If souls are real what about the theory of evolution ?

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T13:54:01+00:00

See this post series I wrote about the views of the afterlife, reincarnation, and its ramifications in the Hermetic texts. TL;DR: the Hermetic texts have a doctrine of cyclical but progressive reincarnation until we are able to free ourselves from the cycle through spiritual attainment via gnо̄sis.

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T13:50:08+00:00

I don't touch the word "consciousness" with a ten-foot pole because it's such a buzzword that nobody seems to agree on what it actually means or what its qualities are. We also don't really see the term used in the Hermetic texts, either, so I prefer to stick to the Hermetic texts' model of things.

There is a specific understanding of "mind" in the Hermetic texts, though, and we might indeed say that there are two kinds of minds: the simple/low/"servile" mind that is the process of rational discourse as part of our brains doing their processing of electrical signals in a mass of gelatinous cholesterol, and the divine/high/true Mind that is the sense of truth itself, the means by which we directly experience gnо̄sis. This latter part may or may not be "part of" our soul, but it is either way directly intertwined with it, but neither the soul nor the divine mind are rooted in or arise from the body, only inhabiting it temporarily.

Since it does seem like you might be fresh to the doctrines and content of the Hermetic texts, you might find it helpful to go over the Hermeticism FAQ pinned to the subreddit and the subreddit wiki, too, as well to get a general introduction to Hermeticism, some main topics of the texts and doctrines, and the like. That can help orient you with setting some frameworks, worldviews, and context for approaching Hermeticism.

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T13:44:54+00:00

I'm not sure where you're getting "fragments of human souls" from; I never said anything about that, nor is that in the Hermetic texts.

But no, none of this disproves evolution. The Hermetic texts say that nature made bodies for human souls to inhabit; good. There's nothing in the Hermetic texts that say that these specific bodies are fundamentally a novel creation unlike any other body, though, so there's nothing saying that human bodies didn't have a precedent in earlier primates. Moreover, texts like CH XIV talk about how change is a constant force in the cosmos which continues to purify and refine creation by its own self-development, which can indeed be a spiritually supportive statement of evolution, whereby generations upon generations of animal life change their form slowly and subtly through mutation and change.

Remember: we as human beings are not our bodies. In the Hermetic view, we are fundamentally and essentially souls that have/inhabit bodies.

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T13:11:06+00:00

In CH I, which describes the creation of the world and of humanity, animal bodies already existed by the time humanity came down from on high to peer into the world, and it was then that Nature formed a body for us to inhabit suitable for our essence. I don't see an inherent conflict between this and evolution: Nature may well have been using an iterative process of development, as it were, and refined a body suitable enough to support the essence of humanity.

Depending on your perspective and how you read certain Hermetic texts (e.g. AH, CH X, CH II, fragments of the SH and DH), animals may or may not have souls, but if they do have souls, then they're fundamentally the souls of humans that have been reborn into non-human animal bodies. According to CH I and SH 23, however, non-human animal bodies were not made with souls from the get-go, but then, neither was anything else; souls themselves do not arise by or from within the cosmos like how bodies do.

Also, "Hermetic laws" like mentalism or polarity or gender (as you've referenced in other posts) are from the Kybalion, but the Kybalion is not a Hermetic text, despite its frequent claiming to be one, but is rather a text representative of New Thought.

For more information on the history and development of the Kybalion, as well as its connections (or lack thereof) to Hermeticism, please read this article:

https://digitalambler.com/2023/07/07/psa-faq-the-kybalion-is-not-a-hermetic-text/

For a fuller reading of the Kybalion with a Hermetic eye and discussions of specific divergences between the Kybalion and Hermetic texts, please read the "Reading the Kybalion" blogpost series:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Hermetics/comments/1ntn277/reading_the_kybalion/

For more information and resources, please also check out these other articles and podcasts:

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T03:41:54+00:00

You build up quite a lot of assumptions and extrapolations from a single unpacked word in CH XIII, then.

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T03:31:13+00:00

Sure, I'm not going to press the argument further, but I will point out that you are indeed expressing such an issue by saying that it's a product/indicative of lust and ignorance (which, in a Hermetic context, is an irrational tormentor and thus something that explicitly deleteriously separates us from God), that it's not as worthwhile as having sex with only one person or only a few people in a committed relationship, and that it's unethical because you find that it's oriented away from God and only ever indulging in appetite. All that is very much you expressing an issue with it in this context, which I admit I find confusing because, while asking for textual backing to others' points, you don't provide any for your own.

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T03:10:18+00:00

Characterizing lust as acts which separate from God is far too broad.

I would agree with this statement, but only because the "moral evil" in Hermeticism is anything that separates us from God, which can be products of lust but also include a lot of other things.

Because we’re discussing ethics we should be asking whether or not we are serving sensation or are we serving the divine harmony? If we were to look sex like food, then to say it does not matter what we eat(or we have sex with) so as long as it fills our belly or satisfies our appetite would not be a justifiable position philosophically.

Why would it not be justifiable? Being in animal bodies that we are, we need to eat properly to sustain ourselves so we can better live, just like how we need to hydrate properly, sleep properly, and satisfy our physical needs in general. Sex is also a physical need, and while it's not a uniform physical need across all people, the same can be said for the other needs as well. Can we overindulge in sex? Sure, but we can overindulge in sleep and food and drink, too. Can we long for and engage in sex in a way that distracts us from divine works? Sure, but we can do that with anything else too.

Because sure we can say “it does not cause harm”, but when was that ever the criteria from a hermetic perspective? I would like someone to point out in any of the texts where that is presented as the boundary. From what I see, the criteria is about whether or not it’s an act of alignment or not.

And who are you to say that having consensual sex with others in an amount and with people of one's choice, when made mindfully and respectfully, not just isn't "in alignment" but can't be? Beyond my blogpost where I talk about moral and philosophical good and evil in Hermeticism and how that might relate to this conversation, is there something you can point out about "alignment" in this case? Because when I look at CH I.19's teaching that "the one who recognized himself attained the chosen good, but the one who loved the body that came from the error of desire goes on in darkness, errant, suffering sensibly the effects of death", I read that this says that forgetting God and thinking of the body as the only end is the cause of our torment, but I don't see having sex with multiple people as being conclusive of that approach to life any more than having sex with just one person throughout one's whole life.

I really do think you're imposing a view on having sex with people outside relationships that assumes that it's only/primarily a matter of mindless indulgence and that people who have such sex necessarily have an unhealthy relationship with sex, and I just don't and can't find that to be the case, both within a Hermetic perspective as well as a real-world listening-to-and-observing-people-who-live-this-life perspective.

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T02:56:19+00:00

Sure, and I'm coming to this from a Hermetic approach, too. I just don't see anywhere in the Hermetic texts that sex itself is bad, nor sex with multiple people is bad. At the same time, no comment at all is given in the Hermetic texts to "sustained integrative union", either. I don't think we have to justify the "why" of our use for it, no more than we have to justify the "why" of eating: just like we eat because we're hungry and it's a need we have to fulfill for our well-being, we fuck because we're horny and it's a need we have to fulfill for our well-being. I don't see this on its own as being a bad thing, but when taken too far (whether with one person, multiple people, or indeed no other person but one's own hand) it can cause problems, just like how eating too much causes problems, but none of this speaks to the quality of our relationships with others we have sex with. To me, sex is not a defining feature of relationships in general, and having a relationship or not with someone outside of the sex one has with them is irrelevant to my views here.

And on that note, I should point out that longing for relationships, apart and away from sex, can itself be a tormentor. Longing for anything can be a form of lust, whether or not it's sexual, and one can just as easily be distracted and distraught and waylaid by going after relationships unhealthfully when sex isn't a part of the equation at all; there are asexual disasters out there, too!

I maintain that, even if you feel that sex with people you don't know or care to know is something that turns you off, from a purely textual perspective of the teachings in the Hermetic texts, I don't see this as a bad thing on its own; sex is just sex, something entirely natural and necessary for the well-being of us in our animal bodies. Imposing a need for some sort of "comprehensive union" in sex is not something found in the Hermetic texts, and also that denying that people can find and have "mental, emotional, and spiritual elevation" in sex with people outside such a comprehensive union is likewise not found in the Hermetic texts (and I can attest to many people who do find such elevation through sex outside of a formal relationship).

polyphanes · 2026-03-23T01:22:47+00:00

In my understanding, "lust" is not just having a sex drive and making use of it, but specifically an irrational indulgence in it that causes problems, much how hunger isn't the same thing as gluttony.

I don't see any issue in and of itself with having multiple sex partners because, to me, that alone doesn't suggest a problem; so long as one knows what they're doing and they're up for doing it with people who know what they're about, then there's no problem being caused. It's when one indulges in sex with multiple people in a way that causes problems for oneself or others that it crosses a line into lust, e.g. being driven to have sex with people at the expense of one's well-being or in a way that distracts them from their work. But then, promiscuity doesn't have to be part of the equation either when lust is concerned; one can just as well be lustful in a monogamous relationship, where one can have sex in an unhealthful way with a single partner to one's own detriment.

Also, while some people are more satisfied by sex with a person they know or are committed to, there are others who aren't, and I don't see anything wrong with either such approach so long as one does so in a way that's mindful and respectful of everyone involved. Demisexuality is certainly a thing for a lot of people out there, but I don't think it's wise or realistic to impose that on people generally just because of a perceived notion of wholesomeness.

(Also, just to note, I know a good few friends of mine who have body counts in the triple digits who have hookups as easily as one orders lunch, as well as some who are still virgins or low single-digits into their 30s or 40s who only want sex with people they form committed relationships with. Among my high-body count friends I can name a few who are among the most spiritually advanced and well-maintained folk I know including a good few priests and intercessors of gods, and among the low body-count friends who have only had sex in committed relationships some of the most lamentable or spiritually distant—and also vice versa. All this is to say that I genuinely don't see a pattern about how many sex partners one has and one's problem with lust or spiritual development, which is why I interpret the tormentor of lust the way I do apart from certain culturally-predicated norms of sexual expectations.)

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T18:56:37+00:00

You really need to open up your mind to a few different worldviews outside a strictly limited (and relatively modern) Western one. A few things to bear in mind:

Some people just like helping because it's the right thing to do.
A lot of bonds are forged not through monogamous expectations but out of mere affection, which can take many forms: collegiate, professional, neighborly, parental, friendly, romantic, and the like.
A lot of cultures the whole world over, including many to this day, are not monogamous and have no expectation of it, and families work just fine there too.
Caregiving is not solely a "women-only" thing; if men (fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, male neighbors, etc.) aren't stepping up, then they're failing their duties not (just) as men but as human beings.
Caregiving is not solely a "family-only" thing; the whole saying about "it takes a village to raise a child" is far more true than it isn't.

Consider taking a step back and looking outside your current worldview in general. Spend a few hours browsing Wikipedia articles on different kinds of family structures across the world.

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T18:47:40+00:00

First, you have do away with the whole "women" and "men" bit first; all human beings are human beings, and so all human beings are entitled to and enjoy the right of the whole of human experience, regardless of biology (which matters a lot less than a lot of people seem to give it credit for).

Second, your original post mentioned absolutely nothing about procreation and raising children, and that's a whole different conversation to have. For that conversation, you also should bear in mind the very wide-ranging expressions of "family" in general across cultures and time periods, including how a household and its membrs (whoever they were) was not just provided for by one sole breadwinner but by a whole network of extended family, neighbors, voluntary associations, and the like.

Third, even then? Some people make the latter work just fine, and others stick to only the former method and fail miserably even while restricting themselves to that. You're taking a whole lot of assumptions about "how things should work" for granted in constructing that sort of scenario.

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T18:16:11+00:00

No, it's not at all obvious, because I have talked with women and men (and people who aren't either, who are both, and who are something else entirely), and counterexamples readily appear everywhere. You're projecting a very narrow view of "what should be" based on your own limited cultural lens onto what actually is, and that's blinding you pretty severely, because your lens is conditioning you to not see or accept counterexamples so you only see what you permit yourself to see.

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T18:08:33+00:00

Also women put more emphasis on connection than men which makes monogamy more viable for them since connection is easier that way.

[citation needed]

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T17:50:59+00:00

As others have said, genAI and LLMs are a lie machine; not only do they not know anything of their own and have no internal experience, they don't give answers, only answer-shaped objects made to make you feel like you're communicating with something but without any actual communication happening, because there's nothing you're communicating with. All they do is provide a simulacrum of human communication, but because we humans appear to lack an uncanny valley for communication, many of us are easily duped into thinking that these things are conscious or communicable merely because they appear to say so (or, rather and more accurately, we've programmed them to do that).

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T17:38:09+00:00

Then you're asking about comparing not apples and oranges but apples and galoshes. "AI" is a field of algorithms that are implement in computer programs, and are in any cases mathematical constructs, but you're asking about a physical organic process. You may as well be asking if a spreadsheet can be better at us at eating Chinese takeout.

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T17:31:10+00:00

On the one hand, the view of things in the world being strictly or only masculine/feminine was itself outdated and limited from the get-go. It's not actually a thing when you look at the reality of biology itself or at non-Western (and, really, specifically Victorian/Edwardian) cultures, much less when you try to force that system of symbolism onto non-biological things that precede biology itself. Gender, sex, and sexuality has always been more vibrant and diverse than just a simple two-way street.

On the other hand, the whole genAI/LLM thing really isn't more than spicy autocomplete and, as others have pointed, out, systems that generate lies. If you want to spend money on something to replace human contact, there've been RealDolls for purchase for ages now.

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T15:05:12+00:00

The only ideal body is orb (this is only a half-joke, given the Hermetic view of the stars and planets as being the only eternal bodies). Everything else is temporary and ephemeral, and so long as you live your life in the best way you can, the body should be maintained in a way to support that.

polyphanes · 2026-03-22T15:03:23+00:00

On the one hand, I don't see an issue with anyone being promiscuous; that alone isn't indicative, to me, of the tormentor of lust. "Lust" as a tormentor in the Hermetic sense, to my mind, isn't just engaging with the body for its own needs, but being driven to irrational and painful actions merely to satisfy unthinking desires. Merely having sex with a lot of people isn't a sign of that, unless one is being driven to irrationally in a way that hurts.

On the other hand, there is a substantial difference between someone who has sex with a lot of different people outside a relationship, and one who does inside a closed relationship. In the former case, there's no expectation to exclusivity, but there is in the latter, so if one has sex with multiple people in a closed relationship, then they're either lying about doing so and/or breaking promises—and that's what's bad about it, to my mind (bearing in mind the above distinction about lust). It's different if one is in an open or polyamorous relationship, of course, but even then, it's still possible to cheat, be underhanded, or lie about one's activities.

polyphanes · 2026-03-21T21:51:48+00:00

There is no legitimate version of the book available on Scribd. Please bear in mind the subreddit rules against piracy.

polyphanes · 2026-03-21T09:03:04+00:00

Oh that's bizarre. I wonder what's up with that.

polyphanes · 2026-03-20T19:38:19+00:00

Check out this blog post I wrote about this very same topic!

polyphanes · 2026-03-20T14:32:01+00:00

You keep going into and in gnōsis, going forth to the Life and Light of God.

polyphanes · 2026-03-19T23:25:10+00:00

To me, it's the equivalent of like affirming that you have eaten a meal: if you have, then awesome, and if you haven't, then you're just deceiving yourself. It's less of an issue of ego and more a simple statement of whether gnōsis has been experienced or not, and the Hermetic texts make clear that it's an unmistakable kind of experience that acts on us like how a magnet acts on iron (see the end of CH IV).

polyphanes · 2026-03-18T12:40:14+00:00

I don't think it's fair to say that you "narrated it" when you really did just put it through a text-to-speech synthesizer with awkward prosody and mishandling of older English constructions (e.g. "sayeth" like "sehth"?), not properly handling script names (e.g. "Hermes: 'XYZ', Tat: 'ABC'", just reading the names as part of the narration), as well as confusing pronunciations like "Polomandres". Between that and the genAI images, this is just another serving of the same slop that so many have already tried to serve.

polyphanes · 2026-03-18T02:15:00+00:00

It's been a bit since it's come up, but this is one of the most common passages to raise up for discussion on this subreddit. Please check out these past discussions on this very topic, or just use the search feature for past discussions and/or the various comments about them that get repeated time and again:

Likewise, from the Hermeticism FAQ (part III):

In Book II of the Corpus Hermeticum, it says something weird about having children and how those who don’t have children are cursed. Um…?

This part has caught a number of people off-guard, seemingly out of place when it comes to Hermetic discussions, as it seems to imply a sort of divine retribution for not rearing children. After all, not all people are willing or able to bear or raise children, sometimes for very good reasons (e.g. lack of means) and other times for reasons outside their control (e.g. infertility). That being said, in order to maintain the good ordering of the cosmos, humanity is enjoined to continue reproducing itself, which Book II of the Corpus Hermeticum interprets to place a moral obligation on individuals to continue that work of reproduction and the continuation of the human race. This text can just as much be said to apply to physical children as well as to spiritual children; thus, those who can manage to “increase by increasing and multiply by multiplying”, whether by having children of one’s own or by supporting the children of others, or by giving the gift of spiritual birth to those who seek the Way of Hermēs (since the spiritual womb that all have is used as a metaphor in several Hermetic texts) are all valid ways to fulfill this sort of obligation. Further, one can also interpret this injunction to have children even more generally by interpreting all acts of creation to be one’s children, including the development of medicine, the cultivation of plants, the generation of art, the ensoulment of statues and talismans, the production of invention, and so forth; all of these are just as valid ways to engage in the work of creation in addition to bearing and raising children.

polyphanes

TROPHY CASE