The most difficult argument against person before nature is the statement: God is love. All other arguments seem to be able to fit under the realm of choice. A person is cold because of some act of will, maybe his own, his parents or captors, or God’s, who made the climate either in a wind up the world way or in a direct incidental choosing way or in letting the devil, or praying or conjuring people incidentally loose to whatever extent. (pelagianism, determinism, or synergy). Otherwise you have nihilistic chaos randomly creating these effects (the effect of a complex person and the simple condition of coldness or the relational effect of being cold) that don’t have any proper relation to anything.

If God is simple, then he would be simply love. The other “parts” of God seem to be the effect of his being love. If the Trinity are parts of God (I don’t like that idea because it puts oneness before persons, which feels like some external thing is in control of the three of them. What would that be? Love, if that argument is right.) then it would be that way because love is best manifested by three. Hence the famous love triangle dilemma. If Marius chooses Cosette, Eponine looses, which makes Marius a bad guy for rejecting her, unless she’s too stupid, mean, or ugly to be happy, or she tragically dies before the relationship with Cosette is sealed, or she finds someone else, either before or after her heart is broken. Of course in love triangles there is no equinanimous solution*. Three is better in the case of families or friends. But it takes more energy to keep the balance.

*Ecclesiologically speaking, the Church, who includes any willing people and some of their stuff, solves this dilemma by bringing multiple diverse people into unity as the one bride of Christ.

But dis-entity’d love cannot exist. Therefore love has to originate in God. The fact that there is a trinity is because the Father wills it, which is why the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds from him. Hence love originates in the Father**. The reason love in particular is difficult to view as a choice is because it is unpalatable to think that God could choose not to love or to be love. And here we get to my current wish to delve into levels or hierarchies.

**The individuality or freedom of a particular (love) or complex entity (the Son, Spirit, people, animals, or things) I believe is given them by the Father in His love. By the way, I haven’t decided if the Son is the heart representation. He is also the body, but in perfect relational, willful union with the heart and mind. Hence I’ll theorize that the Father is actually the heart because love originates in him, making the Spirit the mind, who is after all , our teacher.

I’ve been thinking about Lewis’ and my ammended softness of grass proposition. If the ability to stand on almost liquid or gaseous grass involves operating on the right frequency, or speed, then one’s levelness depends on having the right amount of energy being exerted. This energy is from God, but is applied according to our will, however synergistically this may be decided. But is nothing solid? Solidity in the Christian view is being fixed in Christ, who is fixed in the Father by(?) the Holy Spirit and his own deity as the only begotten Son. The essence of deity is solid. God is not changeable, even though he has free will. Because love is the highest thing or virtue, God, who only wants what is best, continuously and fixedly chooses it. He has enough energy to not slip from it.

Even though the universe may be decaying or not be completely stably fixed, it still gives us our best picture of stability. Spinning, orbiting orbs suspended in space must be the most stable existence. They are our pictures of St. Maximus’s ever moving rest. Although constantly moving, they remain fixed and indistractable. They each spin and orbit not too fast and not too slow. Too fast and they become violent, too slow and they sink, I think. They have reached a state of homeostasis, as we say in nursing.