__ Eld, also Elid, Elda or Eeld, from Old Prutonic ailidaz (fire, pyre) is a social and cultural concept and abstract term that is difficult to translate or define without some loss—the basic meaning would be approximately ‘current sum experience of the past impact of an individual on society and the world’. It is a form of social capital within Prut society, similar to influence but in inverse; how much an individual has been shaped by their pull and actions in society, the consequences and results of said actions, and the reflection on personal identity, impact, and character. Eld is often explained as a combination of reputation, experience, influence, self-perception, and worth; the term itself, while often considered a type of virtue, is ambivalent, and the meaning often shifts with the perspective of the speaker and the context. In most cases people understand Eld in a colloquial, Heliandist, and/or psychological sense, with significant overlap between each of those; the usual commonality between interpretations is that Eld designates some particular mark made or being made by a particular individual. A common simplification of the rather nuanced concept—often used to explain it to children or foreigners—would be: ”The part of you that cannot be seen, yet is known by everyone else—felt, witnessed, or intuited. And old saying reduces it to ’ones brand upon the world’.
The word itself is very old and has been attested since early Prutenian written records. The original meaning was a specific form of fire, most likely a type of wildfire (forest fires or veld fires), fire caused by lightning, or some other type of uncontrollable open flame. The term was gradually replaced by the more common ‘Füür/Feuer’, the generic term for any type of fire, while Eld took on more specific meanings. The word was salvaged and adopted by early Heliandists during the Albertine era, when it was frequently used in allegories and parables, setting the precedent for later metaphorical and figurative uses. In this sense, Eld became a poetic term for a person, someone that wanders through nature like a fire and leaves its mark—if said movement was destructive, creative, or transformative, was left to the interpretation of the user.
Eld as an abstract cultural term originates in the literary circles of 17th to 21st century SH Vineta, first again as a religious term and later becoming more prominent in secular literature, in particular biographies, rural poetry, and historic epics. It became popularised during the 22nd to 24th century period of urban educative and entertainment literature, where it migrated to theatre and visual arts. Interestingly, the term fell into disuse during most the 25th century, only to be resurrected in its last decade and establishing itself as a widely recognised sociocultural concept and phenomenon by the 26th and 27th century, mostly due to the effects of the War of Siblings and the spread of the printing press.Fire never lies, never hides; where it goes it always leaves its mark. Just as fire brands its path on everything it touches, so does a person. A person cannot undo the mark they left on the world same way a fire’s trace on a pristine plain can’t be undone. Once the grass has been blackened and soil’s been covered in ash, it’s done, it’s irrevocable. Same acts the sword; once steel bites flesh and tastes blood, the hewing can’t be retracted, the impact's there. Or the ink; once the quill’s painted over the parchment, it cannot be erased. As we recognise the work of fire, sword, or feather, we recognise the work of a person. The fire is what it burns, the sword is what it hews, the quill is what it paints, the person is what they do.
- chronicler Answald of Haudorp-Vineta
__ As quotes above by Answald, Eld was used as a metaphor for a life path, a simile that is still very much employed. Within the specific context of Prut literature it had an instructive and exemplar, even explanatory role—showing that a person is essentially only the sum of every deed they ever did, disregarding any sort of “inner” world. While seemingly superficial, this interpretation of personhood and even identity largely shaped Pruto-Heliandist pre-industrial culture, and its effects are still very much felt today. In this mindset, ‘life’ is not a biological term, but a complex summation of previous choices and current activity, devoid of intent, that defines everything a person is; thus a person is the net result of every decision ever made. While religious in origin and nature, this particular interpretation seeped into secular thinking as well and had considerable influence, and later caused much controversy. This attitude and Weltanschauung was often critiqued and contested, in particular by rationalists, various post-industrial thinkers, and deontological philosophers. The philosopher Fechter contested it particularly harshly:The ideas of our forebears are ridiculous given current sentiments and understanding—and even before, they were a method of social control. What about all the decisions I didn’t make, all the actions I didn’t take—don’t those define me far more? I’m neither a clockwork mechanism acting according to some divine plan or purpose, nor a reactive beast of naked instinct; I think, I ponder, I compare, and I occasionally both err and do right, but often I do naught at all. And more than that, I do differently, uniquely what is me, even if I do what others did. There is no one truth or one interpretation to any act, for there’s no two of us, as alike as we may be, that share the same angle of perception. There’s no objectivity, divine or otherwise. Each of us builds their own perception, their own subjective reality and understanding, that exists independently of each other—all of them entirely invisible, unobservable and within—and we act according to these latent traits of our character. We are thus what we do in the dark.
- thinker Godleub Fechter
Fechter’s critiques encouraged more nuanced views on the importance of Eld in the later centuries, but the concept retained its prominence in the cultural psyche. While far more radical thinkers than Fechter rejected Eld and tried to abandon it and encouraged others to do so, the Eld-concept only further developed. The modern imagining is more often than not a form of reputation, even honour, dignity, or gravitas a person radiates. Prior to Fechter and his followers, there were two Elds—Bateld and Baleld; good Eld and bad Eld. After them, Eld became subjective, and even individual. The “hidden” part of a person’s being, which included both instincts, thoughts, and as Fechter put it—everything not done by someone—became incorporated into the Eld. Sometimes these elements were interpreted as the fuel for Eld(i.e. motivation), sometimes as the smoke (i.e. a result of Eld), or they were assigned less evocative, metaphoric, or esoteric designations, e.g. Verhelltes (lit. translation: the thing obscured by brightness). Despite reactionary attitudes at various intervals in Prut cultural history, the attitudes about individual Eld is currently preponderant. Typically, individual Eld is still described within the Bat/Bal- Eld framework, with the caveat that a “good”, or rather dignified, respectable, exemplary, and desirable Eld is referred to as Litteld (lit. trans. beautiful-fire) while the exact opposite would be Eggeld (lit. trans. ugly-fire or disgusting-fire or even yucky-fire).
Within Prut cultural circles and groups developing ones Eld is considered important. The concept of Eld is inseparably tied to ethics, morality, and health in the Prutosphere; personal interpretation is encouraged and tolerated, with the understanding that there’s no “wrong” Eld. However, the reasoning is also that no sane person wants to cultivate an ugly Eld, so a certain element of conformity and compliance is always present and implied. Eld as a part of morality is integrated into the psyche, but the elements and tenets of said morality are not. Respecting the Eld of others is generally a requirement, and most Prut learn to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude. To illustrate this point, two individuals might hold diametrically opposed views on any topic, e.g. charity—one person might consider it always appropriate and adopt altruism and generosity as part of his Eld; the other might consider it always wrong, and adopt pragmatism and thriftiness as his default stance. While either could argue the other being wrong, such conflict would be pointless; rather, they would show it through their Eld (in the sense of reputation)—in this case, the opposition in attitude can be explained as the stance on and interpretation of how and when to help others.
The altruist might argue that helping is desirable and that giving those with less is a net positive for society; it enables others to survive and live, it alleviates crime and poverty, it increases overall happiness, it increases personal satisfaction, and fosters a feeling of positivity and responsibility. The pragmatic from the example might argue that helping is conditional and that giving freely is a net negative; it makes others dependable, it discourages trying to improve their personal situation, it puts the giver at unnecessary risk, it increases abuse and corruption, creates perverse incentives, and ultimately results in hollow accomplishments, never addressing the causes of needing charity. Within these two attitudes, the altruist would prefer to give someone a fish; the pragmatic would prefer to teach them how to fish.
In the same context, neither stance is considered wrong; what the observer feels and concludes is left to them to decide, same as the individuals involved. A beautiful Eld would be the one that’s interpreted as reasonable, dignified, and consistent; the pragmatic would be considered beautiful in his Eld if they ‘taught others how to fish’, i.e. helped people no longer needing charity; in example, by offering them work, helping people get in rehabilitation programmes, supporting training and educative facilities, groups, and programmes, or by starting community-oriented projects. Likewise, the altruist might be considered to possess an ugly Eld if they help for selfish reasons, such as to boost their image, or show off, or delight in another’s misery and them being in a position of power, lording over others and essentially abusing them in some manner. How one’s Eld is perceived is determined by one’s actions primarily, and motivation secondarily, and by the result as a close third. Hence why there’s not really a right or wrong Eld; it’s all about the impact and results.
This is also the reason why personal interpretation is encouraged—in the above scenario, the pragmatist would teach the person in need of charity how to fish, while the altruist would give them a fishing rod. Both kinds of people are needed for a society to function, and learning to understand and work with different attitudes and the people espousing them is important and quintessential for success. This can be ultimately applied to any virtue or any two opposed values. Likewise, such modern attitudes about Eld foster and nurture interdependence, and this aspect of Eld is also taught to children. Another saying related to that is: ”Eld is the fire we radiate to keep each other warm; it’s the light we radiate to dispel darkness.”Eld in HeliandismIn Heliandism the concept of Eld is one of the core concepts of the belief system and philosophy. It’s commonly used in parables and analogies, in particular fire analogies, and within the canon and dogma it’s also the aspect of identity and being that is analogous with the concept of “souls” in other belief systems and philosophies. Or rather, it’s why and how Heliandists reject the concept of a “soul” and embrace the concept of Eld. In Heliandism, there’s no divine other nor an afterlife, nor states of being like “paradise” and “hell”; the afterlife is but an afterthought. Instead, there is one Eld, inseparable from one’s being, distinct, intrinsically personal, and its impact can be seen, felt, and known. Compared to secular attitudes, where the Eld is a part of one’s life, in Heliandism there’s no clear distinction—life and Eld are one and the same, and there’s one life, one Eld, and only one.
Heliandism still likes to maintain the old nomenclature; calling desirable and undesirable Eld still Bateld and Baleld. The two major Heliandist Redactions, Orthodox Heliandism and Silver Heliandism generally maintain modern attitudes and interpretations, with the Orthodox leaning slightly to past attitudes and accentuating the deeds done by people, while the Silver Heliandists tend to lean more to the hidden aspects of one’s being and tend to encourage a more holistic approach to Eld. Some smaller groups and minor cults can maintain regressive and reactionary attitudes, but those are very small and negligible.Eld in psychologyThe Eld concept has also been adopted by Prut psychologists and the mental health community, which deems it useful for therapy. Eld is in particular useful in group therapy and counseling, and the term is frequently used in situation where identity and self-realisation plays a role.
More often than not, Eld is a term related to metanoia, both conceptually and as part of the healing process. Prut patients tend to respond well to the Eld concept in cases of abuse, humiliation, or similar identity crises and related stress; realising one’s own control of one’s Eld is an important first step for many Prut patient during therapy.Return to Index