Name, Story, and Silence. A trinity of speech. Non-personal, so avoids anthropomophism, but still implies agency. The identity of the agent/speaker is not implied, though. Could go with a Feuerbach reading and say that we are the speakers. Could have some nice magick connotations along that front too.

Problem: Overconcerned with meaning (as opposed to, say, creation or redemption). So even though it avoids explicit anthropomorphism, it still has some of its drawbacks–unconcern with creation. Could add some of that in later–saying something like ‘meaning-making is what allows us to attend to creation’–but that would be after the fact. Besides, primal unity (Fowler stage zero) suggests that the onset of language is disruptive and jarring. The ego is created by language’s severing it from an experienced unity-with-all-creation. So this trinity would be counterintuitive in that regard.

So is this a non-redemptive trinity? So much the better, then. I’ve never known what I needed saving from anyway, apart from that language game called fundamentalism. Or perhaps this is a redemption in spite of their being no need for redemption–a superfluous redemption, an excess.

But no. At heart, this is a mystical trinity. Name/Story/Silence is about truth, not peace or justice. The purpose of summoning this trinity would be to align your self with it, to achieve unity with the Name/Story/Silence. And so what? As a hobby, I’d highly recommend it to friends and family. But even if it’s not the be-all end-all trinity replacement set, who cares? Who needs a trinity? Isn’t one trinity, for meaning, enough, for meaning? Let meaning have its own trinity. That doesn’t mean we need more trinities, or that we couldn’t have more. Just keep it coloring within the lines and we’ll be fine.