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, called the Book of Genesis, we are witness to 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.

Pragma

Pragma is mentioned prior to Kalos in The Meter, but it is not explicit on the question of whether or not Pragma existed before Kalos did, nor whether or not either has greater authority than the other. In fact, not once in the entire Book of Exodus, is Pragma mentioned without also mentioning Kalos, and vice versa. Everything they do, they do as a team. Even their speech is simultaneous (e.g. "Thus, Pragma and Kalos justly said in harmony..."). It is, therefore, highly probable that they are equal in power and authority.

It is not until the Gospel of Pragma that we see Pragma alone, by himself. And he is, in fact, a "he". Pragma is always refered to by a masculine pronoun. But who is he? Is he a god? The Meter defines him as "those-things-that-are-ordered", which is immediately described by only one word: "useful". Perhaps Pragma could be described as "utility incarnate", which would be something like a god, but since he is not described as "utility incarcnate" within The Meter, I take that to mean that he is not.

His definition seems to suggest to that he is more like a set of things, namely the set of all things useful, such as swords and pens and gold and "most especially" geometry. But no set of mere things could be a god, even those sets that include geometry. Pragma, therefore, is no god. He is, nevertheless, like a god insofar as he is nearly omnipotent and extremely powerful, for useful things are everywhere we look and are, of course, very useful. The Gospel of Pragma lists many things that were supposedly "created" by Pragma, but perhaps these are instead examples of Pragma himself, manifested before our very eyes.

Kalos

Kalos is introduced at the same time as Pragma, and she (who is always described with feminine pronouns) seems to be defined as being the opposite of Pragma. Where Pragma is order, Kalos is disorder. Yet like Pragma, Kalos is described by only one word: "beautiful". Is beauty disordered? It is certainly the case that beautiful things do not tend to be completely uniform. Sound would not be described as "musical" if it were only one note held perpetually. But nor would sound be described as "musical" if it was just an irregular series of random notes. There must be some sort of rhythm, or harmony, to turn mere sound into beautiful music. So Kalos is not strictly the opposite of Pragma simply because the latter is order while the former is not. There are many things that are disordered, but Kalos is specifically the those things that can be described as being beautiful. So, like Pragma, Kalos is not a goddess, but rather a set of things, namely beautiful things, which can be found everywhere if you possess the wisdom to see things as they truly are.

But not only are they not strictly opposites, they are not mutually exclusive either. There are many things that are neither beautiful nor useful, the enemies of Abington for example, which the Book of Exodus points out. Moreover, many things are both beautiful and useful, and The Metacallisto gives The Good Queen as an example. In fact, somethings could be described as being beautiful in their utility, like a powerful stronghold that majestically towers into a clear blue sky, or useful for their beauty, like a picturesque statue of a great hero which inspires others to serve their realm with honour. Or love. Pragma and Kalos, therefore, are not gods or goddesses, but rather names meant to represent those things worth fighting for (and with).

The Rest of The Meter

I'm still writing this interpretation...