Summary of text [comment] page 44

[Now, let us explore natural evil (what Schoonenberg calls “physical evil”) in terms of these interscoping nested forms, starting with the example of the cell.

On the lowest level, when inside versus outside₂ slips into Nothingness₁: death.

On the middle level, when metabolic pathways₂ slip into biological constituents₁: illness.

On the higher level, when homeostasis₂ slips into the loss of coordination among organelles and receptors₁: distress (or “cellular pain”).

This implies that natural evil corresponds to a spontaneous order slipping back into whatever it emerges from.  The actuality is somehow challenged or compromised. The normal context cannot hold.]

Summary of text [comment] page 44

[Now, I consider this interscoping nestedness on a very tiny scale.

Let me consider a eukaryotic cell as an example.

The cell itself is a unity:

Cell₃(homeostasis as ecology₂(organelles and receptors₁))

Arranging, … groping₃(metabolic pathways as internal environment₂(biochemical constituents₁))

Membranes bending in order to define₃(inside versus outside₂(Nothingness₁))

Two points should be noted.

The interscoping nested forms may fit into the adjacent higher level in more than one way.

The lower form may fit into either actuality or possibility of the adjacent higher form.

The lower form may contribute to actuality when it is “taken for granted’ by the higher nested form.

The lower form may contribute to possibility when its potential is exploited in the adjacent higher nested form.

Interscoping nested forms may branch.

The interscoping nested forms are not fixed in terms of graininess of detail.  They may accordion in and out to lesser or greater detail.]

Summary of text [comment] page 44

[OK, de Chardin has been vaporized and condensed into interscoping nested forms.

Unification₃(ecology₂(complex forms₁))

Arranging, … groping₃(environment₂(multitude of elements₁))

God bending in order to create₃(creatio ex nihil₂(Nothingness₁))

How do they fit one another?

To me, it seems that the entire lower nested form fits neatly into the firstness of the adjacent higher level.

I also suspect that these nested forms could fold in or out like a telescope, thus encompassing different scales.]

Summary of text [comment] page 44

Image

Unification₃(ecology₂(complex forms₁))

Arranging, … groping₃(environment₂(multitude of elements₁))

God bending in order to create₃(creatio ex nihil₂(Nothingness₁))

Summary of text [comment] page 44

OK, done. Schoonenberg’s quote of de Chardin has been fit into nested forms:

God bends Nothingness in order to create.  The very structure of Nothingness means that God can proceed in only one fashion: arranging; unifying little by little, under the attraction of His influence; groping with the interplay of great numbers, a multitude of elements, immense, effectively infinite in number, simple and hardly conscious; eventually yielding more complex forms, arriving at forms capable of reflection.

[The next blog will have a picture.  Suffice to say, the nested forms do not intersect.  They are hierarchical in a mystical sort of way.  I call this way: “interscoping”.]

Summary of text [comment] page 44

OK, we are a little deeper, but I am not finished with the quote.  The italicized portions have already been fit into the prior nested forms:

God bends Nothingness in order to create.  The very structure of Nothingness means that God can proceed in only one fashion: arranging; unifying little by little, under the attraction of His influence; groping with the interplay of great numbers, a multitude of elements, immense, effectively infinite in number, simple and hardly conscious; eventually yielding more complex forms, arriving at forms capable of reflection.

[The normal context of the next nested form seems, to me, to be “God bending in order to create”.  The actuality or possibility is “Nothingness”.

Again, we have two options:

God bending in order to create₃(blank₂(Nothingness₁))

God bending in order to create₃(Nothingness₂(blank₁))

Unfortunately, it appears that I am out of extra words.

“Blank” must be either “proceed in only one fashion” or “the very structure of” or both.  These sound like actuality.

Is there some other word that has the same “spontaneous order” implications that “ecology” and “environment” have?  After all, the implications of “proceed in only one fashion” and “the very structure of” sounds like the “anthropic principle”, the incredibly fine-tuning of the fundamental constants (that permitted life to evolve).

Would the Latin term creatio ex nihil do the job?

Let me try it:

God bending in order to create₃(creation ex nihil₂(Nothingness₁))

Or maybe

God bending in order to create₃(creation ex ₂(nihil₁))]

Summary of text [comment] page 44

[OK.  Try again.  The previous blog covered the words in italics.]

God bends Nothingness in order to create.  The very structure of Nothingness means that God can proceed in only one fashion: arranging; unifying little by little, under the attraction of His influence; groping with the interplay of great numbers, a multitude of elements, immense, effectively infinite in number, simple and hardly conscious; eventually yielding more complex forms, arriving at forms capable of reflection.

[With “unification”, “ecology” and “more complex forms” out of the way, what other terms or phrases can we look at?

To me, it appears that “arranging, unifying, attracting, influencing and groping” puts “a multitude of elements” into context.

Again, we face the question about permutations.

Arranging, … groping₃(blank₂(multitude of elements₁))   or

Arranging, … groping₃(multitude of elements₂(blank₁))

Once again, I can reach into my bag of tricks and consider how the other term, “environment” would fit in.  Of course, it would describe “actuality”, leading to:

Arranging, … groping₃(environment₂(multitude of elements₁))

What is striking about the nested forms – so far – is that the actualities of ecology₂ and environment₂ are spontaneous orders.

Is there more?]

Summary of text [comment] page 44

Allow me to repeat what de Chardin wrote:

God bends Nothingness in order to create.  The very structure of Nothingness means that God can proceed in only one fashion: arranging; unifying little by little, under the attraction of His influence; groping with the interplay of great numbers, a multitude of elements, immense, effectively infinite in number, simple and hardly conscious; eventually yielding more complex forms, arriving at forms capable of reflection.

[Now, I will try to imagine de Chardin’s points in nested frame of normal context(actuality(possibility)).

I already have one nested form:

Unity₃(multiplicity₂(Nothingness₁))

Also, I have pointed to two descriptors “ecology” and “environment”.

Here, unity does not seem to be an end point.  So, let suggest the idea that “unification” puts one end point, “complex forms (including those forms capable of reflection)” into context.

The two ways that this can happen is:

Unification₃( blank₂( complex forms₁)) or

Unification₃(complex forms₂( blank₁))

How to choose?  What goes into the blank?

Let me consider the two descriptors “ecology” and “environment”. The first term seems to fit into blank₂ for the first option above.

Unification₃(ecology₂(complex forms₁))

The principle of unification contextualizes the ecology.  (Sounds Gaia, no?)

The ecology situates complex living forms.

“Unification₃” brings “the ecology₂” into relation with “the potential in complex living forms₁“.

The ecology emerges from complex living forms.

That was not so bad.  In the next blog, I will try this again.]

[For de Chardin, evolutionary history reflects this nested form. “The potential of God of recognizing Himself” corresponds to the “very structure of Nothingness”.]

God starts at the beginning, with a multitude of elements, immense, effectively infinite in number, simple and hardly conscious.

These elements organize themselves, yielding complex forms.

Then de Chardin makes a gigantic jump to the present, where some of these complex forms are capable of recognizing themselves. They are capable of reflection.

[Like all good poets, de Chardin passes over what he does not quite comprehend in one gigantic jump.  He senses, but does not understand “spontaneous order”.

With that note, we can look at the nested forms in de Chardin’s poetic prose.]

Summary of text [comment] page 44

What did de Chardin say?

God bends Nothingness in order to create.  The very structure of Nothingness means that God can proceed in only one fashion: arranging; unifying little by little, under the attraction of His influence; groping with the interplay of great numbers, a multitude of elements, immense, effectively infinite in number, simple and hardly conscious; eventually yielding more complex forms, arriving at forms capable of reflection.

[Does that sound like a spontaneous order or what?  Tielhard described it like a poet.  But Hayek was the one who labeled it. The term, that is. “Spontaneous order”.

What does de Chardin’s poetry suggest?

The drama of evolutionary history starts with God and Nothing.  Well, maybe God and “the potential of God of recognizing Himself”.  After all, if there is only God, then how did everything get here, if everything here is not somehow the potential inherent in God?  I suppose this reflects the essence of the Latin term, “creatio ex nihil“.

What is it about things?  Things seem to belong to the category of actuality.  But to us, things are clearly not God.  This implies that actuality is not of God.

Things are not God.  Things are imbued with God.  Is that not a contradiction? How can this be?

Actuality emerges from possibility.  The realm of possibility allows contradictions.  Contradiction are permitted in the monadic realm of possibility.  So the apparent contradiction must be due to the emergence of actuality from possibility.

“God₃” brings “His Own Actuality₂” into relation with “the potential of God to manifest His Own Actuality₁”.]