[Wayseer]

McKenna - thank you for your observations. But may I pick up on this comment -

Quote

The myths I was referring to with regard to the Buddha were the stories that actually are myths, such as his encounter(s?) with Mara. They teach us that people saw him as resistant to temptation, even if he never actually resisted a demon named Mara.

Perhaps this not a myth per se. It is not a 'story' that is retold all that often unlike the one where the Buddha was born from his mother's side which indicates a supernatural birth pointing towards someone outside of ordinary human experience. Such stories (myths) are inevitable told by those who conceive the Buddha as a God.

The Buddha was at pains not to have himself elevated above the mundane world - he was a person who overcame suffering and reached enlightenment through his own practice and efforts - in this world. He simple taught others to do likewise. The Buddha recognised that he did not need to 'resist' anything - nor did he need to strive after anything. These activities are the cause of suffering - they cause suffering because they are not real - that are, like Mara, a play on our mind. The Buddha taught to recognise how the mind is influenced by desire and avoidance - once this is recognised one is free of such perceptions. In this sense Buddhism is similiar to Process Theology - one without God though.

The problem recognised by Whitehead concerning Christianity is that those 'myths' are important - for Buddhism, and Whitehead says much about Buddhism, myths are not important. The Buddha gave the world a doctrine - Jesus gave his life - which is why the life (myths) of Jesus cause so much discussion - they're important.

I apologise for labouring this point but I think it is essential to the concept of Process Theology, as far as I understand it. As Whitehead notes; 'Christ represents rationalism derived from direct intuition and divorced from dialectics' (1927: 57). On the other hand, dialectics is all important to Buddhism. 'The historical facts [myths] about him [the Buddha] are subsidiary to the doctrine' (1927:51). However, 'The reported sayings of Christ are not formularized thought. They are descriptions of direct insight' (1927: 56).

For me, Process Theology seems to give me the tools to balance 'direct insight' with 'dialectics' - intitution with experience. That intitution is largely generated from meditating on Bible passages while my experience is moulded by participation, be it a bible study course or a discussion forum.

I hope I'm making some sense here.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 03 April 2008 - 05:25 AM

[McKenna]

Wayseer, on Apr 3 2008, 06:17 AM, said:

I hope I'm making some sense here.

Kind of. I found your comments on PT interesting. But this was more discussion that I was really intending on the Buddha - it was just a side example and really didn't have much to do with my main point

But anyway. Back on topic.

Wayseer, on Apr 3 2008, 06:17 AM, said:

For me, Process Theology seems to give me the tools to balance 'direct insight' with 'dialectics' - intitution with experience. That intitution is largely generated from meditating on Bible passages while my experience is moulded by participation, be it a bible study course or a discussion forum.

Sorry, do you mean intuition? (I misspelled it several times while trying to type it too, haha...)

What about PT allows you to do this? I mean, what is it specifically about PT that 'gives you the tools' to combine direct insight with dialectics?

[Wayseer]

McKenna - I can understand your confusion. However, the example I gave concerning Buddhism is central to Process Theory. What I was endeavoring to illustrate was the difference in ways of knowing.

The central argument in Christianity is 'how' to know Jesus. To do this one undertakes a study of the text - namely the Bible. However, to understand that text, particularly concerning the Gospels, one must deal with myth, or to simplify, with the 'story' of Jesus. What that story says about Jesus is important, particularly concerning the resurrection, the Kingdom, rising from the dead, the miracles - these are core issues to the doctrine of the church. In other words, those stories are of vital importance - the doctrine, 'all the Law and the Prophets', hangs and depends on those stories. (Please accept that I'm generalizing here).

In Buddhism, the story of the Buddha is not important to the doctrine of Buddhism. (I'm using 'doctrine' here instead of metaphysic or dialect for simplification). The 'doctrine' of Buddhism can stand alone without the 'story' of the Buddha - where and when he lived and died is of no real concern. Not so with Jesus - when he lived, how he died, what he did are important - the 'story' of Jesus is central to the doctrine. In other words, there is no real debate about how the Buddha lived - what is important is what he taught. Whereas with Jesus, how is lived informs the shape and scope of the Christian doctrine. Do you follow?

So to your the next question.

This is more difficult to answer. What is entailed is how we come to know things. Science 'knows' things because it applies a particular style of 'knowing' - the rigorous analysis and the concept of replication and falsification. In dealing with metaphysics we do not have recourse to this style of analysis. But we do have recourse to logic and myth.

It is perhaps no accident that with my own 'canon within the canon', as Karen Armstrong oft notes, I can, through logic, understand much of the Bible. That 'canon', for me, consists of the Wisdom Literature and the Gospels of Thomas an 'Q'. Let's take something from Proverbs. P 26:10; 'Better is a neighbor who is nearby than kindred who are far away' (NRSV). I suggest we can all understand the logic in that statement and nod our approval.

Likewise, GoT saying 58; 'Jesus said, 'Fortunate is the person who has worked hard and has found life'. Here Jesus is giving advice, teaching. There is something to work for and that something will enable me to understand what this life is all about. Again, I suggest we can probably accept this saying and see the logic therein contained.

But how do I handle the resurrection? Logic would compel me to reject such an event happening - it remains outside the compass of my experience. I simple cannot answer as any answer would demonstrate my puny and imperfect knowledge of such things. But that does not mean I cannot 'know' intuitively what the resurrection might mean. Because, if I engage this myth with an honest vigor it may well open horizons I had, as yet, not contemplated and thereby enter a space where new meanings and new experiences converge - I enter a 'creative' space with God and having entered this space I might then learn something of the 'love' of God. So, rather than think in terms of 'something', a 'thing', i.e. the resurrection, I might think in terms of a relationship where the 'other', in this case God, becomes part of me and I become a part of God - albeit a pretty small part. And then the question begs - How does God act? Very likely through myth - through this myth of the resurrection I have encountered a new opportunity to 'create' - which seems to be God's overall intention - that we make God incarnate in our life's choices. Intuitively, it is the process of myth that the Word remains contemporary to this life and this time.

Well, that's my best shot at it. Your questions and welcome and have forced me to think through the labyrinth my own mind.

[McKenna]

Wayseer, on Apr 4 2008, 07:33 AM, said:

McKenna - I can understand your confusion. However, the example I gave concerning Buddhism is central to Process Theory. What I was endeavoring to illustrate was the difference in ways of knowing.

The central argument in Christianity is 'how' to know Jesus. To do this one undertakes a study of the text - namely the Bible. However, to understand that text, particularly concerning the Gospels, one must deal with myth, or to simplify, with the 'story' of Jesus. What that story says about Jesus is important, particularly concerning the resurrection, the Kingdom, rising from the dead, the miracles - these are core issues to the doctrine of the church. In other words, those stories are of vital importance - the doctrine, 'all the Law and the Prophets', hangs and depends on those stories. (Please accept that I'm generalizing here).

In Buddhism, the story of the Buddha is not important to the doctrine of Buddhism. (I'm using 'doctrine' here instead of metaphysic or dialect for simplification). The 'doctrine' of Buddhism can stand alone without the 'story' of the Buddha - where and when he lived and died is of no real concern. Not so with Jesus - when he lived, how he died, what he did are important - the 'story' of Jesus is central to the doctrine. In other words, there is no real debate about how the Buddha lived - what is important is what he taught. Whereas with Jesus, how is lived informs the shape and scope of the Christian doctrine. Do you follow?

Very well. I understand the distinction, but thanks for elaborating on them It is interesting to compare the two religions (and their founders!).

Wayseer, on Apr 4 2008, 07:33 AM, said:

It is perhaps no accident that with my own 'canon within the canon', as Karen Armstrong oft notes, I can, through logic, understand much of the Bible. That 'canon', for me, consists of the Wisdom Literature and the Gospels of Thomas an 'Q'. Let's take something from Proverbs. P 26:10; 'Better is a neighbor who is nearby than kindred who are far away' (NRSV). I suggest we can all understand the logic in that statement and nod our approval.

Likewise, GoT saying 58; 'Jesus said, 'Fortunate is the person who has worked hard and has found life'. Here Jesus is giving advice, teaching. There is something to work for and that something will enable me to understand what this life is all about. Again, I suggest we can probably accept this saying and see the logic therein contained.

But how do I handle the resurrection? Logic would compel me to reject such an event happening - it remains outside the compass of my experience. I simple cannot answer as any answer would demonstrate my puny and imperfect knowledge of such things. But that does not mean I cannot 'know' intuitively what the resurrection might mean. Because, if I engage this myth with an honest vigor it may well open horizons I had, as yet, not contemplated and thereby enter a space where new meanings and new experiences converge - I enter a 'creative' space with God and having entered this space I might then learn something of the 'love' of God. So, rather than think in terms of 'something', a 'thing', i.e. the resurrection, I might think in terms of a relationship where the 'other', in this case God, becomes part of me and I become a part of God - albeit a pretty small part. And then the question begs - How does God act? Very likely through myth - through this myth of the resurrection I have encountered a new opportunity to 'create' - which seems to be God's overall intention - that we make God incarnate in our life's choices. Intuitively, it is the process of myth that the Word remains contemporary to this life and this time.

Well, that's my best shot at it. Your questions and welcome and have forced me to think through the labyrinth my own mind.

I think this makes sense. Are you saying that when something cannot be deduced or understood logically, we must resort to myth? I think that's what you mean, and if so that makes sense. It makes sense in terms of Genesis (and all other cultures' creation myths) - people living thousands of years ago had no way of knowing how the world began (except, I suppose I have to say, through revelation), and couldn't possibly deduce or understand it logically. So, they had myths about it. Today this has changed and we no longer really need creation myths, but I still enjoy learning about them because they can provide some interesting insights both into how the culture thought and how they saw the world, and their own self-identity.

Back to your post. I really enjoyed your discussion of relating to the myth of the Resurrection in order to understand God. Perhaps this is why so many Progressive Christians feel it is unnecessary to know whether or not such a Resurrection really occurred, or what it entailed. I must admit I find that debate fascinating, but ultimately in my own personal relationship with God and Christ, it is not relevant; I accept that something happened and try to 'engage in the myth' as you put it. I think I need to get better at this. Perhaps it would help me understand God better.

So, how do you personally engage the myth of the Resurrection? Is this 'engaging' what Process Theology, as applied to Christianity, is all about? It would seem so to me, though I suppose it depends on how much emphasis one puts on the Resurrection. I personally find it important - though not as an isolated event in history, if indeed such an event occurred; but I guess this goes back to the mythological aspect of it. Maybe this is what Crossan (I think that's who it was) meant when he said something like, "The Resurrection never happened. The Resurrection always happens." I may dispute him about the first point, but I agree with the essence of what he was saying (that is, if I'm understanding him correctly!).

Anyway. Ramble ramble!

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

McKenna, on Apr 5 2008, 12:51 PM, said:

Maybe this is what Crossan (I think that's who it was) meant when he said something like, "The Resurrection never happened. The Resurrection always happens." I may dispute him about the first point, but I agree with the essence of what he was saying (that is, if I'm understanding him correctly!).

Anyway. Ramble ramble!

Of the resurrection and of the quote above, if a person really didn't die could they then be resurrected? How could we possibly know the truth? Even today mistakes are made people go into coma's and a few even revived. Feigning or fainting a spell equal to death and three days later Jesus walks is quite a story, but certainly the question of death true death is not answered. We know how accounts can be fabricated one person could write a lie about anything and everyone could believe the lie instead of searching for the truth. Unless the truth is revealed in a way that you could then know with out a doubt and of this topic the resurrection there is no proof that can be offered to quell the questions that can not be answered. The realm of myth is a hypothesis that is repeated enough times to finally be believed as true just as the origins of the universe could have been created from a single event is a myth passed along to be believed right from the beginning of a flawed religious text.

As for the resurrection always happens? Maybe re-creation always happens almost like recreation... (tongue in cheek ) Actually resuscitation might be a better description of what happened to Jesus and should be much more believable... It is what I believe but I can only explain my belief by the information that was revealed to me, I can't make you believe in my revelations you have to decide what you want to believe and what is true for you, but when it comes to the evidence of truth I have a lot to offer.

I agree that the resurrection is not important, and I would remove the Devil from the Details...

The only way we can create world peace is by being an example for others to follow exposing the dark with a shining light.

[Wayseer]

McKenna, on Apr 6 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

So, how do you personally engage the myth of the Resurrection? Is this 'engaging' what Process Theology, as applied to Christianity, is all about? It would seem so to me, though I suppose it depends on how much emphasis one puts on the Resurrection. I personally find it important - though not as an isolated event in history, if indeed such an event occurred; but I guess this goes back to the mythological aspect of it. Maybe this is what Crossan (I think that's who it was) meant when he said something like, "The Resurrection never happened. The Resurrection always happens." I may dispute him about the first point, but I agree with the essence of what he was saying (that is, if I'm understanding him correctly!).

I think it is you that is teaching me here.

The quote from Crossan I think perhaps is Emmaus never happened; Emmaus always happens. No matter, you can apply the essence of those words to the resurrection or to Easter or to any other episode. I could, using Crossan's example, claim, 'Church never happens; Church always happens'.

In this sense these 'happenings' are 'events' in the true sense of PT. 'Doing church' is an event. The experience on the road to Emmaus was/is an event, as was/is the resurrection. And when true friends share something together, an event, something else happens. When I confront the words of the Bible there is me and God - friends, and then something happens. Perhaps I gain a new insight, perhaps some course of action opens up, perhaps I need to consider some past action - the thing is 'something happens' - things are no longer the same. This progression of 'events' is what PT recognises - that those decisions we make when confronted with Emmaus or the resurrection - provide that opportunity and potential for other good things to eventuate. And as a true friend God feels my pain as well as my joy as a result of those decisions - He is no longer the 'unmoved mover' - but a partner with his created in His creation. So, what I do does matter - however small that may be.

Quote

GWB
The realm of myth is a hypothesis that is repeated enough times to finally be believed as true just as the origins of the universe could have been created from a single event is a myth ...

Myth is more than a repeated story. Myth is a conduit along which something of value is transported across time. Myth might have a connection with a historiacl event as such but it coveys more than the historical events themselves - it provides a meaning -

not in a scientific sense but in a sense of -

Quote

As for the resurrection always happens? Maybe re-creation always happens almost like recreation... (tongue in cheek )

- which is perhaps closer to the mark than you might realise.

[McKenna]

Wayseer, on Apr 6 2008, 12:34 AM, said:

I think it is you that is teaching me here.

It certainly feels the other way around to me Thank you for this discussion!

Wayseer, on Apr 6 2008, 12:34 AM, said:

The quote from Crossan I think perhaps is Emmaus never happened; Emmaus always happens. No matter, you can apply the essence of those words to the resurrection or to Easter or to any other episode. I could, using Crossan's example, claim, 'Church never happens; Church always happens'.

Oh goodness, you're right. Oops! But at least you got what I was saying

Wayseer, on Apr 6 2008, 12:34 AM, said:

In this sense these 'happenings' are 'events' in the true sense of PT. 'Doing church' is an event. The experience on the road to Emmaus was/is an event, as was/is the resurrection. And when true friends share something together, an event, something else happens. When I confront the words of the Bible there is me and God - friends, and then something happens. Perhaps I gain a new insight, perhaps some course of action opens up, perhaps I need to consider some past action - the thing is 'something happens' - things are no longer the same. This progression of 'events' is what PT recognises - that those decisions we make when confronted with Emmaus or the resurrection - provide that opportunity and potential for other good things to eventuate. And as a true friend God feels my pain as well as my joy as a result of those decisions - He is no longer the 'unmoved mover' - but a partner with his created in His creation. So, what I do does matter - however small that may be.

This is fascinating to me; there is little I can say in response (for it brought about an emotional - or perhaps intuitive - response, rather than an intellectual one), but I really do find this interesting. I will need to ponder this more. If this is what PT is, in its essence, then it seems to me to be a great way to approach God.

Do you have any recommendations for reading I could do on the topic of PT (particularly as applied to Christianity)? (I don't think I've asked this yet...?)

Thanks again

[Wayseer]

McKenna, on Apr 7 2008, 05:39 AM, said:

Do you have any recommendations for reading I could do on the topic of PT (particularly as applied to Christianity)? (I don't think I've asked this yet...?)

Alfred North Whitehead is the 'father' of Process Theology. I have one book by him, Religion in the Making (1927). His major work is Process and Reality. I find Whitehead is dense and difficult to read and some will tell you Whitehead is outdated. Personally, I think he was way ahead of his time. But whom am I?

Another book subtitled 'a basic introduction' by C Robert Mesle Process Theology (1993) is more my style - easy and readable and has a recommended reading list at the back. John B Cobb has written extensively on Process Theology and thought. I have yet to read him but from various reviews he sounds a worthwhile choice. I have one of his books on order.

Hopes this helps and thanks for the journey.

[Wayseer]

I have been a little remiss in not elaborating on PT view on such issues as sexism, racism, and environmetalism.

PT, as Whitehead notes, acknowledges that as much as God effects the world, the world effects God - that the world is immanent in God. In the repect social issues become paramount as they effect God. Thus the treatment of women, the way the world is divided into black and white, as the world's evironment is degratated for the profit of the few all become theological issues because they effect God. For me PT provides me with a theology that assist me to understand the systematic and endmic evils that prevail in the world. Rather than seeking shelter in a save haven of some other worldly salvation supported and promoted by a popularism that promises and temps us with easy answers to hard questions, process theology confronts those issues precisely because those issues confront God. There is no miraculous view of social reform. All those who who are intent of 'saving souls for Christ' have not made those issues dissolve. Quite the opposite - it seems such issues become compounded though a salvation that says 'I'm alright Jack'.

'Go is a friend who wishes to befriend all' (Williamson & Allen 1991:32). There is no divide and it is only in this authentic way, we as humans, can experience what a friend might wish with respect to those social ills that bedevil the world. The other worldy salavation cuts this ground out from beneath our feet by affirming that God remains aloof from His/Her creation where only ends results matter. PT would argue that how we get to that end is more important. A Buddhist saying acknowledges as much - the path is the goal.

[McKenna]

Wayseer, on Apr 7 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

Alfred North Whitehead is the 'father' of Process Theology. I have one book by him, Religion in the Making (1927). His major work is Process and Reality. I find Whitehead is dense and difficult to read and some will tell you Whitehead is outdated. Personally, I think he was way ahead of his time. But whom am I?

Another book subtitled 'a basic introduction' by C Robert Mesle Process Theology (1993) is more my style - easy and readable and has a recommended reading list at the back. John B Cobb has written extensively on Process Theology and thought. I have yet to read him but from various reviews he sounds a worthwhile choice. I have one of his books on order.

Hopes this helps and thanks for the journey.

Great! Thanks so much

Wayseer, on Apr 7 2008, 06:57 AM, said:

I have been a little remiss in not elaborating on PT view on such issues as sexism, racism, and environmetalism.

PT, as Whitehead notes, acknowledges that as much as God effects the world, the world effects God - that the world is immanent in God. In the repect social issues become paramount as they effect God. Thus the treatment of women, the way the world is divided into black and white, as the world's evironment is degratated for the profit of the few all become theological issues because they effect God. For me PT provides me with a theology that assist me to understand the systematic and endmic evils that prevail in the world. Rather than seeking shelter in a save haven of some other worldly salvation supported and promoted by a popularism that promises and temps us with easy answers to hard questions, process theology confronts those issues precisely because those issues confront God. There is no miraculous view of social reform. All those who who are intent of 'saving souls for Christ' have not made those issues dissolve. Quite the opposite - it seems such issues become compounded though a salvation that says 'I'm alright Jack'.

'Go is a friend who wishes to befriend all' (Williamson & Allen 1991:32). There is no divide and it is only in this authentic way, we as humans, can experience what a friend might wish with respect to those social ills that bedevil the world. The other worldy salavation cuts this ground out from beneath our feet by affirming that God remains aloof from His/Her creation where only ends results matter. PT would argue that how we get to that end is more important. A Buddhist saying acknowledges as much - the path is the goal.

That view makes sense to me. After all, if God is loving, then anything that causes pain in His creations must also cause Him pain. At least, that seems logical to me.

The only problem I see here, however, is that liberals (and I am one too) will jump right on the idea that sexism, racism, the degradation of the environment, etc. are harmful to God. I see no problem with this; I do believe that we should fight for social justice and should do our best to repair (and prevent) damage done to the environment, both out of respect for our fellow humans and out of respect for God. However, what about issues like abortion that are usually dominated by conservatives? Now, I don't want to get into a huge debate about abortion and the government's involvement in it and when life begins etc., but I do think that if we're being honest with ourselves, we have to know that a loving God would probably not be pro-abortion. (Maybe that's just my opinion, but I just can't see a peaceful, loving God being okay with people ridding themselves of their children while they're still in the womb.) I guess the reason I bring this up is that I don't want PT to become merely a justification for liberal politics, if that makes any sense. If we are true to PT and its implications, we have to consider all its implications.

I say this partly out of my perspective as a member of a UU church. UU's first principle is "respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person," which to me says that I cannot be pro-abortion if I am to uphold this principle (although personally I don't believe it's really the government's business, so I guess I'm still pro-choice in that respect, but it's a big ethical dilemma for me), because I need to respect the unborn person's inherent worth. However, the General Assembly of the UUA has concluded that because of this principal we must be pro-choice. Since it is ambiguous at best which position one would adopt while holding onto this principle, it seems to me that the only explanation for the reason they chose to interpret it this way is because of the liberal politics of most UU members. Therefore they are not necessarily being true to the principle but rather using it to further a liberal agenda.

This isn't a reaction to you, because you didn't say we should 'further a liberal agenda' in any way. I just thought I'd throw this out there as a concern of mine.

And again, everyone, let's please not get this thread off topic in a discussion of abortion...that can be done elsewhere.

[Wayseer]

McKenna, on Apr 8 2008, 02:14 AM, said:

However, what about issues like abortion that are usually dominated by conservatives?

A worthy question indeed and I'm not sure I will do it justice. My thoughts are, naturally, my own.

First - it seems that the pro-lifers are not so much concerned with life but with human life. What happens to cattle ending up in hamburgers is, apparently, of little or no concern. It would seem that pro-lifers enjoy eating meat, just as the next person does, which is the end process of a rather brutal means of providing for our daily requirements in protein. They seem to have little to say about the existence of aboitoirs - only abortion clinics. This seems to me to be somewhat hypocritical - and it is a fallacious argument in that it takes what appears to be a universal, 'life' but in practice apply it to only one restricted area of 'life' - humans. Of course the example could be extended to include a whole range of animals which must suffer and die on a daily basis to satisfy human needs. This position stems from a literal reading of the Bible which is a convienient way to read something that might otherwise cause discomfort if one is to think a little more deeply.

Second - Process Theology would argue that God is involved in all choices humans make - for better or for worst. Having set in motion a portion of freewill it would seem that God would circumvent His own creation if He intervened at some times and not at others. So let me tell you a story which might illustrate what PT has to say on the subject.

During WW II in a Nazi concentration two Jewish men, along with other prisoners, were ordered to witness an execution by hanging. The victim was a ten year old boy who had probably committed some minor infraction. But the lad's body was so emaculated and feebly that his weight failed to effect the hanging and he slowly strangled to death. One of the men whispered, 'Where is God now'? After a moment the other man answered, 'At the end of the rope'.

Where was God when that woman who had been held on life support for some 18 years was the subject of numerous legal applications?

Where was God when my niece pulled a drowning man from the surf only to find out later that he ended up a quadriplegic?

'Emmaus never happened: Emmaus always happens'.

I don't have answers that will satisfy - there are no easy answers to such questions. PT would argue that God feels our pain as we do because God is present in all situations.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 8 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

Second - Process Theology would argue that God is involved in all choices humans make - for better or for worst. Having set in motion a portion of freewill it would seem that God would circumvent His own creation if He intervened at some times and not at others. So let me tell you a story which might illustrate what PT has to say on the subject.

I don't have answers that will satisfy - there are no easy answers to such questions. PT would argue that God feels our pain as we do because God is present in all situations.

"The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will."

http://en.wikipedia....rocess_theology

I suspect that your first statement is somewhat incorrect, but the second is true.

"In this sense, God is the great companion -- the fellow sufferer who understands (Whitehead, 1929, p. 351)."

BTW ... Emotion and intuition play a major role in Whitehead's theory (see other thread). His is an "atomic" theory that constucts consciousness from "the bottom up". Roughly speaking, from "blind emotion" through intuition to consciousness. It is virtually the same theory Jung proposed.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 08 April 2008 - 09:28 AM

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 3 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

I apologise for labouring this point but I think it is essential to the concept of Process Theology, as far as I understand it. As Whitehead notes; 'Christ represents rationalism derived from direct intuition and divorced from dialectics' (1927: 57). On the other hand, dialectics is all important to Buddhism. 'The historical facts [myths] about him [the Buddha] are subsidiary to the doctrine' (1927:51). However, 'The reported sayings of Christ are not formularized thought. They are descriptions of direct insight' (1927: 56).

For me, Process Theology seems to give me the tools to balance 'direct insight' with 'dialectics' - intitution with experience. That intitution is largely generated from meditating on Bible passages while my experience is moulded by participation, be it a bible study course or a discussion forum.

I hope I'm making some sense here.

This bothers me because on the moral inuition thread you appear to deny any connection between intuition and rationality.

"According to the philosophy of organism, a pure concept does not involve consciousness, at least in our human experience (Whitehead, 1929, p. 243)." This is from Theory of Prehensions: The Primary Feelings. This precedes his discussion of consciousness where he discusses the relationship between propositions and feelings that are "not necessarily conscious" (p. 256). Whitehead inverts many of the traditional Kantian assumptions concerning the primacy of propositions exclusively in the realm of conscious rationality. But, Kant also accepted the role of intuition in mediating rationality.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 08 April 2008 - 01:38 PM

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 8 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

I suspect that your first statement is somewhat incorrect, but the second is true.

"In this sense, God is the great companion -- the fellow sufferer who understands (Whitehead, 1929, p. 351)."

Which, to me, seems to be saying the same thing.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 8 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

Which, to me, seems to be saying the same thing.

Yes ... on this point we agree. (On point two, the consequent nature of God). Whitehead also framed this in the context of "love" as opposed to "suffering".

This post has been edited by minsocal: 08 April 2008 - 05:42 PM

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 04:08 AM, said:

This bothers me because on the moral inuition thread you appear to deny any connection between intuition and rationality.

"According to the philosophy of organism, a pure concept does not involve consciousness, at least in our human experience (Whitehead, 1929, p. 243)." This is from Theory of Prehensions: The Primary Feelings. This precedes his discussion of consciousness where he discusses the relationship between propositions and feelings that are "not necessarily conscious" (p. 256). Whitehead inverts many of the traditional Kantian assumptions concerning the primacy of propositions exclusively in the realm of conscious rationality. But, Kant also accepted the role of intuition in mediating rationality.

I find Whitehead rather deep and I have difficulty in understanding him - I am a simple human and I admit that much of what you write sounds like Whitehead. And, I'm not at all sure I understand Whitehead's use of 'prehension'. This seems to reflect that tried and trued method of academia - when you can't explain something give it a name and everyone will think they know what you mean, Subsequently, I'm not sure Whitehead is all that conviencing on his ground of 'prehension'. As I indicated, the Buddhist practice of meditation blows these concepts apart - the practitioner eventually realises that all these 'emotions' are nothing but the mind being triggered by pereceptions - and being triggered by perception they are therefore controllable. - there are not somehow innate.

I'm not sure which particular comment of mine 'bothers' you. For me there is physiology, what the human body is programed to do in the normal course of events, and then there is those 'conscious' decisions I might make. Those decisions are initiated through the senses - and I include the brain as a sense (Buddhism). So I don't understand your use of 'emotions', 'initution' and 'feelings' as I have a healthy suspicion of anyone, including Jung, who think they think they know what other people think. What they really mean is 'prediction' - and as you might concede, the universe is a somewhat 'unpredictable' place at times.

So, in turn, I am bothered by your use of such terms as 'blind emotion'. Now what is that? And, if as you indicate, we are guided by 'blind emotion' at some lower level how does God come into play at all? If feelings, emotions, initution are not conscious, but operate at some sub-conscious level, does not mean we are simply programed - hardwired might be a better word.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 08 April 2008 - 05:53 PM

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 08:16 AM, said:

Yes ... on this point we agree. (On point two, the consequent nature of God). Whitehead also framed this in the context of "love" as opposed to "suffering".

Minsocal - you have taken my statement out of context and written in your own bias. My post from which you quote was in response to a particular issue. You might like to revisit that post and acquaint yourselve with the 'issue' and then you might understand my specific choice of words. I was not talking about the 'nature of God'. If I had been I could accept your proposition.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 8 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

I find Whitehead rather deep and I have difficulty in understanding him - I am a simple human and I admit that much of what you write sounds like Whitehead. And, I'm not at all sure I understand Whitehead's use of 'prehension'. This seems to reflect that tried and trued method of academia - when you can't explain something give it a name and everyone will think they know what you mean, Subsequently, I'm not sure Whitehead is all that conviencing on his ground of 'prehension'. As I indicated, the Buddhist practice of meditation blows these concepts apart - the practitioner eventually realises that all these 'emotions' are nothing but the mind being triggered by pereceptions - and being triggered by perception they are therefore controllable. - there are not somehow innate.

I'm not sure which particular comment of mine 'bothers' you. For me there is physiology, what the human body is programed to do in the normal course of events, and then there is those 'conscious' decisions I might make. Those decisions are initiated through the senses - and I include the brain as a sense (Buddhism). So I don't understand your use of 'emotions', 'initution' and 'feelings' as I have a healthy suspicion of anyone, including Jung, who think they think they know what other people think. What they really mean is 'prediction' - and as you might concede, the universe is a somewhat 'unpredictable' place at times.

So, in turn, I am bothered by your use of such terms as 'blind emotion'. Now what is that? And, if as you indicate, we are guided by 'blind emotion' at some lower level how does God come into play at all? If feelings, emotions, initution are not conscious, but operate at some sub-conscious level, does not mean we are simply programed - hardwired might be a better word.

"Blind emotion" is Whitehead's statement, not mine. Whitehead developed his theory with Buddhism in mind. Read the book!

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 09:01 AM, said:

"Blind emotion" is Whitehead's statement, not mine. Whitehead developed his theory with Buddhism in mind. Read the book!

Yes - and like most Westerners who have some knowledge of Buddhism that theory is narrow. You might note I have referred to Whitehead's use of Buddhism is other posts. In that narrow use he is sound. On the wider implications of Buddhist thought and philosophy he is very silent.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 8 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

Yes - and like most Westerners who have some knowledge of Buddhism that theory is narrow. You might note I have referred to Whitehead's use of Buddhism is other posts. In that narrow use he is sound. On the wider implications of Buddhist thought and philosophy he is very silent.

Funny ... my Buddhist friends say otherwise.