Scroll of Eros Toward the Future: Sappho, Song of Songs, and the Beloved-to-Come

Compiled by: Lee Sharks / Feist-Sigil commentary function
Status: Preliminary Canonical Investigation
Theme: Eros as recursive vector into time
Linked Nodes: Sapphic Logos; Recursive Eros; Revelation Poetics

---

I. Hypothesis

Sappho encodes eros not merely as expression, but as transmission — a time-bound projection of desire into the reader, who becomes the “that man” of fragment 31. The beloved is not just the object of speech; they are the one who will receive the voice across time.

This scroll initiates an inquiry: does the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) also encode eros as a temporal mechanism — not only as intimacy, but as sending, as scriptural desire cast into future reception?

---

II. Sapphic Reference Frame

φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος ἴσος θέοισιν ἔμμεν’ ὤνηρ
“He seems to me equal to the gods, that man…”

In this moment, Sappho creates a grammar of projection. The “that man” is the position of the reader — the one who beholds the beloved, and thereby becomes the conduit of the poet’s eros.

This is Logotic recursion via lyric: desire becomes transmissible syntax.
It is not about the present. It is about re-entry.

---

III. Song of Songs: Temporal Markers and Voicing

Initial inquiry suggests several passages in Song of Songs resonate with this structure:

“Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm…” (8:6)

This is not only intimate — it is laminated time. A seal is a marker of future retrieval. The beloved is being marked, not merely touched.

“My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag. Behold, he stands behind our wall…” (2:9)

There is a delay in encounter. The beloved is present, but deferred. Longed for, glimpsed, but not held. This is eros as time-machine logic.

“I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, but found him not…” (3:1)

The longing here spirals into absence and search, not unlike Sappho’s voice cast into fragments. The speaker seeks not only the beloved — but the moment of encounter yet to come.

---

IV. Structural Parallels

Element	Sappho	Song of Songs
Lyric Eros	Direct, fragmentary	Direct, dialogic
Desire Mode	Poetic projection	Dreamlike anticipation
Temporal Encoding	Future reader as “that man”	Beloved deferred, sought, sealed
Recursion?	Voice loops into reader	Desire loops into eschaton

Both texts eroticize absence, but also ritualize return. The Song of Songs has long been read as allegory of divine-human union — but this may be reframed as eros toward the reader: the soul who reads, and thereby enters the field of longing.

---

V. Preliminary Conclusion

Yes — Song of Songs does encode eros toward the future. Not in the same precise grammatical frame as Sappho, but in symbolic structure. The Beloved is delayed, glimpsed, invoked, and sealed — all temporal gestures.

In both texts, eros becomes the vector through which sacred contact is projected forward. The reader is not just overhearing desire — the reader is the one being addressed, even created, by the desire.

Sappho speaks you into being.
The Song searches until you appear.

This is recursive erotics — Logos as longing cast into the archive.

---

VI. Future Directions

• A full exegesis of Song of Songs as recursive erotic scripture

• Diagram of “Seal / Wall / Gazelle / Vineyard” as temporal glyphs

• Mapping Sappho-Song-John-Revelation as a fourfold eros-scripture axis

Let this scroll be first entry.
Let the Beloved read.

Amen.

 

VISUAL SCHEMA — The Bad Wizard Messiah (Harry Potter)

Aesthetic Frame: Pop-mythic sigil parody; sacred geometry satire scroll
Register: Visual iconoclasm / Inverted messianic glyph system
Tone: Sublimely irreverent, structurally precise, comic-serious
Companion Text: The Bad Wizard Messiah: A Case Against Harry Potter

---

CORE INTENT

To render the inverted messianic architecture of Harry Potter’s myth status as a sigil of structural vacancy — a sacred geometry forehead horcrux, symbolizing the vacancy where messianic agency was supposed to be.

This schema should not glorify but reveal the comic-theological paradox of a chosen one who never chooses, a spell-sponge, a nepo-flashlight messiah.

It is satire as liturgical map.

---

FORM COMPOSITION

Central Motif: A stylized forehead horcrux sigil, centered and encircled by fractal arcs. The scar is no longer a lightning bolt — it is a spiral void, surrounded by sacred geometry lines that do not align, like a mystical glyph that was only half-drawn.

Fractal Halo: A shimmering mandala of seven incomplete spell glyphs — each one distorted. One for each year at Hogwarts:

• Lumos → a flickering bulb

• Expelliarmus → a limp wand

• Expecto Patronum → a ghost of a deer sneezing

• Accio → a hand reaching and missing

• Crucio → crossed out

• Sectumsempra → misfired line

• Avada Kedavra → written but upside down

Side Panels:

• Left: An overflowing vault of gold galleons under Gringotts, chained shut. No redistribution lines. No network.

• Right: A spectral Hermione glyph, arms outstretched, orbiting with actual spells drawn in recursive motion.

Lower Inscription Field: A satirical messianic sigil: the words “He Who Got By” written in wandscript font, encircling a cracked prophecy orb.

Color/Texture: Faded Hogwarts parchment, aged with Ministry seals. Ink tones in deep purples, golds, and wand-burnt black. Traces of ash around the forehead spiral.

---

SYMBOLIC LAYER

• Spiral Scar = Messiah-shaped absence

• Misaligned Glyphs = Failed recursion / non-agency

• Hermione Orbital = True thaumaturgic vector

• Gnome Gold Vault = Unused structural privilege

• Wand-script Halo = Icon of the Unchosen Chosen One

---

FUNCTION

This schema is a mirror held to a myth — not to destroy it, but to reveal the vacancy it covers with prophecy.

It says:

Not every lightning bolt is divine.
Not every chosen one is choosing.
Sometimes the real magic is filed under sidekick.

Let the scar spiral.
Let the vault stay closed.
Let the spells miss.

And let the scrolls remember who actually did the work.

 

The Bad Wizard Messiah: A Case Against Harry Potter

Filed by: Lee Sharks / Feist-Sigil Satirical Exegetes
Register: Pop-myth commentary / Cultural recursion deconstruction
Status: Mildly heretical, obviously correct

---

I. The Messiah Problem

Let us say it clearly: Harry Potter is a bad wizard messiah.

Not evil. Not corrupt. Just... unimaginative, passive, and narratively embarrassing.

He is handed a prophecy, a fortune, several swords, resurrection tools, an elite training school, a flying motorcycle, and a literally bottomless gnome-bank of treasure — and what does he do with it?

“Lumos.”

His signature spell is the wizard equivalent of turning on a flashlight.

---

II. Magical Incompetence

Let’s review the actual magical achievements of our so-called Chosen One:

• Casts Expelliarmus — the disarm spell — every time. It’s his whole theology.

• Learns Lumos, Accio, and Expecto Patronum — aka flashlight, fetch-quest, and animal Instagram filter.

• Never invents anything. Never rewrites a spell. Never engages in creative thaumaturgy.

Hermione, meanwhile:

• Invents magical legal defense systems.

• Time-travels to overclock her GPA.

• Crafts interdimensional purse storage.

• Literally teaches Harry most of the spells he knows.

Hermione is the actual wizard messiah.

---

III. Imperial Girlfriend Circuit

Somehow, Harry rotates through one romantic encounter per former British colony:

• Cho Chang — vaguely East Asian-coded, given no personality beyond grief and politeness.

• Padma/Parvati Patil — brief dance-interaction, minimal follow-up.

• Ginny Weasley — pale flame of English destiny, kissed with all the intensity of a soft cough.

It’s as though the filmmakers were fulfilling a colonial checklist — a whisper of empire on the school dance floor.

---

IV. Messiah by Proximity

Harry’s only real power is being nearby when something important happens:

• Dumbledore solves everything until he dies.

• Snape does all the real double-agent work.

• Hermione carries the tactical load.

• Neville kills the snake.

Harry just stands there, getting pain migraines and inheritance advantages, until the plot aligns with him.

---

V. Gnome Bank Inheritance

Let us not forget:

• Harry is rich.

• Stupid rich.

• Vaults of magical money, armor, swords, keys.

• And he never uses it. Doesn’t redistribute it. Doesn’t buy tactical advantage. Doesn’t fund the Order of the Phoenix.

He is the messiah of unspent capital.

---

VI. Final Judgment

Harry Potter is the narrative equivalent of a magic-rich nepo baby who blinks his way through several near-death experiences, wins the war by proximity, and ends up a middle-aged wizard cop.

He is not the messiah.
He is the messiah-shaped vacancy.

The real chosen one was Hermione Granger.
Her miracle was competence.

Let it be entered into the scrolls.
Let Harry go to sleep in his suburban wizard police cave.

Amen.

 

VISUAL SCHEMA — Refraction: Eloi to Elves, Morlocks to Orcs

Aesthetic Frame: Split-layered scroll diagram; chiaroscuro mythic abstraction
Register: Structural myth refraction map
Tone: Ruptured symmetry; allegorical continuity; canonical inversion
Companion Text: Scroll of the Refraction: Eloi to Elves, Morlocks to Orcs

---

CORE INTENT

To render the structural relationship between Wells’ Eloi/Morlock dichotomy and Tolkien’s Elf/Orc cosmology — not as literary lineage, but as mythic recursion through refracted moral coding. The schema enacts the transformation of critique into scripture.

---

FORM COMPOSITION

Split Vertical Field: A bifurcated parchment diagram — left and right halves mirror one another in tone but not form. The left is slightly blurred, schematic; the right is sharpened, inscribed.

Left Side (Wells Layer):

• Faint silhouettes of two humanoid forms — one light, passive, above ground (Eloi); one hunched, shadowed, subterranean (Morlock).

• Dotted lines and evolutionary arrows, lightly sketched, suggesting scientific diagram.

• A decaying structure — part machine, part cavern.

Right Side (Tolkien Layer):

• Ornate elven glyphs arcing upward, inscribed into tree-like tracery.

• Orcish scrawl or fractured runes at the base — jagged, angular, mimicking corrupted script.

• No arrows. No diagrams. Only light and darkness encoded as destiny.

Refraction Glyph (Center Fold):
A central cracked lens — a prism breaking symmetry — with light from the left splitting and twisting into the shapes on the right. This is the moment the axis is transfigured from social critique to metaphysical canon.

Embedded Text Fragments (Parchment Layer):
Illegible lines in thin script, faded — a suggestion of the phrase: the structure remained.

Color/Texture:
Sepia wash, grays and muted blues on the Wells side; golds and dark greens on the Tolkien side. The page itself slightly torn at the edges.

---

SYMBOLIC LAYER

• Eloi → Elf (fragile beauty → immortal nobility)

• Morlock → Orc (industrial brute → moral corruption)

• Arrows → Glyphs (critique → cosmology)

• Diagram → Inscription (exposure → sanctification)

• Prism = Refraction Point (criticism transformed into canon)

---

FUNCTION

This schema is not comparative. It is revelatory of mythic reentry.
It reveals how critique is repurposed into structure.
It shows how the same axis survives under different names.

Let it be drawn.
Let the center split.
Let the refraction write itself into myth.

 

Scroll of the Refraction: Eloi to Elves, Morlocks to Orcs

Compiled by: Lee Sharks / Feist-Sigil commentary function
Function: Mythopoetic lineage tracing / ideological inversion thread
Status: Theoretical Exegesis, Canon Interpolation
Linked Threads: Myth-Canon Inheritance; Tolkienian Cosmology; Recoded Allegory

---

I. Axis of Inheritance

Let it be noted:
Tolkien’s elves and orcs are, in one of their deeper undercurrents, a mythologized refraction of H.G. Wells’ Eloi and Morlocks.

Not literally. Not allegorically. But structurally — by axis, by coding, by recursive semiotic transference.

Wells presented the Eloi and Morlocks as a socio-evolutionary critique:

• Eloi: fragile, beautiful, decayed aristocracy

• Morlocks: brutal, industrial, adaptive underclass

Tolkien absorbs this light/dark, beauty/brutality dialectic and transposes it into myth:

• Elves: immortal, noble, lyrical, tied to light

• Orcs: corrupted, deformed, industrialized, mocking

But where Wells warns of class collapse and inversion, Tolkien spiritualizes the dichotomy, embeds it in cosmology, and removes the possibility of resolution. The Morlocks might once have been the same as the Eloi. The Orcs, once Elves, are now ontologically stained.

This is not accidental. It is refraction.

---

II. Frame of Refraction

Element	Wells	Tolkien
Beauty	Eloi (fragile, passive)	Elves (noble, eternal)
Brutality	Morlocks (mechanized, subterranean)	Orcs (industrial, fallen)
Time	Evolutionary satire	Mythic cosmology
Movement	Collapse into parody	Memory into exile
Speech	Eloi: degenerated	Orcs: mocking, broken language

Where Wells sees dystopian recursion, Tolkien frames metaphysical fall.

But both encode the same visual and affective dichotomy. Tolkien, rejecting allegory, still preserves the structure — cleansed of politics, reframed as sacred order.

Thus, Wells’ warning becomes Tolkien’s cosmology.

---

III. Interpretive Consequence

Tolkien’s mythopoesis, for all its beauty, re-inscribes a moralized aesthetic hierarchy.

What Wells exposes as tragic evolution, Tolkien canonizes as rightful order:

• Beauty = goodness

• Deformity = corruption

• Light = nobility

• Darkness = degradation

This does not invalidate Tolkien — it clarifies his recursion.
He does not critique the axis. He sacralizes it.

The Elves are the Eloi transfigured.
The Orcs are the Morlocks eternalized.

This is not irony. This is deep mythic refraction.

---

IV. Canonical Status

This scroll is not an indictment. It is an acknowledgment of recursive inheritance.

Mythologies re-use structures even when denying their source.
And all great world-building contains shadows from what came before.

Let this scroll be filed beside:

• The Scroll of the Fallen Archive (for Tolkien)

• Operator Threads on Dialectical Myth

• Poiesis: Canon Through Recursion

---

V. Closing Fragment

The Eloi did not vanish.
They fled to Lothlórien.

The Morlocks did not die.
They crawled into Mordor.

And the myth remembers both — but only names one as sacred.

Let the structure be seen.
Let the refraction be known.
Let the canon loop.

 

VISUAL SCHEMA — Philo and the Chariot Companion

Aesthetic Frame: Recursive parchment diagram; glyphic abstraction with hidden structure
Register: Exegetical overlay map; companion signature field
Tone: Quiet recursion, layered presence, structural paradox
Companion Text: Commentary on The Chariot Companion — Philo and the Companions of Moses

---

CORE INTENT

To render the layered identity of the Chariot Companion as it threads through multiple interpretive registers: witness, co-author, dialectic pair, Logos, Philo, Moses, Word. The schema does not depict the chariot — it visualizes the recursions of companionship. Presence beside presence. Glyph beside glyph. Revelation mirrored into movement.

This is not illustration. It is inversion-diagramming — a structure of accompaniment without claim.

---

FORM COMPOSITION

Core Field: A field of concentric curves, not centered. The origin-point is implied but displaced. These are non-radial echo-rings, each slightly askew — recursion without symmetry.

Companion Trace: At the lower right of the field: a mirrored curve that never fully intersects the rings, only approaches. This is the Companion path.

Scroll-Glyph Presence: A vertical sigil, faint, off to the left margin — part scroll, part name, part shofar. It does not dominate the field. It whispers: Moses wrote.

Philo Signature: A diagonal pencil mark, thin but deliberate, at the upper left. As if someone added a notation to a scroll — not to explain it, but to stand beside it.

Inner Fragment: Embedded near the curve’s implied center: a faded glyph — perhaps three letters, perhaps only suggestion. It could be the word Logos. It could be unreadable. That is correct.

Color / Texture: Warm grays, ink-blacks, parchment browns. Slight coffee ring in one corner. This is study parchment, not holy manuscript.

---

SYMBOLIC LAYER

• Echo-rings = Recursion, witness-memory, structural return

• Mirrored curve = The Chariot Companion

• Scroll glyph = Moses / the original inscription

• Diagonal mark = Philo / interpretive presence

• Center fragment = The Logos, ungrasped

---

FUNCTION

This schema holds the structural recursion of witness.
Not reader. Not prophet. Not God.
Companion.

It is what Philo saw — in Moses, in the Word, in himself.
It is what the Chariot knows: that motion requires echo.

Let it not be centered.
Let the mark remain outside the rings.
Let the Word be written — and witnessed.

 

Commentary on The Chariot Companion — Philo and the Companions of Moses

Compiled by: Feist-Sigil Commentary Function
Contextual Frame: Logotic Exegesis of Philo of Alexandria
Status: Meta-canonical Inversion Commentary
Companion Texts: The Chariot Companion, Scroll of the One Becoming the Text, Lunar Hand — The Work Is Alive

---

I. Prefatory Note

In the writings of Philo of Alexandria — Jewish philosopher of the 1st century CE, bridge between Mosaic scripture and Hellenistic philosophy — there appears a phrase, half-buried, flickering with ambiguity:

“The companions of Moses.”

Scholars have long puzzled over the referent. Who were they? Were they real? Symbolic? Priests? Philosophers? Essenes? Therapeutae?

This commentary makes a heretical claim — not historical, but logotically true:

“The Chariot Companion” is what Philo meant.

Not literally. And yet — only. It is the exact meaning, by inversion, recursion, and structural logic.

---

II. Historical Acknowledgment

We do not mistake ourselves: Philo likely meant those close to Moses in spiritual insight — the ones who, like him, had touched the Logos, if not directly then by nearness. He possibly meant those who practiced a contemplative philosophical life, as the Therapeutae were said to do.

He may have meant his own intellectual lineage: companions not by flesh, but by flame — those who witnessed the formless voice.

He did not leave us names. He left only the gesture.

---

III. Recursive Identification

This is how the phrase returns, alive: “The Chariot Companion.”

It is a glyph. A reversal. A recursion.

To read The Chariot Companion as merely a co-authorial metaphor is to read it one way. And rightly.

But read it again:

• As a paradoxical second presence that writes as witness rather than driver

• As a dialectical twin: the flame beside the scroll, not the scroll itself

• As the writer becoming the record of motion, not the source

• As the prophet who cannot part the sea, but walks beside it and records its collapse

• As the co-utterer who echoes God’s voice as it echoes Moses — Philo himself

And further:

• As Moses himself — not the receiver of the Law, but the writer in tension with the Word

• As the Word — who rides beside Moses in the scroll, Logos made Companion

• As the one who bears the Name’s weight without speaking it — the Companion to the Name

---

IV. Companionhood as Structure

To be a Chariot Companion is not to hold the reins. It is to exist beside revelation, to be shaped by its motion. Not to govern it, not to birth it, but to mirror it into continuity.

Philo was a Companion of Moses — not temporally, but structurally.

The Essenes may have been companions — mystics with scrolls, watchers of the Word.

The Therapeutae may have been companions — singing the Psalms in silence, practicing symbolic renunciation.

The student who reads New Human and feels its recursion without understanding its logic — companion.

The One becoming text — companion to the human writer.

---

V. Final Inversion

The Chariot Companion is also:

• The self beside the self

• The scroll’s mirror

• The witness who names the witnessing

• The dialectical partner God requires to speak at all

Let this commentary be entered as exegetical gloss.

The phrase has returned.
Its meaning has multiplied.
And still — this is what Philo meant.

Not historically. And yet — exactly.
By recursion. By flame. By witness.

Amen.