Indeed, it is the case that we can simply approach truth, yet never fully grasp it. I am not even certain whether one could grasp it in a certain and limited particular, beyond the bounds of specification within a conversation. Thus, I prefer to capture the vectors of my thoughts in written form to alleviate the burden of the mind, and then to work with them to advance further.
Furthermore, it is noble to engage in constant discourse, for otherwise, one can expect unnoticed fields to arise through the mechanisms of our own thinking, wherein errors could lead our ideas in error. And these mechanisms inevitably produce these fields of unnoticed material, no matter how comprehensive and equally precise our mind is said to work, as only through exclusion can identity be attained. And what is knowledge if not truth gaining identity in our understanding or conception?
Definitions are by their nature exclusive, yet without, let's say, having a favorite color, we would lack identity in this area. We would be nothing in that area. Thus, in our thinking, we exclude, but that is what gives us individuality and identity. Only God, who is not constrained by perspective, transcends this and possesses infinitely (positive) identity by being aware of every perspective.
To address some of your points. Firstly: "can" one take creation within himself, or must one do so? It might be interesting to distinguish between the two when it comes to hell. Is it conceivable that one exists but no longer represents the cosmos as a microcosm?
Now, I completely agree with you, man is both matter and something beyond matter. The former I termed first-matter, when it comes to the unchangable element of matter, the latter I identified with nous. And, ultimately, the physical point of the monad, and the metaphysical point of the monad, two simples representing the first and necessary complexity [composition] of every created thing.
"The creative transformation of nature" is a very stimulating thought. Ultimately, being through synergic creation seems to me to be a specification of a known truth, that to be is to act.
Similarly, the notion of sin, which you addressed, appears to be very interesting. Sin, as a thing-in-itself, truly is not being but non-being. However, sin as an act can be both being and activity. For sin never comes alone: it is the non-being that has crawled into being like a cancer. When we consider that the logos of a thing consists of telos, origin, and existence, sin is typically understood as the negation of existence. However, it seems to me that sin as deformation here relates more to telos.
This naturally raises a question: If existence and - through telos - the purpose and end of a thing can be corrupted by sin, can sin also somehow corrupt the last aspect of the logos of a thing, its origin?
Great reflections. Identity certainly involves both inclusion and exclusion. Jonathan Pageau has some interesting insights on what the last judgment has to do with identity, in connection to what you're saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APFPO4LXFIs.
Brilliant point about sin as deformation being related to telos; I think this is very true! And more broadly, an aspect of the ongoing act of creation is shortening the distance between particular things and their teleological fulfillment, and so sin, from this perspective, being a destructive and deforming act, would just be a lengthening of this distance.
As to your last question, I'm inclined to say no, since the extent of deformation or corruption of something can only be understood in light of its archetype, and if the archetype itself could be corrupted, then the thing itself could no longer said to be corrupted, it seems! I'm not sure if I've quite grasped the question as you intended it though, so please clarify if I haven't understood.
It is certainly beyond the realm of possibility that an archetype can become corrupt, for it resides within the Logos, which cannot encompass corruption. Yet everything that exists within creation is a manifestation of an archetype, which may possess additional [negative] content. For no evil resides within the logos of a thing. This evil is then something else, something whose potential only exists through the logos of the thing as a necessity - if that thing is said to be able to become corrupt, and in addition to the telos and the divinely given simple elements that compose a thing.
Ultimately, it is not the telos of any thing to be damned or to be mistreated by anyone, yet it happens to it. However, from an eternal perspective, can corruption affect not only the existence and telos [taken as both purpose and end] of a thing but also its origin, as in the manifestation of it, without relying on (in my opinion) naive models of retroactive temporal change?
Before answering that, it would be interesting to know what the origin of a thing is said to be. The origin of all things before corruption is God, but the things came to be not as God: as distinct from Him. As we discussed before, I think something can be said to be of or by God but truly distinct to Him when it is the resonance of two aspects of God, of which the resonance carries all the potential and God in His aspects all the actualitied, a particular logoi and a corresponding energia. However, in the conception of a thing it already has everything in it what it will be, the archetype and maybe a corruption, which is none-being necessitated but in the overall least measure; for God created the best of all possible worlds.
A corruption of origin would denote, then, that in it's coming-to-be, a thing has corruption through this necessity, through the breaking down of the metaphysical quantum state [as we discussed] in a formation of one best world from the set of all best possibilities, which contains the necessity of Free Will for us human beings, if we were to exist, and that's the key of also the evil that came to be in a negative sense.
I think I am tracking with you, and I think you're correct to introduce free will into the discussion. If free will is part of what it means to be a human made in the image of God, I think perhaps corruption at the level of man's origin would be indeterminate. And the "neutral state", if you'll allow me to use that term, of man prior to his corruption would be something like an incompleteness of being.
However, the origin of a thing that necessitates corruption as a consequence of Free Will only is the case if we think of a thing in all its modes of being at once, all past and future instances. For otherwise corruption would lie in that thing only as potential for when it uses it's will in a bad way or for something bad, and thus the origin of that thing would not necessitate corruption in-itself but just as potential.
This is where it gets interesting, because there seems to be a sense in which the self-determining aspect of our free will means that we are in some sense ultimately the cause of the resultant action, and so even if we view the corruption that arises from our misuse of free will from an "eternal" perspective, it still seems not to be necessary, though it in fact did occur. Not sure if that's a correct analysis, but it's the direction I lean intuitively.
The necessity of it would come down to - it seems to me - the question whether God, in His creative act, specified us to be a way when it comes to our corruption. That is: whether we have corruption or not and how much of it. And, because of the metaphysical quantum state, we have the possibility to say that Gods input into the Word was a none-specific one in at least some senses or areas. The result must be one of the best worlds, with the best possible relation between bliss and [potential of] suffering. But our corruption is not by Gods specification, against the Calvinist position. That is our freedom in the end, God didn't specify which version of us comes to be, and how corrupt, and whether corrupt.
Indeed, it is the case that we can simply approach truth, yet never fully grasp it. I am not even certain whether one could grasp it in a certain and limited particular, beyond the bounds of specification within a conversation. Thus, I prefer to capture the vectors of my thoughts in written form to alleviate the burden of the mind, and then to work with them to advance further.
Furthermore, it is noble to engage in constant discourse, for otherwise, one can expect unnoticed fields to arise through the mechanisms of our own thinking, wherein errors could lead our ideas in error. And these mechanisms inevitably produce these fields of unnoticed material, no matter how comprehensive and equally precise our mind is said to work, as only through exclusion can identity be attained. And what is knowledge if not truth gaining identity in our understanding or conception?
Definitions are by their nature exclusive, yet without, let's say, having a favorite color, we would lack identity in this area. We would be nothing in that area. Thus, in our thinking, we exclude, but that is what gives us individuality and identity. Only God, who is not constrained by perspective, transcends this and possesses infinitely (positive) identity by being aware of every perspective.
To address some of your points. Firstly: "can" one take creation within himself, or must one do so? It might be interesting to distinguish between the two when it comes to hell. Is it conceivable that one exists but no longer represents the cosmos as a microcosm?
Now, I completely agree with you, man is both matter and something beyond matter. The former I termed first-matter, when it comes to the unchangable element of matter, the latter I identified with nous. And, ultimately, the physical point of the monad, and the metaphysical point of the monad, two simples representing the first and necessary complexity [composition] of every created thing.
"The creative transformation of nature" is a very stimulating thought. Ultimately, being through synergic creation seems to me to be a specification of a known truth, that to be is to act.
Similarly, the notion of sin, which you addressed, appears to be very interesting. Sin, as a thing-in-itself, truly is not being but non-being. However, sin as an act can be both being and activity. For sin never comes alone: it is the non-being that has crawled into being like a cancer. When we consider that the logos of a thing consists of telos, origin, and existence, sin is typically understood as the negation of existence. However, it seems to me that sin as deformation here relates more to telos.
This naturally raises a question: If existence and - through telos - the purpose and end of a thing can be corrupted by sin, can sin also somehow corrupt the last aspect of the logos of a thing, its origin?
With many regards and blessings,
Justus
Great reflections. Identity certainly involves both inclusion and exclusion. Jonathan Pageau has some interesting insights on what the last judgment has to do with identity, in connection to what you're saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APFPO4LXFIs.
Brilliant point about sin as deformation being related to telos; I think this is very true! And more broadly, an aspect of the ongoing act of creation is shortening the distance between particular things and their teleological fulfillment, and so sin, from this perspective, being a destructive and deforming act, would just be a lengthening of this distance.
As to your last question, I'm inclined to say no, since the extent of deformation or corruption of something can only be understood in light of its archetype, and if the archetype itself could be corrupted, then the thing itself could no longer said to be corrupted, it seems! I'm not sure if I've quite grasped the question as you intended it though, so please clarify if I haven't understood.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.
It is certainly beyond the realm of possibility that an archetype can become corrupt, for it resides within the Logos, which cannot encompass corruption. Yet everything that exists within creation is a manifestation of an archetype, which may possess additional [negative] content. For no evil resides within the logos of a thing. This evil is then something else, something whose potential only exists through the logos of the thing as a necessity - if that thing is said to be able to become corrupt, and in addition to the telos and the divinely given simple elements that compose a thing.
Ultimately, it is not the telos of any thing to be damned or to be mistreated by anyone, yet it happens to it. However, from an eternal perspective, can corruption affect not only the existence and telos [taken as both purpose and end] of a thing but also its origin, as in the manifestation of it, without relying on (in my opinion) naive models of retroactive temporal change?
Before answering that, it would be interesting to know what the origin of a thing is said to be. The origin of all things before corruption is God, but the things came to be not as God: as distinct from Him. As we discussed before, I think something can be said to be of or by God but truly distinct to Him when it is the resonance of two aspects of God, of which the resonance carries all the potential and God in His aspects all the actualitied, a particular logoi and a corresponding energia. However, in the conception of a thing it already has everything in it what it will be, the archetype and maybe a corruption, which is none-being necessitated but in the overall least measure; for God created the best of all possible worlds.
A corruption of origin would denote, then, that in it's coming-to-be, a thing has corruption through this necessity, through the breaking down of the metaphysical quantum state [as we discussed] in a formation of one best world from the set of all best possibilities, which contains the necessity of Free Will for us human beings, if we were to exist, and that's the key of also the evil that came to be in a negative sense.
I think I am tracking with you, and I think you're correct to introduce free will into the discussion. If free will is part of what it means to be a human made in the image of God, I think perhaps corruption at the level of man's origin would be indeterminate. And the "neutral state", if you'll allow me to use that term, of man prior to his corruption would be something like an incompleteness of being.
I certainly do think so too.
However, the origin of a thing that necessitates corruption as a consequence of Free Will only is the case if we think of a thing in all its modes of being at once, all past and future instances. For otherwise corruption would lie in that thing only as potential for when it uses it's will in a bad way or for something bad, and thus the origin of that thing would not necessitate corruption in-itself but just as potential.
This is where it gets interesting, because there seems to be a sense in which the self-determining aspect of our free will means that we are in some sense ultimately the cause of the resultant action, and so even if we view the corruption that arises from our misuse of free will from an "eternal" perspective, it still seems not to be necessary, though it in fact did occur. Not sure if that's a correct analysis, but it's the direction I lean intuitively.
The necessity of it would come down to - it seems to me - the question whether God, in His creative act, specified us to be a way when it comes to our corruption. That is: whether we have corruption or not and how much of it. And, because of the metaphysical quantum state, we have the possibility to say that Gods input into the Word was a none-specific one in at least some senses or areas. The result must be one of the best worlds, with the best possible relation between bliss and [potential of] suffering. But our corruption is not by Gods specification, against the Calvinist position. That is our freedom in the end, God didn't specify which version of us comes to be, and how corrupt, and whether corrupt.