The Writing without Title - A Closer Look

It has occurred to me, that it may be necessary to make sure that I'm not deluding myself over what it actually contains. So I've printed out two versions to take notes on - and relative to the whole I didn't get far. So far that is. But I also think it's enough to take notes on and think and ponder and reflect and ... all that.

So ... I'm here taking the Text from a translation by Hans-Gebhard Bethge and Bentley Layton.

Seeing that everybody, gods of the world and mankind, says that nothing existed prior to chaos, I, in distinction to them, shall demonstrate that they are all mistaken, because they are not acquainted with the origin of chaos, nor with its root. Here is the demonstration.

So - this is a claim. A statement. Which, when taken at face value, demonstrates that people who argue that nothing existed prior to Chaos ... are wrong.
So, it's a bold claim. But to its credit - if there's an answer, one way or another, which I assume there ought to be, it's not impossible.


But so - just so we're getting this right. So, taking off the rose-colored glasses and perhaps squinting a little bit more seriously.
What is it about?
Well - as for how the author viewed those terms, we'll have to see.

How well it suits all men, on the subject of chaos, to say that it is a kind of darkness! But in fact it comes from a shadow, which has been called by the name 'darkness'. And the shadow comes from a product that has existed since the beginning. It is, moreover, clear that it existed before chaos came into being, and that the latter is posterior to the first product. Let us therefore concern ourselves with the facts of the matter; and furthermore, with the first product, from which chaos was projected. And in this way the truth will be clearly demonstrated.

So, what is said here, is that some "original thing" - which would be the Light Source AND the Object it shines upon - are cause to a Shadow that "may often be called 'Darkness' or 'Chaos'". This doesn't really 'demonstrate' much, but so the author promises - that the demonstration entails further examination of "the facts of the matter" and "the first product".

After the natural structure of the immortal beings had completely developed out of the infinite, a likeness then emanated from Pistis (Faith); it is called Sophia (Wisdom). It exercised volition and became a product resembling the primeval light. And immediately her will manifested itself as a likeness of heaven, having an unimaginable magnitude; it was between the immortal beings and those things that came into being after them, like [...]: she (Sophia) functioned as a veil dividing mankind from the things above.

And yea. That's like ... the average "NHC Experience".
But - taking it apart (or more so: boiling it down) ... what it says is this: The structure of "the immortals" had developed out of the infinite - imposing the picture of 'structure' (conceptual) as a property that emerges from the infinite - in this case "the structure of the immortals". A "likeness" manifests itself that is then associated with the creation of a "Primeval Light" and a "likeness of heaven of unimaginable magnitude" - the latter is said to exist as a "veil" between "the immortals" and the things that came after them. Then something's missing - and the paragraph ends mentioning a veil that divides mankind from the things above.
In short: We here get the portrayal of the emergence of "stuff" - structures and entities - a force that is responsible for the emergence of things - and ultimately a "shoutout" - I guess - to the concept or matter of distinction.

So, this ... is arguably a demonstration. Not the kind ... a serious scientist would want - but for a joke perhaps. So, at this point at least it seems like we're only getting deeper into the world-view and ideas of the author. Which, to be fair, is them trying to produce the "matters of fact" and examinations of "the original product" that ought to demonstrate their claims.


So ... . We can further go and say that this is probably about "the original cause". That since the previous paragraph already. In that context we can read this as a counterpoint that first of all highlights the existence of structure, emergence and distinction. And this we can actually take back into the context of the first paragraph - which imposes the image of a Light shining onto an Object that thus produces a Shadow. We could call it a "Three Dimensionality" to anotherwise flat image. The flat image being "the original cause" - the three dimensionality emerging from a kind of plurality of things that the nature of the matter entails.

Like - we're possibly not speaking of a "snap" boolean Lights On/Off type of situation. The way I see it - there's like a limit. There's the earliest possible thing or point in that story that we can reasonably comprehend. How it came to be what it is - that's beyond our comprehension ... inherently. At least - there is some part of it that is infinitely beyond our grasp. And I would assume that a proper comprehension is itself the first thing that could be comprehended - so - the first comprehension is ... that. The first comprehension.

Whatever we can get ... about what came before, what contributed to it, we would have to take that from God - and we would have to take it, that He can only communicate that in metaphors. If it weren't so, we could comprehend it.
Well. There's possibly layers to that.
But so ... so far we're within the realms of the comprehensible. We may assume that the text peeks beyond that, but we wouldn't really be able to tell. Perhaps it's wrong to try and "be serious" about it, but the alternative I think is that this is just word salad that doesn't really have a point outside of being incomprehensible.


So - what we then get to is the statement, that structure, emergence and distinction are clear expressions of some kind of higher ... ordinance - a source to the distinction we might say. One argument that can be made here is basically that the process of emergence and interaction cannot function without some kind of higher order that governs it. I mean, I suppose they could but we'd expect utter chaos from that.
Also implied is a Force - here labeled as Faith or Wisdom - which may seem strange at first until you consider the aspect of 'distinction'. That is - the 'function' of distinction, the mechanism behind it, is herein assumed to be a cognitive one. Implying perhaps that there's no other mechanism that could possibly differentiate things from one another. At least not on that Level? Well - I understand enough that modern science can at least align itself to some extent with this idea. Structure, Emergence and Distinction ... that is.


And I got three paragraphs more to go through. But I suppose now is time-out.