[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

Funny ... my Buddhist friends say otherwise.

Perhaps you have funny friends.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 8 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Perhaps you have funny friends.

And the Dalai Lama is funny I suppose.

[Wayseer]

Now, that is funny.

[Wayseer]

Wayseer, on Apr 9 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

I'm not at all sure I understand Whitehead's use of 'prehension'.

Having reread parts of Forest Wood Jr's work, Whiteheadian thought as a basis for a Philosophy of Religion I get a better idea of what Whitehead was up to with his term 'prehension' - I think he means a 'perception that is loaded with meanings'. Not only are the sensory preceptors being bombard with visual images, the mind is busy placing tags on these images - chair, table, motor car all of which are value laden - that's a good chair, an no so good motor car. And these values have been the result on a learning process from day one. If Wood is correct in understanding Whitehead then it may well be argued that Whitehead is close the Buddhist concept of relative and ultimate reality.

Unfortunately, Wood is silent of 'blind emotion' and I do not have a copy of Process and Reality so if someone can elightment me I would be grateful.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 9 2008, 03:57 AM, said:

Having reread parts of Forest Wood Jr's work, Whiteheadian thought as a basis for a Philosophy of Religion I get a better idea of what Whitehead was up to with his term 'prehension' - I think he means a 'perception that is loaded with meanings'. Not only are the sensory preceptors being bombard with visual images, the mind is busy placing tags on these images - chair, table, motor car all of which are value laden - that's a good chair, an no so good motor car. And these values have been the result on a learning process from day one. If Wood is correct in understanding Whitehead then it may well be argued that Whitehead is close the Buddhist concept of relative and ultimate reality.

Unfortunately, Wood is silent of 'blind emotion' and I do not have a copy of Process and Reality so if someone can elightment me I would be grateful.

"... the mind is busy placing tags on these images" -- unconsciously, including emotional tags as in "good" and "bad". Nothing rational here. Now change the "object" to a fellow human being and see what happens.

From the Index "blind emotions": "... feeling the feeling in another and feeling conformally with another (Whitehead, 1929, p. 163)."

"Religion should connect the rational generality of philosophy with the emotions and purposes springing out of existence in a particular society ... Religion is the transmission of general ideas into particular thoughts, particular emotions, and particular purposes ... (Whitehead, 1929, p. 15)." (see thread in moral intuitions)

This post has been edited by minsocal: 09 April 2008 - 06:45 AM

[David]

Process thought seems now to be a favorite for Progressives. Since it is so much better than fundamentalism I hesitate to criticize. Certainly I would not want to fully discuss Tillich on this message board, but since people have attempted to explain Whitehead here, let me attempt to respond.

For me the weakness of process thought has to do with its association with nature and with evolution. It’s not that evolution is wrong, it is just that the assumption that evolution is guided by a force that makes it better than it was before is not clearly evident in nature. In fact, there is as much evidence for pessimism as there is for optimism (more?).

Some process thinkers do not make the claim that evolution is guided by an optimistic force that makes the process of evolution better. But the theological version depends upon seeing evolution controlled by a force that makes each event better. For this thinking to be correct it needs to show the optimistic function of evolution and show how evolution has made nature better. So show me the evidence that evolution has always been giving us a “value added” process and explain the evidence to the contrary.

[minsocal]

I think that process theology places a heavy emphasis on our personal and communal responsibility within the process of evolution. In a sense this is the "being and becoming" contrast. For Whitehead, God is both Being and Becoming. Progressive theology generally accepts the notion of "comogenesis", Creation is not yet complete.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 09 April 2008 - 12:34 PM

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

I think that process theology places a heavy emphasis on our personal and communal responsibility within the process of evolution. In a sense this is the "being and becoming" contrast. For Whitehead, God is both Being and Becoming. Progressive theology generally accepts the notion of "comogenesis", Creation is not yet complete.

Well obviously if evolution is thought of without God then you can say that evolution is not yet "complete". I guess the important concept is what would make it "complete". Process theology (as opposed to process thought") gives some "value added" to the process by a force called God. God will make it "complete" or "more complete"? I am asking for evidence that nature via evolution is moving towards some concept of "completeness". In effect with this you are saying that "natural law" in nature is changing for the better. I see no evidence of that but I would think there would be visable evidence of that if the theory has any validiity.

P.S. What is comogenesis? Do you suppose I should have understood that before responding?

This post has been edited by David: 09 April 2008 - 01:38 PM

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 9 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

Well obviously if evolution is thought of without God then you can say that evolution is not yet "complete". I guess the important concept is what would make it "complete". Process theology (as opposed to process thought") gives some "value added" to the process by a force called God. God will make it "complete" or "more complete"? I am asking for evidence that nature via evolution is moving towards some concept of "completeness". In effect with this you are saying that "natural law" in nature is changing for the better. I see no evidence of that but I would think there would be visable evidence of that if the theory has any validiity.

P.S. What is comogenesis? Do you suppose I should have understood that before responding?

David,

Cosomogenisis is the term for the basic vision that the universe is evolving. It belongs with a series of related concepts. The next is the view that humans, like the universe are also not yet fully formed. According to the source I am using "the theological emphasis is The Adam, Christ, at the end of time." Humans are imperfect and struggle for for the fullness of creation. The focus is on re-creation and growth.

My own views tend towards naturalism, but I suspect we could well create our own "end of time". This is an area where I rely on intuition and have a difficult time forming rational explanations. The "value added" question is a valid and very difficult issue. I am with you on the points you have raised. Perhaps others in the thread can shed some light on this.

Somwhere in all of this the concept of an indwelling God makes a crucial difference. I go with the indwelling God view myself.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 09 April 2008 - 04:22 PM

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

"... the mind is busy placing tags on these images" -- unconsciously, including emotional tags as in "good" and "bad". Nothing rational here. Now change the "object" to a fellow human being and see what happens.

That explanation does not help. If placing tags on things is irrational, which is what you seem to be advocating - how would the process change when the object is a human? Fail to understand your point here. Apparently that perception is suppose to change. I also not that you inserted the 'emotional' in the comment I made about tags. That's interesting. What are you trying to tell me by doing so? That all this 'tagging' is somehow innate?

Quote

From the Index "blind emotions": "... feeling the feeling in another and feeling conformally with another (Whitehead, 1929, p. 163)."

Thank You for the explanation. But this 'blind emotion' sounds more like 'empathy' to me.

Quote

"Religion should connect the rational generality of philosophy with the emotions and purposes springing out of existence in a particular society ... Religion is the transmission of general ideas into particular thoughts, particular emotions, and particular purposes ... (Whitehead, 1929, p. 15)." (see thread in moral intuitions)

Not sure where this fits in. Are you suggesting that Whitehead treats emotions as 'irrational'? Emotions are rational - that's why we have been taught how to act emotional at certain times. It's a cultural thing.

[Wayseer]

David, on Apr 10 2008, 04:24 AM, said:

Well obviously if evolution is thought of without God then you can say that evolution is not yet "complete". I guess the important concept is what would make it "complete". Process theology (as opposed to process thought") gives some "value added" to the process by a force called God. God will make it "complete" or "more complete"? I am asking for evidence that nature via evolution is moving towards some concept of "completeness". In effect with this you are saying that "natural law" in nature is changing for the better. I see no evidence of that but I would think there would be visable evidence of that if the theory has any validiity.

P.S. What is comogenesis? Do you suppose I should have understood that before responding?

For me what Process Theolgy imparts is the idea that God is present in situations which Whitehead calls 'events'. This works somewhat similar to the Buddhist idea of karma. Good things follow good decisions. In these 'events' there is a feedback loop to God - I do this: God follows with doing that. There is a progress towards something - an Omega point perhaps like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's concept of the nooshere. Certainly there is some importance attached to 'nature' within PT. After all 'nature' is but another 'tag' for the universe which sustains us - which I think what is meant by comogenesis - a term I think first used by Blavatsky to decribe the unfolding universe.

Personally the idea of 'completness' sounds far to fatalistic to me and reflects a Creator God pushing us all towards some end game. What concepts such as de Chardin advocates seem to deny is the extent to which chaos or chance plays in the universe. Choice do matter. And it is in that moment of choice that God exists - for better or worst.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 9 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

That explanation does not help. If placing tags on things is irrational, which is what you seem to be advocating - how would the process change when the object is a human? Fail to understand your point here. Apparently that perception is suppose to change. I also not that you inserted the 'emotional' in the comment I made about tags. That's interesting. What are you trying to tell me by doing so? That all this 'tagging' is somehow innate?

Thank You for the explanation. But this 'blind emotion' sounds more like 'empathy' to me.
Not sure where this fits in. Are you suggesting that Whitehead treats emotions as 'irrational'? Emotions are rational - that's why we have been taught how to act emotional at certain times. It's a cultural thing.

Whitehead developed his theory step by step from the lowest level mental processes to the highest. Whitehead used the term 'sympathy' rather than 'empathy'. As I have stated elsewhere, Whitehead considers 'sympathy' as a basic emotion. At this point in the theory, Whitehead is very far from his theory of consciousness. The distinction here is between the innate substrate of our biological heritage (basic emotions) and the display of emotions that are culturally acceptable. That is, when and how to dispaly anger, etc.

Basic emotions are innate. When you were born, you immediately began to display basic emotions. Did you learn to cry? No chance for learning here. Your mother noted your emotional state and responded appropriately, etc. The human brain has a large section dedicated to generating emotions. If one section is damged by a stroke, the emotion disappers or is horribly altered. If a critical area is damaged (the cingulate gyrus) you loose the ability to make decisions. All of this is well established. You can also stimulate certain parts of the brain to generate emotions like an on-off switch. You can inject certain chemicals into your system and really alter your emotional states.

Whitehead had to accomodate the theory of evolution and, as defined by Darwin, basic emotions are innate. No way to get around this point. The theory of evolution states that innate basic emotions evolved for a purpose. Basic emotions have a survival value.

There is a great deal of difference between an object called a chair and a person. We have innate predispositions to treat people differently than chairs. That is also part of evolutionary theory.

minsocal

[minsocal]

In a more general sense, I have a concern about the issue of how does theology deal with science, and the other way around? A second concern is who or what purpose does theology serve? I am biased towards a theology that serves the building of better communities. I guess it is a matter of where the emphasis is placed. I catch some flack for this, but I think that it is a reciprocal process. For a long time science and theology remained separate. The barrier is now showing signs of breaking down. If science and theology can build a better "end state" so much the better.

[minsocal]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 04:40 AM, said:

"... the mind is busy placing tags on these images" -- unconsciously, including emotional tags as in "good" and "bad". Nothing rational here. Now change the "object" to a fellow human being and see what happens.

From the Index "blind emotions": "... feeling the feeling in another and feeling conformally with another (Whitehead, 1929, p. 163)."

"Religion should connect the rational generality of philosophy with the emotions and purposes springing out of existence in a particular society ... Religion is the transmission of general ideas into particular thoughts, particular emotions, and particular purposes ... (Whitehead, 1929, p. 15)." (see thread in moral intuitions)

I forgot to add that prehensions are "positive" and "negative" physical feelings (Whitehead, 1929, p. 22). Sorry.

minsocal

[David]

Wayseer, on Apr 9 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

For me what Process Theolgy imparts is the idea that God is present in situations which Whitehead calls 'events'. This works somewhat similar to the Buddhist idea of karma. Good things follow good decisions. In these 'events' there is a feedback loop to God - I do this: God follows with doing that. There is a progress towards something.

I'm not sure you are hearing what I am asking. How does this apply to evolution and nature? Who is making the "good decisions" in evolution/nature? Who is at the other end of the "loop" with God in evolution/nature? What is the "something" in evolution/nature that shows evidence of "progress"? Is there a difference between evolution/nature and the process that evidently only applies to humans as you have explained so far?

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

David,

Cosomogenisis is the term for the basic vision that the universe is evolving. It belongs with a series of related concepts. The next is the view that humans, like the universe are also not yet fully formed. According to the source I am using "the theological emphasis is The Adam, Christ, at the end of time." Humans are imperfect and struggle for for the fullness of creation. The focus is on re-creation and growth.

My own views tend towards naturalism, but I suspect we could well create our own "end of time". This is an area where I rely on intuition and have a difficult time forming rational explanations. The "value added" question is a valid and very difficult issue. I am with you on the points you have raised. Perhaps others in the thread can shed some light on this.

Somwhere in all of this the concept of an indwelling God makes a crucial difference. I go with the indwelling God view myself.

minsocal

So if cosmogenisis is the universe evolving why don't we just say "evolution"? What "value added" is given with the word that I can not spell?
OK, so evolution continues. Process theology says more than this. It says that the present has to be better than the past because in each "event" there is "value added". We have a lot of history to look at and I just don't see the "better". It is certainly "different" and I can certainly see the creativity in each "event", I just do not see the "progress". I do not agree that because humans are imperfect that we need to see perfection or the "fullness of creation" between now and then as some progressive progress. Growth happened in the world of Plato. Growth happened in the world of Jesus. Growth happens now. Growth will happen in the future. To me growth happens over and over and over. However, I do not see that this means that history shows us that there is "value added" with each generation.
I certainly agree with God being known "within" us. However, process theology is not the only theology to claim that.

This post has been edited by David: 09 April 2008 - 08:52 PM

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 9 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

I'm not sure you are hearing what I am asking. How does this apply to evolution and nature? Who is making the "good decisions" in evolution/nature? Who is at the other end of the "loop" with God in evolution/nature? What is the "something" in evolution/nature that shows evidence of "progress"? Is there a difference between evolution/nature and the process that evidently only applies to humans as you have explained so far?

Whitehead's (1929, p. 73) definition of 'event' is "I shall use the term 'event' in the more general sense of a nexus of actual occasions, inter-related in some determinate fashion in one extensive quantum." Here he says "that meanings have to be found for the notions of 'motion' and and of 'moving bodies'. This is the concept that Jung abstracted to form his 'energic' model of the mind. Both are abstracting principles from physics.

I think Wayseer needs to explain the relevance to your questions.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 09 April 2008 - 09:06 PM

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

Whitehead's (1929, p. 73) definition of 'event' is "I shall use the term 'event' in the more general sense of a nexus of actual occasions, inter-related in some determinate fashion in one extensive quantum." Here he says "that meanings have to be found for the notions of 'motion' and and of 'moving bodies'. This is the concept that Jung abstracted to form his 'energic' model of the mind. Both are abstracting principles from physics.

minsocal

OK, I'm not "getting this". Did you just answer my questions? Where is the "better" in evolution/nature? Where is the "progress" in evolution/nature?

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 9 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

OK, I'm not "getting this". Did you just answer my questions? Where is the "better" in evolution/nature? Where is the "progress" in evolution/nature?

Sorry, I just edited my reply. I agree with you that Wayseer has the burden to explain this.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 09 April 2008 - 09:09 PM

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 9 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

So if cosmogenisis is the universe evolving why don't we just say "evolution"? What "value added" is given with the word that I can not spell?
OK, so evolution continues. Process theology says more than this. It says that the present has to be better than the past because in each "event" there is "value added". We have a lot of history to look at and I just don't see the "better". It is certainly "different" and I can certainly see the creativity in each "event", I just do not see the "progress". I do not agree that because humans are imperfect that we need to see perfection or the "fullness of creation" between now and then as some progressive progress. Growth happened in the world of Plato. Growth happened in the world of Jesus. Growth happens now. Growth will happen in the future. To me growth happens over and over and over. However, I do not see that this means that history shows us that there is "value added" with each generation.
I certainly agree with God being known "within" us. However, process theology is not the only theology to claim that.

Agreed, process theology is only one form of Type B theologies. I am only presenting a summary of related concepts that are not my own. I respect your views in relation to any of the concepts.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 09 April 2008 - 09:23 PM