Christ, divine simplicity, and actus purus

[White_Tree]

By spirit, do you mean the spirit of God the son, or spirit as in “soul”?

I admit, I was being rather loose with my terminology, using “spirit” to refer in a general sense to the non-physical aspect of reality. Though you are correct, there is a difference.

If by spirit you mean “soul” then I cannot agree, for the human soul must be in complete union with the human body for a man to be complete.

This may be an issue more clearly resolved through experience than philosophy.

When we perfectly still the mind, the body, and the emotions, and look into our consciousness–not the mind, but the perceiver of thoughts and sensations–we can sometimes perceive things from other places or times, beyond the reach of the senses of the physical body.

So the question becomes, if everything we are is contained within this physical vessel, how can something deep within us perceive that which is far outside of us, unless it also has a part of its presence that is outside of us, being simultaneously within us and around us?

Though, perhaps you have already answered that question. I suppose I am incomplete…

 

[kapp19]

Furthermore, I don’t think that you must always presuppose God in order to find God (as in, know God is real and begin to understand him).

No problem, it’s just important to avoid the illusion that faith is a mere “convergence of probabilities” or the result of some syllogism from what is observed.

It takes me around a day to fully digest what the good saint say’s on even just one topic (mostly because I find myself in a dictionary after each of his sentences ).

At least you are honest - some people have the opposite issue. “I read the 5 Ways and it’s all just nonsense,” etc. (NB: A dictionary will not be too helpful, I’m afraid. You just have to do a lot of reading of him - a nice thing to do on the Feast of St. Dominic! - though the Catholic Encyclopedia is often helpful.)

To the point, yes, you’ve got the right piece… God has no (metaphysical) real relation with creatures, only the inverse; to exist as a being is to exist in relation to God, but to be God is not to exist in relation with creatures, nor is creation of the same genus or species as God whence it proceeds (Who is not in a genus to begin with), unlike a man generated from a man.

The union, then, is in the created (human) nature of Christ. My hand is more properly said to be united to my body - not the other way around. What is the human nature of Christ? That which is united to the Person of the Son… so the whole Christ does not exist apart from the Son, even though we can make the logical distinction between the two natures, just like thinking of the hand on its own or the body apart from the hand, even though they are one substance.

 

[quaestio45]

God has no (metaphysical) real relation with creatures, only the inverse; to exist as a being is to exist in relation to God, but to be God is not to exist in relation with creatures, nor is creation of the same genus or species as God whence it proceeds (Who is not in a genus to begin with), unlike a man generated from a man.

The union, then, is in the created (human) nature of Christ. My hand is more properly said to be united to my body - not the other way around. What is the human nature of Christ? That which is united to the Person of the Son… so the whole Christ does not exist apart from the Son, even though we can make the logical distinction between the two natures, just like thinking of the hand on its own or the body apart from the hand, even though they are one substance.

Yes, so I accept that if there would be union between the person of the Son and a human being the change or union would be on the side of the body. However, it is undeniable that the Son was at point without union and at some point with union, yes? If that be so, how could we say there was at least no change in form of the Son (the same way water changes into the form of a cup when poured into said cup)?

 

[STT]

He said APPEARS to be absent, not IS absent.

I am not saying that Jesus lost his faith to God. I am saying that God was not present to Him. That is not acceptable if Jesus and God are one.

 

[quaestio45]

When we perfectly still the mind, the body, and the emotions, and look into our consciousness–not the mind, but the perceiver of thoughts and sensations–we can sometimes perceive things from other places or times, beyond the reach of the senses of the physical body.

So the question becomes, if everything we are is contained within this physical vessel, how can something deep within us perceive that which is far outside of us, unless it also has a part of its presence that is outside of us, being simultaneously within us and around us?

As you might expect, White Tree, I am very skeptical of this.

For one, even if it were to be true that to sit in an almost perfect meditation and reflection of the inner self would somehow cause you to experience some other phenomena occurring in another area in existence, you cannot possibly draw the conclusion that it was on the basis of your spirit being in connection with everything. For it could be just as plausible that an exterior force was what showed us these things, and therefore our idea of being deeply connected with the world seems to be without backing.

And secondly, there is the question of whether or not what was experienced was a genuine revealing of what occurred in another area of existence, or whether we simply were in a self placed illusion or dream. On these points, I usually take personal experience of such phenomena with a grain of salt, and allow argumentation and philosophy to be greater backing for any claims as such. Thats not to dismiss the possibility that what your’re saying is true, just that I would need something more to accompany it and release me of doubt.

 

[White_Tree]

As you might expect, White Tree, I am very skeptical of this.

Haha. As you should be. Personally, I’m not a believer in blind faith, and I have a great deal of respect for a healthy dose of skepticism. All things in moderation, though. I’ve met people who were so drunk on their own skepticism that they could not clearly perceive the nature of their own experiences. That doesn’t appear to be the case with you, though.

For it could be just as plausible that an exterior force was what showed us these things, and therefore our idea of being deeply connected with the world seems to be without backing.

Fair point. There are many possible ways to interpret the this type of phenomenon.

I took a cue from my teachers in terms of how to understand the experience, as they can go deeper than me, and know more, and have stated that the experience of the core of our being is of the nature of space itself. But I am unable to verify their conclusions at that level myself. So, lacking sufficient experience on the matter, I will concede this one to you, and say that perhaps you are right. Though I hope that I will someday have a definitive answer.

If it is an external force, though, one does wonder what such a force might be, and how that view coincides with phenomena such as out of body experiences, in which it is quite clear that the consciousness has actually departed from the physical body.

And secondly, there is the question of whether or not what was experienced was a genuine revealing of what occurred in another area of existence, or whether we simply were in a self placed illusion or dream. On these points, I usually take personal experience of such phenomena with a grain of salt, and allow argumentation and philosophy to be greater backing for any claims as such. Thats not to dismiss the possibility that what your’re saying is true, just that I would need something more to accompany it and release me of doubt.

You’re right. Most of the time, it is impossible to know. It is possible to verify in some cases, though. If we experience something that has not yet happened, the verification obviously comes when the thing we experienced does happen. Similarly, if we experience something from another place, we can confirm it with someone who was in that place.

I could recount some examples, but you would have no reason to believe me, and really you shouldn’t. As I mentioned above, despite the (what I feel is mistaken) approach that many people take to religion, I’m of the opinion that blind faith is damaging to the mind.

The only way to really know these things is to experience them for ourselves, which takes a lot of work. I suppose whether the reward is worth the cost is a matter of personal preference.

 

[quaestio45]

Haha. As you should be. Personally, I’m not a believer in blind faith, and I have a great deal of respect for a healthy dose of skepticism. All things in moderation, though. I’ve met people who were so drunk on their own skepticism that they could not clearly perceive the nature of their own experiences. That doesn’t appear to be the case with you, though.

I truly try not to be . I’ve never appreciated those who had the truth dangled right in front of their face yet are always too stubborn and too comfortable in their Platonic cave of ignorance to accept it. Skepticism is desirable, but only insofar as it may bear the right fruit, that being the highest reliable knowledge.

If it is an external force, though, one does wonder what such a force might be, and how that view coincides with phenomena such as out of body experiences, in which it is quite clear that the consciousness has actually departed from the physical body.

Indeed, I must agree. There are many interesting questions that lead to much desire to learn more, especially on fronts such as this. As you said, perhaps only experience bring us any closer to such things, even though we favor something perhaps more concrete and reliable.

I’m of the opinion that blind faith is damaging to the mind.

Nothing but absolute agreement here White Tree. And it isn’t just because it may lead us to mistruths, but also because, even if we were putting our blind faith in what is true, if a well minded fellow walked by and honestly, vigorously attacked such points of faith, the blind are left vulnerable to doubt in a way much more harmful then if they had simply questioned their faith to begin with and learned to justify it correctly.

The only way to really know these things is to experience them for ourselves, which takes a lot of work.

Even then, you could fall into something of a Cartesian doubt as to your experiences. How you would be able to epistemologically assure yourself of what you felt and saw is something which most are probably beyond the capability of doing (myself included, I’d assume).

I suppose whether the reward is worth the cost is a matter of personal preference.

Very true indeed.

 

[kapp19]

in which it is quite clear that the consciousness has actually departed from the physical body.

I don’t think that it’s clear at all. Even when Paul talks about his vision of heaven, he never goes so far as to say he “left his body,” despite saying he did not know if he was “in the body” or not… which seems to mean he is indicating he may have physically been moved, or simply had a vision of a real thing far from his body. In any case, NDE’s and OBE’s are, well, strange but explicable either with natural reason or a simple momentary gift of prophetic knowledge, like Paul had (but less useful and edifying).

 

[kapp19]

The tree is to the left of the car. Now the tree is to the right of the car. Did the tree change, or did the car change? Well, the car drove around to the other side. So it’s better to say the car changed. This is a dim analogy.

There was no union, and now there is. In a secondary way, you can say that the Son “was not united” and “now is united,” but it’s not the most accurate way to speak.

 

[White_Tree]

Even then, you could fall into something of a Cartesian doubt as to your experiences. How you would be able to epistemologically assure yourself of what you felt and saw is something which most are probably beyond the capability of doing (myself included, I’d assume).

You’ve described my personal problem very well. It is very difficult to know for certain. Sometimes it is undeniable, or becomes undeniable after receiving more data, like the examples I described above. Other times, you just don’t know.

I’ve had cases where I was warned about something that was going to happen to me months in advance–things I could have avoided if I had taken the warnings seriously–and I simply didn’t believe my own experiences. It’s so difficult to tell, and I’ve seen so many people make mistakes, either by being too skeptical (which tends to be my bias), or by not being skeptical enough.

The people I know who are very skillful and experienced, however, seem to be able to discern with a high degree of accuracy. So my hope is that with more practice and more experience comes more wisdom.

I don’t think that it’s clear at all. Even when Paul talks about his vision of heaven, he never goes so far as to say he “left his body,” despite saying he did not know if he was “in the body” or not… which seems to mean he is indicating he may have physically been moved, or simply had a vision of a real thing far from his body. In any case, NDE’s and OBE’s are, well, strange but explicable either with natural reason or a simple momentary gift of prophetic knowledge, like Paul had (but less useful and edifying).

Fair point. Though John talks about being “in the spirit” (Rev 1:10), which (at least as I see it) implies being out of the body.

Also, sometimes those experiences come with actual sensations (like tactile sensations) associated with leaving the body. Though, as we’ve been discussing, I admit that it is very difficult to know for sure.

 

[quaestio45]

The tree is to the left of the car. Now the tree is to the right of the car. Did the tree change, or did the car change? Well, the car drove around to the other side. So it’s better to say the car changed. This is a dim analogy.

Ahhh, I understand what you’re saying. That it was a cambridge change in God rather then a “real” change in God, yes? The same way that if Socrates becomes shorter then Plato, it’s because Plato grew and thus changed and not because of any real property change in Socrates, yes? In other words, its something of a change in relations, would you say?

There was no union, and now there is. In a secondary way, you can say that the Son “was not united” and “now is united,” but it’s not the most accurate way to speak.

Yes yes, in the same way that its not the most accurate to say that Socrates became shorter then Plato; its really that Plato became taller than Socrates, correct?

So my hope is that with more practice and more experience comes more wisdom.

Amen good sir, I wish you luck on your journey to such a goal.

 

[kapp19]

Yes, something along those lines.

The “communicatio idiomatum” is important to get right… the way we predicate things of God that are contingent realities… “God died on the Cross.” Yes… understood within Christ, not understood within God’s very Essence. These things are real because the humanity of Christ is really united with the Son (hypostatically, obviously not essentially or else there would be a change in God or there is some “third” nature produced, like a “demigod”, and not accidentally or else we could not say that Christ is actually Divine, somewhat analogous to how my hand is me, just that Christ is somehow connected with God, like the way the ball is being held by my hand very tightly).

-K

 

[quaestio45]

The “communicatio idiomatum” is important to get right… the way we predicate things of God that are contingent realities… “God died on the Cross.” Yes… understood within Christ, not understood within God’s very Essence. These things are real because the humanity of Christ is really united with the Son (hypostatically, obviously not essentially or else there would be a change in God or there is some “third” nature produced, like a “demigod”, and not accidentally or else we could not say that Christ is actually Divine, somewhat analogous to how my hand is me, just that Christ is somehow connected with God, like the way the ball is being held by my hand very tightly).

That be the case, would you say that premise 2 (Christ is God the son, whom holds a divine and human nature) and premise 5 (Before Christ, God was purely spiritual, while after Christ, God had a composite God head, and thus there was a change) are invalidated on that basis?

 

[kapp19]

You must be extremely precise with your language.

Premise 2, if orthodox, will read: Christ is God the Son and is in a Divine nature and a human nature.

Premise 5, if orthodox, will read: Before the Incarnation, there was no human nature hypostatically united with the Son, while after the Incarnation, a union of a human nature in the hypostases of the Son exists, which union has distinguishable parts, namely, the Divine nature and the human nature, the Divinity being entirely Self-subsistent while the humanity exists only as part of a unity with the Son, so neither does the humanity become God nor does the Divine Essence become a human or a part of a human while the Person of the Son is the Person of Christ.

Something like that.

 

[quaestio45]

Premise 2, if orthodox, will read: Christ is God the Son and is in a Divine nature and a human nature.

Premise 5, if orthodox, will read: Before the Incarnation, there was no human nature hypostatically united with the Son, while after the Incarnation, a union of a human nature in the hypostases of the Son exists, which union has distinguishable parts, namely, the Divine nature and the human nature, the Divinity being entirely Self-subsistent while the humanity exists only as part of a unity with the Son, so neither does the humanity become God nor does the Divine Essence become a human or a part of a human while the Person of the Son is the Person of Christ.

And from such modified premises, the conclusions wouldn’t follow, yes? If that be so, then I think I am convinced that my conclusions were built upon poor premises, and that Christ is indeed compatible with the God of divine simplicity and actus purus.

 

[kapp19]

Beautiful! I am happy to talk more by private message…

-K