I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the potential for man or angelic beings to manipulate creation to bring about perverse creatures. Genesis 6 mentions apparent angelic/human hybrids, and there are Enochian traditions about angelic beings also creating hybrid mutations among other plants and animals.
Is it possible some of the creatures existing on earth today are the result of some kind of unholy efforts of men or angels at warping creation into something it's not intended to be?
What does it mean to defy the telos of creation and make Frankenstein's monster? Whether biological, robotic, digital, or some combination?
If all matter contains within it all the potentiality of all of its forms, is it even possible to make a creature that is outside of this potential?
If you read part 1, you’ll find that I explore this possibility in the section on animal predation and disease. I think it’s possible, though I’m hesitant to ascribe such corrupt status to any particular animal species — cough, cough, hyenas.
As for the ramifications of such beings existing, I think the properly Eastern perspective is that God, who synergizes all things towards the good of those who love him, works to redeem even abominations.
I see this in two places. The first is the Eastern patristic reading of Peter’s comments on Christ’s descent into Hades, in Maximus, for example, that reads the food as redemptive in intent — these were judges in the flesh that they might live by the Spirit of God, which is to say, they were ripped from the flesh and cast into the darkness of Hades where they could no longer act on their passions, having been deprived of a body, so that they might be saved at the preaching of Christ. Those who rebelled in this context includes the abominations.
We see something similar in the iconography of the East. As Jonathan Pageau has rightly pointed out, dog-headed men were symbols of abominations. According to tradition, St Christopher was such an abomination, which is why he is sometimes depicted with a dog head. We also see dog-headed men in some Pentecost iconography, where all the peoples of the world who have been redeemed (depicted outside the church doors) include in their midst a dog-headed man.
In other words, the redemptive work of Christ is so vast and all encompassing that it includes the things that ought not be.
Thank you for this. A couple of questions from a new subscriber: 1) Is this picture of an unfolding cosmic creation consonant with Whitehead? If so, have you yet had a conversation with Dr. Matthew Segall? 2) Have you encountered the work of Dr. Michael Levin? His experimental biology has uncovered a kind of almost infinite adaptability within simple organisms and a seeming intelligence to navigate their way through problem spaces as well as shape space. If you have seen his work, where do you think he falls on this spectrum of realism or nominalism? A talk between the two of you would be a must watch.
Yes, Nathan should look at Michael Levin's work if he hasn't already. His work on planaria and being able to manipulate their bioelectricity so that they then turn into the shape of another species is very relevant. With that, though, what happens is the planaria over a few weeks revert back to their original species. Bear in mind, planaria are happy to be two-headed (or whatever-headed) for generations (even though there is no DNA change). The offspring still encode/remember two-headedness hence forth forevermore. However, when your push them into the attractor space of another species, nope, it doesn't work permanently; its like there has not been enough of a push to stabalize there. Perhaps coupled with genetic manipulations one could?
I think we should do more experiments to empirically test if you can turn one species into another. Michael Levin is probably working hard to try!
I probably lean more towards the realist position like Nathan, btw. Although I think there is a mystery here too. In particular, I don't like his use of the word "accident". Could equally say a "happy serendipity", one that pushes an organism down a trajectory that enables a better fit with its environment and better conforms it to what it is supposed to be, to God's plan for that organism. I can't argue for this position so easily, but I'm pointing towards the work on Timothy Jackson: https://timothyjackson.substack.com/p/excess-and-ontogenesis What really is random, what really is accidental?
Great essay.
I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the potential for man or angelic beings to manipulate creation to bring about perverse creatures. Genesis 6 mentions apparent angelic/human hybrids, and there are Enochian traditions about angelic beings also creating hybrid mutations among other plants and animals.
Is it possible some of the creatures existing on earth today are the result of some kind of unholy efforts of men or angels at warping creation into something it's not intended to be?
What does it mean to defy the telos of creation and make Frankenstein's monster? Whether biological, robotic, digital, or some combination?
If all matter contains within it all the potentiality of all of its forms, is it even possible to make a creature that is outside of this potential?
Thanks for your kind remark.
If you read part 1, you’ll find that I explore this possibility in the section on animal predation and disease. I think it’s possible, though I’m hesitant to ascribe such corrupt status to any particular animal species — cough, cough, hyenas.
As for the ramifications of such beings existing, I think the properly Eastern perspective is that God, who synergizes all things towards the good of those who love him, works to redeem even abominations.
I see this in two places. The first is the Eastern patristic reading of Peter’s comments on Christ’s descent into Hades, in Maximus, for example, that reads the food as redemptive in intent — these were judges in the flesh that they might live by the Spirit of God, which is to say, they were ripped from the flesh and cast into the darkness of Hades where they could no longer act on their passions, having been deprived of a body, so that they might be saved at the preaching of Christ. Those who rebelled in this context includes the abominations.
We see something similar in the iconography of the East. As Jonathan Pageau has rightly pointed out, dog-headed men were symbols of abominations. According to tradition, St Christopher was such an abomination, which is why he is sometimes depicted with a dog head. We also see dog-headed men in some Pentecost iconography, where all the peoples of the world who have been redeemed (depicted outside the church doors) include in their midst a dog-headed man.
In other words, the redemptive work of Christ is so vast and all encompassing that it includes the things that ought not be.
Uh oh, you might open up the "can demons be redeemed" can of worms. ;-)
Thanks for the reply!
I’m happy to address that, which I have in the past, noting the spectrum of replies amongst the fathers. All ya have to do is ask!
Thank you for this. A couple of questions from a new subscriber: 1) Is this picture of an unfolding cosmic creation consonant with Whitehead? If so, have you yet had a conversation with Dr. Matthew Segall? 2) Have you encountered the work of Dr. Michael Levin? His experimental biology has uncovered a kind of almost infinite adaptability within simple organisms and a seeming intelligence to navigate their way through problem spaces as well as shape space. If you have seen his work, where do you think he falls on this spectrum of realism or nominalism? A talk between the two of you would be a must watch.
Yes, Nathan should look at Michael Levin's work if he hasn't already. His work on planaria and being able to manipulate their bioelectricity so that they then turn into the shape of another species is very relevant. With that, though, what happens is the planaria over a few weeks revert back to their original species. Bear in mind, planaria are happy to be two-headed (or whatever-headed) for generations (even though there is no DNA change). The offspring still encode/remember two-headedness hence forth forevermore. However, when your push them into the attractor space of another species, nope, it doesn't work permanently; its like there has not been enough of a push to stabalize there. Perhaps coupled with genetic manipulations one could?
I think we should do more experiments to empirically test if you can turn one species into another. Michael Levin is probably working hard to try!
I probably lean more towards the realist position like Nathan, btw. Although I think there is a mystery here too. In particular, I don't like his use of the word "accident". Could equally say a "happy serendipity", one that pushes an organism down a trajectory that enables a better fit with its environment and better conforms it to what it is supposed to be, to God's plan for that organism. I can't argue for this position so easily, but I'm pointing towards the work on Timothy Jackson: https://timothyjackson.substack.com/p/excess-and-ontogenesis What really is random, what really is accidental?