[David]

David, on Apr 11 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

The "living" in living matter is both a function of it being "not dead" and being "spirit filled".
If there is no reality to "spirit" then what Borg is talking about (Jesus being a "spirit filled" person) has no meaning.
I think that the mystic has the last word here. But I also think that being a mystic is fundamental to being human.
I try not to argue with mystics as I try not to argue with fundamentalists (although you have seen my failed attempts).

Actually the true mystic may not provide a "word" at all because in the attempt to put it into words, you lose it.
Silence may be "the last word".
That or paradox as I heard Armstrong say recently.

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 11 2008, 12:11 PM, said:

So please do.

Sorry,

Here's the rest of the comment. What is spirit?

Jung sometimes calls it "numinous" experience. As I understand Jung, this is both a meaningful and emotional conscious experience (awe).

In Process Theology, the only conclusion I can reach is that spirit would be consciousness itself.

My understanding of Paul is that mind is not spirit, his configuration was body - mind -spirit.

My view is with Jung.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 11 April 2008 - 03:15 PM

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 11 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

What is spirit? Jung sometimes calls it "numinous" experience. As I understand Jung, this is both a meaningful and emotional conscious experience (awe). In Process Theology, the only conclusion I can reach is that spirit would be consciousness itself.
My view is with Jung.

Thank you. I think we have reached that point where we can at least see where the disagreement may be. I'm not sure how much difference it makes. Certainly there are all sorts of levels where this can make a difference. On the emotional level there is a self identity difference that really is in the "gut". So reactions are many times "gut" reactions. I many times trust my "gut" reactions, but I need to be more aware of when it is my "gut" talking even though it may sound like it is not.

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 11 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

Thank you. I think we have reached that point where we can at least see where the disagreement may be. I'm not sure how much difference it makes. Certainly there are all sorts of levels where this can make a difference. On the emotional level there is a self identity difference that really is in the "gut". So reactions are many times "gut" reactions. I many times trust my "gut" reactions, but I need to be more aware of when it is my "gut" talking even though it may sound like it is not.

This is close to what I was talking about. From the thread on "moral intuition", awe and gratitude are positive moral emotions with a feeling of "openness" in the chest area. Different emotions have different physiological responses. I quess we would have to merge "value" into spirit? Using emotion to e-valuate?

There is a technical explanation for the feeling in the area of the chest, but that's way outside of this forum. I will say though, it has something to do with breathing exercises used in some meditation practices.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 11 April 2008 - 04:00 PM

[minsocal]

minsocal, on Apr 11 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

Second ...

There are many assumptions here that have been debated throught the ages. All of this is interesting, but what I am struggling with is how to move from Process Thought to Process Theology, and from PT to Scripture. Does anybody here know the stance PT takes towards interpreting the Bible? Or, how does Scripture fit into PT?

Interesting how this works. In the thread "Liberation Theology - The Theological Discipline" there is this:

"Approach the Bible with a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” This means that how we read the Bible depends on our own background and biases. Therefore we always have to be aware of the possibility of “spin” when we, or others, are interpreting it.

This leads to the “hermeneutic circle.” It goes something like this: 1) we read a passage from the Bible, having already engaged in a specific action. 2) Based on our own perspective (see above) we interpret what we have read. 3) Based on that interpretation we engage in some new action with regard to other people. 4) Based on that experience we return to the Bible with fresh insights."

Based on my own experience, I like this approach. Sort of answered my own question here!

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 11 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

Thank you. I think we have reached that point where we can at least see where the disagreement may be. I'm not sure how much difference it makes.

Tracing the sources Whitehead used to develop "Process and Reality", he begins with Spinoza and then proceeds to Descarte, Locke, Hume, and Kant. According to Spinoza, if people are the "adequate cause of their emotions" then emotions are "active emotions", otherwise Spinoza calls them passions (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). Moving to Descarte, when Descarte proposed his mind-body dualism, he assigned emotions to the body (for the most part), and called them "animal spirits". Moving to Hume, he is well known for the statement "Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions." For Hume, passions are a legitimate part of human nature (Ibid). As for Locke and Kant, here we have the split between Locke and the "blank slate" view of the mind and Kant who was a believer in innate processes that structue the mind.

When Whithead moved to the US, be became close friends with William James, who developed one of the first generally accepted theories of emotion. Here is a summary:

James-Lange Theory of Emotions

"The James-Lange theory states that emotions are the perceptions of certain bodily changes. In other words, emotions are feelings that are caused by physiological changes induced by the autonomic nervous system. Such changes include the modifications of heart rate, muscular tension, skin conductance, etc. The theory derives from the basic observation that specific emotions always seem to involve feelings associated with specific parts of the body. Whenever I’m afraid, my muscles tighten and my heart races. In fact, it is arguable that a person could not have the fear emotion without a very specific set of corresponding physiological changes. The James-Lange theory suggests that the physiological changes are the cause of emotional feelings rather than the other way around. William James once pointed out that under his theory one could say that a person feels sad because he weeps, not that he weeps because he feels sad."

http://www.iscid.org...ory_of_Emotions

This is provided as information and not to further any argument.

minsocal

[minsocal]

Uggghhh! The edits to my previous post got lost,

This should be added:

Whitead (1929, p. 339) concludes " ... life novel and immediate, but deriving its richness by its full inheritance from the rightly organized animal body. It is by reason of the body that, by its miracle of order, that the treasures of the past environment are poured into the living occassion."

As before this is provided for information only. Readers shoud draw their own conclusions.

minsocal

[minsocal]

The view of Process Theology I am most familar with comes from graduates of Claremont School of Theology:

"The Center for Process Studies is a research center of Claremont School of Theology, and affiliated with Claremont Graduate University. CPS seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought. Process thought is based on the work of philosophers Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, two contemporary examples of a longstanding philosophical tradition that emphasizes becoming and change over static being. Process thought helps to harmonize moral, aesthetic, and religious intuitions with scientific insights. It also grounds discussion between Eastern and Western religious and cultural traditions. Process thought offers an approach to the social, political, and economic order that brings issues of human justice together with a concern for ecology. Our wide range of interests includes multicultural, feminist, ecological, inter-religious, political, and economic concerns."

http://www.ctr4process.org/

I did not know how specific their mission was, and only looked it up this morning.

This is a perspective I find appealing. I was a bit uncertain until now.

minsocal

[minsocal]

As previously posted, this is Whitead's view of the role of religion:

"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)."

In this debate, I have sought to present what I believed Whitehead had in mind by "emotion". I could be wrong. Perhaps the last few posts have made it clearer how I came to my conclusions. I regret the rancor it produced.

It is also the case that the thread on moral intuitons, derives in part from my understanding of Whitehead, which is why I referenced Whitehead there. In my post on the Clairmont School of Theology there is this:

"Process thought helps to harmonize moral, aesthetic, and religious intuitions with scientific insights."

Regards to all.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 12 April 2008 - 12:30 PM

[minsocal]

David,

My opinion,

Jung presented many explantions of archetypes, causing great confusion. The fully theory is that intuition is the process that derives content from archetypes. Reason develops this content into concepts. The "mystic" is the introverted intuitive type. Mystics are most directly connected to the collective unconscious. The core structure of an archetype includes typical emotional responses inherited from the the vast expanse of human development. Jung (1919) actually said that archetypes are found "in the specific structures of the brain". Among the many experiences from our ancient past is the experience of awe and gratitude for the working of powers that transform the world in a positive way. We simply get too hooked up in trying to explain evil and take good as simply fortunate circumstances. This skewed view is part of our human problem.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 12 April 2008 - 01:58 PM

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 12 2008, 11:56 AM, said:

David,

My opinion,

Jung presented many explantions of archetypes, causing great confusion. The fully theory is that intuition is the process that derives content from archetypes. Reason develops this content into concepts. The "mystic" is the introverted intuitive type. Mystics are most directly connected to the collective unconscious. The core structure of an archetype includes typical emotional responses inherited from the the vast expanse of human development. Jung (1919) actually said that archetypes are found "in the specific structures of the brain". Among the many experiences from our ancient past is the experience of awe and gratitude for the working of powers that transform the world in a positive way. We simply get too hooked up in trying to explain evil and take good as simply fortunate circumstances. This skewed view is part of our human problem.

minsocal

Minsocal,

Jung can go towards theology or towards psychology. I do not think that Jung takes us into theology. He certainly takes us deep into psychology. The “God image” from Jung is more useful for the psychotherapist than the theologian. That is not to underestimate the importance of what Jung talks about. In that sense I have appreciated your contributions.

I am not at all sure that the use of this message board will help us anymore with this subject. If you and I were sitting having coffee together we could go on for quite a while about whether properties of “living matter” contain the whole that is greater than the sum of the parts and to what extent we can understand the whole by looking at the parts. I have suggested that wholeness is given to us and is not a function of “matter” or the result of a “bio/psychic/social” process. So I would expect that after a lot of coffee we may still agree to disagree. Whether we agree on Jung or on theology or any of this is not that important to me and maybe that is why I don't see much value in hammering out all of the details here on this message board.

Does our disagreement make a difference?

There are two most important things for me. First there is epistemology. You and I apparently largely agree on epistemology. That means that we can talk about much and learn much and be open to not only the talking, but the learning.

The other thing that is important to me is ecclesiology. You and I can not only go to the same Sunday School class, but we can also worship together. The “safe place” to do this is based upon the mission of our Churches. That mission is not so narrow that one of us has to be right. Yet that mission is not so broad that everyone is right, including the fundamentalist.

These two things are enough to hold us together in community and are most important to me—those are the “difference makers”.

David

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 13 2008, 08:31 AM, said:

Minsocal,

Jung can go towards theology or towards psychology. I do not think that Jung takes us into theology. He certainly takes us deep into psychology. The “God image” from Jung is more useful for the psychotherapist than the theologian. That is not to underestimate the importance of what Jung talks about. In that sense I have appreciated your contributions.

I am not at all sure that the use of this message board will help us anymore with this subject. If you and I were sitting having coffee together we could go on for quite a while about whether properties of “living matter” contain the whole that is greater than the sum of the parts and to what extent we can understand the whole by looking at the parts. I have suggested that wholeness is given to us and is not a function of “matter” or the result of a “bio/psychic/social” process. So I would expect that after a lot of coffee we may still agree to disagree. Whether we agree on Jung or on theology or any of this is not that important to me and maybe that is why I don't see much value in hammering out all of the details here on this message board.

Does our disagreement make a difference?

There are two most important things for me. First there is epistemology. You and I apparently largely agree on epistemology. That means that we can talk about much and learn much and be open to not only the talking, but the learning.

The other thing that is important to me is ecclesiology. You and I can not only go to the same Sunday School class, but we can also worship together. The “safe place” to do this is based upon the mission of our Churches. That mission is not so narrow that one of us has to be right. Yet that mission is not so broad that everyone is right, including the fundamentalist.

These two things are enough to hold us together in community and are most important to me—those are the “difference makers”.

David

The relationship between Jung and theology is discussed extensively in "The Gnostic Jung" by Robert A. Segal. In his day, several prominent theologians were attempting to incorporate Jung's ideas into theology. The personal correspondences between them reveal that the process sometimes led to bitter debate and damaged relationships. This seems to have been especially true for the relationship between Jung and Buber. A lesson perhaps.

I am in agreement with you regarding the message board, and I had the same "meet over coffee" thought the other day. My experience here has led me along a path that is moving rapidly back to "ecclesiology". So I won't be posting in debate and dialogue any more unless to answer questions in my other thread. In my church, I am often asked to provide the background information that launches discussions. I involve myself in the discussion mostly when there is a need for clarification. I am more comfortable in that role.

I am about to go to my "safe place". Tillich has been added to our CE schedule in May. Looking forward to that.

Peace

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 13 2008, 09:17 AM, said:

I am about to go to my "safe place".

Peace

From my "safe place" Church service today:

Deep peace of the running wave to you.
Deep peace of the flowing air to you.
Deep peace of the quiet earth to you.
Deep peace of the shining stars to you.
Deep peace of the infinite peace to you. ---Adapted from Gaelic Runes