I'm taking this from an article on Meister Eckhart I've posted before from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The particular idea is about Univocal Causality. (Please check out the ORIGINAL full article again.) It seems to me like Eckhart’s talking about a type of perichoretic indwelling of sorts. According to the article...Eckhart believed that...
“[The principle and the principiate] … are opposed to one another relatively: Insofar as they are opposed, they are distinguished, but insofar as they are relative, they reciprocally posit themselves …”
This sounds a whole lot like a relationship of COMPLEMENTARITY...or even bi-polar assymetrical unity between a reality and it's expression that necessarily participates in the grounding reality...giving the expression it's own reality as that reality. At any rate, it seems that Eckhart used “just” and “justice” to make his points. I had this kind of quirky idea. I decided to, by and large, replace the word “just” with “loving”…and the word “justice” with “love”. I wanted to see if this kind of simple (oversimplistic!) substitution would work. Just for kicks. Take a look…
****************************************************
Another example of univocal causality as conceived by Eckhart is found in the relation between love and the loving person. In the same vein as that sketched out with regard to the dynamics of thinking, love is in the loving person, and the loving person is in love. The loving person is her loving action, and this loving action is likewise love. Between the loving person and love, there is difference on account of the opposition between them, but because of their relationality they reciprocally include each other. Loving as thought is the thought of thinking and therewith itself thinking, so, too, is what is loving for Eckhart what is loving of love and therewith love itself. From this we can draw, following Eckhart, a number of important conclusions.
A. For the loving person, there is no why to her loving action, no purpose or goal of this action. For the action of the loving person has love as its goal, and this goal is identical with the loving person. Therefore, the loving person has no goal external to herself. Instead, as love, she is her own goal.
B. With the loving person and with love, there is no multiplicity. Love is one, and the loving person is one; thus, love and the loving person are one. Even if there are many loving people: As loving people, the many loving people are one, indeed, they are even love itself.
C. Love, which is the loving person, knows neither where nor when, that is, it knows neither space nor time, neither size nor quality, neither inside nor outside, neither over nor under, neither this side nor that side, neither above nor below, neither the activity of effecting nor the passivity of being effected. Hence, love is indeterminate and does not accrue to anything else as an accident. Love is something whose purpose lies in itself.
D. Consequently, the loving person is in love, which means: The loving person is love. This implies a reversal of the usual way of looking at things. Normally, a quality (qualitas) is what is found in an underlying subject (subiectum). With the spiritual perfections (perfectiones spirituales), however, the situation is different: The subjects are in the perfections, the loving person is in love. But in the realm of the spirit, being-in is nothing other than being-one. Hence, the loving person, who is in love, is love itself. The loving person does not possess love, but rather is love. Similarly, she who is free is freedom itself (Echardus, Predigt 28; DW II, 62, 3–5; cf. Predigt 10; DW I, 165, 2: “… und ich diu wîsheit selber bin, sô bin ich ein wîser mensche”; what applies in the cases of freedom and love also applies in the case of wisdom). If she who is free merely possessed freedom, then this freedom would be something external to her, and she would never be freedom itself.
*****************************************************
Does the logic still work to y’all? It at least piqued my interest.
But I wanted to go further. This time, I did switched out “love” for “Christ” and “loving” for “Christlike” Check it out.
**************************************************
Another example of univocal causality as conceived by Eckhart is found in the relation between Christ and the Christlike person. In the same vein as that sketched out with regard to the dynamics of thinking, Christ is in the Christlike person, and the Christlike person is in Christ. The Christlike person is her Christlike action, and this Christlike action is likewise Christ. Between the Christlike person and Christ, there is difference on account of the opposition between them, but because of their relationality they reciprocally include each other. Christlikeness as thought is the thought of thinking and therewith itself thinking, so, too, is what is Christlikeness for Eckhart what is Christlike of Christ and therewith Christ itself. From this we can draw, following Eckhart, a number of important conclusions.
A. For the Christlike person, there is no why to her Christlike action, no purpose or goal of this action. For the action of the Christlike person has Christ as its goal, and this goal is identical with the Christlike person. Therefore, the Christlike person has no goal external to herself. Instead, as Christ, she is her own goal.
B. With the Christlike person and with Christ, there is no multiplicity. Christ is one, and the Christlike person is one; thus, Christ and the Christlike person are one. Even if there are many Christlike people: As Christlike people, the many Christlike people are one (Echardus, In Sap. n. 44; LW II, 366, 6–7), indeed, they are even Christ himself (the Body of Christ).
C. Christ, which is the Christlike person, knows neither where nor when, that is, the Logos knows neither space nor time, neither size nor quality, neither inside nor outside, neither over nor under, neither this side nor that side, neither above nor below, neither the activity of effecting nor the passivity of being effected. Hence, Christ, as Logos, is indeterminate and does not accrue to anything else as an accident. Christ’s purpose lies in being the Logos.
D. Consequently, the Christlike person is in Christ, which means: The Christlike person is Christ. This implies a reversal of the usual way of looking at things. Normally, a quality (qualitas) is what is found in an underlying subject (subiectum). With the spiritual perfections (perfectiones spirituales), however, the situation is different: The subjects are in the perfections, the Christlike person is in Christ. But in the realm of the spirit, being-in is nothing other than being-one. Hence, the Christlike person, who is in Christ, is Christ himself, Christ’s very Body. The Christlike person does not possess Christ, but rather is Christ. Similarly, she who is free is freedom itself (Echardus, Predigt 28; DW II, 62, 3–5; cf. Predigt 10; DW I, 165, 2: “… und ich diu wîsheit selber bin, sô bin ich ein wîser mensche”; what applies in the cases of freedom and Christ also applies in the case of wisdom). If she who is free merely possessed freedom, then this freedom would be something external to her, and she would never be freedom itself.
**************************************
Did that have some coherent inner logic to it? Again, I realize that this is merely simple (VERY simple) substitution. I'm just saying that it seems pretty familiar to something else we've heard...
**********************************
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
...
"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
----------------------
Well, I thought it was interesting anyways... 
Maybe I just needed more sleep...yawn...
"For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in Spirit.
"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
Post Edited ("I Am Spirit") : 12/5/2007 7:06:04 AM (GMT-6) |