1) The document discusses metaphors related to panentheism, specifically the metaphor of a "field" and how it interacts with freedom and reality. 2) It proposes modeling the interactions of the field through the amplitude and frequency of its interactions, plotting these on an x-y axis to identify different types of relationships. 3) These relationships are discussed in the context of salvation history, physics, and a "theology of nature" called pan-semioentheism, which recognizes an Author who allows for freedom through making room for what is probable rather than necessary.

1. Johnboy on March 11, 2012 at 10:30 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
This is exciting! While all metaphors eventually collapse,
“field” has been my favorite root metaphor and, perhaps, the
most resilient vis a vis panentheism. Because freedom is
indispensable to love, the inherently coercive nature of a
“force” field presents a paradox though? I would like to share
the fruits of my own grappling with this riddle.
How might this field interact with reality, optimizing
freedom? Among its manifold and multiform attributes, in
addition to its essence as love, we might conceive of both the
amplitude (how big?) and frequency (how often?) of field
interactions and plot those, respectively, on x and y axes. On
such a graph, we would observe 4 quadrants: 1) low frequency –
low amplitude 2) low frequency – high amplitude 3) high
frequency – high amplitude and 4) high frequency – low
amplitude.
Consider, now, the nature of human interactions. At polar
extremes, low frequency – low amplitude interactions reveal an
apathetic posture, while high frequency – high amplitude
interactions reveal a pathetic over-involvement. We can draw a
line on our graph between these poles and call it, then, our
Axis of Codependency. Alternatively, high frequency – low
amplitude interactions characterize the nature of a healthy
day in-day out relationship as filled with many gentle
affirmations and small nurturing ministrations with only an
occasional low frequency – high amplitude intervention. We can
draw a line on our graph between these poles and call it,
then, our Axis of Co-creativity.
In an emergentist paradigm, consistent with cosmic evolution,
we can observe these patterns playing out in nature. Think of
the Big Bang and of natural selection. We can also observe
these patterns, I believe, in Salvation History. Think of the
Incarnation and of the work of the Spirit. We can observe this
paradigm in physics where our modal ontology has changed its
categories from the possible, actual and necessary
(reductionistic determinism of Newton) to the possible, actual
and probable (nonreductive physicalism). In a metaphysic where
the necessary prescinds to the probable, what emerges is
freedom. A theology of nature recognizes the Author of this
freedom as the Ens Necessarium, Who shrunk to make room for it
all — in the Name of Love.
This is my own theology of nature (what I call pan-semioentheism) in a nutshell and I’ll let others poetically tease
out its implications rather than belabor it all here. It
really makes more sense in my poem:
the Spirit woos creation forth
makes this way south & that way north
invites each blade of grass to green!
horizons, boundaries, limits, origins
1

2. perimeters, parameters, centers, margins
we’re given freedom in between!
thus truth & beauty & goodness grow
thus lizards leap & roosters crow
and dawns break with each new day!
good news is ours to be believed
love freely given if received
the Spirit in our heart will stay!
2