I’d say that I disagree with whoever says that the Trinity is intrinsically incomprehensible, which is just the same as calling it gibberish.
My favored image is the circle. The circle has a center, a circumference, and an area. Which is the circle? Well, of course they are all the circle, non-identical with each other but equally of the essence. And moreover, there is a logical hierarchy: the center produces the circumference, and the area is the relation between the first and the second. So, I think of center as Father and circumference as Son and the Holy Ghost as the dynamic area between them.
I also think of circumference as clay and center as the core of light, with the area being an overlap of both psychological and metaphysical space, almost in the style of Jung.
but to me an important question is: do we see this Circle in the Scriptures? Do we see it in the OT? Do we hear it from Jesus? Do we see it in any of the primary myths of all humanity?
I don't see it.
There is no point in calling such a Center a Father - if this was the case, then just call it Center. Jesus surely knew what a circle was.
Regardless of these interesting relations and aspects you propose, I think there is a reason why Jesus and all other traditional stories of the gods speak of Persons, rather than abstractions or concepts. Because they are to be put in practice; they are meant to help us relate to, and not just 'think about' the gods.
So even if the Circle image is somehow true, it profits me not much, and certainly not as much as thinking of Father, and Son, and Mother, and Siblings. These are images that we can live in, and by. That we can transmute into real life. And this is also why I think the myths are superior to the 'philosophers', because the latter never go much beyond thinking, whereas the myths can be put in practice, we can apply its stories, personages and lessons to every moment of our lives. This is also why Plato is such a weird character: he stands in between both worlds; whereas the neoplatonists completely set aside the myths, and are all and only mind. No Body, no Spirit.
Hm, I think that I'm just proposing a cartographic sketch, of sorts. The center is surely more Father than center, but when the Liturgy continually affirms the Trinity (and even on occasion uses some rather out-of-place lingo such as "consubstantial"), it helps to have some conceptual image of the nature of the Persons' locations and unity.
I suppose I am just not convinced there is any need for a mental contraption such as the Trinity, and I don't feel the need to adhere to a formula that has its origin in Plotinus (and this is undeniable) rather than anything Jesus said, and that besides so many followers of Jesus (before and after it was formulated) did not even know about.
Well, I suppose this just comes down to a matter of intuition, but I'd prefer to not simply toss out such a central element of the Liturgy. My approach now is more to assume that the symbols within the Liturgy are meaningful, with the caveat that while mystery is acceptable, gibberish is not. So, to the extent that it's possible to do so in good faith, I see some value in working to reimagine some things—as with the Trinity and my circle—rather than rejecting them outright (although I still reserve the right to do the latter if I find it necessary).
I’d say that I disagree with whoever says that the Trinity is intrinsically incomprehensible, which is just the same as calling it gibberish.
My favored image is the circle. The circle has a center, a circumference, and an area. Which is the circle? Well, of course they are all the circle, non-identical with each other but equally of the essence. And moreover, there is a logical hierarchy: the center produces the circumference, and the area is the relation between the first and the second. So, I think of center as Father and circumference as Son and the Holy Ghost as the dynamic area between them.
I also think of circumference as clay and center as the core of light, with the area being an overlap of both psychological and metaphysical space, almost in the style of Jung.
I understand what you mean.
but to me an important question is: do we see this Circle in the Scriptures? Do we see it in the OT? Do we hear it from Jesus? Do we see it in any of the primary myths of all humanity?
I don't see it.
There is no point in calling such a Center a Father - if this was the case, then just call it Center. Jesus surely knew what a circle was.
Regardless of these interesting relations and aspects you propose, I think there is a reason why Jesus and all other traditional stories of the gods speak of Persons, rather than abstractions or concepts. Because they are to be put in practice; they are meant to help us relate to, and not just 'think about' the gods.
So even if the Circle image is somehow true, it profits me not much, and certainly not as much as thinking of Father, and Son, and Mother, and Siblings. These are images that we can live in, and by. That we can transmute into real life. And this is also why I think the myths are superior to the 'philosophers', because the latter never go much beyond thinking, whereas the myths can be put in practice, we can apply its stories, personages and lessons to every moment of our lives. This is also why Plato is such a weird character: he stands in between both worlds; whereas the neoplatonists completely set aside the myths, and are all and only mind. No Body, no Spirit.
Hm, I think that I'm just proposing a cartographic sketch, of sorts. The center is surely more Father than center, but when the Liturgy continually affirms the Trinity (and even on occasion uses some rather out-of-place lingo such as "consubstantial"), it helps to have some conceptual image of the nature of the Persons' locations and unity.
I suppose I am just not convinced there is any need for a mental contraption such as the Trinity, and I don't feel the need to adhere to a formula that has its origin in Plotinus (and this is undeniable) rather than anything Jesus said, and that besides so many followers of Jesus (before and after it was formulated) did not even know about.
Well, I suppose this just comes down to a matter of intuition, but I'd prefer to not simply toss out such a central element of the Liturgy. My approach now is more to assume that the symbols within the Liturgy are meaningful, with the caveat that while mystery is acceptable, gibberish is not. So, to the extent that it's possible to do so in good faith, I see some value in working to reimagine some things—as with the Trinity and my circle—rather than rejecting them outright (although I still reserve the right to do the latter if I find it necessary).
whatever brings you closer to God is good, so of course if the liturgy and its formulations do that for you, I think it is very good.