Would a Neo-Chalcedonian meta-noetic heuristic necessarily implicate any given meta-ontic semantical grammar?
Whatever one's exegesis of Maximus may suggest, its fair to ask whether one might go beyond Chalcedon, Cyril, the Damascene & Maximus to inquire whether or not there could be an implicit Neo-Chalcedonian logical trajectory that might coherently take us beyond its meta-noetic, perichoretic logics to draw out any meta-ontic implications beyond our pious participatory mumblings regarding analogia.
At a minimum, regarding the different perichoreses (of Trinitology & Chalcedon as well as Cosmotheandric), the Maximian Neo-Chalcedonian Synthesis already provides a theologoumenal meta-heuristic, doctrinally, that might lend itself, idiomatically, to various systematic architectonics, especially those that are robustly intersubjective.
Intersubjective architectonics would include, then, accounts, both metaphysical, e.g. neo-Platonic of DBH, neo-Peircean of Gelpi, neo-Whiteheadian of Bracken, neo-Hegelian of JDW, neo-Thomist of Clarke, as well as metanarratival, e.g. neo-Cusanan (difference in unity) of Milbank.
Interpenetrative dynamics would vary in their degrees of mutual reciprocity, including such reciprocities that refer, hypostatically, to various bilateral a/symmetries of, for example, theotic synergies & beatitudinal identities (using semantically univocal references).
While perichoretic logic refers to interpenetrative meta-noetic dynamics of hypostatic hows & whos, participatory logic refers to interpenetrative meta-ontic dynamics of essential whats & energies. The question at hand, then, is whether our Neo-Chalcedonian meta-noetic heuristic implicates any distinctly meta-ontic semantical grammars over & beyond our insistence on analogy & apophasis?
Now, analogy does not evade but, rather, emphatically suggests causal references. Those references are, to be sure, vague and suitably so. The meta-ontic questions at hand, though, aren't asking whether there are real causes and effects in play in our participatory logic. Nor are they primarily concerned with advancing quidditative knowledge as if our divine references could even aspire to go beyond the merely descriptive to the clearly definitive.
So, we neither want to charge our meta-ontic inquiry with defining all the quidditative whats involved nor to caricature the analogia as uninformative due to its being causally disjunctive. It’s not. It’s unavoidably vague is all.
The meta-ontic aspects we hope to explore, instead, refer to vectors of modal conditioning in terms of amplitude, frequency & directionality. By directional, we don't mean to exclusively couch our questions in spatio-temoral terms but more so in terms of intra- & inter- relational aspects.
For example, we might inquire about who's nondetermined or self-determined or who's wholly or partly in/determined? We might ask about how certain realities variously condition or are conditioned by others or are mutually conditioning.
We might take as a Neo-Chalcedonian given, then, an idiomaticum of the communio naturarum, i.e communicatio idiomatum, whether referring to the original Cyrillian dyophysite formulation - "out of two natures” (ἐκ δύο φύσεων) or his finally accepted Chalcedonian formulation “in two natures” (ἐν δύο φύσεων).
We might supplement that with Maximus's formula - “Christ is of two natures, in two natures and two natures" In that formulation, which is in part Cappadocian, Cyrilline & Leontine, he affirms Christ as one person, recognizes the natures as distinct & unconfused, and acknowledges His theandric personhood.
Enhypostatically, Christ was enessenced by His human nature, personally, without the divine nature assuming it, essentially.
Anhypostatically & incarnately, Jesus was fully & truly human, without another human donating His nature.
Whatever one makes of the generic Christological distinctions of different Reformed theologians, some such distinctions could make some, maybe better, sense in the context of Cosmotheandric perichoresis. For example, while the apotelesmaticum & operationum of the communio naturarum refer to how the natures cooperate in Christ's divine missions & works, analogously, we would affirm the noncompetitive, cooperative relationship between human & divine wills, as they cooperate in our theotic realizations, helped by the Holy Spirit.
Another Neo-Chalcedonian given would be the maiestaticum of the communio naturarum, which refers to what's donatively gifted in a direction from divine to human, Christologically. Again, analogously & cosmotheandrically, we might see how the Logos creatively multiplies the logoi & incarnately manifests them in manifold ways. In meta-heuristic terms of conditioning, we might see how this plays out, for example, in Bracken's notion of hierarchically ordered systems as employed in the life-sciences. That notion, theologically applied, makes clear how the higher-order system proper to the communitarian life of the three divine persons both 1) conditions and is 2) conditioned by the lower-order systems proper to the world of creation.
Of course, the first aspect - where the Trinity "conditions" the created, could be taken to refer to either the hypostatic union or an analogous cosmotheandric maiestaticum. It might evoke, Christologically, for some, a deification of Jesus' humanity &, for others, perhaps various interpretations of Eucharistic presence & divine omnipresence. It might also invoke, analogously & cosmothendrically, the theotic trajectory of created persons.
What about the second aspect, the Trinity "conditioned by" the creation? Does that invoke a "tapeinoticon" of the communio naturarum? Could there be any type of gifting in a direction from human to divine or predication of the deity with the attributes of the humanity? Could the divinity in any sense have been humanized & historicized by Jesus, thereby appropriating any of humanity's properties?
Again, analogously & cosmotheandrically, how might a tapeinoticon of the communio naturarum be realized via a human to divine directionality, where the communitarian life of the three divine persons is conditioned by the lower-order systems proper to the world of creation?
Those are the questions I was pondering as I proposed
Recruiting Maximus for a Goldilocks-Cyrillean Christology - how to affirm a communio naturarum beyond the communicatio idiomatum
I won’t recite my answers to all of these questions. They’ve already been fleshed out in my panSEMIOentheist meta-heuristic.
And, no, I haven't moved beyond a rather thin notion of divine passibility. I haven't seen a coherent take that foresakes the analogia or ignores simplicity. But I have come to appreciate how Bulgakov, how Hart, Milbank, Bracken & Wood and others, while, with due deference to Classical Theism, Analogia Entis & Participatory Logic, have challenged us to resource our Church Fathers & Mothers and thereby enlarge our Christological & Pneumatological imaginations toward the end of better realizing our unitive ends & theotic means.