Chaos

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Chaos

Postby Nefastos » Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:44 pm

"In truth, first of all Chasm* came to be, and then broad-breasted Earth, the ever immovable seat of all the immortals who possess snowy Olympus’ peak and murky Tartarus in the depths of the broad-pathed earth, and Eros, who is the most beautiful among the immortal gods, the limb-melter—he overpowers the mind and the thoughtful counsel of all the gods and of all human beings in their breasts."
– Hesiod: Theogony, 116-122

Glenn W. Most, translator of this classic and most ancient text of our European civilization, adds a footnote:

Most wrote:* Usually translated as "Chaos"; but that suggests to us, misleadingly, a jumble of disordered matter, whereas Hesiod's term indicated instead a gap or opening.


As people who have read Polyharmonia might remember, I personally have suggested that the very idea of "chaos" – in a way we have come to associate the word – is wrong. Things can only be "chaotic", i.e. confused and without order, from the viewpoint of a separated individual. Where he thinks chaos rules, there actually persists an order more holistic and perfect that he can fit into his formal mind.

Metaphysically approached we can only come to conclusion that either every one of us is fundamentally insane and incapable of knowing anything even theoretically (which is an argument no one is actually able to keep in), or there must be order in everything, even though this order is much different – much more perfect – that is the purely kâma-manasic idea of order, which can only operate comfortably on temporal plane. But the universe is necessarily paratemporal (= transcending the human linear experience of time), which is a fact even to modern physics, let alone metaphysics.

There are quite a lot of cosmologies, both exoterical and at least claiming to be esoterical, which see chaos possible. How can one defend such a world-view without stumbling to impossible existence? Or in case you don't, what do you personally mean by "chaos"?
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Chaos

Postby Insanus » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:57 pm

I think there are no other viewpoints than those of separated individuals and that recognizing unity is a sign of certain developed artistic genius.
To me, chaos is that which is completely beyond human comprehension. Disorder and confusion is just "bad order" that could be organized differently. Chaos transcends all experience and is not even a speculative entity. It's simply not, by (my) definition
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
obnoxion
Sodalis
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Chaos

Postby obnoxion » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:40 pm

In everyday language I often refer by chaos to an usettled state things, and by chaotic to something that is in a passive movement or that has essentialy lost control of its dynamic. But on a metaphysical level, especially considering that I use in my metaphysical contemplation almost exclusively mythopoetical expressions, chasm is most satisfactory.

As a side thought, would this mean that chaotic would be closer in meaning to "abyssic" that to "confused"...?
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Chaos

Postby Nefastos » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:02 pm

It was funny to note that when I had begun this thread I swapped to the Finnish forum & noticed that fra Kenazis had just started a similar topic ("Irrationality", where he explicitly mentioned Chaos) in the Finnish Philosophy section. Very gestalt brotherhood.
Insanus wrote:Disorder and confusion is just "bad order" that could be organized differently. Chaos transcends all experience and is not even a speculative entity. It's simply not, by (my) definition


I agree with your first sentence, but the next ones seem to boil down to:

Insanus wrote:To me, chaos is that which is completely beyond human comprehension.

This does not mean anything, because you just talked about it. It is like saying "I believe in God of whom nothing can be said". Such statement is jargon.

Insanus wrote:I think there are no other viewpoints than those of separated individuals and that recognizing unity is a sign of certain developed artistic genius.


Ok. I see problems in this, so, some questions. Even though these might easily spin off to another discussion.

1) What is the basis on which our conversation takes place? If we see that the ocean is nothing but a pile of separate waves, how do we interact? I mean: If the information is not shared on some common basis, however distant, how is true interaction possible? I mean not only language, which of course is very artificial already, but also on deeper levels.

Which continues to: 2) How do these separate souls link to anything even "inside", for example to their bodies, which quite undendiably are conglomerates of different less evolved intelligences?

3) If there is no archetypical plane at all – i.e. if we deny the basics of both Eastern and Western metaphysics (namely Plato) – where does our intellect construct itself & form these thoughts?

4) Is aesthetical pleasure therefore only reason to discuss anything, because we are forever unable to understand & expand into anything that is more real than what we already had?
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Chaos

Postby Nefastos » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:31 pm

obnoxion wrote:In everyday language I often refer by chaos to an usettled state things, and by chaotic to something that is in a passive movement or that has essentialy lost control of its dynamic.


This strikes straight to the spot, I think. Thus we can only name chaotic something separately, as a form of speaking, but universe as a whole cannot be chaotic, because something always controls the movement. (For example, gravity.) These controlling entities or laws can be almost beyond our intellectual reach, but we can always at least postulate that they are there.

For me personally the last year has been one immersed in the thoughts of Chaos. And while I have become a believer in chaos, so to say, by this I only mean that I have despaired in my hope that my soul could find harmonious union with the "Gods" (the cosmic organum), which therefore remain chaotic for me. So, as a fallen individual, I may despair and "choose chaos" by praxis, but it does not make any cosmological statement, only psychological ones. (Once again we come to Discordameliorian theses of seemingly chosen paradox, which actually is just the mixture of the last pair of sins: Pride and Despair.)

By this I naturally do not mean anything against chaos as the word is used in everyday language. Chaos as a non-metaphysical statement is both delicious & necessary to all creativity, growth, living, joy, happiness, meaning, & cetera. I only claim that it cannot exist on the bottom of existential cosmos in any other way than how divinity uses it, to make possible this miracle of events we call the world or universe. This that anything happens (by laws) is the great "Chaos" itself, both in the meanings of Opening & Flaw in the Law, but there is no other.

obnoxion wrote:As a side thought, would this mean that chaotic would be closer in meaning to "abyssic" that to "confused"...?


Wiktionary gives three meaning for the word abyssic or abyssal, and all of them seem to fit well in the Hesiodic meaning of this primal, mythical stance of being:

Wiktionary wrote: (archaic) Belonging to, or resembling, an abyss; unfathomable. [First attested in the mid 17th century.]
(geography) Of or belonging to the ocean depths, especially below 2000 metres (6500 ft): abyssal zone. [First attested in the mid 19th century.]
(geology) Pertaining to or occurring at excessive depths in the earth's crust; plutonic. [First attested in the late 19th century.]
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Chaos

Postby Insanus » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:44 pm

Nefastos wrote:
Insanus wrote:To me, chaos is that which is completely beyond human comprehension.

This does not mean anything, because you just talked about it. It is like saying "I believe in God of whom nothing can be said". Such statement is jargon.


I could say I believe in God of whom nothing can be said. Meaningless, nonexistant &c. are very suitable expressions too from our human viewpoint. The point is that the "nothing" is somehow positive and distinguishable from "something". I believe the intuition is similar to what you mean when you write about communicating with spirits - something terribly other to our view. But what do I know.

Nefastos wrote:
1) What is the basis on which our conversation takes place? If we see that the ocean is nothing but a pile of separate waves, how do we interact? I mean: If the information is not shared on some common basis, however distant, how is true interaction possible? I mean not only language, which of course is very artificial already, but also on deeper levels.


The sharing of the information constructs the common basis. The way we relate our experiences to each other's experience is how we are building the human world together. How can we relate? Here you asked a question, which required a shared language, which required and so on. Why do we share anything is a question we should be asking ourselves, not the imaginary neutral independent ground which is "jargon", because we are the basis for our conversation, we are the basis for our world and if we take "us" out of the equation, there is no perception of anything meaningful at all. Sure, we can speculate about different kinds of perceptions, like the world through butterfly's senses but what do we understand about being a butterfly? Jargon, goes to trash.

Nefastos wrote:
Which continues to: 2) How do these separate souls link to anything even "inside", for example to their bodies, which quite undendiably are conglomerates of different less evolved intelligences?


They perceive things outside of themselves to make them parts of themselves via adaptation. My body, my friend, my world - they become parts of my system & so my soul becomes a part of their systems if things work out properly without nasty power-relations. This way the idea of unity can be realized. Soul can crumble into the disordered state, soul can achieve more synchronized state with it's surroundings, but the point I'm trying to make is that this soul is defined by the things it is not and therefore is really separate.

Nefastos wrote:
3) If there is no plane at all – i.e. if we deny the basics of both Eastern and Western metaphysics (namely Plato) – where does our intellect construct itself & form these thoughts?


I'm not sure if I understand the question...probably in the worldly relations which in a sense are those thoughts.

Nefastos wrote:
4) Is aesthetical pleasure therefore only reason to discuss anything, because we are forever unable to understand & expand into anything that is more real than what we already had?


Aesthetical pleasure is the main reason to discuss anything because we are able to understand and expand into something more. I don't know if it is more or less real though.
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Chaos

Postby Nefastos » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:58 pm

Insanus wrote:I could say I believe in God of whom nothing can be said.


You already have some idea of that God, or you wouldn't know enough of that idea to believe in it, right?

Insanus wrote:Meaningless, nonexistant &c. are very suitable expressions too from our human viewpoint.


I disagree. In the occult world view there are no things that are completely meaningless or nonexistent. Even the things which have negative value for us as human beings (suffering) have positive value for the cosmos as a whole, or they couldn't exist. Universe is held up by teleology, or to say it in a more human way, our teleology necessary is drawn from cosmic blueprints. There are more and less meaningful things to us, and more or less perceivable ("existent" to us).

Insanus wrote:The sharing of the information constructs the common basis. The way we relate our experiences to each other's experience is how we are building the human world together. How can we relate? Here you asked a question, which required a shared language, which required and so on.


Exactly. So, there's a common nominator. It is always somewhat obstructed, and more & more the denser the worlds in which we communicate, but we are not separate beings.

Insanus wrote:we are the basis for our conversation


Should you say that our Egos, or monads, or whatever of our spirit-touching principles are the "basis", I would agree to a point. For those spiritual principles are actually one, they touch each other and the divinity. But the physical organism is so laughably dependent of all around it that I cannot understand how it could be basis for anything but blindness. It is all but separate, instead being put together from endless parts, it is indeed actually non-existent as itself, being like a ghost without all of this information flowing through it. A human being, understood like the profanes do, is little but an Aeolian harp.

Insanus wrote:Sure, we can speculate about different kinds of perceptions, like the world through butterfly's senses but what do we understand about being a butterfly?


Do I understand rightly that also the manasic and buddhic principles with their holistic way of perception are also pure speculation to you?

They do not need to be. Instead, we can compare buddhi (or manas) to a cell phone. Nearly everyone has one nowadays, but if we don't take a bit of time to learn how to use it, and do not learn the numbers with which to reach the other people, it is just a fancy toy with zero communicating abilities.

"Learning how to use buddhi" takes a bit more time than the time it takes to use a cell phone, granted... but the utility and range are better, too.

Insanus wrote:They perceive things outside of themselves to make them parts of themselves via adaptation.


So you see, there is a bridge that connects minds. The bridge of "adaptation".

For I understand that you mean that this is not necessarily a process of mutual cannibalization, but actually ideas can travel between people.

Insanus wrote:I'm not sure if I understand the question...probably in the worldly relations which in a sense are those thoughts.


If there is no plane of whole, the archetypical existence (by whichever name: all the esoterical world views have one; we might call it "spiritual unity"), there is no hope for even theoretically come to understanding of the whole. There is no center, there is no spirit, everything rotates endlessly on the peripheria of chaotic thought, for in such a state "chaos" would certainly be a good way to see how we are tossed by the cosmic laws without a possibility to ever end the process: for there is no rock whatsoever to reach, because there is no "God" and no unity. Is this nihilistic postmodern cosmology your approach?

Insanus wrote:Aesthetical pleasure is the main reason to discuss anything because we are able to understand and expand into something more. I don't know if it is more or less real though.


How do you see this "something more", how exactly is it "more"? More aesthetically pleasing?
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Chaos

Postby Insanus » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:40 pm

Nefastos wrote:
Insanus wrote:I could say I believe in God of whom nothing can be said.


You already have some idea of that God, or you wouldn't know enough of that idea to believe in it, right?
If I encounter a math problem I don't know the answer to, I know I can solve it, if it's not too difficult.
If I believe that science will one day be able to prove the existence of God, I don't necessarily know anything about what that proof could be like, but maybe I can speculate a bit. If I believe there are languages I don't understand, I don't know anything about how to speak them, yet maybe I can imitate them and try to learn, if I hear them. Now, if I believe there is just something I don't know, the only thing I'm actually referring to is my own limitation, but maybe I can try to cultivate my understanding further and be more open to the world, maybe meet something completely other than myself. Then my mind has to adapt to it, and my whole being transforms. It's not like it is some idea my mind can grasp now, it's just a sense of being shackled.
Maybe this becomes clearer at the next point:
Nefastos wrote:
Insanus wrote:Meaningless, nonexistant &c. are very suitable expressions too from our human viewpoint.


I disagree. In the occult world view there are no things that are completely meaningless or nonexistent. Even the things which have negative value for us as human beings (suffering) have positive value for the cosmos as a whole, or they couldn't exist. Universe is held up by teleology, or to say it in a more human way, our teleology necessary is drawn from cosmic blueprints. There are more and less meaningful things to us, and more or less perceivable ("existent" to us).
I know, and largely agree with this. The idea of nonexistent nothings that are meaningless don't fit in that or any other world for that matter. I'm trying to find those/that beyond this world view and that's why I can't call them anything else. I can accept unity, but not the identity of unity & the absolute. I think unity is the human way of seeing this unknown x.
Nefastos wrote:
Exactly. So, there's a common nominator. It is always somewhat obstructed, and more & more the denser the worlds in which we communicate, but we are not separate beings.
Yes there is a common nominator now that we have made it such. It is not metaphysical a priori or anything like that, but our construction which we are also able to break. Just like if I offer you my hand and you accept it. I don't think the accepting of hand is forced or a given fact on any plane of existence, otherwise it wouldn't even be real & there wouldn't be any communication after all.
Nefastos wrote:
Insanus wrote:we are the basis for our conversation


Should you say that our Egos, or monads, or whatever of our spirit-touching principles are the "basis", I would agree to a point. For those spiritual principles are actually one, they touch each other and the divinity.
How do they touch "each other" if they are one? Isn't there some truth to dualism? I didn't mean "physical body".
Nefastos wrote:

Do I understand rightly that also the manasic and buddhic principles with their holistic way of perception are also pure speculation to you?
Absolutely not, I think they are (maybe the most refined and best possible) human perceptions.
Nefastos wrote:
Insanus wrote:They perceive things outside of themselves to make them parts of themselves via adaptation.


So you see, there is a bridge that connects minds. The bridge of "adaptation".
Yes, it connects mindS.
Nefastos wrote: If there is no plane of whole, the archetypical existence (by whichever name: all the esoterical world views have one; we might call it "spiritual unity"), there is no hope for even theoretically come to understanding of the whole. There is no center, there is no spirit, everything rotates endlessly on the peripheria of chaotic thought, for in such a state "chaos" would certainly be a good way to see how we are tossed by the cosmic laws without a possibility to ever end the process: for there is no rock whatsoever to reach, because there is no "God" and no unity. Is this nihilistic postmodern cosmology your approach?
Maybe it's more like a preferred aesthetic, but it has a lot in common with my approach. I think "theoretically understanding the whole" would just be the total elimination of understanding. Otherwise my understanding would be greater than the whole. Again, we go to the non-idea of meaningless nothings. I think the unity must be constructed, it's not a given: our separation is.
Nefastos wrote:
Insanus wrote:Aesthetical pleasure is the main reason to discuss anything because we are able to understand and expand into something more. I don't know if it is more or less real though.


How do you see this "something more", how exactly is it "more"? More aesthetically pleasing?
Especially that. Clearer minds, more pure hearts, that kind of thing.
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Chaos

Postby Nefastos » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:08 pm

Insanus wrote:If I believe that science will one day be able to prove the existence of God, I don't necessarily know anything about what that proof could be like, but maybe I can speculate a bit. If I believe there are languages I don't understand, I don't know anything about how to speak them, yet maybe I can imitate them and try to learn, if I hear them. Now, if I believe there is just something I don't know, the only thing I'm actually referring to is my own limitation, but maybe I can try to cultivate my understanding further and be more open to the world, maybe meet something completely other than myself.


I realize that by "not knowing anything" you meant the particulars, but assumed some basic knowledge about the idea of God, like we have some ideas about languages (what makes them languages and not, for example, sparrows).

Insanus wrote:The idea of nonexistent nothings that are meaningless don't fit in that or any other world for that matter. I'm trying to find those/that beyond this world view and that's why I can't call them anything else. I can accept unity, but not the identity of unity & the absolute. I think unity is the human way of seeing this unknown x.


I understand. If by "identity of unity & the absolute" we mean some Christian God like figure who has a human-like personality, me neither.

(Even though personally I see that there are even more and deeper characteristics creating a coherent whole "super-personality" in the cosmos than there are in us human beings, but they are just so immense that they do not fit into our standard associative human idea of "personality". Our human personalities, from my viewpoint, are like child's first try to picture a personality with finger paints.)

Nefastos wrote:So, there's a common nominator. It is always somewhat obstructed, and more & more the denser the worlds in which we communicate, but we are not separate beings.
Insanus wrote:Yes there is a common nominator now that we have made it such. It is not metaphysical a priori or anything like that, but our construction which we are also able to break. Just like if I offer you my hand and you accept it. I don't think the accepting of hand is forced or a given fact on any plane of existence, otherwise it wouldn't even be real & there wouldn't be any communication after all.


I agree. The only slight difference in detail seems to be that in your idea the bridge is made (as from the beginning) at the moment when the hand is offered and accepted, while my approach is that there is a handshake already in the archetypical existence of paratemporal world, which makes possible our actions of making it real even in this world of Maya. Or, to say it differently, that all the actual true handshakes of the outer world are actualizations of the eternal handshake on the buddhic level.

Insanus wrote:we are the basis for our conversation
Nefastos wrote:Should you say that our Egos, or monads, or whatever of our spirit-touching principles are the "basis", I would agree to a point. For those spiritual principles are actually one, they touch each other and the divinity.
Insanus wrote:How do they touch "each other" if they are one? Isn't there some truth to dualism? I didn't mean "physical body".


There is some truth to dualism, of course, even though it is not the primary truth.

They touch precisely because they are one. This is the paradoxical, hologrammatic truth of One God which is our monad, yours and mine. We are not separate in God. You are the One God who acts out His dharma in the way you heart tells you. I am the One God who acts out His dharma in the way my heart tells me. Our minds interconnect, our hearts are next to each other, and our basic essence are ultimately the same.

We as personalities are appendages of that Azathothian immanence of ultimate divine essence which can contact each other in two ways: our pseudopods (reaching out from the fundamental unity into this world of form) may touch each other even in this triple world, by language &c., or we can reach deeper into our being, the God-puddle, to meet in its deeper levels. My point has been that without the second one, even the first one would not be possible. The "bridge", the "handshake", the "buddhi", the "God" are the common spiritual substance or the archetypical unity, and if there would be only separate pseudopods (e.g. human minds), they would never actually meet, just because of that: they would be separate. To know something, however vaguely, is already to be part of it. Realization of essence is not an on/off-switch.

Nefastos wrote:Do I understand rightly that also the manasic and buddhic principles with their holistic way of perception are also pure speculation to you?
Insanus wrote:Absolutely not, I think they are (maybe the most refined and best possible) human perceptions.


Hmm. In this, defining "human" would be necessary.

Coming back to my pseudopod-parable, we as human beings might be less human than that buddhi which is our basis as human beings. The connecting human principle is manas (the Sanskrit word might be the etymological root of "man"), which cannot live without buddhi, even though it can live without the physical brain.

Nefastos wrote:So you see, there is a bridge that connects minds. The bridge of "adaptation".
Insanus wrote:Yes, it connects mindS.


I am not trying to talk you out of the seemingly separatistic approach, I am just trying to map how you see it: as a language tool, or as the fundamental truth. This is the heart-point, the most vital one. I trust you know that the idea of separatism – that there is no uniting supermind (Anima Mundi, Alaya, &c.) – is contrary to the basic tenets of most if not all forms of occultism? I say most, because it is up to our terminology if we call the downward path, the one that accepts the separatism as a final defining fact, a form of occultism or not. The "heart-point" is not in the words, but in one's life: the fundamental attitude, the very blood-stream of our spiritual process.

For example, in myself I necessarily see the both: unity and separate individual. It would be utmost folly to deny the second. But only the profane and the fallen put their faith in the latter: as a point of basis, it cannot last. There comes the point where an ingenious mind (like yours and mine) must choose its path: factual altruism (which does not deny the ego), or factual egotism (even if it wouldn't deny the Other). Separatism is the practical focus on one's ego; unity is the practical focus on the larger whole. Trying to deconstruct one's ego by whichever means: drugs, art, philosophy, magic, religion – always fails; for the deconstruction process of the ego still remains as the focus. Ego can never been deconstructed in this way, by putting more and more energy into its processes. It, the "great heresy of separatism", can only be deflated by working for the others – in deed or in art or in meditation, whatever – constantly, tirelessly, until one's heart bleeds out the black blood.

In case I misundertand you and these words are not for you, I apologize; but in that case they might mean something to somebody else.

Insanus wrote:Maybe it's more like a preferred aesthetic, but it has a lot in common with my approach. I think "theoretically understanding the whole" would just be the total elimination of understanding. Otherwise my understanding would be greater than the whole.


Not at all. That's the point: they are not linked in this way in unity, where there is no power struggle at all, no greater and no lesser, nothing circulating anything without being circulated itself. Understanding of the whole can only be reached on the level of that whole, one needs not be "above" it. Buddhi is the "universal solvent": it makes us as one, not as pyramid blocks touching each other from sides, from above, from below. With buddhic perception, every one is the whole pyramid, even though his temporal focus also resides partially in one particular block.

Nefastos wrote:How do you see this "something more", how exactly is it "more"? More aesthetically pleasing?
Insanus wrote:Especially that. Clearer minds, more pure hearts, that kind of thing.


Ok. Of course a purer heart also gives an aesthetical pleasure (at least in the form of purer pain), but I think that it is far from the most important part of such a change.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Jiva
Frater
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Chaos

Postby Jiva » Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:18 am

I might be derailing another thread somewhat – and perhaps talking nonsense in the process – but I suspect the changes between the classical and modern definitions of chaos are related to Paracelsus and his understanding of sylphs: elemental beings who effortlessly live within matter (e.g. salamanders live within the chaos/emptiness of fire). Of course, this necessitates four separate chaoses for the four classical elements - in contrast to the single chaos of primordiality - thereby suggesting ordered states when beings are in their particular element and disordered states when they’re not.

Random trivia: the discovery of gas in the 17th century by the elder van Helmont is directly related to this (“gas” is actually a Dutch word and was seemingly coined to deliberately sound very similar to “chaos”). In a more scientific version of Paracelsus: when one is surrounded by oxygen, one exists in order; when one is surrounded by carbon dioxide, not so much.

I guess if people are interpreting chaos materially, then I suppose makes sense that the focus of chaos would eventually refer solely to the discomfort of disordered states rather than the intrinsically effortless comfort of ordered states.
'Oh Krishna, restless and overpowering, this mind is overwhelmingly strong; I think we might as easily gain control over the wind as over this.'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest