Alrighty, I kinda wish Godless were here, because he'd appreciate my thoughts here (due to a large amount of discussion we undertook). As I see it, the formal name of God, had by the Jews, the "I AM," is a declaration of the three axioms which Ayn Rand delineates. That is, Existence, Identity, and Consciousness. In stating "I AM," there is a declaration of existence. In stating "i am," there is a declaration of identity, since there is an "I" to point to. Lastly, in stating "I am," there is an indication of consciousness, since the speaker shows that it is consciously aware of itself in naming itself "I." Furthermore, in declaring these three axioms, by saying "I AM," I believe it is also a declaration of the Trinity, as such. The Father (Origin, Creator, Will) would have correlation with the first axiom, "Existence." The Son (Knowledge, Word, Intellect) would have correlation with the second axiom, "Identity." The Holy Spirit (Life, Love, Inspirer) would have correlation with the third axiom, "Consciousness." (There is definitely room for debate concerning the correlations, this is simply my take on it).
In naming Himself, "I AM WHO AM," God is declaring Himself as the source of all, since all that exists necessarily partakes of the axioms (presumably).
Christians, and Jews (I think Muslims as well) would say that we have the Image of God, as humans. Hindus would say we have Divinity. That is to say, we have intellect and will, and therefore, as a result, conscious emotion, since emotion is a result of an interraction between the intellect and will. Likewise, it is said, in the description of the Trinity, that the Holy Spirit, whom has been called Love, the Flame, Inspirer, is a result of the interraction between the Father and the Son. The Father, who has been named Creator, correlates then with will, while the Son, who has been called word, and is described as being the perfect knowledge of the Father, may be correlated to the Intellect. Ergo, the Image of God, or Divinity, is actually the reflection of the nature of God, as Trinity, in the self-aware entity. Furthermore, it may only be in the self-aware entity that this relfection can take place, since an entity that is not self-aware can have no will, no intellect, and likewise, no emotion. I think that this truth is reflected in the statement of God as the "I AM," since God is obviously self-aware in saying such a thing.
Yet I wonder, which is it that comes first? Will or Intellect. According to the correlative notion of the Trinity God, Will comes first (rationally, but not actually, since God is eternal, and therefore there is no "first"), Intellect second, and Emotion last. Yet, this seems intuitively wrong, since it seems to me that in order to will, you must first be aware, or conscious, and therefore have intellect. Unless, according to complexity, will is most complex, and intellect and emotion less. Therefore, in the movement from simplicity, or basicality, into the complex, will comes last, and emotion first. However, this also seems intuitively false. This is because emotion is expression, and expressions are conscious activities. I think the final answer may lie in the distinguishment between free will and non-free will. Humans are said to have free wills, this in reflection of the divinity of God, the Image of God. Perhaps, prior to intellect and free will, there is a more primal force that moves us, a non-free will, that can only choose to perform that which it was designed. An example of this non-free will inherent in animated creatures would be the will to survive. Another example would be the non-free will to procreate. Perhaps this is what is referred to when speaking of instinct. If this is the case, then it is true that will, in whatever form, preceeds intellect. Perhaps this is as far as the correlation goes.
I say this because it cannot go further, since, in the description of the Trinity, the Father is aware of Himself perfectly, and as a result there is the Son. This awareness, then, would destruct the notion that God's will is not free, since any self-aware entity has intellect. The correlation then is simply with the description of each person of the Trinity, and the roles they play. This is because each person of the Trinity is identical, and therefore, all axioms are contained within each one (and are actually each one), and not separately.
I proposed to Godless a fourth axiom, "Nature." By nature, I refer to the structure of any given thing. I believe Nature to be an axiom, since there is nothing existing that has no nature. God has a nature, but His is a Supreme Nature. That is, it is the most perfect, or most complete, most non-lacking. Spirits are said to have supernatures, that is, more advanced natures. I believe this axiom to be present, not in the name "I AM," but in the statement, "I AM WHO AM." The Supreme Nature presented in this statement is then, simply, "that which simply exists." People may confuse this axiom with identity, since the two are very closely related. The identity of a thing is that which distinguishes it from everything else as a thing. However, the nature of a thing is its structure, what makes it what it is. Each special structure (that is, the structure of the specie) is the nature of a thing, while the structure of the individual is its identity. The Identity of God, however, is actual infinity, since God can be the only existing actual infinite. God's Nature, however, cannot be defined, of itself. The Nature of God is identical with Existence, Identity and Consciousness. By this I mean that the structure of God IS existence, IS identity (or actual infinity), IS consciousness. Therefore, the fourth axiom can only be defined within the limits of existing things, and cannot be applicated to God, the infinite, non-limited. UNLESS (and this just hit me now), the structure of the infinite is liminocentric. Then, it may be said that the Nature of God is Liminocentricity, that is, indenticality of extremities. This seems to be the case with the the description "I AM WHO AM."
