Hypostatic Identity & its Goldilocks episteme of paraconsistent Christo-logic
Rather than facilely pursuing either a tertium quid or an antinomial resolution into one thesis (via dissolution of the other thesis), a robustly perichoretic logic needn’t get neuralgic about lingering aporias but, rather, could bracket them and move forward in epistemic humility.
It would sacrifice the epistemic hubris of syllogisms & eschew the pretenses of systematic root metaphors by adopting, instead, semi-formal heuristics & paraconsistent logics to fallibilistically model our uncertain cosmotheandric reality.
Without proving too much or saying way more than we could possibly know, it would content itself with successful references & semantical univocities that, in certain pragmatic contexts, can be freighted with deep meanings of profound existential import. It wouldn’t tell untellable ontological stories by pretending, analytically, that it’s conceptually trafficking in successful metaphysical definitions.
I’ve seen such semi-formal heuristics, for example, in how some have formalized the Athanasian Creed into Abelard’s modal identities of divine syllogistics & then bridged them with the modal ontology of our Aristotelian syllogistics.
Such semi-formal heuristics can (best) preserve the formal consistency of our classical paradigms, even when we can only manage to partially bridge them to the new paradigms that we’ve had to derive in our attempts to model novel accounts of various aspects of reality.
This above-prescribed rubric would characterize — not only our semi-formal creedal heuristic example, above, but — our ongoing struggle to normalize gravity (classical) and quantum mechanics with its competing interpretations (novel). There are numerous other examples in other fields of our most highly speculative theoretical sciences, e.g. philosophies of mind, cosmic origins, origins of life, sentience & symbolic language, etc
Eschewing both an epistemic hubris or excessive epistemic humility, an epistemically virtuous Goldilocks approach wouldn’t try to shoehorn all the available data into one’s pet onto-thesis to facilely resolve a time-honored antinomy (the difference is just modal!) or rush to closure with a metaphysical tertium quid that does violence to otherwise worthy predicates.
In Christology, we’d hold fast to our time-honored apophatic inference blockers regarding natures without letting go of the deeply meaningful kataphatic personalist insights gifted us in Scripture, Liturgy, Patristics, Councils, Hagiography, Ascetical & Mystical Theology, Formative Spirituality, etc
Can we not meaningfully distinguish between the semantic “signification” of the common nouns & natures of the ousia & semantic “indications” of the proper nouns & peculiar qualities of hypostases (in a way that’s not conceptually vapid)?
This list of synonyms, below, suggest it’s worth a try. That folks have been busy about this task for a very, very long time. Aside from the absolute differences between the natures, is there nothing that can be said about different persons’
1) identifying peculiarities
2) denominative (connotative) naming
3) epistemic gnorismata securing one’s reference via signification & names
4) determinative (denotative) metaphysical individuation
5) personalistic, causal – relational indications
6) idioma
7) gnöristikai idiotëtes
8) to koinon
9) to kath’ hekaston
10) idiazon
11) idioma
12) idion gnörisma
13) charaktër
14) morphë
15) morphë kai prosöpon
16) atomon
17) haecceity or thisness
When idiomata individuate numerically distinct hypostases, do they refer to properties that are: 1) simple, non-shareable & non-coinstantiable; or
2) shareable in-principle but a uniquely combined bundle of idiomata or 3) an haecceity-like idioma?
If Aquinas’ noetic identity account of the beatific vision holds, what nonformal positivities might divine & human persons need to share in terms of agency & intentionality and what set of specific personal powers? Why not tantum quantum? Why not hypostatic identity?
Semi-formal heuristics & paraconsistent logics are epistemically moderate. Hypostatic Identity relies on an eminently defensible Goldilocks episteme of paraconsistent Christo-logic.