┌─╷─┐ ╵┌┼┐╵ polyphanes.smol.pub ╷└┼┘╷ by polyphanes └─╵─┘
return to homepage
return to post index
───╢※╟───
It's just so common (and so tolerated by so many) to see "Hermeticism" used in so expansive a way that it becomes effectively meaningless, whatever it refers to being up to anyone's whim despite that it actually can—and does—refer to something independent of individual whimsy. This is only made all the more annoying when such a delineation and demarcation is helpfully and explicitly provided in such a forum's rules or description, which one would think would be instructive about the topic and scope thereof! Alas
Like, there is much that can be considered "esoteric" without it being "Hermetic". There is far more to esotericism, whether in a Western context or beyond, than just Hermeticism. Likewise, Hermeticism is not the origin of esotericism, whether in a Western context or beyond. And all that is totally okay! It's beautiful, really, because there is so much out there in the esoteric world, so much vibrant variance and delightful difference, coming from so many cultural and religious backgrounds. Why try to force it all into one origin, one hole, one template? You don't have to call something "Hermetic" for it to be meaningfully esoteric or workable. Truly! It's okay! Free yourself from that bad preconception. Slapping on labels to make something seem more official or spooky is a problem for everyone. Don't fall into that trap!
"but it all has the same origin" It doesn't.
"but hermetic teachings say that they were the first" They don't.
"but all esoteric stuff can be traced back to hermes" They can't.
As someone who studies and practices Hermeticism, let me be first to describe the boundaries of sensibility here. Hermeticism is just one single contributing voice to a vast chorus of esotericism, no matter how important it may or may not be. Why try to make this beast carry as a burden what doesn't need to be lifted in the first place? Is this more difficult to accept or work with, that the history of esotericism is more complicated than it having one easy-to-digest origin? Totally, but that's just reality. We're not in this for an easy time. There's a reason the Great Work is called that—because it's work.
Of course, this is where we run into the question of "what is 'Hermeticism'", and I contend that there is no one single answer. If we're talking about big-tent Hermeticism, then of course innovation is allowed, inclusive of Golden Dawn and Franz Bardon stuff and more, sure. On the other hand, if we're talking about "classical Hermeticism", then we have a boundary to our context. In the same way that one wouldn't bring up modern Athenian politics in a class about classical Spartan government merely because they're both Greek, boundaries help! Even then, though, we need to remember that, no matter how wide the scope of the term one might use, "Hermeticism" specifically is not equivalent with "esotericism" generally. Not all esoteric things are Hermetic, and not all Hermetic things are even esoteric. Too many people treat them as interchangeable terms and concepts, but that does away with the meaning and use of both words individually. Besides, when there is a clearly-stated understanding given by a group for discussions and practices pertaining to that group, we know better that that group is and does, and also what that group isn't and doesn't. Recognizing that helps us stay focused; ignoring that helps us get confused. Heck, it's not even about scientific categorization of traditions or schools; it's rather a matter of people coming together to use a common set of definitions and understandings as a community and commonality, and not wanting to dilute that with individualized hot takes for the sake of one's own satisfaction. And that's putting aside matters of tradition and maintaining the integrity of a tradition, too, which of necessity needs to resist innovation and expansion in order to be carried on from past through present to future. That's a case where strictness in protocol is a benefit!