Summary of text [comment] page 67
[“What does “the One Who Recognizes” see in “The One Who Is Recognized”?
Let me start by positing this: “The Recognizer sees some Object in the Recognized”.
Technically, for the Triune God, this Object must be the formal cause or “formal design” of the Holy Spirit.
The formal design answers the question: Why Recognition?
(And that question echoes through the dyad as: Why Existence?)]
Summary of text [comment] page 67
[The statement, “I recognize myself”, may unwittingly represent refusal and usurpation.
Theoretically, I should say, “I recognize God, as the only way to recognize myself.” This statement represents acceptance and openness.
This relation is not exactly the same as the preceding relations.
“The Holy Spirit3” brings “I (the created one who recognizes) and myself (the created one who is recognized)2” into relation with “His Omnipotent Oneness1” (which is contiguous with “the potential of creation to exist1“).
We acknowledge this relation because our creation (as actual relation) is contiguous with the Father and the Son (as actual relation), in the context of Assume!.]
Summary of text [comment] page 67
[Now, let me consider the notion of God creating “the image of God”.
I suspect that, in the previous blog, “the image of God” would go in the place of creation.
The Story of the Fall comes in at this point, because the Story of the 6 Days of Creation was not the final statement.
The Story of Adam and Eve marks the moment when “humans, in the image of God,” realized that “they were persons”.
“A person” is culturally open to recognizing herself as “an image of God”.
This was not the case before the first singularity. In “the Lebenswelt that we evolved in” our ancestors were created in the image of God. However, they did not recognize this. Why not? Their way of talking was truly representational. It consisted of linguistic icons (images) and indexes (pointings). As language, it operated according to the structures of symbols orders. But hand speech talk was not fully symbolic.
The term “image of God” is purely symbolic, as is the term used to name Eve: Mother of all Living.
After the first singularity, persons could recognize “who they were” through symbols, into which they project reference.]
[Assume brings everything into relation, including every one of us, past, present and future. Assume brings all creation into relation. “All creation” includes the entire universe.
Creation, however, is not mentioned in the nested relation that portrays the One True Triune God.
Therefore, creation must belong to the other element in the dyad that we assume in order to bring all into relation.
The next blog portrays a way to picture how creation2 fits the dyadic actuality that “assume3” contextualizes.]
Summary of text [comment] page 67
[OK, here is another logical conclusion:
If the One True Triadic God is actual, then that actuality belongs to another nested form.
What triadic relation is able to put this actuality into context.
Islam provides a clue with the notion that Quran means “recite”.
Islam means “submit”.
I prefer another word: “Assume”.
Assume3( the actuality of the One True Triune God plus some other element in a dyad2(possibility of all being brought into relation1))]
Summary of text [comment] page 67
[Let me examine each word in the term “The One True Triune God”.
The term, “One”, refers to possibility. The realm of possibility is monadic. It is all inclusive. It allows contradictions. Omnipotence means “all potential”. There is only One God in the category of firstness.
The term, “True”, refers to actuality. A True God must exhibit the dyadic nature of the category of secondness. In this, a True God both constitutes and realizes the laws of noncontradiction. A True God should harbor no contradictions.
Finally, the term, “Triune”, refers to the triadic relation itself.
The term, “God”, refers to the object that brings all into relation. If we assume this object, all are brought into relation.
Relations are exclusive. There is only one relation, even though there may be many manifestations of this one relation.]
