Understanding The Primordial Deities

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
To avoid confusion I'm deleting and re-posting my alter ego's original musings as this instance of myself. While I don't necessarily agree that modern scholars appreciate Ancient philosophy to the extent the original post proclaims (or rather, most of them are not quite aware that the foundations of their knowledge has its roots in archaic lore), the rest of the content seems rather equitable and might still be of interest:

Surviving fragments of Ancient philosophy, well guarded in one of the great vaults of Clerus Magica, are still being copied and studied in modern theology, calculus and science of matter. Although not completely translated or understood, according to these, "nothing existed before Arkhe and Ma", as Arkhe was the beginning and Ma the space to be filled. However the Ancients believed that all things (including hypothetical things) must have a True Name, and the name of this hypothetical "nothing" was Mu. And as Mu symbolizes a thing, a concept, this in turn presented the Ancient thinkers with the paradoxical mystery "Mu existed before Arkhe". As this obviously couldn't be possible, what then, did Mu mean?

It seems that for a very long time the Mu paradox had no obvious solution. Whole incomplete chapters are filled with accounts on conflicts and listings of separatist cults. It even threatened to completely shatter the ruling Ancient Theurgy, until finally a solution was found. There are several versions of what became known as Ogloab's Axiom, but it is usually presented something like this:

A man who has been honest and righteous for all his life is asked the question “Have you stopped stealing from the offering shrine?”. The answer "yes" is wrong because it implies he used to steal from the shrine and then stopped, but the answer "no" is also wrong because it suggests that he is still stealing from shrine. The correct answer is “Mu”, meaning “your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”.
Ogloab the Arbiter (year unknown)


Thus it was agreed that Mu is not just nothingness - it is an absence of anything, including meaning, so complete it collapses within itself. The name can be interpreted as “un-ask”, as in “You are asking the wrong question, unask it”. Yet another reading is “not even wrong”: an answer to a question or an argument based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or on theories that cannot be falsified or used to predict anything.

Some Ancient scholars theorized that if Ma is all-encompassing, Mu must also be the answer to what exists outside Ma. And if Arkhe and Ma are eternal, Mu is how to properly address what exists after them. There are no accounts on Mu being worshiped as a god or power, rather it was widely feared for its qualities as a metaphysical paradox - Mu has enormous implications as it is the Destroyer of Significance*.

The Mu-symbol is however sometimes used in the calculus of the Ancients, but it is not a number (like for instance Ma - zero). It isn’t even similar to an empty space where a number is supposed to be written (the absence of a number); if used in an equation it seems to mean that the inputs are invalid, or that the result is “not a number": the equation is meaningless.


* A more appropriate translation would probably be the Undoer of Significance.
 

ThaBadMan

Exalted Member
I mean just reading it was proof enough that it was Mats.

But the real question is, is it coincidense or not that Mats recently talked about MO lore at a pub and then comes here and more lore arrives ?
Hmm this is interesting.

Good seeing you again Mats, hope life is treating you well!
 
A more appropriate translation would probably be the Undoer of Significance.
Bah. If you mean to improve on the translation, that is a weak contribution indeed. Both Vitiator and Invalidator would be more authentic to the original context.
 

MolagAmur

Well-Known Member
To avoid confusion I'm deleting and re-posting my alter ego's original musings as this instance of myself. While I don't necessarily agree that modern scholars appreciate Ancient philosophy to the extent the original post proclaims (or rather, most of them are not quite aware that the foundations of their knowledge has its roots in archaic lore), the rest of the content seems rather equitable and might still be of interest:

Surviving fragments of Ancient philosophy, well guarded in one of the great vaults of Clerus Magica, are still being copied and studied in modern theology, calculus and science of matter. Although not completely translated or understood, according to these, "nothing existed before Arkhe and Ma", as Arkhe was the beginning and Ma the space to be filled. However the Ancients believed that all things (including hypothetical things) must have a True Name, and the name of this hypothetical "nothing" was Mu. And as Mu symbolizes a thing, a concept, this in turn presented the Ancient thinkers with the paradoxical mystery "Mu existed before Arkhe". As this obviously couldn't be possible, what then, did Mu mean?

It seems that for a very long time the Mu paradox had no obvious solution. Whole incomplete chapters are filled with accounts on conflicts and listings of separatist cults. It even threatened to completely shatter the ruling Ancient Theurgy, until finally a solution was found. There are several versions of what became known as Ogloab's Axiom, but it is usually presented something like this:

A man who has been honest and righteous for all his life is asked the question “Have you stopped stealing from the offering shrine?”. The answer "yes" is wrong because it implies he used to steal from the shrine and then stopped, but the answer "no" is also wrong because it suggests that he is still stealing from shrine. The correct answer is “Mu”, meaning “your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions”.
Ogloab the Arbiter (year unknown)


Thus it was agreed that Mu is not just nothingness - it is an absence of anything, including meaning, so complete it collapses within itself. The name can be interpreted as “un-ask”, as in “You are asking the wrong question, unask it”. Yet another reading is “not even wrong”: an answer to a question or an argument based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or on theories that cannot be falsified or used to predict anything.

Some Ancient scholars theorized that if Ma is all-encompassing, Mu must also be the answer to what exists outside Ma. And if Arkhe and Ma are eternal, Mu is how to properly address what exists after them. There are no accounts on Mu being worshiped as a god or power, rather it was widely feared for its qualities as a metaphysical paradox - Mu has enormous implications as it is the Destroyer of Significance*.

The Mu-symbol is however sometimes used in the calculus of the Ancients, but it is not a number (like for instance Ma - zero). It isn’t even similar to an empty space where a number is supposed to be written (the absence of a number); if used in an equation it seems to mean that the inputs are invalid, or that the result is “not a number": the equation is meaningless.


* A more appropriate translation would probably be the Undoer of Significance.
I have absolutely no clue what you're even talking about, but I love it.
 

Najwalaylah

Exalted Member
Fight! Fight! Fight! /chant
(Mats here, writing from a temporary account)
Various ramblings
A more appropriate translation would probably be the Undoer of Significance.
Bah. If you mean to improve on the translation, that is a weak contribution indeed. Both Vitiator and Invalidator would be more authentic to the original context.
... ¿is what you're trying to convey by Mu analogous to what you get out of numbers when 'dividing by zero' (which somehow robs the participants of all their meaning, value, dignity, et cetera¹)?
----
¹ Any similarity between numbers divided by zero and "Mu" as described above, and persons living or with no-life participating in Star Vault's games or using their gaming products & services is coincidental, unintended, and should not be inferred.
 
... ¿is what you're trying to convey by Mu analogous to what you get out of numbers when 'dividing by zero'
I'm personally not trying to convey anything, I'm just reciting certain beliefs from ancient scriptures which may be flawed or incomplete. But yes indeed, according to those the answer to that equation is Mu. That said, the concept of Mu isn't limited to equations or mathematics.
 
I'm personally not trying to convey anything, I'm just reciting certain beliefs from ancient scriptures which may be flawed or incomplete. But yes indeed, according to those the answer to that equation is Mu. That said, the concept of Mu isn't limited to equations or mathematics.
Mats, I want to learn about the foundation of Tindrem and the origins of the Tindremic people.
 
Top