Processio and The Place of Ontic Being: John Milbank and James K.A. Smith On Participation
Article first published online: 26 JUL 2012
© 2012 The Author. The Heythrop Journal © 2012 Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes Registered
The Heythrop Journal
How to Cite
Triffett, B. P. (2012), Processio and The Place of Ontic Being: John Milbank and James K.A. Smith On Participation. The Heythrop Journal. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2012.00770.x
- Article first published online: 26 JUL 2012
James K.A. Smith argues that the ontology of participation associated with Radical Orthodoxy is incompatible with a Christian affirmation of the intrinsic being and goodness of creatures. In response, he proposes a Leibnizian view in which things are endowed with the innate dynamism of ‘force’. Creatures have a certain depth of being, and are intrinsically good, just because they each have an inner virtuality that they bring into expression. Such force is said to be a metaphysical component of the agent. In this paper it is asked whether John Milbank's ontology of participation can be defended by distinguishing between two senses of being a subject. Perhaps it is possible for a creature to bring into expression what is an infused ‘alien’ gift rather than a metaphysical component – to be expressive subject, but not ontic subject, for divine power. However, while this distinction promises to make sense of the reception of an indwelling ‘other’ in grace, knowledge and love, neither proper substance nor proper existence can be received in this way. A creature must be the ontic subject for its being, after all. Still, divine being might proceed from God as radical indwelling gift, as non-ontic ground for ontic being.