Not via natural divisions but hypostatic multiplications & not by resolving conceptual contraries but by overcoming embodied antinomies
Alex, I'll take "How does a Neo-Chalcedonian Christology & Maximian Cosmology work?" for 2 Likes on Twitter, please.
I use to imagine that all hypostases, the essences of which include any immaterial properties, must be naturally irreducible, indifferent & inseparable. That would include, then, both divine & human natures.
I'd next distinguish the divine & human natures as, respectively, indivisible & divisible; quidditative or not; w/immanent vs instantiated universals; manifested as exemplifications vs individuals.
Further, any haecceity or haecceity-like properties, as they lack quidditative content, would be - not formally, but - merely modally distinct.
BUT, because we are referring to - not mere abstract universals, but - concrete entitative realities, whenever we invoke harmonizing contrasts, generations of opposites & mutually constituted identities, what we're dialectically resolving - are not conceptual contraries, but - embodied antinomies, what some Peirceans call ententionals - absentials & Bulgakovians might call I-Thou-nesses.
Because of this eminently personal & existential hypostatic account, the whole exemplification vs individuation distinction, in some respects, began to seem rather trivial to me as an aspect of a merely I - it account (which is true enough but -).
For neither divine nor human persons, would I any longer conceive hypostases as "divisions" of natures - in-divid-uals.
Rather, hypostatic logics would refer to generations, processions or MULTIPLICATIONS of persons.
This multiplication refers to the overcoming of embodied antinomies via a generation of others, whom can be related to with a reciprocal, dynamical, mutually constitutive epectatic love.
There's no ontological negation of entities, then, as each tropos, as a particularity of the totality of multiple incarnations, expresses, while neither exhausting nor being obliterated by, the Logos.
While it may be so that no Theory of Everything will ever be proved within a formal symbol system, where we're forced to choose between axiomatic consistency or completeness, due to Gödel-like contraints, whether we're trying to renormalize gravity & quantum mechanics or trying to explain what it's like to be a bat or a divinized human —
who knows, maybe we'll be able to still "taste & see" the goodness of our axioms or, because beatifically embraced, will simply lose interest in them - knowing we'd otherwise be in a perpetually restless pursuit of them, anyway, precisely due to an eternal Person, Who's eternally ever "on the move" and multiplying new hypostases, others, Thous?!
From Christo-logic to Trinitology & Beyond - Ecclesiology, Cosmology, Eschatology as Protology
What patterns of Christo-logic, creation as Incarnation, the hypostatic union, Christ's divine kenosis <---> human theosis, cosmotheandric hypostatic perichoresis & the ad extra, economic missions & such ... might illuminate ad intra Trinitology, ur-kenosis & perichoresis? How?
I’ve asked others, tongue in cheek, for a definition of the following concepts from the Monarchy of the Father:
Looking for a cogent definition of person Who would: be arche anarchos / origin without origin / aitia / establisher of principle / constituter of constitutions / the prior constitution / principle of distinction / innascibilitas - primitas / fontal plenitude / distinct - how / essentially kenotic / power identity & difference. Extra points awarded for Bonaventure references and even more points for not providing a definition.
The Persons of the Trinity have been distinguished by relations in terms that can be contrasted with those above:
relatio / relative distinction / process of distinction / following of principle / privative innascibility / what's distinct / what constitutes.
The Bonaventurian references - not definitions - above, to me, reveal one way Maximus’ Christo-logic acts as a Maximian cipher for even ad intra Trinitology.
What if the same hypostatic positivity - of Christology & Creation as Incarnation - applies to the Monarchy of the Father.?
The Maximian cipher would then refer less to any conceptual principle, which unlocks dialectical contraries, and more so to a personal power, Who overcomes the embodied antinomies of I’s & Thou’s by generating opposites, that is by causing the others, Who will be then mutually constituted and thus ground their identities in difference.
Such an hypostatic positivity would refer to the Fathet, therefore, using - not only relational, but - nonrelational properties.
Might this have implications for Rahner’s Grundaxiom?
I will say this, that apophatic qualifications that stop at negation, without proceeding thru the harmonizations that are afforded us by & manifested in the concretenesses of particulars & the totalities thereof, risk saying too little & avoid telling the whole story of Special Revelation = Good News!
Christology provides the Trinitological cipher of persons generating others. We speak of ur-kenosis only because we first encountered kenosis? Next, we perceive an ecclesiological Maximian cipher, also cosmotheandric, and so on wherever hypostatic perichoretic dynamics present. Thus Bonaventure de-ciphered the Monarchy of the Father to refer to nonrelational properties (essential kenosis) in addition to the relational.
Thus Jordan Daniel Wood sets forth the Maximian cipher: "to identify the negation with positivity of person.” And this is even possible precisely and only because of the special revelation expressed in Christ as concrete particular.
Thus equipped, we can then deploy that same Christo-logical cipher to do Trinitology, Cosmology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology & all other mutually constituted I-Thou-nesses.
To wit, re
Trinitology & the Monarchy, we use it to identify the archē anarchos with emanation;
cosmology - creation as incarnation;
ecclesiology - the universal, concrete social Absolute as totality of relatively perfect particulars;
eschatology - as protology.
That Maximian move, then, acts like an Hegelian- like cipher? where the divine admits no ultimately subjunctive binaries, only harmonizing contraries? This invites (urges) us, then, beyond any radical apophaticism into a much more optimistic, even if fallible, theo-episteme. Because - not only are all of these "I - Thou"s mutually constituted, but - their oppositions are in fact personally generated. Natural analogies, ergo, REQUIRE hypostatic univocities.
"Being beyond being," then, gives no quarter to wholly mysterian negations, except perhaps in a natural theology. Our theologies of nature, however, have the benefit of more than a mere analogical participatory logic of essences; they enjoy a univocal perichoretic logic of hypostases, who communicate pansemiotically & commune unitively, i.e. perichoretically.