A most excellent article, both in content and in the manner it is written!
I shall also be able to derive much from it. To add my perspective, though I will not deviate enough to justify it beyond what we already discussed, I believe that man, in his macrocosm, not only imparts meaning to the world but also order, both from an ontological or at least a metaphysical perspective. Without man, there would be no connected world, only separated particles, no wholes, only self-relation. God uses man for the telos of the world.
But putting theory aside, what exactly do you mean by the "potential" that lies within us, in relation to the containment of the entire universe? The "unconscious," for me, is precisely the representation of all things in the world unperceived in the nous.
Thank you for these thoughts! I think we're in deep agreement. What I mean by man "potentially" containing the whole cosmos in himself is that I think that his assimilation of creation, as it were, happens precisely along with his deification in Christ, so you're right that he already does, in some sense, contain the whole within himself, just as a seed contains the whole of a tree within itself, but he has yet to consciously comprehend the whole cosmos and subsequently "humanize" it, as Fr. Dumitru says (and I would say this "humanization" occurs through man's creatively transforming it), but will continue in his progress toward that end in the process of his salvation and deification.
This would equate perception with the act of transformation. Well, I believe that both ultimately stem from the same source. As I have written today, cognition and the creative act are different steps in the same natural process. And metaphysically speaking, I assume that every temporal action is a manifestation of our holistic, timeless notion, whereby our actions are equivalent to a perception of our own nature: nature here not as an essential self but as a holistic self.
Secondly, a question. Do you think that man in heaven will have a perception of creation from his unique perspective that fully encompasses all its elements?
I don't think I'd necessarily take that what you refer to here as "perception" as being equivalent to an act of transformation, but rather than our conscious comprehension of creation is a necessary precondition for an act of creatively transforming it, but you're right that these two things are deeply interconnected, since they both occur progressively and interactively in practice.
I think I want to answer your question at the end with "yes", but I'd have to think about it more. Maybe you could give some of your own thoughts on the question.
Unless we take a completely materialistic view of the cosmos, isn’t it the case that even the cosmos, like man (and God), is both transcendent and immanent? Taking it further, have you considered the possibility of understanding the entire cosmos (man included) as Christic - that is, as God made manifest?
I would certainly agree with your point about all of creation being a revelation of God, both cosmos and man. What sense of cosmos as nature being transcendent did you have in mind? Do you mean that it is both transcendent and immanent in itself? I suppose the angle I’m trying to take is that it is through man that the cosmos becomes humanized (and ultimately divinized in man who is divinized); and of course all of this is possible only because of the Incarnation of Christ. So in that sense, He will absolutely be all in all (and thus all is Christic in an eschatological sense). I hope that helps clarify my thoughts!
Yes, that the cosmos (as nature) is by nature both transcendent and immanent, unlike a materialistic view which would see it as simply immanent. As such, the question immediately becomes: what, if any, is the essential difference between nature, man, and God if all are inherently immanent and transcendent?
I think I see what you’re getting at, but I’m still unsure what the transcendence of the cosmos as nature means. Could you describe what that involves from your perspective?
Edit: Just to clarify, I don’t think the cosmos as nature by itself, in isolation, makes any metaphysical sense, strictly speaking, and so I’m mainly just trying in the article to discuss the relation between man, God, and cosmos as distinct within their unity, and and how meaning is imparted within that whole.
The point being that nature is not ontologically separate from God’s being but is in a very real sense the transcendent God made manifest as immanent nature by the power of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, man is not ontologically separate from God but is God made manifest as man. It is in this sense that the entire cosmos (man and nature) can be seen as Christic or said otherwise, as the Logos incarnate. God the Father is the transcendent source of the entire Christic cosmos made immanent by the divine energies of the Holy Spirit.
This is helpful and interesting. Thanks. I’ll have to think about it more. I suppose my initial hesitance would be a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God (though I do acknowledge that man does in a sense become uncreated through participation in God), but that may not be what you’re getting at. I would wholeheartedly agree that neither man nor cosmos is ontologically separated from God in the sense that God is the transcendent and self-existent source of all being and all creation. Was there a particular bit in the article that prompted your thoughts? I’d like to reflect more on it if there was.
The whole article, including the title, is thought-provoking and offers many great points to jump off from and have further discussions. What I’ve shared is what I would call a cosmic view of Christianity, pointing out the non-dual nature of Reality and the relationship between God, man, and the cosmos (as nature).
You said that the “whole of reality, both in its created and uncreated aspects, if I may speak this way, involves fundamentally both the absolute personal transcendence and imminence of God, and the relative personal transcendence and imminence of man, who mediates the meaning imparted by God to the cosmos.” It’s worth considering that the transcendence and immanence of God and man are not-separate and exploring the implications of what that really means. The same is true for the cosmos (as nature).
I think Staniloae doesn’t go far enough in saying that “the world is called to be humanized.” The world is called to be Christified, seeing that the world (man included) is Christic - that is, the transcendent God the Father made immanently manifest. Teleologically speaking, the entire world is an ever-unfolding of the glory of God made manifest. Theosis isn’t simply a nice idea for man, but the very calling and purpose of the entire world in which man must play a conscious role. This is a cosmic view of theosis.
You also described man as “microreality,” where reality is comprised of God and man. I would again gently nudge you to see that Reality is the transcendent God the Father, the source and being of All That Is, made immanently manifest as the entire cosmos (man included) by the divine energies of the Holy Spirit. This is a cosmic, non-dual, Trinitarian view of Christianity which sees no ontological separation between God and man and All That Is.
Lastly, let me be explicitly clear: we need not be afraid of “a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God” - no such collapse is possible. Let Christ be our guide. We rightly proclaim that the God-man is both fully God and fully man. We maintain a distinction of natures without any ontological separation whatsoever. Christ’s human nature was not somehow swallowed up by his divine nature. The same is true for man. The incarnation revealed not simply who God is, but who man is (at least in potential). Man simply lost sight of who he always already is. Theosis is not about uniting ontologically separated God and man (nor was the incarnation), but rather actualizing the fullness of that which man is by nature through the divine energies of the Holy Spirit.
A most excellent article, both in content and in the manner it is written!
I shall also be able to derive much from it. To add my perspective, though I will not deviate enough to justify it beyond what we already discussed, I believe that man, in his macrocosm, not only imparts meaning to the world but also order, both from an ontological or at least a metaphysical perspective. Without man, there would be no connected world, only separated particles, no wholes, only self-relation. God uses man for the telos of the world.
But putting theory aside, what exactly do you mean by the "potential" that lies within us, in relation to the containment of the entire universe? The "unconscious," for me, is precisely the representation of all things in the world unperceived in the nous.
Again, a really good article.
With many greetings and wishes of rich blessings,
Justus.
Thank you for these thoughts! I think we're in deep agreement. What I mean by man "potentially" containing the whole cosmos in himself is that I think that his assimilation of creation, as it were, happens precisely along with his deification in Christ, so you're right that he already does, in some sense, contain the whole within himself, just as a seed contains the whole of a tree within itself, but he has yet to consciously comprehend the whole cosmos and subsequently "humanize" it, as Fr. Dumitru says (and I would say this "humanization" occurs through man's creatively transforming it), but will continue in his progress toward that end in the process of his salvation and deification.
Interesting.
This would equate perception with the act of transformation. Well, I believe that both ultimately stem from the same source. As I have written today, cognition and the creative act are different steps in the same natural process. And metaphysically speaking, I assume that every temporal action is a manifestation of our holistic, timeless notion, whereby our actions are equivalent to a perception of our own nature: nature here not as an essential self but as a holistic self.
Secondly, a question. Do you think that man in heaven will have a perception of creation from his unique perspective that fully encompasses all its elements?
I don't think I'd necessarily take that what you refer to here as "perception" as being equivalent to an act of transformation, but rather than our conscious comprehension of creation is a necessary precondition for an act of creatively transforming it, but you're right that these two things are deeply interconnected, since they both occur progressively and interactively in practice.
I think I want to answer your question at the end with "yes", but I'd have to think about it more. Maybe you could give some of your own thoughts on the question.
Unless we take a completely materialistic view of the cosmos, isn’t it the case that even the cosmos, like man (and God), is both transcendent and immanent? Taking it further, have you considered the possibility of understanding the entire cosmos (man included) as Christic - that is, as God made manifest?
I would certainly agree with your point about all of creation being a revelation of God, both cosmos and man. What sense of cosmos as nature being transcendent did you have in mind? Do you mean that it is both transcendent and immanent in itself? I suppose the angle I’m trying to take is that it is through man that the cosmos becomes humanized (and ultimately divinized in man who is divinized); and of course all of this is possible only because of the Incarnation of Christ. So in that sense, He will absolutely be all in all (and thus all is Christic in an eschatological sense). I hope that helps clarify my thoughts!
Yes, that the cosmos (as nature) is by nature both transcendent and immanent, unlike a materialistic view which would see it as simply immanent. As such, the question immediately becomes: what, if any, is the essential difference between nature, man, and God if all are inherently immanent and transcendent?
I think I see what you’re getting at, but I’m still unsure what the transcendence of the cosmos as nature means. Could you describe what that involves from your perspective?
Edit: Just to clarify, I don’t think the cosmos as nature by itself, in isolation, makes any metaphysical sense, strictly speaking, and so I’m mainly just trying in the article to discuss the relation between man, God, and cosmos as distinct within their unity, and and how meaning is imparted within that whole.
The point being that nature is not ontologically separate from God’s being but is in a very real sense the transcendent God made manifest as immanent nature by the power of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, man is not ontologically separate from God but is God made manifest as man. It is in this sense that the entire cosmos (man and nature) can be seen as Christic or said otherwise, as the Logos incarnate. God the Father is the transcendent source of the entire Christic cosmos made immanent by the divine energies of the Holy Spirit.
This is helpful and interesting. Thanks. I’ll have to think about it more. I suppose my initial hesitance would be a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God (though I do acknowledge that man does in a sense become uncreated through participation in God), but that may not be what you’re getting at. I would wholeheartedly agree that neither man nor cosmos is ontologically separated from God in the sense that God is the transcendent and self-existent source of all being and all creation. Was there a particular bit in the article that prompted your thoughts? I’d like to reflect more on it if there was.
The whole article, including the title, is thought-provoking and offers many great points to jump off from and have further discussions. What I’ve shared is what I would call a cosmic view of Christianity, pointing out the non-dual nature of Reality and the relationship between God, man, and the cosmos (as nature).
You said that the “whole of reality, both in its created and uncreated aspects, if I may speak this way, involves fundamentally both the absolute personal transcendence and imminence of God, and the relative personal transcendence and imminence of man, who mediates the meaning imparted by God to the cosmos.” It’s worth considering that the transcendence and immanence of God and man are not-separate and exploring the implications of what that really means. The same is true for the cosmos (as nature).
I think Staniloae doesn’t go far enough in saying that “the world is called to be humanized.” The world is called to be Christified, seeing that the world (man included) is Christic - that is, the transcendent God the Father made immanently manifest. Teleologically speaking, the entire world is an ever-unfolding of the glory of God made manifest. Theosis isn’t simply a nice idea for man, but the very calling and purpose of the entire world in which man must play a conscious role. This is a cosmic view of theosis.
You also described man as “microreality,” where reality is comprised of God and man. I would again gently nudge you to see that Reality is the transcendent God the Father, the source and being of All That Is, made immanently manifest as the entire cosmos (man included) by the divine energies of the Holy Spirit. This is a cosmic, non-dual, Trinitarian view of Christianity which sees no ontological separation between God and man and All That Is.
Lastly, let me be explicitly clear: we need not be afraid of “a collapse of the distinct natures of man and God” - no such collapse is possible. Let Christ be our guide. We rightly proclaim that the God-man is both fully God and fully man. We maintain a distinction of natures without any ontological separation whatsoever. Christ’s human nature was not somehow swallowed up by his divine nature. The same is true for man. The incarnation revealed not simply who God is, but who man is (at least in potential). Man simply lost sight of who he always already is. Theosis is not about uniting ontologically separated God and man (nor was the incarnation), but rather actualizing the fullness of that which man is by nature through the divine energies of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for the excellent article.