There’s this concept of “mana” in many video games (my first encounter would have been Diablo). The word itself, “mana” (when used in this way) has Melanesian origins. The first English-language literature to mention the word is available online as a pdf, and makes for a ripper skim-through, if you’re into that kind of thing (The Melanesians: Studies in their Anthropology and Folk-Lore, 1891). Check out this cool sketch from inside it:

There’s a quote here that I feel embodies the concept I’m trying to describe-

“If a man has been successful in fighting, it has not been his natural strength of arm, quickness of eye, or readiness of resource that has won success; he has certainly got the mana of a spirit or some deceased warrior to empower him, conveyed in an amulet of a stone round his neck, or a tuft of leaves in his belt, in a tooth hung upon a finger of his bow hand, or in the form of words with which he brings supernatural assistance to his side. If a man’s pigs multiply, and his gardens are productive, it is not because he is industrious and looks after his property, but because of the stones full of mana for pigs and yams that he possesses.”

In a totally a different time and place from Melanesia; the collected works now known as The Greek Magical Papyri contain many recipes for the creation of primitive (or ‘sophisticated’ depending on your point of view) talisman-objects that can be ‘enchanted’ in one-way or another for the attainment of particular ends (the cure of sickness, the reciprocal love of a romantic interest, the destruction of an enemy, etc). As an evolution of this concept- perfectly reasonable (even faithless) modern-day people all around the world carry “good luck charms”. They might wear a “lucky hat”- or even their “lucky undies” for particularly big days. Within this superstition lays the belief that: What we otherwise deem to be “inanimate”, can be “made animate”– or even imbued with powers that are beyond relevance to an ‘animate/inanimate’ dichotomy. Ask why the hat would be “lucky” if not for some supernatural “mana” it is assumed to possess? The divine’s ability to manifest within, or otherwise physically effect the material world is the root of the ‘magic/juju/power/energy’ that any spirit-worker (no matter the theological tradition) claims to harness.

There’s a whole rabbit hole we’re in danger of falling down here, so I want to leap around this to a similar topic:

Statues

Yeah- statues. They’re cool- but most of what comes to mind (as a Melbournian) are boring bronze sculpts of stern looking colonial-era noblemen. I’m not so much interested in statues like that.

There’s a classical Hermetic text, called Asclepius (also known as ‘The Perfect Discourse’ to help distinguish it from the character of Asclepius), where Hermes Trismegistus briefly mentions ‘ensouling’ statues so that they may offer magical boons for those whom interface with them:

“[…] I mean statues ensouled and conscious, filled with spirit and doing great deeds; statues that foreknow the future and predict it by lots, by prophecy, by dreams and by many other means; statues that make people ill and cure them, bringing them pain and pleasure as each deserves. […]” – Asclepius (24)

In my ‘head-canon’, the duties of a “Hermetic priest” of antiquity would have included the creation and maintenance of objects or buildings which housed a kind of “mana” (as however it was understood by the people in that time and region). 

Now to verge slightly off-topic, reading a bit further down:

“[…] 0 Egypt, only stories of your religion will survive, and these your children will not believe. Only words carved in stone will narrate your pious deeds. […]” – Asclepius (24)

Damn, ok.

“[…] Nothing better was, is or ever will be seen than the goodness of this whole cosmos, yet it will become a danger and a burden to men. Because of this people will no longer love, but come to despise it: this inimitable work of God, this glorious creation, this perfection formed with such variety of images, this instrument of God’s will, who in his work gives favour without partiality. This cosmos, a world of many forms, brings every thing to unity, the unity of the all. It is a cosmos which can be revered, praised and finally loved by those able to see it. […]” – Asclepius (25)

I believe this passage really helps to sum a-lot of Hermetic discourse. To a modern reader, it really does feel like we’ve already reached the doomsday Hermes describes of ‘the future’. It is certainly true that people in Egypt these days don’t generally visit ‘ensouled statues’ for medical help. It also holds true that “only words carved in stone” give us a murky historical approximation of ancient Egypt’s “pious deeds” today. From a philosophical standpoint- it’s hard to argue against the notion that nothing was, is, or ever will be seen that is better than the goodness of this whole cosmos- and that cosmos brings unity to all things (because we are all within it). So the best you can do is really just appreciate the opportunity you have been given to experience all of ‘this’; I would describe that as one of the fundamental pillars of my overall worldview (call it ‘spiritualism’ or not).

The embodiment of technology

Meanwhile at work I’ve been doing AI deployments. This ranges from integrating prebuilt products like Microsoft Copilot into company IT environments- to programming custom applications which leverage LLM technology (usually automating some very specific task for a business). The exciting new possibilities facilitated by the slew of new AI services available today is mind-boggling.

Check out this throwback to Dexter’s Laboratory:

I love this trope. Not so much the sexual tension aspect (though I do find that particularly hilarious), but more-so the whole concept of the conversational computer. Especially one with some kind of ‘personification’ rendered on a big vector display like in Dexter’s lab. It may be a false memory; but I feel like every television character in my childhood had some kind of gigantic sentient computer system they would talk to back at base. Now with widely available LLM technology, the “talking companion computer” concept is well within reach for someone whose work and hobbies intersect in the way they do for me. A modern take on the ‘ensouled statue’.

For want of a 3D printer- I’ve consistently been stuck on the “physical build” portion of my projects. Instead of creating new objects, I have been gutting old electronics products and using the chassis as a ‘shell’ to cram my own creations into. This is fun in its own novel way- but comes with headaches; size and shape conformity being the main one. For a home-made conversational robot, I had a thought to get my hands on one of those retro-toy tin robots; and kit it out with real electronics. That proved to be a bigger pain in the backside than I wanted to embark upon. Instead, I tried fitting the thingy I had built inside of a PlayStation 4 controller… but it was still too big. What I am struggling with here, begins to feel vaguely similar to the struggles of gathering ingredients to recreate a ritual from The Greek Magical Papyri. I don’t have the prerequisite materials to be able to ‘enchant’ my talisman properly. I don’t have any ‘statue’ to ensoul.

The mana meta

It clicked the other day, which layer of reality I was actually sitting upon. I am not ensouling statues or imbuing mana within my creations. Rather, I am rendering an artistic abstraction of an ensouled statue. The mana of what I make is not found measurably within the creation’s end-product; but rather it is the medium through which the creative energies within me operate. This is to say, I am not ‘ensouling’ a microcontroller with ‘AI’. Rather I am harnessing modern technologies to demonstrate a sort of ‘image’ of these concepts. Just as a sketch I make is not an actual thing- but an interpretation of it. Monet’s Water Lilies are undeniably no more actual plants than they are dried paint on canvas.

Speaking to artsy goals; I think there’s something to draw upon from the aforementioned Asclepius passages (24-25). I will admit I’ve lifted just a few lines outside of their greater context; but there is nevertheless a poetry in here that yearns to be expressed through art:

  • nothing better will ever be seen than the goodness of this whole cosmos
  • perfection is formed with variety of images
  • a world of many forms, brings every thing to unity
  • It is a cosmos which can be revered, praised and finally loved by those able to see it.

Those are statements deserving exploration and play. A running theme I find in Asclepius (and indeed the Corpus Hermetica too) is this notion that beauty is transient and appreciation should be a conscious act. How then, as a ‘creative’, do I create something that gently nods someone in the direction of these ideas?