Cosmotheandrism as a mereological panentheism - Part 2

there may be less to the analogia entis than many attribute

Because tropoi are written into logoi and because hypostases refer to both idiomata & natures, there’s more going on in our mereological panentheism than we’ve already explored via our drawing of distinctions between the hows of our personal exemplifications and the whats of our essential natures. That’s to suggest that there’s less to those distinctions than many might first attribute.

That’s especially true if we’re suggesting that those distinctions between hypostatic perichoreses & ontological participations, i.e. between tropic identities & essential differences, are being drawn between many mutually constituted particulars of One social absolute.

Eschatologically, once certain epistemic distances are closed & essential theotic teloi are realized, beyond mere signification, then, we will each robustly exemplify the One immanent universal - the Christ.

What might this suggest for one conceived as Actus Purus?

If an analogia entis holds, where exactly would we locate any dis/similarities, when the very whats of cosmotheandric logoi & being are recursively encoded into every how of each person’s tropoi & doing?

After all, vis a vis Actus Purus, being is doing?

What I want to suggest is that we might vaguely, univocally & semantically refer to synergistic cooperation in terms of a loving, mutually receptive, reciprocal, bi-directional howness, which even affects God per the divine esse intentionale. That’s where we’d locate the tropic identity.

Where we might otherwise locate the ontological differences of each particular being in terms of doing, I suggest would be in the infinite analogical interval of asymmetric howness effected in accord with the divine esse naturale.

Any asymmetry would in-principle refer quidditatively, however one may choose to otherwise classify which types of infinity may or may not be in play, i.e. whether quantitatively, qualitatively or otherwise.