[For example, consider the relation that defines religion^{suprasovereign}:

Assume_3cC( object^relation_2cC( possibility that all will enter relation_1cC))

The actuality, object^relation_2cC is a dyad of relations.

As a dyad, ‘the two relations in actuality’ are contiguous. Somehow, one accounts for the other. The theological relation of the One Triune God accounts for the anthropological relation of Creation. The theological relation of ‘Recognize!’ accounts for the anthropological relation of ‘the individual in mystical union with God’.]

Summary of text [comment] page 69

[Before going to the second movement, allow me to ask this question about assume_3cC:

Why don’t ‘the two relations that compose the dyad in actuality’ interscope?

Why does one relation not become situation and the other content?

The answer comes from the fact that dyadic actuality belongs to one relation.

Once you remove the pair from that one particular relation, then the actualities (if they are relations) may interscope.

Compare 2.1 EL to 2.1 EI.]

[So, with the preceding blogs and images in mind, I attempt to summarize.

I do so in two movements.

First, God the One must also be God the Three in order to encompass all three categories of existence.

If the One Triune God is actual, then another actual relation occurs in the dyad of actuality. That other actuality is creation.

These actualities are not hierarchical, they are contiguous. They obey the laws of non-contradiction.

Furthermore, this dyad has a normal context: Assume.

‘Assume_3cC’ brings ‘One True Triune God and Creation_2cC’ into relation with the ‘potential of all coming into relation_1cC’. This relation characterizes a suprasovereign religion.

Details can be found in the e-book: How To Define the Word ‘Religion’.]

Summary of text [comment] page 69

[The intersection of participation and recognition contains a polarity between divine normal contexts (the sources of grace, as well as self destruction) and human potentials (the subject of grace, as well as self destruction).

This polarity encounters the polarity of exclusive normal contexts that bring either grace or self destruction into relation with the monadic sea of possibility.

Thus, I present an image of the word ‘counter’ in the (translator’s chosen term from the original Dutch) ‘counterpoles’ describing the difference between the source and the subject of grace.

Finally, I compare this intersection to the ground of the dyadic actuality of ‘the human in the image of ‘the One Who Recognizes’ and ‘the One Who Is Recognized’‘. This comparison appears in the next blog.]