A Collection of Several Philosophical Writings of Dr. Henry More

...wholly in the whole, and the whole in every part original: "in toto, and totum in qualibet parte", but that this Assertion (as I once had occasion to write to an ingenious friend of mine) is a mere ringing original: "chiming" contradiction. Which I proved to him like this: namely, That the Whole original: "Totum" comprehends all that belongs to a thing both in a positive sense and (consequently) in a negative sense. That is to say, if all of A is in B, there is nothing left to be in C, which is distant from B. For it is as if one should say: there is nothing of A except what is contained within B, and yet at the same moment not only something of A, but all of A, should also be in C. This is impossible for any singular or individual Essence; and Universals are not real Things, but merely Notions term: concepts existing in the mind rather than as independent physical realities.

To which we may further add, that this Supposition makes the thing it describes as small as the smallest thing imaginable. For if the Whole original: "Total" is in every point, it is plain that the size original: "amplitude" of this Whole is no bigger than the point it is in. This is an unbearable original: "intolerable" idea when applied to the Deity term: God, and ridiculous when applied to anything else.

Therefore, since it is so Mathematically provable that there is something properly called Spirit, and that no Being at all can be totally present in separate points or parts of Matter at once, it unavoidably follows that a Spirit is, in some way, extended term: occupying space or having dimensions.

But you will further argue: If Spirit is extended as well as Body, how shall we imagine Perception as being more compatible with a Spirit than with a Body? To which I briefly answer that I have already demonstrated that Perception is incompatible with a Body—a challenge I dare anyone to meet regarding a Spirit. And I further ask those who imagine original: "phansy" a Spirit is totally present in every part of Matter whether they can better understand the immediate reason for the power of perception by that theory. I also ask those who say it is neither like a Mathematical point, nor totally present, nor extended, whether they imagine it any more capable of that vital Sympathy and Coactivity term: the ability of parts to work together instantly and harmoniously that transmits Objects in their exact circumstances to the common Percipient term: the part of the soul or mind that receives and unifies sensory information. I dare say, if they will speak honestly original: "speak what they find", they will not fail to answer that they gain no advantage in understanding the immediate reason for either simple Perception or the above-mentioned vital Sympathy through such suppositions.

And therefore, in the third place, I will take the boldness to inform original: "advertise" them that the truth of my 9th Axiom—which declares that some powers and properties belong directly original: "immediate" to a Subject—has already fully accomplished my purpose. For since there are other properties in Body term: physical matter that prevent it from having the capacity to perceive, it was necessarily left to some Incorporeal Substance term: a non-physical reality; a spirit to be the direct Subject of the power of Perception. For perception must be the direct power of some Subject or other, as far as our understanding can reach; nor can we find any other adequate cause besides the Subject itself which is precisely perceptive. It is true that we are conscious within ourselves that the Being which is perceptive must be very Unitive term: having the quality of oneness or being a single unit. Reason makes it evident to us that being One in a deeper way than Matter is one (which is one only by the placing of parts side-by-side original: "juxtaposition of parts") is a necessary requirement for whatever is capable of the function of Common-Percipiency, and therefore it comes first in nature. But that which is as much "one" as anything can be without a contradiction—that is to say, is so much one that it has, by its very nature, vital Sympathy and coactivity of parts, so to speak,