Does 'center of consciousness' = separate will?

[RamistThomist]

I used to hold that in the Trinity a separate "center of consciousness" necessarily meant a separate knowing and willing, which seemed to imply more than one will in the Godhead--and that seems to lead to Social Trinitarianism.

Now I am not so sure. I am currently reading Thomas Mccall's Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism" where he analyzes current proposals. A lot of the men under discussion (on all sides) use the phrase "centers of consciousness," but they never take it a step further and ask whether it entails a separate faculty of will and mind in the divine nature.

 

[earl40]

I used to hold that in the Trinity a separate "center of consciousness" necessarily meant a separate knowing and willing, which seemed to imply more than one will in the Godhead--and that seems to lead to Social Trinitarianism.

I agree with the above, and indeed Social Trinitarianism is rampant in our circles. I think this touches on a mystery that entails to use apophatic theology, which many have an aversion toward because of all the anthropomorphic language that is used in scripture.

 

[MW]

What is meant by divine nature? If the nature does not have the powers of understanding and determination it will be impossible to say what is meant by the term.

If there is no numerically one divine identity, what is the purpose of confessing that there are "three persons in the Godhead?" Nobody will have any idea what "Godhead" means. At that point one might have a highly developed theory of personhood but it will be meaningless because it is not grounded in any sense of divine identity.

 

[RamistThomist]

Without trying to exhaust the content of the divine nature, I would say it includes both mind and will. I am following Gregory of Nyssa and Basil in saying that there is one mind, will, and energy of operation.

 

[MW]

Without trying to exhaust the content of the divine nature, I would say it includes both mind and will. I am following Gregory of Nyssa and Basil in saying that there is one mind, will, and energy of operation.

On that basis it would be impossible to conceive of more than one without introducing more than one divine nature.

Consciousness itself can be used in different ways, so some latitude must be given to the person speaking to explain what he means by the concept. But the idea of a "centre of consciousness" seems to introduce an element of "process" which conflicts with classic theism.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not endorsing the idea. I'm just examining it. I see it a lot in the literature but no one explains it. I don't think it has to be read in a "progress" view. It could simply mean that the Persons exemplify/instantiate the "mind." I'm not saying this is what the literature means by the term.

 

[MW]

I'm not endorsing the idea. I'm just examining it. I see it a lot in the literature but no one explains it. I don't think it has to be read in a "progress" view. It could simply mean that the Persons exemplify/instantiate the "mind." I'm not saying this is what the literature means by the term.

As a point of examination I would begin with the importation of psychological ideas into the concept of "person," which were no part of the traditional discussion. E.g., making consciousness essential to the person or defining a person in terms of "personality." Even in human psychology these are dubious connections. An unconscious person is still a person and a change of personality does not entail a change of person.

"Process" is a state of "becoming." Any idea of "process" regards God as less than perfect being. If something is a centre in God then there must be things which are not a centre in God. This creates substance and accidents and introduces the fundamental problem of "becoming."

 

[Justified]

Several things come to mind. First, unfortunately, even modern philosophers and theologians committed to classical theism adopt certain terminological blunders from their contemporaries. For example, I've seen Leftow for sure and I think even Stump-- though my memory may just be fuzzy-- call God a "person." Of course, if you press them, they'll not admit to such being actually the case.

Second, consciousness is so often equivocated on its hard to know what any individual author means by it.

Third, their is a certain intentionality to consciousness. This being so it's hard to separate it from will, which is also inherently teleological. Wherefore, I'd be leery, at least how I've defined the terms, of positing "three centers of consciousness (or, worse self-consciousness) in the Trinity.

Fourth, somewhat tangential but related, there was a recent colloquium on consciousness and philosophy of mind hosted by Notre Dame Institute of Advanced Studies, headed by David Hart, which I'm sure you'd be interested in listening to. I'm sure you can find it. If not, you can always email me and I'll send a link.

 

[RamistThomist]

Several things come to mind. First, unfortunately, even modern philosophers and theologians committed to classical theism adopt certain terminological blunders from their contemporaries. For example, I've seen Leftow for sure and I think even Stump-- though my memory may just be fuzzy-- call God a "person." Of course, if you press them, they'll not admit to such being actually the case.

Second, consciousness is so often equivocated on its hard to know what any individual author means by it.

Third, their is a certain intentionality to consciousness. This being so it's hard to separate it from will, which is also inherently teleological. Wherefore, I'd be leery, at least how I've defined the terms, of positing "three centers of consciousness (or, worse self-consciousness) in the Trinity.

Fourth, somewhat tangential but related, there was a recent colloquium on consciousness and philosophy of mind hosted by Notre Dame Institute of Advanced Studies, headed by David Hart, which I'm sure you'd be interested in listening to. I'm sure you can find it. If not, you can always email me and I'll send a link.

I've even seen Leftow say "parts" with respect to God, even in an article on simplicity.