Absolute & relative love - Lovers dialogue - Preying or praying?

Alexander Golenkov, golenkov&mail.ru

Back to INDEX

Russian, no-Pyccki
Go over to the topic:
* prEying & prAying;
* de·FINing of Miracle;
* Binary Pagan Scheme;
* Quest for Inoe –
the only QUESTion in creation;
* Christian Truth as NOT "reverse side of lie";
* Chemistry & al·chemistry of existence;
* Vegetarianism;
* Pride as core of all sin;
* Dogmatic Conscience (DC);
* "Elle";
* "Discover";

L O V E R S
(about supreme love)

Introduction to
PHILOSOPHY OF FORM
– in a form of conversation between two lovers having had quarrel in a car which has just got under thunderstorm shower with whirlwind crashing a tree before its very windshield:

(He:) ...Stop it! But stEp into...
(She:) Again this of your "playing of words"?..
(He:) Yes:
Give up all this desperateness of your attempts to get out of the car but better try to get into what I am trying to say (or, indeed to CRY OUT) by my Philosophy of Form:
Now that we are under danger, this really HOLDS US FROM BECOMING ENEMIES TO EACH OTHER! (I know, it is THE LAW OF THIS WORLD, but now I'm talking of somewhat different...) <<<————————
Later I'll name this "Different" as "Inoe" and call this "Law of this world" as one of "De·FINing"...
<<<————————
(She:) Do you think, we may become so easily enemies?..
(He:) As only would disappear all ... OTHER ENEMIES!
(She:) Which enemies are you talking about?
(He:) In this particular case, the role of such enemy is played very well by the natural circumstance: thunderstorm, as you see, in which we have found ourselves locked in the car (and which even caused you to give up any attempts to open the car door on full speed but instead of that cling firmly to me). While as only you will leave the car ... – are there not enough enemies that you have (and different enemy-like circumstances) causing you still seek my support?..
<<<————

Philosophy
of
Form
as, above all,
practical meta·psychology

<<<————
(She:) You want to say, my love is completely defined by these dangerous circumstances?
Not completely (for it is also having some "sparkle of God" which only a fool would deny...) but to substantial degree. And namely –
de·FINed, i.e., outlined in its Limits, and thus – getting FORM without which it would become UN·deFINed (if only, of course, it were not altogether INde·FINite!). And then you will try to make it "more deFINite" ... ... ...
(She:) Oh, those Russians! Are you translating from Russian again certain "playing of words"?..
(He:) This time, it is French: "FIN" meaning "LIMIT" or "END". And so, to "de·FINe" is to put certain LIMIT, de·LIMIT, or simply – outline in its FORM (there can't be just any form without such Limit!). A little linguistical comment to such
"playing of words"
(in Russian version absent)
<<<<———————
<continued:> ...and then – you will try to make it "more deFINite" by any means, including those hysteric attempts to open the car door on full speed!..
(She:) Does it mean, all those "enemies" and "enemy-like circumstances" are so much needed for our friendship to be "Stronger than passion, greater than love" (as one of your Russian songs goes)?..
(He:) They are simply crucially needed! I told you: They give it its very FORM (while – what is more needed?..)!
(She:) So, here you are, with your "Philosophy of Form"!..
(He:) Here I am.
(She:) Couldn't you find any other, more suitable, circumstance to go on with it?
(He:) It is really hard to find any more suitable circumstance:
...I would even say, we are now observing a very rare natural phenomenon: when physical body (literally – the body of this car which has nearly escaped the falling tree) – is symbolizing to 100% meta·physical, even up to direct its em·BODYment! Just look at this tree cut by the lightning and whirlwind: the same will be with your head, as only you'll try to get it out from what physically is now this car, while meta·physically – our friendship and love. You see: you are locked just in it, and can't get out of it anywhere – without risking your head getting cut: at least, by this rain!..
<<<————

Initial
idea
of
"de·FINition"
by
Philosophy
of
Form

<<<————

From tape recorder is heard a song by Boris Grebenshikov:
"...He will come from afar, a sword of rain in his hand
...White wolf is leading him thru the woods
White eagle is tracing him from the sky
He will enter your threshold,
He is more miraculous than any miracle

(She:) You want to say, I am just "slave of the circumstances" which have bound me to you?..

(He:) It is hard not to speak of that when they ... not only "bound", but really –
de·FINe and de·TERMine so much that have literally en·CHAINED INTO FRAMEWORK by giving it FORM, as I said, without which you would be in my regard – not only "unbound".., but NOT REACHABLE (without saying - "not pREACHABLE") by any means! And I will cry out to you ("in the wilderness"), while you will pretend "not to hear", for being already de·FINed by completely different circumstances!
(He:) Do you think, I can simply betray you?

(He:) Very simply. Even more simply than Peter betrayed Christ (for you are – NOT Peter; while I am – NOT Christ).

(She:) What this life is, even when ... the most holy what can be in it is impossible without ...

(He:) Without the sinful! And so – it is sinful life. The life which has turned away from the Source of Life, or the Absolute...

(She:) You are again with your "sermon"!

(He:) What kind of a "sermon"? Let's take from a different side:
Without Absolute all is relative; it means that, for example, the light is the light only regarding the darkness (and not as such: "God is light in Whom there is no darkness at all" is here ... not only at all unacceptable, but unPERCEPtible even at all!); warmth – regarding the cold (this is far not like that warmth of non-created God's grace which, by the words of those who experienced it, "warms but not burns").., and, finally, friendship, any understanding and love – is only regarding, excuse me, the HATRED and EVIL MISUNDERSTANDING!!! (And if you find somewhere such relative "friendship" and "love".., be sure to ALSO SEEK SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO IT, FOR THE ACCOUNT OF WHAT IT IS HOLDING (EXISTS)!..)
(She:) Horror! It means that someone to love is someone to hate...

(He:) "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy"...

(She:) I don't want like that! ...Such a feeling that this sort of "friendship" and this sort of "love" is ... as if "fed on hatred", and is going by its roots deep into animosity! If it "vitally needs" it. If "There are no friends without enemies", it simply ... EATS them! Just simply EATS! A feeling of being like "cannibal"... Just a feeling of "human flesh" on my lips!..

(He:) This is very exact feeling; and I'll tell you more:

"If you would not eat the Flesh of Son of Man
and drink His Blood,
you would not have life in yourselves".

(She:) These words of Jesus became "common words"! I heard them so often of a priest... Without mentioning those protestant preachers ...

(He:) They often do not understand what are preaching...

(She:) "...But He taught as one having power, and not like the scribes and the pharisees" (Mt.7:28). Isn't it too much that you take on yourself?
(He:) That's the scribes and the pharisees (including contemporary pharisees: the priests, and contemporary scribes: the protestants) who "take too much"; although in some other respect – "very little", causing others to take all the rest. For "binding heavy burdens..." (Mt.23:4), without themselves moving a finger to what they themselves simply don't understand: calling for some "OTHER LIFE" and "angelic-like being" while living by the predatory means – PREYING instead of PRAYING, without even any smallest idea of neither what I am now saying nor what themselves do they say!
What do you call by this interesting pLaying of words: "prEying instead of prAying?..
(He:) Living by PREY, instead of prayER (I suppose), if to put it still using the playing of words...
(She:) No; without such "playing"; can you put it in one simple word?
(He:) In one word?.. Then it will be ...
a Predator. Living as a predator.
(She:) Then, what do you mean by "Predator"?
(He:) What is meant by "Predator" at all (when you yourself even told of the "Feeling like human flesh on your lips..."): When something eats something of its own kind.
(She:) It is cannibalism!
(He:) Well, living as a predator is very close to cannibalism. The only difference is that there is some difference in those two kinds, but it is not substantial: so as to distinguish those two kinds completely!
(She:) What do you mean by that "very little difference"?
(He:) Don't you see? Predators eat FLESH, although THEY THEMSELVES are of flesh. It is EQUALLY flesh, but "a little bit different".
(She:) For that matter they called "carnivores".
(He:) But ANY creation eating another creation is, in a sense, "carnivore"! For it just consists of THE SAME CREATION (same "MATERIAL", "FLESH" of creation)!
(She:) Creations are different!
(He:) In relative sense. Regarding each other.
(She:) You always need "absolute"?!..
(He:) Well, in absolute sense, they are same, for, at least, are equally of the creation. And so – they are likewise creations, consisting of ONE SAME MATERIAL ("FLESH OF THE BEING"): Creation!
(She:) So, saying "Flesh" you meant "Flesh of the Being", Creation?..
(He:) ANY flesh, because all flesh is Creation, and even entire Creation may be regarded as one same "material" ("flesh"!).
(She:) But of this flesh all around! Just all is creation; what else?..
(He:) The Creator!
(She:) Have you remembered Creator?..
(He:) "Is it a sin" to remember Creator?..*
*Note: It is REALLY SIN, by the Law of intestine de·FINitions inside of this world; see of that more in detail in my composition called Zapredel (which means "Beyond the Limit")...
By the way, CREATOR ALONE is really THE OTHER ONE in regard of creation!
(She:) You said, "The other one"?
(He:) In such sense that anOTHER; NOT SAME. For, all the rest compared to that is ALIKE to substantial degree... – As if to compare ... say, beasts with the angels: beasts also differ between one another, and so do the angels (of something like which even said in the Bible: "...Star differs from star in its glory", 1Cor.15:41); but those differences are ... as if "no differences at all" compared to angels with beasts and beasts with the angels!..
(She:) You have taken "too widely" this matter of "Preying"...
(He:) Indeed:
I am talking of preying existentially (think better how to PRAY EXISTENTIALLY!) and Predatory being! While, to the measure of their godlessness, people draw always differently the verge and the limit of "living as a predator" and "living NOT as a predator". For if not to regard all creation REGARDING Creator, this verge between preying and, in relative sense, "Not preying" (sometimes even prAying) has to be drawn somewhere inside of creation! And so: different people do this differently; and certain of them, for example, say "You may not eat certain animals", although "may others". Others – at all "vegetarians" (as if vegetation is "not of creation"), although sometimes it hardly prevents them from EATING THEIR FELLOW HUMANS in spiritual and moral aspect ("...Woe to you, pharisees, for you are devouring homes of widows", Mt.23:14, etc...). Of how all draw differently the verge between cannibalism and "just food"...
<<<————
this verge:
absolute
either
relative
...
(She:) So, in this namely sense you are talking of "preying".., while using so much misleading a word!
(He:) I'm talking IN ANY SENSE, about predatory being at all, without diVERGing to such separate "senses"!; of ONE Creation, ONE Creator, ONE Being.
<<<————

My
"EXISTENTIALLY
WIDENED"
UNDERSTANDING
of
"prEying
instead
of
prAying"
(predatory being)

<<<————

introductory notes
about
"The Other One"
by the scarcity of which is determined the cannibalism
(She:) May I now "catch" you: if to take ALL THE BEING?!..

(He:) "Except the Creator"?
(She:) Creator is also OF THE BEING, otherwise you can't say, He's EXISTENT, "WHICH IS" (otherwise – would you say "There is no God"?!..); hence – even if someone of creation would somehow contrive to "Eat the Creator".., it all the same would be a "predatory prEying" (not prAying!), following this of your logic, for "BEING IS SAME TO THE BEING" ...
(He:) The being of the Creator is in no way "same" to the being of anything of the creation!!
(She:) Then I may say that the being of anything of the creation is "not the same" to the being of anything else of creation!

(He:) While this is – THE SAME to substantial degree.

(She:) Where is the logic? In one case you say: "The same to substantial degree"; while in the other – ...

(He:) NOT SAME to substantial degree. And here is all logic. And here is all difference.

(She:) I am just trying to "catch" you: the "Sameness" you see in creation [even sufficient for accusing in cannibalism!] is, in your eyes, "Sameness" only because it is "same way creation".., but here is what can be said of the ENTIRE BEING: it's "SAME", for it's "EQUALLY BEING"..; otherwise – WHAT is it called by THIS ONE WORD: "Being"?..

(He:) Almost nothing.

(She:) How that?!..

(step by step, point by point:)

– I –

Initial idea of God
as
joining of
UP TO PAIN DIFFERENT (to all human)
and
UP TO PAIN THE SAME

at all: world contradictions
(in the creation) DENOTING CREATOR

————>>>

————>>>
By the way:
a
verbal
example
of
Apophatic
iconography

quite
naturally
born
The
Image
of
Mother
of God
and
Christ
————>>>
(He:) God's being is not like of any·thing else (for – not of "·thing" but Creator); He does not exist in any conventional form of existence; and even "FORM OF EXISTENCE" at all (for He is – Creator OF FORMS, BEYOND any "forms"...).
(She:) Can I say after that ... "There is no God"?
(He:) If that would help you.
(She:) "Help" ... in What?
(He:) In understanding of God's principal difference from any·THING (TO any·THING).
(She:) But... to be "different" ...
To be even "different", one has, first, TO BE (simply be), i.e., – to exist!!!
(He:)

————>>>
His existence is not like any other existence; and He even "different" – not in that sense in which all other is "different".
————>>>
He's differently different (!); – what paradoxically means <– how I will say later –> ... THE SAME (!!!): as, say, "two minuses" in mathematics signify "plus"..; the same here is:
His SAMENESS is only but DIFFERENT SIDE to such "TO THE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENT DIFFERENCE" (!) what really means ANOTHER SAMENESS: not same as anything else would be "same" in the world ("Not as the world gives do I give...", Jn.14:27); but the Sameness of Him is TO PAIN EVEN DIFFERENT!
[...That is indeed DIFFERENT TO ALL DIFFERENT, by the power of which – IDENTIC (the Same), by the power of which – ALL THE MORE DIFFERENT!!! Blindingly, limitlessly, impossibly different...; what – as we see, at all does not mean "different simply"...]
(She:) How, then, to call this "...Blinding, To Pain Even Difference"?..
(He:) In Russian, I call it: "INOE".
(She:) What does it mean?
(He:) Literally, this word is translatable as "not same", "the other one", "differing". But NOT SIMPLY; in some refined sense; and, besides that, is a very refined philosophical term which I could not find to translate in any dictionary... <<<<———————
Linguistical grounds
for using without translation as term word
INOE
(She:) I think, all such terms are acceptable even without translating... We have many words in the language which came from other languages, and so much filled with the meaning of their culture and sense that it makes even senseless any attempt to translate (to lose all that meaning and sense?..). Take, for example, such Sanskrit words as "Karma", "Nirvana", "Sansara"..; Greek "Eidos"; or, say, Japanese "Kamikaze"... I think that "Inoe" ... at least, no worse and deserves rightful place among them, for judging from what you have now said, and would enrich our language no less...
(He:) Thank you. I will try to use it without translating where possible...

THE CONVERSATION CONTINUES USING AS TERM WORD "INOE":
(He:) So, He is even INOE in no smallest degree as anything else in the world is "inoe" (or, "different")! [Different from all different!]
(She:) Indeed: "There is no God"!
(He:) There is no God as "any·THING of the creation". So, those who say "There is no God" sometimes even have MORE GROUNDS to that than those preaching "some God" but as certain "creation inside of creation"...
(She:) In any case, you can't say "There is no God"!
(He:) "A mindless man said in his heart: There is no God!",,. Sometimes even such "getting out of one's mind" is a WAY and a FORM of taking to one's mind THE OTHER (INOE)! For, this is OTHER (inoe) to ALL, even MIND: and so, without "getting out of one's mind", as you see, sometimes can't be "taken to mind".., sometimes even without right (even out·right) madness!
(She:) All the same, one can't say "There is no God", under no excuse!
(He:) Why? (Who told you this?) ["Who told you, Adam, that you are naked?",,..]
(She:) Just a... SOME PROHIBITION inside of me. You see ... I don't feel God to be some...ONE "Inoe", even "up to pain"; on the contrary: that is someONE PAINFULLY DEEP, PAINFULLY CLOSE which I feel inside, the MOST INNER, hidden in the innermost depth of soul..; so much even close and deep that CLOSER CAN'T BE. This justifies words of a poet: "You can not see face to face (all big is seen at a distance)"; that is why sometimes someone says: "There is no God".
By the way, from tape recorder is heard another song by B.G.:
"...You can be close but no closer than skin
But there is something greater, and it is so simple...
and other song:
"...You are very far from me
So far from me:
As air from fire,
Water from wave,
Heart from blood...
And here I'm falling, no more than 2 steps to the ground
God, see...
If really God was, as you say, "completely Inoe".., HOW, then, would He be, as you called it, "perCEIVED and reCEIVED" ("acceptable and perceptible")? And much more: you were saying of Him as a "FOOD"... But you see: FEEDing and FOOD presumes in its very principle certain CLOSENESS and LIKENESS: of one WHO feeds and the one who is FED. Otherwise – why mothers take their babies so closely (to their breasts) to feed them?! Otherwise – why their bodies are so constructed as it would provide by that the MAXIMAL CLOSENESS? And the nourishing substance itself can not carry in itself just "inoe": in this case it would be not a food but a "certain chemistry"! Although, I presume, you would call as "al·chemistry", from your side, also feeding with "too much The Same" (opposing that to "Inoe"), but you should agree, to get choked with superfluous "inoe" – is no more "joyful"!
(He:) I do not insist on its "superfluity"!
(She:) But HOW: You say, the Creator is totally different, even exclusively and completely "Inoe"!
(He:) He is not only "completely inoe"!
(She:) You want to say, He is inoe "not completely"?..
(He:) No; I said what I said: He is not only "completely inoe".
(She:) What really changes from changing by places two words?
(He:) Really all! In one case you talk of Creator while in another – creation!
(She:) Even so?!..
(He:) The matter is that the expression like this <– as I'll further explain -> is dogmatic; it means that ALL IN IT is so exact that even, at first look, "smallest change" may mean, in the global extent, CHANGE OF FAITH: from Creator to NON-Creator (it is really the case with Dogmatics where namely smallest infringement or change – means very often such Change!). Just look:
If these two words ["not only"] to put inside of the inverted commas (de·FINing thus word "inoe") and say: Inoe "not only completely".., this brings in certain admixture into the notion of Inoe making it NO MORE PURE: "diluted", "not full" and, besides all, LIMITed – transferring it all to Creator Who can not be neither "limited", nor "de·FINed".., while from other hand – CAN really ALL (omnipotent), and in particular – being COMPLETELY INOE, can also be SOMEONE MORE: differently from the very word "different" (or, "inoe") which is, by itself, – merely word, and against such limitations defenseless... Can we really say that Creator is Inoe in "only some limited sense"?! [Some blasphemous-like "Creator limited"...] – Surely NOT! But saying: "Inoe" we just – "denote Creator", and note (at least, "in our vocabulary") "that very place" from which to go further in realizing Creator. – This is why this word: "Inoe" should be LIMITLESSLY INOE, EXCLUSIVELY, not carrying in itself any smallest limitation, "admixture", "inclusion", nor "shade"! [For "God is light in Whom there is no darkness at all"...]
(She:) I think, word "exclusive" just says for itself, and saying: "exclusively and completely inoe", you can't add to it nothing more, for you just EXCLUDE BY THIS WORD anything!
(He:) I exclude it in the exclusiveness itself, but ... BY THIS VERY EXCLUSIVENESS – not exclude anything! Just listen attentively how I say: Not only "Completely inoe", Not only "Inoe exclusively". Where do you find here "excluding"? On the contrary: "Not only" presumes something else, but – not in this "very exclusiveness", outside it; while the Exclusiveness very itself remains "PURE LIKE WATER"!
(She:) ...Don't you call as "dogmatic" this ability to "go out of water dry", or – just changing two words – "pass between two fires and not burn"?!..
(He:) You know, Dogmatics is OF THE FIRE (expressing in earthly human words The Inexpressible and Unearthly); and I even have composition called "Ognennoe" – which means "The Fiery" – where NAMELY THIS call as "dogmatic"!
<<<————
First mentioning of Dogmatics
(what will further develop into
what I call
as
"Dogmatical Conscience")

"Ognennoe"
<<<————

Ab·SOLUT
and
Eu·aggeli'um
————>>>
(She:) But I see, when people in the world are talking of some "exclusiveness", they try to achieve it EXCLUDING JUST ALL: be it "inside", or be it "outside". Be it "national" exclusiveness (and "racial purity"...), godless "purges" or religious "purifying of faith"...
(He:) This is but the "Image of this world"; why do you take it? In the world <– as the maddened creation which has forgot its Creator –> is reigning the "law of the jungle", that is the one of "winning the place under sun" by squeezing out and supplanting, fencing out and excluding... Not this in Creator:
(He:) The "Exclusiveness" here means MOVEMENT IN COMPLETELY ANOTHER DIRECTION than the one which is "obvious" from the logic of this world. For, by this logic, if something is "not exclusive", than it INCLUDES (something else): certain "admixture" and "dirt"..; – here is the sense of exclusively and completely INOE: in Him there is no "admixture and dirt"; "God is light in Whom there is no darkness at all".
(She:) ...Isn't it what is called: "Absolute"?..
(He:) I would even translate Ab·solut as "mixture-free"!
(She:) Why?
(He:) Because it is from same <Latin> root as the word "SOLUTion"; and so, ab·Solut is "Out of any Solution", does not enter to any solutions, as well as THEY – in it... "Indissoluble", rejecting just any solution": i.e., ab·SOLUTE.
(She:) "Ab·solving and not dis·solv ..."
But ... if God was only such Ab·SOLUT.., what are we talking about?.. Maybe, He "somewhere exists".., but does not allow us to Himself (we are – "admixture" and "dirt"...), does not join with anything in this world and does not allow anything to join Him... One can only abstractly know that "He exists".., but NOT TO UNDERSTAND EVEN THIS: because NOTHING AT ALL "understandable" and "perceptible" is at all from Him given!
(She:) This is namely what I were talking about: To make such a joining, one needs certain "bridge": of SAMENESS and LIKENESS; – so that God literally came to us, took us by hand, and led...
(He:) Namely this is what happened in Christ, according to Go[d]spel.
...It is even how Christ is portrayed on some icons: Descending by bridge (in a form of the Cross) even down to hell, taking Adam by hand...
Even ... hardly with any idea of that,you now have drawn before me much more capturing icon: that of the Mother-of-God with Christ! This is how these images are – literally engraved in Creation, and one comes to them most naturally, if only listens inside of oneself ("Be attentive to yourself and the teaching", 1Tim.5:16), and looking most deeply in the surrounding world.
(She:) If you agree with all what I say, what is the argument?..
(He:) That ALL THIS TOGETHER and TO THE MOST PURE, UTMOST DEGREE: both Sameness and Difference! At full limit!
(She:) At such "full Limit" you would not be understood, but would be <if to put it thru your own words> somehow "de·LIMITed" and accused in the "breaking of limits" (i.e., certain "heresy")! Moreover, in what you have now said, there are more than enough pretexts for this. For example: by the Gospel, God became just LIKE MAN (SAME to man); how, then, do you say of "such an appalling degree of Inoe"... Are you denying the Gospel"?!..

(He:) The Gospel has to be understood and accepted dogmatically: not as "one thing by rejecting of others".

(She:) What do you call as "dogmatic"?

(going over to next point:)

– II –

Dogmatical understanding
of
Gospel
as
MIRACLE

————>>> (He:) What was taking place in the souls and hearts of those first people (of the orthodox Jews) who were standing before Jesus Christ, and was later reflected (by the same very people who became disciples of Christ and Apostles) in the dogmatical Christian teaching: that is why I call it "dogmatic".
(She:) And so ... what was taking place in their souls?
(He:) "...You search to kill Me because My word does not reconcilingly find place (peace) in you" (Jn.8:37):
By the Old Testament teaching, GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN ("The Other One", different, the inoe); while here is a Man (Jesus Christ) saying "He is God"... Namely this is what could not reconcile in their hearts causing hatred and rage (and if to look in the Gospel, NOTHING ELSE caused in them such a hatred and rage!): for what did they finally crucified Him at all (trying thus to "solve in their favor" the Contradiction which came up in their souls). But some believed Him. So:
How did they believe?
Could they do that by the price of rejecting the faith of their fathers? By rejecting the Old Testament basics?
In this case they would be the worst of the people: no better than Judas betrayers of their faith!; so you are asking me: "Don't I betray Gospel"?.. "I came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill" (Mt.5:17). I tell you: they could do this only thru JOINING OF THIS AND THAT (incompatible in the world). This is what I call as dogmatical synthesis. For, namely this is reflected in the – dogmatical – teaching describing exactly the image of joining of God and Human in Christ.
(She:) You said: "describing"?..
(He:) Yes.
(She:) But what is here "to describe", if they simply joined?..
(He:) They are NOT "simply joined", as joined anything else in the world! We will talk of that later, for now is much more important the following: 1-st mentioning of what we'll further see as
The Dogmatical Principle of
"Inseparable and non-coalescent"
<<<——————
And so: if in Him ... even Human and God so joined.., this (and FAITH in this) is ordering to be joining ALSO ALL OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD by the same given Image. In the light of what:
Does namely this surprise you so much that I say: "Exclusively God" and then: "Exclusively Human"?!..
(She:) From such a "head-on" collision by naming of so much obvious contradictions I'm just getting dizziness! "One thing excluding another" and both, at same time, together!
(He:) Yes; namely "head-on collision". It's PAINFUL, but – only because He, together with being Inoe, has also become UP TO PAIN SAME as we are: if only to follow Eu·aggel'ical (evangelical) Story of Him, or – literally "Good News".
(She:) This is also quite a "worn-out" word: not only by "protestants and the priests" but by different kind of advertisers..; now here you are with "Good News"...
(He:) The question is – WHAT do they "preach" as "God News"?
(She:) And what do you?
(He:) That God has embodied (in Christ) thus becoming in all just exactly the same as we are (sometimes clarified: "Except sin"...). What kind of "God News" do you follow? THIS? Why, then, you ask so much stupid questions?..

Dogmatical understanding
of
Gospel
as
MIRACLE

————>>> (She:) I ask them only because I can not understand: How is it possible?!
(He:) Then, at least, start by understanding that it is most needed:
You should agree, having become just like we, He also has to REMAIN ONESELF; otherwise – WHO has become this "Other one" (just as "we are"...)? If it will no longer be "HE", this last thing would be no better than first: Before God was unreachable, for being Holy Absolute.., while now – vice versa: some person (or, just "someone of creation") says he is "embodied God" [by the way, MANY say that...], while already by that having no idea of any "ab·SOLUTeness": having joined (dis·solved oneself) with different kind of creation (and even sometimes copulated: as, for example, it follows from the Hinduism where some "avatars" did not disdain even this...).
But ... as He was Absolute, so He has to remain, and by that – also do all what you now say!
(She:) I really say: HOW AT ALL IS IT POSSIBLE?!
(He:) Only by miracle. And thus we are coming to all the miraculousness of "Word getting flesh"...
Perplexity and confusion around miracle
————>>>(Part of the dialogue which really took place not here, while here is given only TO EXPLAIN WHY the girl so easily did agree with the idea...) (She:) You know, "Miracle" is such a notion ...
(He:) Well, what "a notion"?
(She:) Not notion even at all! Especially, when it is put into a row of other "too specified" notions...
(He:) It is right; miracle can not be put in no "common row". But that is not because it "does not meet the requirements" (of the "common row") but simply because EXCEEDS ANYTHING!
(She:) "Ambiguity of an old granny". Explain this logically!
(He:) Here is a very exquisite logical explanation:
What is "common row"? That's when one certain thing is de·FINed by the neighboring things: "from left and right", "up and down", all sides: namely WHY those things can be so easily drawn one from another, and one by another EXPLAINED: what gives, in its turn, explanation why people used to such kind of things – usually ask to explain some·thing by any·thing else, and even call this: "de·FINe" . And indeed:
If the thing (in that "common row") is COMPLETELY de·FINed by surrounding things.., they would STILL "DRAW" OUTLINES OF ITS FORM EVEN IN ITS OWN ABSENCE: even if at the place of it, for example, would form "empty space", or "white spot" (in the people's heads...)
Now – namely these people (with "white spots" in their heads) TRANSFER THIS TO MIRACLE. They think, miracle also "can be de·FINed" (if it only exists) (otherwise – they say – miracle "DOES NOT EXIST", and believe not in miracle). But miracle is indeed NOT OF THIS ROW: as simply NOT SUBJECT OF deFINition: Not even "by definition itself" (as is often said) but because it is OUTSIDE OF ANY de·FINitions AT ALL (moreover can not be "entirely de·FINed from all sides" as these things are...).
Now: What, then, is done when the miracle is approached from the position of those same inter·relational (inner·creational) de·FINitions? Doesn't it demonstrate only GODLESSNESS?! Or, just underlines the ability to perceive only relative things, every one of them just de·FINed by the others?.. While the question: By what ALL IS (IF ONLY) de·FINed [and – WHERE DOES ALL OF THIS GO?..] is not simply posed! – The question of SENSE is not posed. But, instead of that, again and again rush into senselessness of intestine de·FINitions which are giving only but visible "likeness of sense" (sometimes even called as "passion", and "fervor", and "ardor"), till all those things relatively co·rrelate (even though the sentence itself "relatively co·rrelate" indicates SHEER SENSELESSNESS!). While, in ABSOLUTE sense, all those "(inter)relations" are equal to zero.
(She:) You mustn't judge people this way! From other side, they need understanding: What if, under guise of some "talking of miracle" someone would shift them a "cat in a sack"(*), say: "do not look", "do not think", "do not compare", "do not co·rrelate", "do not seek any proof"; this is a "holy God's miracle", and one who does not believe it, will go directly to hell!..
(She:) Even without any "talking of miracle" they already have a dead rotten dog shifted them under!
* Note: "Cat in a sack" is a Russian saying meaning "Who knows what", "unknown object" which has to be first bought, and only then seen...
(She:) Concretely our case:
You have said that the joining of unjoinable in the world ["absolutely INOE" to the human kind and "absolutely THE SAME"] is possible only "BY MIRACLE". But – how do I know, it is really so? Really: "by miracle" ANYTHING possible, even impossible! That is why any "reference to the miracle" is just turning into artful trick to "portray as the absolute truth" whatever that be!
(He:) As for this our case, I have already provingly mentioned the need and necessity for such miracle. I have led to it really – by logic AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. And if it is "not miracle", and if this Miracle simply "does not exist".., how can exist all the rest – what is based on such miracle; what is coming TO it and FROM it (converging to it and diverging...) – including that MOST SPECIAL LOGIC generated by it which is even called in one of the Church canons "Light of Mind", "Light of Reason":
"By your Birth, Christ our God,
begun shining to world Light of Reason"...
So: How on earth this UNEARTHLY WISDOM (incomparable with anything else in the world) can be without such a ... MIRACULOUS Source?!
Or, does it just all "break up into chaos", "fly into emptiness" ("goes to hell") after that?!; – so that: no sense; no reason remains..; what remains is to just go mad, "go wild" and together with pigs fill up one's stomach with pods (from the parable of "Prodigal Son", Lk.15:16), or – together with wolves and wild dogs to howl at the moon [till your days on earth would reach their Limit, the nature and essence of which you simply don't understand!].
No; i tell you:
Miracle is an example (a piece) of FIRST-CREATED, INITIALLY-WHOLE being, not <yet> broken to anything; to say otherwise, it is a piece of the being not yet rushed into mutual intestine de·FINitions (or, BEating!), and so – is looking as NOT COMPOSED of anything and CAN NOT BE DECOMPOSED to anything else: Neither to any "logical chains", nor to any other "chains of de·FINitions"; to NOTHING; but namely BY THAT is the source of all logic! (For the source of logic has to be, most obviously, ABOVE·LOGICAL!) Miracle is ALWAYS FROM THE CREATOR DIRECTLY: always Theophany, or – "Expression, Manifestation of God".
(She:) From other hand, take into account that ANY religion has ITS OWN "miracles" which it takes for the sources of ITS OWN "wisdom" and "light of the mind"...
(He:) Their mind is too much diverted, and their logic is too much perverted, and their "wisdom" is folly..; anyway, after that ... ortho...making of mind ...
(She:) You said ... "ortho...making"?!.. It sounds even little ridiculous. What do you mean?
(He:) Making right. "Orthos" means "Right" in Greek, or – "Direct": as in the word "Ortho...Dox", for example. I did not find any better way to convey the idea.
Just look in the dictionary:
Ortho·graphy – correct spelling;
Ortho·pedy – the curing of deFORM(!)ities and diseases of bones... (etc...)

(She:) You are searching for word meaning such a "correction of mind" (as in this case "bones")?
(He:) Yes! It exists; simply I don't know how to convey it to English. There is a prayer called "Correction of mind", icon called "Correction of mind" (or, "Adding of mind", in some other version...). So:
So: after such a Correction of mind, nothing would help. And – if it is "NOT SO" ("not right"), nothing is "right"!
(She:) Also take into account that ALL can be miracle, only NOT ALL would see it AS miracle. The same "Word getting flesh" in the incarnation of Christ is seen as a miracle by very few, even among Christians. Same is all the rest!
(He:) That is what I say: In the miraculous light of the embodiment of God in Christ – LITERALLY ALL has to be seen as "first time created", or – miracle! All world is a miracle; and only the PASSIONS OF INTESTINE de·FINition prevent from seeing it in this light!
(She:) Well; taking into account all those "drawbacks", I would agree.
(Note: This part of the dialogue really took place not here, while here is given only TO EXPLAIN WHY the girl agreed so easily with the idea: thus SETTING FREE the discussion to go over right to the following:)
(continued from words:) "...only by miracle. And thus we are coming to all the miraculousness of "Word getting flesh"...
("...He is more miraculous than any miracle...")
(She:) You really brought me to this far not the way the religious "scribes and the pharisees" do!

(He:) You also brought me to plenty of things in extraordinary way:

– III –

– III –

"BINARY PAGAN SCHEME"
as
the expression
of those two elements of which can be already composed the being

————>>> Beyond the icon of Mother of God with Christ, you have drawn before me that COMMON SCHEME, by the power of which one already can BE.
(She:) Have I?!..
(He:) We have quite "used out" already the notions of "Sameness" and "Difference"..; by the way, namely these are TWO COMPONENTS of which can be already COMPOSED THE BEING:
Just like, for example, for physics, all physical being consists of so-called "elementary particles" – "protons", "electrons" (atoms and molecules).
(She:) And you found something beyond?..
(He:) There is a much more refined world beyond all the physical...
(She:) Of such "refined" or – "thin" worlds (or, "thin bodies") are talking occultists!..
(He:) These "worlds" of theirs – exist?!
(She:) Why do you ask?
(He:) If they don't exist, what is the reason of talking of them?.. (By the way: is it even of "no interest" to them?!..) In any case, for further talking with me it is VERY IMPORTANT. But in ANY case:
There are elements MUCH MORE BASIC than those of which they are talking, that is: of which THEY THEMSELVES are consisting; of which THEIR "BODIES" (and "worlds") all consist: be it those "thin" or "thick" ("materially-embodied" and "roughly-physical")...
From tape recorder is heard a song by Boris Grebenshikov:
"...There is a verge after which iron no longer wounds
But the blind does not see
while intelligent does not know
(She:) And ... what is that?
(He:) ...It was not in vain that I were asking WHETHER THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTION EXIST, or – HAVE PART IN THE BEING: for if they DO EXIST, they should, first of all, consist of the SAME TWO ELEMENTS of which the entire of being (existence) consists.
(She:) And you can name them?!
(He:) You have named them yourself (though in a little bit different form): "Sameness" and "Difference".
(She:) I've done it ... quite naturally, "spontaneously": not thinking too much; and can hardly grasp, to what by all this are you now going...
(He:) In the world there are many things which take place "spontaneously", "naturally": for example, quite naturally THE BEINGS ARE BORN (ONE BY ANOTHER) INTO THE BEING; although even those of them which are "MOST INTELLECTUAL" (I mean, me and you) do not quite understand THE MECHANISM how it happens... By the way ... it is not at all needed to be "to much intelligent" to give birth (as it is easily done even by "most mindless" creatures!). The same here is: when you name NATURALLY quite NATURAL THINGS.
(She:) And you try them to explain "from the point some high idea"?..
(He:) And even FAR-GOING. For I call this a "Binary Pagan Scheme".
(She:) What does it mean: "Binary"?
(He:) Consisting of two (only two) elements: Sameness and Difference.
(She:) Then explain, what do you see behind "Sameness" and what do you see behind "Difference"?..
(He:) The element of the Sameness I have already explained: Any being (in a sense of "creature") is BEING BORN into the being (in a sense of "existence"), i.e., – in a certain sense is THE SAME to the Being (and PARENT which brought it to Being).
(She:) And in some sense – NOT "same"?..
(He:) Surely! It is – IT, and not "ITS" parent! (Don't you see in these two words: "IT" and "ITS" already the difference?) And indeed:
·
1. (the Sameness element:) To be, one needs first of all to have SOMETHING IN COMMON ("THE SAME") with the Being, or – what ALREADY EXISTS; otherwise – HOW (having "NOTHING IN COMMON" with what ALREADY EXISTS) anything can, too, exist?!..
————>>>
Isn't in this very word "too" is already the Sameness?!..
And then – THAT SAME being (which has some·thing else), will be COMMUNicated (by this "something COMMON") to some·thing else.
————>>>
Although, between these two "some...things" already is seen all the Difference:
2. (the Difference element:) The being (new-born into being) can not be in all only SAME as ITS parent.
————>>>
Doesn't this word very: "ITS" already lets feel all the Difference?.. And so:
It also has to DIFFER FROM PARENT, BY SOMETHING.
(She:) By what, then, to differ?..
(She:) Indeed: in this parent CAN HELP NO MORE (with its "Sameness")! This is why:
Any being new-born into being sooner or later leaves parent's home, directing one's way to ... inoe! It needs namely ... to come something across in HEAD-ON COLLISION: to "butt", "gore" or "spur".., so as – in result of such clash – acquire existentially DISTINCTIVE PERSONAL TRAITS: those of character, of psychology, METAPHYSICAL FORM ...
(She:) You want to say that this form is acquired namely by the way of such "head-on collision", by "pressing it out ... from other such "Same"?!..
(He:) Just look what there would be between two such "Same" in case they are together; be it two cock(-bird)s or two (he-)cats...
(She:) Is it really that this form is acquired thru such terrible way: "toothy collision" and "horny clash"?!..
(He:) Namely this is what I call: "de·FINition"! (WHAT ELSE, would you think, do I call by this name?!..) de·FINition is namely – "toothy" and "horny"... Just look how it's done in the animal and, by the way, human world:
No nation has received its being somehow otherwise as in the result of war, namely: COLLISION with some other nation: which has namely FORMed it by de·FINing its FACE in the being in all of its proper identity...
"Being" in this sense is BEATing; it's not in vain that I put these two words together!
(She:) What a surprise! I never thought that the war is of so deep root! I thought, wars are somewhat accidental: the peoples "failed to peacefully share something"..; or, say, "for resources"...
(He:) They would in any case spend much more of those "resources" to war than, under all possible circumstances, could "gain" from it! And if to look into history, the only thing they were doing is: creating economic potentials to further collide them in military collision! Here is where namely is manifest the PAGAN BINARY SCHEME of which I have said: it's not enough simply "moment of Sameness"; but also Difference needed; so here is how they trying, thru wars, to differ themselves from each other...
...And if to say of that REAL RESOURCE which they trying to gain thru all this.., this is – not "material" but existential resource, i.e., ONE OF THE BEING, and its name is INOE!
For the moment of Sameness allows just only to "be".., while this last one – to be oneself!
(She:) Is it really that these two (only two) components enough for the being (and much more, for being oneself)?!
(He:) Not only "enough", but ... BESIDES BEING SELF-ENCLOSED, this scheme is very much SELF-SATISFIED and boasts in all possible ways that except these two doesn't need anything!
(She:) Indeed, proud "binary scheme"!

(He:) I verily told you: Binary Pagan Scheme!

(She:) Why, then, is it "pagan"?

(He:) Because this is what in the basis of paganism: nations de·FINe their national identity in their mutual fight; while nations themselves are FORMations of INNERLY SAME (MONO·LITHICAL) kind; – when this very word: "NATIO", translated from Latin, is from the same root: "kind".

(She:) "Natio" – from "birth"!

(He:) I mean, "kind" in a sense ("in a kind") of "HUMAN KIND", which implies BIRTH.
(She:) Name better the Russian word with which you are "playing"...
(He:) "NaROD".
(She:) What is "na", what is "ROD"?..
(He:) "ROD" is "KIND", while together with "Na·" may be translated as ... "All what was born".
This is how in the word of the language itself is already reflected the 1st component of the mentioned scheme.

(She:) And the 2nd?..

– IV –

Main question inside of creation:
HOW TO GET
INOE

————>>>

as
even
THE ONLY
(sic!)
"WORLD INTEREST"

About
THE ONLY
(sic!)
interest
of
the
world
...
————>>>
(He:) Namely the QUEST for the 2nd is the QUESTion of WHAT'S ABOUT ALL QUEST IN CREATION! Why peoples are warring?; why, then, all other creatures are so much angry and militant "wanting for something"?..
(She:) Do you really want to say that you know answer to such "global" questions? Can you really now indicate WHAT IS MOVING THE PEOPLES and "other creations" as well in all of their aspirations?
These are the questions which people in different – social and political – science are trying to solve without much success...
(He:) They are moved by the same thing in all of their science!..
(She:) WHAT's that?
(He:) The QUEST FOR INOE!
(She:) Well ... From what you now said, the search for such element in the creation appears to have "very gloomy perspectives": if all the creation is "same to substantial degree", "alike to itself" ...
(He:) "Same to itself", "Self-same".
(She:) Well, "Self-same"... Where, then, to find it?!
(He:) And – where to find it INDEED?!.. Namely this is what's making the life in creation at all even interesting!
(She:) You said: "Interesting"?!..
(He:) Yes.
(She:) Simply ... too strange word, in such relation!
(He:) It's even really the only thing which is of interest at all in creation:
Would you look at the animals wantoning at the meadow, or would you look at the people making in principle SAME THING but in "much more refined" ("sublimated") spheres: say, those of "art", inter-personal relations and "(geo·)politics"...
...And special interest for that people is to look at that animals frisking and frolicking at the ground in their games and intrigues assimilating some traits of men: "walking at hind paws", for example..;
Then, looking at this, people are usually laughing...
But people are crying:
When something in man resembles a beast!
Though, in this and that is THE SAME kind of being: relatively-intestine, predatory.., not one of prayER but pREY...
Here is namely where all the adroitness, recoursefulness, shiftiness of the creatures in the creation! Just look, how "shifty" they are turning "head over heals" at the ground!
(She:) Don't be so "shifty" with words!
(He:) I really mean what I mean:
If all in creation is in its principle SAME, how then, nevertheless, extricate to ... "gain", "procure", "obtain", even "mine" and "squeeze out" INOE?!.. From SAME – would you "squeeze out" anything "not same"? Nevertheless, they manage to do this!
Why not a best topic for mostly capturing TV program "Incredible, though fact" (or, under such name: "Extreme of the Being")?! But ... in such a dimension, REALLY ALL TV programs are changing their names to "Incredible, though fact" (and "Extreme of the Being")!!!
(She:) It's just a best way to go mad!
(He:) Yes: intelligent man just chooses what to watch on TV, and at all – what to look at (just seats with TV program and looks...); while here – you would really be "glued" to the screen, greedily capturing all; and much more – LIFE ITSELF!!!
By the way, from tape recorder are heard the last notes of song:
"...There is a verge after which iron no longer wounds
But the blind does not see
while intelligent does not know
About those who "Sake Christ lost their minds" ...

(She:) Stop! I can't any more (unless lose my mind!).
(He:) Then – STOP AT ALL to be interested with this, let it become disgusting and weary for you, to be caught with thirst for really INOE!
By the way, at tape recorder another song by B.G. started:
"...And if you want, walk by water
Or become different
But he whispers: God holy,
Teach me
The name of my thirst!..
(She:) "...So that you will thirst the Heavenly Bridegroom instead of all these..." ... in relative sense, "different"! (i.e., "inoe") [Note: Besides all, "inoe" is my internet nick]

(He:) Not "instead of" but TOGETHER WITH.

(She:) Is that "from the point of view of Dogmatical Synthesis"?..

(He:) Marriage in Christianity is mostly symbolic and mostly mysteric. This is why I can call it dogmatic. Although, dogmatics – not so in this particular case; but how AT ALL:
Should one at all apply the partition of pride in fencing off by one side.., or the faith in Christ principally requires synthesis of both of such sides everywhere and in all?
(She:) With such a "synthesis" you may go too far!

(He:) And without it you would not go anywhere; what remains is just stick into what you are.

————>>>
*In Russian word "ISTina", "Truth", comes literally – from "IS"

These
are
really
the
motives
which
reign
in
the
present
day
Russian
Orthodox
Christianity
————>>>

"Mein Kampf
fuer
...
ISTina"

or

ISTina
and
"Mein Kampf"

?!?!?!...

————>>> (She:) I think that to realize WHAT YOU ARE is first stage in realizing WHAT IS(*), that is – TRUTH(*).
(He:) Only first.
(She:) But ... without the first, you can go no further! What would be otherwise basis for further realization of Truth?!
(He:) While without all further ... what is such "basis" for?!..
(She:) It seems to turn into argument "What is more important": the first or all next ("head or body")...
(He:) Not at all. I'm not at all in the mood to oppose such stages. Important is ALL. And what's more important – that's even not "stages" themselves but JOINING of them. The question of HOW and of the WAY of such Joining is namely the one of Dogmatics.
(She:) And so: HOW and WHAT IS THE WAY (of such Joining)?..
(He:) I'll tell it later.
...Really, I'm now missing indeed this lacking element.., simply NOT TIME to stop on it yet. 2-nd mentioning of what we'll further see as dogmatical principle of
"Inseparable and non-coalescent"
<<<———————
(see of that below)
While you DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DOGMATICS, if so easily ... oppose to each other such "stages", such sides; – even "quite naturally", as you say...; – opposing same way just ALL and ALL, even bringing it up to "kind of automatism": if I say one thing, find automatically objection to it by opposing to it some another.
(She:) It seems to be only natural...
(He:) This is namely why I call it "automatism" (by the way, speaking of NATURE to which it is "natural"...).
(She:) What otherwise I have to do? Simply agree with you in all?..
(He:) I told you, WHAT: Join THIS and THAT!
(She:) And what's further?..
(He:) Not even "What", but Creator!
(She:) Do you say it ... "Dogmatically"?..
(He:) At least, it is a principal of Christian Dogmatics.
(She:) I do not find there Creator but find only EMPTINESS! If I just accept all what you say having in all agreed, WHAT'S FURTHER? I don't find anything further at all!
While ... If I OBJECT, I find in this a possibility of certain development: You will insist on your own, I – on mine.., and in the result we'll be getting together to something..; "Arguments are bringing out the truth", as is said. At least, I see in this MUCH MORE TRUTH than in accepting of all what you say!
(He:) I say just of such kind of "automatism":
Does it mean that to ANY assertion or premise (whatever that be) you have to find automatically in one moment "the opposite", and "take position" on it?
(She:) Namely so!
(He:) But...
Does it mean that it has to be done ... even far not because that assertion (or premise) is "not true enough" (or "erroneous").., but ONLY BECAUSE this is a way of what you call as "Development"? That is ... even if on the contrary, I would make CONTRARY statement, you would ALL THE SAME take the contrary?!..
(She:) The matter is not in this "statement" itself ...
(He:) But in the "Development"!..
(She:) In any case, it can not be "true enough", "fully true". You say yourself about anything in this world being LIMITED. This is why, in any case, it is capable to express ONLY PARTLY the Truth! Hence ... naming, from my side, in opposition to it something contrary.., I am SERVING the Truth; – although, maybe, do not say anything "more true" than what you say, and may even not see the Truth itself..; all the same: I am serving the course of realization of Truth!..
(He:) I see, you are a "fighter for the idea truth"!
(He:) I am simply FIGHTER.
(He:) Does it mean that "for Truth" one has to war? By this, doesn't matter too much, "at whose side?". – Whatever side! The main is – to "chose the side" which, in your eyes, is "more close to Truth". But even this doesn't matter. For even the opposite side – "not so much far" from it. And, in the relative sense, "little nearer – little farther" is of no crucial meaning. Of meaning is only THIS WAR ITSELF! This is – "holy of the holies", for ONLY THRU IT in this case possible ANYTHING holy! [For example, in the war of two tyrants – Stalin and Hitler – it is really hard to decide "who was closer to the Truth"..; this is why it's DECIDED BY WAR where WINS THE STRONGEST!..] So ... be you, for example, "Croat" – war against "Serbs", or be you "Serb" – war against "Croats"; the truth is far not in that you are "Serb" or "Croat"..; the truth is in MAKING OUT THE TRUTH in the process of war!
I just remember one image of the Yugoslavian war:
One woman in Sarajevo, every morning, instead of, apparently, "morning prayer" (or ... "such was the prayer"?!..), used to go out to her balcony with machine-gun and shoot over first the locality to the right, then the locality to the left; and being asked "Why does she do it?" (indeed: if you are warring, do it, at least, at SOMEONE's ONE SIDE, with certain de·FINite AIM), she gave a very symbolic answer: "One has something to do for the city!". So – are you preparing to "make something" for the "world development"? (or, at least, "for development", in your eyes, of "relations between me and you"?..). Or is it just "female logic"?!..
(She:) You want to say, "male" is better?
(He:) It's all the more terrible!
(She:) So ... What do you want?
(He:) You see ... JOINING of this and that; and by that – NEITHER this, NOR that, but ...
(She:) Inoe?..
I just remember Joan of Arc ...
(He:) That's even the name, in this case, even first to remember.
(She:) So: the truth was not in that "God helps the French" (and that He would "always help" them...). But, IN THIS CASE, THRU IT, was expressed the Truth of God's Grace (to dis·grace of their enemies!).
(He:) You may remember "comrade Che"(Геварру)? Don't you see, you are getting a "pantheon" of FAR NOT ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN "saints"? Would you remember also Lenin or Hitler's "Mein Kampf"?!.. For, you are insisting ON FIGHT ("Kampf" stands for "Fight") with no importance WHAT FOR. – Be it "for whatever". And if you, say, German, fight for the Germans, while if you are, to your horror, "white finn" ...
(She:) This fight is not against Christianity.
(He:) I just remember a sentence I had to learn since <atheistic Soviet> school: "As is well known, a Christian was Hitler". Quite a bizzar "Christianity"! And much more peculiar are its "saints"!!
(She:) If to take Orthodox Christian saints ...
(He:) PRIDE was not inherent to them.
(She:) Why pride is concerned?
·

A
very important category:

PRIDE

as

basis for

any

sin

————>>> (He:) How else would you call all that "applying of certain Partition" to fence-off the creation to two opposing (and – sometimes WARRING) sides?!..
(She:) ...Here is the sense in which you say all the time: "Fencing-out" and "Fencing-off"..; but you should agree, it would not be easily understood if you go on saying like that!
(He:) Russian word for "Pride" is originating from root signifying "DIVIDER"; in fact even – "WALL OF DIVIDER", or "FENCE" (in fact even – POSING OF FENCE); and I found no better way to convey such idea.., as only translating it using root "FENCE", engendering such a unique, in its turn (absent in the original Russian), playing of words:
"FENCing-out" and
"FENCing-off" with corresponding to that
of·FENSive either
de·FENSive activities... [I ask once again your excuse that my way of expressing oneself is dependent so much on linguistic effects...]
Now – you should agree that NAMELY THIS "FENCing", SEPARATing, DIVIDing of the creation which is principally THE SAME to TWO different sides suits best of all for the above-outlined task of FINDING "INOE". This is why, under the action of pride, the whole world in the eyes of a proud man is namely dividing to two contradictory sides (sometimes called "dialectical") which can be found literally in everything. That is why EVERYTHING is explained by the pride, and everything in the world can be "reduced" or "translated" to it.
This is in fact the LANGUAGE OF THE WORLD. Here is even what I was writing once on that score:
"...In the basis of what I am doing since.., was an awesome discovery which had defined to substantial degree what I were later writing or saying or doing:
An
awesome
discovery
which
since deFINed
me
a lot...
————>>> What's called in the world as "opposing sides", "contradictions", "extremes" – are in fact nothing else but the principles of what should be better known as PRIDE, for in nature of pride is to divide whatever that is into opposing sides; as well as vice versa: what is called in the language of ethics and morals as "PRIDE" – not simply "ethical notion", and not even some mythical "sin".., but (namely – NON-MYTHICAL SIN:) a FORM-GIVING PRINCIPLE OF THIS WORLD, in the basis of which is denying of anything beyond the world's limits, and hence – the denying of limits themselves of the world, and hence – the de·LIMITing of the world (how I call it) from inside – in a form of all those intestine contradictions, divisions to "circles" and "sides", "parties" and "sects", "countries" and "states", etc.., for the resulting from all of that self-enclosed world is starting divide in itself to such FORMS: be it of people or countries uniting together into certain "unions"; or be it what happens inside individual human being where too, all is divided and formed by the same <proud> principle.
From here already are seen the elements of Psychology, Geo·politics and Theo·logy which I <ever since> am trying to form into system with common name "Philosophy of Form", in the very core of which is the term which I mentioned above as "de·LIMITing" known also as "de·TERMining" and "de·FINing" (for all these words <including the word "TERM" itself!> are coming from root meaning "LIMIT").
(She:) I see in this just an attempt to explain all by one thing!
(He:) This is why the Philosophy of Form is even called "all-embracing world outlook system"!
(She:) You will have troubles with that!
(He:) I'm already in trouble.
(She:) Why do you still call it by this name?
(He:) What can I do if it is REALLY SO?!..
(She:) Than ...
You know, this way of "appealing to pride" has become a common practice already among many Orthodox willing to go away from the real problems. As medieval Catholics were in all blaming "witches".., so do contemporary Orthodox in all blaming "Pride". Don't you like anyone? – Accuse him in "Pride"! Tell him: "Do away first with your pride", i.e., "BECOME AS WE ARE" (accept OUR pride)...
(He:) You are complaining again at some "common meaning" of words; while I am striving to show all their UNUSUALNESS, in my understanding! Haven't I already disclosed the pride as the very WAY TO EXIST in this world? Without pride, you would not survive in it (that is why all "methods of survival" should be reduced first of all just to it!), for if you are not fenced-off and fenced-out against anything.., WHAT are you?! What would de·LIMIT you, then, and de·FINe, to give with one's Limit, thus, FORM? You are something un·deFINite, then, in the world (for not in·FINite, surely!), i.e., – NOT YOU AT ALL but SOMETHING in your place. "Man without principles", without image and <metaphysical> FACE. "Milksop" is the name for such. On the contrary, pride is the way to be <– very de·FINitely –> someONE:
Just remember me saying of the 2-nd element (one of Difference, or – Inoe) in the "Binary Pagan Scheme" which allows – not only "to be" ("identify oneself with the being", as the 1-st element) but to BE ONESELF. While you, I remember, asked in return: How and Where all born in the world are getting this element of "inoe"? Indeed: they have NOWHERE ELSE to get it, as only by fencing-off one against other! And namely this "de·FINing oneself against all the rest" already allows to be oneself in FULL SENSE of the word!
(She:) You only say by all that that the pride is "important" and "needed"..; what are you wanting indeed?
(He:) "To go by water as dry land", or here is another example: "Not to burn in the Babylon furnace".
(She:) What are you talking about?
(He:) Aren't you familiar with such two very deeply symbolic Christian images:
"Walking by waters" symbolizing certain "SUPPORT" which the world doesn't know (by the way, word "SUPPORT" is translated as "FAITH" from the Hebrew);
While of "not burning in furnace as the Babylon youths" is even sung in one of Church prayer canons. But ...
WHAT is this prayer about? (While we are talking of prAying instead of prEying!..) – Who really throws you into "Babylon furnace"? – Of course, under such "furnace" here is understood, first of all, the very IMAGE OF THIS WORLD in which (as I already have said) NOTHING IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT PRIDE! Without it you would really be – crushed, squashed.., or (following the image of this prayer) – BURNED BY FIRE. But here is for you – NOT TO BE BURNED is such prayer! You are as if going out without protective armor of pride into the aggressive medium of this world and not burn! (or, what's the same, throw yourself with your head into its ocean and not sink!..)

Idolatry
and
denial
of
faith
————>>>
(She:) Excuse me, but those Babylon youths did not want to deny their faith thru worshiping pagan idols and gods!
(He:) What do you call "pagan idols and gods"?! What, in your eyes, is "Denying of Faith"?!
(She:) What that pagan "King-Pharaon" [or ... how is he?..] required of them.
(He:) All the Old Testament images given in "blood and flesh" are to be understood in the New Testament time "one step higher": from body to soul and from soul to spirit; as is said in the Scripture: "...All that was happening to them AS IMAGES (tupoi); and is written here for our edification, who reached the last ages", 1K.10:11. This is why:
either "denial of faith",
or "idols",
in the New Testament understanding are not so much certain "sculptures of stone" or "political declarations before pagan king".., but THE SAME THING(s) IN YOUR SOUL:
Petrifying of heart, from one side (turning it into stone) and
Trading of soul to "somewhat another" kind of "pharaons": DEMONS.
Any having in one's soul of anything proudly "fenced" – is already the having of idol! (And even – "harbouring of it"!) And any using in anything of any moment of pride or its elements [that is why I was speaking SO DEEP of those elements – and will speak much more – in the "Binary Pagan Scheme"] is already denying of Christian faith!
(She:) You are saying words reminding as if words of Christ: "Who is angry with his brother in vain shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say, You fool, shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell" (Mt.5:22). Do you really realize what you say?! You make FAITH directly dependent on morals, but it is – non-Christian teaching; it's a kind of some "moralism": for example, which taught count Tolstoi seeing in Christian faith hardly anything more than an "urge for good deeds" and "boost for morality"...
(He:) Firstly, falling to such an extreme of Leo Tolstoi is only but a reverse side of falling to OPPOSITE kind of extreme of his surrounding [really: Calling morality "faith" is rousing your indignation; while not to correlate these two notions at all * (and, "sake faith", perpetrate acts of appalling immorality) – "makes you not indignant"?!..]; and secondly, pride is not solely "moral" sin but dogmatic (denial of faith!), for is AGAINST VERY BASIS OF FAITH IN CHRIST: <<<————
* Here for the 3-d time is mentioned the Interrelation which we'll see in detail only later: 3-d mentioning
of what is indeed the dogmatical principle of
"Inseparable and non-coalescent"
<<<———————
(see of that below)
<<<————
I have shown already that to accept in Jesus the Christ for Old Testament people was not possible as only thru joining of what in the world looks like "polar extremes", "contradictions", "opposing sides"..; but so far was escaping from our view simplest thing that these "extremes", "contradictory sides" – namely are ... artificially fenced-off BY PRIDE one against other; – properly, WHY ON EARTH THEY ARE SUCH! While faith in Creator is directly presuming the joining of them, for in the separation of them is the godlessness even in its very principle! I hope, now it's well understood, after is shown the very mechanism of this world ("Binary Pagan Scheme"), the idea of which is to allow creation to live without Creator! Hence, the believing Creator, turning to the Creator directly presumes trans·gressing (namely – trans·gressing!) these limits of animosity and division of self-fenced-out creation... This explains, why, in particular, the commandments of Christ speak so much of reconciliation (of the warring sides), even "love for one's enemies"... Their sense is not solely "moral" but, first of all, dogmatic. For, it is SUBSTANTIAL for believing in Christ, or – what's the same – DOGMATIC. Without this there is NO faith in Christ, there is even no understanding of WHAT it is. Without this, this is why, "under it" is understood who knows what: be it "adogmatic morality" or "moralless dogmatism"... But don't you see need for JOINING MORALITY AND DOGMATICS? Don't you understand, don't you feel that this joining is, in its turn, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES of What the Dogmatical Synthesis requires?! Even almost FIRST such example; for the Christian faith, having only become Christian faith (or, having become ONESELF, thru Believing) at THIS VERY MOMENT requires to JOIN IT ITSELF with ITS OWN "DOGMATICAL HALF": Deeds (or "Works"), for it is written "Faith without works dead is" (Jac.2:20). While everything "dead" is where "one lost tie with another", i.e., the life-giving Synthesis broken (this is why further decomposition is proper to anything dead). This is why PROUD FENCING is KILLING! (If only not sui·cide, or SELF·killing!) This is why even you very rightly quoted Christ saying of some, for the first view, "inconsiderable moral sin" falling under "so much terrible punishment"... For it is – NOT "moral" sin, but:
Firstly, im·moral;
And then – dogmatic.
(She:) Here you namely transgress all allowable limits: Using in some very special, YOUR OWN sense word "dogmatic" (which, as it seems, ONLY YOU understand), you at the same time as if trying "to teach" referring to something "commonly known" and "generally accepted", "since long"...

(He:) Well, this is only but an example of what the Dogmatical Synthesis is all about:

when "FOR ALWAYS EXISTENT"
is NEWLY DISCOVERED;
and "OBJECTIVELY KNOWN"
is EXPERIENCED LIVELY IN PERSON..;

– do not only call this "personal experience" as merely "subjective", for "LIVING" and "PERSONAL", in this sense, is already the synthesis of Subject and Object (Subjectobject); as well as MANY OTHER SYNTHESIS' of this kind we'll see, for we have only STARTED!!..

Continued: Love2.htm

Technical note: To normally view the page, switch on in your browser all colors and tables, scaling 100%, full screen mode, default font – proportional Tahoma or at least Arial, to make at its background distinguishable fragments with monospace Courier (as now). Otherwise, these two font types would combine without any order. Optimized for Opera-5

This is all what until now converted from Russian version into English

[ The conversion is not "just translation" but a composition in its own right, with its own <linguistic> effects: sometimes even going ahead of the Russian (so as – having found it in English, I have to think how to put it in Russian...). ]

This series of pages is unfinished and will be continued.
Please, return to it in the Net after some time (very shortly):

http://inoe.da.ru/lovers.htm http://inoe.nm.ru/lovers.htm http://inoe.h1.ru/lovers.htm

Please, also turn to Russian version

P.S. From my mailing answers to "Lovers":
(...maybe, it's clarifying much more what I meant to say...)

About
CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN "TRUTH"
and that
TRUTH IS NOT "REVERSE SIDE OF LIE"
...

> ...as I promised, I am continuing to read your work. I see that you have made quite a bit of progress on "Lovers"...

Yes, I felt SOMETHING DEEP in you when you did that, but ...

"Binary
pagan
scheme"
in
action
———>>
(just
an
example
from
life)
...
...The experience of my life is such that if somebody promises something, it does not mean too lot, because people promise too much to too many people to remember all their promises. The question is what they remember, and what they do not. Very often they choose for themselves "what to remember" and "what to forget", and what of WHAT WAS make as "What WASN'T", and what of "What wasn't" make as "What was"...
The latter is called simply: "Lie", while previous - "Ignoring".
From here is clearly seen that "Ignoring" is just a "REVERSE SIDE OF LIE" (for just makes "what was" for "what wasn't", while lie - vice versa: "wasn't" - for "was"); but people do not see this clearest interrelation...
Instead of that, they often think that "reverse side of lie" is "The Truth". And thus they are getting some ... relative "truth" ... as we see, BASED ON LIE...
On the contrary, saying of ABSOLUTE Truth, I preach it as being TOTALLY OUTSIDE of this relative inter-relation, while the relation of these two components call "Binary Pagan Scheme".
Indeed: "truth" of paganism is BASED ON LIE, but - whether saying such "truth", or just lying, the people with pagan mentality (i.e., those who not came to knowledge of Absolute Truth) do always COMBINE THESE TWO ELEMENTS - IGNORING whatever they want and LYING wherever they need (this is why it is called better: LAWLESSNESS) - so as to of every object or phenomenon take always only one side which is "profitable for their views", i.e., PROUD FENCING (of that same one side, on which is based the entire of further BUILDING OF STRUCTURE OF PAGANISM) (BASED ON LIE)...

homepage http://inoe.h1.ru/j/lovers.htm qqqw

MAIN INDEX: ГЛАВНАЯ СТРАНИЦА
Philosophy of Form, ФИЛОСОФИЯ ФОРМЫ - ФИЛОСОФИЯ ЧУВСТВА, Philosophy of Feeling
О СМЫСЛЕ НОВЕЙШЕЙ РОССИЙСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ
(SENSE OF NEWEST RUSSIAN HISTORY)
БОГОСЛОВСКИЕ СОЧИНЕНИЯ
(THEOLOGICAL WORKS)
Несколько слов O sebe:
About Myself, Photo
FORUM

inoe.nm.ru, inoe.da.ru inoe&nm.ru, inoe&au.ru
To contact me, replace "&" by @, it's defence against spam
Чтобы мне написать, уберите в моих адресах защиту от спама, заменив "&" на "@"
I answer ALWAYS / Я отвечаю ВСЕГДА;
in case you don't receive answer, try another address
Address for physical mail:
Alexander Golenkov, Russia, 156023, Kostroma, Titova 9-57
tel:(0942)54-45-31

last update: after 23 aug 2002