Софиология. Сборник статей

[146]

      In the Justification of the Good, 1894–1899, is just one, yet meaningful reference to the cited above argument: as he regrets, Christianity has merely endorsed "cherubic" existence beyond marriage. Christianity has, as Solov’ëv regrets, merely deified marriage as an institution, worthy of man′s multiplication (cf. Lucas 34–36, First Corinthean, 7). However, there is a third, the "highest," namely "God′s way" to look at spiritualised carnal love. In this context, he hints at the two writings just discussed, namely Plato′s Life Drama and The Meaning of Love.[147] After a sharp critique by Russian Orthodoxy,[148] he seemingly had decided not to broach the ideal content of corporeal love. In the Justification of the Good this form of love holds the place of negative, offending senses: "shame (styd)" epitomises the difference between human and the animals′ being. Even in the case of humanity′s multiplication, "shame" plays a role; many pages are concerned with this problem.[149] Solov’ëv situates the feelings of "shame (styd)," "pity (zhalost′)," and "reverence (blagogoveniie)" (respectively matching the moral principles of "asceticism," "altruism" or "solidarity," and "piety"), at one and the same axiomatic level. These three attributes conform to the conscience′s requirements. They constitute the three-unitarian foundation of "moral perfection."[150]

      Yet, in his encyclopaedic entry on Liubov′, 1896 – composed while Solov′ev was working on the Justification of the Good – he again specified carnal love to simultaneously manifest the "strongest form of individual self-affirmation" [corresponding to ascending love] and of "self-negation" [corresponding to descending love]. As such an ambiguous event, carnal love is the "highest symbol" [vysshijsimvol] of "the ideal relationship between personal and social principles."[151] Though spiritualised carnal love does not serve humanity′s but the individual′s perfection, it nevertheless represents one of cornerstones of ideal society′s development. For Solov′ev society".is the supplemented or expanded individual, while the individual is the condensed or concentrated society."[152] As may be concluded, only perfected individuals – individuals experienced in spiritualising syzygy in order to experience holy androgynous being – may form ideal society, Already in Filosofskie nachala tsel′nogo znaniia, 1877, he had introduced a tripartite scheme of society: 1.) the "material society [materialnoe obsh-chestvo]" is located at the fundament, the "political society [politicheskoe obshchestvo]" occupies the midst, and the "spiritual [dukhovnoe]" or "holy society, the Church [sviashchennoe obshchestvo, Tserkov′]" tops both. As may be concluded, the third type of society appears to be the syzygial unification of the other two.[153] The "Universal Church" signifies unification of masculine and feminine elements, which correspond to Christ and nature respectively[154]

      No scholar has yet presented a survey on his image of existence in pairs (syzygy) as something spread throughout his entire works. Solov′ v claims this Greek expression to best express his idea of "composition [sochetanie]."[155] Krasota v prirode,[156] 1899, briefly treats another syzygial phenomenon, namely beauty. Beauty is not at all an indefinable property and beauty is not an expression of mere subjectivity either. Beauty signifies another fertile form of syzygy, for the sun′s light elucidates matter. Nature′s elucidation by the sun denotes the unification of two elements that are independent from each other. Their unification radiates beauty.[157] Man′s self-consciousness relates to the animals′ as beauty in art relates to beauty in nature. Art is not a mere repetition of the artistic deeds begun by nature but their continuation by analogously creating syzygial unities between the lucidity of human ideas and nature.[158]

      Syzygy opens out into Solov′ev′s metaphysically religious notion of Trinity. I call this interdependence between unity in pairs and Trinity a ′trinitarian double helix.′ This expression indicates the trinitarian structure of the cosmos, of the world, and of ideal society (the Universal Church, viz. Sophia). The (self-) realisation of the latter depends in turn on multiple unifications of opposites. Syzygy is the way of repairing dissociation. Syzygial unities generate "mystical" and / or "religious experience"[159] making man anticipate the ′sophianic′ social ideal.

      To conclude:

      1. Unification of opposites releases mystical experience. Mystical and / or religious experience thus denotes the individualisation of All-Unity, a unity that bears androgynous character. Conscious experience of syzygy generates, as I conclude, prophetic faith, a type of faith that is sufficient to bestow on people a befitting foundation of social life.

      2. Conscious loving thus bears objective power that surrounds Creation in spiritualising nature, and vice versa, in materialising spirit. This is the central idea to Solov′ev′s notion of theurgy, which he did not elaborate into a redefined discourse. For him, theurgy apparently was a self-evident matter, since he made permanent use of it from the beginning without explaining it at any length. His encyclopaedic entry on mysticism (1896, Mistika, Mistit-sizm) explains: "Mysticism describes phenomena and human acts, which independently from the spheres of space, time, and physical causality relate man with mysterious creatures and energies (.) There is prophetic mysticism (.) and practical mysticism that attempts (.) to call forth plastic forms and materialise spiritual creatures, or de-materialise (spiritualise, KB) corporeality and such alike more."[160] 3.) Spiritualisation of nature thus is theurgy, for it unites the spiritual ′I′ with the ′empirical-I′ by means of dematerialisation and / or conscious spiritualisation. 4.) Divine Wisdom (Sophia) descends by virtue of syzygial experience and desirably indwells human consciousness. Co-creative activity springs from this peculiar type of experience that does not need to be rationalised, or exhaustively explained in order to improve personal and social life. As it stands, Christian faith in the trueness of the experienced is the sufficient condition to co-creativity that prepares free theocracy in a first and Sophia, the Universal Church, in second step.

      Recalling Solov’ëv′s reading of Genesis I, his metaphysics of history, we remember that the state (symbolised by the moon) rules the dark, whereas the Church (as if the sun on the firmament) is installed in the midst of light. The third now, the multicoloured stars, correspond to

147

Cf. idem, Opravdaniia dobra. Nravstvennaia filosofiia, 1894–1897, in: ibid. t. 8 vt. Izd., 79.

148

Cf. Zweerde, Evert v. d, Liefde maaktziend. Vladimir Solovjovs (Solov′ev′s] metafysica van de liefde, in: Tydschrit voor Slavische Literatuur n. 46, 2007, 38f.

149

Cf. Solov’ëv, Opravdanie, in: op. cit., 53–84.

150

Cf. ibid, 66-118.

151

Cf. idem, Liubov′, in: op. cit., t. 11, 236.

152

Cf. Kostalevsky, М., Dostoevsky (Dostoevski]) and Soloviev (Solov′ev). The Art of Integral Vision, New Heaven and London 1997, 113.

153

Cf. idem, Filosofskie nachala tsel′nogo zaniia, 1877, in: op. cit., t.11, 257–259.

154

Cf. idem, Rossiia, in: op. cit., 327–344.

155

Cf. idem, Smysl′liubvi, in: op. cit. 57, first footnote on this page. Solov′ev distances himself from the Gnostic usage of this terminology and uses syzigia in the narrow Greek meaning. Cf. Kolerov, М., Smysl′liubvi v filosofii Vladimira Solo′eva ignosticheskie parallel in: Voprosy filosofii 1995 n. 7, 59–78, for an account on Solov′ev′s preoccupation with Gnosticism between 1891 and 1893.

156

Stremooukhoff, op. cit., 266. He proposes to regard the three short writings Smysl′ liubvi, Krasota v prirode, and Obshchijsmysl′isskustva as an extra unit of discourses.

157

Cf. idem, Krasota v prirode, 1889, in: op. cit., t. 6, vt. izd., 35–49.

158

Cf. idem, Obshchijsmysl′iskusstva, 1890, in: ibid, 74.

159

"Religious" and "mystical experience" are synonyms throughout Solov′ev′s entire works.

160

Cf. idem, Mistika – Misticizm, 1896, in: op. cit. t. 11, 243f.