “gradient” of realizedness.
Therefore the Magical universe exists as a ternary — of primordial homogeneity (the Great Mother), final completeness (the Great Father), and realization-in-process — their Androgyne, the Son. Or, to speak more concretely, Magic describes the world as an assemblage of Environment, Spirit, and Reality. The two poles — Xoshek and Pleroma — the Great Void and the Great Fullness — are balanced by the actual reality in which the realization of consciousness takes place.
Accordingly, just as we can leave reality either by “removing” all interactions from it or by fully actualizing them, so we inhabit reality to the extent that our consciousness actively interacts with the elements of our being.
Why, then, are actions and realizations necessary, if in its absolute manifestation reality is as absolutely void as it is absolutely full?
We have already said that the neutral, the third principle of being is not an “error” or an “illusion”; it is the condition of freedom, because in their “absolute” manifestations the supra- and sub-reality are interdependent, and only when there is a gradient of manifestation, a differential succession of interactions, freedom is realized across extension. In other words, all three hypostases exist simultaneously and equivalently — void is fullness, fullness is void, and moreover void and fullness are realized as the Logos, a form, concreteness, manifestation. All three modes are of equal rank and indistinguishable from one another. Looking at the world as Xoshek, we perceive homogeneity, void, and a sea of potentials; looking at it as Pleroma, we perceive homogeneity, fullness, and actuality; looking at it as Stream, we perceive the process of potentials becoming actual, differentiation and heterogeneity. But this is one and the same Great Spirit, merely regarding itself from different viewpoints.
Accordingly, in striving for realization the Magus neither flees from fullness nor denies the void; he couples them to one another, and the Magus’s battles are not a rejection of the world’s laws but, on the contrary, the enactment of interconnection and the interpenetration of realities. The success of this endeavor depends on the Magus’s Power (awareness) and Authority (experience). The Magus is “in his place,” in his natural state, not when he denies reality, not when he dreams of Pleroma, but when he understands that within himself are Xoshek, Pleroma, and the Logos.
If a person can reflect on all this, then what is it ultimately? If conditionally speaking, Hoshk and Pleroma are two poles, and between them there is a circulation of possibilities, a person can reflect on all this, then he as ‘consciousness’ is different from this, even though he is a part of it.
Is the hierarchy of logos, the world of ideas according to Plato, and angels related to the Pleroma?, to the upper pole of the vertical? So, what are the Aeons to the Gnostics, the aeonic reality, which is separated by the great limit of chorus from Kenoma? Isn’t the opposite pole of Pleroma, according to the Gnostics, Kenoma?
The whole question lies in the understanding of potential and actual reality. From our perspective, Pleroma is that which ‘must be.’ Kenoma is that which is. From the perspective of, for example, Buddhas or luminaries, on the contrary – Pleroma is that which is, and Kenoma is a state where beings ‘do not see’, ‘do not recognize’ Pleroma. In other words, Kenoma is Pleroma in the process of becoming, or one can simply say that Pleroma and Kenoma are different viewpoints on the same reality. From this point of view, the logos, monads, ideas in Kenoma are also potential categories that do not have actual existence, these are inner potentials that are secretly present in Kenoma so that it can become Pleroma.
You are confused. There are no Aeons of Gnostics or anyone else. As I see it, an Aeon is a single force carrying out certain tasks. I communicate with it. It explains everything quite intelligibly.
He can of course get confused (as can all of us), but certainly not in mythology. He transmits a myth woven from old traditions, information about which can be found in other sources as well. And what do you transmit?
I am studying the topology of Plato, where three initialities (the world of ideas – also Pleroma, Chorus – the great limit – Interval, Kenoma (which also has a gradient and the very bottom is this Chora, matter as such) and there are very strong intersections with Gnosticism, Buddhism. Maybe they are telling us the same thing but in different languages and from different angles. We just need to see this.
If we take the language of philosophy, then Pleroma is pure being, limitless light, which according to Kabbalah is Ain Soph Aur, which in turn is a collapsing point of light, which miraculously limits Ain Soph – negative (the abyss of negativity, negative infinity). An inversion of total minus into plus occurs, figuratively speaking, the bursting forth of light results. One could say that Pleroma is possibility as such, an absolutized limit, but it is filled with nothing; it’s like an ’empty possibility.’ Or according to the dialectics of Geidar Djemal, ‘The possibility of not being is nothing.’ It can also be said that this is a universal possibility that includes all aspects of the finite. The possible is a synonym of the finite. Possibility implies, carries within it, something finite, something shaped, visible. But possibility is inexhaustible; we will never be able to fully realize it. Yes, there is no particular sense in this. Then what is Hoshk (in the context of the discourse on possibilities and this article)? One could say that in Hoshk, possibility is already differentiated (to the finitude) to the limit, a homogeneous mass is formed, a boiling singularity? Well, it seems to me that the description above is closer to Kenoma. Hoshk, speaking in philosophical terms, is Nothing. I would say that this is the very moment when pure Being (as possibility) is removed (according to dialectics) by infinite negativity and there is a ‘touching’ with Ain Soph (the abyss of negation), but let’s say, with a taste of pure being, following pure being. Is it even possible to experience this and not be subjected to annihilation?))
If we abstract and think logically. What should these two polarities represent, what should they be, so that the world process began? Let’s say light is pure universal possibilities, where, as you write, ‘all possible interactions have already been realized.’ Well, I would add here that yes, they have been realized, but hypothetically/virtually, i.e. they are not yet played out; I would even say, in the ultimate light, those or other paths of realization are not yet highlighted, no differentiation, but there is only one fundamental possibility, the possibility of being, the possibility of possibilities (well, one has to think further). Therefore, Darkness is the maximum degree of differentiation of this original possibility at finitude, and these differentiations form potentials. As I wrote above, pleomorphic light is empty and devoid of content, although Pleroma is interpreted as an excess, as fullness. So what does darkness represent? This is not entirely clear to me.
I would also add that ‘Finitude’ will be the Platonic Ideas, which form the so-called world of ideas, pleomorphicity. Pleroma is limitless light, and the inhabitants of Pleroma (angels?) exist in continuous contemplation of this light source and harmonious synergy among themselves (pleromaticity). Then, the mechanisms of realization in actual reality/existence are not entirely clear. According to Platonism, the heavenly idea (Pleroma), by touching, through intermediaries in the form of angels, with matter, gule (if we speak the language of magic, what is meant by Gule? As I understand it, Gule is Telesmi/Chorus, the gap/Kenoma), fertilizes it with seeds, and the process of manifestation, of the appearance of whatever (entity, world, etc.) begins? It turns out that angels here fertilize matter, scatter seeds/potentials (but these are no longer those original luminous ideas, rather their surrogate since the ideas have passed the great limit – chorus and lost their luminous nature and crumbled into shadows), archons sprout roots deep into Kenoma to ensure that this idea is rooted in Being, and the growth/realization/unfolding of this seed occurs in the light of the luminous idea (of an angel), so to speak, pulling it out. Or there is an unfolding of potential (pressure), but for the pressure to be possible, the seed must be rooted in Kenoma (being, medium) and have support? Otherwise, this idea will simply dangle in thin empyreans. If compared to a tree, then the roots of the tree touch primordial power, dynamism, Heraclitus’ river, duration, with the original slumber. One could say that this is the boiling and pouring into each other of various states of being, immanence of immanence. By states, I mean, as an example, certain existential experiences. Although it’s hard to be more specific about it. But this, in an ideal state, is how archons should work (as heavenly administrators from the point of view of Gnostics). As we see in practice, when we try to stretch an idea, an ideology onto ‘life’/reality, we get resistance; the environment kicks back, it resists for it is internal.
Regarding Shakti. I view Shakti as the force of realization. Thanks to which the realization of ideas takes place. But first, it must take effect. As I described above, it must be rooted in Kenoma, in the environment, in being and illuminated by the light of logos (Platonic idea). Only under the condition of these two facts does the power of Shakti awaken.