Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jordan Daniel Wood's avatar

Very lovely, thanks for this, Nicholas. A few thoughts:

1. Regarding your narrative from cosmos to cosmic mechanism, I'm reminded of a point made by Jason Ananda Josephson-Storm in his book, *The Myth of Disenchantment.* There he notes that the "literalism," if you will, underwriting the new science of Newton and others, meant that the cosmos could only refer to its Creator as design refers to designer. In other words, a sort of mechanical literalism in reading not just scripture, but the cosmos itself, is all that remained for those who had abandoned "allegorical" or spiritual readings of things and yet sought to link creation to God. It's no accident, Josephson-Storm argues, that this is the same period within which allegorical readings of scripture were also viciously attacked and mostly abandoned (in the West).

2. I like the move from Plotinian "vertical meaning" to Maximian fulfillment of that meaning. What's important in such a move is twofold. First, the Incarnation itself creates the retrospective lack in Neoplatonism only by fulfilling the latter. That's to say, I regard Plotinus's metaphysics as eminently coherent in se. He senses no lack that an Incarnation must fill, and logically, probably didn't sense it because his vertical metaphysics didn't require it. He sees well that the One's absolute transcendence of all requires that same One's absolute and ubiquitous immanence to all (cf. Enn. VI.4-5, on the omnipresence of the One). And he refutes the so-called Gnostics in his (somewhat ambiguous, still) defense of the relative goodness and participation of informed matter in the One. He also sees that emanation, participation-participated, and other like vertical relations in no way diminish the free will of the One (cf. Enn. VI.8). This is all quite consistent in itself and indeed consonant with Christian metaphysics, as you rightly insist. But then the Incarnation appears no longer as a fulfillment clearly anticipated, but as an unimaginable fulfillment that thus reveals its own retroactive "need." Second, then, this is not to say that Neoplatonism and Christianity are simply two separate, self-contained systems between which one cannot adjudicate. In fact, Plotinian Platonism, particularly its laser-focus on the need for "apophaticism" of the One, has this interesting feature: that it cannot in principle deny such a thing as the Incarnation or Trinity. Why? As Marius Victorinus already knew (and he would if anyone would have!), the metaphysical primacy of the One entails the metaphysical uniqueness of the mode of that One's "First Act." In such a primacy, the preeminence of Cause necessitates peculiarity of Act. But then why couldn't the First's act be the "production" or generation of an "effect" that is itself essentially one with the Cause, without the slightest diminishment of essential oneness in productive distinction? And if that's at least possible, so then is the Incarnation of that "effect" without thereby contradicting Plotinus's own vertical metaphysics, at least not *in principle*? And so on. In sum, then, the relation between Christianity and Neoplatonism is indeed "fulfillment," I think, but a fulfillment that paradoxically wasn't anticipated, needn't have been, and yet impossible to deny on the grounds of the self-consistent Platonic "system" itself.

Anyhow, your presentation here is much clearer than my glosses. But I thought I'd share what did come to mind anyhow!

Expand full comment
Prudence Louise's avatar

This was such a pleasure to read. It really resonated with me. These are ideas I’ve been interested in for a long time, but have always conceived of it in Vedic terms, because that is the tradition I’m familiar with and practice. So it was wonderful to see it presented from within the Western/Christian perspective.

In Sankhya yoga they describe the movement of creation from subtle to gross, from the rarified to the dense. I understand it in terms of a refraction of consciousness, the soul’s perspective is distorted by limiting its focus to matter, or the outer skin of reality.

The incompleteness of that perspective is more obvious when we experience higher states of consciousness, when the veil of the world thins to reveal the divine. But even ordinary states of consciousness can show us this is true. The soul transcends matter as a subject necessarily transcends its object. To even speak of “matter” requires being distinct from it. The materialists are in denial about this, vainly trying to squeeze consciousness into the naturalist worldview, and when that fails trying to eliminate it.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts