Emanation and Emergentism

Just some random, crazy musings, to feel out some concepts: What would the difference be between a top-down look at the universe, and a bottom-up one? Putting aside questions of fit with revealed theology, I propose the two scenarios: One one, we have a Neoplationic-esque One emanating through the Mind and World Soul, culminating in matter. In the other, matter "thinks itself," gives rise to emergent properties (that is, properties not completely reducible to the physical properties of matter), which in turn culminates in Absolute Self-Consciousness, and Omega Point, God, whatever the specific system may declare it.

In both cases, we would have a hierarchy, with top-down causation (presumably in both, the more complex affects the less complex; it is more a matter of explanatory and causal priority). We would still have the differing levels of causation, with God/One/Absolute acting on everything, and the mental/Nous/noosphere/etc. (Dust?) on the material; both would seem to fit the model of essential causation which I had mentioned previously.

It seems that the present moment might actually look pretty similar for both; however, there would be a difference in whether the Past or Future is the ultimate reality; Platonic Forms (especially as in Eliade's The Myth of the Eternal Return) or Aristotelian Teleology (everything striving toward the Prime Mover as a final cause), perhaps?

Of course, these options are not exclusive; we could say, for example, that God creates in a more emanationist like manner from which then mind emerges (or just skip both modes of talking altogether; but that's outside of the present thought experiment). If we could say that God is affected by creation (voluntarily or otherwise), we could even have feedback loops, and (perhaps?) strange loops in the world (that is, hierachies that fold back on themselves, such as Russell's paradox and Goedel's theorem). Would this give the world both the unity and complexity which it has?

So, from there, why would I be concerned with this stuff? Part of what I want to do is to figure out what exactly various themes throughout perfectly orthodox Christian thought mean; what does Athansius mean when talking about the Logos in all of the universe, or Augustine in talking about the Infinite which is wholly itself wherever it is, or Bonaventure in his threefold ontology of emanation, exemplarity, and consummation? Aquinas' ipsum esse and Scotus' (or, as I've found out, Ibn Sina's) essential causes? How about traditional doctrines of God's sustaining power, as well as role as first efficient cause and ultimate final cause? Is there a philosophical explanation underlying the experience of countless Christian mystics, East and West?

It seems like most of these feature both of these movements at once: simultaneously a procession (whether necessary, as in classical Neoplatonism, or contingent, as in Christian adaptations), and a return (whether through a beatific vision, apokastatis, theosis), and so therefore both the teleological, forward, bottom-up approach and the essential, backward, top-down approach.