In Part 1, it was deduced that the simplest existence form is pure identity without substance, or at least any substance that is analysable into simpler existence forms. In Part 2, pure identity is defined as infinite in substance, distinct as Identity in the Godhead of Persons. Eternal procession of Identity in the Godhead is the basis to an affective process of manifestation enabled in the void that is distinct from the Godhead yet infinitely pervaded by the presence of God.
The creative act of God is thus out of the potentiality of ‘manifestation of the Godhead’ in the void rendered by distinction. There is no potentiality in the void itself. From first principles, therefore, what emerges in the void is in identity distinct from the infinite Godhead that empowers the affective creative process.
The affective process of manifestation of the Godhead appears as an act in the void. This act is manifested as contextual affective rightness realisation of form as against what is implicitly its absence in the void. It is the reality of the void rendered by distinction that is the base to the affective process of divine manifestation.
Manifestation is the key word. It distinguishes what is formed in the void, as an act of existence in context, realising affection and identity form, from the Identity in the Godhead. Manifestation of the Godhead implies the void is a state of non-existence. It is the contrast to what is manifested, as darkness to light, as death is to life, or as entropy in the ongoing process of the universe.
In a virtual sense, since it has no existence, the void is the counterpart to the divine realising affection in the process of creation. The ‘substantiality’ of created existence is in the divine affection for manifestation of the Divine Identity within the void, which is a process to that end; and, in the context of this process, is ennobled with reality as opposed to being an illusion. The end of Divine manifestation ennobles the process with reality, even as the Identity in the Godhead is real.
Nevertheless, the void rendered distinct from the Godhead is directly opposed to the Identity within the Godhead which is manifested within it. The void is not in virtual opposition of the Trinity that distinguishes it, but of the manifestation of the Identity within God in the creative process within the void.
Does this imply the void has identity? No, since it has no existence. The distinction by the Godhead whereby the void is enabled serves the process of divine manifestation in the form of existence. Existence is in contextual affection of realisation of identity, it is a process. The void is non-existence, but appears to exist as that which the manifestation overcomes.
The creation is set out in biblical terms as an act of God. Christian theology refines this as the work of the Father (Context), styled ‘the Creator of heaven and earth’. In the creative act all Three Persons in the Godhead, Context, Realising Affection and Identity Form, are manifested in an existence process. However, the ‘prepotence’ of the Father in the Trinity, as the begetter of the Son, is accorded to the Father as the Creator of the world. The Trinity is operationally manifested in the form of the created existence process of context, realising affection and identity form, even as the process of creation is an affective one to manifestation of the Divine Identity within the Godhead.
Paradoxically, there is no case for saying creation ‘started ‘at any given point in the eternity of God. The void is non-existent eternally, thus anything manifested within it as to identity form is only existent as of the Divine affection for manifestation of the Identity within God. This is eternal within the Trinity. There can be no start in eternity. It is only from within the affective process of existence in the void that a start is presumed by a creature, man, who is manifested to.
Manifestation implies a form manifested to within the process of created existence. The created existence as a process is manifestation to a creature. The creation process is towards the manifestation of God, or it could not occur, but to a creature it is viewed as related to its existence; thus presumably in terms of a start and an end.
Manifestation has two inflections of meaning: one, where God is operationally manifested in the form of the creation that leads to a concept of God in the creature realisation, one that is certain, yet proving to be suppressible; and the other, where the manifestation is actual, that is, God manifested in apparent form as the Identity within God, and proving to be necessary.
The Identity of God to be manifested within the void as within God appears a contradiction in terms, defying the basis of creation itself as distinct from the Godhead in the void pervaded by God; yet perhaps fulfilling of the creative act as a manifestation not merely within the void in terms of grace, the light to see, but in actual manifestation of the Identity within God. Grace can be resisted, whereas actual manifestation cannot.
The creative act thus includes a form within it that can know God by grace as contextually manifested in the forms of the creation as to principle. The act of the creation can only be, if it is to be worthy of God, towards the end of manifestation of the Identity of the Godhead within the creation context, something that is a mystery given the distinction from the Godhead of the void that makes creation possible; yet resolved in the mystery of the Incarnation, where the Identity within God becomes man in the context of the creative process.
The purpose of this article (in three parts) was to resolve the source of identity form in existence. To this end we have seen that Pure Identity is realised in the Godhead as the Contextual manifestation in a Realising affection that realises both Context as Subject and Son in the Trinity of persons. In the void rendered distinct from the Godhead, the existence process is occasioned as in the form of manifestation of the Godhead and sustained in the void by the Divine Power, existence occurring as an affective process to the manifestation of the Divine Identity in the order of prepotence in the Godhead. The created existence process also manifests the nature of the void, though non-existent, as a negative influence in what is positive in identity form manifestation.
Since creation is in the void distinct from the Godhead, to scientifically search for its primary form in a process of analysis of created existence forms constantly in process in the divine affection for manifestation as to some fixed fundamental form is to arrive at the void. Rather does the process of creation at any point manifest the affective motion of the Divine manifestation in which the forms of creation achieve affective identity.
The scientific analysis of matter, as to the source of the universe, is within the process that is the divine affection for manifestation in the void. Science assumes identification of existence forms as the basis to its investigation, when identity is an absolute term belying its subject affective basis.
An existence form is identified, which presumes a context and a realising affection of the identity form. It is in a rightness realising affection that anything is identified, and rightness is identified as the life principle. Thus a creature’s identification of form is in its life affection. The context of a creature’s life is thus identified in its forms in the creature’s life affection via its appetitive affections that sustain its life.
Science is beset by the mystery of concept in whatever it identifies. It is one thing to observe and identify a form, incidentally, in the creature realising affection for (rightness) identification; quite another to identify the context of its realisation that defines existence in affective terms of identity form. Whatever is identified by science is continually frustrated by the contextual affective nature of identity realisation.
Science assumes a start to the process it identifies as the universe. This notion of a start is as previously explained only from within the affective process of creation; the reality is that the substance of creation is in the eternal divine affection for manifestation within a non-existent void. Therefore, since the Divine affection is eternal, there is no start to the creation except in the perception of a creature. The creation itself is in substance of the divine affection for manifestation and explains all identity form realisation as within this affective process.
In other words, any identity form, from the simplest, even the primary, is analysed to be of the divine affection for manifestation. To attempt to analyse it in itself is to only achieve relative definition that is in truth infinitely extensive, the further it proceeds the closer rendering apparent the void. I say, rendering apparent the void, because at the level of perception within the existence process, any form identified is in absolute terms, manifesting a contextual realising affection for identity realisation, that science utilises but cannot lay claim to, since science has no definition of identity, this being only realisable in contextual affective terms, that is the creative action of divine manifestation.
I realise, however, that even if science were to admit what is the deductive process in this article to the Divine act of manifestation of creation, it would still be puzzled by how it has been permitted to do such a good job of analysis of matter, identification of existence forms at least in a relative workable sense, It would perhaps concede identity realisation is a relative fiction that appears to work, even though it cannot explain the absolute nature of identity. Thus, it is in explaining the absolute nature of identity as related to the Identity within the Godhead manifested in the affective process of creation, that science can at least understand the nature of identity - and its source.