Hello Oliver,
In regard to a so-called inequality within the godhead, one can perhaps falsely surmise, there is both a unity and a diversity, or a "yin" and a "yang" - this, however, is likely to fall short of 'finding' the Trinity. The Greek (basically Aristotelian) concept of God has initially caused a deep confusion between cosmology and theology, perhaps a dead-end to science as we now know it. A lack of transcendence in the concept of God gave no distinguishing between heaven and earth - ignored here is the idea that there need not be a relationship between the two. For the Greeks, nothing could be created out of 'nothing' and the world. To let go of this 'necessary' relation between the Creator and the Cosmos was for the Greek Mind blasphemous.

Jewish and Christian writers of the Hellenistic period heightened the sense of the relative autonomy of nature - "When the Lord created his works from the beginning, and, in making them determined their boundaries." (Jesus ben Sirach, early second cent. BC). The dynamic character of early Christian communities, on the other hand, was deeply rooted in their belief in the totality of creation (including all matter) and the consequent possibility of recreation. One should also regard, "...but the 'law of cause and effect' of Plato and Aristotle had shaped the Newtonian cosmology via medieval scholasticism with Western thought imprisoned by the (dualistic) closed system of cosmology for two thousand years.

As we are learning to deal with the invisible structures of space and time (i.e. General Relativity and Quantum Theory) we are aligned also in a struggle to understand the universe. One would perhaps imagine the efforts to be much more within our grasp. Our tendency, however, appears more toward reductionism when interpreting 'reality' rather than give ourselves over to an open structured understanding for other possibilities. Perhaps as always, it is the egocentric pride and self-righteousness operating which limit the creative expression of others. Stereotyped religious dogma cannot perceive forgiveness, and is eternally prepared to do battle with the insights of the Spirit of Truth.

Hello relda,

Thank you for an interesting reply. When thinking of the the Ancient Greeks, I tend see "two" Greeks; Macedonian Attic Court Greek, and, Koine [Common] Greek, which I suspect was translated into Vulgar Latin by the Romans.

Between 322BCE (Death of Alexander)and 476CE (Fall of the Western Roman Empire) much knowldge would have been lost, owing to poor translations into less esotic language of the centuries. That said,
Jesus when challenges to others, he seems to lean more towards the Attic form than Paul's Hellensation and later the direction of the Council of Nicaea.

I agree with your comments regarding the Greek Concept of Heaven. Moreover, if memory serves, there were two Heavenly periods before the Olympians. Albeit, later Christianity, while being Hellenised, did develop the concept of the Crystal Spheres having a distinction between the Nature [Earth] and the supernatural [Heaven]. That is the reason the Vatican astronomers baulked at looking through Galileo's telescope: the theological implications were enormous. Here, the Churches have been consistant in their opposition to Gnosis in the fouth century, to destroying Gregor Mendel's' genetics papers [in 1884, when he died] and up to the present day.

Trinities from Eygptian thought would have fitted-in better with Roman pantheism, than with the Greeks, as you clearly say.

"Yin" and "Yang" are complementary concepts. For this reason, some Ancient Chinese believed one should be only mildly good, because being very good would be complemented very bad events.

I think reductionism [except Greek Atomism] comes from the few centuries leading to the classical mechanics of the nineteenth century. In this sense, I posit Einstein, though brilliant, was really not a person of the twentieth century in the manner of Heisenberg.

This century, I think, we will see a change in thought away from cause-and-effect towards infinite indeterminancy-and-determinancy: As already postulated with manifolds [say 6-D] having only some of the dimensions collapsing into our 4-D space-time? [Penrose]. George would know more about this than me.

We also need out of the square thinkers like Susan Greenfield and Murray Gell-Man.

George,

Hello, if you are reading this post.

Hello Oliver,

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about history of (classical) philosophy to comment on your (and relda’s). observations. However, space-time models that assume more dimensions than 3+1, give a total of 4+1 (Kaluza-Klein, revisited recently by Lisa Randall if I understand her properly), or 25+1 (string theory) or 10+1 (superstring theories, M-theory). I never heard of 6-D, nor of Penrose’s model of space-time that would differ from the above.

Relda put it very nicely: “Our tendency, however, appears more toward reductionism when interpreting 'reality' rather than give ourselves over to an open structured understanding for other possibilities”. You need an open structured understanding of reality, without reducing it a priori to observable (through our senses, instruments or just mathematical models) physical reality. Mathematics (starting with a priori axioms or ‘dogmas’, see my previous posts) helps us to understand the “invisible structure of space and time (relda), so we should not be surprised that one starts with some a priori dogmas in trying to understand the directly unobservable.

Believing that there is an objective reality or Truth, is not the same as believing that I am in possession of that Truth with my scientific theory or religious perspective or creed, (that at best might ‘truly reflect‘ only one part, one feature of that reality). We all should be SEEKERS of the one Truth (as unattainable as it is on its own), rather than - tolerant or intolerant - OWNERS of many truths.

Hello George,

I never heard of 6-D, nor of Penrose’s model of space-time that would differ from the above.

- My source is on the high seas enroute from Hong Kong to Oz. Alternatively, I have things wrong. If memory serves not all (n) dimensions were possible. I think 6-D was allowable? Not all of the manifold resides in our universe's space-time.

“Our tendency, however, appears more toward reductionism when interpreting 'reality' rather than give ourselves over to an open structured understanding for other possibilities”. You need an open structured understanding of reality, without reducing it a priori to observable (through our senses, instruments or just mathematical models) physical reality.

- Agree fully.

Mathematics (starting with a priori axioms or ‘dogmas’, see my previous posts) helps us to understand the “invisible structure of space and time" (relda), so we should not be surprised that one starts with some a priori dogmas in trying to understand the directly unobservable.

- Some the "invisble might be outside of "our" time and space.

- I am developing three times three clusters of nine cross-cultural cultures to knowledge discovery processes. I had thought of calling each cluster of scales an "axiom", but I am now having second thoughts, because if I have internal consistency, validity and reliability and can build a structural equation and/or a hierarchical linear model, the results should be more than self-evident. That said, there will still be some intangibility regarding the latent variables. Within the year I should be able to break the fundamentals of two cultures down to equations, but there will certainly be something missing.

Oliver,
Thanks for the feedback.
>> I think 6-D was allowable? Not all of the manifold resides in our universe's space-time.<<
Of course, in mathematics you can investigate manifolds of any dimension you like (even infinite) but only manifolds of certain dimensions serve as the underlying model of space-time in physical theories as I hinted above. The jury is still out on which one of them is the best model.

>> Some the "invisble might be outside of "our" time and space.<<
That would include space-time associated with parallel universies, that can still be “observed” (rightly or wrongly) through (the mathematics of) physical theories. I think Transcendence in the classical (theological) meaning of the word refers to Something beyond any world - universe or multiverse - that can be grasped mathematically.

I am sorry, but I did not understand your last paragraph, in particular “there will still be some intangibility regarding the latent variables. Within the year I should be able to break the fundamentals of two cultures down to equations“.

Relda,

Hello:

Ooops. 322 BCE is indeed the date taken as the fall of Ancient Greece but not when Alexander III [The Great] died. Alexander died 15 June 323. Sorry. Antipater's defeat of Athens occurred in 322 BCE. Albeit, the Peloponnese did last a yearlonger. Thus, one could argue the Lamian War ended in 321 BCE.

Regarding his Grandson* of God doctrine, Alexander twice referred to himself the Son of God [Zeus Amon-Re; a duality in pantheism not a godhead]: at Guagamela and Opis.

*Son of Heracles, who was the direct son of Zeus. Alexander also claimed to be Son of Thetis. Alexander (et al) saw himself as the composite of Achilles and and Heracles.

As John the Baptist seems to have justified Jesus (?), Alexander was said to have been justified divine by The Temple of Zeus Ammon. Alexander felt himself the divine governor of his kingdom on Earth like Jesus (?) ; the attachment is to Odysseus:

Regarding Alexander; "the divine Odysseus, who was the father of the peoples he ruled" [Plutarch] and "it is a faith that does not die" [Hammond]. The eternal Kingdom of Alexander on Earth. Thus he was claiming to be divine and mediator of the World.

Interestingly, like Jesus, Alexander does seem to act at times, as subordinate. Jesus cried, "why has thou forsaken me" from the cross. In a similar context, Alexander offered sacrifices after Hephaestion [his male partner] died. He saw the death, as a punishment from Zeus Ammon [God the Father, if you like], for ignoring clerical directives.


George,

Greetings:

[1] I was saying I feel my hypotheses will in large be confirmed and a helpful valid structural equation will be developed, yet it will not capture the very essence of cultures, even if the model works to accurately forecast outcomes.

[2] May I venture to say your religiosity and your fine ability to conceive abstracts mathematically are linked; that a manifold can reside across multi-verses and the conception of Theism are both abstracts? Furthermore, you see atheists stuck with classical mechanics thinking-style deliberations, unable to extend themselves?