{"id":6490,"date":"2016-04-23T13:45:22","date_gmt":"2016-04-23T13:45:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/04\/23\/two-senses-of-mystery-and-mcginns-mysterianism\/"},"modified":"2016-04-23T13:45:22","modified_gmt":"2016-04-23T13:45:22","slug":"two-senses-of-mystery-and-mcginns-mysterianism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/04\/23\/two-senses-of-mystery-and-mcginns-mysterianism\/","title":{"rendered":"Two Senses of ‘Mystery’ and McGinn’s Mysterianism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Joel Hunter writes,<\/span><\/p>\n

In the context of an exchange between a Catholic and a Protestant, I came across a quote of Gerard Manley Hopkins that reminded me of your posts on mysterianism.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n

You do not mean by mystery what a Catholic does. You mean an interesting uncertainty<\/em>: the uncertainty ceasing, interest ceases also. This happens in some things; to you, in religion. But a Catholic by mystery means an incomprehensible certainty<\/em>; without certainty, without formulation, there is no interest \u2026 The clearer the formulation, the greater the interest. At bottom, the source of interest is the same in both cases, in your mind and in ours; it is the unknown, the reserve of truth beyond what the mind reaches and still feels to be behind. But the interest a Catholic feels is, if I may say so, of a far finer kind than yours.<\/span><\/p>\n

-Gerard Manley Hopkins, letter to Robert Bridges<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This made me wonder whether mind-body mysterians like McGinn are really of the second type. If one holds that our inability to understand how a mental state could be a brain state is because of a natural limitation on our cognitive powers, like our inability to smell things that a dog can smell, then we might yet hold that this mystery is of type 1 – an "interesting uncertainty." One way that a materialist like McGinn might hold that consciousness is a type 1 mystery is to argue that, as with other of our physical powers, say vision, we could develop ways to augment our cognitive powers to understand thoughts we cannot (yet) think. The recent movie Lucy <\/em>tangentially explores this.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, there's always the alien hypothesis, which seems to interest some very bright people, like Hawking. Intellectually, we may be bonobos compared to a more advanced race in the universe, whose cognitive powers far surpass our own, and for whom the solution to the mind-body problem is discussed and proven in the first year of their grade school. Of course, this is nothing more than an alien-of-the-gaps conjecture.<\/span><\/p>\n

……………………………………….<\/span><\/p>\n

BV responds:<\/span><\/p>\n

In the Hopkins passage, which I find very obscure, two senses of 'mystery' are distinguished. They seem to me to be as follows.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mystery-1<\/strong>:  A proposition which, if true, is knowable, presently unknown, and interesting to know, but the interest of which evaporates upon being known.  For example, the proposition Jimmy Hoffa's body was fed through a wood chipper<\/em> is,  if true, knowable, unknown, interesting to know but such that, if it came to be known, then the question of the final disposition of Hoffa's body would be settled and would no longer be interesting.  A more timely example:  The singer Prince's death came about as a result of his opioid addiction in tandem with a grueling work schedule<\/em>.  The aim of research is to banish mysteries in this first sense of 'mystery.' <\/span><\/p>\n

Mystery-2<\/strong>:  A proposition which, if true, cannot by us in this life be known to be true, and cannot even be known by us in this life to be logically-possibly true, i.e., free of logical contradiction, and is of the highest interest to us, but whose interest would in no way be diminished should we come to know it.<\/span><\/p>\n

An example is the doctrine of the Trinity as understood by Roman Catholics (but not just by them).  The Trinity is an exclusively revealed truth; hence it cannot be known by us by natural means.  What's more, it cannot even be known by us to be free of logical contradiction and thus logically possible.  Our finite intellects cannot see into its logical possibility let alone into its actual truth.  We cannot understand how it is possible.  But what is actual is possible whether or not we have the power to understand how<\/em> it is possible.  (Compare: motion is possible because actual, whether or not the Zenonian arguments to the contrary can be adequately answered.)<\/span><\/p>\n

So from the fact that the Trinity appears to us in our present state as contradictory, and thus as logically impossible, it does not follow that it is not true.  For it could be like this:  given our unalterable ('hard-wired') cognitive architecture, certain revealed truths must<\/em> appear to us as contradictory when the propositions which must so appear are not only in themselves not contradictory, but are also actually true!<\/span><\/p>\n

One sort of mysterian is a person who holds that there are mysteries in the second sense.  Is Colin McGinn a mysterian in this sense? <\/span><\/p>\n

McGinn 'takes it on faith' that all mental activity is brain activity. He no more questions this than a believing Catholic questions the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence, etc.   It just seems obvious to him and therefore a thesis that cannot be reasonably questioned.  Of course mental activity is brain activity!  What the hell else could it be?  You think and feel with your brain, not your johnson, and certainly not with some 'spook in the skull' (my coinage) or "ghost in the machine." (Ryle) <\/span><\/p>\n

But there are powerful arguments which I have rehearsed many times why qualia and object-directed mental states cannot be physical states.  Confronted with these arguments, McGinn goes mysterian.  He grants their force and then says something like this:<\/span><\/p>\n

It is incomprehensible to us how consciousness could be a brain process.  But it is<\/em> a brain process.  It is just that our unalterable cognitive architecture makes it impossible for us to see into this truth.  It is true and therefore possibly true even though we cannot understand how it is true or even how it could be true due to our cognitive limitations.<\/span><\/p>\n

As I read McGinn, these limitations are in our human case  unalterable.  And so I read McGinn as a mysterian in much the same sense that a theological mysterian is a mysterian.  What is common to the doctor angelicus<\/em> and the decidedly less than angelic McGinn is a commitment to the thesis that there are true, non-contradictory propositions that we humans by our very nature are not equipped to understand as either true or non-contradictory.<\/span><\/p>\n

This leaves open the possibility for McGinn that there be extraterrestrials who are equipped to grasp mind-brain identity.  And it leaves open for Aquinas the possibility that there be angelic intellects who are equipped to grasp  God-Man identity (the Incarnation) and how Jesus Christ could ascend into  heaven soul and body!<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

It would be very interesting to hear what James Anderson and Dale Tuggy have to say about this.  They have gone far deeper into the mysteries of mysterianism than I have.<\/span><\/p>\n

Filed under: Mysterianism<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Joel Hunter writes, In the context of an exchange between a Catholic and a Protestant, I came across a quote of Gerard Manley Hopkins that reminded me of your posts on mysterianism.   You do not mean by mystery what a Catholic does. You mean an interesting uncertainty: the uncertainty ceasing, interest ceases also. This happens … Continue reading “Two Senses of ‘Mystery’ and McGinn’s Mysterianism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62,54,292],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-catholic-corner","category-mind","category-mysterianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}