Let me preface my question by saying that one difficulty I have in asking my question is that the Quotation I have cut and pasted below does not accurate transpose the Greek word for "Logos." It pastes as "AorOL" which I know is incorrect. I hope this does not diminish the clarity or sincerity of my post.
In The Red Book by Carl Jung, Dr. Jung writes:
"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: "I see what you mean. This thought is new to me and seems 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."
It seems to me very strange, as if A and I are speaking about two different subjects. A seems to say that John gave life to a dead concept, and I responds as if A were saying that John used the word to 'downgrade' the divinity. There is a saying in Greece for such 'conversations': "we speak together but we understand apart..."