Our Imperfect Destiny

Aug 08, 2026

Not long ago,1 we explored a doctrine more or less ubiquitous across the scripture and philosophy of the pre-modern era, upon which might be said to rest the basis of any ethical teaching worthy of time and attention, namely, that the virtue and fulfilment of all beings, as well as the stability of the greater cosmic order, is dependent on each being realising and expressing its own nature and performing its proper function, and that to achieve this is to realise and actualise one’s personal ‘share’ or ‘portion’ of the divine essence.

If we take the point of view that the social organisation of all traditional civilisations was intended to facilitate and accommodate for this kind of self-realisation and expression in all members of the community, we may - not without reason - feel a sense of injustice and deprivation from our own less-than-favourable circumstances, but even so, wherever we are, each one of us can still be assured that the particular place he occupies in this world is of necessity the one best suited to his own nature.

The situation of the being in its milieu is ultimately determined by its own nature, the elements that it borrows from its immediate environment and also those it draws in some way from the indefinite whole of its domain of manifestation must necessarily be in correspondence with this nature, otherwise it could not effectively assimilate them so as to make as secondary modifications of itself.2

Yet despite this, it remains true now as it was in any more enlightened period that, for as long as we remain subject to the individual condition, we are strictly confined within the boundaries that delimit our environment, and our desire for the wholeness of our being is checked by the inherent disorder of the world.

Disorder is in a sense inherent in all manifestation, for manifestation, considered apart from its principle, that is to say as non-unified multiplicity, is nothing but an indefinite series of ruptures of equilibrium.3

And so, just as Truth is limited to a relative and imperfect formulation in human vocabulary, so the true being finds an imperfect expression in the human condition.

There is a sense in which one can say that the being really experiences the influence of the milieu in its manifestation; but it is only insofar as this influence is envisaged by its negative side, i.e. insofar as it properly constitutes a limitation for the being. This is an immediate consequence of the conditioned nature of every state of manifestation: the being is subjected to certain conditions which have a limiting role, and which include firstly the general conditions defining the state under consideration, and then the special conditions defining the particular mode of manifestation of this being in this state.4

According to various traditional doctrines,5 the possibilities encompassed by Time exist in a state of synthesis that causally precedes their manifestation in successive mode, such that one thing may be causally anterior to another, yet find its expression further on than it in the course of time; for example, Man is said to contain all earthly life within himself in principle, yet be made last of all creatures. So it can occur that so many facts in the life of an individual assume a secondary and derivative significance in relation to what he will become in the process of fulfilling his destiny, which will be the fullest expression possible, given the circumstances and his own ability, of the divine attribute that is his very being.

The First Cause of the existence of things, or in other words their possibility, is often called ‘God’, but also ‘Being’, ‘Life’ or ‘Nature’ (natura naturans). This First Cause whether philosophically ‘absolute’ or mythically ‘personified’, is the direct cause of the being of things, but only indirectly of the manner of their being. The manner of their being (according to which they are distinguished as species) is determined by the Mediate Causes, known or unknown, of which the result is the production of the given species or individual at a given time or place.6

Historical facts are secondary; they are incomplete and imperfect actions calling for a before and after, historical consequences built on historical antecedents, and are, as such, only accumulations of sins and sufferings that are senseless unless they point inward to central meanings […] historical facts disclose the eternally recurring mythemes of history and of our individual souls. History is but the stage on which we enact the mythemes of the soul.7

Whatever meaning colours the individual’s life and renders it intelligible will depend entirely on this First Cause, such that what is most meaningful8 in his life should ontologically precede the periphery that facilitates it. Similarly, the whole array of compossibles that come to form his life will have meaning only insofar as each one expresses this cause, yet, the latter being inexpressible, the representation must stand indefinitely far apart from the represented.

This being so, in all aspects of life, from the least to the most meaningful, we mustn’t be deceived into thinking our pursuit in this world of that relative order and perfection we call destiny will come anywhere close to Order and Perfection in an absolute sense; in order to avoid frustration, disappointment, and the loss of much precious time in an idealistic pursuit of the impossible, each person must factor into his consideration all the elements that make up the circumstances in which he finds himself situated, wherein lies the whole justification of ritual activity and the very idea of a spiritual ‘work’ that mediates an apparently linear realisation.

The ineluctable operation of mediate causes […] may help or hinder our destiny, but […] we can only submit with a good grace, endeavoring to fulfill our destiny as best we can.9

Is it confusing the contingent and the absolute to take into account the conditions of the human state, since it is from this state, itself contingent, that we are currently obliged to start for the conquest of higher states, then of the supreme and unconditioned state?10

In all truth, however, there can of course be no real duality between the immanent world of mediate causes and the transcendent Reality that is the First Cause.11

Thus the principle of universal manifestation necessarily contains multiplicity, all the while being one and even being unity in itself; and multiplicity, in all its indefinite developments, realized indefinitely in an indefinitude of directions, proceeds in its entirety from primordial unity in which it remains ever contained, and which cannot in any way be affected or modified by the existence of this multiplicity in itself, for it could obviously not cease to be itself by an effect of its own nature, and it is precisely insofar as it is unity that it essentially implies the multiple possibilities in question.12

Failure to recognise this deludes the individual, and whatever action he takes under the influence of such mistaken premises must consequently be misdirected and as such impede self-realisation, potentially only multiplying the disorder that surrounds him.

An individual who is acquainted to some degree with notions of pure form and transcendence, or even simply influenced by partial intuitions of these in his own psyche, yet intolerant of or unwilling to accept the imperfection of the contingent circumstances he’s been dealt will be rendered inert and effectively incapable of moving forward at all; whether the end of this motion be the goods of this world or even the attainment of that very Good which has left him thus stunned, nothing that lies in front of him will suffice, or if he is to be granted such good fortune as would gratify his lofty disposition, he will naturally fall into destructive excess and delusional pride.

On the other hand, one who cares only for the material, his gaze fixed on the dirt beneath him, must lead a sordid and animalistic life with no purpose but the hunt for measurable, external gain and no meaning beyond quantification.

From the point of view of analytical psychology, these two inverse ways of going astray have been connected with the phenomenon of so-called ‘possession’ of the psyche by a particular archetype; in the first case, the individual’s understanding of reality and especially of his place within it and identity has unconsciously become bound up with the symbol of the eternal child (puer aeternus), a symbol not unrelated to the evergreen, perennial, and immutable purity of the Principle. In the second case, it has become dominated by themes corresponding to the archetype of the old man (senex), one that relates to the Principle in its indefinite expansion.

Yet the Eternal is by no means young, encompassing not only all of history but also the whole of what will become in the future, nor is it old, occupying but one ever-present moment with no before or after. The real issue in both cases might then be said to be the disunity and fragmentation of the two archetypes as operative in the person’s psyche.

One cannot walk, the other can only fly. The deformity points to their each being only half of a whole reality.13

Perhaps, then, its inaccurate to charge our earthly lives and situation with ‘imperfection’; rather, each possibility, for its part, looked at absolutely, cannot be other than what it is - perfectly - regardless of any deficiencies or cruel fate that oppose its self-knowledge. The real source of the disorder can only be that deficiency of knowledge which begets the dualistic point of view. The rectification of our own relative disorder should run parallel to our realisation of the total Order, the pursuit of destiny giving way to voluntary participation in an ineluctable fate, but these ideas are really beyond the scope of this essay.

Starting from the individual point of view as is necessary, if we wish to rectify our outlook, make life meaningful, and make meaning lived, we must first seek to resolve the conflict that disturbs our own psyches, treating any and all rigid dualities with suspicion and seeking to find unity within and without.

Though polarities may split into contradictories and even strive against each other as in all the classic puer-senex struggles, they may also be re-approximated. […] Our attempt at rapprochement shall go by way of returning to the original condition of the archetype before it has been broken apart and turned against itself.14

Special caution must be maintained regarding the urge of the divisive and centrifugal ‘ego’ to dominate the powers of the psyche; make of it what you will that, among symbols of divine youth and old age, a recurring theme is silence and anonymity.

For psychology, the ontological basis of polarity is ego-consciousness.15

The Holy Old Man as Attik is concealed and as Saturn has his head covered or cloaked; Harpocrates, the boy, is hooded, faceless or covered; so, too, are Attis and Telesphoros […] Saturn is taciturn and guards secrets; Harpocrates has his fingers to his lips.16

So, then, uniting the idealism of youth with the pragmatism of old age, it is up to each individual to strive to live authentically, while under no illusions regarding the demands this will make on his virility.

The fragment of world which he, like every man, must encounter again and again is never quite the right one, since it does not fall into his lap, does not meet him half way, but remains resistant, has to be conquered, and submits only to force. It makes demands on the masculinity of a man, on his ardour, above all on his courage and resolution when it comes to throwing his whole being into the scales.17

It is up to us to endeavour to manifest the divine Will in the mode possible and to the extent possible given our circumstances, and we can rely on nothing but our own virtue in order to become determining factors in our environment, at least as far as we can in accordance with what’s expedient and reasonable, striving to establish order and unity wherever we exert our influence.

Yet, as pure contemplation is the principle of action, this effort of harmonisation must inevitably begin with the unification of our own scattered psyches and the resolution of conflicts and errors in our understanding of reality and the perspectives from which we see and engage with the world; it is this internal orientation that will instruct the activity that is to follow for better or worse.