Since the Analogical Interval’s implicit Pneumatology already begs a hypostatic logic …
In terms of formative spirituality, pleromatization & theosis, a modal natural distinction could be conceived in a manner consistent with Aquinas’ metaethical concept of relative being. Nonformal hypostatic distinctions could be conceived in a manner consistent with Aquinas’ concept of accidental being.
Both formally & nonformally, a person would everlastingly remain in infinite potency (that’s the modal distinction) to the Absolute divine perfections, epektatically & dynamically actualizing both the essential divine propria per one’s finite relative being (so relative perfections of how much whatness) as well as the in-principle shareable hypostatic divine idiomata per one’s finite accidental being (so relative perfections of howness).
What about a person’s substantial being (the whoness, thisness & thatness of whatness)? Those essential potencies have already been reduced – in an all or nothing manner – by each person’s singular act of existence, as divinely determined & with free assent.
An exhaustive account of a multiplicative ex Deo monism would refer to the personal dynamics of both our substantial & accidental being in terms that are, respectively, formal (essential propria) and nonformal (hypostatic idiomata).
In Aquinas’ metaethics, there’s another personal dynamic that he refers to as relative being, which corresponds to the degree one has actualized her essential capacities beyond his substantial being & goodness. Our relative divine perfections, then, can thus be considered to remain in infinite potency to the Absolute divine perfections.
The human – divine analogical interval of our participatory logic implicates the in/finite disjunction, ontologically, a modal difference that will derivatively show up in both Anselm’s ontological proof & Scotus’ univocity.
Per Scotus, “person” doesn’t apply univocally to divine & created persons, as they’re variously necessarily vs contingently persons. This in/finite disjunction doesn’t quantitatively differentiate Being & beings through a multiplication of quiddities (determinative nouns, genera, species, i.e. whats) by infinity. Instead, it multiplies qualia (denominative modifiers & participles, hows, etc.) by infinity, recognizing the qualitative differentiation of divine & determinate hypostases.
Scotus’ univocity somewhat entails Anselm’s ontological proof, where “pure perfections,” which are predicable of God alone, refer to Being – none greater than which can be conceived.
Thus, from aspects of determinate being, which self-evidently make creatures better, we can devise composite concepts that apply only to God. Such aspects are transcendentals, because they are coextensive with being, transcending this finite & infinite division of being.
Scotus’ proper attributes (one, good & true) are also transcendentals.
So the supercategory of disjunctive transcendentals, like finite & infinite and contingent & necessary, for Scotus, prove God’s existence. Anselm’s argument?
Concretely, we can’t give robustly explanatory quidditative accounts of reality’s origins – quantum, cosmic, life, sentient & sapient (symbolic language), so, speculatively, thus employ various competing quantum interpretations, cosmogonies, philosophies of mind, etc, employing them as fruitful exploratory heuristics.
Still, even unable to disambiguate all of it’s vague possibilities or specify all of its general probabilities in terms of whatness, we can observe a given entity’s thatness (existentially), thisness (irreducibility or haecceity, incl whoness) & various hownesses (per univocal denominative qualifiers, participles, adjectives). That’s to say that analogy doesn’t silence us.
If there is a mereological whole exceeding the sum of its parts, it’s – neither a supraindividual nor other substantial entity, but – an interpersonal reality, a concrete social Absolute, constituted by – not a static & divisible unitary being, but – a dynamical & multiplicative unitive doing or process, where synergistic hownesses remain uncountable because “ever on the move.”
On our epektatic – theotic journeys we will co-self-determine via our tropoi both how (not what) and how much (not whether) we will contingently express the essential whatness of our logoi. Some refer to these contingent tropic expressions of our substantial being, respectively, as our accidental being (howness) & relative being (howmuchness).
Our accidental beings are on epektatic – theotic journeys of howness as measured in terms of our tropic soul-craftings, as we co-self-determine – not what, but – how we’ll contingently express our essential whatness or logos. This dynamic is integrated with how much we’ll actualize our substantial being in terms of relative being.
Our apophatic qualifiers allow us to put forward the notion, in an Anselmian and/or Scotistic way, that God is Supremely or Infinitely Mutable & Not Impassible, really & truly & eternally affected by His creatures.
While the above account may be plain vanilla vis a vis any distinctly Christological monism, to me it is, inescapably, profoundly pneumatological. And even this pneumatological account begs for a supplemental hypostatic logic of – not only discursive affirmations & negations and kataphatic & apophatic propositions, but – trans-apophatic interpersonal relations, which are both immediate & ineffable, hence dramatic & dispositional, as well as mediated by narrative, storytelling, liturgy, sacraments & other theophanies. In other words, a dialectical heuristic.
All which has already brought us beyond Chalcedon, with a supra-theophanic pneumatological heuristic that anticipates Whom the Prophets foretold, the Magi sought out & we await with Advent hope & joy.