Dialogue with Copilot: A Triadic Inquiry into Function, Process, and Being

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Niall, I enjoyed perusing your discussion with Copilot… dude. Intrigued by the thought the triad is a universal structure that removes bias (cuz person=person).

Seeds:

Thought I gave Copilot credit for the intro in the OP?

If you are remarking on the fact that copilot can be very affirmative unless you demand they tell you whether or not a belief can be be ontologically grounded, or merely held, yes that is a fact.

Regarding possible misinterpretation by the council… here’s some of the backstory… the Trinity wasn’t born at the council [& neither was accepted canon (hear about a lot),.. yada…]

Name This Rule & Its Origin

Descartes comes up in the Spinoza article. By the way (although somewhat of a tangent, but not really), I forgot Spinoza was Jewish, and the Jewish lead-up to the Trinity finalized after Jesus’ incarnation. Quoting Brian Ervin (member of a Facebook group I belong to)… Well, perhaps I over-promised a bit by “takes care of itself,” but just establishing those basic definitions and categories does much of the heavy lifting for us. For instance, on Monotheism, as it is properly defined – with Go…

@seeds

If according to scripture, humans are each “created in the image” of God,…

(i.e., created in the image of the “supratemporal Logos”)

…and if according to ^^^those^^^ smelly old men, the “supratemporal Logos” (God) is in fact three distinct persons rolled into one singular Entity,…

…then shouldn’t those who are “created in the image” of the “supratemporal Logos” also be “three distinct persons” rolled into “one singular entity”???

We are not necessary beings, but analogies (in the image of) necessary being—we have three modes in one person (unity of consciousness), and only have being in the source of being (we are contingent being). The unity-in-distinction of the necessary ground of being requires tripersonality sharing one substance (it’s hypostatic). The way Copilot puts it (I’m paraphrasing) is we are not necessary by nature, we participate by structure—we are constituted (yellow) to receive (red) and enact (blue). This is an exact quote from Copilot: “We don’t generate Yellow. We operate through Yellow. We are not the source of universality. We are the site where universality becomes operative. This is why Kant calls the unity of apperception ‘the highest point to which we must affix all use of the understanding.’ It’s not divine necessity. It’s created necessity—the structural imprint of the imago Dei.” We don’t become divine, we participate consensually.

And God isn’t fragmented in being triune. Distinction is not fragmentation — there is no unity without distinction, and vice versa. Each person participates fully in the one triune consciousness, eternally…unlike alienated contingent beings. They are three persons, but not three separate minds who do not have access to each other. They are one substance.

If your real question is if humans should seek to mind-meld, the answer is only if God initiates it. There is no consensual unity apart from original personhood.

And here is why the Trinity is not just one, two, four, or more persons, in case you wondered:

Why the Trinity Has Three Persons