Summary of text [comment] page 44
Allow me to repeat what de Chardin wrote:
God bends Nothingness in order to create. The very structure of Nothingness means that God can proceed in only one fashion: arranging; unifying little by little, under the attraction of His influence; groping with the interplay of great numbers, a multitude of elements, immense, effectively infinite in number, simple and hardly conscious; eventually yielding more complex forms, arriving at forms capable of reflection.
[Now, I will try to imagine de Chardin’s points in nested frame of normal context(actuality(possibility)).
I already have one nested form:
Also, I have pointed to two descriptors “ecology” and “environment”.
Here, unity does not seem to be an end point. So, let suggest the idea that “unification” puts one end point, “complex forms (including those forms capable of reflection)” into context.
The two ways that this can happen is:
Unification3( blank2( complex forms1)) or
Unification3(complex forms2( blank1))
How to choose? What goes into the blank?
Let me consider the two descriptors “ecology” and “environment”. The first term seems to fit into blank2 for the first option above.
The principle of unification contextualizes the ecology. (Sounds Gaia, no?)
The ecology situates complex living forms.
“Unification3” brings “the ecology2” into relation with “the potential in complex living forms1“.
The ecology emerges from complex living forms.
That was not so bad. In the next blog, I will try this again.]