On 11 Nov 2008, at 21:14, Tom Caylor wrote:
> 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.
Absolutely so. Plato and Plotinus would have agree, I think.
> 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).
Hmmm.... That is a bit ambiguous, but I can interpret it favorably. I
must say that I have some problem with Plotinus ethics. But I don't
want to tal about it now, and perhaps compare some more translations ...
> There is also a parallel between Plotinus' fall and the Fall in the
I do agree with this. Christians, Muslims and Jewish have been deeply
influenced by Plotinus (and by the greek theology). But their official
stands have follow Aristotle theology and his quasi-implicit bet on a
primary physical universe. Note that the Christian, Muslims and Jews
have conserved Neo-platonist school of thought. It is a fashion today
to compare them to eastern religion, and most of the mystics share
> 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.
Tell me when you find the question, or the hidden assumption :)
> 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.)
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> not even range into the hypostases. Plotinus' attitude is related
>> the well known aversion of Platonists for matter. It is not just
>> because "this can hurt and perish", it is because when you attach
>> soul (or yourself) to it too much strongly, not only it can hurt
>> but you delay and make harder the coming back (conversion) process,
>> 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