It's Literally a Metaphorical Cosmos

Picking up where we left off, "Receptivity as such should be looked on not as essentially a sign of imperfection," but rather, "as in itself a positive aspect or perfection of being" (Clarke). What does this have to do with persons? Everything and more:

receptivity, represented archetypically by the Second Person as Son and Word, must be a purely positive perfection connatural to being itself.

In the Trinity, the receptivity of the Son "is of absolutely equal worth and perfection as the self-giving mode of the Father," and this pretty much changes everything, from the top on down to the bottom on up.

Certainly it turns the typical way of thinking about God (i.e., as static monad) upside down and inside out. Which -- in my opinion -- is precisely why it had to be revealed, because few sub-Raccoons would spontaneously arrive at such a metaphysic. 

Monism is an attitude that violates half of the experience.

This deeper and more differentiated revelation hints at some other unexpected properties in God, for example, that all Being is Being-With, and that I AM and WE ARE co-abide, such that one is not reducible to the other: there is always a We, so truly truly, we're never allone. For it is written,

Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. 

I've mentioned before that the universe is the way it is because the Godhead is the way they are. I won't rub it in, but Clarke is on the same page:

To be, it turns out, means to-be-together. Being and community are inseparable. The empirical evidence for the extraordinary interconnectedness of all things in our own material and personal universe keeps mounting each day, through the findings of physics, cosmology, biology, [etc.]... Even if I but wiggle my finger here on earth, physicists tell us, some minuscule influence will reach the furthest stars.

Nonlocality is herebelow because it is first up in Celestial Central. 

Likewise, we might say that metacosmic intersubjectivity is the Principle of the surprising "inter-objectivity" of things. Everything down here literally speaks to us, meaning that it is intelligible to intelligence. 

Indeed, if things weren't inter-objective we couldn't know them as things, and we would all be like Drax the Destroyer, who hales from a planet whose people -- similar to our own atheists and autistics -- are completely literal, and do not understand metaphor (https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/127293/did-the-original-drax-have-trouble-with-metaphors).

Recall that

Metaphor supposes a universe in which each object mysteriously contains the others.

Ironically, you can say literally metaphorically.

Now, earlier this year we spent at least a month discussing The Matter With Things, and how metaphor is a right cerebral hemisphere specialty. We also suggested -- or possibly insisted -- that religion doesn't exist because we have an RH, but rather, the other way around. 

In other words, the RH <--> LH complementarity itself reflects something important about the nature of the Godhead. Don't make me stop this post and go back down there to pull up a quote, because it will take all day! 

Suffice it to say that there are conceptions of God that are both excessively and insufficiently RH, and that ours is just right.

I heard that! Of course I can back that up, but in order to do so I'll need a little philosophical reinforcement, in this case another Koon Klassic, this one called Living the Truth by Josef Pieper. Like yesterday's selection, it is much like hearing my voice calling me from outside my head.  

Example.  

Our pleasure. "To be," writes Pieper, 

means the same as "to be oriented toward a knowing mind." The realm of "being as such," finally, does not extend beyond the realm of all that is oriented toward a knowing mind, so that no existing being is without such a relational orientation" (emphasis mine).

It's an irreducibly relational cosmos, and if it weren't, we'd all be as Drax as a box of Dawkins or samnolent as a sleepy herd of Harrisies, for

no real 'being' can be perceived without implying that it relates or 'conforms' to the knowing mind.... this relationship is actualized in the process of mental perception or intellection (emphasis mine).

So sure, there are, for example, "selfish genes." Metaphorically, and only in a metaphorical cosmos. Literally!

In fact, "'Knowing" constitutes and establishes the most intimate relationship conceivable between two things," and

All reality is actually or potentially mind-related, inasmuch as its intrinsic essence is actually or potentially incorporated into the knowing mind.

Now, movin' on up in the cosmos, "Reality is called true in relation to the divine and the human mind." Or, let us just unsay something like the following for short:

O

(↓↑)  

(  )

The middle term is an ever-evolving approach to (or departure from) O, AKA the Divine Attractor:

The truth of a thing consists in its correlation to a knowing mind; yet a thing is correlated to our human mind only because of its primary correlation to God's mind, a correlation that is actualized in the form of that thing.

"All created things are constituted in relation to two minds"; "The things of nature, from which our mind receives its knowledge, are the measure for our mind; they themselves, in turn, receive their measure from God's knowing mind."

God knows them in fact, while we do so in potential. And the potential is never exhausted, at least short of the beatific vision or something. 

Movin' further on up, "The reality of a thing, in a way, is itself its light." Yes, it's getting tougher to breathe up here, but this is compensated for by all this Light -- that is, 

by reason of the primordial light emanating from the Logos, by reason of God's creative knowledge. "Truth adds to being the notion of intelligibility."

Oof! Now it's starting to get too bright to see, but we can make out the following:

Consequently, all reality, as reality, will essentially be intelligible for the human mind; and this intelligibility will be so inherent in reality's very being that "to be" and "to be intelligible for the human mind" become equivalent expressions. 

Intelligence = Intelligibility. In a way, knowing this is to know it all, for

"There are many things that our mind actually does not know; and yet, there is nothing... that the human mind could not perceive, at least potentially."

We can no more exhaust this infinite potential than could the Creator (being that creation never stops), but that's some slightly different shirt that we'll tuck in tomorrow.