Philosophical Speculations

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:13 pm

I need to think about that some more because I did not quite follow. I will simply say this - people in history who have played instrumental roles in these metaphysical developments are definitely important to identify, but we should also remember there are higher spiritual forces at work, not just one but many, if we are assuming any Judeo-Christian framework rooted in scripture. Perhaps that is what you are referring to as "downward revelation". We should also remember that we are not talking merely about the evolution of ideas within history, but rather than the evolution of the modes of consciousness which underlie those ideas.

Yes I think I understand that, I agree that it’s more than just values and social mores that change over time. Even generation to generation there are changes you can see that are not just related to age difference, different ways of seeing things. To me it seems mostly like it moves in circles, large circles and smaller circles at the same time. But it’s really complex, with people reacting against changes that went before, and some reacting against changes in their own time. I think there is something like Hegel’s dialectic of history, but it’s a simplification of a general trend.

Right, there are generally two extremes of dualism - one that forsakes all that is 'physical' for all that is spiritual and one that does the opposite, i.e. reduces all that is spiritual to the 'physical' and effectively discards the spiritual, only paying lip service to its vague existence. The former is the Gnostic approach and the latter various post-Reformation Christian traditions in the West. Nietzsche was concerned with both but especially the latter, since it leads to world-conceptions which push to "liberate" the human soul-spirit from Earthly 'physical' existence and thereby negates all 'worldly' instincts, values and experiences.

I don't really follow the comment that under most panentheism "god becomes the cross in a conceptual way", can you elaborate?

Sorry that was a bit cryptic. I’m using the cross as a symbol of the universe, not just the physical but the totality, with the vertical being the whole gamut from lower nature to higher nature, and the vertical being history. It’s a central part of the story that it’s god on the cross, entering into his own creation but remaining completely innocent. Creation was good - primal, pristine innocence - but by necessity fell when man became self conscious. This is a key part of the story, that Jesus was able to remain good from a ‘karma’ perspective, despite the fallen state of the world.

In most of the panentheist ontologies, god must be inherently fallen with the world. It turns the whole story upside down. Instead of god on the cross, coming into his creation to share our suffering, but also opening up a path to reconcile the fallen world, it becomes a fallen god raising himself up.

There are many other examples like this in scripture. In several parts of the OT it talks about about god’s presence on earth being in the temple/tabernacle, in others it prophesies about this changing so that his ‘spirit will dwell in his people’, which doesn’t make sense to me under most forms of panentheism.

Also scripture doesn’t really make sense unless god created the universe ‘out of nothing’. I think some see that this can be salvaged by saying that the ‘universal mind’ existed, but without form, and then it ‘represented’ the universe, so there was representation from no representation, creation ex nihlo. However this just doesn’t fit anything from my understanding, it’s creating a kind of anti-idealism duality between mind and matter. For me genuine creation ex nihlo, with all the substance of the universe coming out of nothing, is the way early christians saw things for good reason, and also intuitively makes the most sense of what we know from science of the big bang.

All that said, there are many forms of panentheism, and some of these like “trinitarian panentheism” don’t have these problems from the little I know of them. I guess in the spectrum of panentheism you would have Whitehead at one extreme, Hegel not too far but closer to the centre, and then the likes of trinitarian panentheism at the other end towards mainstream theism. I don’t know anything of where Nietzsche sits of that spectrum, but I would guess it’s similar to Hegel?

For me I don’t know the exact relationship between god and the universe. It clearly is entirely dependent on him, and with Paul I agree that he is “the One in whom we live and breath and move and have our being”. To me it seems that the universe is full of different types of living organisms, of different forms and different scales. All of these have their being in god, and in that being is their individuality. But his spirit is only present, immanent, in those organisms/creatures when he choses to be, when the state of the creature is aligned with him.

AshvinP wrote:
Agreed. That is at the heart of Nietzsche's critique - if we believe we are coming to spiritual Truth simply by ratiocination, as so many people in his day and throughout the 20th century have believed, we are only fooling ourselves.

Indeed. As Bernardo often says, a huge chunk of academia seems to have confused the map of the countryside with the countryside itself ...

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:09 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 3:13 pm

I need to think about that some more because I did not quite follow. I will simply say this - people in history who have played instrumental roles in these metaphysical developments are definitely important to identify, but we should also remember there are higher spiritual forces at work, not just one but many, if we are assuming any Judeo-Christian framework rooted in scripture. Perhaps that is what you are referring to as "downward revelation". We should also remember that we are not talking merely about the evolution of ideas within history, but rather than the evolution of the modes of consciousness which underlie those ideas.

Yes I think I understand that, I agree that it’s more than just values and social mores that change over time. Even generation to generation there are changes you can see that are not just related to age difference, different ways of seeing things. To me it seems mostly like it moves in circles, large circles and smaller circles at the same time. But it’s really complex, with people reacting against changes that went before, and some reacting against changes in their own time. I think there is something like Hegel’s dialectic of history, but it’s a simplification of a general trend.

Yes Hegel's thought is valuable here. I would say the most comprehensive, theologically-neutral (yet Christocentric) account is that of Jean Gebser in the The Ever-Present Origin. Perhaps not completely neutral, but certainly not evangelical or preachy in any way.

AshvinP wrote: Right, there are generally two extremes of dualism - one that forsakes all that is 'physical' for all that is spiritual and one that does the opposite, i.e. reduces all that is spiritual to the 'physical' and effectively discards the spiritual, only paying lip service to its vague existence. The former is the Gnostic approach and the latter various post-Reformation Christian traditions in the West. Nietzsche was concerned with both but especially the latter, since it leads to world-conceptions which push to "liberate" the human soul-spirit from Earthly 'physical' existence and thereby negates all 'worldly' instincts, values and experiences.

I don't really follow the comment that under most panentheism "god becomes the cross in a conceptual way", can you elaborate?

Sorry that was a bit cryptic. I’m using the cross as a symbol of the universe, not just the physical but the totality, with the vertical being the whole gamut from lower nature to higher nature, and the vertical being history. It’s a central part of the story that it’s god on the cross, entering into his own creation but remaining completely innocent. Creation was good - primal, pristine innocence - but by necessity fell when man became self conscious. This is a key part of the story, that Jesus was able to remain good from a ‘karma’ perspective, despite the fallen state of the world.

In most of the panentheist ontologies, god must be inherently fallen with the world. It turns the whole story upside down. Instead of god on the cross, coming into his creation to share our suffering, but also opening up a path to reconcile the fallen world, it becomes a fallen god raising himself up.

There are many other examples like this in scripture. In several parts of the OT it talks about about god’s presence on earth being in the temple/tabernacle, in others it prophesies about this changing so that his ‘spirit will dwell in his people’, which doesn’t make sense to me under most forms of panentheism.

Alright, so now we are getting into some rich territory which I am definitely up for exploring. I agree with the cross symbolism you describe. Now if the Fall of humanity is intimately related to self-awareness, and theistic God is self-aware, then don't we have a huge problem if we assume God is not partaking in our fallen nature? How can we say God incarnate in Christ took on the true burden of our fallen nature if He did not participate in it? These are the types of "intractable" problems which arise with traditional theism, with an axiomatic ontic separation between Creator-created, and there are many more than just those. Within a metaphysical idealist and panentheist framework, it actually makes more sense for there to be a deep connection between God's presence within the Jewish 'physical' tabernacle and God's presence within our bodies as His temple.

Also scripture doesn’t really make sense unless god created the universe ‘out of nothing’. I think some see that this can be salvaged by saying that the ‘universal mind’ existed, but without form, and then it ‘represented’ the universe, so there was representation from no representation, creation ex nihlo. However this just doesn’t fit anything from my understanding, it’s creating a kind of anti-idealism duality between mind and matter. For me genuine creation ex nihlo, with all the substance of the universe coming out of nothing, is the way early christians saw things for good reason, and also intuitively makes the most sense of what we know from science of the big bang.

Can you elaborate on the inconsistencies you see here and what you mean by "nothing"? Depending on what you mean, there may not be any inconsistency with idealism and panentheism.

All that said, there are many forms of panentheism, and some of these like “trinitarian panentheism” don’t have these problems from the little I know of them. I guess in the spectrum of panentheism you would have Whitehead at one extreme, Hegel not too far but closer to the centre, and then the likes of trinitarian panentheism at the other end towards mainstream theism. I don’t know anything of where Nietzsche sits of that spectrum, but I would guess it’s similar to Hegel?

Right, well, claiming Nietzsche was a panentheist may be taking it a little bit too far. He was an a-theist in so far as he rejected all current forms of theism. However, he also recognized the existence of 'under-souls' within the individual living organism, and perhaps would have extrapolated that reality 'upwards' if he had lived longer.

Nietzsche wrote:"Freedom of the will"- that's the word for that multifaceted condition of enjoyment in the person willing, who commands and at the same identifies himself with what is carrying out the order. As such, he enjoys the triumph over things which resist him, but in himself is of the opinion that it is his will by itself which really overcomes this resistance. The person doing the willing thus acquires the joyful feelings of the successful implements carrying out the order, the serviceable "under-wills" or under-souls - our body is, in fact, merely a social construct of many souls - in addition to his joyful feeling as the one who commands.
- Beyond Good and Evil

Simon wrote:For me I don’t know the exact relationship between god and the universe. It clearly is entirely dependent on him, and with Paul I agree that he is “the One in whom we live and breath and move and have our being”. To me it seems that the universe is full of different types of living organisms, of different forms and different scales. All of these have their being in god, and in that being is their individuality. But his spirit is only present, immanent, in those organisms/creatures when he chooses to be, when the state of the creature is aligned with him.

I don't know the exact relationship either, but we do not need to assume knowledge of that for our purposes here. We can just acknowledge that it is impossible for God to be immanent if He does not permeate all. Paul also says, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me." We do not need to assume that we are, in essence, any different from Paul. Those are perhaps the most important words in all of his epistles, assuming we are prepared to hear them.

There is one possible resolution of the God-vs-world dualism which would provide a reconciliation of Christian theism with the Eastern non-dual traditions and with philosophical idealism: it is to pose that both God and the world are forms of the universal ontic reality - the Consciousness. In this Consciousness God emerged (or perhaps always timelessly existed) as an individuated conscious activity ("I AM who I AM"), and then he "created" (manifested, or fantasized) the world as a universe of conscious ideations/forms and conscious alters (dissociated conscious activities) all unfolding within the same Consciousness. So, everything happens in the same Consciousness and has the nature of the same Consciousness, including God and the world. In such case there is no ontological duality and no ontological split between God and the world, and at the same time the pantheism is avoided because God is not "within" the world, as well as the world is not "within" God. Yet everything is "within" the Consciousness, which is not reduceable to God, neither it is reduceable to the "world", but transcends both and is ontologically fundamental. There have never been any matter, but only forms of consciousness (ideations, perceptions) that looked and were perceived as if they are material.

Based on that, there is a variety of possible developmental paths for the individuated alters. One is to develop towards transcending its human form with its limitations and illusion of separation towards becoming God-like through the participatory theosis of the communion with God and conscious being of high spiritual order. The other way is experientially realizing the fundamental non-dual nature of Consciousness and transcending the illusion of separation and duality, while remaining active in the world of forms. Both paths can be integrated into one mega-path with each part facilitating the other and the whole developmental process. This is where the process philosophy (Whitehead et al) would nicely fit as well.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:07 am There is one possible resolution of the God-vs-world dualism which would provide a reconciliation of Christian theism with the Eastern non-dual traditions and with philosophical idealism: it is to pose that both God and the world are forms of the universal ontic reality - the Consciousness. In this Consciousness God emerged (or perhaps always timelessly existed) as an individuated conscious activity ("I AM who I AM"), and then he "created" (manifested, or fantasized) the world as a universe of conscious ideations/forms and conscious alters (dissociated conscious activities) all unfolding within the same Consciousness. So, everything happens in the same Consciousness and has the nature of the same Consciousness, including God and the world. In such case there is no ontological duality and no ontological split between God and the world, and at the same time the pantheism is avoided because God is not "within" the world, as well as the world is not "within" God. Yet everything is "within" the Consciousness, which is not reduceable to God, neither it is reduceable to the "world", but transcends both and is ontologically fundamental. There have never been any matter, but only forms of consciousness (ideations, perceptions) that looked and were perceived as if they are material.

Based on that, there is a variety of possible developmental paths for the individuated alters. One is to develop towards transcending its human form with its limitations and illusion of separation towards becoming God-like through the participatory theosis of the communion with God and conscious being of high spiritual order. The other way is experientially realizing the fundamental non-dual nature of Consciousness and transcending the illusion of separation and duality, while remaining active in the world of forms. Both paths can be integrated into one mega-path with each part facilitating the other and the whole developmental process. This is where the process philosophy (Whitehead et al) would nicely fit as well.

I don't understand the difference between "Consciousness" and "God" in this hypothetical?

It seems very difficult to reconcile fully Eastern non-dual traditions with Judeo-Christian traditions unless the latter is viewed as a more developed, articulated form of the former. If they are simply parallel tracks of metaphysical thought, then "reconciliation" means allowing one to be transformed until it resembles the other.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:48 am I don't understand the difference between "Consciousness" and "God" in this hypothetical?

In this hypothetical Consciousness is fundamentally non-personal, it is simply an ontic fundamental of reality, it has no individuation of its own, but it has fundamental abilities: the ability to be aware, to experience change and forms that can volitionally or non-volitionally cause other forms to appear, to experience meanings, to experience dissociated conscious activities, etc. When these abilities unfold (and there has never been a time when they were not unfolding), individuated spiritual activities take place that express themselves as conscious forms (ideations, volitional acts, thoughts with meanings etc). God is the global-scale spiritual activity of Consciousness, we are local-scale individuated spiritual activities of the same Consciousness. Or perhaps there is no one God, but many God-like large-scale individuated activities that are able to manifest/create the worlds, all within one and the same Consciousness.

But I understand that there is close to zero chance that the theistic versions of monistic idealism would subscribe to such view. For these versions God IS the only ontic reality. But in such case everything is God and the whole world is unfolding within God, the world can not be anything other than God if we are to stay within the idealistic monism. The problem is that this is not quite in alignment with Christian views either where the world is understood as something fundamentally different by its nature from the God's nature. In the Christian theology the domain of Divine is the domain of "uncreated" (Divine nature, uncreated Divine Logoses and energies ets) which is fundamentally different by its nature from the created world. The creatures can participate in the Divine life by theosis and communion through the Divine energies (see Palamites), but creatures can never participate in and share God's Divine essence/nature. Such view remains inherently dualistic and incompatible with ontological monism.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:42 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:48 am I don't understand the difference between "Consciousness" and "God" in this hypothetical?

In this hypothetical Consciousness is fundamentally non-personal, it is simply an ontic fundamental of reality, it has no individuation of its own, but it has fundamental abilities: the ability to be aware, to experience change and forms that can volitionally or non-volitionally cause other forms to appear, to experience meanings, to experience dissociated conscious activities, etc. When these abilities unfold (and there has never been a time when they were not unfolding), individuated spiritual activities take place that express themselves as conscious forms (ideations, volitional acts, thoughts with meanings etc). God is the global-scale spiritual activity of Consciousness, we are local-scale individuated spiritual activities of the same Consciousness. Or perhaps there is no one God, but many God-like large-scale individuated activities that are able to manifest/create the worlds, all within one and the same Consciousness.

I see. That actually seems pretty solid to me. It may not be the most parsimonious explanation, since we do not need the non-personal Consciousness to explain everything else we experience or could possibly experience, but that's not a terrible metaphysical problem as far as those go.

But I understand that there is close to zero chance that the theistic versions of monistic idealism would subscribe to such view. For these versions God IS the only ontic reality. But in such case everything is God and the whole world is unfolding within God, the world can not be anything other than God if we are to stay within the idealistic monism. The problem is that this is not quite in alignment with Christian views either where the world is understood as something fundamentally different by its nature from the God's nature. In the Christian theology the domain of Divine is the domain of "uncreated" (Divine nature, uncreated Divine Logoses and energies ets) which is fundamentally different by its nature from the created world. The creatures can participate in the Divine life by theosis and communion through the Divine energies (see Palamites), but creatures can never participate in and share God's Divine essence/nature. Such view remains inherently dualistic and incompatible with ontological monism.

Yes and that is the reason why it cannot be theosis-lite, where we kind of participate in the Divine and kind of don't, and vice versa. I agree that creates the intrinsic dualism and all sorts of corresponding theological predicaments. The conceptual distinction between God-human, Creator-created, etc. is still very useful, but that distinction cannot be idolized into the absolute essence of Being and beings. I do not believe the latter is necessitated by any 'psycho-spiritual', i.e. metaphysical idealist, interpretations of scripture.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:08 am

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:42 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:48 am I don't understand the difference between "Consciousness" and "God" in this hypothetical?

In this hypothetical Consciousness is fundamentally non-personal, it is simply an ontic fundamental of reality, it has no individuation of its own, but it has fundamental abilities: the ability to be aware, to experience change and forms that can volitionally or non-volitionally cause other forms to appear, to experience meanings, to experience dissociated conscious activities, etc. When these abilities unfold (and there has never been a time when they were not unfolding), individuated spiritual activities take place that express themselves as conscious forms (ideations, volitional acts, thoughts with meanings etc). God is the global-scale spiritual activity of Consciousness, we are local-scale individuated spiritual activities of the same Consciousness. Or perhaps there is no one God, but many God-like large-scale individuated activities that are able to manifest/create the worlds, all within one and the same Consciousness.

I see. That actually seems pretty solid to me. It may not be the most parsimonious explanation, since we do not need the non-personal Consciousness to explain everything else we experience or could possibly experience, but that's not a terrible metaphysical problem as far as those go.

Right, so that is basically the ontological position of the idealism of Eastern traditions, with some variants like single Godhead in some Vedic schools (e.g. Shaivism) vs many-Gods view in other Vedic schools and in Buddhism.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:59 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:08 am

Eugene I wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:42 am
In this hypothetical Consciousness is fundamentally non-personal, it is simply an ontic fundamental of reality, it has no individuation of its own, but it has fundamental abilities: the ability to be aware, to experience change and forms that can volitionally or non-volitionally cause other forms to appear, to experience meanings, to experience dissociated conscious activities, etc. When these abilities unfold (and there has never been a time when they were not unfolding), individuated spiritual activities take place that express themselves as conscious forms (ideations, volitional acts, thoughts with meanings etc). God is the global-scale spiritual activity of Consciousness, we are local-scale individuated spiritual activities of the same Consciousness. Or perhaps there is no one God, but many God-like large-scale individuated activities that are able to manifest/create the worlds, all within one and the same Consciousness.

I see. That actually seems pretty solid to me. It may not be the most parsimonious explanation, since we do not need the non-personal Consciousness to explain everything else we experience or could possibly experience, but that's not a terrible metaphysical problem as far as those go.

Right, so that is basically the ontological position of the idealism of Eastern traditions, with some variants like single Godhead in some Vedic schools (e.g. Shaivism) vs many-Gods view in other Vedic schools and in Buddhism.

That makes sense. Where we likely disagree is whether that is also the ontological position of certain Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions. I say it is, and in fact a good case could be made it was directly adopted from ancient Indo-Chinese tradition, even though that argument is not necessary to the conclusion.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:47 pm.

Alright, so now we are getting into some rich territory which I am definitely up for exploring. I agree with the cross symbolism you describe. Now if the Fall of humanity is intimately related to self-awareness, and theistic God is self-aware, then don't we have a huge problem if we assume God is not partaking in our fallen nature? How can we say God incarnate in Christ took on the true burden of our fallen nature if He did not participate in it? These are the types of "intractable" problems which arise with traditional theism, with an axiomatic ontic separation between Creator-created, and there are many more than just those. Within a metaphysical idealist and panentheist framework, it actually makes more sense for there to be a deep connection between God's presence within the Jewish 'physical' tabernacle and God's presence within our bodies as His temple.

First off it’s worth being clear that just because I’m pushing back on elements of panentheism, does not mean I’m pushing back on idealism. I think our modern cartesian disease pollutes a lot of the way we look at these things. Schopenhauer claimed that his Metaphysics were the same as Buddha and Eckhardt, but assumed that Eckhardt had to “clothe his views in Christian myth”. In fact Eckhardt was influenced by his contemporary Dominican Dietrich of Freiberg, who was himself influenced by the early Christians such as Augustine and psuedo Dionysius. Yes you could call the metaphysics more neoplatonist than idealist, but I would argue that refers to the theological hierarchy rather than the substantial ontology.

I only came across Dietrich of Freiberg in a podcast last night (History of Philosophy without any Gaps), and he has a really interesting metaphysical framework that resonates with me in many ways. He has the concept that Stanford translate as “universe of beings”, which is essentially all ‘created things’ as a unity, but a unity that is not separate from god.

Stanford Encyclopaedia wrote:
Dietrich develops a particular version of the hierarchy of being based on this Neoplatonic One. By identifying the One of Proclus’ Elements of Theology with the creative God of Christian theology he introduces a dynamic element into the hierarchy of being whereby God brings beings into existence out of nothing and marks them with a resemblance or similitude to himself. The universe is thus like God and each productive being in its hierarchically ordered series of causes is also like God. Dietrich specifically cites propositions 146 and 147 of Proclus which emphasize the rôle of similitude in this hierarchy:

Prop. 146: In the procession of all divine things the ends are assimilated to their beginnings, sustaining a circle without beginning and without end by turning to the beginning.
Prop. 147: The highest of all the divine orders are assimilated to the last of those positioned above them

I’ve gone off on a tangent because I’ve been absorbed in finding out more about Dietrich this morning, but if you also didn’t know about him, I’d recommend reading sections 7 (The Hierarchy of Being) to 12 (Empirical and Transempirical Consciousness) here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dietrich-freiberg/

So back to your question of “then don't we have a huge problem if we assume God is not partaking in our fallen nature? How can we say God incarnate in Christ took on the true burden of our fallen nature if He did not participate in it?”.

So I don’t really understand this. The fallen nature refers to the way in which our nature became unaligned to god. God is by nature “good”, and by this is meant a kind of perfection. For created beings to remain in the image of god - as they were created - they must align with this “original state”, which involves following natural law (essentially love). Once nature has been diverted from this, it’s like a stone thrown in water such that the ripples effect everyone, and then everyone creates their own ripples. It’s a self sustaining process. What made Jesus unique is that his divine nature transcended his arrival in the stormy pond, and he was able to not bob about on the surface. In fact he was able to then calm the surface for others who swam towards him.

If he was/is the pond, then the deep layers of meaning in this all get distorted.

Can you elaborate on the inconsistencies you see here and what you mean by "nothing"? Depending on what you mean, there may not be any inconsistency with idealism and panentheism.

I’ll turn it around. By “something” I would include mind (or spirit). Of course in many eastern ontologies, “nothing” can refer to the emptiness of content, and I’m not in anyway denigrating the value of that reality. However in terms of creation, my claim is that the state of Bodhi etc in the east is not a unity with anything that existed before the creation of the universe. This is clearly a big distinction between my view and that of many other idealists.

I don't know the exact relationship either, but we do not need to assume knowledge of that for our purposes here. We can just acknowledge that it is impossible for God to be immanent if He does not permeate all. Paul also says, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me." We do not need to assume that we are, in essence, any different from Paul. Those are perhaps the most important words in all of his epistles, assuming we are prepared to hear them.

I agree completely but would change it to “We can just acknowledge that it is impossible for God to be immanent if He is not able to permeate all”. It’s a big difference. Note that before the road to Damascus, christ did not live in Paul (as he himself says).

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 3:08 am That makes sense. Where we likely disagree is whether that is also the ontological position of certain Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions. I say it is, and in fact a good case could be made it was directly adopted from ancient Indo-Chinese tradition, even though that argument is not necessary to the conclusion.

No, I would agree that it's not the ontological position of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions, may be with the exception of Gnosticism (see the section "The Inexpressible One" in The Apocryphon of John which describes the One in pretty much non-personal terms).