The Maximian Logos-logoi Identity can still be enriched by Sophiological Heuristics

As Royce’s concrete Absolute modified Peirce’s semeiotic; Aurobindo’s integral

Absolute modified Advaita; so Maximus’ Logos-logoi identity modified Neoplatonism. In each
case, the concept of the Absolute became both concrete & social?

If one wants to approach questions re Maximus’ multiple incarnations thru semiotic lenses
(Peirce, Royce, Scotus, Bonaventure, etc), of special interest would be Eriugena’s take on
Christological participation, for, like CSP, he framed creation in terms of theophany.

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.

Law of Retreblement (irreducible triadicity) of participation (hypostatic synergy)

1) energetikon of similitude = operativities or essential natures or participabilities

2) energon of otherness = operators or hypostases or participants

3) energia of dynamic manifestations = operating or participating

Any generation of novel opposites will be necessarily triadic, hence, will include – not
only formal emanations & dynamic manifestations, but – hypostatic processions. Thus
are energema created & incarnated.

4) energema = opera or new creative & co-creative participants participating in participabilities

So, hypostatic actors (generated opposites) via synergic acts participate in energeia.

And, different types of hypostatic-synergic coinherences involve vectors of

both similitude (horizontal) & otherness (vertical).

These include:

horizontal trinitological tri-hypostatic-synergy; perichoresis of the trinity per monarchy of the

father
vertical christological hypostatic-synergy, a kenotic descent of energema;  hypostatic union
per perichoresis of the One

horizontal cosmotheandric pluri-hypostatic-synergy, a creative diffusion of

energema; perichoresis of the Many

Importantly, we best consider perichoresis and/or coinherence in terms of apophatic metaphors

that convey both “no confusion” & “no commingling.”

Furthermore, we must realize that the above trihypostatic, hypostatic & pluri-hypostatic
perichoreses are analogical. Therefore, less than positive metaphysical explanations, they set
meta-heuristic contours regarding what is manifestly not going on, whether trinitologically,
Christologically or cosmotheandrically.

While hypostases & natures are formally distinct (irreducible to each other), both are really
distinct from energeia. We even distinguish hypostases or signify persons with negative
metaheuristic contours of incommunicability, which, itself, entails two negative conditions –
being not repeatable & not a form. This would apply constitutively, then, to both the mutual
relations of divine persons and haecceities of created hypostases.

Whatever theory one holds regarding how idiomata individuate numerically distinct hypostases,

for example, imagining that they refer to

a) properties that are simple, non-shareable & non-coinstantiable, or, perhaps,

b) shareable in-principle but as a uniquely combined bundle of properties, or even

c) some  combination of non-shareable & uniquely (or not) bundled shareable properties

the haecceity-like bruteness of each hypostasis sets limits, both logically & constitutively, on
how we conceive the Maximian Logos-logoi identity.

Not only do human & divine essential natures relate analogically, so, too, do divine & human
hypostatic idiomata (One to the many). Not only that, both all human persons per their
haecceities, as well as all other pluri-hypostatic creaturely entities, relate analogically, not just
per essential but also per hypostatic natures (many to many).

We best locate, then, the Logos-logoi identity in terms of whatness of an energetikon & howness
of energia, as each & every hypostasis, thisness or whoness, remains – not only not a form, but
– not repeatable.
The ontological & teleological takeaways of the immanent Logos-logoi identity remain utterly
provocative in that what each becomes & how each participates incarnationally entails
a divinization of each creature per the identical logoi involved in the incarnational humanization
of the Logos.

The essence & energies of creatures, as instantiated by persons & the cosmos, are relationally
constituted per the logoi, which are the very same created immanent universal that’s assumed by
the Logos, all via enhypostasization of an eternal essence, which was never anhypostatic.

This panentheistic account has some mereological-like features, perhaps something like a set

theory for hypostatic idiomata. It can still be enriched by Sophiological conceptions, including
distinctions between uncreated & created Sophia.

See:
Sophia, Energies & Logoi in a Neo-Chalcedonian Cosmotheandrism

Some implications of the Law of Retreblement in my panSEMIOentheism are participatory.

We participate in the Logos via acts that are – not just existential (reducing primary natural

potencies) & formal (reducing secondary natural potencies), but – efficient (reducing hypostatic
natural potencies, which are neither formal nor repeatable).

Hypostatic natures, here, are conceived per a bundle theory of idiomata, some, in-principle,
shareable & others not (haecceitas-like). A set theory-like approach to uniquely bundled idiomata
parses out acts (as variously identical or unique), not predicable forms.

Posted in metaphysics, philosophical theology, systematic theology, systematic

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

Post navigation
PREVIOUS POSTThe Eschatological Presuppositions of Balthasar & Maritain Unavoidably Entail
Universalism