On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Not only do the creatures in which the Super-Essence overflows possess, by an answering mystery, their true being in the Super-Essence, but, as a result of this, they possess their true being in each other; for in the Super-Essence each has its place as an element in One single and indivisible Reality. We have here, in fact, the great antinomy of the One and the Many, or the Universal and the Particulars, not solved indeed, but pronounced to be insoluble and therefore ultimate. It penetrates into a region beyond the intellect, and that is why the intellect is finally baffled by it.
The Dionysian theory that one side of our being is outside ourselves in the Super-Essence will be found incidentally to reconcile Pragmatism and Idealism together. For Dionysius teaches that on one side of our being we actually develop in Time. And, if this is so, we do as the Pragmatists assert literally make Reality. But the other side of our being is timeless and eternally perfect outside ourselves. And if this is so, then Reality, as Idealists tell us, is something utterly beyond all change. Perhaps this paradox is intended in Wordsworth’s noble line:—
So build we up the being that we are.l
VI.—DIONYSIUS AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Let us now consider the bearings of the Dionysian theory on certain other currents of modern philosophy.
According to Dr. McTaggart each human soul possesses, behind its temporal nature, a timeless self and each one of these timeless selves is an eternal differentiation of the Absolute! Now if these timeless selves are finite, then none embraces the whole system. And, if that is so, in what does the Spiritual Unity of the whole consist? If, on the other hand, they are infinite, then each one must embrace the whole System; and, if so, how can they remain distinct? Having the same context, they must coalesce even as (according to Orthodox Theology) the “ Persons” of the Trinity coalesce in the Unity behind the plane of Manifestation? Dr. McTaggart’s philosophical scheme is noble, but it seems open to this metaphysical attack, and psychologically it appears to be defective as it leaves no room for worship, which is a prime need of the human soul. The Dionysian theory seems to meet the difficulty; for since our ultimate being is outside ourselves in the Super-Essence, one side of our Being is supra-personal. Our finite selves are, on that side, merged together in One Infinite “Self” (if It may be thus inadequately described); and this Infinite Self (so to call It) embraces, and is the Spiritual Unity of the whole System. And this Infinite Self, seen from afar, is and must be the Object of all worship until at last worship shall be swallowed up in the completeness of Unknowing.
1 Excursion, iv., about 70 lines from the end. With “the being that we are,” cf. Prelude, xiv. 113-115:— “The highest bliss That flesh can know is theirs—the consciousness Of whom they are.”
Not only do the creatures in which the Super-Essence overflows possess, by an answering mystery, their true being in the Super-Essence; as a result of this, they also possess their true being in each other. For in the Super-Essence each has its place as an element in One single and indivisible Reality. We have here, in fact, the great antinomy of the One and the Many, or of the Universal and the Particulars—not solved, indeed, but declared to be insoluble and therefore ultimate. It reaches into a region beyond the intellect, and that is why the intellect is finally baffled by it.
The Dionysian theory that one side of our being is outside ourselves in the Super-Essence will incidentally be found to reconcile Pragmatism and Idealism. For Dionysius teaches that on one side of our being we actually develop in Time. And if this is so, we literally make Reality, as the Pragmatists assert. But the other side of our being is timeless and eternally perfect outside ourselves. And if this is so, then Reality, as Idealists tell us, is something utterly beyond all change. Perhaps this paradox is what Wordsworth intends in his noble line:—
So build we up the being that we are.1
VI.—DIONYSIUS AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Let us now consider the bearing of the Dionysian theory on certain other currents of modern philosophy.
According to Dr. McTaggart, each human soul possesses, behind its temporal nature, a timeless self, and each of these timeless selves is an eternal differentiation of the Absolute! Now if these timeless selves are finite, then none of them embraces the whole system. And if that is so, in what does the Spiritual Unity of the whole consist? If, on the other hand, they are infinite, then each one must embrace the whole System; and if so, how can they remain distinct? Having the same context, they must coalesce, just as (according to Orthodox Theology) the “Persons” of the Trinity coalesce in the Unity behind the plane of Manifestation?
Dr. McTaggart’s philosophical scheme is noble, but it seems open to this metaphysical attack; and psychologically it appears defective, since it leaves no room for worship, which is a prime need of the human soul. The Dionysian theory seems to meet the difficulty. For since our ultimate being is outside ourselves in the Super-Essence, one side of our Being is supra-personal. On that side our finite selves are merged together in One Infinite “Self” (if It may be so inadequately described); and this Infinite Self (so to call It) embraces the whole System and is its Spiritual Unity. And this Infinite Self, seen from afar, is and must be the Object of all worship, until at last worship is swallowed up in the completeness of Unknowing.
1 Excursion, iv., about 70 lines from the end. With “the being that we are,” cf. Prelude, xiv. 113-115:— “The highest bliss That flesh can know is theirs—the consciousness Of whom they are.”