Aristoi Atamarism/Meter/Aeryn

The following interpretive essay was written by Prophet Aeryn. Aeryn's interpretation may be the first of its kind, but despite being the prophet of Aristoi Atamarism, her interpretation is by no means the definitive interpretation. The Meter was dictated to Aeryn in the ancient tongues by Pragma and Kalos, but they did not tell her what it meant. Despite being quite proficient in the language, it was left to her and her priests to decypher the meaning.

The Gods

In the first book of The Meter, we are witness the creation of the world through the introduction of Aestin and Agenoi, but what are they? Are they gods? They do not seem make decisions, take actions, or do anything else that gods might do. It is not even clear if they are conscious of their own existence. They do, however, like gods, appear to be omnipresent. And given that through them the rest of existence (including Pragma and Kalos) comes into being, they also appear to be quite powerful, perhaps even omnipotent. But does this mean that they are gods? And if not, what are they?

And what about Pragma and Kalos? They might not be as powerful as the Aestin or the Agenoi, nor are they omnipresent, but they do appear to be found in many places, and they do seem to be quite powerful. Moreover, unlike the Aestin and the Agenoi, Pragma and Kalos do seem to make decisions, take actions, and do other things that one typically thinks of gods doing. So are these our gods?

Aestin

The Aestin is defined in The Meter as "that-thing-which-is-not-something". We are also told that it is the first "thing", despite it not actually being anything. Perhaps, then, the Aestin is the space within which things exist. Or perhaps it is what makes things things. In otherwords, perhaps, instead of being a thing, the Aestin is thinghood itself. Afterall, "thinghood" would have to exist before "things" could exist, at least insofar as they would be things. Not only does this interpretation resolve the seemingly contradictory definition of the Aestin as "that-thing-which-is-not-something", but it also explains why it is the first "thing", as well as why it appears to be omnipresent and omnipotent yet unaware of itself. I, therefore, interpret the Aestin as thinghood itself, or "being".

Agenoi

The Agenoi is even more difficult to understand, at least for me. It is defined merely as "that-which-is-after-the-beginning", which I can only assume means that it is the second thing to exist, or rather the first thing to exist once "thinghood" exists. But there is no indication that the Agenoi is a "thing" anymore than the Aestin is a thing. In fact, we don't actually know that there are "things" until The Meter confirms a few lines later that "things that are are things." But we do know that the Agenoi is compared to the Aestin in terms of time, and that the Agenoi has parts. Perhaps, then, the Agenoi is the time within which things exists. Or perhaps these "parts" are partitions of time. Since it is not part of time (i.e. a "moment"), perhaps it is what results from adding the concept of "time" to the concept of "being". That is to say, perhaps the Agenoi is motion.