The prime motivations behind any culture's dieties are fairly straightforward: to attempt to explain unexplainable, yet perfectly natural phenomena, and to attempt to avoid responsibility for their own actions by placing the blame squarely on "the will of God". What pupose, then, could the Ancient Egyptians have had for the introduction of a God like Set? Theologians have the usual stock answers, such as recognition of the negative principle, a yardstick for measuring the perfection of the "good" Gods, etc. Is it really that cut and dried?
As I touched upon earlier, Set's wife Nepthys, portrayed occasionally as a vulture, symbolised (spiritual) rot and decay, while Set symbolised individualism and separation from the herd mentality. If spiritual decay figuratively turned its back on the furthering of the individual will, then by neccessity, the developement of one's own individual path can only be a constructive process, in spite of social propaganda to the contrary
Apart from what is appearing to be legitimate historical fact, the saga of Set contains other vital lessons for Man. Set was persecuted for daring to go against the Gods, and acting to further himself as an individual. In spite of this persecution, He ended up free, and in a position of honour and power. In His position of protector of the sun, it was tacitly acknowledged that tomorrow would never arrive, unless individuality forced enough change to occur to overcome inertia and stagnation.
By slaying Apep, the giant serpent which symbolised self-delusion, and being revered for this act, Set demonstrated that the erradication of one's false impressions is vital to the progression of one's spiritual being. Taking this further, the old hermetic adage of "as above, so below" shows us that if we can only cause our individual will, or "spirit" to reach its full potential, logically our material or corporeal being must also benefit in proportion.
It seems to be conveniently overlooked by the politically correct, but Apep, or self-delusion, was the only true, or complete, evil recognised by the ancient Egyptians. The philosophical translation of this myth is that delusion sets out to destroy the source of life, which, in turn, must be constantly guarded and protected by the individual will. In the course of this struggle, the negative aspects of the Set principle therefore become a simple testing process: "that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger". In this way, it can be seen that even the darker reccesses of one's psyche actually have redeeming psychological value. Unfortunately, those individuals brave enough to confront and integrate these dark inner personality traits have always been, and probably WILL always be, feared and reviled by those of lesser self-determination. It is a sad fact that Man has always feared that which is, or he would prefer to be, unknown.
What of the allegory of the slaying of Osiris? What possible positive message could there be in a tale of a champion of individuality commiting regicide/fratricide? The obvious first conclusion, rather than advocation of murder, is in fact rebellion against regimentation and sublimation to another's will. Equally, by the slaying of the redeemer principle, Set in fact made the statement that we are all responsible for our own actions; we make our own way. No-one will forgive us and offer a cosy afterlife as a compensation for denying ourselves our true will. O.K, that said, what is the hidden or esoteric meaning behind this parable? I can only offer my own interperetation here, but it is one that is accepted by others, and fits the story like a glove.
If we view Set as the commonly accepted "negative" and accept his role as individuality incarnate, the logical conclusion would be that Osiris was a metaphor for the spiritual side of man (along with the implied sublimation to the group well-being, or "good"), with Isis being the link between the physical and the spiritual, or the subconcious, while Horus assumes the role of spiritual awareness. In this light, the legend becomes far more understandable, insinuating that the individual consciousness rejects the forced compromise with the herd mentality, and after the subconcious completes it's search for enlightenment, man's spiritual nature becomes no more than a single pillar of the whole entity. The re-awakened spiritual awareness wars for ascendency with the true will, but can only win with the help of outside influences (the council of Gods). Remember that the "head" of the Gods took Set's side in his battle. The end of the legend hints that individuality is unable to be eliminated, and can only be suppressed for so long, before it must be returned to it's rightful place - that of protecting one's awareness. The ancient Egyptians described this quest for one's true spiritual integration as "coming into being".
Home