City Tutoring Discussion Forum

One of my favorite topics of thought is the mystery of the Trinity. The question of the order of procession of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has remained unanswered. Having given this conundrum much consideration, I continuously find new ways of understanding both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic conceptions, each of which I have found equally convincing. However, a couple of days ago while writing out my thoughts on the matter, I came to a realization that could completely reverse the perspective of both the Eastern and Western Christian traditions while illuminating the core of Christianity, that being the Christ Himself. What I came to realize is that the order of procession begins not with the Father, but with the Son. Here is a snippet of what I wrote. "When John wrote, 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God,' he was explicating the real unfolding of substance as subject. The pure act of the Logos is thought-thinking-itself, and hence it is self-progenating, thereby explaining how the Father and the Son are One. Furthermore, the Son (being the Logos) is not just the Utterance of the Father, but also the Reason for there being the Father at all. The Vitality of the Father comes not just from the Breath of His Spirit, but first and foremost from the Sense of His Word, the Logos from which both the Father and the Spirit receive their substantiality and subjectivity. This is why the Christ declared that no one comes to the Father except through Him." Therefore, the order of procession is not Father & Spirit, then Son as the Orthodox proclaim nor is it Father & Son, then Spirit as the Catholics conceive. Rather, it is from the the Son (being the Logos) that both the Vitality of the Father and the Breath of His Spirit proceed. Yet, given the premise of the Father and Son being One per the self-progenation of the Logos, and the Spirit proceeding as their shared/self-same/singular/univocal Breath, this could just be a more complex version of the Catholic conception of the order of procession. What do you guys think? Would love to have somebody help me think this through.

This is certainly interesting to think about, though I sometimes wonder whether our desire to fully map the internal life of the Trinity can become a distraction from what the doctrine was originally intended to accomplish.

I get the sense that the Church did not formulate Trinitarian language in order to satisfy philosophical curiosity, but to preserve a mystery that ultimately exceeds our categories.

There is a temptation, especially for intellectually inclined people, to treat the Trinity almost as a puzzle awaiting a final elegant solution. Yet perhaps the fact that East and West have wrestled with these questions for centuries is itself instructive. Maybe the persistence of these tensions is not a sign that something remains unsolved, but a reminder that God cannot be reduced to a perfectly coherent system that our minds can master.

I don't mean that theology is unimportant. On the contrary, theology matters greatly. But theology is at its healthiest when it remains oriented toward worship rather than speculation.

Sometimes I think we become so focused on the order of procession that we risk losing sight of the One toward whom all of these doctrines ultimately point.

The doctrine of the Trinity was never simply an abstract metaphysical exercise. It was always an invitation into communion with God.

Perhaps there is wisdom in allowing certain mysteries to remain mysteries. There may come a point where asking "Can I explain this more completely?" becomes less fruitful than asking "How does this deepen my participation in the life of Christ?"

After all, Christianity has never been about possessing exhaustive knowledge of God, but learning to dwell faithfully in relationship with Him.

ThePhilosopherArtist wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2026 3:29 am One of my favorite topics of thought is the mystery of the Trinity. The question of the order of procession of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has remained unanswered. Having given this conundrum much consideration, I continuously find new ways of understanding both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic conceptions, each of which I have found equally convincing. However, a couple of days ago while writing out my thoughts on the matter, I came to a realization that could completely reverse the perspective of both the Eastern and Western Christian traditions while illuminating the core of Christianity, that being the Christ Himself. What I came to realize is that the order of procession begins not with the Father, but with the Son. Here is a snippet of what I wrote. "When John wrote, 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God,' he was explicating the real unfolding of substance as subject. The pure act of the Logos is thought-thinking-itself, and hence it is self-progenating, thereby explaining how the Father and the Son are One. Furthermore, the Son (being the Logos) is not just the Utterance of the Father, but also the Reason for there being the Father at all. The Vitality of the Father comes not just from the Breath of His Spirit, but first and foremost from the Sense of His Word, the Logos from which both the Father and the Spirit receive their substantiality and subjectivity. This is why the Christ declared that no one comes to the Father except through Him." Therefore, the order of procession is not Father & Spirit, then Son as the Orthodox proclaim nor is it Father & Son, then Spirit as the Catholics conceive. Rather, it is from the the Son (being the Logos) that both the Vitality of the Father and the Breath of His Spirit proceed. Yet, given the premise of the Father and Son being One per the self-progenation of the Logos, and the Spirit proceeding as their shared/self-same/singular/univocal Breath, this could just be a more complex version of the Catholic conception of the order of procession. What do you guys think? Would love to have somebody help me think this through.

I don't know much about the Holy Trinity, however, I do know about the LOGOS.
The Logos is the rotational axis which is smaller than any given quantity and has no smallest part which translates the un-manifest purpose into the manifest expression, it is the mediator that binds means to ends, how to why.

Telos is the essence or meaning behind an expression. It is the invariant form, idea, purpose, or complete "WHY" which a manifest thing is trying to express and approaches but can never fully reach. It is the integrated idea - like a tree attempting to express the purpose of "treeness" at every stage of its development.

It is the Telos which is the Integral Why the road in its full simultaneity, whereas the Logos differentiates simultaneity into succession, how the vehicle must rotate to traverse the road.

Then Christ a symbol of the Logos must be the mediator between Essence (Why) and Substance (How) so Essence is the Father (Seed) and Pure Substance is the Holy Spirit (The Fertile Soil).

So does Christ the Son come first? Not exactly, there cannot be a mediator if there is no separation between substance and essence to mediate.

Matthew 13:31 - 32"The Kingdom of Heaven (the realm of Platonic Ideas, the nature of God, the Soul) is like to a grain of mustard seed (a point), which a man took and sowed in his field (Pure Substance).
 Which is the least indeed of all seeds (infinitesimal, smaller than any given quantity); but when it is grown up,
 it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof."

Chandogya Upanishad (3.14.3)
"My Self within my heart is smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a grain of millet, smaller even than the kernel of a grain of millet. 
The Self in my heart is larger than the earth, larger than the mid-region, larger than heaven, and larger even than all these worlds."

The nature of this mediation is the essence of Calculus.
Differentiation is turning simultaneity into succession, and integration turns succession into simultaneity. Motion is simultaneity held in succession, space is succession held in simultaneity. Music is liquid architecture, architecture is frozen music. So Substance is actively passive, whereas Essence is passively active.
The will of God (The Logos) is the ability to determine the ends or purpose towards which one's actions (means) are oriented. In other words, the will is that which binds means to ends, how to why, succession to simultaneity, substance to essence.
So it is Christ in mediating Substance and Essence, the Father and the Holy Spirit, enacts God's Will.

It is true that the infinitesimal Logos of Christ the Mediator is God, but also pure Essence is God the Father, as well as Pure Substance which is the holy spirit.
However it is ultimately the Essence which comes first for one cannot speak of a Substance of Essence only an Essence of Substance. Why ultimately comes before How.
This is because all dualities are asymmetric, so one principle is always prior to the other.
For Eve is taken out of the side (half not a rib) of Adam, before they were integrated into one being but one precipitated out of the other. And here we see the Seed precedes the Fertile Soil.

The nature of this mediation is the essence of Calculus.

Saying that "the essence of Calculus" captures the "nature of the mediation" of God Almighty is at the very least bold, probably impious, and possibly even blasphemous. I would ask you in all Christian charity to refrain from speaking in this manner.

Mr Cromwell has been vindicated, and so too has Dante:

Foolish is he who hopes our intellect
can reach the end of that unending road
only one Substance in three Persons follows.

Confine yourselves, o humans, to the quia;
had you been able to see all, there would
have been no need for Mary to give birth.

You saw the fruitless longing of those men
who would—if reason could—have been content,
those whose desire eternally laments:

I speak of Aristotle and of Plato—
and many others.
(Dante, Purgatorio, Canto 3)

trevor123 wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:57 pm

The nature of this mediation is the essence of Calculus.

Saying that "the essence of Calculus" captures the "nature of the mediation" of God Almighty is at the very least bold, probably impious, and possibly even blasphemous. I would ask you in all Christian charity to refrain from speaking in this manner.

Mr Cromwell has been vindicated, and so too has Dante:

Foolish is he who hopes our intellect
can reach the end of that unending road
only one Substance in three Persons follows.

Confine yourselves, o humans, to the quia;
had you been able to see all, there would
have been no need for Mary to give birth.

You saw the fruitless longing of those men
who would—if reason could—have been content,
those whose desire eternally laments:

I speak of Aristotle and of Plato—
and many others.
(Dante, Purgatorio, Canto 3)

Does God not govern the Logic or Logos of Reality? In doing so the nature of mediation must be expressed through calculus. Of course, this Calculus transcends any ordinary understanding of calculus, since it doesn't apply to just the integration and differentiation of mathematical functions, but analogically to all of Reality.

Really, if God is the author of logic, how is using logical analogies blasphemous?

ThePhilosopherArtist wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2026 3:29 am One of my favorite topics of thought is the mystery of the Trinity. The question of the order of procession of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has remained unanswered. Having given this conundrum much consideration, I continuously find new ways of understanding both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic conceptions, each of which I have found equally convincing. However, a couple of days ago while writing out my thoughts on the matter, I came to a realization that could completely reverse the perspective of both the Eastern and Western Christian traditions while illuminating the core of Christianity, that being the Christ Himself. What I came to realize is that the order of procession begins not with the Father, but with the Son. Here is a snippet of what I wrote. "When John wrote, 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God,' he was explicating the real unfolding of substance as subject. The pure act of the Logos is thought-thinking-itself, and hence it is self-progenating, thereby explaining how the Father and the Son are One. Furthermore, the Son (being the Logos) is not just the Utterance of the Father, but also the Reason for there being the Father at all. The Vitality of the Father comes not just from the Breath of His Spirit, but first and foremost from the Sense of His Word, the Logos from which both the Father and the Spirit receive their substantiality and subjectivity. This is why the Christ declared that no one comes to the Father except through Him." Therefore, the order of procession is not Father & Spirit, then Son as the Orthodox proclaim nor is it Father & Son, then Spirit as the Catholics conceive. Rather, it is from the the Son (being the Logos) that both the Vitality of the Father and the Breath of His Spirit proceed. Yet, given the premise of the Father and Son being One per the self-progenation of the Logos, and the Spirit proceeding as their shared/self-same/singular/univocal Breath, this could just be a more complex version of the Catholic conception of the order of procession. What do you guys think? Would love to have somebody help me think this through.

Okay I've solved your Filioque problem with pure metaphysics!
The reason the historic creeds and scriptures declare the order strictly as The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and Genesis starts with God then God creates Adam from which Eve is taken from his side or half (not rib), is because this order maps to a precise asymmetric calculus of reality. It cannot be stated in any other sequence.

The Father (Essence) is the pure simultaneous unmanifest Why, the "perimeter" encompassing all potentials, all Platonic Ideas without being anything in particular and because it is perfectly simultaneous and Absolute it can have no relations within itself, and therefore it can neither be nor contain any here or there. So it runs counter to space, and has no parts, meaning from our perspective within manifest expression it aligns with Euclid's definition of an infinitesimal point without any position, but what is nowhere in particular must also be everywhere.

This infinitesimal point from our perspective within manifestation is the Son or the Logos, the mediator, as the variations of the mustard seed parable in both the Bible and the Upanishads illustrate, the absolute center (the zero-point) and the absolute perimeter share a complete lack of distinction, for there is no outside. The Son is the localized portal through which the Infinite Father expresses Himself.

The Holy Spirit which is pure substance is the dynamic emanation, the How, the fertile soil. The Spirit translates that unmanifest spark into the Succession of time, space, and creation, allowing the "birds of the air" (the Platonic ideas/archetypes) to find manifest expression in the branches of reality.

This solves the difficulty. The Eastern Orthodox are correct that the Father is the ultimate source (the priority of Essence). But the Roman Catholics are also correct that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque), because at the level of pure simultaneity, the Infinite Perimeter (Father) and the Zero-Point Center (Son) collapse into a singular identity.

Alfred Cromwell wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2026 1:55 am This is certainly interesting to think about, though I sometimes wonder whether our desire to fully map the internal life of the Trinity can become a distraction from what the doctrine was originally intended to accomplish.

I get the sense that the Church did not formulate Trinitarian language in order to satisfy philosophical curiosity, but to preserve a mystery that ultimately exceeds our categories.

There is a temptation, especially for intellectually inclined people, to treat the Trinity almost as a puzzle awaiting a final elegant solution. Yet perhaps the fact that East and West have wrestled with these questions for centuries is itself instructive. Maybe the persistence of these tensions is not a sign that something remains unsolved, but a reminder that God cannot be reduced to a perfectly coherent system that our minds can master.

I don't mean that theology is unimportant. On the contrary, theology matters greatly. But theology is at its healthiest when it remains oriented toward worship rather than speculation.

Sometimes I think we become so focused on the order of procession that we risk losing sight of the One toward whom all of these doctrines ultimately point.

The doctrine of the Trinity was never simply an abstract metaphysical exercise. It was always an invitation into communion with God.

Perhaps there is wisdom in allowing certain mysteries to remain mysteries. There may come a point where asking "Can I explain this more completely?" becomes less fruitful than asking "How does this deepen my participation in the life of Christ?"

After all, Christianity has never been about possessing exhaustive knowledge of God, but learning to dwell faithfully in relationship with Him.

This reply is incredibly providential considering I have been re-reading Wittgenstein's Tractatus. I have had a plethora of mystical encounters within my short lifespan of only 23 years. Since this particular experience I had during my first semester in college wherein I came face to face with the Eternal Trinity, I have attempted to make sense of the revelation I had received.
What I saw was how all of creation sings and dances around God to His never-ending glory. In Heaven, the streets are truly paved with gold, but it is not at all like the physical gold here on Earth. Rather, it was almost like a molten fire, but it didn't burn nor was it solid. They were almost like clouds in the sense they were vaporous. In the center were the Father and the Son who were truly One. They phased into one another while being the same substance, and this phasing was their Spirit. Their Spirit overflowed from this substance, encompassing it as well as the entirety of the Heavens and the Earth. In fact, this Spirit was constantly breathing life into all things, making everything eternally new again. Truly, the Trinity does exist and we are its Image. I was the outline of the substance I had encountered, basking in its eternal being. I completely agree that speculation is not as important as communion. Yet "if a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered" (TLP 6.5). Furthermore, I feel closest to God pondering His mysteries and seeing that substance I encountered being eternally present in all things, participating in that activity of thought-thinking-itself while knowing He is above and beyond it all. After all, "philosophy is not a theory but an activity," (TLP 4.112) and I try to walk in the footsteps of our Father the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for embracing the mystical and urging us all to remain on the narrow road of communion. Godspeed Mr Cromwell!

nyquistfrequency wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2026 6:41 pm
I don't know much about the Holy Trinity, however, I do know about the LOGOS.
The Logos is the rotational axis which is smaller than any given quantity and has no smallest part which translates the un-manifest purpose into the manifest expression, it is the mediator that binds means to ends, how to why.

Telos is the essence or meaning behind an expression. It is the invariant form, idea, purpose, or complete "WHY" which a manifest thing is trying to express and approaches but can never fully reach. It is the integrated idea - like a tree attempting to express the purpose of "treeness" at every stage of its development.

It is the Telos which is the Integral Why the road in its full simultaneity, whereas the Logos differentiates simultaneity into succession, how the vehicle must rotate to traverse the road.

Then Christ a symbol of the Logos must be the mediator between Essence (Why) and Substance (How) so Essence is the Father (Seed) and Pure Substance is the Holy Spirit (The Fertile Soil).

So does Christ the Son come first? Not exactly, there cannot be a mediator if there is no separation between substance and essence to mediate.

Matthew 13:31 - 32"The Kingdom of Heaven (the realm of Platonic Ideas, the nature of God, the Soul) is like to a grain of mustard seed (a point), which a man took and sowed in his field (Pure Substance).
 Which is the least indeed of all seeds (infinitesimal, smaller than any given quantity); but when it is grown up,
 it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof."

Chandogya Upanishad (3.14.3)
"My Self within my heart is smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a grain of millet, smaller even than the kernel of a grain of millet. 
The Self in my heart is larger than the earth, larger than the mid-region, larger than heaven, and larger even than all these worlds."

The nature of this mediation is the essence of Calculus.
Differentiation is turning simultaneity into succession, and integration turns succession into simultaneity. Motion is simultaneity held in succession, space is succession held in simultaneity. Music is liquid architecture, architecture is frozen music. So Substance is actively passive, whereas Essence is passively active.
The will of God (The Logos) is the ability to determine the ends or purpose towards which one's actions (means) are oriented. In other words, the will is that which binds means to ends, how to why, succession to simultaneity, substance to essence.
So it is Christ in mediating Substance and Essence, the Father and the Holy Spirit, enacts God's Will.

It is true that the infinitesimal Logos of Christ the Mediator is God, but also pure Essence is God the Father, as well as Pure Substance which is the holy spirit.
However it is ultimately the Essence which comes first for one cannot speak of a Substance of Essence only an Essence of Substance. Why ultimately comes before How.
This is because all dualities are asymmetric, so one principle is always prior to the other.
For Eve is taken out of the side (half not a rib) of Adam, before they were integrated into one being but one precipitated out of the other. And here we see the Seed precedes the Fertile Soil.

I appreciate your reply, but your conception creates more confusion than clarity. Telos is the essence of expression insofar as it is purpose. Essence is why insofar as it is a necessary attribute of a substance (why something is so). Substance is a genuinely independent entity, and therefore not how, but what. The Father alone is not the seed, His Son is too, but the Father is self-progenating, and therefore becomes the Father only through His Son. How can one become a parent without having offspring? Furthermore, the Son is not born as humans are wherein the parent precedes the existence of their offspring within time because God is outside of time, and hence the Father and Son are co-substantial along with their Spirit. I enjoy your citation of Matthew and Chandogya Upanishad, they resonate with me deeply as someone who has experienced many mystical encounters. The Kingdom of Heaven is the Soul insofar as Psyche means Breath/Spirit.
"Differentiation is turning simultaneity into succession, and integration turns succession into simultaneity. Motion is simultaneity held in succession, space is succession held in simultaneity. Music is liquid architecture, architecture is frozen music." This, I enjoy and easily understand. However, "So Substance is actively passive, whereas Essence is passively active." This loses me along with your language of mediation. Substance is actively active (actus purus per Aquinas) and essence is passively passive (unchanging).
"The will of God (The Logos) is the ability to determine the ends or purpose towards which one's actions (means) are oriented. In other words, the will is that which binds means to ends, how to why, succession to simultaneity, substance to essence" AGREED Since the Father and Son are One (Substance = Genuine Independent Object = Will), the essence of their co-substantiality is their singular Spirit/Breath.
"So it is Christ in mediating Substance and Essence, the Father and the Holy Spirit, enacts God's Will." Christ does not mediate if they are one immediate whole. Christ does not merely enact the Will of God, but as you said IS the will of God. A man cannot live nor speak without breathing.

"It is true that the infinitesimal Logos of Christ the Mediator is God, but also pure Essence is God the Father, as well as Pure Substance which is the holy spirit.
However it is ultimately the Essence which comes first for one cannot speak of a Substance of Essence only an Essence of Substance." I can speak of a substance of essence, that is God.
"This is because all dualities are asymmetric, so one principle is always prior to the other.
For Eve is taken out of the side (half not a rib) of Adam, before they were integrated into one being but one precipitated out of the other. And here we see the Seed precedes the Fertile Soil." Dualities are not necessarily asymmetric, especially when their unity is recognized. For example, stating how one principle is prior to another collapses your conclusion concerning simultaneity, succession, and the unity inherent to their opposition. Although there is an initial asymmetry when divided amongst themselves, their unification reveals their reciprocal reflection. Principles form a beautiful ordered web, not of before and after, but of weight. Eve did not precipitate out of Adam, God formed Eve out of Adam. The seed/soil analogy obscures more than it reveals. Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I heavily enjoyed reading it!

Sorry about replying so late I was kind of exhausted at the time.

ThePhilosopherArtist wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:46 am The Father alone is not the seed, His Son is too, but the Father is self-progenating, and therefore becomes the Father only through His Son. How can one become a parent without having offspring?

The Monad (the Son) is not entirely distinct from the One (the Father), as this would imply an absolute division within God which is impossible for God being the Good must unite all its participants. Rather the Monad is the One facing the world. The Monad is infinitesimal qualitative distinction in substance realized through Essence.

ThePhilosopherArtist wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:46 am However, "So Substance is actively passive, whereas Essence is passively active." This loses me along with your language of mediation. Substance is actively active (actus purus per Aquinas) and essence is passively passive (unchanging).

With Aquinas, actus purus (pure act) applies strictly to God as a unified totality, it absolutely does not apply to "substance" as a standalone category isolated from essence.
By Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles there is no difference between pure act and pure potency, pure essence and pure substance are one and the same there is no real difference between them. Therefore pure isolated substance while remaining distinct from essence is not a reality, neither is pure isolated essence, they are inextricable, for absolute distinctions are the definition of impossible.
So in the manifest world, substance is active in that it is constantly in motion yet this activity is passive because it is entirely conditioned by an underlying essence and that essence is passive in that it is unchanging yet this passivity is active in that it stirs substance into action in the first place.

ThePhilosopherArtist wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:46 am "So it is Christ in mediating Substance and Essence, the Father and the Holy Spirit, enacts God's Will." Christ does not mediate if they are one immediate whole. Christ does not merely enact the Will of God, but as you said IS the will of God. A man cannot live nor speak without breathing.

What I meant by the "Will of God" here would mean all possibilities, pure potential, pure essence. Sorry about the bad expression.

ThePhilosopherArtist wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:46 am Dualities are not necessarily asymmetric, especially when their unity is recognized. For example, stating how one principle is prior to another collapses your conclusion concerning simultaneity, succession, and the unity inherent to their opposition. Although there is an initial asymmetry when divided amongst themselves, their unification reveals their reciprocal reflection. Principles form a beautiful ordered web, not of before and after, but of weight. Eve did not precipitate out of Adam, God formed Eve out of Adam. The seed/soil analogy obscures more than it reveals.

I can prove that all dualities are never symmetric. A symmetric duality would imply a duality which cannot be reconciled, a complete mutual exclusion, it would be an absolute opposition, an absolute negation this is the definition of impossible, for if one were say there are two Absolutes would contradict the definition of Absolute being that which is non-limited, for both Absolutes in excluding each other would limit each other. Not to mention, the foundation of every difference and opposition is absence for "this" excludes "that", for otherwise this would include that and there would be means by which to differentiate between the two.

If one tries to treat negation and affirmation as symmetric, equal opposite poles (like a binary 1 and 0), the system breaks down into logical fatal errors, most notably The Liar's Paradox.

Take the proposition "This statement is false" (or "This statement is a lie").
Under symmetric truth-value assumptions, if the statement is true, then it must be false; if it is false, then it must be true. One enters a recursive loop that refuses to evaluate, flip-flopping without end:

$\dots \Big(\big((P \text{ is false}) \text{ is false}\big) \text{ is false}\Big) \dots$

According to symmetric assumptions, the statement is simultaneously both or neither true nor false - a direct breach of the foundational Law of Excluded Middle.

However, under our asymmetric definition of impossibility, the statement "This statement is false" is properly translated as: "This statement denies its own participation in reality."

This negates itself in the exact same manner as the statement "This statement does not exist." It does not result in recursive looping because the statement’s only content is the denial of itself; it refers to no possible reality. We are not affirming the liar's content, as it has none; we are affirming the Absolute because in recognizing the impossible we only end up affirming what remains.