The Six Principles of Hermes Mercurius Triplex - Medieval Hermetica

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Please like, share, sub, and leave a comment to be a sweet-smelling incense to Tugaton-Noys.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an elementary particle. It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. Q: Is the Monad (first emanation of God) the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong nuclear force? A: Leibniz's "The Monadology" is a philosophical work that explores the concept of monads as indivisible, immaterial substances that make up the fabric of reality. While the notion of monads is primarily philosophical and not directly related to modern physics, I can attempt to draw a connection between some of Leibniz's ideas and the strong nuclear force holding quarks together. Here are seven points of connection you could consider: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Leibniz's monads are indivisible and lack parts. In a similar vein, quarks are elementary particles, indivisible according to our current understanding, and are the building blocks of hadrons, the particles held together by the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In particle physics, the strong force binds quarks within hadrons, creating a complex interconnected system of particles. 3) Inherent Properties: Monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions. In particle physics, quarks are associated with intrinsic properties like color charge, which influences their interactions through the strong force. 4) Harmony: Leibniz describes monads as creating harmony in the universe. Similarly, the strong nuclear force maintains stability within atomic nuclei by balancing the repulsive electromagnetic forces between positively charged protons. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz's concept of pre-established harmony suggests that everything is synchronized by design. In particle physics, the strong force ensures that quarks interact in ways that give rise to stable particles, exhibiting a form of "harmony" in their interactions. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Leibniz's monads interact non-mechanically through perceptions. In the context of the strong force, quarks interact through the exchange of gluons, which doesn't follow classical mechanical rules but rather the principles of quantum field theory. 7) Holism: Leibniz's emphasis on the holistic nature of reality could be compared to the way quarks contribute to the overall structure and behavior of hadrons through their interactions mediated by the strong force. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.

[@ArachneAnathema]

This is the Hermeticism I am looking for! Alas, I am limited by language. I want to read the words you have spoken, I want to read their source. But I know only English. I want to study the 12th century astrology and humors and natural philosophy. Thank you, I will listen to this over and over. A world view grounded in empirical observation, from such an exciting time period. Thank you!

[@johnnewton8017]

@@NotNecessarily-ip4vcDude, nice!

[@Bildgesmythe]

I absolutely love listening to books i never knew existed.

[@silentobserver888]

Nearing that 100k subs. You will reach it! Very well deserved too.

[@NicolaMaxwell]

Fantastic seeing your channel grow Dan! Been listening to you for 7 years and I've learned so much. Thank you. Love from Scotland.

[@TheModernHermeticist]

I feel very blessed to have people like you who have been following my work for almost a decade. Thanks Nicola.

[@NicolaMaxwell]

​@@TheModernHermeticistYou're very welcome but thank you. I've learned so much. Appreciate your work Dan, you're a great teacher.

[@jjrecon3024]

The more I learn to master love, the more I realize Love is my master. Discern n burn ❤️‍🔥

[@michaelhellerslien1602]

Would you say more?

[@seanjustg5425]

💯🙌💓

[@adambenjamin9069]

Interesting. Literally just finished The Kybalion on spotify, opened KZbin and here's this! More works to explore

[@1ntrcnnctr608]

1000s of years i was waiting for this 🙏

[@TheModernHermeticist]

🙏🙏🙏

[@SobekLOTFC]

Keep up the wonderful work, Dan 😊

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Thanks Jason, you too!

[@seanjustg5425]

Makes so much more sense. Thanx ❤

[@magickmagazine7675]

Very well done very informative. I can’t wait to see the translation when you’re finished

[@FeelAllSephyrsTone]

Right on time.

[@lantosjonatan9617]

Thanks again Actually I miss a lot of information about your readings, which I must fill with other sources. I really appreciate this kind of content, imo you should make more videos with introduction and commentary. In this video the ratio of references, prime text reading, commentary and transparently stated agenda was perfect. Thanks for showing us forgotten treasures all the time.

[@dickweedgroqin9161]

I barely found you and I'm glad I did I got so much to learn

[@phillipbernhardt-house6907]

Fantastic as always! I have been thinking about the difference between nous and logos recently (as one does...!?!), so this is interesting that the text you have elucidated includes both, and under the "Hermetic" rubric.

[@AedenKlawBIanco]

Thanks. Enjoying your work.

[@Lucas___]

Fantastic. Magnificent labor. First time being exposed to your work. I receive Hermetic tradition for some years now and was blissful to hear and watch this exposition. The term Hermetism and Hermetist is more interesting and less 'prejudiced' or academic as I practice and study Hermetism. Still, fabulous content and effort. Brilliant in execution, Divine in Essence. A Triple Trisagion.

[@iesureloaded6139]

Thank you for sharing your wonderful work. Looking forward to hearing more ✌️❤️

[@Siriusaor]

Thank You Dan. Seems to be a very interesting source of Sacred Science.

[@lbucky1349]

Cant wait for the translation 😁

[@seanjustg5425]

😁

[@percival1137]

I had an intuition some time back. Everything 7 is 12, everything 12 is 13. Amazing how often this is true. There is something magical in 137.

[@CoastalFilmsKenyaTv]

Very Informative Video 📸ℹ️😉🙂😊😀😃

[@jamescady723]

Excellent information. Thanks.

[@Grateful.For.Everything]

Excellent Work!!!!! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@daviddonaire321]

Great job.

[@eightness888]

Is there any way you can put these translated books in actual book format? I totally would buy one.

[@TheModernHermeticist]

After the peer-review process, this one is coming out in book format with Brepols in the Hermes Latinus series (and my other translations are also published with PSU press and UTP).

[@eightness888]

@@TheModernHermeticist I can't wait, can you make a video or post about this when it's time? Please.

[@khadijetoubaboyamsow6152]

Intresting

[@realherbalism1017]

Any idea when you may have a translated edition for purchase?

[@TheModernHermeticist]

It's in the final stages on our end, but then it's got to go off for peer review, get batted back for revisions, then it goes to the printers. I think that process may take 1-2 years unfortunately. Things don't move terribly fast.

[@333STONE]

I think these are principles of accumulation just as the seven hermetic principles are. These six are just lacking the connection or that which one would call mentalism. Nonetheless I think they fall in line with the accumulation cycle.

[@jjrecon3024]

Must first acknowledge the foundation of all these principles; Care 👀

[@Cosmos142857]

Thanks!

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Thanks for the support Cosmos

[@magickmagazine7675]

Thanks

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Thank you most kindly 🙏

[@hermes_logios]

This is what the Marvel movies and the story of the 6 Infinity Stones is based on.

[@MacobstonProductions]

I'm definitely going to rewatch this video. Good stuff. I tip my hat to you sir. 🤏 🎩 🙂

[@TheModernHermeticist]

🙏

[@akoo369]

🎩👌

[@Cholatemilk1]

Heck ya dan

[@palvared4527]

Dziękujemy.

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Proszę 🙏

[@timnizle1]

I am wanting to purchase a copy of ur book, and I am not a huge fan of amazon.i am a fellow Canadian tho and I can easily make a direct donation (e-transfer) not being a fan of middle men(or middle people's if we want to be PC) I'd love to do this, and have with other Canadian authors and figured I'd ask. I fully understand If this is a hassle for u and will carry on w Amazon....if I must 😏😉. Many thx and happy returns 🙏🙏🙏

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Hey Timnizle, unfortunately I don't have any copies to sell. Publishers basically give you 3 copies when you write a book (!), one which I keep for use, one which is stored for safekeeping, and one which I give to my parents. This particular book won't be published for another 1-2 years. But in general, if you hate Amazon, you can always buy books direct from publishers' websites.

[@timnizle1]

@@TheModernHermeticist appreciate the reply. I imagined a spare room full of copies 😂 oh well I'm glad I asked, I will proceed either thru the bezo beast or the publisher. I think I'll treat myself to the hard cover edition seems like a worthwhile investment. Have a gooder of a day 🤙 Almost forgot.. who is ur publisher? 🙏🙏🙏

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Picatrix is Penn State University Press Ficino is University of Toronto Press And this upcoming book will be with Brepols, but not out for a while. 🙏

[@timnizle1]

@@TheModernHermeticist most excellent thx man. It'll be picatrix this round Finicio will have to wait a lil 😅 and I shall have to wait for the new new. 👌🤙

[@timnizle1]

Ended up getting both ...looks like I've got some reading to do 😁😁😁🖤🤍

[@ace-zq8pm]

the works of Hermes Trismegistris are the reason that we believe in a heliocentric world instead of a geocentric world. the European Intellectuals adopted Trismegistris's works as being "science"

[@VVeltanschauung187]

Elaborate

[@akoo369]

how about Copernicus

[@ace-zq8pm]

@@akoo369 yeah read about when he was in Padua.

[@ace-zq8pm]

@@VVeltanschauung187 Most of the European Intellectuals had extensive personal libraries which were awash in occultic/hermetic tomes. Of course, youve heard the saying "far underneath Paris streets" add whatever you want to that. The Hellfire Club is both famous & infamous for its going ons. It is even rumoured that Ben Franklin was a member during his stay in France rallying support from the French Govt. for the American Revolution; which i might add could never have been won without the naval & financial assistance of the French.

[@ace-zq8pm]

@@VVeltanschauung187 also our belief in a heliocentric Earth versus a geocentric Earth is due in large part to the views of Giordano Bruno; arguably the most famous occultist/hermeticist of the 16th Century

[@alexandrudrekaru-solo8789]

Werent there 7 hermetic principles? Why titles says 6?

[@TheModernHermeticist]

Did you watch?

[@alexandrudrekaru-solo8789]

I was beginning the video. Sorry

[@akoo369]

@@TheModernHermeticisthold my ignorant comments? nonsense lol

[@jamieclarke321]

I definitely wasn’t able to understand any of this

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

Theology comes from combining two Greek words: Theos, meaning God, and Logos, meaning Word or rational thought. [The Word is Elohim from Genesis 1] (not to be confused with Yahweh Elohim, the false Elohim, from Genesis 2) Compare John 1: 1-5 with Genesis 1: 1-5: John 1: 1-5 Names of God Bible The Word Becomes Human 1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was already with God in the beginning. 3 Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him. 4 He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity. 5 The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it. Genesis 1: 1-5 Names of God Bible The Creation 1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth. 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water. 3 Then Elohim said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. 4 Elohim saw the light was good. So Elohim separated the light from the darkness. 5 Elohim named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning-the first day.

[@akoo369]

not to be confused

[@pbat118]

It's 7 hermetic principles init? Oh no wow...these 6 are funier now I know..

[@Long-px7lr]

24 books need to be combined 3 are hidden

[@lucassiccardi8764]

15:32 the essence of the West

[@akoo369]

?

[@lucassiccardi8764]

@@akoo369 Linear time, progress.

[@robertpaulcorless7048]

Ta Dan x

[@MarshalMHVHZRHL]

ITS FOUR TIMES GREAT NOW THAT THE FOURTH OCCASION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS DOING IT FOR ME THESE DAYS. I CREATED THE HEIGHT OF ARTIFICE SUFFICIENT TO BE A CONTINUUM OF THE UNIVERSE IN MY ROOM WITH MY WIFE AND THE OTHER ONE WHO CAN APPRECIATE MY POSITION. I DOUBT IF YOU COULD MAINTAIN ETERNAL YOUTH TAKE IT FROM ME, THE FUTURE IS THE PAST, STOP FIGHTING CUZ UR IN MA BOOTSTRAP WHERE YOU KICK YOUR OWN ASS.

[@luiginoto3352]

These are not principles per se, they aer simply a way to break down reality into its basic elements or components. Apples and oranges

[@StephenJudah]

So a computer

[@seanjustg5425]

#sicks....

[@JosephParlia-hm2jo]

Need a 🫎 drool bier add in here with the moose burger man hear me out looks like the monopoly man has a monocle 🧐 he’s a new character it’s the beer hall pooch guy

[@JosephParlia-hm2jo]

Has a mustache

[@JosephParlia-hm2jo]

Who is the man dressed as the moose burger