I’m in the same boat as you are Nate. I’m reading Wood’s book again. It’s a difficult read for me. The vocabulary is way above my head. The good news is I find myself rethinking my Christology. I have ask myself what I really believe about incarnation and make it part of my life. These kind of convos make your channel shine. This convo really drew my interest especially with very smart people who are gracious with their knowledge. This helps Nate. Thanks.
@@user-ge2uu3bs7k I see it in poetry for one. I also see it as telling the story of Redemption. And I see it as God’s Imagination, in which we live and move and have our being. He is everywhere present, filling all things.
It’s always fascinating how clear something can be in one’s mind (Image-antion:) and how befuddled it becomes as it births itself into this world. Pray for us St. Wittgenstein!
Richard Rohlin often promotes The Ethics of Beauty by Dr. Timothy Patitsas which is a book that also makes the case that incarnation and creation are the same thing. Dr. Patitsas draws on St. Maximus to say that Christ's dying breath on the cross, the breathe through which Christ emptied himself, was also the breathe that moved over the face of the waters in Genesis, the beauty of which caused non-being to repent and move towards being. He thinks that breathe bore the logoi which allowed non-being to become existence. Dr. Patitsas also thinks that Adam and Eve saw the crucified Christ at the center of Eden when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
There is a tradition that says Adam and Christ looked the same. It is possible Adam would've recognized himself as the crucified one, causing him to feel naked. Aware that he is capable of dying.
@@TheApprentice007 Very interesting. Do you know where that tradition is from? Regardless, Adam would have seen that human beings are capable of suffering and death.
@@maximosmagyar9653 This was told to me by a priest who was a member of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. I believe he said it was commonly said in Hungary. He also said Eve and Mary were also identical.
24:34 - 24:52 THIS. “There’s a way in taking refuge in the sequence, coherence and logic of narrative can get us out of the more difficult questions, or even avoid them.” the postmodern critique. “You can’t reason with a rationalist that rationalism (and their narrative) is irrational.”
1:06:54 “what you end up getting is the mode of the Trinity itself which is perichoresis. About which, I would say with Bulgakov, it’s just as much true that the divine nature is achieved in the mutual indwelling of the love as it is that the divine nature is itself the power for them to indwell…reciprocity all the way down.” Relational ontology. Persons all the way down. 👏🏼
34:45 “I feel like it’s obvious that there are incommensurables conceptually. I don’t know how to make sense of any of the Christological controversies otherwise.” Yep.
So, Wood raises this concern that the form of participation is lacking content- that we can say x is more like y but we leave out the all too important *how*. Lacking content, ontological analogy becomes a placeholder or variable. Perhaps we can relate the variable between its infinite mode in God and its finite mode in creation, etc. but we do not grasp the content of the thing. It seems that in the course of this discussion there was a tacit agreement that the content of this similitude is to be found in perichoresis itself. If this is the case, it should be noted that Baker more or less set this forth in the outset as the filial tropos patterning that exemplifies or establishes the very nature of participatory relatedness. Hile also seemed to chime in that the connecting thread could have to do with a fully determinate willful participation, which strikes me as another way of coming to the same place in perichoresis.
Hey Nate. Thanks for hosting this. I'm enjoying a lot of the videos on this channel. I have a few questions for you: How much do I need to already know to pick up The Whole Mystery of Christ and understand what is being said? Is there a Grail County reading list? Have you read Brian Patrick Mitchell's book Origen's Revenge: The Greek and Hebrew Roots of Christian Thinking on Male and Female? If so, do you think it bears much on the central questions of Grail County, whatever those are? Have you read Theophany by Eric Perl?
Whole Mystery of Christ is definitely an academic book. I had to read it twice before I had my first conversation with Jordan to feel I had enough of a handle on it not to embarrass myself. Jordan and I are friends now, so I must have done alright. Grail Country has been in the Barfield/Steiner influenced area quite a lot, and I always end up coming back to Barfield (as you can see in this very conversation where I suggest final participation, because it is an explicitly hypostatic mode of participation, as a bridge between Tony and Jordan). We are soon going to launch a series on Transformation of Eros, I am working on the reading list (Solovyov will of course be on it, and Dante, and Charles Williams but more will likely be added). I have not read Brian Patrick Mitchell's book, but it sounds like one to add to the list. Theophany is on the to read list already.
@@grailcountryIs there a book besides The Transformation of Eros itself that would be good to read to get the most out of the forthcoming series? Most of the time I can't get my hands on physical books as I live in Sierra Leone but I'll be visiting the states in a little over a week and will be able to grab a few.
41:00 I don’t think at the end of the day there are any absolute opposites. There are antimonies or distinctions, never divisions. There is always a higher unity or love binding the seeming “opposites”.
46:00 re: “being born is not something a divine nature can do” I would propose that one ought not start with nature in their reasoning. Start with the person. Ordo = patristic order of operations when it comes to christological reflection (or anything), which is to say: Subject/Person>Operations>Natures
1:19:59 Tom Bombadil “what we’ve lost is the ability to name things properly.” 🤯 I was just talking to my priest about the proper role of the divine masculine. Hmmmm.
1:11:00 “with Bulgakov again: it’s the kenosis of God that upsets our preset logics.” Henosis by kenosis. This is also what Peter Rollins is saying psychoanalytically. Unknowing is ontic, going all the way down to God. Trampling down Reason by reason.
1:16:30 - 1:17:27 🙋🏼♂️👏🏼✊🏼😍 You have to be willing to go here, if you want to remain honest. And praise God. Honesty over motivated ignorance and dogmatism.
Still not grasping how the two natures are absolutely incommensurable, but also how participation is preserved and not simply negated within the whole. How can you affirm a place for dionysian participation on a conceptual level and then say that that doesnt hold in the final reality. If it ia true as any kind of moment in the process then it seems you cant have radical incommensurability, because you will have to have some kind of similitude or iconic parricipation which achieves some kind of relation
Idk a lot of this “in thought alone” sounds like coping. Why are you forced to say “in thought alone”, and how can you think about a non “in thought alone” reality? Is this similar to the whole “levels of reality don’t exist, but you still kinda need them to understand how they don’t exist” typa thing?
it is speculative in the good sense. hegel makes the distinction between shape of understanding (static categories) and reason (dynamic) roughly. Jordan Daniel Wood seems be making a lot of references to hegel too like good and bad infinite so there is definitely an influence but how much is hard to say. in short, understanding can't get past contradictions but reason can.
@@ReflectiveJourneyhmm. Those categories strike me as off on first blush. I would distinguish btw comprehension (static, total, monadic) and Pauline, 1 Corinthians 8 understanding (knowing as you are known), which would include comprehension within Unknowing. An iconic relation.
@@andrewternet8370yeah. The potency vs actuality distinction of Christ is a good place to put some contemplation. It’s basically the mia v dyo controversy (which as JDW said earlier in the convo…there are no true divisions or opposite. Or I said that). Imo, Jesus crucified is one reality (the only existent one). And his Person is one reality. Is that what hypostases means?! Idk, I lose track of the technical stuff. That’s why Jesus IS God and Man. God is Man. “God became man that man may become God.” And Christ in me is me…becoming God. Distinctions without division. Both/and simultaneously. Not either-or. Idk hopefully that hits something resonant.
I’m in the same boat as you are Nate. I’m reading Wood’s book again. It’s a difficult read for me. The vocabulary is way above my head. The good news is I find myself rethinking my Christology. I have ask myself what I really believe about incarnation and make it part of my life. These kind of convos make your channel shine. This convo really drew my interest especially with very smart people who are gracious with their knowledge. This helps Nate. Thanks.
Creation is Incarnation. ❤️
Jacob would be happy. Now you gotta change only-begotten to unique :P
@@andrewternet8370Nah.
@@user-ge2uu3bs7k I see it in poetry for one. I also see it as telling the story of Redemption. And I see it as God’s Imagination, in which we live and move and have our being. He is everywhere present, filling all things.
It’s always fascinating how clear something can be in one’s mind (Image-antion:) and how befuddled it becomes as it births itself into this world. Pray for us St. Wittgenstein!
Mind blown. ❤️
Glad you enjoyed it Tom
Richard Rohlin often promotes The Ethics of Beauty by Dr. Timothy Patitsas which is a book that also makes the case that incarnation and creation are the same thing.
Dr. Patitsas draws on St. Maximus to say that Christ's dying breath on the cross, the breathe through which Christ emptied himself, was also the breathe that moved over the face of the waters in Genesis, the beauty of which caused non-being to repent and move towards being. He thinks that breathe bore the logoi which allowed non-being to become existence.
Dr. Patitsas also thinks that Adam and Eve saw the crucified Christ at the center of Eden when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I just had a couple of conversations with Richard, good guy.
There is a tradition that says Adam and Christ looked the same. It is possible Adam would've recognized himself as the crucified one, causing him to feel naked. Aware that he is capable of dying.
@@TheApprentice007 Very interesting. Do you know where that tradition is from? Regardless, Adam would have seen that human beings are capable of suffering and death.
@@maximosmagyar9653 This was told to me by a priest who was a member of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. I believe he said it was commonly said in Hungary.
He also said Eve and Mary were also identical.
@maximosmagyar9653 look up Mosaic of Adam and Eve at Monreale Cathedral.
Also literally man (adam) is made in the icon (image) of God.
24:34 - 24:52 THIS.
“There’s a way in taking refuge in the sequence, coherence and logic of narrative can get us out of the more difficult questions, or even avoid them.”
the postmodern critique.
“You can’t reason with a rationalist that rationalism (and their narrative) is irrational.”
1:06:54 “what you end up getting is the mode of the Trinity itself which is perichoresis. About which, I would say with Bulgakov, it’s just as much true that the divine nature is achieved in the mutual indwelling of the love as it is that the divine nature is itself the power for them to indwell…reciprocity all the way down.”
Relational ontology. Persons all the way down. 👏🏼
34:45 “I feel like it’s obvious that there are incommensurables conceptually. I don’t know how to make sense of any of the Christological controversies otherwise.”
Yep.
So, Wood raises this concern that the form of participation is lacking content- that we can say x is more like y but we leave out the all too important *how*. Lacking content, ontological analogy becomes a placeholder or variable. Perhaps we can relate the variable between its infinite mode in God and its finite mode in creation, etc. but we do not grasp the content of the thing. It seems that in the course of this discussion there was a tacit agreement that the content of this similitude is to be found in perichoresis itself. If this is the case, it should be noted that Baker more or less set this forth in the outset as the filial tropos patterning that exemplifies or establishes the very nature of participatory relatedness. Hile also seemed to chime in that the connecting thread could have to do with a fully determinate willful participation, which strikes me as another way of coming to the same place in perichoresis.
Bulgakov’s sophiology and Zizoulas’ personalism help mitigate the fears of hypostatic voluntarism, no?
1:24:05 “the fullness (perichoresis) of language…”
Iconic thinking moves us toward this. Imo.
"Virgin and mother because the perichoresis of perichoresis" idk if this makes sense but it stood out to me.
Hey Nate. Thanks for hosting this. I'm enjoying a lot of the videos on this channel. I have a few questions for you:
How much do I need to already know to pick up The Whole Mystery of Christ and understand what is being said?
Is there a Grail County reading list?
Have you read Brian Patrick Mitchell's book Origen's Revenge: The Greek and Hebrew Roots of Christian Thinking on Male and Female? If so, do you think it bears much on the central questions of Grail County, whatever those are?
Have you read Theophany by Eric Perl?
Whole Mystery of Christ is definitely an academic book. I had to read it twice before I had my first conversation with Jordan to feel I had enough of a handle on it not to embarrass myself. Jordan and I are friends now, so I must have done alright. Grail Country has been in the Barfield/Steiner influenced area quite a lot, and I always end up coming back to Barfield (as you can see in this very conversation where I suggest final participation, because it is an explicitly hypostatic mode of participation, as a bridge between
Tony and Jordan). We are soon going to launch a series on Transformation of Eros, I am working on the reading list (Solovyov will of course be on it, and Dante, and Charles Williams but more will likely be added). I have not read Brian Patrick Mitchell's book, but it sounds like one to add to the list. Theophany is on the to read list already.
@@grailcountryIs there a book besides The Transformation of Eros itself that would be good to read to get the most out of the forthcoming series?
Most of the time I can't get my hands on physical books as I live in Sierra Leone but I'll be visiting the states in a little over a week and will be able to grab a few.
41:00 I don’t think at the end of the day there are any absolute opposites. There are antimonies or distinctions, never divisions.
There is always a higher unity or love binding the seeming “opposites”.
All that to say…
Wow.
46:00 re: “being born is not something a divine nature can do”
I would propose that one ought not start with nature in their reasoning. Start with the person.
Ordo = patristic order of operations when it comes to christological reflection (or anything), which is to say: Subject/Person>Operations>Natures
48:09 “Christ (Thee Person) is both.” Yes. Exactly.
42:30 yes! Participation FOR what? WITH whom?
Participation per se is a placeholder, empty.
I would love to talk to Jordan about George MacDonald one day.
1:19:59 Tom Bombadil “what we’ve lost is the ability to name things properly.” 🤯
I was just talking to my priest about the proper role of the divine masculine. Hmmmm.
Unity and Name.
Unity and Hypostases
1:21:34 “The White Stone Name” 👋🏼
1:11:00 “with Bulgakov again: it’s the kenosis of God that upsets our preset logics.”
Henosis by kenosis.
This is also what Peter Rollins is saying psychoanalytically. Unknowing is ontic, going all the way down to God. Trampling down Reason by reason.
1:16:30 - 1:17:27 🙋🏼♂️👏🏼✊🏼😍
You have to be willing to go here, if you want to remain honest. And praise God.
Honesty over motivated ignorance and dogmatism.
17:25 - 17:41
Nice, Jordan. Good on ya.
My impulse is the former.
Still not grasping how the two natures are absolutely incommensurable, but also how participation is preserved and not simply negated within the whole. How can you affirm a place for dionysian participation on a conceptual level and then say that that doesnt hold in the final reality. If it ia true as any kind of moment in the process then it seems you cant have radical incommensurability, because you will have to have some kind of similitude or iconic parricipation which achieves some kind of relation
23:30 - 23:40 thank god. Yes. Whatever isn’t enacted (embodied, and not in a physicalist way exactly) *isn’t real*.
Yes.
Firstborn among the dead.
1:15:10 Michael!! God suffers.
Idk a lot of this “in thought alone” sounds like coping. Why are you forced to say “in thought alone”, and how can you think about a non “in thought alone” reality?
Is this similar to the whole “levels of reality don’t exist, but you still kinda need them to understand how they don’t exist” typa thing?
it is speculative in the good sense. hegel makes the distinction between shape of understanding (static categories) and reason (dynamic) roughly. Jordan Daniel Wood seems be making a lot of references to hegel too like good and bad infinite so there is definitely an influence but how much is hard to say. in short, understanding can't get past contradictions but reason can.
It’s about the relationship (reality) of potency and actuality, seems to me.
Thought alone is potency.
Memory and remembering (and forgetting).
@@ReflectiveJourneyhmm. Those categories strike me as off on first blush.
I would distinguish btw comprehension (static, total, monadic) and Pauline, 1 Corinthians 8 understanding (knowing as you are known), which would include comprehension within Unknowing. An iconic relation.
@@WhiteStoneName Alright, so Christ is potentially in two natures but he's not really. ??? Idk if I'm not getting the point or if it's incoherent.
@@andrewternet8370yeah. The potency vs actuality distinction of Christ is a good place to put some contemplation.
It’s basically the mia v dyo controversy (which as JDW said earlier in the convo…there are no true divisions or opposite. Or I said that).
Imo, Jesus crucified is one reality (the only existent one). And his Person is one reality.
Is that what hypostases means?! Idk, I lose track of the technical stuff.
That’s why Jesus IS God and Man. God is Man. “God became man that man may become God.”
And Christ in me is me…becoming God.
Distinctions without division. Both/and simultaneously. Not either-or.
Idk hopefully that hits something resonant.
@grailcountry are you able to provide a link the the conversation between Dr. Baker and John Milbank? I could not find it with a cursory Google search
It was on the site formerly known as Twitter.
51:00 “if you have something like an Augustinian or Thomist view of the Incarnation as a response to the Fall...”
🎉👏🏼🫶🏼