In Heaven as it is On Earth - why our successful semantic references should chasten our aporetic sensibilities
One insight gifted us by a semantical - not ontological - univocity of being should be that, even without successful quidditative definitions of ontologically hierarchical entities, we can harvest existentially actionable meaning from our successful references to them.
By existentially actionable, I refer to such as James' forced, vital & live options and Lonergan's transcendental precepts.
Another insight, which is implicit in our semantical interpretation of univocity, should chasten our modern conceptions of emergentism. Specifically, we best bring our aporetic sensibilities to bear on such distinctions as weak emergence with strong supervenince and strong emergence with weak supervenience. Those distinctions can be, respectively, totally trivial or entirely question begging.
That's all to recognize that the deep meanings that we can mine from our relational ontologies do not rely on solving every hierarchical aporia of reality's emergent origins, whether quantum, cosmic, life, sentience or symbolic language origins. To avoid proving too much or saying more than we could possibly yet know, it's best that we strategically place metaphysical brackets at those hierarchical junctures, which remain vague & general rather than precise & specific in our speculative research programs.
If these aporetic rubrics serve us well in the development of our competing heuristics for the accidentally ordered causal series of our horizontal finalities, how much more should they be applied to our speculative heuristics as pertain to the putative vertical finalities of various serially ordered causal series, i.e. noetic identities, rational intentionalities, principles of sufficient reason, disavowals of any fallacy of composition regarding determinate reality as a whole, etc?
When I first got acquainted with the various types of perichoretic interpretations, the first thing that came to mind for me was how they functioned both as aporetic bookmarks as well as semantic ciphers. There are many heuristic devices that unpack a logical pattern wherein 1) ____ is | x | and 2) ____ is | not x | and 3) ____ is neither | x | nor | not x |
The practical upshot is that, whether scientifically, metaphysically or theologically, our successful references, semantically, are not mere when it comes to realizing those manifold vital value-realizations & multiform deep meanings, which are eminently actionable, existentially, even when successful definitions elude us, aporetically.
This all reflects the heuristic fecundity of a semiotic pragmatic realism. To the extent this describes our various perichoretic interpretations of persons, hypostases & natures, divine & human, as well as our speculative metaphysics, philosophies of mind and competing interpretations for quantum, cosmic, life & consciousness origins, I've thus coined my heuristic as a pan-SEMIO-entheism.
There are prominent semiotic elements regarding theophanies, revelations, manifestations and symbols in thinkers as diverse as Eriugena, Bonaventure & Bulgakov. I see it especially playing out in how Gelpi uses Maximus to articulate a synoptic narrative Christology in a triadic Peircean key.
I introduced the reflections, above, primarily to defend our supra-theophanic mode of knowledge as a prelude to my reconstructive interpretation of Boersma, Gaine, Ratzinger, Lonergan & Maritain on matters pertaining to post-mortem anthropology. For more background on my take regarding the supra-theophanic, see If we are constitutively indwelled, then ...
Maritain, in his non-systematic Reverie, correctly speculated that no one, including Lucifer - the last to be restored, will suffer eternal conscious torment.
Consistent with Lonergan, he correctly distinguished horizontal & vertical modes of our knowledge of God, each experiencing its own sort of rest. Those modes could be roughly mapped to Gaine's mediated & immediate or theophanic & supratheophanic modes.
Because I rely on a distinctly perichoretic take of comprehension, which is interpersonal & unitive, rather than a quidditative take, which is natural, all consistent with Aquinas in my view, I lean heavily into the view that Boersma's theophanic account, while coherent, needn't --- shouldn't --- have excluded Gaine's supra-theophanic mode
.
We best eschew the over-application of those aporetic sensibilities, which unquestionably apply to our logics of natures, where --- not just modal, but --- absolute differences can obtain, and not ignore the vital value-realizations & profoundly deep meanings that can be gifted by our manifold & multiform successful references, semantically. These perichoretic dynamics are precisely what underwrite our beliefs in perpetual epektasis.
Departing from certain of my co-religionists, though, because I believe that we are constitutively indwelled, I reject Maritain's description of our original beatitude as a concretely "natural" felicity. Maritain refers to our restoration of same in limboic terms, which is to say, as hell's attic. While, with our tradition (Ratzinger quote follows), I affirm that "God gives each and every person his fulfillment in a way peculiar to this or that individual, and that in this way each and all receive to the uttermost" and that “Heaven is ‘reward’ in that it is a response to this life-way, this biography, this particular person with his actions and experiences," I would, instead, refer to Maritain's "natural felicity" in terms of our original or "essential beatitude."
To the extent that one is thus restored, even bereft of additional & accidental beatitudes of her actualized relative being, however peculiarly he might experience perpetual epektasis, eternally, I'd consider that on par, rather, with heaven's basement. Hence, my indicative apokatastenai.
If we constitutively enjoy immediate & supra-theophanic modes of God-knowledge, even temporally & historically, what might otherwise refer to "the" beatific vision? What aspect of God-knowledge would otherwise peculiarly dispose one toward a broader beatitudinal scope in her experience of perpetual epektasis?
This is all to suggest that certain differences, by which we might peculiarly grow our God-knowledge, may be derived from both quantitatively & qualitatively different divine Showings by which we'll variously experience our im/mediate & supra/theophanic modes in terms of secondary modes, which might include various degrees of implicit unitive apprehensions & explicit unitive comprehensions, none requiring superadded epistemic furnishings.
Who may experience God in this or that sub-mode, from heaven's basement or attic, via secondary and/or primary beatitudes, via lights of faith or glory, or otherwise in this peculiar way or another?
I would describe the epektatic journey in perichoretic terms of interpersonal immediacy that might range from an initial, incohative & implicit unitive apprehension, along a spectrum of progressively mutual & interpenetrative degrees of knowledge, that crosses a threshold of stability into an explicit unitive perichoretic (not quidditative) comprehension, by which one will experience his perpetual epektasis by eternally actualizing her infinite divine potencies, that's to say epektables. To be clear, epektasis is for all, as always before, so now & ever more, even if peculiarly experienced.
So, I take a subjunctive stance regarding "the" beatific vision but an indicative stance toward restoration.
Based on the special revelation regarding Abba as Daddy and the general revelation that suggests a greater good moral calculus with pertinent double effect principles, I reject eternal constant torment based on universally held proportionality objections.
So, with Lonergan & Maritain, I agree that there can be different modes of knowledge, each with its own type of rest, but I emphasize heavenly secondary modes and reject any limboic, hellish, so called "natural" felicity. Those secondary modes of divine immediacy are what distinguish a beatific vision from a mere apokatastenai. With Ratzinger, I agree we will be peculiarly rewarded. With Maritain's non-sytematic speculation, I reject eternal conscious torment. With Boersma, I agree that the Christological & theophanic gift a necessary, sufficient & abundant eternal rest. With Gaine, I agree that "the" beatific vision requires a supra-theophanic God-Showing. I further hold that, when --- not just merely apprehensive, but --- comprehensive, the supra-theophanic will gift us a superabundant eternal rest.
It's my belief that my account is in no way heterodox.