Question: in your opinion, is your conception of the logos found in the Greek classical philosophers' idea of the concept?
I will try to make some more sense of it (even though, ultimately, I am convinced one cannot make sense of it...)
1) First of all, the LOGOS does not coincide with the "human logos" or "reason, logic" (but is more of a cosmic principle). Nonetheless the human logos "is attuned" to the cosmic logos. In this sense the human being has a special place in the cosmos.
2) It is difficult to talk about something beyond-being (i.e. antecendent to the being vs. non-being dualism, as you also pointed out). Nonetheless, I think that this "beyond-being" has been discussed in western philosophy. Most noteworthy is maybe in Neoplatonism which can be informally described as a view, deriving from Plato's theory of the good as the highest form
beyond being (
epikeina tes ousias, Republic). I think that this "beyond-being" is indeed what I am trying to point at.
3) In recent continental philosophy E. Levinas has reintroduced this notion. Even though much of his ethical thought is unrelated to my view, I think the title of his book "Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence" is a good way of formulating what I am thinking about.
4) My understanding of this LOGOS comes through my reading of Heideggers engagement with the Greeks. My understanding is therefore also much indebted to Heraclitus his Logos (as well Anaximander his apeiron). For him this LOGOS is not a "thing" (entity, object, thingy, a something, some this-or-that) but rather a principle. The Greeks used the name "arche" for principle. I understand this "principle" however in more modern terms, in particular I connect it with Kant's notion of the "transcendental" (=condition of possibility). I think you use it in the same way.
5) However, my view differs from Kant, in the sense that it is impossible to think this
apriori [condition of possibility]. It's not an object for thought. In this sense there is a flavor of Derrida in my view. The ground for the difference (
différance) between opposites is ultimately an abyss, something inaccessible for thought... maybe some form of mysticism must come into play here...
Hope this makes some sense. I don't have a clear conception of it, but it is an always recurring idea.