Creation as Incarnation?

Consistent with Pan-SEMIO-entheism

re: creation as incarnation, exchanges between Blowers & Wood

Neither a vertical hypostatic descent nor a horizontal hypostatic multiplication present

theological problems in my view.

Taken together, as the same economic mission, ISTM, the horizontal procession aspect
ontologically foregrounds composite hypostases, haecceities, actualities, concrete particulars as
dynamical, autopoietic entities.

These entities “are” acts that are, at once, existential, efficient & formal, thereby reducing
potencies, respectively, per various essential, material & final limitations.

Locating the Logos-logoi identity hypostatically properly avoids both reifications of

essences (natures don’t process as ‘that’s or ‘who’s) & hypostatizations of energies (which are
not ‘that’s but ‘how’s).

If there’s a scandal, it’s not theological but metaphysical, for this emergentist perspective offers
no robustly ontological account of such brute actualities or naked haecceities, such as we
encounter in this multiplication of composite hypostases. Still, other emergentist accounts only
pretend, for supervenience  explains no-thing.

There are still Neoplatonic-like semiotic dynamics like exemplification, manifestation &
signification, but, as with any semiotic realism, the symbolic implicates the pragmatic,
so interpretation implicates participatory acts (existential, efficient & formal). The logoi do act
formally, but that follows from the hypostatic grounding of identity in difference, existentially &
relationally (the mutuality of I-ness & Thou-ness).

Need we distinguish ad intra & extra processions in terms of esse naturale & intentionale,
necessity & freedom, ur-kenosis & kenosis?

Well, the Incarnation so well ‘fits’ the God, Who’s been revealed, that it’s inevitability,
hypostatically, doesn’t in any sense entail that, essentially, it’s ‘naturally necessary.’

At least, this creation as incarnation approach seems not inconsistent with my own affirmation
(pan-SEMIO-entheism) of both

a pan-entheistic vertical distinction, where, via creatio ex nihilo, God donates & communicates

creatively as we participate & are liberated imitatively, as well as
a panen-theistic horizontal distinction, where God, via creatio ex Deo, donates & communicates
diffusively as we participate & are liberated substratively.

The practical upshot of an in/finite hypostatic participative distinction –

As composite hypostases, substratively, potentially, we can act the very same way Christ does
when He’s acting kenotically, while imitatively, we can act like Christ does when He’s acting ur-
kenotically.

Posted in metaphysics, philosophical theology, systematic theology, systematic

theophanyTagged creatio ex deo, creatio ex nihilo, pan-entheistic, panen-theism, pansemioentheism