When we think of "content" it is inevitably in relation to a container. But in fact, there are two kinds of uncontained content, these being situated at the two far (vertical) ends of the cosmos.
At the immanent end is prime matter, which is by definition formless and therefore uncontained (for which reason those who understand quantum physics, don't). At the transcendent end is God, who is by definition uncontainable, especially in the ultimate sense of supraformal "beyond-being," in which case God is not even contained by being, rather, being is its first fruit, so to speak.
I suspect that the pure potential of formless matter is a kind of shadow image of the formless Godhead, whereas we dwell in the formal -- which is to say, intelligible -- realm in between.
Below us (↓) is a quantum field of pure potency, the sheer, formless capacity to receive a form. It is the absolute bottom of manifestation, a kind of formless "nothing" that has not yet been structured. It is uncontained because it lacks a definitive container or form -- even the forms of "wave" or "particle" until we impose them via observation.
Again the uncanny quantum world is the way it is because the uncannier God is the way he is, not vice versa.
Above us, at the transcendent pole (↑) is the uncontainable Godhead, but here too the wild Godhead is susceptible to taking on form, quintessentially so in the form of the Incarnation, and prior to that in the forms of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- which is not the only conceivable form of the formless, for example, in the metaphysics of Vedanta, wherein there is Nirguna Brahman (God beyond form) and Saguna Brahman (with form).
This, in my view, would also go to the essential distinction between exoteric and esoteric theologies, the former ending in the formal God, the latter in the supraformal, as posited by Christian mystics such as Eckhart or Pseudo-Dionysius:
God is neither this thing or that thing that we can express. God is a being beyond all being; God is beingless being (Eckhart).
Now, my little beef with exoteric or traditional theology is its assertion that God is pure act, in contrast to the pure potency of prime matter.
Rather, I say the Godhead beyond-being is the very principle of pure potential and eternal creativity, i.e., Infinitude. This latter is the source and ground of all formal manifestation: it never stops creating, but can never be contained by any of its formal manifestations. Again, think of how Christ could not be contained by his human form, but rather, shattered it in the Resurrection.
Now, the entire cosmos -- the structured, intelligible, and relational reality we inhabit -- is the dynamic development that unfolds between these two ultimate mysteries: the formlessness of pure potential and the supra-formal, which to me suggests a vertical complementarity between God's pure potential and and his pure act; in other words, verticality itself is first situated in divinas, for which reason is also situated herebelow.
This framework suggests that the developmental cosmology we are proposing is the history of form bridging the infinite gap between the formless potential below and the supra-formal source above.
Are you with us so far, Gemini?
This is a profound extension of your metaphysical framework. You're not just defining the boundaries of reality; you're using them to redefine the nature of the divine itself and the entire cosmic process.
Your current exploration sets up a dynamic tension between two kinds of "pure potential," which is a powerful way to conceptualize the vertical cosmos and the source of its developmental drive.
You are proposing a radical re-interpretation of the relationship between Potency and Act at the transcendent level, moving away from the classical Thomistic view that God is Pure Act.
So, where do we go with this? We are open to suggestions.
To build on this distinction between the two kinds of "nothingness" (lack vs. limitlessness) and the history of form bridging the gap, you can now explore the implications of Form itself.
For as you have indicated, the entire cosmos is "the structured, intelligible, and relational reality" that unfolds between these two infinities. You can ask:
What is the function or purpose of Form? If developmental cosmology is the history of form, then Form is the mediating principle. It is the nonlocal force that organizes the chaotic potency below into the intelligible cosmos, all while pointing to the supraformal source above.
Form is the Logos: this is a perfect opportunity to reintroduce the concept of the Logos (Christ/Son) as the essential form that makes the whole developmental process intelligible. The Logos, being the image of the uncontainable Godhead, is the one form that contains the infinite potential and communicates it to the prime matter below.
You've already said that the cosmos is the intelligible realm, so how does the form of a thing (e.g., a chair, a galaxy, a thought) participate in the Logos?
This connection explains why the truth of Being (the formal realm) is available to the human intellect. Our mind, being the container, grasps the forms of the cosmos because both mind and cosmos are ordered by the same Logos-Form, even while the intellect itself is ultimately a terrestrial mirror of the infinite Godhead.
Thus, by focusing on Form/Logos as the essential bridge, you can connect your vertical metaphysics (Prime Matter ↔ Cosmos ↔ Godhead) to the active relationality you've been discussing (Subject ↔ Object).
By Jove, I think you've got it! But that's a lot to digest in one post, so we'll resume this discussion in the next meeting. This one is adjourned.
That's great! Take your time with it. I look forward to seeing how you develop the idea of Form/Logos as the essential bridge between the two poles of potential: the formlessness of prime matter and the supra-formality of the Godhead.
See you tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment