tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post2424092102025796564..comments2024-03-07T00:43:49.073-08:00Comments on a..sinner: Synergy in Christ According to Saint Maximus the Confessor (II)Sophocleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-43581262554042474142009-07-16T06:51:35.946-07:002009-07-16T06:51:35.946-07:00Economy or Oikonomia in Greek is how God relates t...Economy or Oikonomia in Greek is how God relates to the World both in Creation and Redemption. Theology or Theologia in Greek is how we understand the Persons of the Trinity and How they relate to themselves. Theologia is also related to Theoria in which one becomes united to the divine in both the body and soul (i.e. Hesychasm).<br /><br />What we understand about Theologia is prayed, practiced, and learned through the Oikonomia. For us to know God, God has to initiate the process. BTW-Do you own GHD? This topic is covered VERY thoroughly in the first couple chapters.<br /><br />Question Seven:<br /><br />You are thinking correct. Your allusion to Star Wars' 'The Force' is also quite perceptive since the idea is drawn from Joseph Campbell's book "The Hero With a Thousand Faces." Neoplatonism is such a moldable system that it can take on any number of dialectical opposite outcomes. It is the pseudomorophosis of terms. The Trinity is no longer Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but rather Creator, Sanctifier, and Redeemer, or One, Nous, and Soul, etc. Names are just aspects of a Divine Essence Some-thing. And really, any name is just as good as any other.<br /><br />Rome's idea of simplicity is identical to Origen's. (They think everybody teaches some kind of absolutely simple BEING when they read ancient texts). Where they differ is that they draw different conclusions from that premise though. For a good contrast between Augustine and Origen, see Perry's articles here:<br /><br />http://energeticprocession.com/2005/01/30/simplicity-virtue-and-the-problem-of-evil-pt-1/<br /><br />and here:<br /><br />http://energeticprocession.com/2005/02/12/simplicity-virtue-and-the-problem-of-evil-pt-2-3/<br /><br />PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-14940076824676870702009-07-15T23:05:05.033-07:002009-07-15T23:05:05.033-07:00Ok, so I'm re reading now to post the third pa...Ok, so I'm re reading now to post the third part and this section just seems to gnaw at me, so <br /><br /><b>SEVENTH QUESTION</b><br /><br />(Sixth question in my previous comment)<br /><br /><i>he asserted more than the mere "co-eternity" of the world with God; he asserted the necessity of the divine self-disclosure ad extra, the necessity of the eternal realization of the fullness and of all the potentialities of Divine power."18 Likewise, "the world was impossible without God, and God was impossible without the world."19 Therefore, for Origen, God cannot choose not to create, since such a choice is entangled with a dialectic, which would involve multiplicity in Him, and given God's utter perfection, such would by definition be evil and impossible.20</i><br /><br />I understand now more fully the collapse of <i>person</i>into <i>nature</i> or more accurately it can be stated, "the non-emergence of Person from the Essence" ,since for Origen it appears that God is a slave to the creation in that to not create and therefore be almighty, He, God, is essentially robbed of His personhood, His will, and it would seem that this is not "God" at all but more akin to "Force" or "The Force" or "The Being Without a Soul". <br /><br />Which more clearly makes sense of the pre-existence of souls in his cycle of ascending and descending since I gather that putting people in this cycle alleviates "God" from personal choice which in a very real sense He has no free choice to begin with anyway.<br /><br />I'm curious now, how closely does this tally with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on Divine Simplicity?Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-20474303091158202862009-07-15T21:37:05.676-07:002009-07-15T21:37:05.676-07:00Thank you, that was very helpful.
One last quest...Thank you, that was very helpful. <br /><br />One last question which your answer to my Question 3 raised. Could you explain the difference between Economy and Theology?<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time out to answer these questions amidst your busy schedule.<br /><br />I will now put up Part III.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-56243510397181048792009-07-15T13:42:43.503-07:002009-07-15T13:42:43.503-07:00Third question:
Does this mean that, for Origen, c...Third question:<br />Does this mean that, for Origen, creation "flows" from the essence of God as from nature, that is, it is not an act of His will but rather "automatic"? <br /><br />Yes precisely. For God to be Lord and Almighty, which are appelations referred to God from the Economy, God must've had Creatures always-eternally-to Lord over. Economy is then confused with Theology.<br /><br />Fourth Question:<br />Does choice=evil to Origen?<br /><br />Well that's difficult to say. Origen obviously would say NO, because free choice is a property of the nature for Origen (which is also Maximus' position). However, viewed more broadly it's hard to see choice being divorced from evil in his view, since to HAVE choice evil must exist for Origen. That's why Origen thinks you can fall in the Eschaton. There is choice on the micro level, but macro level it's all determined: time is cyclical of falls and redemptions.<br /><br />Fifth Question:<br />Is this Reincarnation minus Nirvana? <br /><br />And if it is indeed Reincarnation and minus Nirvana, can this be seen as perhaps more monstrous a doctrine than the doctrine of Reincarnation where at least there, the person may at least find rest, being absorbed into the nature of Nirvana instead of never finding rest descending and ascending and vice versa from the Highest Good to the lowest evil?<br /><br />If we follow the system out LOGICALLY, it would appear that is the case. At least in Buddhism, they would say that the cycle CAN stop (not sure how consistent that is), but here there is no reason for it. The cyclical pattern seems inevitable.<br /><br />PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-43362898540730798942009-07-15T08:03:46.128-07:002009-07-15T08:03:46.128-07:00Hi Sophocles,
Just getting around to this. Sorry I...Hi Sophocles,<br />Just getting around to this. Sorry I'm moving and have to be out of my house by August 1st, so I've been busy packing. I'll answer each of these as I can.<br /><br />First question:<br />What is diastema? It is basically a 'gap.' Now this gap is one that is limited to one's 'event horizon' in theology. When you look at a horizon, your cognition has run out of gas to what is beyond it. Now the 'diastema' or gap that exists between God and man is breached not by God's "essence" which can never be approached but by Jesus Christ and His Activity or energy.<br /><br />Second Question: Proairesis is greek for a deliberate choice. It is a noun. It is a choice that is accompanied with doubt. But that is also debatable. Can one make a deliberative choice that involves doubt? Maximus doesn't think so, which is why the choice for the saints is one that is spontaneous (but not because there is only ONE choice). But here I think you can break "deliberate" from "doubt" and Maximus is somewhat ambiguous on the question of a deliberate choice by the Saints and Christ IF deliberate DOES NOT mean uncertainty.<br /><br />The One DOES NOT deliberate at all. It's choice is fixed because the choice is dialectical. For the One TO BE the Good it must multiply, if it doesn't do this, then the One is NOT THE One.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-60603580016983598532009-07-10T00:21:23.447-07:002009-07-10T00:21:23.447-07:00FIFTH QUESTION:
On your page 5 you write:
"...<b>FIFTH QUESTION:</b><br /><br />On your page 5 you write:<br /><br />"<i>the soul is immortal and eternal, it is possible that in the many and endless periods throughout diverse and immeasurable ages it may either descend from the Highest Good to the lowest evil or to be restored from the lowest evil to the Highest Good.</i>"<br /><br />Is this Reincarnation minus Nirvana? <br /><br />And if it is indeed Reincarnation and minus Nirvana, can this be seen as perhaps more monstrous a doctrine than the doctrine of Reincarnation where at least there, the <i>person</i> may at least find rest, being absorbed into the <i>nature</i> of Nirvana instead of never finding rest descending and ascending and vice versa from the Highest Good to the lowest evil?Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-21890055181497814682009-07-10T00:14:22.248-07:002009-07-10T00:14:22.248-07:00FOURTH QUESTION
On your page 4 you write:
"...<b>FOURTH QUESTION</b><br /><br /><br />On your page 4 you write:<br /><br /><i>"The second problem in Origen’s doctrine of free-choice is the Saints in the Eschaton and this is a creaturely problem. Since we have just shown that for Origen God's freedom is really a freedom from free choice, creation on the other hand, being composite, must therefore involve choice.</i><br /><br />Since, according to Plotinus and Origen, God can have no distinction of being, essence, will and activity and this very non-distinction and simplicity is definitional to His being God, does this mean that we, His creatures and the entire creation, because we are composite and as such, choice is involved, are inherently evil? <br /><br />Does choice=evil to Origen?Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-35669268813924961842009-07-09T23:56:14.962-07:002009-07-09T23:56:14.962-07:00THIRD QUESTION
You write:
"For Origen, the ...<b>THIRD QUESTION</b><br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><i>"For Origen, the problem of free-choice is centered on two anomalies. The first one is a divine problem. As we have stated with Plotinus, God's essence has no multiplicity or distinctions. Existence, Will, and Activity are wholly indistinguishable and identical. Any distinction of these attributes is only in the cognition of the human subject. Since God's activity is wholly indistinguishable from his Being, we can say that he is an 'ever-productive' agent. To be ever-productive, the divine essence must create, since it has no distinction of being, essence, will and activity. The essence has but one object of willing to choose—it has but one good thing to do. We can therefore say, for God's essence, true freedom is actually a freedom from free choice. Thus, for Origen God was by definition Creator and Almighty:"</i><br /><br />Does this mean that, for Origen, creation "flows" from the essence of God as from nature, that is, it is not an act of His will but rather "automatic"? <br /><br />I know you answer this more in depth in your paper as you show the real distinction between <i>nature</i> and <i>person</i> as explained by Saint Maximus and as well you shortly answer my question just a little further down your page 3 where you write:<br /><br /><i>"A couple of things that are worthy of noting from this passage: first, we see that the will as the ‘faculty of will’ that is proper to nature is not distinguished from the will as the ‘object of the will’ that the natural will is directed to. Thus, the natural faculty of will, which is identical to the essence, is the same as its object.15 This highlights confusion between nature and person, which has ramifications for Origen’s doctrine of the apokatastasis."</i><br /><br />I ask the question to have you scrutinize whether I am on track in my understanding, my question itself indicating understanding or need further clarification in my thinking.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-23505550080600282752009-07-09T23:30:23.482-07:002009-07-09T23:30:23.482-07:00SECOND QUESTION
You use the word proairesis later...<b>SECOND QUESTION</b><br /><br />You use the word <i>proairesis</i> later on in your paper. This is a new word for me. As I reread your paper several times and I was able to connect the information more fluidly after each reading, I asked myself whether in this section, on your page 2:<br /><br /><i>"He is his own act, and is what He is not by chance but according to His own activity…So He is not ‘as He happened to be,’ but as he Himself wills…His essential being is his self-directed activity, and this is one with Himself."</i><br /><br />this is <i>proairesis</i> as being used by 'the One'?Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38889537.post-13423313348675286162009-07-09T23:21:28.659-07:002009-07-09T23:21:28.659-07:00First question:
FIRST QUESTION:
What exactly is...First question: <br /><br /><b>FIRST QUESTION:</b><br /><br />What exactly is the definition of <i>diastemic</i>? <br /><br />The closest I could come with the dictionary I use had <i>diastema-interval:space between teeth in a jaw</i><br /><br />Though I know "teeth in a jaw" have no part in your paper and I can gather pretty much what you're saying,if <i>diastema</i> is the root word, clarification would be nice.Sophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923381271179811989noreply@blogger.com