Yet another beautiful reflection. I suggest that it’s more accurate to view Nature not as symbolic but as truly sacramental - the very revelation of God’s manifest presence as creation. Likewise, St. Dumitru called Nature itself “the diaphanous medium of the present activity and speech of God.”
It’s also worth carefully noting that sin “blunted the acuteness of man’s pure sensitivity to God” - that is, Nature didn’t change, but rather man no longer saw sacramental Nature clearly.
So what was the solution? Again, let’s pay close attention to what St. Dumitru says: “the necessity [arose] for a revelation that differed from the activity that God was still carrying on at every moment through the medium of creation, but no longer perceived by man.” Obviously, he’s pointing to the Incarnation.
However, notice that St.Dumitru does not mention an inherent or resultant ontological separation or rupture between God and man due to sin. Man simply no longer perceived the sacramentality of Nature and forgot who he is and his great high calling, which God gave man as the very purpose and meaning of his life.
The Incarnation then was not about uniting or reuniting ontologically separated God and man (or creation), but rather fully revealing to man that which he no longer saw clearly, inspiring man once again to take up his divine calling. As vitally important as it was, salvation was not a necessary result of the Incarnation. Salvation is theosis - the actualization of the inherent, essential, divine potential of man (and Nature), consciously manifesting God’s life as the world, as sacrament. To see this clearly and live it is a Eucharistic life of conscious communion in and as and with God.
Thank you, Aaron, for your incredibly thoughtful reply. What you say about sacramentality I find insightful, and I very much agree. I suppose I would also view sacrament as having a symbolic character itself (in the sense I am using ‘symbolic’) in that it is a participatory unity of heaven and earth, as likewise, in a related way, are symbols. Nonetheless, I do think your language is probably more precise, and for that I am grateful!
I just prefer not to call the creation symbolic because it is not a sign pointing to that which is real and true. Rather, all of creation is itself the very manifestation of the real and true - God. Symbols tend to be seen as ontologically separate from that to which they signify or point. Sacraments, like the Eucharist as a prime example, are the very presence of God as the material form in which He is manifest. Sacraments need not be united to that which they reveal, but rather reveal that which they essentially are. I don’t think many fully grasp the truth of this, even in the Eucharist. The bread and wine don’t become the body and blood of Christ, but rather they are the sacramental revelation of God’s activity and presence in and through and as bread and wine. Ultimately, the entire creation is Christic - that is, the sacramental manifestation of God as creation.
7) "The world itself, apart from the human spirit, would not be able to break out of the rigid linear framework of automatic repetition." This is also a fundamental idea in my B-Model, where the world is gathered in a reflecting microcosm and, through spontaneous signals or power, is directed in a certain direction by input-output feedback. The question, however, is how this fits with the A-Model, which I will briefly touch upon in a moment.
8) Why negate freedom "to do what thou wilt" and affirm freedom from impurity when one could affirm both, and that what thou wilt, if purified, is necessarily good?
9) "God, in his act of creation, laid the necessary groundwork for a dialogue with man, and, in His creation of man himself, initiated this dialogue. Because of creation’s dialogical purpose, meaning is foundational to and inseparable from reality."
Beautifully said.
The way I understand this truth in metaphysical analysis is, roughly, as follows. The A-Model is based on the Theodical Argument and the Word-Machine, in specific on the idea that God’s input for creation was unspecific, and another world could have been created by Him, or even no world at all.
We can distinguish between interaction that occurs between entities via energetic or informative exchange (= IE), which I already established I think is between hypostases, and interaction that occurs between entities due to Mutual Interiority (= MI) which is that what a being has.
Once I asked how *IE* (energetic or informative exchange) is reasonable to assume if we already have MI (Mutual Interority), and the answer given to me (by multiple people) was that it is reflected from the Trinity, where it is true between the divine persons. However, what makes us say that IE is proper to beings and not hypostases & persons? If it is proper to hypostases, then we cannot say that the Trinity tells us it is possible between created beings, as the hypostases of God interact via IE but are all [of] one substance or being. Now, there is IE between God and creation by sustainment and energetic participation. But if one can say that between created beings (or entities in general) there is MI and not IE because communication, in the end, serves harmony (or a development into harmony,) which one can get to by MI with the act of creation beforehand, wouldn't that be coherent and have all explanatory power?
In short, let us imagine infinite many universes, and each universe is richer than the materialistic one for it does not only contain all its content, but also the phenomenal aspect of a point of perspective around which the universe is stretched. Each point in that world corresponds to one universe which is that world reflected from that point (in different gradiants of specifity, and for most perspectives unconscious; without senses, thoughts or emotions.) Thus, each world contains infinite many universes.
It is completely by the own notion and spontaneity, what that universe reflects. Perhaps it is ordered, perhaps it is not. The point is, God only creates a world (a set of universes) if they are coherent with each other, and if they belong to the set of best possible worlds.
To be coherent with each other, they need to be mutual indwelling, because they are coherent only when they reflect each other within themselves.
Thus, God creates a world of infinite many, mutual indwelling universes (which is each point of that world reflected from that point.) Now, the own developement of each mutual indwelling universe (which is a substance or "being" in the non-personal sense) would reflect the whole harmony and interaction without need for IE except with the sustaining power of God and the many energetic manifestations of the divine energy intersecting each universe.
10) The purpose of communication is harmony, defined as the optimal arrangement of parts within a whole: realizing and manifesting the inherent logical connections between all parts, and serves to convey truth, build relationships, share knowledge, and resolve conflicts by alignment of individual perspectives.
If God created the world in a way where each part (point-universe) is self-developing into their harmonious role, then communication is necessary insofar each notion is logically contained in all others since their inception (which is mutual interiority [MI]/communal ontology) which makes any other sort of communication (= IE) not only unconceivable (in a way logically functioning) but also arbitrary. The exception of course are the divine energies who make the development of the universes and the perceptive manifestations (cosmos → microcosm) possible.
11) How, then, can compatibility with point 7) be achieved?
Each universe proper to a [human] soul is dominant in determining what world emerges, thus, which set of infinite many point-universes come about or can even come about concerning God's coherence. This means that it is humans who determine the coherent picture, and everything else follows as an effect to make the picture coherent, but is not directly chosen, only indirectly as a bridge between what is chosen: universes proper to humans.
Johnathon, this was an excellent article, as is customary with your works, and I read it with great pleasure. I would like to share my reflections on it and pose a few questions while doing so, hopefully making a creative connection between our thoughts and reflections possible.
1) First and foremost, I must express my agreement with the overarching point: the "depth" of our capacity to perceive and understand is intimately linked to the quality of our spiritual state; in layers of likeness to God that are defining the nature of a thing. Even within a single level or layer, thus within a single nature in the sense of the particulars of a species, there are differences due to distinctly darkened "spiritual perceptions." This spiritual perception is tied to our nous, in or through which we participate in the Logos, as we have discussed. In animals, it is merely called "soul," which is like the nous and lacks only in the capability of participating in the Logos to the "depth" you mentioned.
My first question, then, is whether you believe a particular being (or rather: hypostasis) can be so disordered that its perception within its accessible level is null (in actuality, not in potentiality,) rendering it as if it belonged to a lesser species.
2) "[...] for two or more beings or persons to communicate or cooperate as equals in fullness of mutual understanding, there must both be a reciprocal congruence in their capacities to perceive both each other and the world and to act in relation to one another in and through the world, else the meaning implicit in their words or activity might be mistaken for noise, and the communication between them distorted at best and severed at worst."
It is this truth, when further developed, that led me to the Orthodox faith. After all, it applies not only on the stage of nature but also on the stage of relationships. The "nature" of the relationship between man and God, in any terms beyond natural theology, is necessarily the Church. I began my philosophical journey with precisely this observation and applied it to various stages:
- "First and foremost, it is the information or the meaning itself that you want to convey or that you are looking for in communication."
- "And then it is a common program for packing and unpacking information or meaning."
The second of which can be called *nature*. For we can see: all things participate in the same energy, which is the same set of information, but mostly invisibly, in the sense that most things lack a program to unpack most of the information—which is the corresponding perception.
3) Furthermore, I noticed that you suggested communication between two or more "*beings* or *persons*." For a rather long time, it was open to me whether two beings can communicate or if only persons (or rather: hypostases, whether personal or not, in the sense of an essence or logos bound to existence) communicate (that is: whether communication is proper to persons or beings) and whether there may be a different kind of communication between persons and beings. In my younger reflections, I have come to the idea that communication (in a non-Mutual Indwelling [= MI] way) is proper to persons, not to beings. This conclusion arises from the philosophical difficulties of communication between substances. Hence, I now believe, at least within the "A-Model" I have been using lately, that communication between *beings* exists through MI, at least in terms of creation, while communication between *persons* occurs in the classical way of direct contact, behind which is not "touch" as is still commonly believed, but a direct transfer of energy resp. information—and MI results in the self-development of a being or substance. God, however, via His energy, intersects all substances and beings, and by participating in the energy of God, according to their own nature, these substances manifest the individual effects of this energy (love, justice, etc., and also communication) within themselves.
4) The idea that by the fact of Christ adopting human nature, and through our participation in him, we can gain "divine perception"—by which we see the world as something akin to a *transparent garden*, recognizing the divine purposes and meanings within it (which is impossible without divine perception)—is also most stimulating: a great idea!
However, this raises the question to what extent this divine perception is removed from fallen "nature" and accessible through our baptism or at least the heart’s decision (I am unsure which one of those two) for God—or perhaps Jesus. Or is a darkened version of this divine perception already present in fallen human creatures which makes us not completely seperated from it? For as such, these creatures already participate in Jesus as the ordering principle of the universe, without that their perception wouldn't be ordered, which is Christ divine side. Is our baptism—or the decision of the heart—the bridge to our participation in His human nature, or, more correctly, in the conjunction of divine and human nature, so that all that was accomplished through this conjunction (which I mean in an orthodox sense) in the divine hypostasis of Christ—our forgiveness, but also divine perception—only becomes accessible now?
How, then, does this not represent an unorthodox separation between His divine and human nature, if one can participate in the former and not the latter before baptism or the decision of the heart? Hence, my theory is that Christ's function as the ordering principle (the *Logos*) is already both divine and human, and we fully participate in Him, meaning we are already on the "level" or "layer" of divine perception from the beginning. Yet, due to misarrangement or privation, its effect in each human life and person is blocked, and this blockage must be removed for divine perception to be actualized. Thus, it is not our "nature" that is corrupt, in the Aristotelian sense, but our actuality. According to our potentiality, we possess the possibility of *Theosis*, deification, yet it remains impossible without baptism or a decision of the heart.
In short, does the non-Christian have divine perception already and if yes, is there a hard line in it between the believer and the non-believer?
5) "Honest ascetic labor is the only path upward."
In your mind, is it somewhat egoistic to seek freedom from sin in order to participate in divine perception? For that motivation arises out of intuitive, "natural" awe, and it is my [primary] motivation, rather than any conscious notion of love.
6) A common nature, if my understanding of what you said is correct, is signified by a potential to understand certain perceptions: based on a shared participation—or synergizing, resonating—in energies. For all things participate in one and the same energy, as I stated before, yet they synergize or resonate differently with it, producing different manifestations or effects called love, justice etc.: all the perfections which are of God. This reminds me of Leibniz, who spoke of the nature of monads differing due to their perceptions, with human monads being capable of divine perception, to use that term.
Now, to what makes human nature unique (identifiable.)
*To what you said:*
"Human persons are conscious, willing, active, and bodily subjects—living loci of free agency; we exist, simultaneously, both imminently within and transcendently above the world."
*To what I say:*
Rationality - the ability to connect truths consciously. Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Consciousness - distinct from animal consciousness, it is a layer of divine perception, of understanding meaning and purpose. Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Virtue - which seems to emerge from rationality or the layer of participation rationality emerges from (consciousness.) Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Will - As either self-determining or self-developing activity, perhaps manifesting into spontaneity, it may not be unique to human nature, nor even to any nature, as it is common to all in certain
metaphysics at least, and such a metapyhsics is my A-Model. However, one may distinguish between different kinds of will, for example, the natural will and gnomic will. Thus, human nature may or may not contain that as the only nature on earth, depending on whether there is a distinct kind of will *or of manifestation of will in time* (like spontaneity) that is unique to human nature in this world.
Perception - Also given to other creatures. Of course, only in a lesser sense as explained above.
Body - Also given to other creatures.
Activity - Also given to other creatures, especially if understood as the self-developing power of a notion or entity.
Creativity - A function of co-creation, or rather its basis. Also emerges from consciousness or from one of the functions emerging from consciousness, and thus: Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Communion/Being communal - Every entity is communal. However, understood in certain ways, it is present in the points above and thus already answered. I would also say these functions (or attributes) have a side of purpose, *telos*, or end, which is included in them.
Do you have any other points to add that may be part of what it means to be human?
Here are my "off the cuff" responses to your comment!
“My first question, then, is whether you believe a particular being (or rather: hypostasis) can be so disordered that its perception within its accessible level is null (in actuality, not in potentiality,) rendering it as if it belonged to a lesser species.”
I think that human hypostases can certainly operate, to varying degrees, at levels lower than recognizable as human. While alive in this age, I do think the image of God in them remains intact (even if highly distorted, and there is no likeness being expressed); and so, if they fall, they can potentially be restored by the grace of God. But, in the extreme, I think you’d perhaps find the “null” you mentioned in the eschatological state of hell, in the form of some internally incoherent inversion of communion, but it’s difficult to say much more at this point.
Very intriguing points in (3). I think I’d agree with something like the distinctions you make here. The fullness of communication in the sense of something I’ve come to call “creative dialogue” can only occur between free persons. Surely a broader “communication” can occur between lower forms of life, and even inanimate objects, if “communication” is taken in the broadest sense of an exchange of information.
As to your questions in (4), I think the effects of the fall on our nature have rendered our spiritual vision rather cloudy, and moreover, through actively sinning, we make the world more and more opaque to ourselves, our operation being hijacked by the passions. But as you suggested, I do not think this is totally lost, even if it exists only in potential for most. Through the sacraments of the Church (beginning with baptism and chrismation), we can be progressively purified by the Spirit and slowly regain our ability to see, though I think God tailors this process in a way most suitable to each person—and part of the reason for this is that, apart from maturation in virtue, such spiritual vision can be incredibly dangerous and harmful to the soul, through all the subtle forms of deception that can occur in this realm; and to be sure, there are alternative ways to access such vision, though these are not advisable for aforementioned reasons. One more thing to note on this is that I don’t think this vision necessarily always develops in a strictly linear fashion, as people can providentially be given visions of these things if God deems it helpful (or they can fall through sin and lose part or all of what they had), but this isn’t the same as simply having the consistent and stable ability to see.
I think that baptism and the sacraments of the Church constitute the correct and virtue-driven way to develop this vision, but because these powers are latent in our nature already, they can be accessed and used incorrectly by non-Christians and Christians alike. I recall St. Dumitru mentioning (perhaps in reference to St. Maximus) that the powers of nature can be inverted and used against our nature, which is what I think is going on with sin (and with accessing spiritual vision incorrectly)—it’s not that human nature itself ever becomes bad or corrupt, but it’s simply being “used” in a way that is antithetical to itself. Such is the risk of freedom.
As for the first question in (5), I think there can be egoistic motivations driving a person to seek divine perception, but based on the wording of your question, if a person is seeking divine perception through freedom from sin, then that wouldn’t be egoistic in my mind because that would just be man’s natural desire for God, and to see Him in all things, and to the extent that he achieves this by freedom from sin, it wouldn’t be egoistic, for sinlessness would preclude egotism.
Regarding your list of human attributes/powers, I think all of these are correct. And thanks for mentioning rationality (as this is certainly essential to humanity). In my quote, I wasn’t necessarily trying to make an exhaustive list, but rather just mentioning some of them. The most general and complete answer to the question of what it means to be human is that man is the image of Christ, made in the image of God, and this is a holistic notion, as I think all the aspects of man’s being are capable, in a way suitable to them—and because of this, truly man as a unified whole is capable—of participation in God.
Justus, thank you for reading my article, and I very much appreciate your extensive thoughts. I will spend some time reading what you have written and hopefully come up with something useful to say in response!
Yet another beautiful reflection. I suggest that it’s more accurate to view Nature not as symbolic but as truly sacramental - the very revelation of God’s manifest presence as creation. Likewise, St. Dumitru called Nature itself “the diaphanous medium of the present activity and speech of God.”
It’s also worth carefully noting that sin “blunted the acuteness of man’s pure sensitivity to God” - that is, Nature didn’t change, but rather man no longer saw sacramental Nature clearly.
So what was the solution? Again, let’s pay close attention to what St. Dumitru says: “the necessity [arose] for a revelation that differed from the activity that God was still carrying on at every moment through the medium of creation, but no longer perceived by man.” Obviously, he’s pointing to the Incarnation.
However, notice that St.Dumitru does not mention an inherent or resultant ontological separation or rupture between God and man due to sin. Man simply no longer perceived the sacramentality of Nature and forgot who he is and his great high calling, which God gave man as the very purpose and meaning of his life.
The Incarnation then was not about uniting or reuniting ontologically separated God and man (or creation), but rather fully revealing to man that which he no longer saw clearly, inspiring man once again to take up his divine calling. As vitally important as it was, salvation was not a necessary result of the Incarnation. Salvation is theosis - the actualization of the inherent, essential, divine potential of man (and Nature), consciously manifesting God’s life as the world, as sacrament. To see this clearly and live it is a Eucharistic life of conscious communion in and as and with God.
Thank you, Aaron, for your incredibly thoughtful reply. What you say about sacramentality I find insightful, and I very much agree. I suppose I would also view sacrament as having a symbolic character itself (in the sense I am using ‘symbolic’) in that it is a participatory unity of heaven and earth, as likewise, in a related way, are symbols. Nonetheless, I do think your language is probably more precise, and for that I am grateful!
I just prefer not to call the creation symbolic because it is not a sign pointing to that which is real and true. Rather, all of creation is itself the very manifestation of the real and true - God. Symbols tend to be seen as ontologically separate from that to which they signify or point. Sacraments, like the Eucharist as a prime example, are the very presence of God as the material form in which He is manifest. Sacraments need not be united to that which they reveal, but rather reveal that which they essentially are. I don’t think many fully grasp the truth of this, even in the Eucharist. The bread and wine don’t become the body and blood of Christ, but rather they are the sacramental revelation of God’s activity and presence in and through and as bread and wine. Ultimately, the entire creation is Christic - that is, the sacramental manifestation of God as creation.
PART II: (read "PART I" first)
7) "The world itself, apart from the human spirit, would not be able to break out of the rigid linear framework of automatic repetition." This is also a fundamental idea in my B-Model, where the world is gathered in a reflecting microcosm and, through spontaneous signals or power, is directed in a certain direction by input-output feedback. The question, however, is how this fits with the A-Model, which I will briefly touch upon in a moment.
8) Why negate freedom "to do what thou wilt" and affirm freedom from impurity when one could affirm both, and that what thou wilt, if purified, is necessarily good?
9) "God, in his act of creation, laid the necessary groundwork for a dialogue with man, and, in His creation of man himself, initiated this dialogue. Because of creation’s dialogical purpose, meaning is foundational to and inseparable from reality."
Beautifully said.
The way I understand this truth in metaphysical analysis is, roughly, as follows. The A-Model is based on the Theodical Argument and the Word-Machine, in specific on the idea that God’s input for creation was unspecific, and another world could have been created by Him, or even no world at all.
We can distinguish between interaction that occurs between entities via energetic or informative exchange (= IE), which I already established I think is between hypostases, and interaction that occurs between entities due to Mutual Interiority (= MI) which is that what a being has.
Once I asked how *IE* (energetic or informative exchange) is reasonable to assume if we already have MI (Mutual Interority), and the answer given to me (by multiple people) was that it is reflected from the Trinity, where it is true between the divine persons. However, what makes us say that IE is proper to beings and not hypostases & persons? If it is proper to hypostases, then we cannot say that the Trinity tells us it is possible between created beings, as the hypostases of God interact via IE but are all [of] one substance or being. Now, there is IE between God and creation by sustainment and energetic participation. But if one can say that between created beings (or entities in general) there is MI and not IE because communication, in the end, serves harmony (or a development into harmony,) which one can get to by MI with the act of creation beforehand, wouldn't that be coherent and have all explanatory power?
In short, let us imagine infinite many universes, and each universe is richer than the materialistic one for it does not only contain all its content, but also the phenomenal aspect of a point of perspective around which the universe is stretched. Each point in that world corresponds to one universe which is that world reflected from that point (in different gradiants of specifity, and for most perspectives unconscious; without senses, thoughts or emotions.) Thus, each world contains infinite many universes.
It is completely by the own notion and spontaneity, what that universe reflects. Perhaps it is ordered, perhaps it is not. The point is, God only creates a world (a set of universes) if they are coherent with each other, and if they belong to the set of best possible worlds.
To be coherent with each other, they need to be mutual indwelling, because they are coherent only when they reflect each other within themselves.
Thus, God creates a world of infinite many, mutual indwelling universes (which is each point of that world reflected from that point.) Now, the own developement of each mutual indwelling universe (which is a substance or "being" in the non-personal sense) would reflect the whole harmony and interaction without need for IE except with the sustaining power of God and the many energetic manifestations of the divine energy intersecting each universe.
10) The purpose of communication is harmony, defined as the optimal arrangement of parts within a whole: realizing and manifesting the inherent logical connections between all parts, and serves to convey truth, build relationships, share knowledge, and resolve conflicts by alignment of individual perspectives.
If God created the world in a way where each part (point-universe) is self-developing into their harmonious role, then communication is necessary insofar each notion is logically contained in all others since their inception (which is mutual interiority [MI]/communal ontology) which makes any other sort of communication (= IE) not only unconceivable (in a way logically functioning) but also arbitrary. The exception of course are the divine energies who make the development of the universes and the perceptive manifestations (cosmos → microcosm) possible.
11) How, then, can compatibility with point 7) be achieved?
Each universe proper to a [human] soul is dominant in determining what world emerges, thus, which set of infinite many point-universes come about or can even come about concerning God's coherence. This means that it is humans who determine the coherent picture, and everything else follows as an effect to make the picture coherent, but is not directly chosen, only indirectly as a bridge between what is chosen: universes proper to humans.
PART I:
Johnathon, this was an excellent article, as is customary with your works, and I read it with great pleasure. I would like to share my reflections on it and pose a few questions while doing so, hopefully making a creative connection between our thoughts and reflections possible.
1) First and foremost, I must express my agreement with the overarching point: the "depth" of our capacity to perceive and understand is intimately linked to the quality of our spiritual state; in layers of likeness to God that are defining the nature of a thing. Even within a single level or layer, thus within a single nature in the sense of the particulars of a species, there are differences due to distinctly darkened "spiritual perceptions." This spiritual perception is tied to our nous, in or through which we participate in the Logos, as we have discussed. In animals, it is merely called "soul," which is like the nous and lacks only in the capability of participating in the Logos to the "depth" you mentioned.
My first question, then, is whether you believe a particular being (or rather: hypostasis) can be so disordered that its perception within its accessible level is null (in actuality, not in potentiality,) rendering it as if it belonged to a lesser species.
2) "[...] for two or more beings or persons to communicate or cooperate as equals in fullness of mutual understanding, there must both be a reciprocal congruence in their capacities to perceive both each other and the world and to act in relation to one another in and through the world, else the meaning implicit in their words or activity might be mistaken for noise, and the communication between them distorted at best and severed at worst."
It is this truth, when further developed, that led me to the Orthodox faith. After all, it applies not only on the stage of nature but also on the stage of relationships. The "nature" of the relationship between man and God, in any terms beyond natural theology, is necessarily the Church. I began my philosophical journey with precisely this observation and applied it to various stages:
- "First and foremost, it is the information or the meaning itself that you want to convey or that you are looking for in communication."
- "And then it is a common program for packing and unpacking information or meaning."
The second of which can be called *nature*. For we can see: all things participate in the same energy, which is the same set of information, but mostly invisibly, in the sense that most things lack a program to unpack most of the information—which is the corresponding perception.
3) Furthermore, I noticed that you suggested communication between two or more "*beings* or *persons*." For a rather long time, it was open to me whether two beings can communicate or if only persons (or rather: hypostases, whether personal or not, in the sense of an essence or logos bound to existence) communicate (that is: whether communication is proper to persons or beings) and whether there may be a different kind of communication between persons and beings. In my younger reflections, I have come to the idea that communication (in a non-Mutual Indwelling [= MI] way) is proper to persons, not to beings. This conclusion arises from the philosophical difficulties of communication between substances. Hence, I now believe, at least within the "A-Model" I have been using lately, that communication between *beings* exists through MI, at least in terms of creation, while communication between *persons* occurs in the classical way of direct contact, behind which is not "touch" as is still commonly believed, but a direct transfer of energy resp. information—and MI results in the self-development of a being or substance. God, however, via His energy, intersects all substances and beings, and by participating in the energy of God, according to their own nature, these substances manifest the individual effects of this energy (love, justice, etc., and also communication) within themselves.
4) The idea that by the fact of Christ adopting human nature, and through our participation in him, we can gain "divine perception"—by which we see the world as something akin to a *transparent garden*, recognizing the divine purposes and meanings within it (which is impossible without divine perception)—is also most stimulating: a great idea!
However, this raises the question to what extent this divine perception is removed from fallen "nature" and accessible through our baptism or at least the heart’s decision (I am unsure which one of those two) for God—or perhaps Jesus. Or is a darkened version of this divine perception already present in fallen human creatures which makes us not completely seperated from it? For as such, these creatures already participate in Jesus as the ordering principle of the universe, without that their perception wouldn't be ordered, which is Christ divine side. Is our baptism—or the decision of the heart—the bridge to our participation in His human nature, or, more correctly, in the conjunction of divine and human nature, so that all that was accomplished through this conjunction (which I mean in an orthodox sense) in the divine hypostasis of Christ—our forgiveness, but also divine perception—only becomes accessible now?
How, then, does this not represent an unorthodox separation between His divine and human nature, if one can participate in the former and not the latter before baptism or the decision of the heart? Hence, my theory is that Christ's function as the ordering principle (the *Logos*) is already both divine and human, and we fully participate in Him, meaning we are already on the "level" or "layer" of divine perception from the beginning. Yet, due to misarrangement or privation, its effect in each human life and person is blocked, and this blockage must be removed for divine perception to be actualized. Thus, it is not our "nature" that is corrupt, in the Aristotelian sense, but our actuality. According to our potentiality, we possess the possibility of *Theosis*, deification, yet it remains impossible without baptism or a decision of the heart.
In short, does the non-Christian have divine perception already and if yes, is there a hard line in it between the believer and the non-believer?
5) "Honest ascetic labor is the only path upward."
In your mind, is it somewhat egoistic to seek freedom from sin in order to participate in divine perception? For that motivation arises out of intuitive, "natural" awe, and it is my [primary] motivation, rather than any conscious notion of love.
6) A common nature, if my understanding of what you said is correct, is signified by a potential to understand certain perceptions: based on a shared participation—or synergizing, resonating—in energies. For all things participate in one and the same energy, as I stated before, yet they synergize or resonate differently with it, producing different manifestations or effects called love, justice etc.: all the perfections which are of God. This reminds me of Leibniz, who spoke of the nature of monads differing due to their perceptions, with human monads being capable of divine perception, to use that term.
Now, to what makes human nature unique (identifiable.)
*To what you said:*
"Human persons are conscious, willing, active, and bodily subjects—living loci of free agency; we exist, simultaneously, both imminently within and transcendently above the world."
*To what I say:*
Rationality - the ability to connect truths consciously. Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Consciousness - distinct from animal consciousness, it is a layer of divine perception, of understanding meaning and purpose. Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Virtue - which seems to emerge from rationality or the layer of participation rationality emerges from (consciousness.) Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Will - As either self-determining or self-developing activity, perhaps manifesting into spontaneity, it may not be unique to human nature, nor even to any nature, as it is common to all in certain
metaphysics at least, and such a metapyhsics is my A-Model. However, one may distinguish between different kinds of will, for example, the natural will and gnomic will. Thus, human nature may or may not contain that as the only nature on earth, depending on whether there is a distinct kind of will *or of manifestation of will in time* (like spontaneity) that is unique to human nature in this world.
Perception - Also given to other creatures. Of course, only in a lesser sense as explained above.
Body - Also given to other creatures.
Activity - Also given to other creatures, especially if understood as the self-developing power of a notion or entity.
Creativity - A function of co-creation, or rather its basis. Also emerges from consciousness or from one of the functions emerging from consciousness, and thus: Human nature contains that as the only nature on earth.
Communion/Being communal - Every entity is communal. However, understood in certain ways, it is present in the points above and thus already answered. I would also say these functions (or attributes) have a side of purpose, *telos*, or end, which is included in them.
Do you have any other points to add that may be part of what it means to be human?
Here are my "off the cuff" responses to your comment!
“My first question, then, is whether you believe a particular being (or rather: hypostasis) can be so disordered that its perception within its accessible level is null (in actuality, not in potentiality,) rendering it as if it belonged to a lesser species.”
I think that human hypostases can certainly operate, to varying degrees, at levels lower than recognizable as human. While alive in this age, I do think the image of God in them remains intact (even if highly distorted, and there is no likeness being expressed); and so, if they fall, they can potentially be restored by the grace of God. But, in the extreme, I think you’d perhaps find the “null” you mentioned in the eschatological state of hell, in the form of some internally incoherent inversion of communion, but it’s difficult to say much more at this point.
Very intriguing points in (3). I think I’d agree with something like the distinctions you make here. The fullness of communication in the sense of something I’ve come to call “creative dialogue” can only occur between free persons. Surely a broader “communication” can occur between lower forms of life, and even inanimate objects, if “communication” is taken in the broadest sense of an exchange of information.
As to your questions in (4), I think the effects of the fall on our nature have rendered our spiritual vision rather cloudy, and moreover, through actively sinning, we make the world more and more opaque to ourselves, our operation being hijacked by the passions. But as you suggested, I do not think this is totally lost, even if it exists only in potential for most. Through the sacraments of the Church (beginning with baptism and chrismation), we can be progressively purified by the Spirit and slowly regain our ability to see, though I think God tailors this process in a way most suitable to each person—and part of the reason for this is that, apart from maturation in virtue, such spiritual vision can be incredibly dangerous and harmful to the soul, through all the subtle forms of deception that can occur in this realm; and to be sure, there are alternative ways to access such vision, though these are not advisable for aforementioned reasons. One more thing to note on this is that I don’t think this vision necessarily always develops in a strictly linear fashion, as people can providentially be given visions of these things if God deems it helpful (or they can fall through sin and lose part or all of what they had), but this isn’t the same as simply having the consistent and stable ability to see.
I think that baptism and the sacraments of the Church constitute the correct and virtue-driven way to develop this vision, but because these powers are latent in our nature already, they can be accessed and used incorrectly by non-Christians and Christians alike. I recall St. Dumitru mentioning (perhaps in reference to St. Maximus) that the powers of nature can be inverted and used against our nature, which is what I think is going on with sin (and with accessing spiritual vision incorrectly)—it’s not that human nature itself ever becomes bad or corrupt, but it’s simply being “used” in a way that is antithetical to itself. Such is the risk of freedom.
As for the first question in (5), I think there can be egoistic motivations driving a person to seek divine perception, but based on the wording of your question, if a person is seeking divine perception through freedom from sin, then that wouldn’t be egoistic in my mind because that would just be man’s natural desire for God, and to see Him in all things, and to the extent that he achieves this by freedom from sin, it wouldn’t be egoistic, for sinlessness would preclude egotism.
Regarding your list of human attributes/powers, I think all of these are correct. And thanks for mentioning rationality (as this is certainly essential to humanity). In my quote, I wasn’t necessarily trying to make an exhaustive list, but rather just mentioning some of them. The most general and complete answer to the question of what it means to be human is that man is the image of Christ, made in the image of God, and this is a holistic notion, as I think all the aspects of man’s being are capable, in a way suitable to them—and because of this, truly man as a unified whole is capable—of participation in God.
Justus, thank you for reading my article, and I very much appreciate your extensive thoughts. I will spend some time reading what you have written and hopefully come up with something useful to say in response!