[Similarly, in biology, no creature can be reduced to cause and effect with respect to either its own entirety or the entirety of other creatures.
This is readily apparent when one creature is free to respond to another.
Some modern gnostics contextualize these responses as divine, “the ecology”, or more comprehensively, “Gaia”.
In technical terms:
Gaia3(spontaneous order and creature2( potential of creatures freely responding to one another1))]
[The term “one” designates the realm of possibility. One is purely monadic. Firstness is a category of existence. Firstness is inclusive and allows contradiction.
Any resolution of the inherent contradictions in “God the One”, immediately brings “God the One” into the realm of actuality.
Yet, one party’s resolution may not agree with another party’s.
Consequently, two or more “God the One” (plural) may be manifest at any moment. Each manifestation has its own advocates.
The immediate solution may be to attack and murder the opposing resolutions (or parties). This solution does not mitigate the potential for further independent resolutions. All manifestations of “God the One” are heretical to all other manifestations of “God the One”.]
Summary of text [comment] page 66
Schoonenberg claimed that sin is not omnipotent. God’s creative power surrounds and limits sin.
We may ascribe the continuing existence of a sinner to God’s redeeming grace. But that is not enough. The sinner’s continued existence is not only an exhibition of grace, but also of judgment.
Hence the cry of the sinner, “It would have been better for me that I had not been born” (Matt.26:24).
[Both judgment and the continuing existence of each person is intrinsic to the triadic relational structure of God Recognizing Himself. Eternal life is a deductive outcome of three persons in one God.
The Father and the Son are Persons in the category of secondness. Secondness is the realm of cause-and-effect. But note, the divine cause and effect is not instrumental. It is relational. The Father recognizes. The Son is recognized.
Creation is potentiated by the Father through the Son.
Both persons become apparent in the context of a third person, the divine Recognition, the Holy Spirit.]
[“God Recognizing Himself3” brings “the spontaneous order and the creature2” into relation to “the potential inherent in the creature1“.
If a creature realizes itself by self-destruction, the realization of its potential is situated in the spontaneous order.
Both “the self-destruction of the creature and the adaptation in the spontaneous order2” are contextualized by God3.
This simple thought experiment shows the value of the nested formulation.
When a modern presents a rhetorical question, ‘he’ anticipates one answer instead of three.
Does the creature cease to exist?
The answer is No3( Maybe2 and Yes2( Who knows what potentially remains?1)).]
[Let me conduct a thought experiment:
I choose this scenario as a plain example of self-destruction and a tangible embodiment of the negative character of sin.
A creature realizes itself by committing suicide.
The thought probe wonders: Does the creature cease to exist?
For the creature itself, the answer must be “yes”.
The creature is actual. It obeys the laws of non contradiction.
In the realm of the spontaneous order, the answer is “maybe”, because, even though the creature ceases to exist, the spontaneous order adapts to both the existence and disappearance of the creature. The spontaneous order also belongs to actuality.
In the realm of “God Recognizes Himself (that is, of creation)”, “the manifestation of the creature’s existence at one time in the spontaneous order, plus its fate,” cannot be erased, because it has become embedded in “God Recognizing Himself”.
So the answer must be “no”, the creature’s fate is traced in God’s Own Recognition.
This can be depicted in nested form.
God Recognizing Himself3( spontaneous order & creature2( the potential inherent in the creature1))]
[Let me consider to the issue of presence and “a creature realizing itself”.
A creature realizes itself in a spontaneous order. The spontaneous order situates its presence.
What are the implications for humans?]
Summary of text [comment] page 66
[Spontaneous order?
What is that?
A spontaneous order is an anti-entropic process (occurring within an entropic flow of energy). Some spontaneous orders are destructive (example: tornadoes). Some are constructive (example: a living cell).
Every creature cannot help but realize itself.
At the same time, every creature is created and kept in being by God, through a spontaneous order.
God lifts actuality out of the realm of possibility through spontaneous orders.
It appears that spontaneous order generates itself by itself. However, no accounting in the realm of actuality can answer this question:
Why this spontaneous order and not another?
A spontaneous order cannot explain itself. It cannot account for its own uniqueness or its amazing unity.
This question marks the horizon of scientific inquiry.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 65 and 66
[Dispositions and conscience exist in the realm of possibility.
Dispositions are directly situated by human action. They are contextualized by consequences, which I call, lawessential. Lawessential may be accepted or denied. I label habitual acceptance or denial as lawacceptance and lawdenial.
These labels refer to “the actual and perceived consequences of the single actuality of virtue and sin”. This same actuality is contextualized by thinkdivine and thinkgroup.
The conscience is directly situated by human thoughts. The conscience is contextualized by two exclusive yet interpellating normal contexts, thinkgroup and thinkdivine. These contexts cause the conscience to be more and more distinct as the creature realizes ‘himself’. That is why conscience is specified. The specifications that I use are “lacking” (as in “without freedom”) and “free” (as in, open to responsibility and freedom).
In time, I suspect that better terms than “lacking” and “free” will be found.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 65 and 66
[What happens when someone abandons a thinkgroup?
The others view ‘him’ as selling out.
To what?
A more lucrative thinkgroup?
Consider David Horowitz’s book Bad Faith (2009).]
