Attention, the Logos and the Experience of God
- 47 minutes ago
- 12 min read
From the ordering of the body to the ordering of being
There is a deceptively simple experiment that can be performed by almost anyone.
Sit quietly.
Do not attempt to think about God.
Do not adopt a particular religious belief.
Do not attempt to produce an unusual psychological state.
Instead, voluntarily place your attention upon the organic sensations of the body.
Feel the weight of the body.
Feel the contact of the feet with the ground.
Feel the movement of respiration.
Feel the hands.
Feel the face, the chest, the abdomen.
Rather than thinking about these things, attend directly to their actual sensation. Then remain there.
Something interesting begins to happen.
At first there may be little more than a confused multiplicity of sensations. But sustained, voluntary attention can, of it own accord, progressively differentiate the sensations, gather them into a more unified field and alter the character of the experience itself.
Breathing may become quieter.
Muscular tensions may become apparent.
Peripheral sensations become conscious.
The experience of the body can become more integrated.
And sometimes something appears which was not deliberately introduced:
a new feeling.
Perhaps stillness.
Perhaps warmth.
Perhaps vitality.
Perhaps a sense of presence.
Perhaps simply the peculiar state of being more completely there.
This is an extraordinarily important phenomenon. Because nothing necessarily had to be added to the body. The sensations were already there.
What changed was their organisation.
Attention did not merely reveal another object. It altered the relationship between the objects already present. This gives us our first clue.
Attention is not merely something that happens in consciousness, and is not the product of cognition. It can act as an ordering principle, and energetically coordinating field, within consciousness.
That observation takes us much further than it initially appears.
Attention is not the thing it attends to
Consider what happens when attention is deliberately moved.
I attend to my breathing.
Then I attend to my right hand.
Then to the sensations in my chest.
Then to the whole body.
The object of attention changes.
Yet I experience myself as capable of directing attention from one object to another. This establishes an elementary distinction between the object of attention and the act of attending.
The sensation is one thing. Attention toward the sensation is another.
This does not mean that attention is an immaterial substance floating somewhere behind the brain. But it does establish something phenomenologically significant that the activity of attending cannot simply be reduced, at the level of immediate experience, to the particular content being attended to.
I can observe my body.
I can observe my thoughts.
I can observe my emotions.
Indeed, I can observe the fact that my attention has become distracted.
The human being therefore possesses a remarkable capacity for reflexive awareness: awareness can, to some degree, become aware of its own activity. This is where the ancient Christian concept of the nous becomes interesting.
The nous: attention before attention became psychology
The Greek nous is often translated simply as "mind," but this can be misleading. In the Christian ascetical tradition, nous refers to something closer to the spiritual intellect or faculty of direct apprehension—the capacity by which reality is perceived inwardly, and immediately, rather than merely analysed discursively.
The distinction is important.
I can think about fire. Or I can feel its heat.
I can think about God. Or I can become attentive to God.
These are different modes of knowing.
The modern West has largely inherited a conception of consciousness dominated by conceptual thought. We tend to assume that knowing something means possessing propositions about it.
The older Christian tradition was considerably more subtle.
The Fathers repeatedly distinguished discursive reasoning from a more immediate mode of perception. This is particularly developed in the Eastern Christian tradition, where the purification of the nous is associated with nepsis—watchfulness or vigilance—and with the restoration of the human being to communion with God.
The problem is therefore not simply that human beings do not know enough. The deeper problem is that human attention is disordered. The mind is dispersed.
Attention is continually captured by impressions, desires, memories, fears and fantasies. The human being becomes divided against themself.
This is remarkably close to the problem that Gurdjieff would later describe in psychological rather than explicitly patristic language.
Gurdjieff's great insight: most attention is not ours
One of Gurdjieff's most provocative observations was that what human beings ordinarily call "attention" is largely mechanical.
Something attracts us. We react. The our attention follows a sound; a notification; a desire; a memory; an attractive person; an insult; a fear; an imagined future.
We experience ourselves as choosing, but much of the time the direction of consciousness has already been determined by external impressions and internal associations. Gurdjieff's distinction between mechanical and conscious attention therefore has enormous philosophical significance.
There is a difference between attention being taken and attention being given.
The first is automatic. The second is voluntary. And this distinction can be experienced directly through the bodily exercise described above.
Instead of allowing sensation to arrive passively into consciousness, one deliberately gives attention to the organic body.
The act itself is simple. But something changes. The human being begins to experience the difference between being the recipient of impressions and being an agent of attention.
This is the beginning of self-remembering. Not self-obsession. Not introspective rumination. Something more precise that is the experience of being present to what is occurring while simultaneously remaining present to oneself as the one who is attending.
Attention creates coherence
Now we can return to the body.
Why does sustained attention sometimes produce a qualitatively different state?
Part of the answer is contained in textbook physiology. Attention modulates sensory processing, autonomic regulation and neural activity. Interoceptive attention can alter the salience and integration of bodily signals. Breathing, muscle tone and autonomic activity can also change as attention becomes more stable.
But there is a philosophical or a metaphysical point beneath the physiology. The physiological explanation does not eliminate the phenomenological fact. It explains how the organism changes. It does not necessarily answer the more fundamental question:
What is it about attention that permits the organism to be reorganised in this way?
Attention appears to function as a kind of "ordering agent", unifying multiplicity.
The body contains countless simultaneous processes.
Attention selects.
Selection produces emphasis.
Sustained selection produces integration.
Integration produces coherence.
And coherence can produce a new qualitative state.
This suggests a hierarchy: multiplicity → selection → organisation → coherence → emergence of new quality.
The important point is that the higher-order state is not simply another item added to the lower-order field. It is a relation among the elements.
A melody is not a separate note. It is an ordering of notes. A living organism is not merely a heap of molecules. It is an organised relation among molecules.
Likewise, a coherent state of consciousness is not merely a larger quantity of sensation. It is a different quality of the organisation of sensation. And here we approach metaphysics.
The ancient question: what orders the many?
The philosophical problem of the One and the Many is one of humanity's oldest metaphysical problems.
How does multiplicity possess unity?
How does a universe containing billions of distinct entities nevertheless constitute a cosmos rather than an absolute chaos?
Why is reality intelligible?
Why can mathematical structures describe physical reality?
Why can consciousness discover lawful relations within nature?
Why is there order?
The Christian answer is extraordinarily radical. The order of reality is not ultimately grounded in an impersonal mechanism. It is grounded in Logos.
John's Gospel begins:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
And then:
"All things came into being through him."
The Greek Logos is commonly translated as "Word," but its philosophical range is considerably broader: reason, intelligibility, account, principle, ordering relation.
John is making an extraordinary claim.
The intelligibility of creation is not accidental. The rational structure of reality has its ultimate ground in God. The universe is intelligible because it comes from intelligibility, the Logos.
Attention gives us a miniature nature of Logos
Here the experience of attention becomes philosophically interesting because the human experience of attention provides a microcosm of a much deeper principle.
When attention is voluntarily gathered, multiplicity becomes more ordered. The body is not created anew. Its elements are not replaced. Rather, the existing multiplicity is brought into a more coherent relation.
Attention therefore gives us an experiential intuition of what ordering power means and can be expressed simply as Attention orders experience. Logos orders creation.
The first is finite, derivative and creaturely. The second, in Christian metaphysics, is infinite, primary and divine.
The structure revealed through the act of voluntary attention provides an experiential micocosm through which the Christian conception of divine Logos can become intelligible.
The human being as microcosm
This also recovers something important from ancient Christianity. The human being is traditionally understood as a microcosm—a small cosmos.
The human person somehow gathers together different orders of reality. We possess matter. Life. Sensation. Emotion. Reason. Will. Self-consciousness. And, Christianity claims, the capacity for communion with God.
The human being therefore occupies an extraordinary position. We are not merely objects within creation. We are also capable of knowing creation.
More remarkably, we can become conscious of ourselves as knowing it. And beyond this, Christianity claims that we can become capable of knowing God.
This ascending structure is reflected in the ancient Christian understanding of the human person: body → psyche → nous → God.
Not as four spatial compartments, but as increasingly interior modes of participation and perception.
The purification of attention therefore becomes more than a psychological exercise. It becomes a question of what the human being is becoming capable of perceiving.
Theosis: participation in divine order
This is where the doctrine of theosis becomes crucial. Theosis does not mean that a human being becomes God by nature. It means participation in divine life.
The classic distinction is between God's essence and God's energies. The creature cannot become God according to divine essence. But the creature can participate in God's life. This gives Christianity an extraordinarily subtle metaphysics of transformation.
The goal is not merely to acquire correct beliefs. It is to become capable of participation. And participation requires receptivity. Receptivity requires attention. Attention requires freedom. Freedom requires the overcoming of mechanical compulsion.
Thus a small exercise in bodily attention can become the first movement in a much larger spiritual logic: attention → presence → integration → purification → participation. This is one reason the ancient Christian practices of watchfulness, prayer of the heart and sobriety are so profound.
They are not merely techniques for becoming psychologically calm. They concern the restoration of the human faculty by which the person becomes capable of receiving divine reality.
Why "new feelings" matter
We can now return to the strange phenomenon with which we began.
Why does a new feeling sometimes appear when attention is gathered into the body?
It is tempting to dismiss such experiences as merely subjective. But that conclusion is too quick.
A new quality can emerge when a system reaches a different degree of organisation. Water possesses properties that individual hydrogen and oxygen atoms do not possess in isolation. Life possesses organisational properties that cannot be adequately described merely by listing molecules. Conscious experience likewise has qualities that depend upon relations among underlying processes.
Therefore, when attention, of its own accord, reorganises the relationship between bodily sensation, autonomic activity, affect and consciousness, the appearance of a new quality should not surprise us.
What matters spiritually is the direction of the transformation.
Does greater attention produce greater fragmentation? Or greater integration?
Does it produce compulsion? Or freedom?
Does it intensify egoic self-occupation? Or does it produce greater presence to reality?
Does it make the person more closed? Or more receptive?
These are not merely psychological questions. They become theological questions when transformation is understood in relation to God.
Christ as the Logos made flesh
Christianity then makes its most extraordinary claim. The Logos is not merely an abstract principle of cosmic order. The Logos became flesh.
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
This changes the entire problem. If Christ is the Logos incarnate, then the ordering principle of reality has entered the material world as a human life.
Christ is therefore not merely a teacher who tells human beings how to behave. He is the revelation of what humanity looks like when it is perfectly ordered toward God.
The Christian doctrine of Christ therefore has a profound anthropological consequence.
The question is no longer simply What should I believe? It becomes What kind of human being am I becoming?
Christ represents the fully integrated human person—the human will aligned with divine will, consciousness ordered toward the Father, and embodied existence transformed by the presence of God. The words of Christ therefore take on a different significance:
"Abide in me, and I in you."
Abiding is fundamentally a matter of sustained orientation. Where attention goes, the person follows.
Attention and love
There is another dimension.
Attention is not morally neutral. We become shaped by what we repeatedly attend to.
The person who continually attends to resentment becomes resentful.
The person who continually attends to lust becomes organised around desire.
The person who continually attends to fear becomes increasingly governed by fear.
The person who continually attends to status becomes increasingly structured by status.
Attention is therefore not merely perceptual. It is formative.
What we attend to, we increasingly participate in. This is why the biblical command to love God "with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" is so profound. It is fundamentally a command concerning orientation. The entire person is to be gathered toward God.
Christian prayer therefore becomes an act of re-ordering.
The fragmented human being is recollected.
The scattered nous becomes watchful.
The will becomes less mechanical.
The body becomes present.
The person becomes increasingly capable of receiving rather than merely reacting.
This is the beginning of metanoia—a transformation of the mode of being.
The Fourth Way and the Christian mystery
Here the apparent distance between Gurdjieff and Christianity becomes much smaller. Gurdjieff's language of mechanical man, divided attention, self-remembering and conscious labour can be read as a phenomenological description of a condition that Christianity had already described in theological language.
Paul writes:
"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."
This is not simply a statement about morality. It is a description of divided agency.
The human being discovers that the "I" which claims to choose does not necessarily govern the organism.
Something else acts.
Something else desires.
Something else reacts.
Gurdjieff calls attention to this mechanical condition. Christianity calls the human being to conversion.
The terminology differs. The fundamental problem is the same: the human being is not sufficiently unified to live from his deepest centre.
The solution is also structurally similar:
wake up.
Watch.
Remember.
Pray.
Become present.
Turn toward God.
And remain there.
For Gurdjieff and Christianity, awakening is associated with the development of being and consciousness. Its deepest transformation is participation in God through Christ.
Attention as the threshold between psychology and theology
This is why attention is such a remarkable doorway.
Psychology can investigate its mechanisms. Neuroscience can investigate its correlates. Physiology can investigate its effects upon the body. Phenomenology can investigate its structure as experienced. But none of these disciplines, by themselves, finally answers the metaphysical question: Why does consciousness possess an ordering capacity at all?
And beyond that Why is reality itself ordered and intelligible?
Attention therefore stands at an unusual boundary. It is simultaneously:
biological,
psychological,
phenomenological,
philosophical,
and theological.
The same phenomenon can be investigated at each level without reducing one level to another.
A change in attention has neural correlates. That does not mean attention is nothing but neural activity.
Likewise, the experience of divine presence may have psychological and neurological correlates. That does not logically establish that God is reducible to those correlates.
The deeper question concerns causal and ontological levels.
From the ordering of attention to the Ordering Principle
We can now formulate things more carefully:
Human experience contains multiplicity.
The act of voluntary attention (not its correlating cognition) can select and organise that multiplicity.
Sustained voluntary attention can produce greater coherence within the organism.
Greater coherence can generate emergent/potential qualities of the experience of being.
Therefore, attention manifests an ordering function that is distinguishable from the individual contents being ordered.
The human being therefore possesses, at least in a finite and derivative manner, an ordering capacity.
Reality as a whole also exhibits extraordinary intelligibility and order.
The Christian metaphysical tradition identifies the ultimate ground of intelligibility and order as Logos.
The Gospel of John identifies the Logos with Christ.
Therefore, the human experience of attention can function as a phenomenological microcosm of the Logos: the finite human capacity to gather multiplicity into coherence provides an experiential image of the deeper principle by which creation itself is ordered.
The argument does not constitute a deductive proof of God. It does something perhaps more interesting.
It demonstrates that the Christian conception of God is not merely an arbitrary supernatural hypothesis imposed upon experience. There are structures within human experience that make the concept of ordering intelligence intelligible. And attention is one of them.
The final movement: from attention to worship
The experiment therefore ends somewhere quite different from where it began.
We began by attending to the body.
We discovered that attention can order the experience of the body.
We discovered that order can generate coherence.
We discovered that coherence can disclose qualities of experience that were previously inaccessible.
We then discovered that the human being itself contains an ordering capacity.
And this points beyond the human being. For if the human person is capable of ordering experience, while the cosmos possesses an incomparably greater order, intelligibility and coherence, then the question of the ultimate ground of that order naturally arises.
Christianity gives that ground a name. Logos. And then Christianity does something even more astonishing. It says that the Logos is not merely an impersonal cosmic principle. The Logos is Christ.
Therefore the movement from attention to God is not attention → altered state → mystical feeling → God.
That would be a psychological shortcut.
The deeper movement is attention → order → intelligibility → Logos → Christ.
And then Christ → participation → transformation → theosis.
The purpose of attention is therefore not to produce interesting experiences. It is to become capable of seeing.
And the purpose of seeing is not merely knowledge. It is communion. Perhaps this is why Christ so frequently commands his disciples to watch?
The fundamental spiritual problem may not be that God is absent. It may be that we are insufficiently present to reality to perceive Him.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
The strengthening and purification of attention is therefore not the whole Christian path. But it may be one of its most elementary disciplines.
We begin by learning to attend.
We discover that attention orders.
We discover that order produces coherence.
We discover that the human being itself can become ordered.
And eventually we encounter the Christian claim that the deepest order of reality is not an abstraction but a living Person. The Logos became flesh. And the purpose of awakening is ultimately to become sufficiently awake to recognise Him.
Comments