I am not certain whether I believe the opposition between natura naturans and natura naturata, the age-old distinction that separated God from his creation in medieval philosophy, and in the work of Spinoza, Emerson and Deleuze came more and more to represent two aspects of an immanent nature.   Naturans is an invisible, immaterial creative source without form, on the side of the infinite, the virtual, the possible, and so on, and carries some kind of normativity - is is good for it to generate naturata, and it is good for naturata to resemble it as closely as possible.  

The opposition surely exists at some levels of nature - the best example is the human work of art. Metallica is a virtual, immaterial problem or essence.  The band has generated a series of albums which are not Metallica but participate in Metallica as a series.   The value of these albums is derived from their degree of participation in Metallica's essence:  Ride the Lightening, Master of Puppets and, arguably, ...And Justice for All participate perfectly in Metallica's essence and even, by their sequential production, allowed it to unfold and deepen itself (naturans is not necessarily eternal - it has its own way of becoming at the hands of its naturata).  Their later albums are bad because they failed to really touch the essence of Metallica - The Black Album abandoned important aspects of it in favor of finding a wider audience.  Load and Reload were an abortive departure in a Bob Seger direction.   There are more interesting and complex cases - Death Magnetic was also a failure, even though the band's intention was to return to the essential sound of the classical albums, because it was simply an imitation - a sort of abstraction.  On the other end, Kill 'Em All, Metallica's first album, is widely recognized as also a classic, even though on this album they hadn't really found their sound yet - but it displayed seeds of what was to come.  

We can seen then that in the case of art or culture, there is a dynamic life qua interplay between natura naturans and natura naturata.   There's a strong case to be made that we can find the same interplay in social structures, biological structures and even nonliving material structures at least at the anthropic level - geology, transformation between states of matter and so on.   The analogies are fairly easy to see, but - much stronger than that - systems theory is quite good at describing all of these things using the exact same formulas and abstractions.  

But is there a naturans and naturata at the subatomic and astrophysical levels?  It seems like those worlds are pretty different from ours - of course there are philosophers who are eager to totalize the principle and find a way to make it apply to these realms too.  I'm not sure I know enough about the science and mathematics behind quantum physics and relativity and so forth to make a meaningful guess about whether this is possible - but I'm inclined to be more conservative and to suggest that there is no such naturans at these levels.   Thus natura naturans isn’t a real  absolute in nature - it’s actually an emergent phenomenon that appears only at the macro-scale.  

Of course, then there is the entirely different (entirely?) question of whether at the ultimate macro level there is a single God-substance who is the naturans for the entire universe.  This God would not just the the source of individual entities and creations of various types, but also the the source of, say, mathematics.  Or he (or she) would be the reason why there is a material world at all rather than nothing.  A global naturans.  Also, this would be the God whose will we obey when we do the right thing - either in terms of interpersonal conduct or when we create.  So God's will would be unfolding through Metallica while they create their essential albums, and they would begin to sin once they compromise their artistic integrity.  

I want to actually answer this question in the affirmative - and am not entirely sure why.  It is certainly more elegant to adopt the Deleuzean solution, which basically amounts to an affirmation that there is a creator god who is also a source of normativity - but one that is not omniscient or unified - every virtual Idea is a little God of its own.   And then to whittle down the applicability of this picture to only include the world at the human scale.   But there could be arguments for the former view, and good pre-philosophical reasons for wanting to make them