How do you work with the elements?

[Rick O'Shez]

I just wanted to post to get notifications as this thread is very interesting for me and I have learned a bit from it. I feel a connection to the classical elements so I am trying to work with them.

I've been working with the elements for quite a long time in a Buddhist context and it's fascinating to explore how they are understood in different traditions.

 

[Quintessence]

You would put fire at the top?

That's how it was understood in classical cosmologies. It's not so much about what *I* would do than what is evidenced in the natural philosophy of the past. One of the ways philosophers characterized the Elements was in terms of density and rarity. It was understood that the most dense to the least dense went in the order of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. The ground beneath our feet is mot akin to Elemental Earth, so that's the bottom layer. Next, the waters, akin to Elemental Water, sit on top of that. Then there is the atmosphere, akin to Elemental Air. Finally, the most celestial of the Elements is Fire, akin to the blazing lights of stars and the sun. Or at least this is how it was understood. I rather like it myself.

I just wanted to post to get notifications as this thread is very interesting for me and I have learned a bit from it. I feel a connection to the classical elements so I am trying to work with them.

You can ask questions, too. Lots more I can throw out there. I wish I had a good, contemporary book recommendation. I've read all the ones I know about (and own most of them too), but they're all... well, they serve a purpose but they're not the book I would write. The only one of them that actually covers the natural philosophy is an out of print book called "Wisdom of the Elements." Didn't realize it at the time I first read it, but a lot of how that book is structured compliments OBOD's Bardic grade too. If I had to pick one to recommend, that one would probably be it. In spite of being aware of the natural philosophy, the author still sticks Elemental opposites next to each other on the circle. Kind of a pet peeve of mine, I guess, but it's so common to do that within Neopaganism, virtually no one questions it and everyone just copies the same original system. Near as I could tell from the research I did, the contemporary associations we have are indeed very contemporary. Grounded in the 19th century occult revival instead of more original source materials. Everything before that held to an understanding more in line with the natural philosophy tracing back to Aristotle, but then the occultists wiggled it around for their own purposes and changed a bunch of stuff. I haven't figured out why... only that major shifts happened with folks in the Golden Dawn. And since Golden Dawn had a huge influence on Gardner, and Wicca has had a huge influence on much of Neopaganism, well... that's where we get it from. Modern interpretations rather than classical ones. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but after studying the classical modalities, it made more sense to me so that's what I use. There's not really a book on it, though. There would be if I got off my rear and wrote it. My resistance to that is to do a justice to it, I really need to make the whole thing a Ph.D. project. It's that big.

 

[allfoak]

That's how it was understood in classical cosmologies. It's not so much about what *I* would do than what is evidenced in the natural philosophy of the past. One of the ways philosophers characterized the Elements was in terms of density and rarity. It was understood that the most dense to the least dense went in the order of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. The ground beneath our feet is mot akin to Elemental Earth, so that's the bottom layer. Next, the waters, akin to Elemental Water, sit on top of that. Then there is the atmosphere, akin to Elemental Air. Finally, the most celestial of the Elements is Fire, akin to the blazing lights of stars and the sun. Or at least this is how it was understood. I rather like it myself.

That makes sense to me.
Do you think there should be a fifth element above fire?
There seems to be some evidence for one in the platonic solids.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

One of the ways philosophers characterized the Elements was in terms of density and rarity. It was understood that the most dense to the least dense went in the order of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. The ground beneath our feet is mot akin to Elemental Earth, so that's the bottom layer. Next, the waters, akin to Elemental Water, sit on top of that. Then there is the atmosphere, akin to Elemental Air. Finally, the most celestial of the Elements is Fire, akin to the blazing lights of stars and the sun. Or at least this is how it was understood. I rather like it myself.

I find that approach appealing because it's analogous to the modern understanding of states of matter ( solid, liquid, gas, plasma ).

 

[illykitty]

That's how it was understood in classical cosmologies. It's not so much about what *I* would do than what is evidenced in the natural philosophy of the past. One of the ways philosophers characterized the Elements was in terms of density and rarity. It was understood that the most dense to the least dense went in the order of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. The ground beneath our feet is mot akin to Elemental Earth, so that's the bottom layer. Next, the waters, akin to Elemental Water, sit on top of that. Then there is the atmosphere, akin to Elemental Air. Finally, the most celestial of the Elements is Fire, akin to the blazing lights of stars and the sun. Or at least this is how it was understood. I rather like it myself.

You can ask questions, too. Lots more I can throw out there. I wish I had a good, contemporary book recommendation. I've read all the ones I know about (and own most of them too), but they're all... well, they serve a purpose but they're not the book I would write. The only one of them that actually covers the natural philosophy is an out of print book called "Wisdom of the Elements."

[...]

Modern interpretations rather than classical ones. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but after studying the classical modalities, it made more sense to me so that's what I use. There's not really a book on it, though. There would be if I got off my rear and wrote it. My resistance to that is to do a justice to it, I really need to make the whole thing a Ph.D. project. It's that big.

As for the first bit, that's something I didn't know, since most of my knowledge comes from Neopagan books and online resources. It makes a lot of sense though. I usually tend to side with things that feel intuitive to me. I need to read some older sources but sometimes they are slightly tedious for me, as English is my third language and in no language do I have a great reading comprehension. Not that I avoid challenges but I sometimes get stuck and have to re-read a phrase multiple times. It makes the process difficult as then I somewhat forget what the rest of the text was saying and have to go back to get a full picture. Would be nice if there was a good modern book about all of this, it would be a very interesting read.

I probably have some questions, but my brain is pretty much fried today from studying. I spent almost the whole day writing some notes and re-phrasing them about a hundred times to be as concise as possible. I'll probably come back some other time after I've had time to let my brain cool down and carefully think of things I have wondered about. I also have the sort of personality that makes it hard to ask questions but I'm actively trying to make an effort to ask.

Anyway, sorry for the slight derailment above. I do have *one* question I was able to think of. Personally, I too have often thought the order of the elements in the book I read made no sense, since I intuitively thought Air and Earth are opposites, same for Fire and Water. So I wondered which directions you placed them in. I supposed I tried to place them in a way that made sense to me, but I was able to think of a few "configurations" so perhaps going to earlier sources would make it easier to just decide on something rather than over thinking it and thus not really *doing* anything. (That's often a wall I run into.)

As for the last part, this is going to be pure speculation... Perhaps a reason has to do with an idea of power dynamics? Air is consumed by Fire, which is in turn quenched by Water, it is then absorbed by Earth and then, by coming back full circle, is eroded by Air. I've come across this idea through various forms of media (videogames often involve the power dynamics of elements when using magic) and perhaps some books and/or online blogs. Sorry I have no concrete source(s), I really can't remember specific places.

I could be totally off though, and it makes me nervous but, one learns from mistakes I guess. ^_^' And I believe you in it being THAT big of a project. Got to say, I really appreciate your responses.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wish I had a good, contemporary book recommendation. I've read all the ones I know about (and own most of them too), but they're all... well, they serve a purpose but they're not the book I would write. ...There's not really a book on it, though. There would be if I got off my rear and wrote it. My resistance to that is to do a justice to it, I really need to make the whole thing a Ph.D. project. It's that big.

Please do! Even without the dissertation part of it, I'm pretty certain that it would be awesome!

 

[Quintessence]

That makes sense to me.
Do you think there should be a fifth element above fire?
There seems to be some evidence for one in the platonic solids.

This notion of a "fifth element" is a curious one when we look at the classical natural philosophy and its legacy for centuries afterwards. What I found is that the notion of this "fifth element" is largely a contemporary invention, as there is little to no talk of it at all in the primary literature. I kept waiting to find this long diatribe on this "fifth element" and it never came as I was digging around. In Plato, there was a teeny reference to the possibility of a fifth Elemental body that set the patterns of things in his discussion about Platonic solids. In Aristotle (who, we need to bear in mind, was the far larger influence whose natural philosophy inspired centuries afterwards), there was a teeny reference to bodies possessing circular motion instead of linear motion like the Four Elements, and that these circular bodies were in the heavens. That's basically it, though. This contemporary notion we have of "spirit" just isn't found or supported much by the primary literature, which is why I rejected the notion (that, and it's not an Element in the classical sense of what that's intended to mean... it's really in its own category and much more akin to a deity/god than an irreducible component of reality).

I find that approach appealing because it's analogous to the modern understanding of states of matter ( solid, liquid, gas, plasma ).

It is interesting! There are oddly a lot of parallels to the modern understanding of matter states - even more so when you look into and understand the qualities that define the Elements.

As for the first bit, that's something I didn't know, since most of my knowledge comes from Neopagan books and online resources. It makes a lot of sense though. I usually tend to side with things that feel intuitive to me. I need to read some older sources but sometimes they are slightly tedious for me, as English is my third language and in no language do I have a great reading comprehension.

Oh gods, I don't blame you on that one bit. Some of the stuff I've read is written in a linguistic style that is downright obtuse, and has at times required multiple reads. Aristotle alone isn't particularly easy to read. Other works that are important in the history of that natural philosophy probably still aren't translated into English. One of the most fascinating contributions to the natural philosophy I read was a very recent translation form the late 90s. Chock full of amazing folklore... need to go back to that book at some point, as I actually went out and bought myself a copy.

I do have *one* question I was able to think of. Personally, I too have often thought the order of the elements in the book I read made no sense, since I intuitively thought Air and Earth are opposites, same for Fire and Water. So I wondered which directions you placed them in. I supposed I tried to place them in a way that made sense to me, but I was able to think of a few "configurations" so perhaps going to earlier sources would make it easier to just decide on something rather than over thinking it and thus not really *doing* anything. (That's often a wall I run into.)

When it comes right down to it, as much as I'm a stickler for following the classicist ideas about the Elements in my practice, personal experience and preference always trumps that. I respect any configuration provided it's been thought out, and not everyone cares about having what they do grounded in classical natural philosophy and an understanding of the qualities and such. For me, working anywhere in the northern hemisphere I would do Air-East, Fire-South, Earth-West, and Water-North. Sometimes one sees this layout in the contemporary literature, but it's rare. Basically, in my mind they got a bunch of the correspondences for Water and Earth backwards.

As for the last part, this is going to be pure speculation... Perhaps a reason has to do with an idea of power dynamics? Air is consumed by Fire, which is in turn quenched by Water, it is then absorbed by Earth and then, by coming back full circle, is eroded by Air. I've come across this idea through various forms of media (videogames often involve the power dynamics of elements when using magic) and perhaps some books and/or online blogs. Sorry I have no concrete source(s), I really can't remember specific places.

It may be an idea that is hybridized from the Chinese Elements, which I have made little to no study of. In the classical Elements, Aristotle does speak of how the Elements transform into one another, and that's where this rotation thingy I talk about comes from, but it's not really laid out in that particular language. Probably because natural philosophy understands that air (oxygen) is not Elemental Air, fire is not Elemental Fire, and so forth. .

Please do! Even without the dissertation part of it, I'm pretty certain that it would be awesome!

What I probably need to do is quit looking at it as a dissertation and break it into "least publishable units" a we say in academia. That could mean magazine articles, but I'd really prefer a book since there are so many little chunks that tie together. Speaking of magazine articles, I have to give due credit to Opsopaus, whose research I stumbled upon early on and was an inspiration. His essays are a good place to start with the classicist understanding for sure. When I first read them, I was like "well, that makes a lot more sense, but is it true? He appears to know his stuff, but I'm going to check out these primary sources myself." Yup. Pretty much verified what he found with my own digging.

Here's a link to Opsopaus' first essay. You can keep clicking around on the bottom to continue the series.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Probably because natural philosophy understands that air (oxygen) is not Elemental Air, fire is not Elemental Fire, and so forth.

Could you say a bit more about what this distinction is? In a Buddhist context the elements are experiential qualities or properties, so I'm not familiar with this metaphysical aspect. I think you said earlier the classical elements are understood as metaphysical principles, but I'm not sure what that means.

 

[Quintessence]

@Spiny Norman,

I use the word "metaphysical" not in the New Age sort of sense, but the philosophical sense of describing the fundamental nature of being. In this specific case, the Elements, classically, are principles that describe the underlying, irreducible components of all things. By principles, I mean they are more like ideas than physical substances. Elemental Air, for example, whose primary quality is moistness, is the principle (or idea) of something bearing no limits of its own. Our atmosphere is definitely not limitless as Elemental Air is, but relative to most things in our environment, its nature is strongly similar to that of Elemental Air. It's also important to note that all the things that make up our world were understood to be composed of all Four Elements in varying proportions. The atmosphere is not and cannot be pure Elemental Air - it still has Fire, Earth, and Water in it. Per the natural philosophy, anyway.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'd be interested in hearing about how people work with the elements. I realise there is quite a lot of symbolism involved, but here I am more interested in the practical side, what people actually do.

If you go by the latest in Hinduism, i.e., my grandfather's book, 'Vishweshwara Smriti', then:

"Panchatattvāmayi vyākhya syātsamkshepakritā pura, yatau bhumau jale vāyou samīlinānyeshu bhūrishah." (Vishweshwara Smriti, 1950, 1.50)
In earlier times the universe was described as composed of five elements, this must have been said for brevity, because Earth, water and air are composed of many elements.

The atmosphere is not and cannot be pure Elemental Air - it still has Fire, Earth, and Water in it. Per the natural philosophy, anyway.

Sure, the temperature, dust particles, humidity, and one that you forgot, space ('akash', as per Hinduism). Atmosphere needs space.