Short Special Metaphysics

1.) What is actual before it actual knows, knows that a limited and finite domain of being exists and is oblivious to the rest (like taste qua taste is oblivious to color)

Mind is not limited to knowing that a finite domain of being exists while being oblivious to the rest (it knows that there are knowns and mysteries.)

Mind is not actual before it knows. (the proof also follows on the supposition that there are no mysteries)

2.) What must be first produced or given energy and direction a tergo to act needs to be actual before it acts

Whatever arises from a causal history is first produced or given energy and direction.

Whatever arises from a causal history needs to be actual before it acts.

Whatever is not actual before it acts does not arise from a causal history.

Mind is not actual before it acts.

3.) Whatever is not actual before it acts, acts without interacting.

Mind is not actual before it acts.

So mind acts without interacting.

Force and energy are features of interactive systems (e.g. those falling under the Third Law)

Mind acts and moves without force and energy.

 

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. David said,

    March 27, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Thanks for (1). You’ve explained the difference between a sensory boundary and a boundary of knowledge before, but it didn’t quite click until this example of “taste qua taste is oblivious to color.”

  2. David said,

    March 27, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    It also isn’t a very long jump from “force and energy are features of interactive systems” to something like, “mind is prior to matter and energy.” And this is what all would call deus.

  3. t3ophilius said,

    March 29, 2017 at 5:56 am

    But if the mind is not actual before it acts who\what “actualize” the mind?

    • March 29, 2017 at 7:01 am

      Exactly!

      I think the question you’re raising has two answers, both of which are ways of saying that nothing actualizes intellect as such:

      1.) When mind is separate from body it needs nothing to actualize it. As separate it “is just what it is and nothing more”, i.e. it has an unceasing action by being an act perfectly proportioned to a potency, like any necessary finite substance.

      2.) When intellect is the form of a body, it can only act when a long and complicated set of conditions is met, like years of maturing, the need to build a brain that is both wildly complex and strangely undifferentiated, lots of time off through sleep and diversion, etc. When the conditions are met mind works like sun breaking through clouds, but always with an operation conditioned by the chances of history, health, habits, etc.

      Note that this description does not address the problem of personal identity. This is a Christian concern that arises from defining the divine as a person and ourselves as in his image.

      (n.b. My response to this adapts Gerson’s answer to the “two intellects” problem.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: