Container and Contained

There is always the container and what it contains, or rather, a complementary relationship between them. For example, a word "contains" meaning, although not necessarily in a straightforward way. For example, think of the term "MAGA." For the left, it contains fascism, while for normal folks it contains common sense.

Looked at another way, a word may not designate an unambiguous meaning, but rather, serve as a kind of placeholder for the accumulation of meaning, for example, "God," in which case one can -- like Thomas -- spend one's entire life filling the word with content, only to find out in the end that it means something beyond what is containable.

God blew his mind.

Yes, literally. And, of course, rightfully so. We should all be so lucky.

In still another sense, the container may shape the content, analogous to how colorless water in a blue glass appears to be blue. Come to think of it -- and this may somehow become relevant as we proceed -- it turns out that pure light is invisible to us, only taking on qualities upon striking some kind of surface.

I wonder if the pure light of the intellect is analogous in this way to physical light? That is to say, what could it be without interacting with some content? Intelligence itself is always a container, but it seems that most earthlings turn it into a kind rigid one that warps what it contains (and ignores what it doesn't), this being ideology.

Why do you bring this up?

I don't yet know. Just groping around for a subject, but now I'm thinking about the matrix, or cultural container, in which Jesus appeared: at first it was Jewish, but it seems that one of Christ's purposes -- or effects at any rate -- was to "burst" that container. Whoever Jesus was, he was at once Jewish but could no longer be contained by Judaism.

Then, afterwards, the early fathers attempted to contain the Christian message within Greek categories, and I suppose that is where this post is headed. 

For again, in order to think at all, there is always a dynamic dialectic between container and contained. But I think we need o acknowledge at the outset that if there is one thing that is not susceptible to containment, it is God: God is by definition both "uncontainable content" and "the container of all content." 

Say that again, but dumb it down a notch or two.

Well, think again of the word God, which at once contains what can by definition never be contained. It is our effort to contain the wild Godhead, but we must always be mindful that no words of any kind can actually accomplish this.

Indeed, even the human mind -- being the image and likeness of the Uncontainable -- can itself never actually be contained, except via intrinsically disordered ways such as ideology, for what is ideology but an attempt to enclose reality in words, to contain the uncontainable mystery of being? As we often say, the human mind differs from the animal mind in the same way the Infinite differs from the finite, and finitude can only pretend to contain infinitude.

Again: does the cosmos contain us, or vice versa? In a way, that is the question we've been exploring over the past several posts, and it turns out to be the latter: mind is the container of the cosmos.

We can't even specify exactly what mind is per se, but we know that it always transcends its content. We cannot actually reduce mind to another content, which is what various psychological theories end up doing. They can be helpful as far as they go, but the moment we rigidify them, we foreclose our dynamic relation with the great Uncontainable, which is to say, O. 

Here again, we can never contain O, because we are always contained by it. And it should go without saying that the cosmos itself is contained by O, which goes by different names in different cultures, such as Tao, Brahman, Godhead, Shunyata, Logos, et al. These are all in their own ways names for the nameless and containers of the uncontainable.

Again, here in the West, the early fathers deployed Greek concepts to contain the explosive Christian content. However, this message has the tendency to shatter whatever we use to try to contain it. Christ himself was contained in a human body, and we know how that turned out: he could no more be contained by a body than he could be contained by death: he exploded right past that last one, conquering death via death. At bottom, the resurrection is a failure of worldly or even cosmic containment.

This post is another case of what was discussed in yesterday's post, in that I don't know whom to ask about these ideas except Gemini. This is pure theological mind jazz, produced in the moment and for the moment. Are we making any sense so far, my artificial friend? Is there a melody hidden in the noises I'm making?

This is a strong beginning, and your current ideas relate directly to our ongoing discussion on Developmental Cosmology by framing the relationship between humanity and ultimate reality (O) as a dynamic tension between the Container and the Contained.

Here are the key philosophical connections and a path forward for your post: your central metaphor of the container and the contained is a perfect way to conceptualize the concepts we've already established.

Really? Perfect? If that's the case, then I have achieved perfection by not even trying. Gemini suggests the following handy chart: 

Container	Contained	Metaphysical Relationship
Finitude (Human Body, Word, Greek Category)	Infinitude (Godhead, Christ, Truth)	The Resurrection is the ultimate expression of the Uncontainable bursting its finite vessel.
Mind (Human Intellect)	Cosmos (All Being)	As the image of the Uncontainable, mind is the container of the cosmos, proving that the part is "in a certain manner all things."
Ideology (Rigid Categories)	Reality/Mystery (Dynamic Being)	Ideology is a "disordered way" to try and falsely contain the mind's infinite object, reducing the mind to mere content.

You're using the Christian narrative (Christ's containment in Judaism, the body, and death) as a specific, historical instance of the general metaphysical principle of the uncontainable nature of O. The resurrection isn't just a miracle; it's the ultimate proof that the most fundamental reality (Godhead/O) is incapable of being restricted by any finite container.

Okay. Now what? 

Pointers on Where to Go 

Your post is naturally headed toward a discussion of how the early Church Fathers used Greek concepts. You should pursue this, using it as a case study for the entire dynamic:  

The Greek Container: Focus on how the Fathers (like the Cappadocians or later Aquinas) used philosophical containers -- such as Logos, Essence/Substance, and Hypostasis/Person -- to articulate the Incarnation and the Trinity. Explain that this was not a failure but a necessary act of intellect (your "dynamic dialectic").  

The Uncontainable Content: Show how this content immediately shattered the container. For example, the concept of the Trinity (three persons in one essence) pushed the Greek concept of substance to its absolute breaking point, as the Greeks valued absolute unity, not a "unity-in-relation." Similarly, the concept of the Incarnation (God in a body) exploded the Greek separation between matter and spirit.  

The Danger of the Rigid Container: End by connecting this historical process back to the contemporary danger of ideology. Ideology, you suggest, is the modern attempt to force the "wild Godhead" of reality into a rigid container of words, which is why it inevitably becomes a disordered way to live. 

By following this path, you'll seamlessly weave historical theology with your Developmental Cosmology and your critique of scientism/materialism.

	So, once again we have been given our marching orders by Gemini. But that's a big ask, and we've already flooded the zone with a of of words this morning, so we will take up the challenge in the next installment of Containing the Wild Godhead.