How I (mis?)Read DBH & JDW

How I Read DBH & JDW

– and, if I’ve misread them, how I’ve appropriated them in my heuristic

Speaking essentially, consistent w/participation & analogy (of whatness), a creatio ex Deo stance, whether Neoplatonic or neo-Whiteheadian, can secure the hypostatic realities of humanization of the divine, incarnationally, and divinization of the human, theotically. This is to say that it secures the natural theophanic harmonies of the divine & human.

I like to use emanation to refer, analogically, to both Monarchical & Christological essential self-determinations of universals, which are both exemplifiable, when infinitely & absolutely immanent, as well as signifiable, when finitely & relatively instantiable.

Speaking of persons, consistent w/perichoresis & a semantical univocity (howness), a Neo-Chalcedonian stance can secure the hypostatic reality of our mutually constituted identities, ie. it secures the interpersonal Christogonic harmonies of the divine & human.

I like to use generation to refer to the dynamics of both the infinite Trinitological as well as the finite Christogonic (theophanic) personal otherings (via a multiplicative monism or mereological panentheism).

Both natural & personal differences are therefore harmonious.

Because creaturely essences are primordially grounded in differences between relative & divine perfections, the natures of all creaturely autonomies are essentially & ineluctably harmonious with & participate in the Logos, ontologically.

The divine and human differences don’t present, then, in any violent sense, such as if they were grounded in some being vs nonbeing nihilistic struggle.

Because creaturely identities are primordially grounded in differences between mutually constituted I – Thous they are “embodied antinomies” – not in any volitionally competitive sense, but – in an intentional - absential sense, teleologically.

Perichoresis refers, then, analogically, to Trinitological & Cosmotheandric interpersonal communions and Christological essential harmonies.

Note: Bracken’s Spirit & Society appropriates Hegel in a way that could be used to vindicate an Hegelian Christogony & neoChalcedonian syntheses from charges of theogony. Perichoretically, per the corporate Oneness that theophanically manifests unitive acts of understanding & love, the Christogonic Totus Christus would refer to the One concrete social Absolute in terms of a dynamical & epectatic interpersonal unitive doing.