The I and the Logos conjoin
God is first and foremost a mystery, the ultimate mystery. It is in this sense of mystery that I can say that God is Love and the Beginning. I wrestle with the idea that God, being coterminous with the Logos, is also coterminous with the I. This is not the animal I, the sub-human I, it is rather the fully human I, one that has had an encounter with Love. Is such an I the Logos incarnate, or is it the I incarnate as the Logos? And is this theism or atheism?
The cosmic creation story is the metaphor for the individual’s story; the common denominator between the two being Love. The Creation is our purpose, which is to recover the content of ‘living thinking’ at its inception, before it is instantly degraded into ‘fallen thought’, which is thought reflected back to us as though it represented an external reality with an existence inherent to it. To live through the eyes of reflected thought is to live before the Beginning, to live before the Creation, to be beholden to Ananke and to worship a demiurgic Díkaios, it is to exist before Love.
Love, the Creation, the Beginning, are representations of ‘living thinking, which is the transformative and shaping force of the Logos. In living thinking’, the self is asserted over the thought of ‘the they’, which is nullified. The corollary of this is that in normal everyday accepted modes of thought the I is absent, which means that our thoughts are not our own. To live in thoughts that are not one’s own is to live in the realm of Ananke, before the Beginning, before Love; it is to worship the god of the this world, the demiurgic Díkaios who is the architect of reflected reality; it is to worship Satan.
Living thinking, however, is the action of an I very much in possession of its own thinking. The I and the Logos conjoin as the Creation, the Beginning, as Love. This conjunction matters, because a separation between the I and the Logos opens the way to idol worship.
Living thinking is the constant violation of Ananke.
© John Dunn.
|
From the archive:
Modernist response
|
