What Do We Really Know About Natures - divine or even created?

beyond extreme & moderate realisms of natures to attributes of ineffable persons, divine & created

Analogously, we can glimpse some intelligibility in saying that the divine nature's something like a primary substance in being indivisible & something like a secondary substance in being communicable?

Could indivisibility be consistent w/communicability?

2 theories of universals

This isn't incoherent in the extreme realism of the divine nature, where an immanent universal refers to an indivisible extramental object, its universality precisely entailing its individuality.

This is distinct from the moderate realism of created natures, where universals are divisible thought objects.

Now, to avoid thus reifying "the divine essence," elsewhere I've talked of using a bundle theory of idiomata strategy to better stress a personalist stance.

The upshot of that would be that all we ever know of any substance, created or uncreated, are attributes or propria and not natures per se, which remain aporetic?

R. Cross: So, as Scotus notes, God is no more ineffable than anything else, as literally everything's ineffable!

My thoughts above are mostly paraphrased notes from Cross' articles:

Duns Scotus on Divine Substance & the Trinity

Divisibility, Communicability & Predictability in Duns Scotus’s Theories of the Common Nature

Using a Bracken or Jenson-like three domain model of infinite, eternal & transient, I could imagine classifying personal idiomata as variously un/shareable &/or un/shared, much like we have referred to the in/communicability of natural propria, both within those domains, horizontally, & among them, vertically. I'm not motivated to name & classify each idioma as, for me, it intuitively suffices to imagine it could be done in-principle.

This would emphasize the tropoi of hypostatic thatnesses, thisnesses, hownesses & Whonesses in terms of personal volitional dispositions, aesthetic inclinations & affective interrelations, while deemphasizing (neither denying nor ignoring) the quiddities of different whatnesses in terms of the propositional & heuristic. Thus there's a certain naked hypostatic positivity that manifests in all three domains for all persons.

In other words, the positive innascibility of the Father, the self-determined incarnation(s) of the Son & co-self-determined synergetic acts of all co-creators remain ineluctably mysterious, modally ineffable & properly unintelligible.

A certain metaphysical anarchy obtains, an ineluctable mystery. Nihilists wrongly imagine it as an abyss that will finally drown us, while time's storytellers narrate the history of how the Infinite will eternally float us.

Thus, once again, Jordan Wood's Maximian formulation, where hypostases remain indifferent & irreducible to while inseparable from natures.

See, below, PLOTINUS Ennead VI.8: On the Voluntary and on the Free Will of the One, Kevin Turner Corrigan & John D. Turner