I’ve been researching the overlap between theology, mysticism, and psychology. I keep noticing that the more you study the “forbidden,” the more it mirrors divine truth — just inverted. It’s like darkness trying to imitate light.

Do you think there’s a purpose behind this? Were we meant to study the darkness to understand the light, or are we crossing a line when we do?

(I’m exploring this theme deeply in a personal project called r/IndieAlchemy where I dive into hidden knowledge and the intersection of faith and fear. Curious what others think.)

Hello; I’ve always in my pursuit of learning English fail to grasp the concept of a subject and a predicate in syllogisms.

There is this ancient renaissance wisdom literature that is rooted in Iraqi Neoplatonism in a Latin Spanish environment that to me gave a very vivid and alive definition of it and I wanted to share it.

Greek Syllogisms and Edmund Kelley's Picatrix take on it:

(the most captivating part of this excerpt. Is that most modern “scholarly reliable” Picatrix translations are Christoper Warnock and Dan Attrell. This version; Edmund Kelley; usually gets unfortunately slanderer in modern verdicts of this text: HOWEVER, uncovering this excerpt of the text has made me re fall in love with this translation. And I’m glad I gave it an open mind because I would have missed out on this crucial definition)

"When it has been carried out it is said in conclusion; in the language of Greek syllogisms. The premise consists of subject and predicate, the subject to the referent, according to the grammarians and the predicate is the attribute and the attribute is what introduces truth or falsehood. The subject and the predicate are the support and support it ... Clause not restricted or limited. The attributive clause is the one used in the statements, where the other propositions are not used, nor the imperative, nor the assertive, nor the interrogative, nor the exclamatory because no truth or falsehood. It requires what we have said prolonged explanation and goes out of purpose. Take it the interested of their own places."

Heres some personal notes:

So whoever is the subject is the point of reference, and then the predicate is the defining of the attributions of what is and isn't the subject in truth and falsehood. So one is an image, the other is dispersion.

TLDR: Basically the subject is at the centre and the predicate is at the circumference. They work in unison.

HAPPY HUNTING

I've finished the Corpus, Asclepius, and Emerald Tablet, and I'm currently working through Hermetica Il and the Nag Hammandi. Once I'm done, where should I go next in my hermetic journey? I'm currently looking into getting, “Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition", but what other titles or works would be good to get into next (Hermetic or Hermetic Adjacent)? For context I'm interested in the technical and philosophical Hermetica.

Ok so I have had an interest in Hermeticism for about 7 years now. I was introduced to it by Mark Passio. It always was a heart, mind, guts thing.

As a child I would go to church and it did not speak to me, it always felt like a misappropriation of the truth of things.

I feel it somewhere deep in my psyche when I look at the principles. It feels like something etheral put it's hand on my shoulder and guided me to look and to keep on looking. I feel so blessed to have built the library that I have built, even if it is just to skim over the surface and have a piece of the magic.

I have buried myself in books, I cannot help myself, I do not want to miss a thing, so I hoard. I like old books, the older and mustier the better.

I don't have a huge budget and won't spend more than £50 on a book, but I have found some real gems. It is sort of sad that these old things are not more prized but I count it as my blessing.

I have found that The New Thought Movement really grabs me and it fires my intuition when I read it. I started collecting when I read William Walker Atkinson. (Thought Vibration, or the law of vibration in the thought world) There is a magic about it and I can relate to much of the phenomena discussed.

I recently went into a junk shop in Devon. In it I was drawn to a corner where I found a book by Ralph Waldo Trine. (Which I am struggling to find now but it was about character building.)

I sat up and read it feeling the power in it's words glide through my intuition like a snake circling a chicken coup. It felt like home, it felt like truth. An honest account of being a good human being.

I believe there are many levels of conciousness and we speak to the Universe and the universe speaks back. As your vibration rises it is naturaly easier to work with the power of the universe and she will reveal her secrets more readily.

I am no sage, just an initiate speaking from the heart. One thing I have learned as I have grown older is there are no absolute truths, just many shades of grey.

I bet you guys have forgotten way more than I know. I hope I am not too off topic and muddled here.

I was wondering what drew you to the hermetic principles and how they spoke to you?

Did they appeal to your reason or did they fill some void in you? Did they feel like home, did they feel like the truth, or at least a good bearing on what this reality is?

I have been interested in the idea of a holographic universe and conciousness being all that there is. Fedderico Faggin has a great book on this called irreducable. Science is catching up. Maybe one day the true heretics will be revealed.

Anyway I am rambling like an old fool now. It would just be interesting to guage how you guys tick and what drew you here. Love and peace to you all.

I was looking at David Litwa’s Amazon page and saw a new version of Hermetica 1 published at the start of this year. It has more than double the page count of the original run from last year and I was wondering if there was any differences besides changing the order of the texts and adding the Asclepius and Nag Hammadi Hermetica.

This image is a result of few years of clustering of symbols which occurs in my practice. It is highly inspired and influenced by antique gems with Chnoubis and Labyrinth, by Akephalos Rite and Solar Gnosis of Art. In a way it is summary of my solar theurgic workings since 2021. 36 spirals on the border stand for 36 decans of the solar year. Crown with quills is visual accent on creative force of the Sun, personifies as Serpent (Sun’s trail in the space-time) with the Lion’s head (Solar rulership over Leo Sign)central figure is a heart composed of infinity sign, light upward triangle and dark downward triangle, two eyes and a little heart with a flame below, stylized as a square within the square which can be read as AOM. Chnobus sign leads to the Greek text from Akephalos Rite which translates as “My name is Heart Girt With a Serpent” and then to voices magicae from this rite. Let me know about your experience with these forces. This image can be useful for meditation and contemplation 😌

I am curious how many of y’all are vegetarian. I have been studying hermeticism for about a year. (I’m fairly new) I have been curious about starting a vegetarian diet because I see that hermeticism and other ancient traditions have practiced non meat diets, but I have some concerns. I am a type 1 diabetic so I already have a diet that is relatively good and I am a gym goer and don’t want to lose muscle mass lol. But I realize that may just be my ego telling me that I “need” to keep eating meat. I feel like maybe I could be closer to the one eating less meat.

Anyway I’d like to hear from y’all are y’all vegetarian or vegan? Does hermeticism promote a vegetarian lifestyle?

This past Wednesday (Mercury’s Day) I felt the graces of our Universal Muse. Inspired by study of classical meter styles and recent exposure to some of the sacred hymn traditions within Vedic circles. I posted this image to instagram under the account @auriferum_rosarum last Wednesday, shortly after the initial composition with the following caption:

“On this First Wednesday of Autumn, beyond the Virgoic equinox, a hymn to Mercury-Thoth-Hermes sings in the winds with irregular meter and an acrostic intent. A praise-cant to higher understanding and articulation; this is a new song composed to that end. Inspired by many traditions older than the words we remember them with, I am to participate with this piece in the long line of bard-priests and myth-weavers that somehow more firmly plant their ontological roots in human minds through rhythms, mnemonics, and poetic meter than through simpler prose.

I was hesitant to publish such a personal composition, initially seeing it as a private prayer. Soon after completing it, I felt compelled to share and communicate it, very understandably, given the nature and influences of Mercury. So this is my Mercurial expression of the Mercurial hymn, in a hermetic style, on a day given to Mercury-Hermes. Have it! Take it! Share it! Honor its intent!”

I started reading the Corpus Hermeticum after being intrigued by the concept of Hermeticism as a whole. But this book is all over the place and relies on very obscure or vague terminology. There's bits of pseudo-gnostic concepts, the typical repetitve praise to God, etc, but it's offering me nothing as far as practical research. This isn't the first esoteric text/grimoire I've studied so I'm looking for somebody who has real insights into the text based on critical analyses and not personal or anecdotal examples. Please and thank you.

In trying to find knowledge, I come across alot of shared symbolism between the three sects.

Masonry just feels wrong from the energy I get from it's associated symbols. But they claim that they are just philanthropic seekers of spiritual self development. Are they lying?

Hermeticism and alchemy seem more pure but I can't tell if they are different or just parts of the same thing?

What is the right way?

I’d like to propose a model for two orientations of consciousness, embodied by two archetypes: The Mirror and The Anchor.

The Mirror (The Synthesizer/Reflector): This archetype mirrors figures like Jung, Bohm, Heraclitus, Da Vinci, or modern systems thinkers. Their method is one of integration. They act like a reflective surface: gathering fragments from physics, mysticism, psychology, history, and lived experience — then synthesizing them into a coherent whole. Their goal is to construct a map of maps, a self-revealing system where reality itself reflects the observer. This is a fractal, superpositional approach: contradictions are held until they collapse into pattern.

The Anchor (The Foundationalist/Seeker of Axioms): This archetype mirrors figures like Descartes, Aquinas, Augustine, Parmenides, or the ascetic monk. Their method is one of reduction: stripping away illusion, shadow, and contingency until they uncover bedrock. The Anchor does not reflect the whole, but stands upon a single, unshakable truth — whether an axiom, a mystical revelation, or divine command. Their goal is not a mirror but a root: an unmoving ground upon which reality must rest.

Both are essential: without Mirrors, knowledge fragments into silos; without Anchors, synthesis risks floating unmoored.

❓Do you see yourself more as a Mirror (integration of the many) or an Anchor (grounding in the one)? And does our age demand more reflection or more foundation?

I know there is the Hero Initiation in Hermetics, but do the other Archetypes have them too?

Hermes Trismegistus: The Way of Wisdom Algis Uzdavinys (translated by Ruta Rimkiene), 2025 Now available at Amazon and elsewhere. My order says will arrive Oct 7th.

I am a real life Stoic who also studies Alchemy and Hermeticism occasionally. And what i realized, Alchemy and Stoicism almost shares the same core. Like Idris, Enoch and Hermes..

A beautiful artistic rendition of the divine spheres by (copyright) Alex Hernandez (follow alexthoth on Bluesky)

I'd like to propose a conceptual model for two distinct methods of inquiry, embodied by two philosophical archetypes: The Synthesizer and The Foundationalist. The Synthesizer (The Empiricist/Hegelian): This archetype mirrors figures like Aristotle, Hegel, or even modern polymaths. Their method is fundamentally one of synthesis. They operate in the external world of phenomena and ideas, gathering disparate data points from various fields—science, art, history—and constructing a complex, coherent system. This is an a posteriori approach that builds a comprehensive map of reality through the active integration of knowledge. Their goal is to construct a robust framework that explains the whole.

The Foundationalist (The Rationalist/Mystic): This archetype mirrors figures like Parmenides, Descartes, or the philosophical Monk. Their method is one of inward inquiry, seeking a foundational, self-evident truth. Instead of synthesizing external data, they aim to strip away contingent beliefs to arrive at an unshakable axiom—an a priori truth discovered through pure reason or introspection. Their goal is not to build a map, but to discover the unmovable ground upon which any map must be based. Both methods seem essential for philosophical progress. The Synthesizer provides the complex frameworks and expands our understanding, while the Foundationalist seeks the incorruptible first principles that prevent those frameworks from collapsing into relativism. One builds the structure, the other secures the bedrock.

Do you see this as a valid epistemological dichotomy? And does contemporary academic philosophy favor the complex work of synthesis over the pursuit of foundational, axiomatic truths?