2 Comments
User's avatar
Johnathon's avatar

I loved reading this! I found it fascinating that you detected the difference of approach in defining 'essence' in a top-down vs. bottom-up manner in the conversation. In some sense, I think both perspectives have validity and describe two aspects of the relationship between essence and particular: emanation and emergence. It seems that, because essences are intelligible and being is hierarchical, we can trace the relations of a particular being's essences either from the top down or from the bottom up and have a coherent picture, but both directions, as it were, are involved in the particular being's actualization--a union of heaven and earth. I hope this is coherent. :-P

Expand full comment
Justus Schulz's avatar

I think that is correct, both directions are a reality.

But one may ask, then, in what way is it correct? As I proposed, if the "physical existence" of things created are bottom-up, but their compositon in our macro cosm (ideal or metaphysical) is in divine order, top-down, we would be the instrument with which God brings His order to the cosmos in a way of composition, which I think adds greatly to the idea of not only the relation of Telos of God to telos of man, but also to what you have written about our creative-transforming act and Gods command for us to be "masters of the world" as I express it.

Expand full comment