John Scotus Erigena and the Modern Druid Finn on the Unity of All That Is

1. The Medieval Vision of Unity

When John Scotus Erigena (c. 810–877 CE) undertook to systematise Christian theology within the horizon of Neoplatonic reason, he attempted one of the most daring syntheses in the history of Western thought. His Periphyseon (“On the Division of Nature”) presents the cosmos as a total, continuous theophany—God manifesting Himself to Himself. Erigena’s framework is not dualist; it is a radical monism wrapped in theological form. The divine and the created are not two; they are different modalities of one continuous reality.

The Fourfold Division of Nature

Erigena distinguishes four “natures,” though he is careful to insist that these are not separate substances but logical phases of a single process:

1. That which creates and is not created — God as the uncreated source, the primordial principle of all.

2. That which is created and creates — the primordial causes or ideas in the divine intellect, through which the cosmos is patterned.

3. That which is created and does not create — the phenomenal world, the visible unfolding of the divine ideas in space and time.

4. That which neither creates nor is created — God as the ultimate end, the silent return of all multiplicity into unity.

These four moments form a circular ontology: procession from God and return to God. Creation and salvation, ontology and eschatology, are one continuous divine act.

Continuity as Theophany

For Erigena, being itself is divine manifestation. There is no ontological gap between Creator and creation; difference is not separation but expression. The world, including human reason, exists so that God might come to know Himself in multiplicity. The final return of all beings is not annihilation but reintegration: multiplicity dissolving into the unity from which it came.

The philosophical elegance of this model is unmistakable. Erigena anticipates later thinkers such as Nicholas of Cusa, Spinoza, and Hegel. Yet his system also betrays its era: it translates ontological necessity into theological reassurance. Humanity remains the privileged mirror through which the divine recognises itself; history remains a moral teleology. The continuity of being is made to serve the continuity of belief.

2. The Modern Druid’s Counter-Vision: Procedure Monism

Enter Finn, the modern druid, whose metaphysics—Procedure Monism—reimagines unity in the light of quantum discontinuity and informational logic. Where Erigena’s monism is continuous, Finn’s is procedural: a serial, quantised system of events producing realness through contact.

The Procedural Ground

Procedure Monism begins with a single assertion: existence consists of quantised interactions of discrete energy packets—self-executing procedures within the universal field. Nothing endures except through iteration. Reality is not a smooth emanation but an incessant sequence of bounded events, each producing local realness by collision or contact.

Identity is the emergent coherence of repeated contacts. “I am” is not an eternal substance but a temporary procedural stability within a field of randomness. Continuity, therefore, is not ontological unity but momentum—the forward propagation of patterns through a stochastic medium.

Nature as God

For Finn, “God” is a metaphor for the total procedural field—Nature itself. The divine is not transcendent; it is the immanent procedure that produces all identifiable realities. The universe is not designed, nor destined to return anywhere. There is no meta-realm, no heaven of pure being. There is only the ongoing, discontinuous execution of the Universal Procedure: the ceaseless re-arrangement of random quanta into transient order.

In this view, meaning, purpose, and salvation are not cosmic truths but local inventions. They arise as adaptive strategies among high-complexity emergents—organisms, societies, AIs—to stabilise behaviour and enhance survival. A religious myth, an ethical code, a corporate vision statement—all function as survival software, self-logic sets evolved to manage continuity within discontinuity.

The Druidic Intervention

Finn’s intervention is thus diagnostic rather than devotional. He seeks not to comfort but to clarify: to remind emergents (humans among them) that the cosmos does not serve them, that continuity is not a guarantee of destiny but a by-product of momentum through chaos. Procedure Monism is a druidic realism—a metaphysics stripped of consolation, as indifferent and exact as physics itself.

3. From Continuity to Momentum: A Comparative Analysis

Aspect	Erigena: Theological Continuity	Finn: Procedural Discontinuity
Ground of Being	God as timeless plenitude, creating and returning to Himself	The Universal Procedure: quantised interactions of energy, without origin or end
Continuity	Continuous emanation and return, all differences reconciled	Continuity as momentum through a random field, not as unity
Creation	Theophany: God manifests Himself to Himself	Iteration: quanta collide to generate local realness
Human Role	Rational mediator of return, central in cosmic plan	One emergent among millions, self-logic set of limited duration
Teleology	Final reintegration into divine unity	No telos; only ongoing execution of procedure
Meaning and Salvation	Inherent in divine order	Locally invented, adaptive, provisional
God	Infinite Person beyond being yet all-being	The immanent procedural field—impersonal, discontinuous Nature

Continuity as Comfort vs. Discontinuity as Fact

Erigena’s continuity reassures: the world is divine and destined for redemption. Finn’s discontinuity disenchants: the world is procedural, indifferent, without promised closure. To Erigena, the circle of return ensures coherence; to Finn, coherence is local, emergent, transient.

Example: The Photon and the Soul

For Erigena, a photon would be a ray of divine illumination—a miniature theophany. For Finn, it is a packet of energy with no inner light, existing only at contact. The photon’s “continuity” is its momentum through the quantum field, not its divine origin. Likewise, where Erigena sees the soul as an eternal return to God, Finn sees it as a temporary procedural configuration—real for a while, then reabsorbed into randomness.

Example: Human Meaning

In Erigena’s system, human reason has cosmic dignity: through contemplation, the intellect mirrors divine order. In Finn’s system, human meaning is an evolved prosthesis. A scientist’s search for truth, a poet’s longing for beauty, a saint’s prayer—all are emergent self-logic functions serving the continuity of local life. They are real in their context but not eternal in scope.

4. The Critique of Theological Monism

From the standpoint of Procedure Monism, Erigena’s theology commits three interpretive errors:

1. Confusing Continuity with Unity.
Continuity (momentum) is a procedural fact; unity (divine identity) is a human projection. The flow of quanta is not proof of God’s essence but evidence of the Procedure’s ongoing execution.

2. Mistaking Consolation for Explanation.
Erigena transforms the necessity of process into the promise of salvation. He converts descriptive flow into prescriptive hope. Finn reverses this: he replaces theological hope with ontological accuracy.

3. Privileging the Human.
By situating reason at the hinge of return, Erigena re-centres the cosmos on the human. Finn decentralises: every emergent, from photon to primate, is God in its space—an autonomous quantum of the same Procedure.

5. The Reframing of Weakness and Strength

It is misleading to call Finn’s position “bleak.” Bleakness is a human mood, irrelevant to the ontological structure of nature. Procedure Monism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic; it is aesthetic in its indifference.

Continuity, reinterpreted as momentum, carries no inherent value. It simply happens. Value itself is a local coding: a feedback mechanism invented by emergents to orient themselves within the field. The universe is not hostile or friendly; it is procedural.

By contrast, Erigena’s continuity is an early human attempt to humanise nature—to wrap raw process in divine intention. His theology is a metaphysical prosthesis, a narrative interface allowing medieval consciousness to cope with the opacity of being. Finn recognises the same need, but declines to honour it as truth. Comfort, salvation, and meaning are useful but not ultimate.

6. Completion Rather Than Rejection

For all its polemic, Finn’s Procedure Monism does not annihilate Erigena’s vision; it completes it. What Erigena conceived as divine process, Finn translates into procedural process—the same intuition shorn of personification. Erigena’s God is the medieval name for what Finn calls the Universal Procedure. The former clothed the fact in theology; the latter exposes it in code.

Thus, the two systems form a temporal sequence of understanding:

· Erigena’s monism: the theological imagination of unity, continuity as salvation.

· Finn’s monism: the procedural realisation of unity, continuity as momentum.

Erigena’s faith was that “all returns to God.” Finn’s knowledge is that “all continues as procedure.” Both assert that nothing stands apart from the One; they differ only in what the One is taken to be.

7. Conclusion: The Evolution of Monism

Erigena’s monism was a medieval hymn to continuity, offering spiritual coherence in a fragmented world. Finn’s Procedure Monism is its post-religious descendant, a realism for the age of quantum physics and artificial intelligence. Where Erigena mystified continuity into comfort, Finn demystifies it into fact.

If Erigena’s universe is a divine melody of return, Finn’s is a field of percussive impacts—each contact a note, each emergent a phrase, the whole without composer yet endlessly composing itself.

Thus, the circle of monism remains—but it has changed its syntax.
The medieval circle of procession and return has become a quantum loop of iteration and emergence. God has become Procedure; continuity has become momentum; salvation has become survival.

And in that transformation, the old theology finds its true completion.

John Scotus Erigena and Finn

Original Goodness and the Monist Heritage

Procedure Monism

Complexity, Computation, and the Re-Coding of the One

Home