Софиология
Шрифт:
Consequently, man's body, the social corpus, and the corpus of the world have ideal-real character representing each a "mystical corpus." [145] There are three items determining love's highest form: androgyny, spiritualised human corporeality, and Godmanhood. The erotic pathos of love always seeks after corporeality (sviataia telesnost'). Yet, dignified corporeality, beautiful and eternalised by Spirit corporeality does not sprout by itself, but needs spiritual deeds by the Godman. Solov’"ev commiserates with Plato to philosophically have been on a limb with «empty hands,» for his understanding of eroticism failed acknowledge this point. [146]
145
Cf. Solov’"ev, Smysl'liubvi, in. op. cit., 29ff.
146
Cf. idem, Zhinennaia drama Platona, 1898, in: op. cit., t. 9, 326f.
In the Justification of the Good, 1894–1899, is just one, yet meaningful reference to the cited above argument: as he regrets, Christianity has merely endorsed «cherubic» existence beyond marriage. Christianity has, as Solov’"ev regrets, merely deified marriage as an institution, worthy of man's multiplication (cf. Lucas 34–36, First Corinthean, 7). However, there is a third, the «highest,» namely "God's way" to look at spiritualised carnal love. In this context, he hints at the two writings just discussed, namely Plato's Life Drama and The Meaning of Love. [147] After a sharp critique by Russian Orthodoxy, [148] he seemingly had decided not to broach the ideal content of corporeal love. In the Justification of the Good this form of love holds the place of negative, offending senses: "shame (styd)" epitomises the difference between human and the animals' being. Even in the case of humanity's multiplication,
147
Cf. idem, Opravdaniia dobra. Nravstvennaia filosofiia, 1894–1897, in: ibid. t. 8 vt. Izd., 79.
148
Cf. Zweerde, Evert v. d, Liefde maaktziend. Vladimir Solovjovs (Solov'ev's] metafysica van de liefde, in: Tydschrit voor Slavische Literatuur n. 46, 2007, 38f.
149
Cf. Solov’"ev, Opravdanie, in: op. cit., 53–84.
150
Cf. ibid, 66-118.
Yet, in his encyclopaedic entry on Liubov', 1896 – composed while Solov'ev was working on the Justification of the Good – he again specified carnal love to simultaneously manifest the «strongest form of individual self-affirmation» [corresponding to ascending love] and of «self-negation» [corresponding to descending love]. As such an ambiguous event, carnal love is the «highest symbol» [vysshijsimvol] of «the ideal relationship between personal and social principles.» [151] Though spiritualised carnal love does not serve humanity's but the individual's perfection, it nevertheless represents one of cornerstones of ideal society's development. For Solov'ev society".is the supplemented or expanded individual, while the individual is the condensed or concentrated society." [152] As may be concluded, only perfected individuals – individuals experienced in spiritualising syzygy in order to experience holy androgynous being – may form ideal society, Already in Filosofskie nachala tsel'nogo znaniia, 1877, he had introduced a tripartite scheme of society: 1.) the "material society [materialnoe obsh-chestvo]" is located at the fundament, the "political society [politicheskoe obshchestvo]" occupies the midst, and the "spiritual [dukhovnoe]" or "holy society, the Church [sviashchennoe obshchestvo, Tserkov']" tops both. As may be concluded, the third type of society appears to be the syzygial unification of the other two. [153] The «Universal Church» signifies unification of masculine and feminine elements, which correspond to Christ and nature respectively [154]
151
Cf. idem, Liubov', in: op. cit., t. 11, 236.
152
Cf. Kostalevsky, М., Dostoevsky (Dostoevski]) and Soloviev (Solov'ev). The Art of Integral Vision, New Heaven and London 1997, 113.
153
Cf. idem, Filosofskie nachala tsel'nogo zaniia, 1877, in: op. cit., t.11, 257–259.
154
Cf. idem, Rossiia, in: op. cit., 327–344.
No scholar has yet presented a survey on his image of existence in pairs (syzygy) as something spread throughout his entire works. Solov' v claims this Greek expression to best express his idea of "composition [sochetanie]." [155] Krasota v prirode, [156] 1899, briefly treats another syzygial phenomenon, namely beauty. Beauty is not at all an indefinable property and beauty is not an expression of mere subjectivity either. Beauty signifies another fertile form of syzygy, for the sun's light elucidates matter. Nature's elucidation by the sun denotes the unification of two elements that are independent from each other. Their unification radiates beauty. [157] Man's self-consciousness relates to the animals' as beauty in art relates to beauty in nature. Art is not a mere repetition of the artistic deeds begun by nature but their continuation by analogously creating syzygial unities between the lucidity of human ideas and nature. [158]
155
Cf. idem, Smysl'liubvi, in: op. cit. 57, first footnote on this page. Solov'ev distances himself from the Gnostic usage of this terminology and uses syzigia in the narrow Greek meaning. Cf. Kolerov, М., Smysl'liubvi v filosofii Vladimira Solo'eva ignosticheskie parallel in: Voprosy filosofii 1995 n. 7, 59–78, for an account on Solov'ev's preoccupation with Gnosticism between 1891 and 1893.
156
Stremooukhoff, op. cit., 266. He proposes to regard the three short writings Smysl' liubvi, Krasota v prirode, and Obshchijsmysl'isskustva as an extra unit of discourses.
157
Cf. idem, Krasota v prirode, 1889, in: op. cit., t. 6, vt. izd., 35–49.
158
Cf. idem, Obshchijsmysl'iskusstva, 1890, in: ibid, 74.
Syzygy opens out into Solov'ev's metaphysically religious notion of Trinity. I call this interdependence between unity in pairs and Trinity a 'trinitarian double helix.' This expression indicates the trinitarian structure of the cosmos, of the world, and of ideal society (the Universal Church, viz. Sophia). The (self-) realisation of the latter depends in turn on multiple unifications of opposites. Syzygy is the way of repairing dissociation. Syzygial unities generate
159
«Religious» and «mystical experience» are synonyms throughout Solov'ev's entire works.
To conclude:
1. Unification of opposites releases mystical experience. Mystical and / or religious experience thus denotes the individualisation of All-Unity, a unity that bears androgynous character. Conscious experience of syzygy generates, as I conclude, prophetic faith, a type of faith that is sufficient to bestow on people a befitting foundation of social life.
2. Conscious loving thus bears objective power that surrounds Creation in spiritualising nature, and vice versa, in materialising spirit. This is the central idea to Solov'ev's notion of theurgy, which he did not elaborate into a redefined discourse. For him, theurgy apparently was a self-evident matter, since he made permanent use of it from the beginning without explaining it at any length. His encyclopaedic entry on mysticism (1896, Mistika, Mistit-sizm) explains: "Mysticism describes phenomena and human acts, which independently from the spheres of space, time, and physical causality relate man with mysterious creatures and energies (.) There is prophetic mysticism (.) and practical mysticism that attempts (.) to call forth plastic forms and materialise spiritual creatures, or de-materialise (spiritualise, KB) corporeality and such alike more." [160] 3.) Spiritualisation of nature thus is theurgy, for it unites the spiritual 'I' with the 'empirical-I' by means of dematerialisation and / or conscious spiritualisation. 4.) Divine Wisdom (Sophia) descends by virtue of syzygial experience and desirably indwells human consciousness. Co-creative activity springs from this peculiar type of experience that does not need to be rationalised, or exhaustively explained in order to improve personal and social life. As it stands, Christian faith in the trueness of the experienced is the sufficient condition to co-creativity that prepares free theocracy in a first and Sophia, the Universal Church, in second step.
160
Cf. idem, Mistika – Misticizm, 1896, in: op. cit. t. 11, 243f.
Recalling Solov’"ev's reading of Genesis I, his metaphysics of history, we remember that the state (symbolised by the moon) rules the dark, whereas the Church (as if the sun on the firmament) is installed in the midst of light. The third now, the multicoloured stars, correspond to prophets brightly lighting the way in the dark. [161] As we have seen, every man potentially is a prophet. Consequently, the Church's natural allies are prophets, singular personalities who accelerate progress during history's lengthy seventh day in order to arrive at an eighth when Universal Church, the archetype of God's Creation, embodies Sophia and brings forth «social trinity.» «Social trinity» denotes another form of All-unity, namely trichotomy of powers in the name of one single principle. [162] Each representative of free theocracy has his own non-interchangeable sphere of action. The brilliant play on words Solov’"ev presented in order to unambiguously clarify the triple actions' inter-dependence is untranslatable. The Russian word pravliat (to organise) is the fundamental lexical unit. Various prefixes modify the sense of the word: sviashchennik pravliaet (the priest, i.e. the Church governs) and therefore thus constitutes the legislative (KB). Tsar' upravliaet (the king, viz. the state administers), thus constitutes the executive (KB). Last but not least prorok ispravliaet (the prophet, the people emends), hence constitutes the judicative (KB). [163] The prefixes na-, u-, and is- make the words convey a specific, non-interchangeable meaning while commonality is maintained in each by the word pravliat.' This play on words mirrors separation of powers in free theocracy and designates «authority» the Church, «might» to the state, and «liberty» to prophets while each sphere arises out of and stays within the same principle.
161
Cf. idem, Istoriia, in: op. cit., 574–579.
162
Cf. idem, Rossiia, in: op. cit., 327–344.
163
Cf. idem, Evrejstvo, 161.
The prophet is a "representative of future time." [164] Certainly, prophets play a very difficult, even risky role, for they ignite dynamics within the hierarchical body of the Church itself. Mere reproduction of the existing historical Church facing state and people is avoided only if individual religious creativity – irrespective of whether pronounced by members of the clergy or by lay people – is successfully communicated within the hierarchical body of the Church. The Church bears a conservative character by definition. As it stands, Solov’"ev calls for a reconciliation of nature and spirit, and of creativity and conservatism. These are the central forms of co-creativity. The Church must be successful in reconciling the individuals' religious creativity and the Church's proper conservatism. This certainly is a standard problem with regard to any «religious politics» and is a task that enjoys immense ecumenical importance in a world that is characterised by multi-cultural societies. These stand in dire need of reconciliation, a problem Solov'ev certainly well understood.
164
Cf. Sutton, op. cit., 80.
The next section looks at Bulgakov's concepts of reconciling the created and the Uncreated, of Sophia. His Filosofiia khoziajstva, 1912, subtitled Mir kak khoziajstvo and the earlier, preparatory treatise Osnovnye motivy filosofii khoziajstva v Platonizme i v rannem khristianstve, 1911, present attempts at an ontology of economy. [165] Fundamental Motives discusses nature in Platonism and in early Christian thinking and prepares the Philosophy of Economy, a comprehensive work that was inspired by Bulgakov's desire to «overcome» Marx's «economic materialism.from within» by unmasking its limitations as an «abstract principle,» [166] an effort that recalls Solov'ev's Kritika otvlechennykh nachal.
165
Cf. Bulgakov, S., Philosophy of Economy. The World as a Household (transl. by C. Ev-tuhov), New Heaven 2000, 38.
166
Cf. ibid, 39f, see also, idem, Tserkov i kul'tura, 1906, in: Dva grada. Issledovanie o prirode obshchestvennykh idealov, 1911, reprint Russkij Khristianskij Gumanitarnyj Institut, St. Peterburg, 1997, vol. 1/2, vol. 2, 349.
In Osnonye motivy filosofii khoziastva v pannem Khristianstve i v Platonizme, Bulgakov emphatically declares the Platonic ideas as to have fulfilled a similar function as does Heaven. Yet, neither Plato nor the Neo-Platonists successfully built a ladder between spirit and matter, but instead left a dreadful abyss between them. Christian thought then offered answers to questions posed by Plato and substituted impersonal erotic ascent by Christ's personal love. Christianity substituted the Platonic «ideas» by the Divine Sophia. [167] Of course, such a sentence requires further elucidation of Bulgakov's sophiology
167
Cf. ibid. 191ff.