I see where you’re coming from, and I can appreciate your attempt to approach the Corpus Hermeticum with a focus on open interpretation and personal reflection. It’s clear that you value the fluid, conversational style of the texts and see them as an invitation to explore rather than a strict framework to follow. While I respect that perspective, I think there are some key areas where your argument misrepresents the nature of Hermetic teachings and Poly’s position. Let me clarify:


It implies that if you don’t approach the texts with this very specific, slow, contemplative method, you’re basically a philistine who doesn’t get it.

I have read the Corpus Hermeticum around eight times, and each time I do, I read it slowly and think deeply about what I am reading. This is a contemplative method, yes, but even when I return to the book, new things about it seem to appear and emerge that I didn’t notice before. It’s a suggestion to read it contemplatively. I honestly don’t think you’d get much out of it by speed-reading through it. Do you really believe you would?

The “fine dining” analogy Poly uses is not an insult or a claim that those who approach the text differently are philistines. It’s simply an acknowledgment of the depth and density of the Hermetic texts. As Poly explains:

“What these texts often try to do is to render the ineffable effable and grasp at mystical states of experience with the gaudy clumsiness of words and speech.”

Poly’s point is that these texts demand care and attention to unpack their complexity—not to belittle alternative approaches but to maximize the potential understanding they offer. To dismiss this as pretentious misses the point entirely.


The dive into CH XII is also problematic. The author leans very heavily on their interpretation of that famous line about “not being evil” and how it requires a specific, doctrinal framework. They’re almost treating it like a legal code that demands adherence to a strict set of principles. But, let’s be real; the Hermetic texts are more like a series of conversations, not pronouncements from on high. They’re full of metaphors and imagery, meant to inspire contemplation, not rote memorization and adherence to a list of correct beliefs.

This doesn’t address Poly’s point on the "not being evil." I think your perspective is overtly reductive and doesn’t actually engage with the matter at hand. As a matter of fact, you committed a mischaracterization. I don’t believe that Poly ever claimed or implied that the Hermetic scriptures require "rote memorization and adherence to a list of correct beliefs." You falsely represented his argument in a fallacious way.

Poly’s examination of “not being evil” in CH XII focuses on unpacking its meaning within the broader context of the text, not treating it as rigid dogma. As they write:

“If the one religion of God…is to not be evil, then what is evil (kakon), and how can we avoid being it? Trying to answer that gets into something of a complicated situation; understanding this one pithy line requires a lot of context and unpacking to actually make sense out of.”

Poly clearly approaches the topic with nuance, aiming to explore, not dictate. Your critique overlooks this and instead projects an unwarranted rigidity onto Poly’s argument.

It’s also ironic that, in your previous statement, you criticize Poly for saying to read the book slowly and contemplatively, yet you admit these metaphors and imagery are meant to inspire contemplation. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?


You also posited several assumptions:


They’re almost treating it like a legal code that demands adherence to a strict set of principles.

You say this but offer no basis for that claim. Instead, you bypass it by making your own strict interpretation, claiming: “But, let’s be real; the Hermetic texts are more like a series of conversations, not pronouncements from on high. They’re full of metaphors and imagery, meant to inspire contemplation.”

Poly never presents Hermeticism as rigid or purely legalistic. They even acknowledge the poetic and metaphorical nature of the texts, writing:

“These texts aren’t merely dry educational stuff, but are peppered with occasional bursts of ecstatic reverence for the divine and sweetened with single lines that make huge impacts as statements on their own.”

Your claim that Poly views the texts as strict legal code doesn’t align with their actual position.


They seem to believe that their interpretation is the only correct one when that just isn’t the case.

Poly explicitly refutes this idea in their post:

“To be sure, there are indeed times where there can be multiple interpretations of a given text, or when going from the same starting point with different logical arguments can lead to different ideas that can all be simultaneously valid even when mutually exclusive.”

This shows a clear openness to differing perspectives. Your assertion that Poly promotes a rigid, exclusive interpretation is directly contradicted by their own words.


The author acts like they’ve cracked the code by saying it’s about not being misguided when there is still so much to explore.

That is another assumption based on purely imagined criteria. Poly’s post is an exploration of the complexities of CH XII, not a declaration of having “cracked the code.” As they note:

“We should take such care with the Hermetic texts to understand them as best as we can and discuss them with others to get feedback and guidance about them.”

Poly’s intent is clearly collaborative and exploratory, not definitive.


The author gets all hot and bothered because some folks on the internet dare to suggest that Hermeticism doesn’t have a fixed doctrine, and that people should be able to think for themselves.

This is yet another attack on character rather than a substantive argument. You’ve provided no evidence to support this claim or any reference to where Poly implies that Hermeticism demands blind adherence to a fixed doctrine. This assertion is pure conjecture and mischaracterizes both Poly’s tone and their actual argument.

Poly has consistently emphasized the importance of personal exploration and understanding in Hermetic practice. They write (again):

“We should take such care with the Hermetic texts to understand them as best as we can and discuss them with others to get feedback and guidance about them.”

This is a clear call for collaborative engagement and open dialogue, not an attempt to impose rigid dogma. On a personal level, as someone who has been deeply inspired by Poly’s work, I can attest to their encouragement to think critically and interpret the texts for oneself. The entire reason I delved into Hermeticism was because Poly’s guidance motivated me to explore these teachings deeply and thoughtfully.

If Poly’s intention were to stifle interpretation, why would they advocate for a slow, contemplative reading that inherently fosters individual reflection and insight?


They practically foam at the mouth over their need for structure and order. They’re acting like the Hermetic texts are some sort of sacred rule book that demands everyone to be in lockstep. This feels like projecting their own insecurities onto a group of people that they probably don’t interact with all that often.

Now that is just blatantly rude and another gross mischaracterization, as well as an attack on character rather than the argument. This is an ad hominem fallacy, and frankly, I am not a fan of this kind of dishonest rhetoric in my subreddit. Phrases like “they foam at the mouth” or accusations of projecting insecurities are unproductive and detract from the substance of the critique. Personal attacks shift the focus away from the text and the philosophical discourse. I would say this violates our rules on starting flame wars.


the author claims that because “Hermetic texts have their own teachings” that it must therefore also have a doctrine. This ignores the difference between those concepts. Teachings aren’t doctrine.

This just seems like you lack a fundamental understanding of what a doctrine is. It literally doesn’t make any sense to say that Hermetic scriptures and Hermeticists don’t have any doctrines. That’s just... a bizarre and weird take. The Hermetic texts, particularly the Corpus Hermeticum, contain doctrines in the sense of a system of spiritual and philosophical teachings that guide adherents toward understanding divine truths, the nature of reality, and self-realization.

A doctrine is generally defined as a set of principles or beliefs held and taught by a particular group or philosophy. The Corpus Hermeticum indeed presents, at the very least, a semi-coherent worldview grounded in mysticism, cosmology, and the relationship between humanity and the divine. The texts make sharp and clear distinctions about those things in many places. The Hermetic texts don’t say, "Erm, maybe it’s this way. I don’t know; what do you think??" Where does Hermes say that? Hermes makes objective claims and asserts beliefs—not just mere casual conversation or suggestion. He makes real philosophical and metaphysical claims about existence that are, of course, dated and open to interpretation, but there are definitely "doctrines" by the general meaning of the word.

“Doctrine” doesn’t imply strictly rigid dogma; rather, it refers to foundational teachings that guide understanding. You’ve falsely conflated the term "doctrine" with something more like inflexibility or dogma. Some examples of doctrines include (using G.R.S mead translation from hermetic.com):

  • The Doctrine of the One Source (God is All): The texts emphasize that all things originate from the One, who is both invisible and ineffable, containing the cosmos within itself. This is clearly described in Corpus Hermeticum I (Poimandres), where the Divine Mind reveals that all creation emanates from the One. Similarly, CH VIII (The Key) reiterates that God is the source and sustainer of all existence.
  • The Ascent of the Soul: The soul’s journey through the spheres to reunite with the divine is a central teaching. CH I (Poimandres) details the stages of purification the soul undergoes to transcend the material world and rejoin the Pleroma. CH X (The Mind to Hermes) elaborates on the liberation from bodily constraints and the return to divine unity.
  • The Interconnectedness of All Things: The Hermetic worldview presents the cosmos as a living organism, with all parts reflecting divine order and intelligence. This idea is articulated in CH III (The Sacred Sermon), where the harmony of the elements is shown as a manifestation of divine will, and in CH XII (On the Mind Shared Among Men), which explores the unity of divine reason permeating all beings.
  • The Nature of Divine Reason (Logos): Logos is described as the intermediary through which the One manifests in creation. In CH IV (The Cup or Monad), Hermes explains that divine reason is offered to those who seek wisdom. Similarly, CH XI (The Mind to Hermes) highlights Logos as the principle connecting humanity to the divine.
  • The Duality of Light and Darkness: The texts describe a metaphysical duality where light symbolizes divine presence and knowledge, while darkness represents ignorance and material entrapment. This is explored in CH XIII (The Secret Sermon on the Mountain), which contrasts the soul’s illumination with the shadow of corporeal existence. CH VII (The Greatest Ill Among Men Is Ignorance of God) further emphasizes this doctrine, warning against remaining in the darkness of ignorance.

These doctrines are foundational to the Hermetic understanding of the cosmos and the soul’s relationship to the divine. They are not casual conversations but structured teachings meant to guide seekers toward divine truths. these are considered doctrines, maybe they aren't your doctrines adhere to, but as a hermeticist myself I consider them my doctrines that I do adhere to and believe (in the context of hermetic thought)

Edit
Pub: 21 Jan 2025 05:31 UTC
Views: 5