In the bosom of the One, in His inscrutable depths, is born being, or, rather the Very One posits Himself as Himself. This is an act of the One’s  pure positing of Himself, as the One by His will posits no one other as himself, or, in other words, it is an act of His self-positing. The moment of discernment of being, a moment immediately after the first positing, “appears” here in the form of the self–negation of discernment – as nothing other than Himself: discernment, not having “time” to appear, instantly disappears and does not exist. The latter “exist” is used here as a connective, because there was no “exists” except the being of the One. Therefore what did appear here together with being was pure “not.” If you try to somehow capture, capture this moment of the disappearance of the distinction of being, together with the pure “not,” then you will soon become convinced that it is completely elusive for thought, or higher than thought, because it is impossible to apply such thought categories as equality or inequality, identity or difference. It (this moment) is not available for these categories; it is impossible to linger in for even an instant. It is illogical – just as elusive and illogical as the transition of pure being into pure nothing and vice versa in Hegel’s Logic (see Remark 1 below). Thus, here, together with being, there was only an elusive moment of repulsion or pushing out – the pure “not,” “retracting” together with being (since the latter without the “not” – the “other” – loses its distinguishability), back to the One. This is the “life-giving” moment, a living “breath” emanating from the One and returning to Him, closing a process that “quivers with life.” This “not,” finally, is an analog of the other in Losev’s model of dialectics, but here this moment of the other is structured in a threefold process: self-positing (origin), self-denial and return (closure).

NOTE: auto-translation edit in progress.

So, the threefold process has disappeared into the One. What happened to the One Himself and with the moments of self-determination of the One Himself and the return of these moments to the One through self-denial ? The One itself remained the same impregnable apophatic darkness (the principle of Abraham !). And the manifested moments of self-positioning, self-denial and return merged into an inseparable unity – inseparable due to inseparability, absence of any parts and, therefore, “gaps” between parts of the One. Does this mean that the ternary process has “dissolved” in the One? If this were only the case, then everything would return to the beginning, and this process would not lead to anything. Along with being “involved” in the Unified processdefinitely the fact of the “course” of the process itself “highlighted” against the background of the apophatic abyss of the One. Is this fact itself one? – Of course no! Is there anything different from the One in this fact? – Only the One! The One itself is not a fact. Therefore, a fact in itself (without the One) is nothing! He is the result of the action of the One Himself. The “highlighted” fact of self-determination by the One Himself, which has enclosed (see below “Analysis of the resulting result” below) in itself the entire completeness of the One, is called the energy of the essence of God.

Can the moments of this process be considered as energies of the essence? – No, because they are BEFORE the “highlighted” fact. The return to the One, as it were, “fused” them into ONE inseparable unity, energetically manifesting (“highlighting”) them outside (in another, in fact!), As un merged in it (the process). This first unity – the triune process – is what was called the Holy Trinity .

Note_1 . To touch on the understanding of the term “illogical,” let us see how the transition of pure being to pure nothing arises and back in Hegel’s Logic. We already spoke about this in AB No. 17, but we did not finish the matter there. Let’s try to fill this gap here.

So, Hegel begins Logic with the category “being” or, in the words of the author, Logic itself begins with this category as the most direct and therefore the most indefinite , i.e. most suitable for the beginning of Logic (any definition is already a departure from the beginning!). “ Being , pure being – without any further definition. In its indefinite immediacy, it is equal only to itself, and also not unequal in relation to the other, has no difference either within itself or in relation to the external. ” Here the thinker calls us mentallycompare the “object” in front of us internally with himself or externally with his surroundings. But it turns out that there is nothing to compare it with, since there is no longer an “object” and there is no external environment either — we have nothing before us . Further, “ nothing , pure nothing ; it is simple equality with oneself, perfect emptiness, lack of definitions and content; no difference in oneself. ” And thinkers here encourages us mentally with equally ivat and variousThere is something from pure nothing. But when we begin to “consider” nothing so different from something from all sides, we are convinced that this nothing is the same empty content as pure being.

What happened here? – situated directly in front of our mind’s eye the pure existence also disappeared directly lo even before we began to consider. Disappeared in its result – into nothing . Now it resides directly pure nothingness , which also immediately disappears (or rather, was gone lo ) in its result – in existence . And here Hegel captures in reality the result obtained here in the following sentence: “ pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, one and the same“. But if this were only so , we are developing Hegel’s thought, then there would be no disappearance of one in the other, because this identity between them would go on and on. So, the previous sentence fixes only “half” of the result. Therefore, in order to express all the truth that has manifested itself here, Hegel fixes the following “half” of the result in the sentence: “… that they are not the same thing , that they are absolutely different … ”. This “ absolutely ” here simply “knocks out” our thought, because completely contrary to the previous sentence. Reconciles this contradiction process(Hegel calls it the word movement, which is not entirely appropriate for a given moment of Logic, – inappropriate, since each movement is a process, but not every process is a movement, as in this case) of the direct disappearance of pure being in its absolute opposite, but also the inseparability – in pure nothing , and vice versa , – formation .

Where is illogism here, you ask me? – In the immediate disappearance of one in the other, which we are not able to grasp in any way mentally due to this immediacy, it happens to be “behind the back” of our thinking completely illogical and contrary to our “desire” to somehow grab it, hold it. And the process of becoming appears in our thinking now as a “ticking” back and forth in complete silence (hese; for a brief analysis of this term, see below in the section “Subtle analysis of the result”). Was he before we discovered it? – Of course it was, is and will be. This means that regardless of whether we have opened already for themselves the process, or even no, he’s somewhere in “flows”, “functions”, “tick”!

But what happened to the elements of this process – with being and nothing? – And they, following the author further, “… losing their independence [immediacy], which, as originally seemed , was inherent in them, are reduced to moments that are still distinguishable , but at the same time removed.”

Here is just the time to talk a little bit about the concept of “withdrawal,” which Hegel introduces into his Logic as “one of the most important concepts of philosophy.” It is one of the most difficult, if you do not imagine it as follows. At the time of Hegel, photography was not yet discovered, which is a physical realization of the concept of “removal.” Indeed, we are shooting some momentary moment in the photo. It is saved in the photograph, but at the same time it disappears as momentary, immediate , because this moment is already a thing of the past and goes farther and farther. Alas. This is especially noticeable if you look at the photo in ten years! Thus, the concept of “withdrawal” contains both the moment of conservation and the moment of disappearance. “Somethingremoved only to the extent that it entered into unity with its opposite; for him, taken in this more precise definition as something reflexed, the name of the moment is suitable . ”

Our “familiar characters” – being and nothing – in the process of becoming ceased to act directly or independently; we still distinguish them, as filmed in this process, they “flash” before moments of thought in our eyes, but this is an illusion of our memory, our idea (our reflection!), because we cannot directly notice the actual flicker due to the alogism of transitions. What is immediately in front of our mind’s eye? – The process of formation itself resides as a sustainable process. This sustainability is based on unstoppable the disappearance of being into nothing and vice versa.

This stable process is that immediate (1) – that result (2), to which Logic arrived (only “ajar” by Hegel!). As a result of (2) he left behind the immediacy of being and nothing, i.e. mediated , removed their immediacy ; both direct (1) it (the process) pre happens now as a being – booked arrival (of Dasein means “here being” – “being in a certain place , but the idea of space is inapplicable”), which became – but not indefinitely clean being, as before, and being,containing the unstoppable process of the disappearance of pure being into nothing – the disappearance, and pure nothing into being – the emergence .

One can only guess why Hegel further “kills” the process of becoming (see “§3. The removal of the becoming” of his Logic as follows: “becoming is the disappearance of being into nothing and nothing into being, and the disappearance of being and nothing at all.” This “In general” there is great bewilderment as a great thinker could admit and miss this: being disappears into nothing, nothing into being, therefore, they do not disappear “generally” – at once, at the same time, if you like! Disappearing being and nothing at allit simply cannot be here), it seems that he could not imagine, figuratively speaking, how to do an “operation” on a “working heart”, and therefore he “attracted” the formation to this result. After all, he also appears as a result of the stay (Dasein), but the stay is “one-sided”, as he himself defines it, “dead”, as I myself expressed it, already without a stable process inside. And living Logic (in the form of an unstoppable process) only momentarily appeared in his Logic and went into oblivion for a long time.

The physics of microparticles is a good example of the implementation of such processes in our physical microworld. For example, light is the process of the transition of the electrical component E of an electromagnetic wave to magnetic H and vice versa. And at the same time, as a whole, it is a particle, a photon.

At the end of the previous paragraph, we said that living Logic only appeared for a moment in Hegel’s Logic, but this only highlighted one of its aspects – the created aspect (take at least the previous example with a photon), because its beginning actually unfolds differently (see. See below “Subtle analysis of the result”). What is the difference? – In order to outline the answer to this question, let’s see what happened at the end of Hegelian Logic, when the Absolute Idea (God) was fully revealed in its concept , promotingthe process of its unfolding from the beginning, in which She (He) manifests itself as a completely abstract pure being, to the complete “dissolving” (like a lotus bud) of its inner content. And what – all the mystery, all the mystery of God now appeared before our mental gaze? God now has nothing to “hide” from our thinking, God “revealed” before us the incomprehensibility, the infinity of his limitless and unremitting being? – According to Hegel, it turns out that so – absolute rationalism ! “God died,” Friedrich Nietzsche will say 40-50 years after this, because God has nothing more to reveal – everything is revealed. In our case, the incomprehensibility of the essence of God remains impregnable (the principle of Abraham is absolute apophatism!), it is, by the way, the basis of alogism – the inability to grasp, keep separate the ternary process, in other words, it is the basis of “life” – the inseparability and lack of merits of the ternary process. This is the essence of the difference between Hegel’s Logic and living Logic – in accepting the principle of Abraham about the incomprehensibility of God’s being, which is the basis of His comprehension as a living, not diminished in anything!

Geometrically, this difference could be represented as follows:

fig. 1 Hegel’s logic without “stopping” the formation

and

fig. 2 Living Logic

Is it possible, then, to dwell on absolute apophatism? In this case, we go to the other extreme – the extreme of Kantian agnosticism – the unknowability of the “thing in itself.” The Absolute does not remain in its closed inaccessibility, but reveals itself in its energies (Himself, by its own will!), Remaining inherently incomprehensible – mystical symbolism ! End of Remark_1 .

Note_2 . To somehow touch the understanding of the phrase “mystical symbolism”, I will give a “neutral” example.

Probably many of you are familiar with Homer’s poem, The Iliad. In the poem, there are frequent episodes of the appearance, for example, of Athena Pallas (in the Greek pantheon – the goddess of wisdom) at critical moments of this or that hero, of a particular situation. How to relate to these episodes? For example, as a fairy tale, then the understanding of the Iliad will pass by and it will be completely incomprehensible why this poem worried the ancient Greek for more than a thousand years. But if you treat them with reverence, how the mythical consciousness of the ancient Greek (and I have no doubt whatsoever), it’s easy to imagine how the whole being of Homer’s audience shrank when it came to melodious ones (and Homer, as you know, sang during narration) of retelling of these episodes, as if the Divine was present at these momentsinvisible here. The feeling of the “presence” of the Divine here at the moment is absolutely invisible, and there is a mystical moment of perception (if the word “perception” is suitable for such moments).

And in what, further, is the symbolism of this phrase manifested ? – In order to arouse the listeners feeling of the “presence” of the Divine, it is necessary, as we said above, a certain state of their consciousness (mythical), a certain culture of their perception, a system of images fixed in mythologems – canons of religious thought, in short, a system of expression of mythological image. Such a system was brought to ancient Greece by Orpheus. In the “Iliad” of Homer, she found only her poetic embodiment. In the concept of a symbol , an entity is synthesized , in this case a living Deity, and a phenomenon, in this case, a poetic image. Hence, the presence of the living Deity in the symbol is revealed by the side of its manifestation, – in a poetic way, as in the case of the Iliad, by the semantic sculptural character of this manifestation. Therefore, in the phrase “mystical symbolism” the essence and manifestation of the symbol merge together, and the manifestation is not physical (it would be too rude), but (as here) artistic and semantic .

“I hear the silent sound of divine Hellenic speech

The great old man I feel the shadow of an embarrassed soul. ”

(Pushkin’s comment on Gnedich’s translation of the “Iliad” of Homer).

End of Remark_2 .

Analysis of the result . The trinity process disappeared into the mysterious depths of the One. All that the “ternary process” manifested “is a” highlighted “fact. The One itself “remains” in the “state” of a non-existent or super-existent. The “highlighted” fact is different in relation to the One. Therefore, we have here the fifth and seventh hypotheses about the relationship of the One and the other, as they are presented in Plato’s Parmenides (see 135e – 136b, 137b of this dialogue). Namely, the fifth hypothesis is formulated as follows (formulations by A.F. Losev): conclusions for the One with the relative negation of the One, and the seventh hypothesis: conclusions for the otherwith the relative denial of the One. Before using the conclusions of these hypotheses made by Plato in his dialogue, we will make sure that the result we have obtained does correspond to these hypotheses.

The first hypothesis of conclusions for the One with the absolute position of the One (137s – 142b) was considered in detail in my article in AB No. 17 in the section “The First Beginning”. It turned out that if you accept this hypothesis, the One cannot even be considered existing! This result – the super-existent One – is accepted here as the foundation (foundation) of living Logic!

But the One does not remain in its closed inaccessibility. It believes itself. From here follows the second hypothesis – the conclusions for the One with the relative position of the One (142b – 157b). Another formulation of this hypothesis – “I Am Existing” – was communicated to Moses as the Name of God (see Exodus 3.14). A more accurate translation from Hebrew of this wording is found in the English Bible: I AM WHO I AM. That is what we expressed at the beginning of this article indirectly: It goes One thinks himself as himself. Which immediately leads to the following: It is his from the will of Niemi believes no one otherlike yourself. Here, the time difference of the One Himself the One being that (moment) immediately appears after the first positing of the One, “acts” in the form of denial of differences with Himself – but nothing himself: the difference is not “having time” appear instantly disappear and not have . The instant disappearance of the difference occurred “suddenly”, and the arising “not” is simply the “aftereffect” of an accomplished fact. An attempt to think this “not” leads to the fact that the thought “bounces” from it or, rather, does not find anything that could be “hooked”, as if reflected back, but this “living” moment of the “bouncing” thought is all -so you can grab it! Along the way, we note that Plato puts forward in his dialogue an important concept of dialectical moment – “suddenly” (155е – 157b) – the moment of illogism!

What happened as a result of ours? – The Trinity process disappeared in the One, the One remains in its “inaccessibility” – this is the sixth hypothesis put forward by Parmenides (163b – 164b) – conclusions for the One with the absolute denial of the One. If this hypothesis is accepted, it turns out that the One is neither one nor the other, nor the third, nor anything at all. If this were only so, we concluded at the beginning of the article, then everything would return to the beginning of the process of positioning, and this would not lead to anything. Along with being “drawn into” the One process, the fact of the appearance of the process itself against the background of the apophatic abyss of the One was definitely “highlighted”. This fact is different in relation to the One. This does not come from the One, as manifested above ” not“, But there is the result of the accomplished action of the One, His disclosure of Himself, His energy ! (See “A subtle analysis of this result” below.) And the sixth hypothesis turns into the fifth and seventh. Indeed, we have here the relative denial of the One, if there is another .

Consider the fifth hypothesis: if the One is not in the relative sense, then what conclusions can be drawn for the One itself? – In this case, there is everything else in Him , i.e. all categories in general (see Plato’s conclusions in 160b – 163b)! And in the case of the seventh hypothesis: if the One is not in the relative sense, then what conclusions can be drawn for the other? – In this case, otherwise there is everything , everything , that is, – everything is One, because the One, to which it is opposed, is not taken absolutely, but relatively (164b – 165e). This implies that in other enclosed all the ” result ” of the threefold process, all the fullness of the One, but (!) Separate form – in the form of self-unfolding process, which figuratively (geometrically) could be imagined as a spiral emerging from a point (most of the artifacts found during excavations of the “palace” in Knossos in Crete contain this image as an ornament). But it is also twisted back to a point (and this moment is expressed in the Cretan ornament).

Just think, Plato put forward about 2400 years ago in his dialogue these hypotheses and conclusions from them, as a game of the mind, and now this game of the mind now acts as an integral result of the development of living Logic!

So, another triune process, “dived” into the incomprehensible depth of the One, is the energy of the being of God. Energy contains this being in itself , is essentially held by Him, this being is its basis . The end of the analysis of the result .

Having given His energy outside, has the One become poorer? – No, because His position returned to Him by the Spirit, having given birth to Him in another . This is the volitional impulse of the One Love , giving birth to Himself in another , i.e. a free (and love can only be free!) impulse to “give” oneself to another and in this other “reproduce oneself” , and this is exactly what happened above! This is another , containing in itself a substance (the creation of the One Himself) of ” meaning , its power ” – “this is Sofia”(See“ Personality and Absolute ”by AF Losev, p. 243 ff.). Sophia, the Wisdom of God, contains the essence of God, is “numbered” by Him, if we speak in mythological language about the “result” of this Love !

Note_3 . For the first time the theme of “Sophia” appears in Proverbs of King Solomon, VIII, Article 22: “The Lord had me the beginning of the way of his, first create your own, from time immemorial“. This and the following verses from the Proverbs until the 31st were at the beginning of the 4th century the subject of heated debate between the Arians, who were inclined to the creature of the second Person of the Trinity on the basis of this passage from the Holy Scriptures (the word “had” was translated in the Septuagint (translation of the Torah in ancient Greek, III century BC) as created, created), and, adhering to the “right” faith (hence the “Orthodoxy”), by the Holy Fathers of the Church. This dispute led to the need for the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council by Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. What is the matter? “One must clearly understand the position of Sophia between God and the world. 1. First of all, Sofia is not a creature, not a world, not a world soul. She’s up to all this . She is the body of God”(See“ Personality and Absolute ”by AF Losev, p. 244). From the previous it should be clear what kind of body we are talking about – this is the body of the born Logos, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. “2. But does [this] mean that Sophia is God? No, she is not God, but – in her there is nothing but God [she is “enlisted” by Him]. This is a fulfilled and really living God, ”who became the Holy Trinity, she (Sofia) afterHer (Holy Trinity), she is a “flash”, “packed” in itself the being of the One. Therefore, the reason for that confusion, which almost led to the split of the Church, becomes clear: Sofia, “encumbered” with the body of the Logos, was confused with the second Person. If we mean by the word “had” the word “created”, and by Sophia we mean the second Person, then the Arians obtained the creatureliness of the Logos. Losev also drew attention to this confusion: “The fourth beginning carries out the first three. This is not quadrupling, for the fourth principle in itself is nothing starting to live only as the carrier of the first three principles. “Believers” are confused here by the absence in patristics [the teaching of the Church Fathers] of a special teaching on Sofia. However, there is a complete misunderstanding. The fact is that the doctrine of the Three Persons of the Divine is formulated in the dogma so that it is resolutelycaptures the entire Sofia sphere [and, thus, obscures it!]. It is enough to point out at least one thing that the first Person is thought of as giving birth , the second as being born . Here the sophisticated characteristic appears clearer than the day , for the concept of “birth” is by no means a purely semantic concept, but it presupposes a certain material, bodily , vital fulfillment of this meaning. The doctrine that we find in dogma is formulated too concisely and whole; here, immediately and almost without any dismemberment, both semantic, and sophia [energy], and even onomatic [imyaslavsky] characteristics are given. ”

Then the idea of the “dispensation” of another – Heavenly – world was born in agony no longer within the framework of Abraham’s absolute apophatism (it seems that it was precisely in these, and only in these, frameworks that the Deity Arius thought himself, as well as Barlaam, the opponent of Palamas, and Protestantism also thinks The Divine, it seems, is the same), but within the framework of the “communion” with the Living Deity, “living” with Him, communication with Him, the desire to “dissolve” in Him, to be burned, saved, to enter the kingdom of heaven, i.e. within the framework of mystical symbolism , ajar as divine energies by Gregory PalamÓy in the middle of the XIV century, developed further in the name of Russian philosophical thought of the beginning of the XX century (and now dynamically revealing itself in the living Logic of the XXI!). “3. This is not the fourth hypostasis. This is the fourth beginning … but not consubstantialTo Three Persons. … 4. Now the connection of Sophia with the Virgin and the whole mystery of expression about Christ and the Church as a heavenly bride and groom should become clear. ” The Virgin, we continue the thought of Losev, is the earthly image of Sophia: Sophia arises, in the mythological language, “encumbered” with the body of God after the departure of the third moment of the threefold process (return) to the apophatic depths of the One, and the Virgin is encumbered with the body of Christ after the descent of the Holy The Spirit. The Church of Christ is born after the descent of the Holy Spirit (10 days after the Ascension, which was mentioned in my article in AB No. 27, on the feast of Pentecost — the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people!), Sent by Christ, as promised, to the apostles and “charged” Body of Christwhich we are “convinced” of during the sacrament at the liturgy. For Living Logic, these are different forms of the same process – the threefold!

“The church is neither a gathering of believers, nor a temple, nor society, nor authority, nor parish, nor institution, nor code of religious laws and rules. The church is neither a bishop, nor a priest, nor a synod, nor even a cathedral. All these are manifestations of the Church.

The Church is the Body of Christ! ”(Ibid., P. 245). End Remarks_3 .

Subtle analysis of the result . The One – the only God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not accessible, not visible, not felt at all, considers Himself, Himself, by His will! He his from the will of Niemi believes no one other like himself. The question is, how do I know this, or rather, on what is based in my true Nost (DOST Verne spine) in this? – firstly, the first part of the first sentence is apophatically expressed (I have highlighted all the “not”). This means that the One God does not essentially reach, do not “grasp” in any way or super-mental procedures that can proceed from the “outside” in relation to the One. My knowledge here can only be based on faith, on the mystical sensation of the presence of a living God, and apophaticism alone is not enough! Secondly , the second part of the first sentence prompts us to ask the following question: why did He “decide to go out of Himself”, i.e. to put oneself? – This is not a question of logic, and therefore living logic omits it. But she cannot, thirdly , omit another moment – the moment of the denial of anything other than the statement of Myself (“ no oneother than Myself ”). However, the denial of the other removes the statement (position) of Himself as One, since in the absence of the other the Being of the One becomes completely indefinite, as if “plunges” into the One. The result of the self-position disappears with the moment of denying another. What remains? – There remains a clear indication of this process. By itself, this indication is simple nothing . It is (if it is possible to talk about “at all” here) only as a pure indication – an indication of a process that has returned to the One. An indication of something is defined as a sign(for a study of the category “sign”, see the work of A. F. Losev “The Problem of Symbol and Realistic Art”). But there can be no question about the fact that once the “external” about znach it is an indication (refer to the difficulty of this sign will be revealed as development of our analysis). This process, or rather, the very One in relation to an indication of it or a sign , has thus become, as it were, “in itself”, i.e. as if inside a sign. It is the One, therefore, it is now becoming an entity or substantial foundation without it a completely empty sign! So behind the number ( ternaryprocess) is a sign, as a harbinger of a symbol; but in no way felt, inaccessible, invisible One receives the status of “in itself”, remains as invisible, inaccessible as before, but already felt as present mystically (see Remark_2). Here we do not raise the question: Who can feel the presence of the One here?

A note on subtle analysis . Let us try to come closer to understanding the sign that has arisen, and generally similar signs, as an example of the experience of formalizing set theory, presented in the first book, “Theory of Sets”, of the treatise of French mathematicians, united under the pseudonym Nicolas Bourbaki.

First of all, the author lists the signs of any mathematical theory

Then – the letters :

1. x, y, z, A, B, C, etc. – Uppercase and lowercase letters of the Latin alphabet.

And that’s it! Next, various combinations of these signs and letters are built. For example, the symbolic combination is represented by a symbol and reads as “implicates” or “follows”. To make it clearer, we introduce a letter into this symbolic combination and write it like this: or, using a symbol and eliminating the prefix form of writing characters in symbolic combinations, – like this: – reads as “B follows from A” or “A implies B”. This last expression is, strictly speaking, not a combination of formal mathematical theory , because includes a character that is not on the list of its characters. This is the so-called abbreviation symbol. Without such abbreviations, which include the words of an ordinary language, reading symbolic combinations of formal theory would lead to insurmountable “mental difficulties” (according to the author himself). Introducing gradually reducing characters and words of an ordinary language, the author comes to a language familiar to mathematicians. For example, the character he entered on page 84 denotes an empty set, i.e. a set that does not contain a single element is one of the fundamental concepts of modern mathematics. This symbol is an abbreviation for the following character combination of formal set theory:

.

Isn’t it, there is a difference between this combination of symbols and a symbol ! Further – more, on page 188 is the expression:

,

the right side of which is a shorthand expression for the expression:

It is designated by a symbol “1”. “A rough assessment shows that the term [intuitively” subject “], thus designated , is a combination of several tens of thousands (!) Characters (each of which is one of the characters ).” Please note – not a single letter in this combination will be found! The author warns us, reading this part of the treatise, so that we do not mix the entered character “1” with the word “one” in ordinary language. The symbol denoting the word “one” is defined in the second book of the treatise – “Algebra”, as a single element of the multiplicative group of the set of rational numbers, and most likely contains more than one hundred thousand characters!

Imagine, further, that some mathematician would take the trouble to scrupulously write out the symbolic combination indicated by N. Bourbaki with the symbol “1”, and then publish it in the form of a book. Another mathematician would have taken the trouble to interpret this symbolic combination, sequentially disassembling it, finding in it often repeated combinations of signs and introducing abbreviations for them. If he does everything right (it’s hard to imagine how much work it will take), then ideally he will get about as many pages of mathematical text as they did in the Russian translation of the first book of N. Bourbaki. This tells us that any modern mathematical text is an interpretation.some formal mathematical text, which ideally can be written out for any mathematical expression, but no one will ever do that! Therefore, every mathematician who “reads” some mathematical text is based, firstly, on the intuitive belief that the text he reads can in principle be formalized, i.e. there is no danger in this text for the occurrence of mutually exclusive symbolic combinations, i.e. contradictions. Secondly, it is based on its intuitive experience in interpreting certain expressions – experience gained as a result of intensified, and sometimes painful, work. In other words, to read a modern mathematical text, a “live” interpreter is needed – an experienced mathematician. End of subtle analysis remark .

Turning to the sign received before the last remark, we will try to answer the following question :for whom is this sign intended, who could be its “interpreter” here? The first thought that comes to mind is considered to be such an “interpreter” of God himself, because nobody else is here! At first, this thought may seem insignificant, because God does not have the “need” to interpret its own signs. However, we will not be in a hurry, because if we stick to the communicative version of the hesychasm, which L.A. Losev states. Gogotishvili (see “The Communicative Version of Hesychasm” in Prince Losev’s “Myth, Number, Essence”, p. 878), then this sign could be considered as a “message”, “packed” in the form of a pointer to primary essence. But here it is not yet clear (!) The “address” to which this “message” would be intended. More interesting, in my opinion, is another thought.

The symbolic combinations of formal mathematical theory, which we examined in the remark, are “indifferent” to the meaning that they designate, as “indifferent” as numbers, to what they reckon. These symbolic combinations are written according to certain formal rules (or rather, interpreted according to these rules, because these rules themselves relate to meta- mathematics, and not to mathematical theory). But our sign is not like the number “three” in the phrase “triple process”. Indeed, let us recall the beginning of the article, that “the fact the flashing” flow “process” showed threefold nature ( triipostasnost) Self-disclosure of the One Self. What can be said about this fact? – Only that there are three hypostases, or rather, about the number three. This is not just a number; it cannot be divided into units without violating its nature, without destroying it. Plato called such numbers “ideal” and explained their nature to his students (not in the form of dialogue!) Shortly before his death. The same applies to the sign we received: it cannot be separated from what it indicates, or rather, this indication is “generated” by what it indicates, there is a form of this “generation”.

Another thought is that our sign contains the “ mechanism ” of its self-interpretation, or rather, its self-disclosure . If it were possible to find such signs, for example, for mathematical theory, then mathematics would become “alive” (to which I drew your attention in my previous articles), but the trouble is that such signs cannot be represented by our “created” means or, most likely, I don’t have such means yet. The same remark applies to our sign, so we can only try to mythologically express the scheme of this self-disclosure.

But first, let’s think a little more about this sign (or similar signs). Firstly, the term “self-disclosure” tells us about the energetic nature of this “mechanism”, hence the category of “energy”, which we used earlier formally in the beginning of the article, finds its justification in assuming this “mechanism”. Secondly, since Alexei Fyodorovich Losev, as you know, was a supporter of Orthodox energyism (which was defended by Archbishop Grigory Palamá against Varlaam in the 14th century), “self-disclosure” of the sign is closest to Orthodox intuition. Thirdly, the nature of such signs allows us to touch on the understanding of the practice of hesychasts (silent people). This silence should not be understood as silence, for example, etc. Andrei Rublev,words (words as symbols expressing the meaning will appear further in the sphere of the symbol (see table in AB No. 27)) to express the revelations that come to the hesychast monk in response to his ascetic feat in the search for the truth of God, when no speaking is even internal accompanying us, it would seem, constantly, is impossible when there is only one thing left – complete silence, “immersion” in the delighted contemplation of the process of self-disclosure. This process could be verbally expressed by the Hesychasts only as “illumination with the inner light”, which they identified with the light seen by the disciples of Christ on Mount Tabor. Our sign also cannot be expressed verbally. But, taking it now as a whole , which embraces itself and a pointer (1) to the One, “thus becoming “the primary essence, and the primary essence itself (2), hidden in the” depth “of the sign as a pointer to it, and the” mechanism “of self-disclosure of the primary essence (3), we are convinced that the sign turns (upon acceptance of our assumption) into a living eidos in the platonic and neoplatonic understanding of such integrity. Understanding this integrity as a Personality that is still hidden “in itself” (the side ( hypostasis ) of the primary essence (2) in this integrity), we obtain, when we interpret the wholeness as a body of God, Sofia, “encumbered” by the second Person of the Holy Trinity, which appears for the first time in Judaism in the “Parables of King Solomon.” From here “arises” and the “address” mentioned above. But let’s take it in order.

In accordance with the reasoning in the previous paragraph, you can threefold approach the verbal expression of such signs or now living eidos. First, you can approach it, as mentioned above, platonically or neoplatonically. Here I would include A.F. Loseva, because I did not succeed, unlike L.A. Gogotishvili, to find in him the development of a communicative version of hesychasm, and the form of his dialectic would also interfere with this. Perhaps in an oral conversation with her, Alexei Fedorovich developed these thoughts. Is it possible to consider this “path” as a schematic approach to the “mechanism” of self-disclosure of primary essence? In a sense, yes, if we take the dialectic in the form that we have in remark_1, i.e. developing Hegel’s approach. In this case, however, it is impossible to get rid of the feeling of oneself as an outside observer of the self-disclosure process. But have mercy, one of the readers of this place will say, because during “comprehension” we always find ourselves in the role of observer, because we comprehend, and there can be no bewilderment. Yes, of course, that’s why I would call this “path” the knowledge of “good and evil”, because in this form of “comprehension” even God himself is seen as an object that we – “observers” – are trying to comprehend (everything along this path is divided, including internal and external: “… and they learned [Adam and Eve] that nagas ”(Genesis 3: 7)). Was this what we wanted as a method of knowing living Logic? Probably not.

Secondly, another “path” indicates to us a “fruit” from the “tree of life” – a symbol of Christ (“I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father as soon as through Me ”(John 14: 6)). For a long time I tried to understand one inscription on the gates of the Protestant cemetery: “I live, and you must also live” (John 14: 19). The translation from German is mine, as in the Russian translation is “you will live”. German translation from Greek more precisely. “Must” (sollt) means obligation by nature, in essence. “Must live” means that “you are created for this”, it’s not some kind of accident that may or may not be, no – it will certainly happen to those who are saved! To be saved is to fall into the kingdom of heaven. What does this mean for the saved? – This means that those who get there are not in a state of observer of the processes taking place “in front of his eyes”, but he is drawn into these processes, they are his new life. This life does not flow in time and space, but always here and now, i.e. always at rest , because “Here and now” lasts forever, but also, simultaneously, in a living process , which Losev called the semantic movement (in our terms, the threefold process) to distinguish it from the movement of the non-existential (ordinary movement in our physical world). Combining these two categories together – rest and movement, he called it moving rest . Further, the one who lives there is not separated from the others, but also not dissolved until the complete loss of personality. This is similar to the eidos that Losev defined as singly divided or identically different(in his own terms). If this life takes place in time and space, as in Christ, who walked in Palestine, then this is a constant stay with God, constant communication with the Heavenly Father. And again, returning to the film by A. Tarkovsky “Andrei Rublev”, I recall the dialogue between Ave Andrei and Feofan Grek, who had already rested and appeared to Andrei “from there”, in which Feofan pronounces the phrase: “Everything is different there, as you’re represent here. ” The question arises: are there means (language) for expressing the process of the “course” of such a life? One example of the expression of the course of such processes, in my opinion, is in the history of the development of the human spirit, but the language expressing this is not verbal, but musical. I mean R. Wagner’s prelude to the opera Tristan and Isolde. For comparison, to make my point clearer, I will say first a few words about the overture of P.I. Tchaikovsky “Romeo and Juliet.”

So – “Romeo and Juliet.” Who does not know the charming sounds of the love theme of this symphonic poem! She bursts in like a stream of fresh air, and captures us with a picture of a love just acquired and hitherto unknown to two young people. There is no need to talk about this work by Pyotr Ilyich, because enough has been said about him. But for our theme, it is important to pay attention to the “graphic” nature of this music: we, observers, admire this picture, we are outside it!

One of R. Wagner’s contemporaries described the impact of the musical prelude “Tristan and Isolde” on the listener. I will give this description in my own words. If you have never experienced a true sense of love that captures your whole being, but you feel the music subtly, then, listening to the prelude “Tristan and Isolde” by R. Wagner, you, immersed in the world of this music, are completely captivated by it, it does not let you go, it makes you you will be tormented by the feeling expressed by her, the music “flows” like an endlessly lasting melody. You and the author are experiencing the torment of love. But this love, I continue further my thought, is painted with carnal motives, it is not quite suitable for expressing the course of life “there.”

Closer to this expression, in theory, but not in musical embodiment, are the symphonic works of A.N. Scriabin (in progress – from the first symphony, through the “Divine Poem” to “Prometheus”). On the verge of two centuries – XIX and XX, intensely searching for his own way in music, he suddenly lights up with Wagner’s idea, but with reference to the expression and implementation of another process – the process of transforming humanity – its redemption, for entering into another, more perfect world, that- something like universal resurrection. It was supposed to be realized as a Mystery, flowing with the use of all conceivable and inconceivable musical means. It is clear how Scriabin himself reasoned. If by musical means you can “draw” a person into the living process of experiencing true love, like Wagner’s then why not go further and try, through musical and related means, to transform the whole being of a person and bring him to the kingdom of the Spirit, where he will constantly be, to live in the stream of this Mystery. These “ambitious” intentions of Alexander Nikolaevich were not destined to materialize. But what does it give us to complete the search for a language of expression of the “mechanism” of self-disclosure of a living eidos or Person? Maybe in the distant future, the language of living Logic will be expressed in the form of meditative music (an example of this is given by the statement of the ancient author Dmitry Falerius that “Egyptian priests under But what does it give us to complete the search for a language of expression of the “mechanism” of self-disclosure of a living eidos or Person? Maybe in the distant future, the language of living Logic will be expressed in the form of meditative music (an example of this is given by the statement of the ancient author Dmitry Falerius that “Egyptian priests under But what does it give us to complete the search for a language of expression of the “mechanism” of self-disclosure of a living eidos or Person? Maybe in the distant future, the language of living Logic will be expressed in the form of meditative music (an example of this is given by the statement of the ancient author Dmitry Falerius that “Egyptian priests undersinging hymns for the glory of the gods use seven vowels , which they pronounce in a certain sequence ; their singing is so harmonious that people listen to him instead of avlos or kifara. ”) But I am now interested in more suitable means of expression for our purposes.

Therefore, thirdly, we will try to combine our searches for expressing the “mechanism” of self-disclosure in the two previous approaches. In the latter approach, it was mainly about language, but in our case, language is inseparable from what it expresses. Hegel seems to be the first who not only emphasized, but also strive for it – find an adequate content nd themselves categories of language. Rather, he strove for the categories themselves to reveal themselves in the process of understanding them with our thought, i.e. so that our thought is “woven” into the content of categories, becoming their integral living “engine”. But the categories, as he took them in the most “pure” form, were “depersonalized” and lost their living face , inherent only to them . To verify this, just look at remark_1. The three “interlocutors” who appear, for example, in his “Phenomenology of the Spirit”, are our ordinary consciousness, the subject of this consciousness, and we, as observing the results of the interaction of the first two and making conclusions, are no longer as “depersonalized” as the categories his Logic, and one could take this idea as a basis, combining it with the “communicative version of Hesychasm” (see above). And for this you need to change everything, i.e. to consider the “Phenomenology” from the end, thereby continuing to unwind our analysis in a new circle.

Let us turn to the question posed at the beginning of a subtle analysis: why did God “decide to go out of Himself,” that is, to put oneself? – Let’s try to answer this question not logically, but mythologically. In Christian theological and philosophical literature, the fact of the absolute freedom of God (we discussed this at the beginning of my article in AB No. 27) is expressed by the phrase: “He could not have created the world,” emphasizing thereby that no need prevailed over the Absolute during creation . But in this phrase, the truth is no longer so obvious, another thought is also hidden, namely: creation does not add anything new to the disclosure of the Absolute, but rather, on the contrary, leads to its dispersal and destruction in matter. A.F. Losev in his Ancient Space and Modern Science, p. 184 ff. Not trying now (yet!and heavenly abode, i.e. to believe Himself, because all its fullness was in Him in an undifferentiated, indissoluble, in no way attainable form, and even this was not and could not be! Why did this happen? What was the point? I can only guess one thing! Missing Love ! Turns out that …

The mythological scheme of the beginning of the process of self-deployment

the essentials in the realm of heaven

The only, unrevealed, unattainable God, sacrificing (!) Himself, He, by His will, considers Himself. He has his own purpose believes no one other like himself. The moment of the denial of anything other than the statement of Himself (“ none other than Himself”) removes the statement (position) of Himself as One, since in the absence of another the being of the One becomes completely indefinite, as if “plunges” into the One. The result of the self-position disappears with the moment of denying another. There remains a clear indication of this process. By itself, this indication is simple. nothing . It is here only as a pure indication – an indication of the process of returning to the One. This process in relation to an indication of it or a sign becomes as if “in itself” (an indication is different in relation to the process, but different, generated by the process and, therefore, not separated from it), i.e. as if inside a sign. The trinity process, therefore, is now becoming the primary essence or substantial basis of a completely empty sign without it, and the sign is turning into a whole , which embraces and a pointer to the process that has becomeprimary essence, and the very essence, hidden in the “depth” of the sign, as a pointer to it, and the “mechanism” of self-disclosure of the primary essence. Understanding this integrity as the Body of God, we get Sophia – the wisdom of God, “encumbered” by the second Person of the Holy Trinity. The indication, as an energetic manifestation of the process of putting the One and removing the process of putting, is the message of the One, ” transmitted through ” the Body to the second Person, which receives the message and “transfers it back” through the Body, as received (“the baby stirred in the womb”). The Divine, having received a return message, is instantly filled with Love and begins to glow. “And God said, Let there be light. And the light became ”(Gen. I, 3). “The process of self-disclosure has begun!”. End of Subtle analysis of the result .

Epilogue

In the last scenes of the film “Solaris” by A. Tarkovsky, the central character of the picture, Chris Kelvin, falls ill. In a hallucinogenic state, his mother appears to him – young, carefully wiping his hands from the dirt. Tears streamed down Chris’s face, he pressed against his mother, an inexpressible feeling of love and longing fills his heart. And here is another scene in which Chris, recovering, leaves the hallucination and, waking up, does not find his “guest”. His co-worker Snout explains to him that the Ocean was picked up by the “guest” by annihilation. This should be understood in such a way that the Ocean, thanks to Chris’s unforgettable love at a subconscious level, understood this feeling (by means different from R. Wagner’s prelude and incomprehensible to us, the audience) and “lagged behind” the researchers, now realizing the whole depth of the state of “being human”. It seems he is ready to communicate, but in a different language! Overheard by the Ocean, a conversation between Snout and Chris, in which Snout advises Chris to return to the earth, prompts Him to create on his surface a “Father’s island of love” for Chris to keep the person he loves. Chris is again in his native corner, but looking unusual: frozen water in the pond (the Ocean does not know living water in the pond), pouring water in the form of rain, but inside and not outside the room (at the beginning of the film it rains outside, pouring tea cups ) However, Chris’s meeting with his father (their inner communication!) Is real, reminiscent of Rembrandt’s painting “The Return of the Prodigal Son”. And to top it off, everything is filling the light … Chris finds himself again in his native corner, but looking unusual: frozen water in the pond (the Ocean does not know living water in the pond), pouring water in the form of rain, but inside and not outside the room (at the beginning of the film it rains outside, pouring cups of tea ) However, Chris’s meeting with his father (their inner communication!) Is real, reminiscent of Rembrandt’s painting “The Return of the Prodigal Son”. And to top it off, everything is filling the light … Chris is again in his native corner, but looking unusual: frozen water in the pond (the Ocean does not know living water in the pond), pouring water in the form of rain, but inside and not outside the room (at the beginning of the film it rains outside, pouring tea cups ) However, Chris’s meeting with his father (their inner communication!) Is real, reminiscent of Rembrandt’s painting “The Return of the Prodigal Son”. And to top it off, everything is filling the light …