Peirce, Royce & Hegel recruited for a Neochalcedonian Christology & Maximian Cosmology
Peirce may have been closer to Hegel than he realized. ISTM that the "synthetic a ulteriori," upon which his eschatological community of inquiry will have epistemically converged (albeit fallibly & having provisionally prescinded from necessity to probability), methodologically presupposes certain metaphysical necessities, consistent with the synthetic a priori.
Although CSP affirms an abduction of the Ens Necessarium, it's Royce who develops the unavoidable metaphysical implications of CSP's phenomenology: a concrete, social absolute.
David A. Dilworth's Peirce’s Schelling-fashioned critique of Hegel
The Absolute as a Heuristic Device: Josiah Royce & Sri Aurobindo ~ Robert A. McDermott
The Legacy of Hegel, H. S. Harris, The Monist, Volume 48, Issue 1, January 1964
This series of isolated quotes, among other things, esp. concrete social absolute, in various ways contains assertions re self, particularity, microcosm, etc not inconsistent w/ hypostatic primacy.
CSP, Royce & Hegel share
objective idealism?
fallibilism?
nonfoundationalism?
realism that went beyond Scotus in somewhat the same way?
an epistemic synthetic a ulteriori that metaphysically implicates synthetic a priori?
If one takes CSP's phenomenology, then stipulates to the Incarnation, eschatological reality will have already (protologically) been essentially, i.e. immanently, completed by Royce & Hegel's concrete Universal?
Depends on whose Hegel interpretation's authentic, but, istm, that concrete, social Absolute, Royce's Beloved Community, as the Body of Christ, immanently completed, well, how is any of this inconsistent with Neochalcedonian Christology and Maximian Cosmology?
supplement
We can't avoid fuzzy concepts for in/determinate realities, so employ vagueness for modal possibilities & "genera"-lity for probabilities.
If we ground those creaturely realities in some eternal, nondeterminate necessity, we need to derive our speculative grammar from there & not vice versa.
God-talk, then, will require an extreme realism w/immanent universals, hence also a modal identity grammar
a modal identity grammar somewhat distinct from creature-talk w/its moderate realism & instantiated universals.
I say somewhat distinct b/c, notwithstanding the analogia entis, there's a univocity of hypostatic logic ...
an hypostatic logic that allows us to derive our determinate syllogistics from our divine grammar (not in an ad hoc maneuver).
Beyond that, even our formal modes of identity, divine vs determinate, can be accommodated by the same semi-formal heuristics ...
(once again, not an ad hoc maneuver).
Non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity, common sense notions of causation, etc remain law-like, metaphysically. Our grammars may or may not apply them all when making one modal reference vs another only due to fallibilist constraints.
For hypostatic logic, cf your local neochalcedonians.
For an explication re formal identity, see:
Uckelman, S. L. (2010). Reasoning about trinity: A modern formalization of a medieval system of trinitarian logic. In Logic in religious discourse (pp. 216-239). Ontos.
That's why we use more categories than nondeterminate & indeterminate, so recognize self-determinacy.
Thus, the immanent vs instantiated universal & extreme vs moderate realism distinctions thread the tritheism - modalism needle AND avoid nominalism!
That's why it's so important to supplement our analogy-talk re our essential, natural or formal participation w/univocity-talk re persons & hypostatic perichoresis to avoid modal collapse, too. Each expresses - neither exhausting nor being obliterated by - the concrete Absolute.
We make successful references to (not generic descriptions of) intentional agents, some relatively free & perfect, three absolutely so. We see HOW they all inter-act, even while not knowing WHAT they are, essentially. Synergies reflect bi-directional but asymmetric HOWs.
more on perichoresis
The perichoretic as a conceptual placeholder refers to - without defining - the mutual coinherence of hypostatic realities, which remain brute thisnesses & whonesses as are predicated in quale (howness) but not in quid (whatness).
While such haecceities, in some sense, remain inseparable from essential logoi & natures, in another, they remain indifferent to them per a hypostatic primacy, which lacks any formal content.
But we needn't just stop there as if this discursive parsing has exhausted our intersubjective knowledge of the other.
Using notes wherein I'd collated Maritain's terms, I'd say that we go beyond but not without the perinoetic, dianoetic, ananoetic & intellectual connaturality in our experiences of an affective connaturality, which, while incommunicable & beyond conceptualization, remains supremely practical.
It's experienced through reciprocal self-disclosures, through nonconceptual presences of self to self in the absolutely ineffable & profound encounters of the concrete singularities of our-selves.
While the knowledge gifted is nondiscursive, we can, nevertheless, process this affective connaturality, performatively, via prudential, artistic & contemplative acts.
We can experience such an intersubjective affective connaturality with other persons, both created & divine, as a knowledge by way of an inclination of the will.
The divine knowledge is attained through faith, hope & love.
It is a type of approach that we should make a habit & thereby grow our secondary natures or tropoi via theosis, whereby we'll increasingly become Whom we love.
I tried to redact Maritain's natural, supranatural & unnatural distinctions because I moreso aporoach this with distinctions like particular & universal, special & general revelation, etc
Maximus, Palamas, Scotus & Peirce - a conceptual mapping
This formulation, below, conceptually maps Maximian, Palamitic, Scotistic & Peircean distinctions per a modal phenomenology.
We refer to human persons (with instantiated universals) as irreducibly triadic realities,
whose primary natures (essences) or possibilities (1ns), which are particular logoi as contained in the Logos, are
mediated by secondary natures (energiea) or probabilities (3ns), which emerge from synergies of divine energeia (theophanic revelations of logoi) & human tropoi (theotic manifestations), as are
freely self-determined in a manner conforming to each one's particular hypostatic nature (idiomata & haecceities) or brute actuality (2ns).
We can also refer to divine persons (with an immanent universal) in terms of ousia (essence), idiomata & energeia but with a heuristic that recognizes distinctions like in/communicable, in/divisible, exemplification, etc that differentiate them as absolutely nondeterminate & self-determinate rather than relatively in/determinate & self-determinate.
On Emptiness
If we conceive emptiness in the East as an act where the nonformal takes on form, that conception of "emptiness as form" will map to Christianity as the innascibility & fecundity of self-emptying persons, Who kenotically "take on form" to generate others for perichoretic relations.
Both the Cappadocian emphasis on persons (more so than substance) as well as the Nazianzen & Damascene conceptions of mutual coinherence would entail, then, a Neoplatonic (emanation, exemplarity & consummation) perichoretic metaphysic of personal goodness (more so than of participatory being). It's an hypostatic goodness, a Dionysian self-diffusive goodness & a Victorine "highest good as love."
Bonaventure could pull all this together for both Paterology & Christology, and for the emanational - relational dynamics of both the Monarchy of the Father as well as the Cosmic Christ, precisely because "emptiness as taking on form" refers to - not only the absolutely free & supremely personal acts of ur-kenosis & kenosis, but - the very generation of all hypostatic individualities as well as all hypostatically identical opposites.
Such an emptiness, then, does not refer to the epistemic incomprehensibility of some analogical ontological interval (which, nevertheless, remains supremely intelligible).
Rather, it refers to ad intra & ad extra self-donations, both immanent & economic generations of both other persons' individualities, themselves, as well as their genera or forms. Such persons can thus real-ize & enjoy their hypostatic sameness, even when it's not a natural sameness.
As for any natural differences, as the logoi of the Logos, they're contained in the concrete Absolute Whole, Who's not reducible to (even though constituted by) His "natural parts."
And each person, as an "hypostatic part," becomes actualized, i.e. hypostasized, in Christ's self as a member of the Body of Christ, eternally manifesting Christ, but forever as an individual who'll never exhaust nor be obliterated by Him.
Beyond the utterly incomprehensible but supremely intelligible analogia entis, which gifts us both intuitional & discursive intellectual knowledge ABOUT God (e g. like your beloved's birth certificate or genealogy on Ancestry [dot] com), we realize a knowledge OF God via an affective connaturality gifted FROM God (e.g. like the ineffable, reciprocal exchanges between lovers in their bridal chambers).
Emptiness gifts nothing less than fullness.
It's more so personal than ontological.