Jump to content

PantaRhea

Members
  • Posts

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by PantaRhea

  1. PantaRhea

    Welcome!

    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?
  2. PantaRhea

    Welcome!

    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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Darby, I don't think that "facts" could ever prove that God is love. I do believe, however, that there is a rational "proof" that God is love. There is no such thing as a proof which eliminates all doubt - premises can always be doubted - but rational arguments make it easier to see. If I'm convinced by argument that God is only "the ground of Being" then I won't be expecting to experience God's love. Abstractions don't love. However, if I become convinced by argument, or even become open to the argument that God's very essence is love, then I am more open to experience it - or recognize that what I experience in every moment is God's love. On the other hand, sometimes theology is understood as faith searching for understanding. I may intuit initially that God is love and then only later discover a theology which matches my faith. Sometimes our misguided intellectualism hides reality. I think I am in the fortunate position to have experienced God's love and I have a rational explanation to validate my experience.
  17. Alethia, You must have just skimmed over my post explaining the Ontological Principle. It is not the same as the Ontological argument of Anselm. It is critical however, for understanding Process Philosophy. And this discussion has been one of the rarest discussions I've had. Somehow there has got to be a way that I can learn to put Process into "plain english". But, thanks a whole bunch for putting up with my gobbledegooks!
  18. Darby, If we were discussing calculus I would be lost. In order for me to participate in a discussion of calculus I would need to be familiar with the terminology, the principles, and its application or purpose. In order to even get to that point, I would need a background in mathematics. So, it might be, since I lack the basics needed to understand calculus, if I attempt to get in on a discussion, it will seem to me that those who are versed in calculus are being hyper-critical in their explanations. There is a sense in which it could be said that everyone could benefit from calculus in daily life. It provides answers to questions that are frequently presented. For example, suppose that I have a bottle of solution that I need to mix with a specific quantity of water to be effective but not toxic for my purpose. I have an assortment of unlabeled bowls to mix the proportions in. Only calculus can adequately determine the volume that each bowl can hold so that I can safely dilute the solution. There are theological questions that I would like an answer to - for instance, can prayer be effective? Does God know I exist? Does God care that I exist? Can I experience God? Does God determine my future? What is the basis for moral values - or is there a basis? Did God create the world? Is there hope for the brokenness of this world? How do I get answers to these questions? Some believe that all the answers are found in the Bible - and yet those who read the Bible can't seem to agree on what the answers are. I would suggest that in order to get answers to these questions I need to have some background in various theologies and their history - just like in calculus, I need to be familiar with the various branches of mathematics. The more inclusive my knowledge of mathmatics, the more likely it will be that I can find answers to solve my problems. In the same way, theologically I need to be inclusive. Unfortunately, most of Christianity has been exclusive of other branches of thought. I also see the need for a systematic and disciplined approach in theology. Most of the frustration on this board comes as a result of the ad hoc nature of the discussion. And finally, there is a need for dialog - a need to be in community. Too much of our reading and searching is done in isolation, and as a result we don't develop our critical thinking abilities (I think Paulo Freire showed us the connection between community and critical thinking). To what end is all this discussion directed? I believe we are all in a search for wholeness and paths which will connect us to ultimate reality. I believe we are at a critical period in the history of our species, that if we don't find what we are looking for, we face the likelihood that we will destroy ourselves and this planet. So, it's kind'a important. More important than understanding calculus, imo.
  19. Alethia, You are definitely "getting it". Please don't get discouraged. What I understood about dialectical monism is the claim that the potential must be able to actualize the finite and I provided reasons why that cannot be. I think it is an important distinction, but maybe you are right - it may not be profitable to take these ideas apart any further. How do we get back to Panentheism 101 and find agreement on some main points? As Whitehead said, "Seek simplicity but distrust it."
  20. Fred, I believe that the mystics intuited God and we should not dismiss their knowledge. I also believe the traditional interpretation of their intuition is incomplete. The best model of reality that I am aware of that integrates mysticism and rationalism is, to this point at least, Process Theology. If God had only one "pole" (the Primordial pole) your understanding of God would hold, but their would be no integration of the rational and the mystical. I don't claim that space-time is all there is because I accept the process understanding that God has both a Primordial and Consequent nature. The final summary can only be expressed in terms of a group of antitheses, whose apparent self-contradictions depend on neglect of the diverse categories of existence. In each antithesis there is a shift of meaning which converts the opposition into a contrast [a synthesis]. It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent. It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many. It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently. It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World. It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God. It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.
  21. This is where the classical Christian claim differs from the Perennial/(Neo-/)Platonic one. God freely offers God's very own Being, by way of incarnation, in the form of the physical universe, and takes on (i.e. "suffers") our experience. Not making an argument here, just tying the classical claim into the discussion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Classical Christian theology claims that God is unchangeable. Experiences of an "other" (the world) would change a "Being". This led to the doctrine that God is "impassive" - does not "suffer our experience".
  22. Well, it's not a human construct, it's a created construct. God created it, but isn't bound by it. Otherwise, yes! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, I disagree. From my perspective, we are co-creators of time. Every experience, every event is a creation of time. Every event is an object which has been added to the past.
  23. Eternal nature of God preceded the world ... Isn't that the same thing that Fred and I have been attempting to say only to have it labeled "Gobbeldedgook God"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, it is not the same thing. God is dipolar having both a "primordial" and "consequent" nature. It is true in one sense that God's "primordial" nature (the integration of all possibilities) precedes (logically) God's "consequent" nature but since God has no beginning it cannot be said that God's "consequent" nature (the unification of all actualities) had a beginning point in history. God's "consequent" nature also preceded THIS world, but God was not related to this world until it "emerged". It gets back to the idea again, that God precedes this world, but there has never been a lack of a world to which God was related. We can think of the "Big Bang" as the beginning of this epoch of time, but were there quantum events prior to the "Big Bang"? If so, those quantum events were the only "world" at that time in existence.
  24. Lily, I don't have a problem with intuitive ways of knowing. I just believe that reason validates the truth of our intuitions. It's when I see the claim that the less rational, the more true that I object.
  25. Wait a minute! Don't leave me frustrated too! Where did I lose you? Is it possible you can explain what was meaningless to you and help me to learn to communicate in ways that ARE meaningful?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service