[betty boop]

If we reserve the concept of eternity belonging strictly to the divine and only divine ... then the concept of eternal life as belonging to human beings suggests to us a possible secondary meaning of eternal. For the Platonist, a metaxy is necessary in a universe of plurality.

Thanks for elaborating, cornelis. It appears to me that the metaxy is some sort of juncture (if I might put it that way) between the human being as a work of becoming in time, and his true being in (timeless) Eternity -- an intersection between time and timelessness of which a human being can become aware. Still, this does not put God "in" the spatiotemporal order. Were this to happen, God would be reduced to a work of becoming. Moreover, if God were "in" time and space, then the metaxy would collapse.... (I think maybe Hegel was fiddling with this very idea.)

or so it seems to me. What do you think?

[hosepipe]

[ if God were "in" time and space, then the metaxy would collapse.... ]

thats Heavy...

[cornelis]

What do you think?

I think that there are several related questions and that they should be kept distinct and treated in some kind of order:

(a) eternity
(b) eternity in space and time (aeon is created)
(c) eternity as a strictly divine property (aeon as uncreated)
(d) eternity as a human property (created or uncreated?
(e) metaxy, or the human participation in divine properties
(f) metaxy, or the divine participation of human properties

I don't think the question for (e) and (f) will yield identical answers. But this is too quick a reply for a big topic. I just wanted to remark on the other meanings of aeon for A. Pole--I'm off now to bring my daughter to her violin lesson.