Exclusively in se

-It’s peculiar to the divine nature to have nothing that is exclusively in se.

-Being, considered absolutely, is undetermined to existing in se or existing in another. What exists in another is the known.

-It’s true that if X exists in another X exists in se, insofar as it is opposed to another. But this does not require a principle in X excluding its being known.

-Corruptible forms make matter known insofar as they actualize it, but they cannot actualize it perfectly and so cannot make it perfectly known. Unactualized matter is thus a principle excluding the the form’s ability to be in another, and so exists only in se. Notice this is a strange sense of in se, which is opposed to what we normally mean by “in se.” Only unactualized potencies exist exclusively in se.

-Angels have potencies, but no unactualized ones in the essential order. They do however have intrinsic potencies in the order of operation and extrinsic ones in the order of existence, and so also have what exists exclusively in se.

-What is exclusive in God seems to be understood only retorsively, i.e. what is exclusive in God is that he alone has nothing that excludes. There is a sameness (identitas) of what exists in se and in another. There is nothing intrinsic or extrinsic to God that cannot be shared with another. This is clearest in the processions of the trinity, but also in how the beatific vision – here understood as the immediate knowledge of God – elevates the one seeing it to the divine order without destroying the creature so elevated.

%d bloggers like this: