دانلود کتاب Cursus Theologicus (t. 4): Iᵃ q. 50-64, 106-7, De angelis

[Deely](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Deely), [*Medieval Philosophy Redefined*](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=3181) p. 458:
> 1643a. “Tractatus de Angelis” in [*Joannis a Sancto Thoma*](https://www.ontology.co/semiotics-ontology.htm) *Cursus Theologicus Tomus IV* , Solesmes ed. (Paris: Desclée, 1946), pp. 441–835.
> This is one of the most extended treatments of this subject that comes down to us from the Latin Age, comprising 248 pages in folio, compared to the 95 folio pages on the subject in Aquinas himself. The earlier yet longer, 632 folio page treatment in [Suárez](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=7653), is fully known to and taken into account by Poinsot: e.g., see disp. 39, art. 3, n. 5sqq. [p. 465, PDF p. 40]
cited copiously in:
* Deely, John. “[The Semiosis of Angels](http://www.thomist.org/jourl/2004/April/2004%20Apr%20A%20Deely.htm).” [*The Thomist*](http://www.thomist.org/jourl/explore.htm) *: A Speculative Quarterly Review* 68, no. 2 (2004): 205–58. ([EPUB](https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Zotero/storage/W8KMHITY/Deely%20-%202004%20-%20The%20Semiosis%20of%20Angels.epub))


He calls the law (approx. expressed as: [A=C, B=C, ∴ A=B](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/69435/2014)) the "semiotic formula":
1. Poinsot 1643: d. 41, a. 1, 559 ¶51: "Quaecumque enim sunt eadem uni tertio, sunt eadem inter se, eo modo quo in illo tertio unum sunt: quod axioma in creatis nullam patitur instantiam."


It "admits of no exception in the order of finite being: any two things related to a common third are in that same way related to one another."
> the famous triad: first, the representamen or sign-vehicle, to wit, the concept itself; second, the object signified, which in this case (as in our immeasurably more limited partial identification case of sense perception) is an object identical with a physically existing thing; and third, the one--namely, the pure spirit or angel--to or for which the existing here and now thing is represented in the manifestation making of that thing also an object.
* * *
Angels don't [model](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=6727)!
Deely's description of how we understand reminds me of structural realism:
> In our semiosis, categorial relations and mind-dependent relations are functionally equivalent precisely because we cognize things on the basis of models[(75)](http://www.thomist.org/jourl/2004/April/2004%20Apr%20A%20Deely.htm#N_75_) representing "how things actually are." In most cases, it is only by experimentally reducing these models--our conceptions--to sensibly verifiable alternatives that we are able to determine whether or how far there is a "correspondence" to an actual physical state of affairs blithely indifferent to what or whether we think about it, whether or how we try to "model" it for the purposes of our own understanding.
> In the comprehensive awareness of angels, there would be neither need nor place for experimenting with cognitive models. The objective stimuli upon which angelic conceptions are formed, being not abstract representations of nature but rather, as we have seen, dynamic representations of natures realized in individuals when and as they receive actual existence through the creative activity of God (including its utilization of secondary causes in bringing about the material dispositions calling for this or that individual existence), would give rise to an immediate awareness of the arising of whatever categorial relations obtain here and now among interacting individuals of the physical universe:
> So from the creative ideas according to which things exist, derive in the angelic mind objective stimuli representative of stones, or of herbs as possessing medicinal qualities, or as they pertain to the climate of this rather than that region; and likewise derive stimuli representative objectively of birds as belonging to a given region, or useful to a particular end, or even according as they are useful to humans: or stimuli representative of some embellishment of an elemental state of earth or air respecting a higher and more universal end: or even as things upon earth depend upon events occurring in the heavens, and finally according to various other diverse modalities and outcomes which can affect the manner in which things derive existence from God.[(76)](http://www.thomist.org/jourl/2004/April/2004%20Apr%20A%20Deely.htm#N_76_)
> Cf. Poinsot 1643: d. 41, a. 4, 611 ¶34, emphasis added: "uno verbo, a divina mente tamquam ab artifice profluunt et res in propria natura et materia, sicut domus ab artifice in lapidibus et lignis: et profluunt imagines repraesentivae talium rerum, sicut ab artifice fit in papyro vel cera aut aere incisio et copia domus faciendae, quam typum seu *modelum* vocamus; et haec non desumit suam unitatem ex re ipsa fabricata ut in se, sed ex unitate et modo quo est in mente artificis."
> Poinsot 1643: d. 41, a. 4, 612 ¶37, emphasis added: "Sic ab ideis divinis possunt in mentem Angeli derivari similitudines lapidum vel herbarum, ut conducunt ad medicinalem virtutem, vel ut pertinent ad climata hujus regionis potius quam illius, et similiter similitudines avium quatenus tali regioni deserviunt, aut tali utilitati aut fini, vel etiam secundum quod deserviunt homini: vel secundum quod pertinent ad ornatum integri elementi, v.g., aeris vel terrae, ubi est altior et universalior finis: vel etiam secundum quod fiunt a causis universalibus caelorum, ac denique secundum alias diversas habitudines et fines, qui variare possunt modum quo ista derivantur a Deo. Quod unico verbo dixit S. Thomas (quaest. illa 8 *de Verit.* a. 10 ad 3), quod 'una forma intellectus angelici est ratio propria plurium secundum diversas ejus habitudines ad diversas res, ex quibus habitudinibus consurgit pluritas idearum'. *Nota hoc bene*."
* * *
Angelic cryptography! (cf. [I q. 107 a. 5](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP107.html#FPQ107A5THEP1))
> The conceptions of one angel are not made manifest through the bare existence and physical production of the concept in the first angel's mind, because through this immanent action alone the conceptions do not pertain essentially to the parts of the physical universe as existing beyond the angel's own mind nor have a connection therewith, but only through this, that the conceptions are deliberately ordered to the other and thereby made pertinent to that other.[(87)](http://www.thomist.org/jourl/2004/April/2004%20Apr%20A%20Deely.htm#N_87_)
1. Poinsot 1643: d. 45, a. 1, 825-26 ¶46: "species autem cogitationum et actuum liberorum" unius Angeli "non manifestantur [altero Angelo] per solam existentiam et productionem physicam sui in corde [Angeli tentandi loqui]: quia per hoc solum non pertinent per se ad partes universi nec connexionem habent cum illis, sed solum per hoc quod ad alterum ordinantur et fiunt de pertinentibus ad eum."


> the privacy of the angelic communication far exceeds the privacy of human conversations. Anyone close enough may overhear a secret conversation between human persons; or anyone finding a private note may read it. But in these angelic exchanges, none but the sender or the receiver of the conversation can reveal its content objectively to another. All and only the intended recipients of angelic conversations can be privy thereto.
* * *
“Angels don’t model!”
But they do use *signs* (אוֹתוֹת, given with the elementary epistemological principles underpinning the hexameronic structure of Creation comprised in Genesis 1), to address the sym-bolizing intellect of man (בִּינָה, “between” -> the analogous grasp of understanding by means of σύμ-βολα).
More to it, their intellects do not model, but still irreducibly rely on intellectual signs/אוֹתוֹת (as your title correctly has it “Semiosis of Angels”), since even their “direct” (diurnal) knowledge is “mediated” through some experience of what an analogy entails in relationship to the act of (created) knowing (the similarity of a given *x* vis-à-vis a given *y* , implying that *x* and *y* are not identical). This is the case insofar as the structure of knowledge itself in Creation necessarily implies the following differentiation of information:
XX, XY’, YZ, ZZ
XX, X{Y’, Y}Z, ZZ
where {Y’, Y} = {analogy}.
Translating the differentiated information occurring in Creation in terms of the differentiated structure of (non-divine) knowledge, we get the following concomitant categories:
\- XX ≡ unconscious-able (which does not mean unconscionable)
\- XY’ ≡ conscious-able (which does not mean conscionable)
\- YZ ≡ knowable
\- ZZ ≡ unknowable
where { conscious-able, knowable} = {analogy}.
Since, by definition, no created intellect is its own substance, this structural differentiation is unavoidable (if you understand the reasoning and implications of what has been laid out above, as I have elsewhere, this conclusion should be straightforward) and demonstrates the madness (and corresponding logical error actualized with the act of original sin) of trying to know “everything” (by grasping at it and by ultimately denying divine revelation).
There is accordingly *unknowable* information in relation to the mode of knowing of pure spirits (angels), just as there is unknowable information in relation to the mode of knowing of a composite of spirit and body, such as man.
Otherwise, XX, XY’, YZ, ZZ would collapse into one clear unity of direct, undifferentiated vision (knowledge) of everything there is, on the basis of the knowledge of one’s own essence.
Thus, only for the divine intellect is there no informational differentiation of XX, XY’, YZ, ZZ.
* * *
PDF pp. 257-8 are John of St. Thomas's summary of St. Thomas's question on the will of angels ([q. 59 *de voluntate angelorum*](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/FP/FP059.html#FPQ59OUTP1))