On 07 Nov 2008, at 18:53, Tom Caylor wrote:

> Anna, OK, I understand.
> Thomas, as another reference point for study, what I refer to as the
> point of view from the Plenitude, or Plotinus' One, has frequently
> been referred to as the "God's eye point of view".
> (I didn't bring that up at first because I believe in a God who is
> different from the Plenitude or Plotinus' One, both of which are
> impersonal.  By the way, the personal God is the only one in whom a
> person can possibly believe, but that could be another topic.)
> Tom

Don't forget that for the Greek Theologians (and not just for them),  
there are three Gods.

The ONE is impersonal. Sure.

The second one, the INTELLECT is personal, although most mathematician  
and scientist does not completely realize this, and in math this can  
be seen as a consequence of incompleteness,  as should be  
transparently clear if we assume mechanism (cf my plotinus paper).  
With mechanism, the intellect also splits in two parts (effective and  
terrestrial on one part (G) and ineffective and divine on the the  
other part (G*). In science, this can be seen a consequence of the  
fact that we cannot easily get rid of the presence of the observer (cf  
Galilee, Einstein, Everett ...)

But then you have the third one. The third god of Plotinus, the  
UNIVERSAL SOUL, is the one compared with the eastern God and with the  
experience of mystics. And it is the one described by S4Grz and  
intuitionist logics (for those who reminds older posts 'course). This  
one is a person, it is even the roots of all possible first person  
knowledge. It is a creative subject, the maker and destroyer of  
realities, the creator of time an eventually space (with the help of  
the numbers). It is the one which already in Plotinus has a foot in  
the "material world", a foot in the non computational structures  
emerging from the collection of all computational consistent  
extensions. It is the one which can (and will) fall and forget its  
roots and then come back (as Plotinus hopes for).

(and then when the soul falls, both the intellect and the SOUL create  
"matters": the intelligible matter, and the sensible matter  
respectively which also splits into terrestrial and divine parts  
(effective and true). Qualia and self-centered consciousness get  
ascribed goals and scenario here. Here matter matters for painful or  
joyful (with qualia) reasons. It is a matter of convention for not  
calling them gods. It is the secondary "hypostases" that Plotinus does  
not even range into the hypostases. Plotinus' attitude is related with  
the well known aversion of Platonists for matter. It is not just  
because "this can hurt and perish", it is because when you attach your  
soul (or yourself) to it too much strongly, not only it can hurt more,  
but you delay and make harder the coming back (conversion) process, in  
which Plotinus hopes so much.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to