during the "six days." Bulgakov quotes: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."[175] "In the beginning" then is another expression for "Sophia." Creation began in "Sophia;" she is "potentiality," is a "unity of opposites, a coinicidentia oppositorum (italics mine, KB)." This way Sophia is "doublecentred," the Sophia is the "architect" of the earth and simultaneously is "transcendent" to it, for the world is created within the distance between heaven and itself. The difference between both, between "idea" and "matter," is the "foundation" of Creation. The establishment of a "living ladder" connecting Earth and Heaven is the final goal of the world′s historical process."[176] Following Gregory of Nyssa, Bulgakov maintained, too, that after God′s first Creational act further development of the Created takes place only by constant "creative participation" of matter (material), i.e. of the Earth (zemlia) itself. Sophia is the marrow of "Godearth" (bogozemlia). Sophia is the true "apotheosis" of matter as the birth of life originates herein.[177] Thus, the present world is good as God′s creation, but is not yet perfect. Creation has not ended yet, but the bogochelovek is entitled to continue Creation. How did Bulgakov define co-creatorship?
As in Solov’ëv, in Bulgakov, too, there is no dichotomy between matter and spirit, between body and soul. In each case, Bulgakov, has taken the distinction one ontological step back from dualism. Matter does not signify evil, but is merely shapeless, dependent upon form and upon its association with the Divine. The human person itself is made of spirit and matter and must properly dispose of each. If this correct, we must analyse in the next analytical step the possibilities, which pertain to man.
His Priroda v filosofii Vl. Solov′eva, 1911, looks at the latter′s variant of "religious materialism" acknowledging matter as "sacred corporality (sviataia telesnost′)." If man knows resurrection, the same must be true for nature as a whole, even though there certainly is a difference in quality. Logical thought would have to either deny man′s spiritual essence or admit it for all nature and all creatures.[178] Despite the fact that Solov’ëv never developed this concept into a refined, separate philosophical discourse, Bulgakov praised him for having prepared the ground for a magnificent Christian metaphysics that allocates the sparkling idea of nature as the "other God" or the "second absolute: "[179] "Nature must be the visible spirit, and spirit must be the invisible nature.′[180] Nature is humanised by becoming man′s "peripheral body, submitting to his consciousness and realising itself in him."[181]
His early religious philosophy already turned around the question of "man in nature and nature in man."[182] The content of all activity – which is economic activity – is mere struggle between life and death, a matter of pure survival.[183] Yet, this struggle is not a struggle between "two principles," but rather a struggle between "two states." Life is a principle that differs from death in its potential for "self-consciousness."[184] Potentially, all inanimate matter is organised by life and concentrated in "knots of life [uzelki zhizni]" interconnected to each other.[185] Nature waits for being man′s spiritual "peripheral body." [186] This is the meaning of Creation in two acts, the second of which points to human and nature′s co-creatorship.
Already Bulgakov′s early Philosophy of Economy implicitly contained this conceptualisation of Creation: while production is the conscious transformation of dead inanimate matter into a spiritualised body, consumption is "partaking of the flesh of the world." Life is the"…capacity to consume the world" our bodily organs being"…like doors and windows into the universe, and all that enters us through these doors and windows becomes the object of our sensual penetration and becomes in a sense part of our body."[187] Nourishment is the most vivid means of "natural communion," because it allows man to partake".of the flesh of the world."[188] Nourishment is immanent to our world, whereas the Eucharist meal, ".nourishes immortal life, separated from our life by the threshold of death and resurrection."[189] Production and consumption hence is a form of spiritual communion with nature. Seemingly, Bulgakov redefined the three cornerstones to every economic theory.
In order to understand his notion of labour we now consider his Trinitarian ontology. The Glavy o Troichnosti, 1928/30, unambiguously clarifies that the individual ′I′ exists within a triangular relationship. It is a multiplicity of the eternally given ′I′, the ′I-you′ and, thirdly, the ′I-he.′ As it stands, the ′he′ hinders mere doubling of the ′I′, ensures the recognition of the ′you′ and hence is the condition for the ′we′. This ′we′ forms the basis for all cognition. The ′you′ is possibly alien both to the ′I′ and to the ′he′ after man has fallen and this is precisely why life is a tragic struggle. Nevertheless, from a metaphysical point of view, all three units form the ′we′.[190] Man is entirely free to fill the gaps between these three parts of his being, either to recognise the them, or to give his unconscious, non reflected empirical ′I′ the prominent, or worse, the absolute place.[191] Labour has a cognitive function: "Thanks to labour, there can be no subject alone, as subjective idealism would have it, nor any object alone, as materialism holds, but only their living unity, the subject-object."[192] Economy is a constant modelling of reality, the objectification of the ′I′s′ ideas, is a real bridge from the ′I′ into the ′non-I."[193]
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст