The Metaphysics of the Ascension - its Thats, Whos, Hows & Whys

but not its whats, whens & wheres

Even though our best metaphysics remain way too vague re essential possibilities (CSP 1ns) & general re nomological probabilities & necessities (CSP 3ns) to even adjudicate between competing quantum interpretations, philosophies of mind, etc still they do seem robust enough to provide useful idioms to help us express the "meaning" of the Ascension vis a vis otherwise brute entitative actualities (CSP 2ns), e.g. in terms of epistemic emergence (though silent re ontic supervenience).

What we have, both theologically & metaphysically, then, while not robustly metaphysical, re the whats of natures, are speculative semantic grammars that, re the hows of entities, gift us the telic whys of meaning, when pragmatically interpreted, contextually, in ways that are eminently actionable, existentially (by acting 'as if").

In the same way that the Christologies of Maximus & Bonaventure shed light on Trinitarian realities using perichoretic analogies of  coinherence, for me, they have illuminated what was previously my rather inchoate grasp of how an emergentist stance best approach the aporia of our most highly speculative theoretical sciences, including competing interpretations re various origins, e.g. quantum, cosmic, life, sentience, language, etc

Turning our attention, below, to what Benedict XVI says re the Ascension, his reference to

1) "interpenetration" is on the nose perichoretic & theandric &

2) "as something that takes place in this life" is spot on theotic.

Metaphysics & theology have, for me, always been mutually conditioning.

Starting w/philosophy can lead one to a weak conception of God.

Starting w/Christology can illuminate - not only Trinitology & theological anthropology, but - how and why an epistemic (not ontic) emergentist stance can foster meaning & value-realizations (whys), existentially, by simply paying diligent attention to "how" entities interact, even not exactly knowing either “what” they are, quidditatively, or “where & when” they spatio-temporally & “in/determinately” relate, nomologically.

We can thus realize values even when we can't otherwise define what they are, essentially, or specifically determine the laws that condition them, nomologically. This rubric applies to both speculative science & speculative theology.

In my view, one can get pretty dang far by starting with a Maximian Christology as Cosmology and then, dutifully attending to its implicit semantical & pragmatic speculative grammar, proceeding, both metaphysically & scientifically, by applying it to all of reality's most intractable aporia.

Humankind has always been able to mine meaning from manifold & multiform phenomena by diligently tending to reality’s thats, whos, hows & whys, even when otherwise variously stumped (in terms of degrees) regarding its whats, wheres & whens.

This is all also to say that I categorically reject NOMA [non-overlapping magisteria].

So, I’ll insist that the metaphysics of the Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, Mary’s Assumption & Coronation, as well as the Annunciation, Incarnation, Creation, Transfiguration & Eucharist, enjoy a type of epistemic parity, methodologically & axiologically, with those of our most highly speculative theoretical sciences vis a vis reality’s other aporia, which resist falsification, empirical verification & other inductive strategies, which could otherwise help adjudicate between competing abductive hypotheses & deductive clarifications.

This is not to suggest that other meta-interpretive metanarratives don’t compete with their tragic ontologies, only to recognize that they succumb by reductions to absurdity & miserably fail the epistemic virtue of existential actionability. While not conclusive for the theological over against nihilisms, it’s certainly suggestive?

How We Mine Value from Our Encounters with Reality’s Novelties

An epistemic (not ontic) emergentist stance can foster meaning & value-realizations - “whys” - existentially, by simply paying diligent attention to "how" entities apparently interact, even though not exactly knowing (defining) either “what” they are, quidditatively, or precisely “where & when” they spatio-temporally relate, only knowing “that” they do somehow interrelate, nomologically, in various degrees of graded in/determinacy.

All of this then allows us to notionally name “who” or entitatively specify “this” has in fact acted, and in such a context which variously affects a given individual or communal well being, whether for better or worse.

We can thus realize values even when we can't otherwise define “what” entities are, essentially, or specifically determine the dynamical laws “that” condition them, nomologically.

This rubric applies, metaphysically, to both speculative science & speculative theology.

Whether the neoplatonic coincidentia oppositorum as applied to theological perichoresis or the competing interpretations of reality’s emergent (and aporetic) novelties, e.g. quantum, cosmic, life, sentience & symbolic language origins, this semantical grammar does not gift us robustly explanatory accounts, which is too often a conceit of both scientistic & fideistic cohorts, who can both betray a de facto naive realism, only differing in the objects of their respective eliminativisms, on the one hand metaphysics, on the other - empirical science.

This semantical grammar nevertheless relies on rigorous phenomenological observations to conceptually map exploratory heuristics, which can guide - not only our future inductive inquiries & abductive hypotheses, but - our present value-realizations, axiologically.

Such value-realizations can be further optimized by following a normative science (of Peirce), which prescribes an aesthetic primacy over the ethical, which is then followed by the logical. This is but a recognition that the orthopathic (beauty) & orthopraxic (goodness), as gifted by the orthocommunal (love), most often precede and then lead to the orthodoxic (truth).

That truth comes flying in on the wings of beauty & goodness to grow both our community & our individual freedom describes the orthotheotic.

A semi-Glossary of Common Sensical Metaphysical References

Who – notional, personal

What – essential, quiddity

When & Where - spatiotemporal

How – denominative qualifier

Why - telic

This – haecceity, bruteness

That - existential

Regarding Time & Space

We best nuture our aporetic sensibilities for the forseeable future.

There will be competing interpretations of quantum mechanics, cosmic origins, life origins, sentience origins & symbolic language origins, just for example, b/c it's hard to unscramble epistemic-ontic omelets!

What causes these aporia? Are we here methodologically thwarted temporarily, there permanently occulted, ontologically?

Are we now confronted by what's indeterminable ? then by what's in/determined? both? We can't a priori say.

re time as a real, created nomological reality

see C. S. Peirce and Aristotle on Time

~ Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou

In addition to Peircean thirdness, which refers to laws, habits, regularities, continuities, where time might be "primal continuity," and secondness, or brute actualities/entities, firstness refers to possibilities, but real possibilities.

Here the notion of a potential - not actual - infinite becomes indispensable for a coherent notion of time.

At some point, I think CSP will consider semiotics, subjects & signs and time to be mutually conditioning. So, Aristotelian?

For Space, notions from Brane Theory & hyperspace may provide helpful idioms, especially when coupled to a universal hylomorphism. This is especially pertinent to any coherent angelology, particularly as brought to bear on post-mortem anthropology vis a vis revocable willing, repentance, etc

Concluding Note -

In the rubric, above, I tried to relate our common sense references - who, what, when, where, how, why, this & that - to metaphysics.

My contention remains that paradigms like, for example, perichoresis in theology & emergentism in science, observationally, provide us exploratory heuristics & not robustly explanatory interpretations.

Yet, beyond their significant heuristic value in guiding further epistemic inquiries, they can provide us enormous axiological guidance, helping us to reason under practical uncertainty in ways that are eminently actionable, existentially, to gift us vital value-realizations.

So, when you read about the coincidence of opposities, different types of coinherence & perichoretic accounts of Christology, Trinitology or Cosmotheandry, or Emergentism, if they don't seem to explain those realities, you're on the right track.

However, if you cursorily dismiss their heuristic value, axiological significance & existential actionability, you're on the wrong track.

Taste & see the Goodness of the Lord!

Existentially "act as if" these creedal propositions are true and realize the fruits of the Spirit.