Peace is when a conversation begins in a question.
War is when a dialogue begins in an answer.
Peace is when a dialogue ends in a question.
War is when a conversation ends in an answer.
Political hermetism against the estabilishment
Peace is when a conversation begins in a question.
War is when a dialogue begins in an answer.
Peace is when a dialogue ends in a question.
War is when a conversation ends in an answer.
If this means anything to you: yes, it is all true.
To be walking together, two have to go at the same pace.
Observe who slows down for others.
Help who sits.
Rituals are relations that accelerate.
The most complete ritual is that which, affecting the different differently, and affecting the same similarly, achieves so that the ritual can be considered different in any, and same in all.
The most incomplete ritual is that which, affecting the different similarly, and affecting the similar differently, achieves so that the ritual can be considered different between two.
(A) truth; no doubt [it] is true
indeed, the uppermost is from the lowermost and the lowermost is from the uppermost,
[it] worked the wonders from one, (just) as all things come from one by means of one plan/with one considered act,
[its] father is the sun, [its] mother is the moon,
the wind carried [it] in her womb, the earth fed [it],
father of talismans, keeper of wonders, perfect in power,
fire became earth, separate the earth from the fire,
the soft/delicate/gentle/subtle is more noble than the crude/rough/unintelligent/gross,
with gentle-being and wisdom [it] ascends from the earth to the heaven and descends to the earth from the heaven,
and in [it] is the power of the uppermost and the lowermost,
since with [it] is the light of lights therefore the darkness escapes (away) from [it],
power of powers
it prevails over everything soft/delicate/gentle/subtle, enters into everything crude/rough/unintelligent/gross,
against the creation of the macrocosm the work was created,
this is my renown and therefore I am named Hermes the threefold with the wisdom.
Observing through everything, all truth is in the observed.
Observing through a mirror, all truth is in the observer, and in what they are not, and they are complementary and they are the same.
Observing through a one-sided mirror, two people see the same truth differently, and they are compatible, and they are not the same.
Observing through a one-sided wall, two people see different truths similarly, and they are not compatible, and they are the same.
Observing through eachother, all truth is in the observers, and in what they are not, and they are complementary, and they are the same.
Observing through nothing, all truth is in the observer.
“In everything that I have said about the science of lights, I was assisted by those who have walked the path of God. This science is the same intuition of the inspired and enlightened Plato, guide and teacher of wisdom, and of those who were before him from the time of Hermes – the first of the wise men – to the time of Plato, including vigorous pillars of wisdom like Empedocles, Pythagoras, and others. The words of the ancients are symbolic and are not open to refutation. Criticisms made of the literal meaning of his words failed to apply to his real intentions, because a symbol cannot be refuted.” Shihāb al-Dīn Abū al-Futūḥ Yaḥyā ibn Ḥabash ibn Amīrak al-Suhrawardī
“In fact, Suhrawardi goes so far as to tell us that unless one has fasted for forty days, he will not understand his major work, Hikmat al-ishraq (The Philosophy of Illumination).” Mehdi Amin Razavi
Structures/beings/things can give name/symbol/image to structures in relation to their own and others.
Symbols are structures themselves.
Any being has at least one name: that in the shape of their own structure.
So that a being will know another by knowing how they are, and are not, alike to themselves.
Symbols are in co-determination with the beings that are in relation with them.
Languages are structures of symbols, and knowledge/culture is made of structures of languages.
Horoscopes/sciences are structures of knowledge that relate symbols to their being.
Practices/rituals are beings that relate knowledge to symbols.
Horoscopes and mathematics are in co-determination with the structures that they influence.
Being is in relation to change.
Hence, which that is, can be called a structure.
A structure is in its structured relations, and relations are in related structures.
They are where they are found.
Being is in the sequence of relations, and is all of them.
A structure, its relations, and its life, are the same structure.
Structures are in change, infinite, and real.
Symbols are structures.
Languages are structures of symbols.
Denote with the symbol “~” the concept of relation, so that:
🞀 ~ 🞂 = 🞀 🞂 = ◆ .
◆ ~ ◇ = ◈ ,
🜔 ~ 🜕 = 🜨 ,
🜨 = ◈ .
◆ = 🜔 .
🞀 ~ 🜕 , ◆ = 🜕 . . .
Denote with the symbol “:” a relation less general than “~“:
◆ : ◇ = ◪ ,
◈ : ◪ = ◈ ~ ◪ = ◈ ◪ .
◈ = ◪ = 🜨 .
As relations are structures:
~ ~ : = ⩫ .
~ = : .
In the last decade, scholars around the world have developed a new interest for the obscure and hidden tradition of hermetism, which has been resulting in a slow but steady recovering and translation of its ancient texts.
Hermetism is a tradition that seeks what i would say is “knowledge that can be considered true regardless of its context”. Its earliest literature that we know of dates around the year 200 c.E., and it was published in alexandria of egypt. It is presented as a syncretism of various philosophies, religions, arts and sciences, and has no definite shape if not that of a general movement around a perennial philosophy. As far as oral traditions go, it is often assumed to be much older, probably having its core in an older secret deviation of priests of the cult of thot during ancient egypt. About hermes trismegistus, they are the mythical herald of the movement, akin to the concept of both teacher and pen name for the movement’s thinkers. Historically, hermes is mainly depicted as a man, so we will go with that at least in this post of divulgation.
Hermetism is based on the idea of “See it for yourself”, and it works on the basis of self-convertion, because all adherents believe to be referencing to the same final truth all others are referencing, others being any kind of seeker of knowledge in their own. In short, it works if you believe in it, and you believe in it if it works. The very concept of equivalence of sciences in their fundamentality is also expected “To be seen for thyself” either/both in personal experience and/or in the generalization of one’s total knowledge. Thus, the doctrine is generally open to all others, in the measure that they don’t suppress the pursuit of knowledge. In the history of hermetism there are then no such things as stable institutions, or authorities, or school of thoughts in fight, if not for those secret societies that hermetists happen to form for their own safety and, of course, friendship.
Generally speaking, hermetism values personal freedom and human rights, and it’s actually quite radical in many aspects. Both in its core, and through the peculiarities of each author, in fact, hermetism has constantly included a variety of ideas that today still cover the entirety of gender theory (as far as saying that gender is a social construct to be abolished, in and out oneself), anti-authoritarianism, consociativism, the importance of all arts and sciences, an idea of mental health and its importance, and much more. To hermetists, this usually meant to be subject to harsh repression, pretty much for the same reasons they aren’t exactly welcomed in most of the world even today. This could also help explain why, in hermetic texts, it is generally hard to find an explicit political elaboration in the most general sense.
The politica hermetica is what i call three, otherwise untitled, newly-found texts in latin attributed to hermes trismegistus, and that differ from most of the others in the aspect that they are somewhat explicit in their political connotation. The latin text was composed sometime around the early 800 c.E. In tuscany, near the city of poggibonsi, as a single unpublished manuscript now held in Rome, and is in turn an adaptation from the greek version, thought to be the original and, at least for now, lost.
All “Books” are just a few pages long, and we don’t know if any of them would be missing from the original. In brief, the script is an attempt to translate hermetism as a political discourse. It is in the form of a dialogue between a “Scientist” called nolanus and hermes themselves, representing a debate between what could be called “sciences” and “political hermetism”. Its structure is simple:
As it is an hermetic publication after all, the position of nolanus is not well elaborated, and the debate is evidently meant to favor hermes’ standpoint. Authors contemporary to its latin translation have mostly ignored the existence of these texts, except for two friends of the translator that mention them in some letters to eachother, immediately casting doubts on their opportunity and, quite frankly, their quality in general, not as translations but as hermetic works. As such, the politica hermetica was not commented further nor republished, and it was then obviously not integrated by the movement, so that its only translation was soon lost to times.
The latin physical copy, seen that it is not original and consists pretty much of three groups of ill-stiched pages of scribbles, joined together in a random old notebook (and given its irrelevancy to history i might add), is evidently of no particular value, not even as decoration, and is currently owned by a collectionist in rome. My cousin and I, being both hermetics enthusiasts, recently embarked in the quest of going to see it ourselves and, while we were not allowed to copy it nor take pictures of it, we were allowed to quickly sketch our translations. Hence, beside the aforementioned letters, there are currently at least two other texts about it that i know of: this one here, in english, and another one, that will be in georgian, being edited by my cousin herself and currently unpublished (come on girl!).
While i agree on the “Poor quality” of the text, and its substantial historical aliency to hermetism and knowledge in general, i think that it is still an intriguing exercise for a couple of reasons. One is that, being some kind of political interpretation of hermetism, it offers a field of discussion that rarely has been explored in its specificy: in fact, many historical figures have been inspired by hermetism, and can be argued that a few of those did some kind of hermetic politics (giordano bruno being the most notable example in his clash with the catholic church, which at the time was indeed both a religious and a political authority), but there are virtually no commentaries in history that translate hermetism into political terms, except for one, lately, in the form of j. peterson’s sorry ramblings. Just to spite, i think i will provide a full commentary of the politica hermetica myself in the near future.
Anyway, while i understand that to the early medieval eye it may have looked quite superficial, other than badly written, i understood the text as more compatible with the shapes of the political discourse that has taken form in the political discourse since then. For this reason, and i am somewhat sorry for this, i took the liberty of stressing these analogies in the work of translation, so that this interpretation can be more obvious: if nothing else, since i like the text, i hope that this way of adapting it provides it a chance not to slip in the oblivion again. This is, of course, also part of the reason why i am using noblogs for its publishing, for which i thank the friends that make this possible.
Finally i would like to thank anyone for their interest in this kind of work. i think that, since i have a blog now, i will also use it to post other commentaries from time to time, so i would also like to invite anyone interested in the subjects of either politics, or what could be called “Political hermetism”, to reach out for a chat. :)