List: Peirce's very next sentence is important for understanding the one quoted below--"Most of us are in the habit of thinking that consciousness and psychic life are the same thing and otherwise greatly to overrate the functions of consciousness" (CP 6.489, EP 2:447, 1908). Even though "a disembodied spirit ... probably has no consciousness," this is not to say that God has no "psychic life." On the contrary, Peirce goes on to describe a "disembodied spirit" as "pure mind" and "creative of thought" (CP 6.490).
It is neither surprising nor problematic that Peirce conceives God as "not functioning *within *the Three categories" since he maintains that the latter must be *explained *by "a necessary something whose mode of being transcends reality" (R 288:91[178], 1905). Note that God is something, not nothing--"To say that the total real is a consequence of utter nothing without substance or appearance is absurd. ... 'Necessary being' is the equivalent of 'something,' since nothing is self-contradictory and impossible" (ibid). As Peirce writes elsewhere, God and Nothing are *opposed to* each other, not *identified with* each other. CSP: Consequently, the *absurdum *is single. It is a sort of correlative of God, of Whom *no *predicate is adequately true. Of the *absurdum*, which I shall hereafter designate as *Nothing *(with a capitalized initial letter,) *every *predicate is true. God made the world out of this *Nothing*. (SWS:265, 1908 Oct 28) He adds later in the same text, "Nothing may be defined as that which is *indistinct in being*," while "that of which every predicate is necessary, not in description but in being, is the definition of God as *Ens necessarium*." In other words, although "*no *predicate is adequately true" of God (ibid), whatever predicates *are *true of God, "not in description but in being"--always *apprehended *vaguely, figuratively, loosely, and analogously--are necessary and essential, not contingent and accidental. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 12:47 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F, list > > You provided this quote > > “Since God, in His essential character of *Ens necessarium*, is a > disembodied spirit, and since there is strong reason to hold that what we > call consciousness is either merely the general sensation of the brain or > some part of it, or at all events some visceral or bodily sensation, God > probably has no consciousness” (EP2:447) > > Peirce also defines basic consciousness as ‘feeling’[Firstness] and as all > life partaking of this feeling. But all that is living also operates within > the second category [Secondness], even protoplasm, in that these forms of > life have boundaries to their mass. And all that is alive also operates > within Thirdness or a continuity of organizational habits of form and > function…This also suggests that consciousness might have grades - from > simple reactive feeling - where a cell, when in contact with a toxic > chemical, will close itself off or, as in plants, release a chemical > ‘warning'- to more complex ‘feelings which will involve, specifically, > Thirdness - where the system might actually change its organizational > pattern [and develop a harder bird beak]. I would also include > consciousness or feeling within the physicochemical realm. > > As for the suggestion that god is a disembodied spirit [ something without > mass, without boundaries….something I find logically incomprehensible > although I admit the ‘adorable’ nature of this concept] and therefore - > not functioning within the Three categories and therefore, no ‘feeling’, > no interaction, no continuity]…my view is that the Three Categories are > necessary results of the Big Bang which transformed Pure Energy [NOT free > energy] into a universe operative within time and space. I do not see, of > course, god as necessary - but see both Pure Energy [NOT free energy] and > the Three categories as necessary. > > I would define god as Pure Energy [ akin to Peirce’s Nothing’ See 1.412 ] > and note that it does not operate within the Three categories and > therefore, has not only no Secondness [disembodied] but also no > consciousness [Firstness/feeling]. . > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
