Loki & Wisdom
McGillivray (2015) argues that the gods acted wisely in giving the gold to Hreiðmarr so that they could walk free. This may be understood as a refusal to become bound by the gold, a relinquishing of ownership, and thus as a form of wisdom grounded in non-attachment. The fact that it is Óðinn, rather than Loki, who attempts to keep the ring further strengthens Loki’s position in this regard.
At the same time, I would argue that it was not wise on Loki’s part to take the ring in the first place. While the killing of Otr may be understood as an unfortunate mistake, and Loki’s drastic methods of securing the ransom may be interpreted as acts of survival, his taking of the ring and repetition of the curse do not fit as easily within those explanations. From a human perspective, this may appear clearly unnecessary, and as an act in which consequences are passed on to others so that he himself may go free.
When I place both arguments side by side, I arrive at the conclusion that Loki may be understood as neither unequivocally wise nor unequivocally destructive. His wisdom and problematic nature cannot be easily separated. He demonstrates wisdom in not becoming attached to the gold, but also amorality insofar as this freedom is achieved at the expense of others.
In relation to my own practice, however, I find it meaningful to consider whether Loki’s actions might also be understood through what I would call a possible sort of "brutal wisdom". By this I do not mean that suffering or destructive consequences are inherently good, necessary or justified, nor that all pain carries a hidden purpose. Rather, I mean that insight may sometimes arise through consequences no one would willingly choose, and whose seriousness should not be trivialized. From that perspective, I would still propose a possible interpretation: that Loki’s activation of the curse may be understood as the beginning of a tragic process through which the gold eventually ceases to cause harm when it is abandoned. Humanity ultimately learns, though in a very hard way, to leave the gold untouched. Yet this does not make the curse less tragic, nor does it turn suffering into a simple pedagogical mechanism.
This interpretation feels meaningful to me because I recognize something similar in my own life. Theoretical knowledge alone does not always lead me to stop doing what is harmful to me; sometimes it is only when I experience a real and painful consequence that I take something seriously. This is something I can relate to Loki’s function in my life and in my practice, and it is what I mean by "brutal wisdom" – learning things the hard way.
What led me to these conclusions is precisely the attempt to hold both perspectives together without reducing Loki’s actions to either wisdom or unwisdom alone. This interpretation makes the most sense to me because it aligns both with the ambivalence of the myth and with how I have experienced learning itself as sometimes occurring not despite difficult consequences, but through them – without romanticizing or justifying those consequences.
Sources
McGillivray, A. (2015) ‘The Best Kept Secret: Ransom, Wealth, and Power in Völsunga saga’, Scandinavian Studies, 87(3), pp. 365–382. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5406/scanstud.87.3.0365.