This was our earlier exchange:
Me: I am trying to understand "uni-phenomenal" as you apply it to (classic) Trinitarian thought. If I am understanding aright, I would not use "uni-phenomenal" to characterize it but "mono-phenomenal" and by that I mean each hypostasis has a proper prosopon with a proper phenomenon. "Uni" implies to me that there is one, shared phenomenon but (classic) Trinitarianism wouldn't necessarily say that.
You: Uni- is my reference to traditional Theology Proper formulaics as "uni"ting eternity and everlasting without distinction that the latter is created phenomenon (though giving lip service of bare assertion otherwise).
So, no, I'm not talking about prosopon-phenomenon at all in our latest discussions.
Okay. But I'm not sure how you're inferring and utilizing the definition for either uni-phenomenal or multi-phenomenal.
I have been isolating the above use of "uni-phenomenality" (reference to time/creation) as concept even if you happen to have another one (reference to the ontology of God). If you do, feel free to state it here.
The problem is how easily one can merely assert there's a distinction in uncreated phenomenon and created phenomenon without truly and explicitly accounting for "how" created phenomenon came into existence, and God's uncreated phenomenon is somehow compatible with it.
Created phenomenon didn't just occur as another place for God to be in horizontality or linearity, and then He's just automatically multi-omni in that created phenomenon.
The crux is accounting for how creation (heaven and the cosmos) was noumenon until being given phenomenon as creation. Since creation has no innate phenomenality, and God is uncreated Self-Noumenon and Self-Phenomenon; then this is no small matter to gloss by vague generalities of bare assertion; especially while accounting for His presence in created phenomenon while also remaining utterly transcendent to created phenomenon.
God spoke to create and breathed forth all life into that creation. Over-simplified catch-all generalizations like "God is pure act with no unrealized potentiality", as profound aa they seem and are to a degree, say nothing of God as uncreated Self-Phenomenon having phenomenal presence in created phenomenon that didn't exist except as noumenon until He spoke and gave it phenomenon.
And the dilemna of God's literal immanent Logos being the Son as an eternal internally-processed individuated hypostasis is untenable and absurd, as is the proposal that His own Spirit is somehow distinct as yet another individuated hypostasis.
There's good reason that Aquinas encountered God in such a way as to declare all he'd taught and written was straw, and desisted teaching and writing thereafter without finishing the third volume of Summa Theologica.
And then can you go back and address UP (for short) as you've defined it above and my comments with reference to time/creation?
I'm prayerfully attempting how best to respond beyond what I've already said. The difficulty is always in dispelling misunderstanding and false conceptual representation from a uni-phenomenal perspective that insists it is multi-phenomenal by bare assertion.
It may need to come in question form. How did God speak created phenomenon (heaven and the cosmos) into existence (while also remaining eternally transcendent to it) and have presence in phenomenon that had been noumenon in His nous "until" He spoke and created it by His Logos? (But there's no "until" for God as if phenomenality of creation was somehow "subsequent" to His uncreated phenomenality as "after".)
It is most difficult to truly divest oneself of horizontality as linearity and spatiality to comprehend God's innate eternity, infinity, immensity, and other incommunicable attributes.
.
