I must say, there are all kinds of interesting parallels between the
Plotinus' three "gods" and the Christian Trinity which is three
persons in one God, the parallel's being noted by Augustine.
1) Plotinus' One and God the Father, being the source of Everything,
all truth;
2) Plotinus' Intellect, logos, and God the Son, also called logos,
spanning the gap between the divine and the terrestial (i.e. your
modal logics G* and G); and
3) Plotinus' All Soul and God the Holy Spirit, the source of

Note that it is only through the second and third ones that any person
can exist and can know God.
More controversial, the Trinity needs all three persons in order to
fully be who God really is, because God is love, which requires more
than one person: two persons and a way for the two persons to relate
(the third one).
There is also a parallel between Plotinus' fall and the Fall in the

Regarding your work, I am particularly focused on the third
hypostase.  I have read your SANE 2004 paper and your Plotinus paper.
I have gone through part of Cutland's book "Computability: An
Introduction to Recursive Function Theory" and convinced myself of the
validity of the UDA Step 7 except for the 1st vs. 3rd person
distinction.  In particular, I am most interested in Step 6 and your
later section "Arithmetical Theaetetus" of your SANE 2004 paper.  (I
have read Plato's "Theaetetus".)  This seems to depend on the third
hypostase, the All Soul.  I still have to contemplate just what my
question is, but something just doesn't sit right with me as being a
valid argument.  I think that there is some additional hidden
assumption being made here.  I feel it is probably an assumption that
would not be acceptable to the scientific community, which by the way
doesn't make it false.

I'll have to think about this more, or maybe it can be brought to
light through conversation.


On Nov 9, 9:08 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> Bruno
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