PantaRhea

This is great! Most of my life is off-topic! Our son is visiting from Seattle so we forced him to help us put in a coy pond. I wonder if we can attach pictures to these messages? We walked down to the little 'natural' pond on the side of the road leading to our house with a bucket and a cast net. The second cast I caught four fairly large fish which are now at the bottom of our new pond. We're thinking that we won't be able to get them out now that they have a home there and that they will always lurk on the bottom waiting for us to throw coy fish in for their supper. Our little falls running into the pond is great! Wonder why the sound of water hitting rocks is so peaceful?

I don't know about counting but I heard there was a movement among the worker ants to ask the queen for the right to read.

Just briefly... it involves modal logic. God (if God exists) must have necessary existence but the "necessary" can only be abstract. Concrete existence cannot be derived from the abstract.

One more idea for our foundation - that of "process". It is very important to understand the difference between the common conception (unless you are a Buddhist) of reality and the Process perspective which is the reverse. Rather than deriving processes from matter (matter in motion), Process Philosophy claims that "matter" is abstract and is derived from process. This also conforms to the modern understanding of physics. To understand what an "actual entity" IS therefore, we must understand what it DOES. This is what I would like to begin taking a look at next. But right now, it looks like I'm going to have to go to the beach on the east coast of Florida. Darn it!

I think your questions and comments will be tremendously helpful, in this discussion, to others and to myself. Please don't hesitate to offer criticism. Yes, this is true by definition. Actuality is a selection among possibillities. Have you ever watched "Wheel of Fortune"? The spinning wheel represents all the relevant possibilities. When it stops an actuality is created. An absolute could be represented by a wheel which never stopped spinning. The conclusion is not correct because the premise is incomplete. Hopefully we'll be able to fill in the gaps later, but I think this would be like working on the roof of our structure before we've finished with the foundation. (Pardon the analogies to construction - I was a building contractor for many years.) This is, of course, the classical idea - that actuality can be grounded by possibility, or that concrete actuality can be deduced from the abstract. This leads to "Findlays Paradox" which we will need to discuss on an upper floor. Well, it is, and it isn't. We still need to discuss the nature of an "actual entity" before we can close the book.

Thanks BrotherRog! Yes, there is a lot of information at the site. I've been a member for many years now. There are several advantages to membership - one of which is access to many on-line papers and their newsletter, Process Perspectives.

Lily! Thanks a whole bunch for showing up! This is kind of experimental isn't it? To see whether a theology can be somewhat systematically discussed in a forum like this? I think starting with the "primordial" and "consequent" nature of God might be jumping way ahead of the story. What I'd like to do, is begin with the most fundamental notion of Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism - the Actual Entity. This means we will also have to look at the Ontological Principle. This is kind'a like laying the foundation for the theology we want to build. My son is visiting us for this week and for some reason my wife thinks I should spend time with him and less time on the computer (we're going to build a coy pond together in our front yard )) So, this may be a little slow getting started. Here though, is the footing for our foundation directly from Whitehead: 'Actual entities'--also termed 'actual occasions'--are the final real things of which the world is made up. There is no going behind actual entities to find anything more real. They differ among themselves: God is an actual entity, and so is the most trivial puff of existence in far-off empty space. But, though there are gradations of importance, and diversities of function, yet in the principles which actuality exemplifies all are on the same level. The final facts are, all alike, actual entities.

Fair enough... I'm not going to have time for a little while either, with starting a new job, and, well, fatherhood rapidly encroaching. (mid-summer) I think I'm going to need to get up to speed myself, before any of these discussions really get beyond the level of cursory explorations. What I really need to find is a really hardcore debate between a Christian Neoplatonist and a Process Theologian. Thx for your thoughts, as always. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I went ahead and created it. I'm thinking the web site I referred to might answer some of the questions you asked in the last post. I'd be interested in knowing if it does.

Does a person need a degree in philosophy and theology in order to understand Process Theology? The short answer is: No, but it helps! The purpose of this topic is to explain and clarify. However, clarification is dependent upon feedback. The attempt will be made to define terms but sometimes a definition will involve a term which also needs to be defined. The best way for any of us to gain understanding is to ask questions. There are many more sources on Process Theology than there used to be. This site is one of the better ones, imo: Process Theism Hopefully, those who are interested in this topic can start by reading through the material at this site to become generally familiar with Process.

Yes, but.... There are always "yesbuts" aren't there? I very much agree with you that terminology is a problem. The term "God" seems to be primarily problematic. David Griffin argues that there is a "generic definition" of God and suggests that it is at least the minimum standard for the legitimate use of the term. I think we also need to discuss what is meant by "Subject" and "Object" and the Primordial and Consequent nature of God. I believe a process philosopher would argue that according to the Ontological Principle what you refer to as the "Godhead" cannot ontologically precede and create both "God" and "World". Basically, the Ontological Principle states that EVERYTHING is derived from an actual entity. I would be very interested in discussing these things further, but I really do think we need to go about this somewhat systematically. I don't have time right now, but I think I'll go ahead and start a Process Theology topic and maybe, if you and others are willing, we can begin with some basics and go from there.

What does a "pastor", building, etc., have to do with a "true church"? The objections to "church" that I see mentioned are mostly systemic. Pastors who want to see reform are just as trapped by the system as the people sitting in the pews. How many are familiar with the history of the clergy sysyem? The origin of "sermons"? The connection between the traditional "Order of Service" and Martin Luther? Are these things divinely ordained?

Ken Wilber has an excellent discussion of this here: Childhood Spirituality "The point is simply that most childhood spiritual experiences, in addition to being experiences of authentic states, become subjected to the parameters of their present stage of development. This, of course, is true for adults as well. You can only interpret your experiences with the interpretative tools that you have, obviously--and that means that the cognitive tools at your present stage of development will play a large hand in how you make sense of these strong experiences...." I've had discussion with "mystics" who didn't believe that their experiences were interpreted - which to me, is a form of naive realism. This is a problem with both New Agers and Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists don't understand the role of interpretation of the Bible, and the New Agers don't understand that interpretation is involved in their experiences. I agree that intellectualism can put a damper on mystical experiences. I might compare it with the substitution of pictures of people for real relationships. In others words, sometimes the map is confused with the territory.

I agree, but I think Wilber DOES say that higher stages (not states) are dependent upon cognitive development. Just recently in an interview he pointed out that unless a person had reached a certain level of cognition, they could not develop higher levels of morality.

Des, Sounds kind've elitist, doesn't it? I do not believe that a person will be spiritually deprived if they are uneducated or lack intelligence (the two are not the same). At the same time, there has been a current of anti-intellectualism in fundamentalism, and anti-rationalism in the New Age movement which I think is spiritually unhealthy. I think a person can be extremely intelligent and have a doctorate degree and yet be spiritually bankrupt. I think Ken Wilber is on the right track with his ideas about lines of development. We can develop spiritually, morally, socially, and intellectually. If development doesn't occur in all the levels, we won't be able to reach the next stage of development. So, spirituality and rationality are not mutually dependent but neither are they independent.

Darby, Yeah, I know... I just go on and on and on and on.... But this is really important! You said that for you, it is enough that the Bible says God is love. If the Bible says Moses crossed the Red Sea, then fine - Moses crossed the Red Sea. This is the mythic level of social development and it unites everyone who believes the myth. However, there are a lot of people out there who ask, how do you know Moses crossed the Red Sea? What REASONS can you give me to believe it. These people are at the rational level of development. What do we do with them? The Apostle Paul provided very sophisticated arguments to convince others that God is love - but they were sophisticated for his day. We can't base our arguments, for instance, on the created order assuming that Adam and Eve really existed (1 Cor. 11:3-16). Love demands that if we want others to experience "salvation" we must be able to appeal to reason as one path to God.