Two types, not four

In my last post on the Ganymede model, I was starting to realize that my schema of four elements (Luciferic, Ahrimanic, Ahuric, Devic) was actually about two fundamental types, each of which can manifest as either good or evil. Referring to Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy, for instance, I wrote, "Isn't it obvious that Apollo is Devic/Ahrimanic in nature, while Dionysos is Ahuric/Luciferic?"

In his latest post on the subject, "The Two Types of Virtue," G makes this explicit, making a list of oppositions which he calls simply "Type 1" and "Type 2." Type 1 (Devic) virtues are distorted into Type 1 (Ahrimanic) vices, while Type 2 (Ahuric) virtues are distorted into Type 2 (Luciferic) vices. Using G's terminology, I could simply have said that Apollo is Type 1 and Dionysos is Type 2.

Solomon is Type 1, David is Type 2. Aaron is Type 1, Moses is Type 2. Odysseus is Type 1, Achilles is Type 2. Spock is Type 1, Kirk is Type 2. Hobbes is Type 1, Calvin is Type 2. Once the element of good/evil is abstracted away, classifying these archetypal characters becomes much easier. (I do notice, though, that G appears to have got the numbers backwards. For most pairs of characters I have listed, we would more naturally mention the "Type 2" figure first and the "Type 1" figure second: David and Solomon, Calvin and Hobbes, etc.)

G doesn't like my terminology, because it is "randomly technical" (i.e., uses words in a technical sense that would not be intuitive even to a well-educated person), and because Lucifer is the name of a specific being in Mormon theology who is definitely not "Luciferic." (In my post "Satan divided against himself," I even introduced the concept of Ahriman by quoting something Joseph Smith had written about "one of the angels," conveniently not mentioning that this angel's name was actually Lucifer.)

I had wanted to keep Luciferic and Ahrimanic because of their currency in my circle, and among followers of Rudolf Steiner. However, I do realize the confusion this may cause for Mormons, whose "Lucifer" is an Ahrimanic being. It's probably best to choose labels that have no religious or philosophical baggage. That way, Mormons and Anthroposophists can argue over whether Lucifer is Type 1 or Type 2 without arguing about the model itself.

G's terminology has the advantage of carrying no baggage, and of recognizing the unity of Devic/Ahrimanic and of Ahuric/Luciferic. However, the labels "Type 1" and "Type 2" have no semantic or mnemonic content and are thus even more "randomly technical" than my own, making it easy to get them carelessly mixed up. (In this very post, I originally wrote that Dionysos is Type 1 and Apollo is Type 2 and had to go back and correct it. I'm sure I would never have carelessly written that Dionysos is Ahrimanic.)

So, what terms would be better? Yin and yang spring immediately to mind, of course, but I think they are unsatisfactory on all counts. On the one hand, they bring with them considerable philosophical baggage. On the other, their foreign-ness and their phonetic similarity make it very easy for Westerners to get mixed up as to which is which. Lawful and chaotic (as used in D&D alignment) are another obvious possibility, but they carry too much semantic content that doesn't really fit.

Trying to think what sort of terminology would be best, I thought of Marshall MacLuhan's technical use of hot and cool to refer to different types of media, and how perfect it was -- simple, memorable, intuitively "right," and yet free of theoretical baggage. A few straightforward examples from everyday language (bikinis are hot, sunglasses are cool) made it easy to remember that, for example, film is hot and television (the low-definition TV of MacLuhan's day) is cool.

Then it hit me that perhaps what is needed is not just terms as good as MacLuhan's, but those very terms. Ahuric/Luciferic is Hot, Devic/Ahrimanic is Cool.

The temperature metaphor is a very natural one, I think, and G even includes "hot" and "cold" as one of the pairs of opposites on his chart. (I think cold always has a negative connotation, though -- cold virtue sounds weird -- so I prefer cool.) He also lists "expansion" vs. "consolidation" -- meanings which are included in the Aristotelian/alchemical use of hot and cool. There's also Nietzsche's "coldest of all cold monsters" -- the Ahrimanic state -- and so on. In fact, I even used a biblical hot/cold metaphor in my original post on this subject.

It is wrong to conceptualize the Christ this way -- as if the goodness of God consisted in being just Ahrimanic enough without being too Ahrimanic -- as if Lucifer were 0, Ahriman were 1, and the Christ were 0.618... (realized to infinite decimal places in the Christ himself, but only approximated by mere mortals!). "Moderation in all things" is a Greek maxim, not a Christian one. The Christian version is this: "I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Rev. 3:15-16).

The master virtue chart, them, would look like this:

What do you think? Is this terminology better? More intuitive? Easier to think with?