% !TeX root = ../z.tex

\begin{elementlit}
{Katharina A. Breckner}
{\autor{Katharina A. \kapit{Breckner}}
	\afiliacja{Department of Social and Political Philosophy, Nijmegen University, Hamburg}}
{A Comparative Study of ``Godmanhood'' (bogochelovechestvo)\ldots}
{A Comparative Study of~``Godmanhood'' (bogochelovechestvo) in Russian Philosophy.
The Eighth Day in V.~Solovëv, S.~Bulgakov, N.~Berdiaev, and S.~Frank}
{A Comparative Study of~``Godmanhood'' (bogochelovechestvo) in~Russian Philosophy\ldots}
\index{Breckner, K.A.}

%\oDef{\oChrystus}{Chrystus}{Chrystus}
\oDef{\oMarx}{Marx}{Marx, K.} % Karl
\oDef{\oSolov}{Solov}{Solovëv, V.S.} % Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovëv (Владимир Сергеевич Соловьёв)
\oDef{\oBulgakov}{Bulgakov}{Bulgakov, S.N.} % Sergej (Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov) (Сергей Николаевич Булгаков)
\oDef{\oBerdiaev}{Berdiaev}{Berdiaev, N.A.} % Nikolai Aleksandrovich (Николай Александрович Бердяев)
\oDef{\oFrank}{Frank}{Frank, S.L.} % Semyon Lyudvigovich (Семён Людвигович Франк)
\oDef{\oKolchuzhkin}{Kolchuzhkin}{Kol'chuzhkin, E.} % Evgenii
\oDef{\oSolovev}{Solovёv}{Solovёv, S.M.} % Sergej Mikhailovich
\oDef{\oRadlov}{Radlov}{Radlov, E.L.} % Ernest L'vovich
\oDef{\oBoehme}{Boehme}{Böhme, J.} % Jakob
\oDef{\oRouleau}{Rouleau}{Rouleau, F.} % François
\oDef{\oBaader}{Baader}{Baader, F.} % Franz
\oDef{\oGrant}{Grant}{Grant, I.H.}
\oDef{\oHarris}{Harris}{Harris, E.E.} % Errol E.
\oDef{\oHeath}{Heath}{Heath, P.} % Peter
\oDef{\oMackay}{Mackay}{Mackay, R.} % Robin
\oDef{\oPerrone}{Perrone}{Perrone SJ, G.} % Giovanni
\oDef{\oDostoevskij}{Dostoevskij}{Dostojewski, F.} % Fiodor Michajłowicz
\oDef{\oFeuerbach}{Feuerbach}{Feuerbach, L.} % Ludwig Andreas
\oDef{\oEvtuhov}{Evtuhov}{Evtuhov, C.} % Catherine
\oDef{\oEngels}{Engels}{Engels, F.} % Friedrich
\oDef{\oWeiss}{Weiss}{Weiss, O.} % Otto
\oDef{\oSmith}{Smith}{Smith, A.} % Adam
\oDef{\oKolerov}{Kolerov}{Kolerov, M.A.} % Modest Alekseievich (Модест Алексеевич)
\oDef{\oReznichenko}{Reznichenko}{Reznichenko, A.} % Anna
\oDef{\oHopko}{Hopko}{Hopko, T.} % Thomas
\oDef{\oKesich}{Kesich}{Kesich, L.} % Lydia
\oDef{\oBird}{Bird}{Bird, R.} % Robert
\oDef{\oSapov}{Sapov}{Sapov, V.V.} % Vadim Veniaminovich, Вадим Вениаминович Сапов
\oDef{\oMcLachlan}{McLachlan}{McLachlan, J.M.} % James M. 
\oDef{\oHeidegger}{Heidegger}{Heidegger, M.} % Martin
\oDef{\oFrench}{French}{French, R.M.} % Robert M.
\oDef{\oTillich}{Tillich}{Tillich, P.} % Paul
\oDef{\oHerberg}{Herberg}{Herberg, W.} % Will
\oDef{\oNietzsche}{Nietzsche}{Nietzsche, F.} % Friedrich Wilhelm
\oDef{\oJakim}{Jakim}{Jakim, B.} % Boris
\oDef{\oPlotinus}{Plotinus}{Plotyn}
\oDef{\oDuddington}{Duddington}{Duddington, N.} % Natalie
\oDef{\oEhlen}{Ehlen}{Ehlen, P.} % Peter
\oDef{\oBuber}{Buber}{Buber, M.} % Martin
\oDef{\oEbner}{Ebner}{Ebner, F.} % Ferdinand
\oDef{\oRosenzweig}{Rosenzweig}{Rosenzweig, F.} % Franz
\oDef{\oWindelband}{Windelband}{Windelband, W.} % Wilhelm
\oDef{\oOtto}{Otto}{Otto, R.} % Rudolf
\oDef{\oScheler}{Scheler}{Scheler, M.} % Max
\oDef{\oSchulz}{Schulz}{Schulz, P.}
\oDef{\oLobkowicz}{Lobkowicz}{Lobkowicz, N.}
\oDef{\oLuks}{Luks}{Luks, L.}
\oDef{\oEckhart}{Eckhart}{Eckhart}
\oDef{\oBergson}{Bergson}{Bergson, H.} % Henri
\oDef{\oRussell}{Russell}{Russell, B.} % Bertrand
\oDef{\oSimmel}{Simmel}{Simmel, G.} % Georg
\oDef{\oOrigen}{Origen}{Orygenes}
\ooDef{\ooGalileGalilei}{Galile}{Galilei}{Galileusz} % Galileo
\ooDef{\ooJohnChrysostom}{John}{Chrysostom}{Jan Chryzostom, św.}
\oDef{\oAthanasius}{Athanasius}{Atanazy Aleksandryjski, św.}
\oDef{\oAugustine}{Augustine}{Augustyn z Hippony, św.}
\ooDef{\ooGregoryVII}{Gregory}{VII}{Grzegorz VII, św.}
\ooDef{\ooInnocentIII}{Innocent}{III}{Innocenty III}
\oDef{\oGregory}{Gregory}{Grzegorz z Nyssy, św.}
\ooDef{\ooNicolausCusanus}{Nicolas}{of Cusa}{Mikołaj z Kuzy}
\ooDef{\ooImmanuelFichte}{Immanuel}{Fichte}{Fichte, I.H.}
\oDef{\oHeg}{Heg}{Hegel, G.} %Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
\oDef{\oPlato}{Plato}{Platon}
\oDef{\oCopleston}{Copleston}{Copleston, F.C.} % Frederick Charles

\streszczenie{
	W eseju pt. «Studium porównawcze ,,bogoczłowieczeństwa'' w~filozofii rosyjskiej\ldots», w~zwięzły sposób zostały 
	przedstawione poglądy czterech rosyjskich filozofów religijnych: V.~\oSolov[ёva], S.~\oBulgakov[a], 
	N.~\oBerdiaev[a] i~S.~\oFrank[a].
	Zdaniem Autorki, w~myśli tych rosyjskich myślicieli wyraźnie zaznacza się przekonanie, że nie można w pełni 
	zrozumieć Stworzenia bez Bogoczłowieka --- \oChrystus[a].
	To właśnie w~\oChrystus[ie] i~poprzez \oChrystus[a] ludzie stają się bogoludzkością.
	Przyjmując łaskę i prawdę, daną nam w~\oChrystus[ie], ludzkość może urzeczywistniać tę łaskę i~tę prawdę, 
	zarówno w~skali życia indywidualnego, jak i~w~skali historycznej.
	Antropologia rosyjskich filozofów jest niewątpliwie bardzo szczególna.
	Sugeruje ona, że w~bogoludzkości (bogoczłowieczeństwie) dochodzi do połączenia pierwiastka boskiego 
	z~pierwiastkiem ludzkim.
	Urzeczywistnienie Królestwa Bożego zależy więc nie tylko od samego Boga, ale również od ludzi, którzy muszą się 
	przeistoczyć duchowo.
	To przeistoczenie jest pracą, jest zadaniem, które zostało ludziom powierzone przez Boski Absolut.
	Bogoczłowieczeństwo \oChrystus[a] --- tak, jak zostało ono ukazane przez \oSolov[ёva] --- ukazuje prawdziwy sens 
	Wcielenia i~ów bogoczłowieczy zbawczy czyn, przynoszący realne wybawienie świata od zła.
	Jednocześnie --- poprzez Bogoczłowieczeństwo \oChrystus[a] --- możemy dostrzec i~zrozumieć nadprzyrodzone 
	powołanie człowieka.
	Myśl \oSolov[ёva] kontynuował \oBulgakov[], który z~jeszcze większą mocą podkreślał rolę Kościoła, który nie 
	jest jedynie bogoczłowieczym fundamentem odkupienia ludzi, ale bogoczłowieczą wspólnotą, budowaną w~celu 
	odkupienia świata.
	\oBerdiaev[] z~kolei, całą odpowiedzialność za historyczny sukces ludzkości składa w~ręce ``arystokracji'', 
	czyli ludzi prawdziwie wolnych, o~wielkim sercu i~gotowych do ,,samouświęcania się''.
	\oFrank[] przedstawił fascynującą ontologię duszy ludzkiej, w~której Bóg ,,zdeponował'' część swojej mocy 
	stwórczej, dzięki czemu człowiek może świadomie towarzyszyć Bogu w~Jego działaniu.
	(Zob. także: Wprowadzenie do\ldots{} konferencji ,,Człowiek i~Wszechświat'')
}{
	Bogoczłowieczeństwo --- Kreatywność --- Duchowa cielesność --- Personalizm --- Docta ignorantia
}


Vladimir \oSolov[ëv] (1853--1900), Sergej \oBulgakov[] (1871--1944), Nikolaj \oBerdiaev[] (1874--1948), and Semyon 
\oFrank[] (1877--1950) are Russian philosophers with impressive Christian faith.
All four of them were concerned with cosmology, with Creation, matter, energy, and nature.
All of these four so-called ``Silver Age-philosophers'' shared the a~priori statement that the human universe must 
extend to something bigger, something more than it actually is.
They regarded the cosmos man is an inhabitant of as to be always developing, extending, a~dynamic sphere whose ends are 
in parts non-predictable.
Albeit their prophecies differ significantly in discursive terms they share the fundamental axiological idea of man as 
co-Creator.
This investigation on ``\textit{`bogochelovechestvo'}/Godmanhood'' hypothetically understands this religious 
anthropology as an implicit prophetic call man to continue Creation: philosophising for a~Christian is to be attached to 
two extremes, namely to prophetic Biblical visions and to the philosophers' rationality.
A~religious philosopher is pulled in opposite directions thinking on one side the sober words of the philosophers while 
being on the other side influenced by the words of the prophet.

Following Immanuel \oKan[t] human cognition is heavily restricted by ``forms'' of cognition, yet, already cultural 
traditions may restrict insights in what is truly true to an important extent.
Vladimir \oSolov[ëv's] historical situation certainly was not as dramatic as \ooGalileGalilei{o}{'s}, yet also he was 
expelled from official academic life by the tsars' secret services, because his philosophy of 
Godman/\textit{`bogochelovek'} and All-unity/\textit{`Vse-edinstvo'} had launched into public discussion the vision of 
the ``\textit{Universal Church}'' reunifying Western and Eastern Churches, or to be more precise, Roman Catholicism and 
Russian Orthodoxy under the patronage of the Roman pope.
The next passage tries to resolve supporting anthropological views in order to axiologically understand this far 
reaching claim.

The famous Solovëvian notion of \textit{`bogochelovechestvo'}/Godman\-hood embeds the world's cosmological 
organization.
And so, essentially man is a~natural, a~social, and foremost of all a~spiritual, mystical, and Godly being.
The third predicate renders possible the spiritualisation of whatever experience;
it is the ``bond'' between eternal and minor forms of truths.
It is extremely important to note that the first two attributes loose human character when disassociated from the 
third.\footnote{
	\cite{Solovev:Smysl}, p.~37f.}
Consequently man is \textit{spiritual-physical} essence that corresponds to the duality of the Uncreated and the 
created, spirit and matter, eternity and the boundedness by time and space.
Nature in general and nature in man is not anything independent from spirit, but nature generally represents 
``\textit{`sviataia telesnost'}/spiritual corporeality.\footnote{
	\cite{Solovev:Evrejstvo}, pp.~142--150.}
In nutshell, contrary to pantheism conceiving nature as to manifest a~special type of deity \textit{`für sich'} 
\oSolov[ëv's] concept of ``All-unity'' defines the properties of being in terms of a~duality in God himself: nature his 
His ``counterpart'', His ``Creation'' and ``portrayal''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Priroda}, p.~20ff. he comprehensively delineates \oSolov[ëv's] concept of \textit{`sviataia 
	telesnost'}.}
Even if it holds dependent, created being --- a~design perfectly in the line with Jakob \oBoehme,\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{David:TheFormation}, pp.~190--205, about \oBoehme['s] theosophy as having ignited \oSolov[ëv's] 
	metaphysical views.
	For both, \textit{Sophia} is the substantial, or bodily aspect of God (\textit{`materiia Bozhestva'}).
	For both, \oBoehme{} and \oSolov[ëv], it is necessary that the force of the One (the incipient spirit of God) 
	clashes with the opposing force of multiplicity.
	Both characterise the One not only as ``unity'' and ``freedom'', but also as the universal bearer of love.
	Cf. in this context \cite{Solovev:LaSophia}, p.~13, and many other places.
	\oSolov[ëv] makes also use of \oBoehme['s] symbolism, associating the One, with the source of love 
	(\cite{Solovev:Smysl}), with light.
	In this context see especially idem, \cite{Solovev:Krasota}, pp.~235--236, and \cite{Solovev:Mistika}, 
	pp.~243--245.}
Franz \oBaader{} and Friedrich \oSchelling{}\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Schelling:Ideas} and \cite{Schelling:Soul}.}
--- Creation has not ended but has yielded transcendent and immanent seeds to spiritual co-creatorship.
Co-creatorship in \oSolov[ëv] always points at the omnipresent spiritual-natural character of humanity's life-worlds.

Perfectly in line with neo-Platonic, gnostic, and mystical traditions \oSolov[ëv] associates nature with the feminine 
principle that seeks union with the world's masculine logos, with Christ.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Groys:DieErfindung}, p.~3ff.}
Nature does not have antithetic to the Divine existence, but signifies, so to say, rather a~yet undignified dwelling 
that by definition shelters the potential of its proper deification.
This is what he called ``religious materialism'': God's spirit sanctifies nature in man and nature around him, given, of 
course, man consciously wishes and accompanies this process by his proper ambition to 
spiritualise/\textit{`odukhotvorit'} nature.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Evrejstvo}, pp.~135--185.}
In \textit{Opravdanie dobra }(1894--1897, \textit{The Justification of the Good}) he maintained the position that 
between spiritual and material being there is no dichotomy, but both are intrinsically bound to each other, which is why 
every transformation of material is a~``development of God's material (\textit{`protsess bogomaterialnyj'})''.
Matter, nature, every corpus has a~right to spiritualisation, a~ever-changing process that begins with man's love to the 
Created.\footnote{
	Cf. idem \cite{Solovev:Opravdanie}, pp.~369--385.} 

Man's corpus, the social corpus, and the corpus of the world have ``ideal-real'' character;
each represents a~``\textit{mystical }corpus''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Smysl}, p.~29ff.}
At one place in his comprehensive works, \oSolov[ëv] regrets that until his life-time apart from singular ``poets'', 
people in general did not yet provide the necessary type of love to ``spiritualise nature''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Smysl}, p.~59f.}

The young \oSolov[ëv] already must have been fond of nature as to await its spiritualisation, for combating Marxian 
materialism he introduced his concept of ``religious materialism'' in \textit{Jewry and the Christian Question} 
(\textit{Evrejstvo i~khristianskij vopros}, 1884).\footnote{
	First published in: \textit{Pravoslavnoe Obozrenie}, 1884 No.~8-9.}
Christ's advent to the Jews accounts for their deep religiosity, but also the fact that they were people of law and 
order, just as much as they were a~prophetic people.
``\textit{Religious materialism}'', describes, as he maintained, the Hebrews' thought and mentality.
They did not separate ``spirit'' from its material appearance: ``matter'' did not have any independent existence, it was 
neither God nor devil, but represented rather a~yet ``undignified dwelling'', inhabited by God's spirit and sanctifying 
the vessel through man's co-operation.
The believing Hebrew desired entire nature, the world he lived in, to have Gods ``wholeness'' at its disposal, given He 
was a~``holy'' or a~``spiritual corporeality''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Evrejstvo}, pp.~142--150.}
Because the Hebrews deeply believed in this type of abundance, meaning in fact a~permanent interrelation between God and 
nature by means of a~spiritualised nature, they were the chosen people to whom Christ first appeared.
Yet, as \oSolov[ëv] affirms, Christ demanded from them a~dual deed: first, the renunciation of national egoism and 
secondly a~temporarily, partially limited relinquishment of the world's welfare.
If they had combated the pagan empire of Rome as martyrs, they would have won it over and finally would have had a~great 
triumph in uniting with Christianity.
Despite the Hebrews' omission of their duties arising from historical and spiritual responsibilities, the tasks of Jews 
and Christians still remain the same: the establishment of the \textit{universal Church} [italics mine, KB].\footnote{
	As is reported, cf. \cite{Stremoukhoff:VladimirSoloviev}, p.~298, \oSolov[ëv] devoted his last prayer before 
	dying on 31\textsuperscript{st} July 1900 (old Russian calendar) to the Jews, for his hope on their 
	self-communion was related to believing on a~drawing near of theocracy in this case.}

In ``\textit{Istoriia i~budushchnost' teokratii}'' (1885--1887, \textit{History and Future of Theocracy}) \oSolov[ëv] 
provides the seven Biblical Days of \textit{Genesis I} with metaphysical and anthropological considerations to Godman's 
tasks and destiny.
The sun, the moon, and the stars were created on the fourth day that accomplished the Creation of the universal body.
It is the fourth Biblical day \oSolov[ëv] finds in the seeds of theocracy.
In metaphysical terms the cosmic order materialises the distinction between state (moon), the Church (sun), and prophets 
(stars).
In correspondence to the moon the state rules the ``dark'' whereas the Church corresponds to the sun.
The sun's all-embracing light enlightens the entire firmament.
The moon whose light is reliant on the sun's predominant position on the firmament only faintly enlightens the night; 
the moon then is the cosmic symbol of the state that in turn depends on the Church.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Solovev:Istoriia}, pp.~569--579.
	For discussion, cf. \cite{Stremoukhoff:VladimirSoloviev}, pp.~281--298.}
Once a~state codifies moral evil and hinders its execution by monopolised power, it deserves to be called a~``Christian 
state''.
\oSolov[ëv's] \textit{Dukhovnye osnovy zhizni} (1882--1884, \textit{The Spiritual Foundation of Life}) adds: the 
``Christian state'' recognises a~``higher goal'' aligned by the Christian religion and the Church;
it ``voluntarily serves'' both.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Dukhovnye}, p.~325f.}
Obviously, the more a~state recognises the Church's monopoly in spiritual education and ensures it by legislation, the 
higher it qualifies.

The sun's role should be mirrored by the universal Church.
The sun is the centre of our galaxy, it is, as he maintained, the physical, the cosmic expression of the world's 
All-unity/\textit{`mirovoe vsesedinstvo'} and this is precisely also the Church's role.
The latter now, the prophets are to ``brightly light the way'' as if they are stars on the firmament.
At all future times this was to be the natural order, i.e. the hierarchy of all human life.
On the sixth day He made the beasts of the earth according to its kind and man after His image, according to His 
likeness (\textit{Gen.~1,~25--26}).
The seventh day, God's day of rest when He blessed and sanctified what He had created (\textit{Gen.~2,~3}), is responded 
to by the life-time of the first Godman, by Christ's lifetime on earth albeit this day has not ended after His 
crucifixion.
On the contrary, He was sent in order to manifest Creation in what is its goal, viz. the ubiquitous reinstatement of the 
world's logos in natural life, which is same as to establish free theocracy, namely the universal Church.\footnote{
	Cf. footnote 14.}

As we are to understand discursively, the sun (light) elucidates matter.
Once matter and/or nature and/or whatever exists on earth finds itself under the rays of light, totally independent from 
each other parts are unified by the simple fact of their simultaneous elucidation.
This is, as I~read his oeuvre, the cosmic, natural form of 
\textit{syzygy}/\textit{unification}/\textit{sochetanie}\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Smysl}, p.~57, first footnote.
	In this context cf. \oKolerov, \textit{Smysl'} --- bibliography???, for a~detailed account of \oSolov[ëv's] 
	preoccupation with Gnosticism between 1891 and 1893, for \textit{syzygy} as a~Gnostic item.}
when natural segregation is overcome by the rays of the sun.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Smysl}, p.~46f.
	Cf. in this context esp. \cite{Stremoukhoff:VladimirSoloviev}, p.~274f.
	He suggests this idea had been inspired by a~number of sources:
	(1) Reading of Gen. I, 27, by Church Fathers like \ooJohnChrysostom{}{}.
	(2) The Jewish Caballistic teaching man as to be androgynous.
	(3) Jakob \oBoehme{} (and also his successor F.~v.~\oBaader) and his theosophy on the restoration the 
	\textit{Jungfrau} (virgin) in God by human acts.}
Analogically the Church should spiritually play the same role integrating all there is on earth, viz. unifying people.
This universal task of course needs a~universal Church.
In metaphysical terms this universal Church shelters all forms of social organisations, the state included.

The moon whose light is reliant on the sun's predominant position on the firmament only faintly enlightens the night's 
darkness; the moon then is the cosmic symbol of the state that in turn depends on the Church.
Once a~state codifies moral evil and hinders its execution by monopolised power, it deserves to be called a~``Christian 
state''. \oSolov[ëv's] \textit{Dukhovnye osnovy zhizni } (1882--1884, \textit{The Spiritual Foundation of Life}) adds: 
the ``Christian state'' recognises a~``higher goal'' aligned by the Christian religion and the Church;
it ``voluntarily serves'' both.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Dukhovnye}, p.~325f.}
Obviously, the more a~state recognises the Church's monopoly in spiritual education and ensures it by legislation, the 
higher it qualifies.

Thirdly, He created stars twinkling in the night's darkness and by doing so interrupting it and recalling the 
all-embracing sun.
Stars now symbolise people.
People should thus act as if they were prophets of the universal never ending light --- metaphysically corresponding the 
Church --- always to await.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Solovev:Evrejstvo}, p.~566 and \cite{Solovev:Istoriia}, pp.~569--579.}
Every person alive, or to use \oSolov[ëv's] expression, \textit{`bogochelovechek'}/Godman anthropologically shelters 
this universal cosmic order within himself.
The \textit{seventh Biblical Day}, God's day of rest when He blessed and sanctified what He had created 
(\textit{Gen.~2,3~}), corresponds to Christ's lifetime on Earth.
This seventh day has not ended after His crucifixion.
On the contrary, He was sent in order to manifest \textit{`bogochelovechestvo'}, or to be more precise, He was sent by 
the father in order to manifest Creation's idea, namely the ubiquitous reinstatement of the world's cosmic logos in all 
natural life by Godman.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Solovev:Istoriia}, pp.~574--579.}
Fundamentally Godman is as much a~\textit{priest} (in correspondence to the sun as a~cosmic symbol of the Church), as he 
is a~\textit{king} (in correspondence to the moon as symbol of the state), as he is also a~\textit{prophet} (in 
correspondence to the stars).\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Solovev:Istoriia}, p.~267.}

\oSolov[ëv] introduced his design of Godmanhood already between 1877 and 1881 in twelve \textit{Lectures on Divine 
Humanity} (\textit{Cteniia o~bogochelovechstve});
in all of his later writings it figures as a~key notion.
Also in his French treatise \textit{La Russie et l'église universelle} (\textit{Russia and the Universal Church}, 1889) 
\textit{`bogochelovechstvo'} is linked to the appearance of the Second Adam, the world's \textit{masculine} 
logos.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Solovev:LaRussie}, p.~241ff, and many other places.}
Consequently, Godmanhood's significance corresponds, as we have seen already, on the one hand, to both tripartite 
characterizations, namely man as to be a~priest, a~king, and a~prophet and man as to be a~spiritual-physical and 
a~social being and also corresponds to the masculine principle.
As we have seen already \oSolov[ëv's] discourse determined a~distinct feminine principle, too.
The unification of both creates syzygy,\footnote{
	Cf. footnote no.~17.}
\textit{`sviataia telesnost'}/ holy corporeality, the highest point of which is the universal Church: in \textit{La 
Russie} \oSolov[ëv] designed this spiritual yet-to-be marriage between the world's masculine principle, its personified 
logos in Christ and the feminine principle, i.e. nature in man, in great detail.
This marriage would give birth to the ``universal Church'' that reflects Trinity whichever constitutive element you 
regard.
This unique Church would be headed by a~papal government representing the Father.
God-the Son is represented by the ``essential community,'' by bishops sharing the same sacraments.
Their community would fulfil the function of a~mediator between the paternal mightiness and the assembly of priests, the 
latter denoting the fundamental level universal Church and representing God the Holy Ghost.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Solovev:LaRussie}, p.~280ff.}
This is the design of ideal society that universally organises itself in form of a~free theocracy.

\textit{L'église universelle} was in his eyes the embodiment of \textit{Sophia}.
The Old Testament describes Sophia, His Wisdom, as a~quasi-personal feminine reality.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bouyer:AnIntroduction}, p.~149.}
Both St. \oAthanasius, the generally acknowledged Father of the Orthodox Church, and also St. \oAugustine{} have a~fully 
explicit sophiology at the heart of their vision.
Both see \textit{Sophia} as the final glorification of \textit{human nature in} Christ by the Church that, 
metaphysically, denotes his mystical body.
In \oSolov[ëv] \textit{Sophia} appears as the archetype of humanity's social relations which is the same as to speak of 
the universal Church: this yet-to-be manifestation of Sophia will spring off the marriage between the world's masculine 
principle, its personified logos in Christ, and the feminine principle, i.e. nature.
Nature thus has to undergo a~sufficiently effective process of transformation by spiritualisation in order to overcome 
all physicalness as a~brute matter of fact.
\textit{What does this mean, what are history's dynamics in this respect?
And, what was man's role in this historical process?} \oSolov[ëv] must have introduced some programme of change, which 
either allows for some sort of voluntarism or whose ends are fulfilled \textit{deus ex machina}.
This extremely complicated problem must be given a~résumé:

In agreement with 18\textsuperscript{th} and 19\textsuperscript{th} centuries mainstream thought also \oSolov[ëv] 
argued that the universe's history is made up of three successive phases.
He called the first phase ``cosmogonic phase.'' As suggested by its name already this phase took place before human 
history started and it was removed by the Creation of complex forms and organisms, the human organism included.
This creative ``theogonic phase'' encompasses all mysteries to Creation and is characterised by processing activity of 
human consciousness.
\oSolov[ëv] enumerates the development of Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek philosophy, Judaism and other important 
pre-Christian mainstream world-views which gave witness to consciousness' unfolding that provided grounds for the third, 
namely the ``historical phase''.
The latter took start with Jesus Christ who set off \textit{`bogochelovechestvo'}.\footnote{
	Cf. footnotes no.~18, 20. 21.}

In fact, \oSolov[ëv] considered his lifetime a~period on the edge of great historical change, the seventh day was, as 
he assumed, close to fulfilment: he was sure the rapprochement of the Roman Catholic Church and Russian Orthodoxy was to 
come during his lifetime.
Anticipating this re-union he also considered concrete policies and developed the notions of ``Christian'' and 
``religious politics'' in great detail.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Schrooyen:Vladimir}, passim.}
Confirmed by many other scholars, he had an intensive reading of Catholic dogmatic.
He studied the multi-volume work \textit{Praelectiones theologicae} by G.~\oPerrone{} and apparently also studied in 
original more or less all works by the popes \ooGregoryVII{}{} and \ooInnocentIII{}{}.
His writings \textit{Istoriia i~budushchnost' teokratiia} (1884--1886, \textit{History and Future of Theocracy}) and 
\textit{Dogmaticheskoe razvitie tserkvi v~sviazi s~voprosom o~siedinenii tserkvej} (1886, \textit{The Dogmatic 
Development of the Church in Relation to the Question of the Churches' Unification}) are dedicated to an analyse of 
dogmatic differences between Russian Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
He concluded that there aren't any significant discrepancies.
The vision of a~drawing near unification of both Churches under the roof of Rome was central in his thought.
He is even believed to have been in contact with the pope in this mission.
It brought in from the Tsarist side a~prohibition of all his works concerning this issue.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Mochulskij:Vladimir}, pp.~164--194.}

Sergej Nikolaevich \oBulgakov, who may be called one of Solovëv's disciples, began his intellectual biography as 
specialist on Marxian theory of surplus value having done his studies in Political Economy at Moscow 
University.\footnote{
	Before publishing his doctoral thesis \cite{Bulgakov:Kapitalizm} (1900) \oBulgakov{} had published important 
	articles on this issue already: \cite{Bulgakov:Chtotakoe} (1896), \cite{Bulgakov:Onekotorykh} (1898), 
	\cite{Bulgakov:Kvoprosu} (1899).}
However, his Marxist period was extremely short, since under the spiritual influence of \oDostoevskij{} and \oSolov[ëv] 
he already in 1901 experienced serious disappointment by Marxism as a~world outlook;
henceforth he gradually moved away from economy and gained expertise in Orthodox theology.

He reformulated \oMarx['s] concept of materialism and arrived at a~sophianic religious materialism with the Church as 
the decisive promoter of progress, viz. improvement of social life.
The \textit{Philosophy of Economy} quotes \oMarx['s] well-known 11\textsuperscript{th} thesis on \oFeuerbach:
``The question whether objective (\textit{gegenständliche}) truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a~question 
of theory but is a~\textit{practical} question.
Man must prove the truth in practical orientation, that is, the reality and power, the `this-sidedness' 
(\textit{Diesseitigkeit}) of his thinking.
[\ldots] The philosophers have only \textit{interpreted} the world, in various ways;
the point, however, is to \textit{change} it''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~77, first footnote on this page.
	In \oEvtuhov['s] translation, this passage in \oMarx{} is from \cite{Marx:Selected}, pp.~28--30.
	In this context, see \cite{Copleston:Philosophy}, p.~17f, on the ``operative'' word ``only'' signifying that 
	theory according to \oMarx{} should be oriented to practice, but by no means indicating that theory is 
	superfluous.}
As will be shown also as a~theologian he defended principles of change: In 1918 he was ordained orthodox priest, yet, 
was expatriated only shortly afterwards, for he had intensively participated in public debates on how to continue 
Russia's political and social fate after abolishment of absolute rule and also on reforms of Russian 
Orthodoxy.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Evtuhov:TheCross} for Bulgakov's role Russia's pre-revolutionary political and social life.}
In 1926 became director of the Institute St. Serge in Paris where he died in 1944.

The sophiology he developed in exile met with immense interest and critique among the parishes of Russian Orthodoxy in 
Western Europe.
A~commission set up to by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Istanbul urged him to eliminate all passages concerned with 
\textit{Sophia} in order to safeguard acknowledgement by the Russian Orthodox Church in exile.
As he decided not to follow this advice, crucial parts of his works were and still are condemned as heretical by today's 
Russian Orthodoxy.
What is \textit{bogochelovechestvo} and who is Sophia in \oBulgakov are the leading questions of the next passage.

He intensively looked into \oSolov[ëv's] idea of ``sacred corporeality'' that, as we have seen, is intrinsically 
intertwined with the latter's notion of ``religious materialism''.
Despite the fact that \oSolov[ëv] never developed this concept into a~refined, separate philosophical discourse, 
\oBulgakov{} 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''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Priroda}, pp.~8--20.}
Nature must be the visible spirit, and spirit must be the invisible nature.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~85, quote from \cite{Schelling:Ideen}, I, p.~152.
	As \oBulgakov{} decides, ``\ldots{}the true founder of the philosophy of economy'' is \oSchelling.
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~79.}
``Nature's highest goal to become wholly an object to herself is achieved only through the last and highest order of 
reflection, which is none other than man''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~85f, quote from \cite{Schelling:System}, II, p.~14f.}
To say the same in another wording by \oBulgakov, nature is humanised by becoming man's ``peripheral body, submitting to 
his consciousness and realising itself in him''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~121.}
As in \oSolov[ëv], in \oBulgakov, too, there is no dichotomy between matter and spirit, between body and soul.
Nature 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 nature and must properly dispose of each.

In fact, this complex of ideas refers back to \oAthanasius{} of Alexandria, \oGregory{} of Nyssa, and other fathers of 
the Church, whose teachings, as he regrets, have never been worked out fully.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~37f.}
In \textit{Svet nevechernyj} (1916, \textit{The Unfading Light}), a~writing that testifies to his becoming more and more 
a~theologian, \oBulgakov{} explicitly refers to \oGregory{} of Nyssa's teachings on Creation and on resurrection: 
\oGregory{} developed the idea of Creation in two acts: ``general'' (\textit{`obshchee'}] and ``partial'' 
(\textit{`chastnoe'}) Creation, viz. Creation ``in the beginning'' and in a~second step during the ``six days''. 
``[\ldots] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form and was void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters''.\footnote{
	Bulgakov refers to \textit{Tvoreniia sv.
	Grigoriia episkopa Nisskogo\index{Grzegorz z Nyssy, św.}, Chast' I, O~shetoneve} (\textit{Works of Saint 
	Gregorius of Nyssa\index{Grzegorz z Nyssy, św.}, Part I, On the Six-Day Creation}), cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Svet}, 
	p.~208f, esp. first footnote.
	The translation is taken from the English standard-translation, \textit{Gen.~I, 1--3}.
	The Russian Bible has another numeration.
	Cf. \textit{Byt.~I, 1--2}.}
\textit{``In the beginning''} then is another expression for ``Sophia''.
God created by an ineffable `sophianic' act that is unfathomable because of the all-embracing ``sagacity'' and 
``mightiness of Creation''.
Sophia then is ``potentiality'': she is a~``unity of opposites, a~\textit{coinicidentia oppositorum}'' [italics mine, 
KB].
This way Sophia is ``double-centred'': the heavenly Sophia is the ``architect'' of the earth and thus is ``transcendent 
to the world''.
The difference between Sophia and the actually created world denotes the fundamental principle of Creation.
As it were, the re-unification of both, the creation of a~new unity between both, or with his words, the establishment 
of a~``living ladder'' establishing a~connection between ``heaven'' and ``earth'' represents the final goal of the 
world's historical process.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Svet}, p.~208f.}

His \textit{Filosofiia khoziajstva} (\textit{Philosophy of Economy}, 1911) subtitled \textit{Mir kak khoziajstvo} 
(\textit{The World as Household}) presents an ontology of economy.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~38.}
``The purpose of economic activity is to defend and to spread the seeds of life, to\textit{resurrect nature}.
This is the action of Sophia'' [italics mine, KB].\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~153.}
In fact his ontology of economy discusses the question of how matter and nature is resurrected by man who after the Fall 
was condemned to wear the ``heavy shroud'' of economic need.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~154.
	Cf. also \cite{Bulgakov:Svet}, pp.~304--309, on art and economy.
	Fundamentally, both bear `sophianic' character.
	Until the fall ``white theurgy'' (\textit{`belaia magiia'}) determined man's relationship with the Created, 
	there was no difference between art and economy.
	Life's acts (\textit{`zhiznennyj protsess'}) pursued beauty and harmony.
	After the fall, ``grey theurgy'' (\textit{`seraia magiia'}) made man a~bondsman of nature and put him in the 
	dire need to conquer nature with the help of labour.
	Henceforth art and economy are diametrically opposed to each other forms of \textit{creativity}: while art 
	creates beauty in an ``erotic'' [in the Platonian sense, KB] ascent, economy is brute struggle in order to 
	physically survive within the bonds of numerous chains of causality.}.
	Henceforth, the world is a~``calcified skeleton'', is \textit{natura naturata}''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~152.}
The content of all activity --- which is economic activity --- is mere struggle between life and death, a~matter of pure 
survival.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~73, and many other places.}
Yet, this struggle between \textit{natura naturans} and \textit{natura naturata} is not a~struggle between ``two 
principles'', but rather a~struggle between ``two states [\ldots] Only this makes possible that constant, incessant 
\textit{partial resurrection or resuscitation of dead matter}, its temporary revival [\ldots] life passes into a~state 
of lifelessness, or death, that is new or transcendent to it [italics mine, KB]''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~96f.}
This is, as \oBulgakov{} continues, an ``[\ldots] experiential fact, self-evident to all''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~97.}
In order to substantiate this existentialist evidence metaphysically, he explains that if life is merely an ``[\ldots] 
epiphenomenon of death, death's lovely decoration'' there would be no sense to life.
Life is a~principle that differs from death in its potential for ``self-consciousness''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~98.}
Potentially, all matter is organised by life and concentrated in ``knots of life (\textit{`uzelki zhizni'})'' 
interconnected to each other.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~98f.}
Nature waits for being modelled in order to become man's ``peripheral body'', viz. a~particular type of human 
corporeality submitted ``[\ldots] to his consciousness and realising itself in him''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~121.}

For him, economical issues turn around the question of ``man in nature and nature in man''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~35.
	In \oEvtuhov['s] translation the Bulgakovian term \textit{`udivlenie'},
	cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~49,
	translates into ``surprise'', an expression that is unusual for the Platonic idea of it.}
Answering on the question of how matter and/or nature could become become man's ``peripheral body'' \oBulgakov['s] 
ontology of economy picked out as a~central theme the three cornerstones to every economic theory, namely production, 
consumption, and labour.
Needless to say, \oBulgakov{} shared neither \oMarx['s] narrow concept of ``valued labour'', (\textit{`Arbeitswert'} 
measured by \oMarx['s] \textit{`Mehrwerttheorie'}) nor the liberals', esp.
Adam \oSmith['s] notion of productive labour.
\oBulgakov{} qualified labour a~epistemological category, or to be more precise redefined it by ascribing cognitive 
functions to it.
``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''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~114.}
Labour intensive economy is a~constant modelling of reality, namely the objectification of the `I' as ideas bridging the 
'I' and the `non-I'.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~111.}
Labour, for \oBulgakov, tears off the skin of unconsciousness by actively identifying the `I' as intrinsically bound to 
the `non-I', be it nourishment, matter or something else.
His \textit{`Glavy o~Troichnosti'} (1928/30, \textit{Chapters on Trinity}) unambiguously clarifies that the primordial 
premise for all anthropology is to look at God as the absolute subject and not, as in natural religions, as the absolute 
object:\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Glavy}, p.~54f.}
this is the basis for self-awareness and cognition of the `non-I'.
Following his footsteps, Trinity reaches out into the world, because the singular subject is always threefold: the 
individual `I' exists within a~triangular relationship, is a~multiplicity of the `I' given by God, the 
'I-you'--relationship and, thirdly, the `I-he'--relationship, whereby the latter guarantees the existence of the `I' and 
the `you'.
As it stands, the `he' hinders mere doubling of the `I', ensures the recognition of the `you' and thus 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 
tragic in character.
Nevertheless, from a~metaphysical point of view, all three units form the `we' that is fundamental for the `I' to bridge 
distances between itself and the `non-I'.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Glavy}, pp.~59--62.}

Man is entirely free to fill that gap between these two parts of his being, either to recognise the latter, working his 
way through his own empirical `I', creating it consciously, transforming it to the needed extent, or give his 
unconscious, non reflected empirical `I' the prominent, or worse, the absolute place.
\oBulgakov{} admits the essence of this \textit{``free act''} [italics mine, KB] to be ``[\ldots] inexplicable for it is 
non-causal''.
The individual's intelligible nature is liberty.
``We have to do [\ldots] with absolute self-causality of the will''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~204.}
The `I' is never finished, immutable, ``[\ldots] but incessantly growing, developing, living.
The changing relation between the subject and object, the unfolding `I' in nature is \textit{life}, that is, growth, 
movement, and dynamic rather than static''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~113.}

As we have seen already, the world awaits modelling in order to enter man's consciousness, in order to become his 
``peripheral body'', viz. a~particular type of human corporeality submitted to his consciousness.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~121.}
Production then is the conscious transformation of dead, inanimate matter and or nature into a~``body'' that man gives 
a~distinct name to.
Consumption metaphysically comes down to partaking of the ``[\ldots] flesh of the world''.
Life is the ``[\ldots] capacity to consume the world'' our bodily organs being ``[\ldots] 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, in the process, becomes in a~sense part of our body''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, pp.~99--105.}
Evidently nourishment is the most vivid means of ``[\ldots] natural communion''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~103f.}

At the most fundamental level production and consumption are hence forms of man's interaction with nature in order to 
physically survive.
On the one hand man is nourished by nature and, on the other, he intervenes and stops natural causality by his making 
use of materials offered by nature.
He himself creates new realities.
Both processes are active--passive processes that do not necessarily entail any type of co-creativeness re-attaching man 
to \textit{Sophia}, the \textit{prototype of the created world}.
At this place we can already draw a~conclusion: Formally, man's relation to nature, to the world as an object, amounts 
to the same as the relation of `I' in God and the empirical `I', which embeds factually existing interpersonal 
relationships: the cosmos and the `I' are both divided into two spheres: the `I' given by God, metaphysically, is 
located in the same sphere as is the Divine Sophia, the Sophia `in the beginning''.\footnote{
	Cf. footnote, no. 39.}
Furthermore human creativeness in ongoing self-awareness, i.e. in dynamically realising the proper personality to hinge 
on the `we' and on intrinsic connectedness with nature correlates to the six-day-Creation.
\textit{History is created}, just like individual life is a~product of creation.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Apokaliptika}, pp.~243--247, on Christian eschatology.}

Different from \oSolov[ëv] the theologian \oBulgakov{} answered on the question of how this cognitive processes could 
be ignited unambiguously.
Already his non-theological, early \textit{Philosophy} defined the Eucharist as an active--passive event that reunites 
\textit{natura naturans} and \textit{natura naturata}.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~104.}
The unity of both is, as must be concluded, \textit{Sophia} in terms of her personal epiphany that bases on conscious 
consumption of His flesh.
As he affirms, he Eucharist sacrament bears ``practical character'' by definition;\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Philosophy}, p.~69.}
it shelters, as I~conclude, the `sophianic' knowledge needed to spiritually transform nature.
In his much later \textit{The Russian Church} (1936), he details the significance of the Eucharist maintaining that it 
``[\ldots] gives benediction to the natural elements'' and extends it to the ``[\ldots] entire domain of economic 
production and consumption.
This sanctification includes transfiguring power, so that man's activity which transforms nature, his economic toil, and 
the power of God which transfigures that nature, working above human power but not outside it, are wholly 
reunited''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:TheOrthodox}, p.~168.}
Without any doubt \oBulgakov{} narrowed in his focus: in his eyes co-creation depends on sacramental communion with God, 
which leads to the world's transformation by deification.
Exclusively the Eucharist sacrament shelters the `sophianic' knowledge needed to properly continue the world's creation.
This view perfectly corresponds to his view of the Church, prior to all creaturely existence: ``Creation was raised to 
its perfection in \textit{Godmanhood}, and the realization of this \textit{Godmanhood} is the Church in the world''.
The Church is both Uncreated and created.
She is the world's ``entelechia.'' Therefore, she receives ``social'' and ``historical'' in addition to ``cosmic 
significance''.
The Church's tasks hence include not only ways of personal salvation but also of the transfiguration of the world, 
obviously including the history of humanity, which simultaneously is the ``history of the Church'.' Its authorisation is 
therefore unfailing and originates ``[\ldots] not only in the sacramental, mystical life, but in the prophetic spirit, 
as a~call to new activity, to new tasks, to new achievements''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Social}, p.~17f.
	For a~theological justification of ``Godmanhood'' consult esp.
	\cite{Bulgakov:Svet}, pp.~342--271,
	this passage includes the discussion of Sophia as the essence also of the Second Person.}
The Church's work bears creative character;
it formulates and appropriate to historical changes is to at certain times reformulate the dogmatic corpus that reflects 
the collective religious experience of a~certain time at a~certain place.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Opervokhristianstve}, pp.~160--162.
	Cf. also \cite{Bulgakov:Otavtora}, p.~XII, and many other places.}

Prophecies are born in an analogous manner: ``social Christianity,'' or which is the same, ``Christian humanism'' 
presumes the ``[\ldots] development of all creative capacities of man'' and it ``[\ldots] may be understood as a~new 
revelation of Christianity.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Social}, p.~19.}
``Christian life cannot be limited to an individualistic life;
it is communal or social, yet not violating the principle of Christian freedom''.\footnote{
	\cite{Bulgakov:Social}, p.~21}
Yet, ``\textit{social Christianity}'' is ``[\ldots] rather a~dogmatic postulate than a~completed program of life, 
\textit{more prophecy than actuality} [italics mine, KB]''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Bulgakov:Social}, p.~20.
	In \oBulgakov['s] view, the Churches' World Congress in Stockholm 1924 took a~step in the right direction by 
	discussing forms and possibilities of ``social Christianity''.}
Prophecy arises out of the ``soul's creative activity'', the soul's confrontation with history and with visions that go 
beyond its horizons.
Prophecies are hence equally bound to time and to timelessness;
they pronounce the individual perception of both.
Prophecies are relative by definition and require careful examination of the ``historical circumstances of their 
origin''.
This, however, does of course not lessen their power but calls for further spiritual action;
in this sense prophecies have ``\textit{practical character}'' [italics mine, KB] by definition.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Bulgakov:Prorochestvo}, pp.~7--9.}

As may be concluded, if the Church fails to upraise ``social Christianity'' a~central prophecy and implement it 
dogmatically Godman cannot fulfil one of his main destinies, namely establish a~righteous social organisation.
Furthermore, in case the Church does not dogmatically extend the Eucharist's significance to co-creative issues 
\textit{natura naturata} stays as a~brute matter of fact devoid of change.
The Church must enhance general social progress and help people to spiritualise nature in the name of Godmanhood.

Deeply inspired by \oSolov[ëv's] and \oBulgakov['s] notions of Godmanhood.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Berdiaev:Samopoznanie}, p.~123f and p.~147f for details of his encounter with \oSolov[ëv] and 
	\oBulgakov, his turn from Marxism to idealism, and finally to Russian Orthodoxy.}
\oBerdiaev{} equipped its basic idea with another myth, namely the \textit{theandric myth}, symbolising man's destiny to 
create his individual non-recurring personality.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{McLachlan:Thedesire}, pp.~153--190;
	on the ``theandric myth'' in \oBerdiaev.}
The first problem we thus have to examine concerns attributes to this self-creation, which seemingly exceed the notion 
of Godmanhood by the formerly mentioned religious philosophers.

According to \oBerdiaev, as well as to other existentialist thinkers before and after him, discursively there are three 
types of time to be discerned: there are ``cosmic'', ``historical'', and the ``existential'' time-horizon.
He discerns ``cosmic'', ``historical'' and ``existential time''.
Cosmic time bases on ``mathematical calculations'' which mathematically capture objects out of the range of man's 
immediate perception.
Calculations encompass the cosmic movement, the planet's motions in the orbit, the change and succession of years, 
seasons, months, days, and hours.
The symbol that best describes ``cosmic time'' is the circle.
By contrast ``historical time'' needs the symbol of a~[\ldots] line which stretches out forward into the future'', for 
humanity's history started at a~certain point and presumably ends at another.
``Historical time'' is embedded into ``cosmic time''.
It signifies the rule of standards and the humdrum, the realm of what \oHeidegger{} called 
``\textit{in-der-Welt-sein}''.
``Existential time'' is measureless by definition and therefore it escapes all arithmetic calculations.
It is as if it is a~``point'', telling of ``movement into depth''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Berdiaev:TheBeginning}, p.~206f.}
It escapes all objectivity, for it is subjective by definition and thus scarcely finds an adequate externalised 
expression.
Hererein lies the difficulty in describing those ``breakthroughs of the spirit'' into existential time, which open up 
the realms of personal birth; they are are non-causal and non-expressible by a~spacious symbol and/or by 
words.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Berdiaev:Slavery}, pp.~20--59, and many other places.}
It may be said that the New-Testament ``Kairos'' as understood by Paul \oTillich, viz. the influx of eternity into 
time,\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Calian:Thesignificance}, p.~105.}
is what \oBerdiaev{} had in mind when discussing breakthroughs of the spirit into existential time.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Berdiaev:Slavery}, pp.~20--59, and many other places.}

All human creative acts initially take place within the spheres of existential time;
within its spheres everything is possible.
Seen from within this existential time man is a~``microcosm''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Berdiaev:TheBeginning}, p.~172.}
Creator and microcosm man are intertwined by God's emanation of Spirit.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Herberg:FourExistentialist}, pp.~103--107.}
Spirit is creative energy that transfigures the world,\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Davy:NicolasBerdiaev}, p.~123.}
all great and seminal events in history are personal first: they are born, as \oBerdiaev{} maintained, in 
\textit{existential time} before appearing in \textit{historical time}.
The leap now into the kingdom of standards is tragic because There is always a~difference between the created and the 
appearance of the created in historical time: creations go through processes of alienation when they pass from 
existential into historical time.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Berdiaev:Slavery}, p.~59--72.}
What was created in existential time is an imaginary creation non restricted by space and time nor by anything else. 
``The tragedy and torment of history are above all else the tragedy and torment of time''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Berdiaev:TheBeginning}, p.~209.}
``Creativeness in art, like every other form of creative activity, consists in triumph over given, determined, concrete 
life, it is a~victory over the world.
Objectification knows a~humdrum day-to-day concreteness of its own, but creative power finds its way from this imposed 
concreteness into concreteness of another kind.
Creative activity does not consist merely in the bestowal of a~more perfect form upon this world;
it is also liberation from the burden and bondage of this world.
Creativeness cannot be merely creation out of nothing;
it presupposes the material, which the world supplies''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Berdiaev:TheBeginning}, p.~173.}
``Man's countenance is the most touching thing in the world'', as \oBerdiaev[] summarises the inner spiritual struggle, 
accompanying the creation of one's own personality,\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Berdiaev:Slavery}, pp.~20--58.}
prior to any other form of creativity.
He correctly called this creative act ``myth,'' for this process of non-causal self-creation lies beyond 
objectification, indeed, why his readers are explicitly invited to evaluate this myth in terms of personal ``spiritual 
experience''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Berdiaev:DasIch}, p.~57.}

In accordance with this scheme of times \oBerdiaev{} presented a~sociology into which he embedded the predominance of 
Godmanhood, or to be more precise, his conceptual notion of the ``theandric myth'': what is alienation 
(\textit{Entfremdung}) in \oMarx[']\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Berdiaev:Personalizm}, p.~10.}
flows into his ``apophatic sociology,'' differentiating merely two groups of people, no more: on the one side, there are 
self-created ``aristocrats,'' on the other hand there is the ``plebs'' that is wholly determined by ``bourgeois 
mentality'': everybody who did not create inner aristocracy is a~plebeian in his being blinded and dazzled by impersonal 
standards of social and other world-environments.
By contrast, the aristocrat is a~``free'' person, ready for ``self-sacrifice'' and ``with generous heart;''aristocrats 
may organize themselves in groups such as a~``clerical caste'', a~``hierarchy of princes of the Church'' or it may be an 
``aristocratic selection within a~class which is not aristocratic''.
``The aristocratic breed of men is extraordinarily sensitive and suffers much'', and it is outnumbered by the bourgeois 
plebs.
\oBerdiaev['s] late writings reflect deep sorrow that European societies have ended up in a~proletarian 
status.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Berdiaev:Sudba}, p.~66ff.}
Impersonal masses socially determine modernity and the masses --- ``plebs'' whose ``bourgeois'' members lack inner 
``aristocracy'' --- dominate social life.
Egotism sets political paradigms.
Parliamentarian Democracy comes down to a~farce, for it merely serves the welfare of diverse `perverted' interest groups 
of what he calls soulless ``organised chaos''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Berdiaev:Sudba}, p.~14ff.}

\oBerdiaev{} was far from presenting any type of teleology.
His assumption that spiritual liberation and co-creativity would have immediate social and political 
implications\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Gottlieb:TheChristian}, p.~124f.}
cannot be explained on another basis but personal hope.
Co-creation in \oBerdiaev{} demands personal struggle, hinging on recognition of freedom, viz. man's personal and prior 
creative task to create ``personal aristocracy''.
Evidently, the leap from eternity into historical time is hindered by all kinds of standards, including language and all 
other expressive forms.
This is why \oBerdiaev['s] proper notions of anarchy and/or God's Kingdom are prudently presented as spiritual, 
subjective-objective, existential categories impossible to objectify by another category than eternity flowing in time.
Also his notion of theocracy lacks whatever conception of the Church.
The Church did not play any role in his existentialist myth of man.
As far as I~can see, he hoped on a~general Christian renaissance,\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Berdiaev:Christentum}, p.~108, and many other places.}
as it were, bringing forth \textit{spiritual societies of aristocrats}.

I take his late writing \textit{Man's Destiny in our Time} (\textit{Sud'ba cheloveka v~sovremennom mire}, 1934) as if 
his testimony: it unambiguously testifies to his total disillusion, which did not prevent him from mentioning his hope 
on the universal ``eighth day'' fulfilling Creation.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Lowrie:Rebellious}, p.~145, quoting \oBerdiaev[] on \textit{``Freedom of the Eighth Day''}, and cf. 
	\cite{Berdiaev:Slavery}, p.~216.}
This hope based, as I~see it, on his extraordinary ``theandric myth'' that to some extent was more than 
\textit{`bogochelovestvo'} by \oSolov[ëv] and \oBulgakov, for he constructed this myth in independence from whatever 
kind of standard, religious standards included.

From 1898 to 1901/02 Semyon Liudvigovich \oFrank{} (together with \oBulgakov{} and \oBerdiaev) adhered to ``legal 
Marxism'' nourished by Neo-Kantianism.
His break with Marxism was mainly a~result of his encounter with Friedrich \oNietzsche['s] works, which for him offered 
new insights into the spirit's reality.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Ehlen:DieWir}, p.~390.}
In 1912, after he had gone through a~long interim period due to his suspicion of being institutionally bound to 
a~particular confession,\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:Onevozmozhnosti}, p.~89: Frank equates ``eternal facts'' (\textit{`vechnye fakty'}) and 
	\textit{Urphänomene} (primordial phenomena).
	As \cite{Boobyer:TheTwo}, says, by 1906 ``[\ldots] Frank\index{Frank, S.L.} was broadly in favour of religion 
	but hostile to anything that might lead to dogmatism''.}
\oFrank{} was baptised into the Russian Orthodoxy.\footnote{
	For details concerning \oFrank['s] conversion to Russian Orthodoxy in 1912 cf.
	\cite{Boobyer:Frank}, pp.~72--81.}
However, he did not wish to become a~theologian but rather stay a~free philosopher, because he was unable to 
``[\ldots] overcome the feeling that all abstract dogmatic theology is prone to sinful idle talk''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheLight}, p.~xixf.}
Nonetheless also \oFrank{} must be considered a~religious philosopher who belongs to those who defended the idea of 
Godmanhood.
Platonism\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Nethercott:Russia}, pp.~86--95: about the \textit{Neo-Kantian Recovery of Plato} in Russia.
	Cf. \oFrank{} himself on \oPlato['s] ontology versus \oKan[t's] debatable ``Copernican'' turn in:
	\cite{Frank:ZurMetaphysik}, pp.~361--363.}
especially its two greatest representatives, \oPlotinus{} and \ooNicolausCusanus{}{}, decisively determined the horizons 
of \oFrank['s] religious philosophy.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~xiv.}
He acknowledged the latter even his ``only philosophical teacher'',\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Ehlen:DieWir}, p.~391.}
for \ooNicolausCusanus{}{} presented the ``[\ldots] highest philosophical interpretation'' of ``Christian 
Humanism''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~124.
	Cf. also \cite{Frank:Onevozmozhnosti}, p.~97.}

The Jesuit philosopher Peter \oEhlen{} sees one of \oFrank['s] most creditable contributions to twentieth-century 
philosophy in the latter's integration of the phenomenology of `I-you' relationships (''personalism''\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Ehlen:Einleitung}, pp.~58--60: in view of their discussions of the ``we''-structure of the human 
	spirit \oEhlen{} lists \ooImmanuelFichte{}{}, Wilhelm \oHeg[el], Martin \oBuber, Ferdinand \oEbner, and Franz 
	\oRosenzweig{} as having been studied by \oFrank.
	As far as \oFrank['s] dialogical description of the `I -- the Holy -- relationship' is concerned \oEhlen{} names 
	Wilhelm \oWindelband, Rudolf \oOtto, Max \oScheler, and last but not least also Immanuel \oKan[t] as to have 
	inspired \oFrank.})
into the ``ontology of all-unity'' and social philosophy.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheSpiritual}, p.~55.}
\oEhlen{} discerns \oFrank['s] central self-given task in ``\textit{philosophically}'' elaborating the anthropology 
inherent in Christianity,\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheSpiritual}, p.~56.}
which comes down to another version of Godmanhood.
As my investigation is to show, however, the most captivating impact of \oFrank['s] social philosophy rooting in his 
perception of \textit{`bogochelovek'} amounts to overcoming the dichotomy between ontology and phenomenology by the 
principle of \textit{service}.
This principle signifies the central point of his understanding of \textit{bogochelvecestvo}, an idea and vision that 
always has to do with personal creativity.

Frank praised \ooNicolausCusanus{}{} for his \textit{Docta ignorantia}: analogous to ``[\ldots] Hegel's\index{Hegel, 
G.} dialectic, which culminates culminates in synthesis in its third stage'',\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheSpiritual}, p.~82.}
\ooNicolausCusanus{}{} negating negation also leads to a~new sphere:
``If everything that is determinate as such is grounded in the principle of `either-or' (\textit{aut-aut}, 
\textit{entweder-oder}), in the choice between the one and the other'', the first negation of the whole obviously leads 
to ``[\ldots] `both the one and the other' (\textit{sowohl-als-auch})''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~79.}
This principle ``[\ldots] presupposes the presence of both the `one' and the `other', the presence of a~variety'' and 
it ``[\ldots] evidently presupposes the `either-or' form''.
As it were, both forms lie on one and the same level''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~80f.}
Both are ``useless'' to describe the unknowable: it ``[\ldots] is \textit{neither} `both the one and the other' 
\textit{nor} `either-or'{}''.
The unknowable rather is ``[\ldots] `neither-nor'{}'' in turn leading to a~``[\ldots] `nothing' --- the `quiet desert' 
(\textit{die} `\textit{stille Wüste}' of Meister \oEckhart)''.
``But if it is nothing and if it is nothing but \textit{nothing}, it has everything else, the whole fullness of being, 
\textit{outside of itself}.
But then it is not the Absolute, not the all-embracing fullness which we sought''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~81}
In order to ``[\ldots] overcome this difficulty'', \oFrank suggests to ``[\ldots] \textit{negate} the negation of 
negation'' in order to ``[\ldots] attain a~sort of third power of negation''\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~82.}
and concludes: ``In this sense Cusanus\index{Mikołaj z Kuzy}
is right when he says that separate determinations pertain to the Absolute \textit{neither disjunctively} (in the form 
of `either-or') \textit{nor conjunctively} (in the form of 'both' the one and the other'').
The Absolute is `non-otherness' itself, \textit{non aluid}, the \textit{unspeakable}.''\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~81.}
Consequently, the third negation defines the unknowable as ``[\ldots] \textit{both} nothing \textit{and} all. 
[\ldots] The unknowable is the ineffable unity of unity and diversity, and not in such a~way that this unity embraces 
the diversity from outside like something new and alien, but in such a~way that it \textit{is} and acts in the diversity 
itself''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~83.
	Cf. also \cite{Frank:Reality}, pp.~44--54: for a~summary of the \textit{Docta}'s basic tenets}
This ``synthesis'', the ``third or highest stage'' is ``[\ldots] expressible neither in judgements nor concepts''.
It is an ``[\ldots] expression of the ultimate mystery of being'', fathoming the ``\textit{trinity} of 
reality''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~98.}
In sum, reality then transcends the oppositions between unity and diversity, between unity and diversity, between the 
absolute and the relative, between transcendence and immanence, for it is an ineffable unity, the coincidence of 
opposites.

Seen from here, it is evident that every ``teaching about ideas or the logos'' (\textit{Ideen --- oder Logoslehre}) must 
include ``philosophical anthropology'' or, to be more exact, ``metaphysics of the soul''.
Detailing his ideas on ``Godmanhood'',\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \textsc{Frank},
	\textit{Reality and Man}, pp.~133--141:
	he credits \oSolov[ëv] with the honour of having elaborated its tents ``the most convincingly'', p.~141.
	Cf. also, \cite{Frank:Dukhovnoe}, p.~394.}
\oFrank{} wonders where the soul ends and where the spirit begins.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:ZurMetaphysik}, pp.~351--373:
	This treatise written in German by \oFrank{} represents a~sort of summary of \textit{Dusha cheloveka}.}
Spirit is ``[\ldots] \textit{neither} transcendent \textit{nor} immanent in relation to the soul but stands in some 
other, ineffable relation to it''.
We thus encounter another coincidence of opposites: ``[\ldots] the principle of \textit{the unity of separateness and 
mutual penetration}''.
As must be concluded, the human soul \textit{an sich} (in itself) does not bear the property of being, for it needs to 
be revealed to itself: this revelation stands midway in the trans-rational gap between immanence and transcendence, for 
as \oFrank{} asserts, the ``[\ldots] deepest layer of our psychic being (i.e., of immediate self-being) that reveals 
itself to our self-awareness is already spiritual''.
Inversely, the same is true and ``[\ldots] spirit in its immediate action on the soul's being is already 
`soul-like'{}''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~169f.}
Consequently, revelation is both, namely the soul's immanent revelation to itself and simultaneously the revelation of 
the spirit's transcendent reality.

In \textit{O prirode} \oFrank{} agrees with \oBergson{} that the soul's action --- never being fractionalised into 
parts --- indicates ``\textit{creativity}''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:Oprirode}, pp.~231--233.
	Cf. also \cite{Frank:Reality}, pp.~153--160.}
Spirit denotes vital energy: it is ``[\ldots] not anything ready-made, not `substance'{}'' and ``[\ldots] creative life 
is not its (the spirit's;
the author) property, state or attribute, but its very essence;
the conceptions of life and of living, of creativeness and the creator coincide''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~82.}
Man is not only a~servant\textit{of God},\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:TheLight}, p.~165f.}
an higher will,\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheSpiritual}, p.~111, 135.
	Cf. \cite{Russell:AHistory}, p.~15f: ``Christianity popularised an important opinion already implicit in the 
	teaching of the Stoics, but foreign to the general spirit of antiquity --- I~mean, the opinion that man's duty 
	to God is more imperative than his \textit{duty} (my italics) to the State''.}
but simultaneously a~``[\ldots] co-partner in God's creativeness''.
He ``[\ldots] creates derivatively creative beings, and granted His creatures a~share in His own creativeness.
[\ldots] Human spirit is a~created entity to which God as it were partly \textit{delegates} His own creative 
power''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~156f.}

As \oFrank{} asserts, ``[\ldots] all arguments supporting the `natural state' of man, an order of life harmonious with 
his nature, are demolished by the fundamental fact that the distinctive character of man's nature consists precisely in 
\textit{the overcoming and transfiguration of his nature}''\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:TheSpiritual}, p.~83.}
and, analogously, in the ``[\ldots] perfecting of an \textit{essentially imperfect} world''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:TheLight}, p.~204.}
These assumptions denote what Frederick \oCopleston{} must have had in mind hinting at \oFrank['s] idea on Godmanhood as 
denoting ``[\ldots] `theandric' action, \textit{creative action} (my italics)''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Copleston:Philosophy},p.~70f.}
However, \oSolov[ëv], \oBulgakov, and \oBerdiaev[] differ from \oFrank[] in that he does not write an eschatology: 
\oFrank['s] idea of man as a~``self-transforming being'' doesn't revolve around the notion of a~not yet completed 
process of Creation.
As far as eschatological belief is concerned, he maintained that ``[\ldots] we can have a~concrete idea neither of the 
forms of the end of this world nor of the forms of the transfigured being of the `new heaven and new 
earth'{}''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheLight}, p.~107f.}

And so, what is Godman's creative action primarily focused upon?
Godmanhood in \oFrank{} is intrinsically bound to his ontology of the soul's life, which in turn is bound to an ontology 
of community.
Reflecting upon modern Western-European social philosophy, \oFrank{} argues that ``[\ldots] the theory of 
\textit{communion}, the encounter of two consciousnesses'' as a~basis of comunity was made completely impossible by 
defining the `I' as to be an absolutely primordial principle (rare exceptions to this false strand of thought in his 
eyes were Max \oScheler, Ferdinand \oEbner[], Martin \oBuber[],\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Ehlen:Einleitung}, pp.~58--60: about \oBuber['s] ``I-thou-philosophy'' and its impact on \oFrank[].} 
	and ``to some extent'' Georg \oSimmel{}\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~141.}).
As \oFrank{} delineates at length, the personal `I' perpetually transcends itself and it cannot have its own real being, 
its \textit{non aluid}, except as part of the \textit{aluid}.
Communion bears the experience of reality as it simultaneously is `this' and the `other'.
In formal-logical terms reality is accessible only to the \textit{Docta ignorantia},\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~62.}
whereas in human life communion is our link with that which is external to us, and at the same time essential of our 
inner life; communion is ultimately disclosed in the phenomenon of love.
The person we communicate with ceases to be an `object' and is no longer a~'he' but a~'thou'.
The primordial category of `we' overcomes and simultaneously preserves the opposition of `I am' and `thou 
art'.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, pp.~137--148.
	Cf. also, \cite{Frank:Reality}, pp.~60--69 and
	cf. \cite{Frank:TheSpiritual}, pp.~46--52.}
The `we' is ``[\ldots] a~certain \textit{widening} of the `I' spreading beyond its primary and, so to speak, its natural 
limits''.
Consciously, the `I' can only be perceived ``[\ldots] \textit{beyond the confines of my own self}''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~61f.}
And so, the `we' denotes another ``[\ldots] coincidence of opposites in which I~perceive the inner ground of my own 
existence --- \textit{me} --- in the unity of being `inside of me' and being `outside of me' which surpasses all 
rational thought''.\footnote{
	Cf. idem, \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~149.}

Because ``[\ldots] every man is the `image and likeness of God' [\ldots] all people are fundamentally equal''.
This equality touches man's ``\textit{relation to God}'' and does not contradict ``[\ldots] \textit{some correlative 
inequality}''\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~149.}
corresponding to the ``[\ldots] principle of \textit{hierarchy}, which is present with ontological necessity in 
society''.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~141.}
``\textit{Equality is the universal call to service, while service, as a~moral activity, is based on human freedom} (my 
italics)''.\footnote{
	\cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~149.}
``The \textit{obligatory} is a~primordial category which expresses the subordination of human will to a~higher, ideal, 
absolutely obliging principle'': it arises out of the Divine-human nature of social life.\footnote{
	Cf. \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~87.}

Service in \oFrank{} is a~creative task, service as a~bond between the I~an the `non-I' be it a~person or else arises 
out of his notion of Godmanhood.
The four Russian religious philosophers discussed share the belief that the Creational process is unfinished until 
\textit{`bogochelovek'} (Godman) arrives at organising social life according to his God-given creativity.
And so, \oSolov[ëv], \oBulgakov, \oBerdiaev, and especially \oFrank{} expound as much the possibilities as the 
boundaries of reason by reason discussing the coming of the \textit{eighth day of Creation}.
In them the world \textit{an sich} (in itself) is not fathomed by ways and means of cognition, but by ways and means of 
co-quintessential being, by co-creatorship.
\oFrank{} reformulates \textit{cogito, ergo sum} to \textit{cogito, ergo est esse absolutum} (I~think, therefore being 
must be absolute), replacing the Platonic world of ideas by God Who is not any ``object'', but rather the ``quintessence 
of being'', denoting the ``living potential of knowledge and consciousness''.\footnote{
	\oFrank{} explicitly refers to St. \oAugustine['s] \textit{Confessions}.
	See esp. the Augustinian motto to \cite{Frank:TheUnknowable}, p.~99.
	Cf. also, \cite{Frank:Absoliutnoe}, pp.~66--69, \cite{Frank:Predmet}, p.~381, and
	cf. \cite{Frank:Reality}, p.~20.
	\oFrank{} reasons about the fundamental premises to ``\textit{cogito, ergo sum}'' versus ``\textit{sum, ergo 
	cogito}''.}
The world \textit{für sich} (itself) transcends the oppositions between unity and diversity, between the Absolute and 
the relative, between transcendence and immanence.
It is a~coincidence of opposites, determinations don't pertain to it \textit{disjunctively} (in the form of `either-or') 
but \textit{conjunctively}, in the form of `both' the one and the other.
This isn't, of course, a~very original idea, but it refers back especially to the Patristic Fathers \oAthanasius{} of 
Alexandria, \oGregory{} of Nicce, \oOrigen, as well as to the Neo-Platonists, and esp. to mystics like Jacob \oBoehme, 
and Meister \oEckhart;
also in \oSolov[ëv], \oBulgakov, \oBerdiaev, and \oFrank{} cognition of the world's reality hinges as much on the 
Absolute as on the relative.
In all four of them Godmanhood entails first of all the task to act as God's co-creator.


\summary{
	The essay seeks to present a brief tour de raison through four Russian religious philosophies.
	In my opinion they share the axiomatic belief that Creation stays incomplete until Godman comes to organize 
	social life according to his Godlike creativity.
	Godmanhood is a special type of anthropology: it presumes that man does not fathom life by means of cognition, 
	but rather by means of his proper co-creatorship with the Absolute.
	The traditional theology of Creation ``ex nihilo'' is decisively modified.
	\oSolov[ёv] conceived of nature --- both in man and around him --- as representing His holy body, which awaits 
	conscious modeling: Godman is first of all His creative partner.
	\oBulgakov[] continued this idea.
	However, he dedicated an extremely important supporting role to the Church in respect of co-creatorship.
	\oBerdiaev[] in turn leaves the entire responsibility for history's success to the ``aristocracy.''
	\oFrank[] presented a fascinating ontology of the human soul, which allows for the potential divinity of human 
	deeds.
	This essay concentrates on four variants of bogochelovechestvo, which all entail the same task for man: that of 
	consciously continuing Creation.
	(See also: Introduction to\ldots{} the Conference ``Man and the Universe'').
}{
	Bogochelovechestvo / Godmanhood --- Creativity --- Spiritual Corporeality --- Personalism --- Docta Ignorantia
}

\end{elementlit}

