In Part 1, it was deduced in simplistic terms that the primal existence form is pure identity without substance. Since any substance is analysable down to the identity forms of its constituents, it appears no paradox to arrive at pure identity as the basis to all identity form. However, it is the absolute nature of ‘pure identity’ that renders the idea of its further complexification into identity forms, as would be the case in the existence process, an anomaly.

In conceptual terms, identity, though contextually defined in an existence form, has no material substance, which tallies with its being absolute, since substance is always in process. In each existence form its identity is the absolute contextually ‘drawn’ from the relative ambiguity of its processing substance. This indicates that the context of existence forms is identity forming and the existence process is an affective contextual process of identity formation. The mutual affective interaction of identity forms constituting identifiable action proves a contextual affection that drives the process not only of identity form formation but of their interaction and synthesis into identity form states of form and action.

In perceptual terms, when a thing is identified, it is rightly realised, but as a subject act. Subject is context to object identity form realisation, but in a rightness realising affection, that realises in identity form not only the object but the subject as knowing it. Subject context of realisation and realising affection are distinct but inseparable in the act of subject realisation of both subject and object as identity forms. Any act of knowledge of something perceived, say an orange, implies an affection to identify (rightly realise) it that is one with subject realisation of it as an object, but in that same act knowledge of subject as knower. Thus in the one act of knowledge is both object and subject known in a realising subject affection.

With respect to the emergence of the primal existence form as ‘pure identity’, picking up from where Part 1 ended, by definition it would appear as a contextual (subject) rightness realisation where nothing had existed before, or from a void. This would imply a potentiality in a void for identity realisation, which is impossible. Moreover, the initial pure identity form, as a contextual rightness realisation, is implicitly the object of a subject affection in which both subject as context and object as primal existence form without substance are realised. Thus, the primal pure identity form has a subject affective basis.

In existence terms, the emergence of any existence form as an identity form, or contextual rightness realisation in a given context, is where it had not existed before, but was in potentiality of existence. The emergence of the primal form of pure identity, as in our scientific deductive process, occurs in a void that by definition has no potentiality.

That the primal form of existence does emerge as the initiation to the existence process must indicate some context of its realisation in which the whole process of existence is grasped in potentiality and initiated in identity form, also presuming the subject context and realising affection it is at one with. This does not occur as realising the potentiality of the void, since the void has no potential within it, but nevertheless of a potentiality which the process of existence in identity forms brings to realisation.

~*~

The primary form of pure identity owes to the subject realising power of a context that is in full apprehension of the potentiality of the existence (identity form) process it initiates. To be apprehended contextually, prior to contextual realisation in affection, the potentiality must itself be an identity. Thus the contextual subject is in full apprehension of identity of the potentiality as pure identity. This reveals a contextual subject affection in which pure identity is realised.

We have a scenario now of subject context in absolute ( fulfilling of all potentiality) apprehension of pure identity, itself an absolute, in a realising affection of the absolute, thus comprehensive of it and itself of an absolute nature. This indicates a distinction between the subject context that apprehends pure identity in a realising affection, as a complete act, and the contextual manifestation of pure identity from potentiality in an existence process initiated in a primal form; where unlike the absolute comprehension in pure identity within the subject context, it is the initial point to a process of identity form realisation from potentiality. However, the nature of this potentiality is as yet undefined, since it is not the potentiality of a void distinct from God as explained.

Since pure identity is infinite in nature, the subject and realising affection in comprehension of it are infinite in nature. Since comprehension of pure identity is infinite there is no potentiality in comprehension of it. I will now employ caps to signify the absolute nature of the terms. The infinite nature of Subject, Object and Realising Affection is One, since Object fully realises the Subject context in a Realising Affection that comprehends both Subject and Object. Thus the Subject nature is equal to though distinct from Object and Realising Affection, all three being Persons, even as the Subject is a Person as defined in the act of knowledge of the Object. This is the state of God, as Context (Father) in Realising Affection (Spirit) both of Father and Object (Son) in the infinite Act of God.

What then of the emergence of the primal form of existence as pure identity? Obviously, this is the initial point in a created existence process of identity formation at all stages. It cannot be identified as within the Existence process of God, since that is an achieved state, not a process, but an infinite Affective procession of Pure Identity.

Created existence occurs as an affective process in the void to God’s absolute state. However, it is a void fully pervaded by the infinite presence of God while being distinct from God as a Trinity of Divine Persons in the Godhead. An example of being present yet personally distinct is in my being present in a vast auditorium of people, distinct in who I am there. God’s infinite presence fills the void, but God is distinct in the Godhead of Persons. Only in the Divine affection to manifest God within the void distinct from the Godhead yet infinitely pervaded by God does the created form of existence, in context, identity form and realising affection, the form of God’s existence, become possible...

To be continued