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 a subject of a name or its contents, speaking exactly, is not this energy: <human> 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 <at first>, 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 a source for GOETHE, somewhat unclear for MACH, and, finally, nowadays <1922>, 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 individual problem 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 appears that, 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 <here, in my opinion, a bit too  much> premises of this universal feeling and self-apprehension. Onomatodoxy wants 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, the human, and of that what is outside me, 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 interior part which is turned to its core, in its unblending with what it is not, along with some exterior part, directed towards other being. These two parts are not connected one to other, but they are in 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 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 both these. 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 reference and 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 <is not only the being of its own, but also it> 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 is more 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 named in 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 spirituality, 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 not the revealing itself, but only some change in 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, causative relation, we apprehend not a being, but a relation between two <or more> beings.

In contrary, during a cognitive process 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 equivalent of the name - metonymy.

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

But, between all these activities <language, jests, etc.> is the one which obeys our conscious will most easily <...>. This activity is a language of articulated human word, it is an organ of voice. <...>

Special causes <why the language is most universal, etc.> yet could be unexplained. But the organ of voice probably has especially diverse contacts with the centers which together govern the synergetic process of our spiritual relations with reality. <...> only the word alone 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 from east 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 equals nil. 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 new phenomenon, 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 is cognizing subject and cognizable object, held by their interweaved energies. Wandererp; 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 <construed by that knowledge>, 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. <...>

<It is necessary to> 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 much wider 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:
 

<Here are the calculations of FLORENSKIJ exposed more shortly:

 
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 verbality of 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 guttural spiritus lenis (similar to hebr.). This gutturality if the first phoneme especially is expressed in cz. jmç and jméno, 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 = Nis clear from brus. , , , , , and pol. imiæ. 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:
 

Latin Sanskrit Ancient Baktrian - (language of Zend-Avesta) New Persian Gotf Althochdeutsch Osetine French German Armenian Greek

nomen namen nama nam namo namo nom nom Name a-nun (from anuan=an-man)

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 â 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 âo + 

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. naman has been once gnaman and is conserved in that form to mean sign, indication. Here .

- from . Here is a concept of cognition, apperception of an object by signing it, putting a mark, a token on 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 Bible uses 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 name in 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	[aliph]iSeM	SuMM
Ethiopic	SaMe
Aramaean	or	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 radix SM[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`OLIVET maintained this in the first half of 19 century, but his voice remained unheard. When KAUTCH and ZIMMERN acknowledged this possibility, the chance of unifying two schools emerged, and this was realized by REDSLAB and 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 WSM and SM[aliph], and this stem, according the recent beliefs, is hypothetic two-lettered verbal radix  which means "be externally noticeable". From it originates WSM with two (transitive and intransitive) meanings, and [sin][mem][he] with the intransitive meaning. This can be summarized 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. But even 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,- name is a sign sensu 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 AVENARIUS some time ago were the extremal realizations of these two approaches. But already in the heart 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 SPINOZA and 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 discriminate some object from the surrounding chaos of impressions and join it 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 ILLARION which wrote a book Na gorach Kavkaza about 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 to make 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 THEOPHAN and THEODOR, mathematician D. EGOROV, etc.