[I am not sure what the answer is.

Is Grace somehow related to the design of Creation?

No human can own it. No human lives without it.]

[Who knows?

Maybe, grace is an actuality on the adjacent lower level to Creation. That would produce a complete interscope, containing the following virtual nested form in the category of actuality:

Father and Son_2c( Creation_2b( Grace_2a))]

[The Creation belongs to a nested form that accompanies ‘God Recognizing Himself’.

God Recognizing Himself accounts for Creation.

This is how actuality works. Secondness is dyadic.

Yet…

…As soon as I acknowledge the dyad in object^rel_2cC, it transforms into an interscope.]

[‘Grace’ is not What the Father Recognizes.

‘Grace’ is not the Son, the Object of the Father’s Love and Recognition.

‘Grace’ is like the dynamic of their Love and Recognition. This dynamic belongs to Creation because ‘the possibility of Creation’ synchronizes with ‘the Potential of God Recognizing Himself’.

Perhaps, the theological One True Triune God may be regarded as ‘a relation outside of time (eternal and archetypal)’ even as it engenders, by belonging to the realm of actuality, ‘another relation inside of time (immanent and conditional)’.]

[The nested form of the Triune God serves as the third model.

This model is open to further exploration.

Grace, like love, seems to belong to the design inherent in the normal context the Holy Spirit, who brings the Father and the Son into relation.

Grace also seems to belong to the Possibility of God’s Self-Recognition.

In this model, the word ‘grace’ points to ‘the bringing of actuality from the Possibility of God Recognizing Himself according to the Designs of the Holy Spirit’.

Yet, the word ‘grace’ differs from both ‘the Possibility of God Recognizing Himself’ and ‘the Designs of the Holy Spirit’.

‘Grace’ differs from both ‘the Foundation of Love’ and ‘Love’.

Yet, belongs to both.]

[Model two is the intersection of participation and recognition.

The single actuality belonging to ‘the intersection of recognition (vertical axis) and participation (horizontal axis)’ is a state of existence.

Existence reflects either ‘grace’ or ‘self-destruction’.]

[Grace becomes a hidden attractor under conditions of alienation, when an infrasovereign think^group has gained sovereign power. In this case, the parallel vertical axes become think^pro-object and think^anti-object.   Think^divine is forcibly veiled by think^pro-object.

Here, grace calls from the outside. Whenever one turns away from the totalitarian system, one senses the attractor, think^divine, not as an idea, but more like a melody.

Conscience^pro-object senses the possibility of conscience^free.]

[Grace moves us under the normal conditions where think^divine and think^group are exclusive and interpolating. Grace calls from the outside and the inside. One can entertain both conscience^free and conscience^lacking at the same time. Conscience belongs to the realm of possibility.]

[So far, I have encountered at least three models suggesting ‘what grace could be’.

Here is one model:

A dual vertical axis intersection models the meaning underlying the word ‘religion’. The single actuality of the intersection of human thought (the divided vertical axis) and human action (the horizontal axis) is ‘what is good and what is bad’. This intersection serves as one model for generating and answering questions about grace.

Grace has the character of interpellation for think^divine.

Self-destruction has the the character of interpellation for think^group.]