“Onomatodoxy as a philosophical premise”.pdf

7/24/2019 Onomatodoxy as a philosophical premise.pdf

1/9

P. Florenskij, Onomatodoxy as a Philosophical Premise (excerpts)

Name is a human energy, of humanity as of single person,- energy of humanity unfolding itself through a personality. But asubjectof a name or its contents, speaking exactly, is not this energy: name as an activity of knowing, takes the mind

beyond a subjectivity and makes it to touch a world, which is outside our psychic states. Psychophysiological , the name

not disperses in it as a smoke, but makes us to face a reality, so, touching its object, it in the same degree can be held as revealing

this object in us, and us - for and before it. We have come here to the principle, inseparable from human thought, of the connection

between oysia and its energy. This doctrine is behind any lifelike thought, it was the basis of world outlook in all times and for all

peoples. Philosophically it was detailed by antique idealism, then by neoplatonism, further praised by mediaeval realism, studied in

depth by Orthodox Church saeculo 14, in connection with theological controversies about the Light of Thabor. Further it was asource for GOETHE, somewhat unclear for MACH, and, finally, nowadays , broke through as a bitter protest against

philosophical and theological illusionism and subjectivism in the Athonic discussion about Name of God. The significance

of onomatodoxic way of thinking is not restricted by any individualproblem of philosophy or theology, but involves the total

Weltanschauung, even the every possible Weltanschauung, and for everyone it is necessary to decide for or against onomatodoxy

in the very depth of one's mentality. What is called a common sense and is in reality the whole consciousness of the

human race as unity,- this should urge anyone to consider the fundamental principles of onomatodoxy. Really: here I am in the

world, in the vast world and with it, with people, with animals, with plants, with elements and heavenly bodies. How to evade a

question, is this all really so, or it is a sort of illusion, of a dream, though necessary and "firmly grounded" - according to LEIBNITZ, or

"objective" - according to KANT? The collective consciousness of a human race tells me that appearsthat, what really is, whereas

philosophy and science in a majority of their proponents strives to dequalify this appearance and denounce it as empty and

deceiving: appears that, which is not. What we call the onomatodoxy absolutely adheres and takes spiritual responsibility for a

life to the universal consciousness of a human race; onomatodoxy believes in a truth eternally and implicitly belonging for man,

because only truth gives a value for him. The task of onomatodoxy as of special type of intellectual endeavor is to categorize

the eternal human feeling that makes it human, i.e., to discern ontological, gnoseologic and psychophysiological premises of this universal feeling and self-apprehension. Onomatodoxywants and ever wanted to

approach it scientifically, fixing what will appear during the analysis. It is ready for antinomies and acknowledges beforehand that

by all means not the all things will be explained and reduced to the whole. But this reduction and explanation it does not holds for

its main task. The main task is to set a consciousness into a position which does not allow for breaking with a consciousness of all

humanity and led into a heresy.

The main intuition of human race - I live in the world and with the world - implies the being, and the real being, both of me, thehuman, and of that what is outsideme, what is separately, and more exactly, independently of human consciousness. But, along

with this duality of being, the human consciousness involves also a kind of real unity or real surmounting of this duality. In the

process of cognition the subject is inseparable from object: cognition is simultaneously one and another, more exactly, it is the

unity in which one could be separated from another only by abstraction, but, too, this unity object is not dispersed in the subject,

and the latter does not dissolves in the external object of cognition. United, they do not devour each other, though, remaining

distinct, do not remain separated. Theological formula atreptos kai ahoristos is wholly applicable for the gnoseologic interrelation of

subject and object, as it is thought by all the humanity. It is safe to say: anyone, if he it is not persuaded in contrary by scholastic

philosophy, thinks about this cognitive process exactly so.

If this is a universally human conviction, which it cannot be deprived of without losing mental equilibrium and all the impetus for

cultural activity, the integral part of human consciousness is also a recognition of some duality in the subject and in the object. The

being has some interiorpart which is turned to its core, in its unblending with what it is not, along with some exteriorpart, directed

towards other being. These two parts are not connected one to other, but they arein the primordial unity, they are the same being,

though opposite oriented. One part serves for self-assertion of being, whereas the other - for appearing, happening, unfolding the

first. It is a life, linking the being with another being. According the terminology of Ancients, these two sides of being are called

essence, or being, , and act,or effect, . This terminology, featuring in neoplatonism, in writings of Church Fathers,

recent Orthodox theology, and in some degree in contemporary science (energy- in physical and Naturphilosophic meaning), is


2/9

probably most adequate in philosophy. But it is readily accepted by everyday language: when the mediaeval authors speak that the

any being has its energy and that only non-being is devoid of it, this ontological axiom is perfectly understandable by common

sense: it means that all what really is has in itself a life and this life reveals itself in the phenomena of existence, and not only for

other, but also for self. This manifestation of life is energy of any creature.

In this case the beings, remaining not merged in their and not reducible to each other, not dissolved in each other,- they may

really unite by their energies: then this unity could be thought as not a sum of actions, not as a mechanical incitement of one being

by another, but as a mutual creation of one common energy, as the , in which there are none separable input energies,

but is some new . Then the interplay of beings is thought not mechanical way, but organic, and furthermore - ontologically:

it is a cognitive Hochzeit, which yields some third child, which partakes of both input beings, and is even more than sum of boththese. The cognition is this child, a result of communication between knowing spirit and just known world. This result, uniting spirit

and the world in a real, not illusionary unity, does not implies the vanishing of some or both parents, and they both, united and

mutually enriched, still are as the centers of being.

In this manner, coupling of beings, their mutual referenceand mutual revelation is some real thing of its own nature. This reality,

never leaving the linked centers, does not reduces to them. It is a synergy, mutual act of s, and unfolds them both. It does not

equals to none of s, being new in relation of each of them, but also it is every one of them, because it unfolds an

appropriate , and without its energy, and energy caught, any leaves closed, not expressed, and therefore, not known,

closed for any cognition. Any of any could be acquired only by the energy of cognitive . If the flow of

is lost outside the milieu of counter-flow, the cognitive oysia is not revealing itself as a cognitive, as the energy is required for any

cognitive act. Then it is nothing in relation to the objective oysia, and nothing at all. Energetical stream is flowing through and

beside it not touching it and not noticing it, and itself remains untouched and unnoticed.

synergy carries the energies of the s, which have produced it.It is more

than it is, and being itself, is also a cause which granted a being for it. We always acknowledge the latter as more valuable

and more significant. Any being, revealed in its energies, is in the first place, and the revealing energy is in the second place,because it receives its value and its very existence from the first. In this way, we come to a definition of a symbol.

A being, which is more than itself,- it is a main definition of a symbol. Symbol reveals by itself what it is not and what ismore than it, but essentially manifests itself through it.Unfolding this formal definition, we can see, that symbol is such an

, the energy of which, merging with the energy of some other, more valuable in a given aspect, oysia, carries in this

way that later .But, carrying more valuable oysia, symbol, though has its own name, perfectly can be named by the name of

that, more valuable , and in a given aspect, even should be namedin that way.

In order to narrow and therefore simplify this question we will select from the various connections of being only cognitive

connections. Connections of cause and other, as commonly seen outside, in our thought automatically resembles for us the

outside linking or impetus, similar to mechanical causality. This comprehension clearly is superficial, but psychologically natural in

reigning attitude. Therefore we will handle the connections, in which any mechanical apprehensions are intolerable and in which

the interrelation between s is essentially interior. These connections are cognitive relations, as the spirituali ty, i.e.,

non-mechanicity.

This by no means implies that these cognitive relations are inoperable by ontological categorization. Transcendental nature of mind

forms does not preclude the ontological evaluation of the mind itself and its transcendental forms

The causal relation is the apprehension of other being in the given being. But we, outside, see notthe revealing itself, but only

some changein being. Therefore, the being, revealing itself through the causal action, is discernible only indirectly, not by means

of its energies , but by means of logical operations, i.e., trying to establish some cognitive connection between ourselves and a

source. In this way, we not always communicate with a right center of being. In this kind of relation, causativerelation, we

apprehend not a being, but a relationbetween two beings.

In contrary, during a cognitiveprocess not an external being is in relation with other being, but I myself, by my energy perceive its

revelation for me and inside me directly from object being. As has been said before, merging with the energy of my apprehension,

this phenomenon of makes a fundament for all further process of cognition. Because of its cognitive meaningfulness, the

further process of apprehension is not more than the primordial synergy: it obtains nothing more, but seeks to affirm in the subject

the synergetic revelation of reality, and as far as it can, it makes always reproducible in the consciousness that what once and

suddenly revealed itself, and tries to make these repetitive appearances as full as the original apprehension. This organon of

automatic connection between object and subject is a word, and a special kind of a word - the name, or some equivalentof the

name - metonymy.

In a broader sense, the wordis any self-dependent manifestation of a creature outside it, because the aim of these manifestationsis not the external energies, but their sense, coming by these manifestations into the trans-subjective realm.

But, between allthese activities is the one which obeys our conscious will most easily . This activity isa language of articulated human word, it is an organ of voice.

Special causes yet could be unexplained. But the organ of voice probably has


3/9

especially diverse contacts with the centers which together govern the synergetic process of our spiritual relations with reality.

only the wordalone sovereigns the cognitive process and objectivizes previously subjective entities transforming them into the

objective truths. And in the uttered word resolves the inner longing for reality and poses before us the cognitive Sehnsucht as the

just reached goal and the nostrified gem of consciousness.

The becoming of cognitive synergesis advances in some cases very slowly, teases as something commencing, but yet not fulfilled.

This process is not yet conscious touching of the object reality, not the reached knowledge, but only preparation for it. Two

energies of reality and of subject are close, maybe, intermixed, but this fluctuating mixture not yet makes a whole, and this

disparate mess of both realms inflicts in us the wearing anticipation of balance. The strain swells, and the contradiction between

subject and object grow more and more acute. It is like before storm. The word is that lightning, which tears a sky asunder fromeast to the west, producing the embodied sense: and in the word equilibrate and unify the accumulated energies. The word is a

lightning. It is no more this or that energy alone, nor both in the same place, but new, dyadic energetical phenomenon, new reality

in the world. It is a channel between the two disparate. Geometry shows us, that irrespective what is the shortest distance

between two points by the straight line, it is always possible to find a way along which the distance between them equalsnil.The

line of that way is called isotrope. Finding isotrope, we can touch any two disparate points. The utterance of word is that isotrope

between subject and object: thought distinct, they appeared identified with each other. Word is an ontological isotrope.

Being the new phenomenon in the world, bringing together the disparate, the word is not one or other from the brought, it is the

word. But it is impossible to say, that it is only for itself. It does not is without any of connected entries. Being newphenomenon, it

entirely holds itself on both points of its application; a bridge connecting two banks is not any of them, but ceases to be as a bridge,

when one of them disappears. The inverse statement is therefore clear too: a word iscognizing subject and cognizable object, held

by their interweaved energies. Wanderer, standing on the bank, sees a bridge as an extension of the opposite bank. It is a cape

from other bank, which itself had come to his feet.

A word, too, is a bridge between I and not-I. Approached from the bank of not-I, i.e., from cosmology, it is the activity of subject,

and in it is the subject itself, invading the world. When we hear the word, we think : it is the cognizing mind, it is thinking

personality. After that, we by means of the word start to get into the energy of of this speaking being. It is only way to know a

person, and generally an intelligent being: by its words, because we are certain that they directly give its activity for us, and in this

its essence is unfolding. And we are certain, that the word is the sentient being itself.

Reversely, from the bank of I, we see our own word, and led by psycho- and gnoseology, we think that it is cognoscible reality,

cognoscible object, without paying much attention to the meansof expression . And when we recognized the word as the

object itself, as the cognizable reality, we through it get into the energy of its , certain to know the itself, expressed by

its energy. Word is the reality, put into the words, not a double of it, a copy, but the reality itself in its authenticity, in its numerical

self-identity. By means of the word, and through the word we discern the reality. And the word is the reality itself.So, it in the

extreme grade is subject of the definition of the symbol: it is more than itself. And this more is twofold: being itself, it is

simultaneously subject and object. The subject of cognoscence is the basic of the symbol-word, and in this respect all said

about word perfectly fits the aforementioned ontological definition of symbolic , carrying the energy of other , merged

with the energy of symbol. And the energy of carried unfolds it.

Until now we spoke about the wordin general. But the more intense spiritual concentration, corresponding the blob of being, inwhich crisscrosses the manifold of streams of reality, the carrier of traits and states, substance in the school language, requires for

the more densely concentrated word, which would be a basic point for onomatologic acts, for crossing of sentient activities. This

wordy center is a name.

The common trait of all types of substantive is, according to POTEBNIA, that "it is a denomination of grammaticalsubstance or

thing", given as a set of all traits of that substantive.

Link between the knowing and known substance requires also the increased density of the word, as in the case of name.And

between all substances, namely the personality is thought as the most important assembly of ontological determinations and

existential relations, which give it an unique individuality, a visage, and such a substance also requires an unique name,- personal

name.

Usually our knowledge of reality targets for not a reality itself, but uses that reality for another purpose. In this - tactical, or

pragmatic - attitude towards the object of knowledge it is not held as very valuable or attractive: we are busy merely with some its

traits, some its connections with other beings. Then it sits in our mind or in our language, only because it cannot be deleted withoutdepriving us of its useful aspects. Naturally, if this object is simply tolerable, we have no urge to direct our mind upon allits

energies, traits, and connections, whereas only in a completeness of these the reality is revealed. Here we emphasize only

the needed traits, whereas the object itself remains pale with its energies obstructed. This aspect of cognoscence is called

abstraction, and the resulting name- impersonal, or abstract, name. This kind of name corresponds to a category of

substance, but not a metaphysical substance, but a grammatical one: whereas metaphysical substance is a thing itself,

detached of all its traits, the grammatical one is a set of traitshomologous to any trait which can be etymologically implied in an

appropriate substantive. It means that the thing bearing some substantive is thought like a metaphysical substance,

under a cover of a category of substantiality, although we don't think of it as a substance exactly: it is meant as a energyof

substance, but not that substanceitself. But the of this energy is always involuntarily implied. A whole of scientific


4/9

knowledge is based upon the impersonal substantives: it is busy with particular types of links and traits, but remains unmoved by

the reality itself, moreover, this reality hampers to build the schematisms of science. The scientific way of thinking " "


5/9

Name of God is God Himself.

Or, more explicitly:

Name of God is a god and namely God Himself, but God is neither the name of Him, nor

The Name of Him Itself.

Most clearly this could be formulated in the language particularly fitted for the philosophical expressions:

Let's explain the last formula. In Greek, article-definitor marks out the part which has it, and excludes it from the set of similar

entities. In this way the unity of content and its self-identity is established. A trait, due its universal nature, cannot have an article.

Therefore, the general rule of Greek grammar forbidding the complement to have an article is self evident. But, in some special

cases, as in philosophy, theology (especially, in NT grammar), a complement nevertheless hasan article. Then, this violation of

general rules indicates that the complement is taken not as a general concept the part of which is the subject, but as the some

specificity, ontologically equal to the specificity of subject. In the realm of external experience and external causality reality of

subject and that of the complement not only aren't the same but aren 't even comparable in this aspect. But in the plane if inner

mutuality of beings or according the ontological gestuality these two realities are affirmed as the same by the construction of

sentence: not similar, but ontologically the same. In other words, the complement is meant as a Platonic idea - the concretepleroma of sense. The sentence " " (Mt 5, 13) says not that the Apostles in some external aspect are

similar to salt, or that the concept about them, the apostolity, is a species of physicochemical generic concept of salinity (then

would be good), but that the spiritual of salt and spiritual of these persons are identified in

the existential sphere. It is the inner salt of apostolity to which in the ontologically grounded sense refers the name of Salt: the

common salt, a substance, is one of the lesser symbols of that Salt, but apostolity is that Salt itself. (Analogically the article is used

in Mt. 5, 14; 6, 22; 16, 16; 26, 28; Mk. 14, 22; Kor. A' 11, 23-24; Io. 11, 25; 14,6; Eph 1, 23, etc. ).

So, in the above formula of onomatodoxy the complement is the Name of God in the first part, and the God in the second part, and

they, in the quality of complements, bear the articles. Their subjects are: the God in first, and the Name in second, and these

subjects are given differently, without article in first instance, and with in second. It reflects, (1) placing (or not, the interdiction to

place) the complement under the concept of subject, and (2), establishment of ontological unity between the reality belonging to

subject and reality belonging to complement, i.e. reduction of subject to complement. It means that the Name of God as a reality

unfolding and presenting the Divine being is more than itself and is divine, and moreover, is the God Itself, manifested by His Name

truly indeed, not delusively or seemingly. But He, although manifested, does not lose His reality during that epiphany: although He

is known, He does remain inexhausted by the knowledge about Him, however deep, and is not His Name , i.e. His nature is not a nature of the name, of any name, and of the His Name.

Clearly, the firmament of this or similar formulae is held by the consensus gentium that phenomena reveal the manifestating ones

and rightly could be considered as the names of them. In a special discipline, although utmost principal, the problem of

manifestation and naming has been discussed and solved in concordance with people's consent during Palamitic controversies of

14 century - the long-lasted discussions about energies and of God. The spiritual light seen by anachorets in an epitome of

their ascetic making and felt as the Divine Light,- is it His real epiphany, or it is some subjective occurrence of human psyche, or

some kind of physical process outside, or some occult phenomenon, failing to yield a divine cognoscence? And, if first is true,

could this light be named Divine and God? That is the general content of these discussions.

pick out two aspects of God: inner, or His , and external, oriented outside, or , although not

merged, they are inseparable. Due to this inseparability, human and every creature, being in contact with Divine energy, touches

also His , although indirectly, and therefore has the right to name this energy by the name of Doer.

The intellectual impetus of Gregorios Palama and his fellows, although historically aimed into a narrow province, involves muchwider spheres than seems upon the superficial view, and it is even hard to find where it is of no relevance. Needless to theologize,

needless even to be men of faith to realize the value of these principles Here the relationship between and its energies

is analyzed, and what namely this happens to be depends upon the situation.

Certainly, human thought of reality always involves two principal concepts: , or being, manifesting one, and energy, or

manifestation, acting. The presence of two terms of reasoning makes possible four implicational (if ... then ) clauses:


6/9

A -> B

A -> -B (not B)

B -> A

B -> -A.

Also four pairwise inclusions are possible:

A -> B ; B -> A

A -> -B ; B -> A

A -> -B ; B -> -A

A -> B ; B -> -A.

These are all possible schemes. Now, substituting for real terms:

(OY= ; MF= manifestation, phenomenon)

1. MF -> OY; OY -> MF -immanentism

2. MF -> -OY; OY -> MF -radical positivism

3. MF -> -OY; OY -> -MF -Kantianism

4. MF -> OY; OY -> -MF -Platonism.

This 4th version namely is the presupposition of onomatodoxy and represents the meaning of it as the philosophical

premise. >

XI. In conclusion we should observe how the language itself by the means of etymology and semasiology testifies the gnoseologic

value of the name.

At first, what we, anyone, want to say when utter the word name? Of course, various things. But this variety stems for all

Indo-Europeans from the single root, and also on the single root grows the appropriate word for Semitic peoples. Name (rus. im[ja])

really is from Old Slavonic Saecular language: - = - , - = = lot. -men, -mentum = sanskr. -man = gr. - , etc.

This ending shows the verbalityof the word, i.e. that it is made from a verb, and not vice versa. In other words, the noun by

means of its form shows that it has come via the category of doing or state, but in its essence does not indicate a thing: it is a

thing-like acting or state, but not a source of acting, not any substance. Name is a denomination of some activity, but not of the

product of that activity, and not . But basing on the grammatical form, about could be said that its ending - ,

- , -men, etc. indicates the activity in its abstraction, in its mental detachment from the doer, i.e. this is a kind of activity which is

meant as something self-dependent. The further question - what is a contents of that activity? If - is a formal part, shaping the

word into a determined grammatical form, the informal part is comprised of the phoneme -. The word we pronounce as

jimya, i.e. with j. But j, being semivowel, is the gutturalspiritus lenis (similar to hebr. ). This gutturality if the first phoneme

especially is expressed in cz. jm and jmno, where is not the iotted i, but the proper j, and in bohm. gmeno with its pronounced

guttural g. So, besides a formal part - , contains the radical guttural spirant as the one of radical elements:

= guttural + ? + .

Going further, is pronounced with j*mm[ja] and as j*nm[ja]; this aspect of pronounce is not very clear, but that = M

= N is clear from brus. , , , , , and pol. imi. Im-n[ja] is not a

metaphaesis from inm[ja]. Consequently, the radix of contains one more nasal n, assimilating with m from the formal part.

But it is not clear, is that all, and therefore:

= guttural + nasal +? +

To find these possible elements, lets look into other IE languages:

LatinSanskrit

Ancient Baktrian - (language of Zend-Avesta)New Persian

GotfAlthochdeutsch

OsetineFrench

GermanArmenian

nomennamennamanamnamonamonomnomNamea-nun (from anuan=an-man)


7/9

Greek

The similarity of words is striking, this proves their old age and therefore makes them even more interesting. Loss of radical

elements indicates a staleness of these words, disintegrated during the long usage.

This list clearly shows that in the radix has been some vocal corresponding to long or o, or some phoneme between them: ao, as

in hebr. kamed, long a is pronounced by Sephardim sometimes as o, and by Ashkenazim always.

So, the content of this word is:

= guttural + nasal + vocal o +

The majority of languages has lost the guttural, and others it evolved into dental ( similar to j -> zh, or fr. j, g). Lat. nomen formerly

has been gnomen, it is clear from the composite words, when the requirements of euphony compel to conserve the archaic form :

co-gnomen, a-gnomen. The linguistic proportion could be derived:

nomen------ =

Nosco-----

gnomen gnosco

Gnosco is contained in cognosco, agnosco, etc.

Here : gr. really is , and this is evident in ion. , where when gamma has fallen out the elongation of initial

omicron happened as a compensation. Here radix is always as in , , , , , etc. Skr.

namanhas been once gnamanand is conserved in that form to mean sign, indication. Here .

- from . Here is a concept of cognition, apperception of an object by signingit, putting a mark, a tokenon it.

Naming, according the conception of a language itself, therefore is a literally, etymologically, the cognition, some activity by

means of which we know:

Nomen notio nota rei

(Name =concept =trait of thing

and

(G)nominibus (g)noscimus

know by names name by knowing

are not only the philosophical aphorisms. They are the etymological reports.

Now lets turn to the Semitic languages and examine the etymology of word, designating name. In the places where Slavonic Bibleuses im[jat], the Masoreth text of Jewish Bible uses not a single word, but a pair, first of them, , is comparatively scarce, and

second is ubiquitous .The first word means not namein a strict sense and could be translated in some places as memory,

Andenken, memoria, and in other - as recall, Erinnerung, Gedaechtnis, recordatio. Really, the origin of is utterly clear, from

=I remember (e.g. Zacharias - The Lord has remembered). Therefore of an object is a memo of it, its keepsake,

mnemonic tool, and, simultaneously, the result of remembering. It is:

1) memory, memoria,

2) name via which we remember (by LXX - ),

3) praising ("he has made his name").

However simple is the etymology of comparatively scarce , the ubiquitous has darker origins. The general meaning

of the etymon is clear: it means sign (Zeichen, signum, designatio), trait (Kennzeichen), feature (Merkmal), according some

researchers. But other maintain that is something what emerges visible and makes something or someone to appear

noticeable. The following table compares the word name in various Semitic languages :

Hebrew SHeM

Arabic [al iph]iSeM SuMM

Ethiopic SaMe


8/9

Aramaeanor

SHeM

SHuM

Phoenikian SH(s)M

Sabeic SM

Assyrian SHuMu

So, the single radix of these words is clearly visible. It is composed of some half-hissing and half-whistling sibilant , yet not

differentiated into or , and . But what about the radix sh(s)m? From a deep antiquity two trends have been in Arabic

philology, explaining this origin differently. One of them says that [aliph]iSeM, early form WiSeM, originates from the three-letter

radix WSM, whereas other derives this word from the other three-letter radixSM[aliph]. Both these radices, as generally all three-

lettered radices, are verbal, and it appears that both these schools have considered the word as a verbal substantive. And it

appears that the resemblance between this word and the verbs with before mentioned radices is very reasonable.

European scholars followed those Arabs. Recently, this problem has been solved in very simple Columbean way. This

Columbean egg happened to be the assertion that Semitic roots may be derived not only from three-letter predecessors, but also

from two-lettered. FABRE D`OLIVETmaintained this in the first half of 19 century, but his voice remained unheard. When KAUTCHand

ZIMMERNacknowledged this possibility, the chance of unifying two schools emerged, and this was realized by REDSLABand

BOEHMER. They turned all the other way round. If the common genesis of radices WSM and SM[aliph] along with the word is

clear, then, undoubtedly, these three words should be brought to unity. But, according the rules of modern philology, no word could

originate from two roots simultaneously, and cannot rootify itself in a pair of radices, therefore both these radices have been

emerged from . There exists the common stem the boughs of which are three-lettered roots WSMand SM[aliph], and this

stem, according the recent beliefs, is hypothetic two-lettered verbal radix which means "be externally noticeable". From it

originates WSMwith two (transitive and intransitive) meanings, and [sin][mem][he] with the intransitive meaning. This can besummarized in the following genealogy of radices:

According to these explanations, means what is protruding visible and makes something bearing it be noticeable. Coming out

in front, prominently visible, catching a sight,- all this is the essence of any thing or phenomenon. For an ancient Semite it is not a

subjectivity, but a self-discerning of the thing in its own depths. This is .

It has a more massive, material, substantial character than word , which has energetical and verbal hue. is in more

degree substantive than is a transformed verb.

The value of here found etymologies will unfold more vastly, when we will apply the historical and ethnological perspective. Buteven now it is useful to compare etymology of IE radix to Semitic . At first, similarities:

a) in both cases according to the most fundamental content - radical meaning,- nameis a signsensu latissimo;

b) sign, discriminating an object out of undifferentiated milieu, distinguishes it, takes out of chaos, from the redundancy

of blended impressions.

That we use the names as the instruments of cognition is shown by the both, Semitic and IE, language groups. They make an

evidence of the same fact, but from different directions. In the act of knowledge two aspects are evident: form(how) and contents

(what). Theoretically, we have already identified earlier these two moments as a pair of energies: energy of cognizable reality, and

energy of cognizing subject. Although in an act of knowledge both these are necessary, in the self-consciousness of subject some

one of them is dominant: Harmonic balance of both aspects is not stable. Therefore,name, being the mature act of knowledge,

receives the dominating coloring either from real and objective moment, or from formal and subjective. Cohenian panlogism

and empiriocriticism of AVENARIUSsome time ago were the extremal realizations of these two approaches. But already in the heart


9/9

of language sit both of them, but without extremistic undermining of the lesser aspect. and its allies are the knowledges from

the object, they are the content of experience, that what is known. and its IE kins are the knowledges as seen from subject,

the tools for cognition. aims at the experienced reality, and puts the cognizing soul at the front plane. But realistic

moment in its depths is intuition, and further - mystics, whereas idealistic - construction of Noys. Therefore at the superficial

plane conforms to sensualism, and more deeply - to constructive idealism. If draw further the aspirations of both tendencies, the

first unilateral trend leads to mystical excitement, music, the esoteric speech, and second - the incorporeal logic, more generally -

mathematics, knowing not about what it speaks and does it speak justly. But these are the extreme provinces of basic gnoseologic

dichotomy, which are shown by languages, but not asserted in their unilaterality: though with different accents, both moments are

present in as in . Known metaphysically enters into a knowing one, and subject metaphysically exits the himself to

embrace the known. The first action is mystic apprehension, always mystical -- no difference how to call it, and the second is the

naming. Semites in their etymology displayed that in the knowledge they value mainly the reality, and in the names - their

respective things, whereas for the Aryans the greatest treasure is the intelligence of the known , and in the names - their concepts.

Nomen = omen, name is a token, and from the other side, nomen - notio. This is the antithesis of and , philosophically

expressed by SPINOZAand KANT. Examining this antithesis, we could discern the theoretical and gnoseologic, and, further,

ontological opposition of feminine (receptive) and masculine (normative) principles, as in Kabbala. But now we are not to examine

this opposition but to notice the fundamental similarity, to find the common province of both mental layers which they build up

cooperatively. For all the nations name is not a empty soubriquette, not mist and sound alone, not a relative and accidental

concoction, although even ex consenso omnium, but the knowledge, full of sense and reality, about the world revealed in this

world. The Ancients had no suspicion that name is only the sound. It has been known and knowable essence of things, the idea,

for them. Its destination is to discriminatesome object from the surrounding chaos of impressions andjoinit to others again, but

already coordinated. The function of name is a linkage. It disintegrates the irregularity of consciousness and links it again in a

orderly way. It is both real and ideal. It is the principle of articulation, of classification, principle of harmony and tune. Thus, the

name is not a sound but a word, , i.e. word=mind, sound=sense, both merged. Was Goethe not right translating the

evangelical Word as Action - That?

if You have come from Kosmos abstract, return here

my note about onomatologic discussion about the Light of Tabor

Here I will describe in brief (more explicit account is in biography section) this discussion. It has been started by recluse

schimonach ILLARIONwhich wrote a book Na gorach Kavkazaabout his mystical experience during his prayer. He wrote, that the

prayer of Jesus(gospodi Isuse Christe, syne bozhije, pomiluj mia, greshnago - my Lord

Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me -- repeated many thousands of times) helps tomake the Name of Jesus to rest in one's heart, and this Name is divine and it is the Jesus itself, that is not separable from Him. In

this Name is present whole Jesus, in all His essence and all His traits. The eremites of Athos then formed two parties: some were

enthusiastic about it and devised a simple and clear formulas "Name of God is the God itself" (onomatodoxai), whereas the other

(onomatclastai) called them heretics and onomatolatrois. This controversy was very hard for the contemporary Orthodox Church

which was then in a deep crisis and was degenerated into a simply departments of Orthodox states. Especially idiotic was the so

called Synod of Russian Church, which showed its total incompetence in philosophy and theology, and applied the severe

repressions to onomatodoxes. All open discussions has been banned and dissemination of ideas canonically repressed, though a

majority of Orthodox monachs silently continued to be the adherents of onomatodoxy. Many of secular philosophers were for the

onomatodoxes: S. BULGAKOV, V. ERN, P. FLORENSKIJ, A. LOSEV, also archiepiscopes THEOPHANand THEODOR, mathematician D.

EGOROV, etc.

“Onomatodoxy as a philosophical premise”.pdf

Documents

Transcript of “Onomatodoxy as a philosophical premise”.pdf