“
A:Surely you· know that one can read a book many times-perhaps you almost know it by heart, and nevertheless it can be that, when you look again at the lines before you, certain things appear new or even new thoughts occur to you that you did not have before. Every word can work productively in your spirit. And finally if you have once left the book for a week and you take it up again after your spirit has experienced various different changes, then a number ofthings will dawn on you.
On the higher levels of insight into divine thoughts, you recognize that the sequence of words has more than one valid meaning. Only to the all-knowing is it given to know all the meanings of the sequence of words. Increasingly we try to grasp a few more meanings."
....
I: "But Philo Judeaus, if this is who you mean, was a serious philosopher and a great thinker. Even John the Evangelist included some of Philo's thoughts in the gospe!."
A: "You are right. It is to Philo's credit that he furnished language like so many other philosophers. He belongs to the language artists. But words should not become Gods."
I: "I fail to understand you here. Does it not say in the gospel according to John: God was the Word. It appears to make quite explicit the point which you have just now rejected."
A: "Guard against being a slave to words. Here is the gospel: read from that passage where it says: In him was the life. "What does John say there?"
I: "'And life was the light of men and the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not understood it. But it became a person sent from God, by the name of John, who came as a witness and to be a witness of the light. The genuine light, which
That is what I readh ere. But what do you make of this?"
A: "I ask you, was this AorOL [Logos] a concept, a word? It was a light, indeed a man, and lived among men. You see, Philo only lent John the word so that John would have at his disposal the word 'AorOL' alongside the word 'light' to describe the son of man. John gave to living men the meaning of the AorOL, but Philo gave AorOL as the dead concept that usurped life, even the divine life. Through this the dead does not gain life, and the living is killed. And this was also my atrocious error."
I:"Iseewhatyoumean.Thisthoughtisnewtomeandseems worth consideration. Until now it always seemed to me / as if it were exactly that which was meaningful in John, namely that the son of man is the AorOL, in that he thus elevates the lower to the higher spirit, to the world of the AorOL. But you lead me to see the matter conversely; namely that John brings the meaning of the AorOL down to man."
A: "I learned to see that John has in fact even done the great service of having brought the meaning of the AorOL up to man."
I: "You have peculiar insights that stretch my curiosity to the utmost. How is that? Do you think that the human stands higher than the logos?"
A: "I want to answer this question within the scope of your understanding: if the human God had not become important above everything, he would not have appeared as the son in the flesh, but as Logos.
”
”
C.G. Jung