If Fate is a Statue, Then Destiny is Its Mold !

If you’re familiar with the work of Greek Tragedians like Sophoclesand Euripides, it almost wholly orbits around the Concept of “Fate”. From Oedipus Rex to Medea Euripides, you’ll find a common denominator in their work, The Gods and The Oracle’s Prophecy (which defines the Fate of the protagonist). 

Fate is around which and towards which the tragedies of those men advance, and the element of Choice, in most cases is depicted as failing to escape or alter the Fate prophecized.

In other words, those Tragedians presented Fate at its most Tragic sense. The Oracle at Delphi would foresee for the Protagonist a dark encounter with Fate, and TheProtagonist would accordingly advance in space and time channeling all his will power against and in avoidance to the Oracle’s prophecy – all in the hope that he can intentionally outsmart or escape Fate and counter the events of the Prophecy.

However, the tragic element lies in the fact that The Oracle at the end always wins in those Tragedies which is why they’re referred to as Tragedies; and the Protagonist, no matter how hard he tries to avoid Fate intentionally and willingly, he ends up indirectly circling within its orbit – translating its grammar unintentionally.
So what is Fate?

What is this curse of Space & Time?

What is This Script that man intentionally avoids only to unintentionally translate.

Can one ever outsmart fate?

Can one ever hack its Code or maybe work around its script?
It is said that one can shape destiny through his/her Choices, but one can never really alter Fate.

Thus, if Fate is a Statue, then Destiny would be The Waxor Mold of the Statue.

Whilst you may be able to mold the wax into different shapes and forms, you cannot ever change the fact that the end result would still be a statue (regardless).

Note that underlying this simple Statue analogy resides a hidden thread of logic that connects Plato’s Forms to Aristotle’s in the Mind of a true Gnostic, yet simultaneously this same thread separates between the two men’s philosophy in the Mind of a Non-Gnostic.

I won’t delve more into this point, because if you’ve read the work presented so far on this Network, you’ll recognize what I’m talking about.

However, in brief one can say that Plato was speaking about the Statue when he spoke of Eternal Forms, yet Aristotle (on the other hand) was referring to the Mold or Wax of the Statue when he brought down Plato’s Forms to more earthly grounds.

So, essentially both men were speaking of the same thing from 2 integral perspectives representative of their mystic rank on The Gnostic Trinity of knowledge that is familiar to the Gnostic Mind, yet sounds like gibberish to the average reader of philosophy.

On a different note, yet in harmony with the subject of Fate,

The other day brother Firas asked me a question relative to this subject. He asked about an issue that’s been perplexing him and that has to do with part of my friend Steve’s story in which Steve says:

  • “But what happens if a Witness is drowning in a river, do the others jump into save him? Or is that against god’s will and I say this because I know well that you simply can’t fight God’s will.
  • Which is why I say that we don’t have to do anything per se in order to ‘ascend’, in the grand scheme it already happened.”

And Firas’s comment on Steve’s post was:

  • There is no doubt that God’s will befall the man, but I think we are supposed to be gods tool or hand on earth. It happened some years ago that a man was playing football with his two brothers near a pond and when the ball fall in water one of them jumped behind it as a reaction yet he can not swim, and his two brothers tried to get him out, though they are swimmers, but they failed and he drown. So still God,s will is done. Are we supposed to leave some one in that situation, are we not supposed to help others, what about charity and helping the poor, I think its is the same.

Firas asked me what I think about this, and I deduced a possible answer to this matter from  Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle spoke of The Golden Mean, which I believe miraculously conjoins a similar Absoluteness to that which characterizes the nature of Fate with the relativity of Choices we make as finite beings thrown amidst space, time and possibility.

It conjoins such Heavenly Absoluteness with such Earthly Relativity within a spectrum that one could verify through knowledge – you can think of it as a secret ladder that connects Earthliness with Heavenliness through our thoughts and actions.

Aristotle summed it up when he said that Ethics, though are supposedly Absolutes or Eternals that ideally are not subject to change with time and situations (i.e. Thou Shall not Lie can never with time become Thou Shall Lie), yet however they are constantly challenged and re-translated by the apparently evolving nature of physical existence.

For example, ideally, according to the maxim Thou Shall not Lie, one should never think or speak but the truth in all events and situations. However, to Aristotle, the Ethical Maxim is the fixed element of the statue which isThe Statue being Essentially a Statue, yet there remains other flexible elements to the Statue like The Act of Molding which involves creativity, vision, choice and action; and this element allows for a great room of alteration in the script, that is not really an alteration of fate (the fact that a Statue will always be a Statue), but rather a channeling to the Destiny of the physical appearance of the statue.

In other words, one may encounter in life certain events and situations in which Speaking the Blunt Truth (in the name of abiding by the Ethical Law) seems totally irrational, irresponsible and inapplicable.

The mind at such situations is triggered to analyze think, weigh possibilities, envision scenarios, in order to arrive, according to Aristotle, to The Golden Mean.

To be able to do so, one should not carry Ethics around like a heavy helmet, but rather ethics should be digested and kept somewhere in the back of the mind as a part of the immune system; and instead, one is encouraged by Aristotle’s theory to translate his/her understanding of Ethics in his own unique thoughts, actions and choices rather than translating Ethics religiously, mechanically or behaviorally.

In other words, Ethics are not to ever substitute the mind’s role. They are not ends in themselves, but rather means that serve a greater end.

Not saying the Truth in certain cases would not be a choice taken maliciously (to cause damage or hurt), but rather it could perfectly emerge as a Choice made in good faith to prevent a certain damage or harm.

From here, and to even simplify matters further, Goodness or Badness is not about Actions but rather intentions.

Aristotle simply did not welcome the mental rigidity that is usually justified under the pretext of preserving Ethics. Ethics are made to preserve you not for you to preserve them.

Aristotle spoke of situations in life that requires you to think harder and the choice is not always as simple as “Follow this Law or Axiom and you’ll be safe and fine…”

If you look carefully into Aristotle’s timeless theory ofThe Golden Mean, you’ll discover why Aristotle has been branded as scientifically minded, and why such mentality later grew to be distorted by the Scientific and The Religious Egoes equally.

For, both institutions built their empires on earth on the possibility of repelling the other, which is absurd. A thought won’t ever be a thought in action if there is no word to translate it, and a word won’t ever be a thought translated if there is no thought to begin with.

Molding a statue of a man into a statue of an ape does not change anything about the fact that The Statue is a Statue; yet, its natural for the man to differ from the ape, and for the moldable nature of the Statue to conspire to serve in translating such difference.

Why I mention all this under the pretext of the subject of Fate?

Because, I find the core logic underlying the Aristotlian Maxim of The Golden Mean to apply similarly to the logic of Fate and this answers to Firas’s query about Steve’s perspective which involves both Ethics and Fate.

Fate, like Ethics, is supposedly an Absolute or Eternal judgment that cannot be effected, avoided or altered by man’s thoughts, choices and actions.

Destiny, on the other hand, is made to appear as an element that one would have a little more control or choice over – an element more subject to one’s will power, choices and actions.

Now, you know me, I like to break down and simplify matters a little bit more through analogies. I would say, if Fate is a man, then Destiny is a woman, and in between man and woman lies a world ruled by politics and possibilities that might not necessarily change the fact that its a Man’s world in the end, but the woman does get her way around in this world in many ways.

In The Gnostic Texts of the Druze, Fate represents The Universal Mind, while Destiny The Universal Soul. This provides a significant insight to the logic that characterizes the relationship between Fate and Destiny.

Destiny is Fate in Action, While Fate is Destiny in Potential.

Destiny expresses Fate through thoughts and actions. So, in a sense if we do sharpen our knowledge about the connection between The Universal Mind and The Universal Soul, we could acquire control over the Expression of Fate – how Tragic or Nontragic, graceful or ungraceful, intense or dilute, fatal or non fatal fate is, because though we might not have control over events happening right here right now, we do have much control over how we perceive those events, and how far we are quick to judge them for good or bad or waver any judgment or behavioral actions that could entangle us in the negative net of those events; and if we learn how to master our ability to judge by non judging, to Act by Inaction, we could neutralize the role that Fate plays in our life making it less Fatal.

This is where Fifthscience enters the picture, and this is why I have a renewed passion day after day for this exclusive science that has helped me greatly in this respect.

Leave a Reply