Perhaps, but there is a case to be had between more complicated and more simple.
Pure logic , You mentioned very early on, is a language which developed, occurs and is meant for correspondence between god and men.
I would concur, bit its only a beginning.
The whole problem with it is that men have rejected reason hundreds of years ago as a viable form of / and for proof.
Take the proof or the discissions going on right now for shadow. Ontological proof is difficult enough, whereas logic foreshadows the proof which are instrumental in trying to distinguish the levels of.conscious manifestation from higher to lower appearances-
Lower levels , ironically are displaced and transformed into the Higher levels, as they become transformed .
There are many indications of transformation, and direct experience with the sources of higher consciousness , and they should lead to the approximate situation by which the approach to the highest becomes possible. albeit seemingly against all odds.
Further more to those whose only proof can consist of material miracles, it is now the day, when the transformation can only subsist of spiritual ones.
Despair and regret should be relegated to the primal source of antiquity, where reason still made sense!
To wit: Based on a very wide broad spectrum array of reason and insight, the following defense could/should be applied here:
“Carl Jung interprets Gnosticism the way he interprets alchemy: as a hoary counterpart to his analytical psychology. As interpreted by Jung, Gnostic myths describe a seemingly outward, if also inward, process which is in fact an entirely inward, psychological one. The Gnostic progression from sheer bodily existence to the rediscovery of the immaterial spark trapped in the body and the reunion of that spark with the immaterial godhead symbolize the Jungian progression from sheer ego consciousness to the rediscovery of the unconscious within the mind and the integration of the ego with the unconscious to forge the self. For Jung, Gnostics are the ancient counterpart to present-day Jungian patients. Both constitute a psychological elite. Where most persons are satisfied with traditional means of connecting themselves to their unconscious, Gnostics and Jungians are sensi tive to the demise of those means and are seeking new ones. Where, alternatively, most other persons are oblivious to the existence of the unconscious altogether, Gnostics and Jungians are preoccupied with it. Gnostics project their unconscious onto the cosmos and are therefore striving to connect themselves to something external, not just, like Jungians, to something internal. Interpreting in Jungian terms the Gnostic myth Poimandres, I argue that Jungian psychology makes enormous sense of the myth, but not in the way that Jung envisions. Upon rediscovering his spark, the Gnostic seeks to reject his body altogether rather than to mesh the two. He does strive to reunite with the godhead, but the godhead is immateriality itself rather than, like the body, matter. Indeed, the godhead, taken psychologically, is only a projection of the unconscious onto the cosmos, so that the unconscious is thereby reuniting with itself.”
Take it, if You wish, on even it’s face value, or not, for proximate or more remote politically aligned purposes., John.