[email protected] 805-875-5153
Solovev 1024x785

Christianity and Phallocracy, 6: “All the connections through which Dimiurg tried to strengthen his kingdom are destroyed: the state, the external church, the family are deeply shocked”

Spread the love

Today: 237

Christianity and Phallocracy, 6: “All the connections through which Dimiurg tried to strengthen his kingdom are destroyed: the state, the external church, the family are deeply shocked”


Last time we talked about how the truth of symbolic castration came to light in the texts of Dostoevsky, Rozanov, Kierkegaard. Today we’ll talk about a similar case, which, however, ended in failure.

Sociality and Sexuality

Soloviev’s remark, quoted last time about a man as a laughing creature, was taken from Sophia, a very funny book. Man is a laughing creature. A man notices that his ideal does not coincide with reality, and laughs. For example, when he senses eternity in himself, he discovers his mortality; discovering a thirst for meaning in itself, it discovers the nonsense of the world. And this is ridiculous. Laughter is the detection of the Absolute in the relative, or rather, the detection of the glaring absence of the Absolute in the relative.

“Sofia” is Soloviev’s early work, for various reasons published only at the end of the 20th century. In it we can recognize the unconscious of Soloviev’s philosophy. I do not need, I think, once again to talk about the importance of Soloviev for Russian religious philosophy. For us, it is important in two ways: Solovyov developed the theme of “religious public”, Christian social philosophy, and he is one of the main (and strange) Christian philosophers of love. These two topics can be found in Sophia, and most importantly, in it you can find all the topics that we discussed in this cycle and will still be discussing, namely, a bunch of Christianity – sociality – sexuality.

Soloviev’s social philosophy is the philosophy of social progress, which is the goal of Christianity – the realization of the commandments of Christ in real history, in real society.

Solovyov’s philosophy of love comes down to the opposition of animal reproduction and human love. One of the fundamental differences between a person and an animal, Solovyov writes in his brilliant “Meaning of Love”, is that a person can copulate all year round, he does not have a mating season (his attraction is “out of control”). Primitive creatures have no sexual reproduction. With evolution, there is less and less breeding and more love: fish do not copulate “directly”, but produce innumerable fry; more developed living beings produce less offspring, but “closer” copulate, spend more time on marriage rituals, etc .; in a person, sexual love no longer depends, is not reduced to reproduction, acquires its own, independent value (personalization of the impersonal element of sex occurs). Less Rod = more love.

We said earlier that the history of a family is the history of its trimming, squeezing, the “more” a person is, the “less” a family (movement from a patriarchal family to a nuclear one). Soloviev finds the same logic not only among people, but in all living nature in general. The limit of this process, according to Soloviev, is to eliminate reproduction as such: the forces of love will not be directed to procreation, but completely to the beloved subject (not to Rod, but to the individual), which will give immortality to lovers: this is the formula of the Christian sex according to Soloviev (and Andrei Platonov, for example, believed that communism would fulfill this task). You yourself perfectly see that we are talking about our old topics: Solovyov builds the philosophy of changing the matrimonial dispositive into a sexuality dispositive (Foucault), changing the “normal” gender to “sodomy” (according to Rozanov), in short, building the philosophy of ascetic sexuality, Christian sex mutation : sexuality beyond reproduction.

"Sofia" is written in French, in clear, neat handwriting. However, in its text you can find sloppy notes in Russian. The French text is Soloviev’s treatise. Russian records are the so-called “mediumistic writing”, where it is no longer Soloviev who writes, but Sofia herself:

“I returned to you, my life. I will come to you tomorrow. I would like to be alive for you. Sophia ”,“ Think of me ”,“ You should try to defeat the Demiurge in yourself in order to take possession of his power outside of you, ”etc., etc.

Everyone knows the “dates” between Soloviev and Sofia (she is not only a concept of Soloviev’s philosophy, but a kind of metaphysical personality with whom, judging by the Soloviev’s texts, the philosopher had personal communication: that this is not only a literary device, including “Sofia "). Here Solovyov on the pages of his treatise simply talks to her. Here, where philosophy falls into madness, we see the unconscious philosophy of a great thinker. What is Sofia? An integral metaphysical system, at the same time an integral system of social philosophy, and all this is heavily involved in "strange" sexuality.

The manuscript of Sophia. An example of a "medium" letter

Hysteria as a metaphysical category

The system of "Sophia" is the Christianized Gnosticism of Valentine (one of the leaders of Gnosticism, the late-ancient religious and philosophical movement, or rather, the placer of movements). We turn first to Valentine himself. According to Losev, Gnosticism is nothing more than a transitional form from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, from slavery to feudalism, from paganism to Christianity, from the idea of ​​a thing to the idea of ​​a personality. Gnosticism already has a personality drama, but it has not yet been placed at the center of everything, as in Christianity (Christ). Valentine taught that the eternal Firstfather gives birth to the Divine Pleroma, a hierarchy of aeons, the last of which is Sophia. Sophia, not satisfied with the connection with the Pioneer through the hierarchy of aeons, wanted a direct connection with him. In her passionate desire for direct communication with the First-Father, Sofia breaks the Pleroma, falls out of it, which was the reason for the birth of our sinful material world.

Salvation consists in pacifying Sophia, returning her to the hierarchy and eliminating our world. That is, pay attention: the cause of evil is nothing but a female hysterical whim, breaking the perfect hierarchy. And salvation consists in pacifying female hysteria (read: individual freedom), restoring the hierarchy. And in the most patriarchal way: Sofia escaped from her “husband”, with whom she formed the lower level of the Pleroma, and the Salvation is that she returns to him – the triumph of the patriarchy at the level of metaphysics! It is clear how all this rhymes with the fact that we talked about the female hysterical whim as the first phenomenon of personality, an example of subjectivity. Hysterical (freedom) wants love: this is Christianity.

All this is similar to the amendment of Palamas to the angelic hierarchies of the Areopagite: these hierarchies were before Christ, Palamas says, and after Christ, people can communicate directly with God. For Christ broke the hierarchies of Dominions, Authorities and Thrones, revealing the Father to us (Apostle Paul). And in Valentin we already see a Christian issue, but still solved in pagan terms (in favor of hierarchy, not personality). Nevertheless, in transitional forms, some things are better visible: let's say, in Gnosticism, the topic of femininity comes to the fore, femininity is the main bet, and this is a premonition of everything that will happen to gender in the (post) Christian world.

It is with this Valentinian system that Soloviev works. Fundamentally, here we see a female figure in the center – a divine, fallen, saved and saved Sofia: the drama of the world is the drama of femininity.

The manuscript of Sophia. An example of a "medium" letter

Satan as an aspect of the Divine

For Soloviev, the system is as follows. Christian / Neoplatonic Trinity: Father, Mind, Soul (= Sofia). The Father, being the Absolute, contains potentially everything in Himself. But he also wants to realize this all, so that He is everything in everything. To do this, “everything” must be created. It gives rise to the Mind as a rational plan of everything and the Soul as a sensual plan of everything. But – the most interesting thing here is that for the Father to be everything in everything, it is necessary that this “everything” be real, be free and accept the Father in freedom. To do this, “everything” must revolt, become an anti-Father, his opposite, in order to accept the Father as this opposite and at the end of history to reveal a complete deification of all reality.

To obey God, you need to do it freely, that is, go through rebellion, realize the anti-divine and in reality overcome it. Thus, rebellion against God is inscribed in God himself.

If the Absolute did not degenerate into the relative (the creation of the world), It would not be the Absolute, for it would not include the relative (the world); to be Himself – Absolute – It must be opposite to Himself: God is Love, for He denies Himself in another.

The third hypostasis of God, the Soul (Sophia), must fall and give birth to the opposing Father and the opposing Son – Satan and the Demiurge, who will create our world: anti-divine, where Sofia will suffer and Satan to fight the Demiurge, but real. This real world of suffering, multiplicity, sin itself, for internal reasons, goes to bliss, unity, good, that is, "from himself" will come to the Father. This is the meaning of our world.

Moreover, Satan is a moment within the Divine, one of the aspects of God. Sophia splits into Satan and the Demiurge, who neutralize themselves in a struggle with each other and thereby bring Sophia into a passive state in which she can return to God. Satan is the principle of matter, the Demiurge is the principle of energy. They are cosmos and chaos, that is, cosmos and chaos, and in general all the forces fighting in the world, are anti-divine. Valuable thought, because Christians do not need to take sides in one conflict or another, any struggle is not from God. Different types of evil are fighting, and their struggle itself is total evil, but this same struggle will lead the world to good.

Sophia, wanting to be free, self-centered, falls away from the Primordial Unity of God, loses unity herself, being divided into Satan and the Demiurge, they seize her desire and are divided in their turn – and generate more and more differences. These differences are embodied in an independent own reality; the struggle gives rise to All-Oneness, which in the end will return to God, for this All-Oneness is God in His otherness. Sophia is the Third Hypostasis of the Divine, desiring the realization of the Divine, the real being of beings. So she gives birth to Satan, thus triggering the world process, whose goal is total unity, formal is Mind, active is Sophia (Satan + Demiurge), material is private souls.

The manuscript of Sophia. An example of a "medium" letter

Against nature, against society

Of course, taken literally, this is all – delusional mythology, a bit of theological fantasy, a metaphysical adventure novel. But on a logical level, this is beautiful and coincides with what we said about history: reality develops dialectically, and we can see Providence in the most non-Divine realities; reality moves according to its own, internal laws, and at the same time it represents a sacred history. Salvation is the antithesis of sin, that is, even sin itself enters into the dialectic of Salvation (Kierkegaard, “Eli-or”: “eternal bliss is revealed only through sin”; the issue of felix culpa). Thus, without interfering with good and evil in one, we can still comprehend them in one logic. Here, for example (the following is written in automatic writing, that is, it is not Solovyov who writes, but Sofia, so “your world” appears, etc.):

“(Creatures in this world are in) an abnormal unnatural state, which is a contradiction: every creature recognizes itself as a particular and insignificant conditional phenomenon in the world of changes and it feels itself to be the whole focus of the universe (our topic of objective comic). This contradiction will disappear only when each being, preserving its private individuality, at the same time will feel in love and acknowledge in its mind its inner reality, and not abstract unity only with all others as individual positions of a single being.

And for this, the deception of the material, appearance, breaking the connection of worlds should disappear. The time has come! A man on your earth will be exalted above any directly given natural unity and communication. All natural ties are broken, the family disappears, the nationality, society, and state fall. Every tradition, the faith of the fathers in words only, not in the minds and hearts.

The man in your natural world has become lonely, he has become free from all his connections and closer to us, for our world is freedom. For this reason, in a country of extreme individualism, in a country free of illusions, a new connection of worlds ensued. But freedom from external relations is only a negative condition for perfection. ”

"The affirmation of a universal society is necessary to destroy our world in its material decay and restore it as a living organism of the gods."

What we consider natural — this order of things, this reality — is in fact unnatural: universal struggle, death, suffering, separation of beings are unnatural. To achieve true naturalness – love, freedom, unity, God – you need to become unnatural for this world.

Family, society, state, nationality must be discarded as chains of a sinful world to establish another world, God. This directly coincides with our logic. And although it seems that Soloviev writes crazy things in Sophia, at the level of logic, his ability to see in the strangest bends of the history of Providence and interpret history in a Christian way in its most non-Christian moments is priceless. Here is an example:

“After the advent of Christianity, Dimiurg, unable to act directly on humanity, took possession of Christianity itself and turned the kingdom of love and mystical mind into a kingdom of external justice, into a state of abstract reason: papacy and scholasticism. Satan, being powerless against true Christianity, raised his crushed head against the false, then he found a case, but he could act only little by little. He took some part in Protestantism, because he, instead of calling for Christian love and divine inspiration, became attached to blind faith and arbitrary predestination, and then to the dead letter of the Bible. He then allowed the human mind to worship Dimiurg as a true God (in deism), taunting the joy that deism found in him, for his god was even more miserable than Dimiurg, and after Satan made people believe that <в деизме> there can be no other, it was easy for him to go on to deny any god (since a miserable god is not God) and replace deism with outright atheism. The spiritual progress of atheism corresponds to the progress of anarchy in the political and social order. All the connections through which Dimiurg tried to strengthen his kingdom are destroyed: the state, the external church, the family are deeply shocked. A person feels free from all natural connections, he is left to his own devices and turns out to be powerless and insignificant. On the other hand, this is the liberation of man from all natural connections, his spiritualization brings him closer to the world of spirits, which also approach him in the corresponding process of relative materialization. ”

The history of Christianity – through perversions, mistakes, defeats – is the history of the movement towards atheism, but this is not the destruction of Christianity, but its victory! (See also the text on atheism as the core of Christianity.) Yes, social progress is tied to atheism (critics of Christianity as a reactionary doctrine and criticism of social movements as anti-Christian are right), but these are all moments of the unfolding of Christianity. We note once again: at the present stage (under capitalism), a person, having destroyed everything, finds himself in powerlessness and insignificance, but this is the effect of his liberation, a negative condition for the future positive freedom.

Before Christ, the powers of this world controlled humanity through nature. Having lost such power, they are trying to regain power through society. The demiurge, seeing that persecution only strengthens the Church, took advantage of this and through Constantine controlled by him depicted the union of the Church and the state, subordinating the Church to society. Thus formed a "hermaphrodite society." Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine is the same as the persecutor of Diocletian, the Byzantine state remained demiurgical. In the West, the Demiurge won, firstly, in turning the Church into a papal monarchy, and secondly, in the victory of kings over the papacy. The further Christian struggle with the Demiurge resulted in a struggle with this demiurgical Church, which could not but turn into a struggle with Christianity itself, since the Church was the only representative of Christianity. Thus, a long struggle with the Church is in its depths a Christian struggle with the Demiurge.

And the political history from absolutism to anarchism is the history of the struggle against the Demiurge and victory over him. Demiurgical forms of life, society, state are now destroyed. History is a victory over Satan (nature), a victory over the Demiurge (society), the reunification of Sofia (the establishment of unity as an actual universal organism of love, which is saved Sofia). В победе над Сатаной природа подводится под свободу человека, в победе над Демиургом общество подводится под свободу человека, таким образом, всё воссоединяется в свободе. Насильственное единство Демиурга и разрушительная свобода Сатаны побеждаются в свободном мирном единстве спасенной Софии.

В борьбе Сатаны и Демиурга, которая есть борьба эгоизма и рассудка/правосудия, есть забавная перекличка с марксизмом. Капиталистический хаос эгоистических интересов и рациональная организация капитализма во взаимном отрицании породят коммунизм, как борьба Сатаны и Демиурга породит Всеединство. Перекличка тем более значимая, ибо, по Соловьеву, задача всего мирового процесса есть порождение совершенного социального организма (Церкви). Христианство как основание мира иного призвано наполнить собой всё общество и обратить общество в себя (реализовать Церковь как социальный организм совершенной любви), преобразить мир сей в мир иной. Христианство отделилось от кесаря, победило кесаря и должно построить теперь не-кесарево царство.

Рукопись «Софии». Пример «медиумического» письма

Социализм = гинекократия

Что, однако, нам здесь интересно (продолжаю цитировать «Софию»):

«Бог любит все, природу, любовью непосредственной и реальной, как человек любит женщину, в которую влюблен, так как отношение здесь то же: природа является другой половиной самого Бога. Таким образом, всеобщая любовь Бога тождественна любви природной, или половой».

Вселенная «Софии» есть вселенная желания, Соловьев описывает первоматерию как пустое ничто, желающее быть; как жажду бытия, то есть жажду Бога, который дарует ей бытие.

София в своем падении, раскалываясь на Сатану и Демиурга, как бы превращается из женщины в мужчин. То есть София в своем падении порождает патриархат. Логика патриархального мира — в глубине женская, ибо властвующих мужчин и покорных женщин воспитали матери. В основе патриархата — падшая женственность.

Соловьев утверждает принципиальную связку социального и гендерного вопросов:

«Элемент иерархический — мужеский, элемент демократический — женский.

Демократический элемент необходимо представляется женщинами, так что последовательная демократия есть необходимо гинекократия.

Если всякая государственная или политическая деятельность, основанная на праве и законе, имеет специфически мужеский характер, то деятельность экономическая или хозяйственная, бесспорно, принадлежит женщинам; как в частном союзе — семье — хозяйками всегда были женщины, так они же должны быть хозяйками и всемирного общества. Отсюда естественное сродство социализма с так называемым женским вопросом и необходимое в будущем превращение социальной демократии в гинекократию».

Иными словами, движение к демократии, к социализму есть движение к женскому. Казалось бы, что Соловьев имеет в виду то же, что и мы: христианство есть слом фаллократии, мужской иерархии, её замена на горизонталь любви и братства, некий переход от мужского к женскому, совпадающий с переходом к социализму. Вспомним слова Кьеркегора «победитель сам склоняется перед побежденной», слова Рёскина о власти женщин в христианском мире, вспомним куртуазию. Но нет, Соловьев имеет в виду не это.

Соловьев расходится с ортодоксией, не понимает троичного догмата и догмата о Творении (в разбираемом нами тексте), впадает в безумие и занимается фэнтези — всё это стоит в одном ряду с тем, что Соловьев отвергает социализм, что он — апологет иерархии (Творение — акт любви, а не эманации-иерархии, Троица — Бог-любовь, а не эманирующее Первоединое: Троица от вечности существует как Троица, а не как некий процесс эманации, перетекающий в миротворение). Возвращаемся к началу: гностицизм был переходной формой от язычества к христианству, и его ошибка состояла в конечной защите иерархии и усмирении Софии, её метафизической истерики, требования любви. Ту же ошибку совершает Соловьев. Соловьев понимает любовь иерархически, то есть в конечном счете как власть, а не любовь, ведь власть — антипод любви:

«Женщина по своей пассивной природе является предметом нисходящей любви. Высший человек не может найти женщину, которую он мог бы любить восходящей любовью, и если, однако, эта любовь необходима для морального совершенства, то ее предмет, не имея возможности быть смертной женщиной, должен быть богиней, то есть женским духом высшего порядка».

Соловьев — высший человек, ему надобно любить Софию, богиню, не меньше. Любить можно или вверх или вниз, но не наравне. Любить можно только иерархично. Соловьев не желает бросать «достоинство» иерархии, не хочет принять уравнивающее унижение любви. В социальной утопии «Софии» правят на деле мужчины («высшие»), ибо они любят Софию, после этих мужчин идут любящие их женщины и т. д. В общем, получается довольно безумная картинка, но суть в том, что даже в странных своих мечтаниях Соловьеву мечтается мужская иерархии, несмотря на Вечную Женственность (коя, как мы писали, есть мужской фантазм, прикрывающий пустое истерическое ничто субъекта, с которым не справился Соловьев).

Соловьев, как и Кьеркегор, не имел отношений с женщинами. И вот моя гипотеза: в отличие от Кьеркегора Соловьев не захотел принять полового унижения, думать о нём, думать в нём. Отсюда — компенсаторский бред «высшего человека» и «отношения» с Софией. Кьеркегор мыслит в глуби своего полового бессилия, Достоевский и Розанов — в травматическом опыте истерии Аполлинарии Сусловой. Все трое поэтому и смогли выйти из дискурса знания в дискурс истины, смогли высказать несказанность того, что в основе иерархии лежит символическая кастрация. Текст «Софии», его причудливость, странность пытается выстроиться вокруг сокровенного опыта Соловьева, но это не получается, и текст скатывается в бред (справедливости ради отметим, что у Соловьева постоянно промелькивает ирония и самоирония — точки присутствия сокровенного опыта, но Соловьев не развивал их, к сожалению, не хотел жертвовать серьезностью).

Соловьев после «Софии» будет писать вполне наукообразные вещи, академические, будет производить дискурс знания, а не истины. Только под конец жизни он уходит от наукообразия и создает «Повесть об Антихристе», где отрекается от своих утопических планов и — как и Достоевский в «Подполье» — говорит, что человека ничто не удовлетворит (подробнее здесь), то есть открывает объект а.

Гордость, обладание серьезной физиономией оказалось для Соловьева важнее истин, постигаемых в унижении. А вот для Кьеркегора — нет, и в следующий раз мы будем говорить о нем. Покажем, как ключевые концепции религиозного экзистенциализма родились на уровне женщины, сексуальности, брака и пр.

Subscribe to the Predaniya.ru channel on Telegram so as not to miss interesting news and articles!

Join us on the Yandex.Zen channel!