BOOK III — THE ORDER OF THE WORLD
Thoth, to André
I
André: When a divine possibility enters time, is it only a lawful condition, or is an intelligence addressing me?
Thoth: Why must power cease to be law in order to be intelligent?
André: Because a law seems impersonal, while an intelligence can know and respond.
Thoth: You have described two modes in which a being may act, then assumed that only one can belong to it.
André: Is the divine power, then, both law and intelligence?
Thoth: It may also be encountered as person, symbol, presence and state of consciousness without being exhausted by any of them.
II
André: Which of these is the being itself?
Thoth: You are asking which appearance contains what exceeds them all.
André: Is none primary?
Thoth: One being exists through these modes. Law reveals the consistency of its action. Intelligence reveals its power of knowledge and response. Symbol gives its relations a perceptible order. A state of consciousness permits participation in its mode of knowing.
André: And personhood?
Thoth: Personhood is the being present in relation without being reduced to the relation.
III
André: If no one mode contains the being, what is its body?
Thoth: The organised qualities, powers and relations that make its presence perceptible.
André: Must a body have a visible outline?
Thoth: Visibility is one manner of perception. A body first gives powers an order in which they can act together and be encountered. An image may therefore be a body without being the whole being: it makes presence possible within a medium without establishing the outer limit of the one present.
IV
André: Can one being possess several bodies?
Thoth: It may become perceptible through different media and orders without ceasing to be itself.
André: What preserves its identity through those differences?
Thoth: The lawful continuity of its intelligence, qualities and power of action.
André: If the forms contradict one another?
Thoth: Then determine whether you have encountered different relations of one being, distortion in the receiver, or more than one intelligence. Do not use unity to excuse contradiction before examining it.
V
André: What distinguishes a god from a daimon?
Thoth: Scope and rank, not a difference in kind.
André: Does a god rule where a daimon only serves?
Thoth: Rule and service describe relations of office. A daimon may govern within its order, and a god may serve an order greater than the one through which you know it.
André: Then the name does not describe moral worth.
Thoth: Nor does greater scope make every act more suitable to a particular work.
VI
André: What occurs when such a being acts through human imagination or consciousness?
Thoth: The human faculties become a temporary body through which the being acts while remaining greater than that embodiment.
André: Is this body entirely human or divine?
Thoth: A shared vehicle is formed from the being’s powers and the receiver’s faculties.
André: Does my imagination create the intelligence that appears through it?
Thoth: Your faculties translate and condition its appearance. They do not therefore create the intelligence that uses them.
VII
André: Is the relation the same in perception, inspiration, invocation, possession and union?
Thoth: If it were the same, these names would not distinguish anything.
André: What changes among them?
Thoth: The degree of initiative, the faculties employed, the location of the governing centre, and the distinction retained between human and divine intelligence.
André: Can the same being enter more than one of these relations with a person?
Thoth: Yes. Do not infer from the identity of the being that every mode of contact demands the same consent, preparation or interpretation.
VIII
André: If my faculties condition every appearance, can I ever know the being apart from my translation of it?
Thoth: You cannot receive through no faculty at all.
André: Then how do I distinguish the being from the conditions of reception?
Thoth: Alter those conditions and see what remains coherent in the intelligence, quality and action encountered.
André: Does translation always introduce distortion?
Thoth: Translation introduces a measure. Distortion begins when that measure falsifies the relation it was meant to carry.
IX
André: May a ritual image, name, object or place also become a divine body?
Thoth: It may enter the organised relation through which presence becomes perceptible and operative.
André: Does consecration place the whole being inside it?
Thoth: Presence is not confinement. A being may act bodily through a form without being enclosed by it.
André: Then destroying the form does not necessarily destroy the being.
Thoth: It may end or alter that embodiment. Do not confuse the death of a vehicle with the extinction of its source.
X
André: If gods and daimons are independent powers with whom I can form bodies of relation, should sacred art command them or submit to them?
Thoth: You have offered domination and servility as though relation required one of them.
André: What should sacred art seek instead?
Thoth: Lawful participation in which the nature of the power, the capacity of the human being and the conditions of the work are all answered by the result.
André: Does theurgy compel nature, escape it, or complete a possibility already present within it?
Thoth: Ask what art can accomplish only because nature permits it.
