Fragment 88

[stalkinghyena]

Would anyone care to offer their interpretation of the following quote?

"[Nature] persuades us to believe that the demons are pure, and that the offspring of evil matter are good and useful."

This is from The Chaldean Oracles: Text, Translation and Commentary by Ruth Majercik. The above is denoted as "Fragment 88" and is attributed to Micheal Psellus. Any interpretation or impression is welcome, there is no wrong answer IMO.

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

It would seem either demons are good or witches/naturists are deluded.

 

[Öwnchef]

This guy is extremly hard to translate. I am pretty sure that it is not [nature] he wrote but (((them))).

To give you a better feeling of this guy, he also wrote that we were there, when god created the world.

Yea, I know. You can't remember. Or you don't want to.

 

[Roma]

Demon deus inversus est: Demon is the inverse of god

So is demon the out-breath and god the in-breath?

 

[Öwnchef]

Demon deus inversus est: Demon is the inverse of god

So is demon the out-breath and god the in-breath?

Demon est deus inversus is a sentence from H.P. Blavatsky. May she eternally rot in hell.

 

[Noth]

Would anyone care to offer their interpretation of the following quote?

"[Nature] persuades us to believe that the demons are pure, and that the offspring of evil matter are good and useful."

I would interpret Nature to be our own nature or our condition here in the material realm, our "fallen" or "unenlightened" state, the Natural Man.

So, my interpretation would be, "Due to our own Natural State (here in the World) we can not see the inherent dangers of demons and will misinterpret (some) of their work as good and useful."

I do not know the full text, so I am assuming the fragment is speaking of literal demons and not utilizing hyperbole. I'm taking the prospective of one who has some experience with classical demons and forming an interpretation based on my dealings with them.

 

[Roma]

Demon est deus inversus is a sentence from H.P. Blavatsky.

That is not the original. Here the Latin words have been put in English order.

" The Kabbalist says, "Demon deus inversus est. - the evil principle is only the godlike principle upside down.""

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Öwnchef]

That is not the original. Here the Latin words have been put in English order.

" The Kabbalist says, "Demon deus inversus est. - the evil principle is only the godlike principle upside down.""

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Theosophy as your link correctly says. Literally invented by Blavatsky. Written like I wrote it.
I can find no other source than Theosophy/Blavatsky. Do you know of one?

 

[stalkinghyena]

I appreciate everyone's replies. Thank you, thank you.

It would seem either demons are good or witches/naturists are deluded.

I guess that fits. I've often run into the word "demon" as a generic term in both academic scholars and proper occultists. The word could be used interchangeably to denote any type of spirit on the scale of god to elemental while not being applied to rank.
As an aside I once had a conversation with a Wiccan HP about the "dragons" living in her house. They ranged from playful to mischevious. The skeptical side of me thought she was deluded while my more appreciative side accepted it as an article of faith but though she might invest in fire extinguishers and a good bite wound kit.

This guy is extremly hard to translate. I am pretty sure that it is not [nature] he wrote but (((them))).

Majercik gives [ή φύσιϛ] in the original Greek section of the Oracles, the source of which she attributes to Wilhem Kroll (De Oracula Chaldaicis, pg. 44, 1895) and also to a work called Patrologia Graeca edited by JP Migne. She states in her notes that Kroll believe Psellus was "linking to a prior paragraph", but doesn't explain the use of brackets beyond that. Another scholar moves the brackets to the Greek word for "is" or "be".

I wish I could post the original Greek here, but lack the ability as of yet.

To give you a better feeling of this guy, he also wrote that we were there, when god created the world.

That sort of reminds me of the Kore Kosmou, where Isis tells baby Horus that the souls in heaven were bored with all the happiness so God created the world to stop them bitching and show them what "life sucks" means. It's been a looong time since I read that, so I might be off.

My impression of Psellus came from reading his De operatione daemonum, due to be drawn to his criticism of certain Gnostics as being raving sexual perverts when they were in fact hyper-ascetics. His demon classification I found interesting, especially his description of "lucifuges", which kind of helped me understand where Glenn Danzig was coming from.

Yea, I know. You can't remember. Or you don't want to.

Yes I do, but I don't want to...
Wait...what???

 

[stalkinghyena]

Demon deus inversus est

Yeats "magical motto"?

H.P. Blavatsky. May she eternally rot in hell.

I believe that is a Mathers quote.

 

[stalkinghyena]

I would interpret Nature to be our own nature or our condition here in the material realm, our "fallen" or "unenlightened" state, the Natural Man.

So, my interpretation would be, "Due to our own Natural State (here in the World) we can not see the inherent dangers of demons and will misinterpret (some) of their work as good and useful."

I do not know the full text, so I am assuming the fragment is speaking of literal demons and not utilizing hyperbole. I'm taking the prospective of one who has some experience with classical demons and forming an interpretation based on my dealings with them.

I think you hit the mark as far as the original intent of the Oracles. Unfortunately, due to fragmentary nature of them it seems only possible to get a framework from other practitioners through the centuries, who have probably distilled things to fit their paradigms. Psellus, it seems to me, probably used the fragment to bolster his position on whatever subject he was supporting/deriding, and who knows what his source was. A scrap of papyrus in a dusty old folio?

Anyways, I like to get people's impressions of little ditties like this because I think there are gems to be found in the cobwebby dust of history. Fragment 88, along with the rest of the Oracles, has made its way down through modern occultism in somewhat distorted forms if you listen to the philologists. In this case, Crowley (among others) cites it often in completing sentences with the variant "even the evil grains of matter can alike be used for good." Perhaps it sends a different message than the original intent - or does it?

I hope to dig up other variants if I can for comparison.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: FRAGMENT 88
SUBTOPIC: What does it mean.
⁜→ Fragment 88, Neophyte, Noth, and Diluculo_DelFuego, et al,

I have Fragment #88 in front of me. I have been looking at it for two days. I thought I had a handle on it, but then my understanding of the meaning and intent just slip away.

Fr 88(2) (EXCERPT)​

"In the Chaldean system, matter is viewed as an aggressive, evil force and thoroughly demonized, a notion prominent in the Platonic 'underworld.'However, unlike most of the Gnostic and Hermetic Systems, the hylophobia does not extend to the Ethereal World ofregion of the fixed stars. In this regard, cf esp fr 153 and notes and see the discussion introduction."​

While I can read and understand the words individually, as a coherent thought of any value, race past me.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Noth]

RE: FRAGMENT 88
SUBTOPIC: What does it mean.
⁜→ Fragment 88, Neophyte,

Fr 88(2) (EXCERPT)​

"In the Chaldean system, matter is viewed as an aggressive, evil force and thoroughly demonized, a notion prominent in the Platonic 'underworld.'However, unlike most of the Gnostic and Hermetic Systems, the hylophobia does not extend to the Ethereal World ofregion of the fixed stars. In this regard, cf esp fr 153 and notes and see the discussion introduction."​

Huh, that is interesting. So, I wonder if the Chaldeans had more earthly archons, or if they had any notion of an archon at all.

I've long thought that many "demons" of the ancient world were actually the animals (and animal spirits) that were more common in their daily life. Wolves coming out of the forest to threaten my tribe would definitely have the same feel as demons.

Being torn apart is being torn apart.

Relegating the "dark side" to materia, it would make sense that those beings of the world who showed the most intelligence (ie animals) would be seen as a force one would need caution against.

"The horse looks noble, and at times we may use it to help with plowing the fields, but make no mistake, it's an animal and may trample you."

 

[Öwnchef]

I have a feeling that the brackets indicate that the word is missing. And the translator added a word he thinks could probably fit.

So why ή φύσιϛ? And not o λόγος?

This word is so essential for the whole phrase, why ommit it?

 

[stalkinghyena]

While I can read and understand the words individually, as a coherent thought of any value, race past me.

I get the same problem often. I generally put things down and wait for the AHA! moment to come down the road. Sometimes I slap my forehead hard enough to leave a mark.

I've long thought that many "demons" of the ancient world were actually the animals (and animal spirits) that were more common in their daily life. Wolves coming out of the forest to threaten my tribe would definitely have the same feel as demons.

The evil demons of the Chaldean system are called "dog-faced". I've seen their forms pretty much like that, though they might wear suits or hoodies...never seen one in a dress, though, thank God.

This word is so essential for the whole phrase, why ommit it?

Maybe you are are right about the translator, but why is o λόγος so essential in your opinion? Do you mean that in like a demiurgic sense with ή φύσιϛ as a cover?

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

RE: FRAGMENT 88
SUBTOPIC: What does it mean.
⁜→ Fragment 88, Neophyte, Noth, and Diluculo_DelFuego, et al,

I have Fragment #88 in front of me. I have been looking at it for two days. I thought I had a handle on it, but then my understanding of the meaning and intent just slip away.

Fr 88(2) (EXCERPT)​

"In the Chaldean system, matter is viewed as an aggressive, evil force and thoroughly demonized, a notion prominent in the Platonic 'underworld.'However, unlike most of the Gnostic and Hermetic Systems, the hylophobia does not extend to the Ethereal World ofregion of the fixed stars. In this regard, cf esp fr 153 and notes and see the discussion introduction."​

While I can read and understand the words individually, as a coherent thought of any value, race past me.

Most Respectfully,
R

So here it seems to me that there was a similar lime of thought between Chaldeans and Gnostics, where matter is viewed as evil.
That stood out to me.
I don't think there is an extension of the meaning to imply working with them, more that everyone has its own function to move the universe along.

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

So here it seems to me that there was a similar lime of thought between Chaldeans and Gnostics, where matter is viewed as evil.
That stood out to me.
I don't think there is an extension of the meaning to imply working with them, more that everyone has its own function to move the universe along.

Question, is there a fragment 87 or 89?

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

I really needed to take a biblical archaeology and ancient Greek structured foundation. Then french or German most likely after Ojibwa.

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

But I didn't, so English only for me aside from godnames, and trying to note a common word used in the Greek interlinear NT.

 

[Öwnchef]

I get the same problem often. I generally put things down and wait for the AHA! moment to come down the road. Sometimes I slap my forehead hard enough

Maybe you are are right about the translator, but why is o λόγος so essential in your opinion? Do you mean that in like a demiurgic sense with ή φύσιϛ as a cover?

Take o νόμος and the meaning swaps again. With physis something naturally growing is depicted, while logos means a somehow by someone declared law. Nomos again would be natural to mankind.
Totally different meanings with different outcome. Example:

Because of [...] electrical vehicles became exeptable and in the process all electrical utilities were considered good and useful.

The translator chooses [Tesla]. Why not the greens, women, common sense, brainlets, mass media or Cthulhu?
If a translator does this he changes the meaning of a text according to his personal Weltbild, thus destroying the orginal and historical value of a text. More, he abuses a text for his own propaganda.