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?

Thanks Monica!  Ahhh Spring!  It's a great yard day here!  I have an important karma question.... does each INDIVIDUAL ant count???  :>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Findlays Paradox"???  I googled it and got gooblegook... just a brief stating if you don't want to get into it here, please! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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!

This is a good place to start because it brings my fundamental issue with PP into nice sharp focus.   As always, please take my remarks in the spirit of honest exploration and debate.

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.

If I've been paying attention to previous posts, according to PP all "actual occasions" are finite in nature, yes?  So, there is nothing "actual" that is absolute, ineffable, beyond comprehension, etc.?

If I'm remembering correctly, in PP God contains all possibilities and remembers all actualities, but that's the only sense in which God could be considered absolute.  Is that understanding correct?

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.)

By contrast, of course, the classical philosophical conception is that God is not some entity above but alongside other entities (despite popular belief to the contrary); but the infinite ground of (finite) existence itself.

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.

You have rightly acknowledged that the entire PP system hinges on the crucially important Ontological Principle.  While I grant that there is a certain logical and methodological simplicity in saying that "what is, simply is," nevertheless the idea of a self-meaningful finite world strikes me personally as a contradiction.  In my view, only the higher can grasp, and therefore produce, the lower.  (The reality of evolution is not an argument against this claim; it merely causes us to see that higher forms and patterns are often enfolded into lower ones.)  Therefore, in contrast with PP, I take it to be axiomatic that only the infinite could be self-grasping, self-producing, self-meaningful, etc.  Does PP attempt to address this question directly, or is "there is no going behind actual entities to find anything more real" the end of the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it is, and it isn't. We still need to discuss the nature of an "actual entity" before we can close the book.

FYI.. Here's a helpful link:

 

The Center for Process Studies - A Relational Worldview for the ...

The Center for Process Studies was founded in 1973 to encourage exploration of

the relevance of process thought, which is based on the philosophy of Alfred ...

http://www.ctr4process.org

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Which is what I am doing...just wanted you to know. I'm taking notes and everything 

 

Are we going to begin with a discussion of the "primordial" and "consequent" nature of God? Seems like a good place to start.

 

...looking forward,

 

lily

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

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.

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.

I'm going to migrate this discussion over here from P101, since the explicit connection to Process Philosophy seems to be a better fit.

 

I've been thinking about this post a lot over the weekend, and how it relates to (and is different from) my understanding of the God-World relationship.  I'm realizing that much of the difference may be due to terminology.  So Panta, since you seem to be the resident expert on the fine points of Process Philosophy: Would it be fair, in the above statements, to say that what is meant by "God" and "World" are, respectively, the pure subjective and objective poles of Reality?  That is, that it is as true to say that Subject creates the objective world as that Object creates the subjective world; that Subject, in comparison to the objective world, is actual eminently as that Object, in comparison to the subjective world, is actual eminently, etc.?  Would it then be true to say that Subject, as that which creates the objective world, is the primordial nature of God; whereas the subjective world that is created by Object is the consequent nature of God?

 

If the answer to my exploratory questions is correct, then our previous disagreements hinge on a matter of terminology.  In my terminology, I have been using "God" not as "Subject" but as that Unity which transcends the subject-object distinction altogether (think Tao).  THIS sense of God (which mystical theology also sometimes refers to as "Godhead") would ontologically precede and create both "God" and "World" in Process terminology, and be what I have been calling completely ineffable, unspeakable, beyond comprehension, etc.  Mull over this and see if it resonates with you at all.

 

If so, it may be more precise in the future to differentiate between "God" and "Godhead" when referring to these two senses of God.  (God as subject and "God above God," a la Tillich.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

A true church with pastor, buiding, etc takes $$$$.

I'm not saying it can't be done but....

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.

But, Wilber would also say that obtaining so-called higher states of mystical consciousness is not dependent on the faculty of the intellect as he, like many spiritual writers point out that it is contemplation/meditation which spurs that developmental line along.

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,

I don't, however, agree with what I thought PantaR said (and maybe I have got this so very wrong-- please excuse!!!!) but I am thinking you are saying if one doesn't have the vocabulary, doesn't develop, or perhaps couldn't develop it, one would be spiritually deprived somehow. Are you saying this?? What I think is, for the person who NEEDS this type of discussion, the vocabulary might be helpful even valuable.

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.

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.

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!

For a different perspective...

 

I know many on this board need to completely understand.  Please don't take offense at this, but I just don't.  As Paul said, now we see dimly, etc. etc.  As I have watched this post go on and on, do any of you just get more frustrated?  Is there a point where you'll say, "aaahhh, that's it, now I've got it?" 

 

Understand, I'm not arguing for an ignorant, non-questioning approach to Christianity.  It just seems like a thread like this could go on forever, with no one person being completely satisfied.  Like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.  Again, I'm not trying to insult your quest for understanding....just wondering, to what end?

 

During a post like this I'm also reminded and impreseed by the extreme intelligence represented on the board...and how I fall woefully short!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Alethia,

You are definitely "getting it". Please don't get discouraged.

I even tried to show that I GET THAT, by pointing to the dialectical monism page which itself says that God, as "potential" ALWAYS had a finite pole because if not, God wouldn't be "potential"

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."

Fred,

However, transcendental knowledge is not knowledge within the causal realm, based on inductive or deductive extrapolation from facts about the causal realm: it's knowledge of the causal realm in its totality. Panta, you believe that no such vantage point exists, and so God therefore by nature must be contingent on the nature of the universe, just as we are. I submit that this makes the universe ontologically prior to God, which in my opinion makes no sense. You seem to believe that space-time is all there is, or could be, and that any other claim amounts to rain-dancing; but I find it even more illogical that the contingent reality of the space-time-event fabric should be foundational. In fact, I would say a "contingent, foundational reality" is an oxymoron.

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.

The question is, does such a God exist?  If God has no experiences, God cannot experience our existence.  Conversely, we cannot experience such a God.  Only that which we can experience can have any meaning for us.  Therefore, the concept of a God without experience is meaningless.

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".

all great thoughts... but if time is a human construct......?????

 

Can God see across time/without time/from outside time, however you want to phrase it.  Basically God's omnipotence makes sense if time is not a variable in "His" perspective.  Y'think????

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.

"I advocate a dipolar doctrine of God in which the eternal nature of God preceded the world and the consequent (personal, responsive) side of God has emerged in the course of universal history. This assertion reflects my debt to Charles Hartshorne, who followed Whitehead9 in distinguishing between the primordial and the consequent nature of God, and to Schelling10, who identified the Ground and the Consequent in God. p. 5"

 

There is nothing in this claim which differs from Process Theology.

 

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.

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.

panta - with respect and frustration, I give.  Clearly our logical processes are so different that what apparently makes sense to you is close to meaningless to me and I gather that works both ways!   

 

Any chance we can go back to panentheisem 101 on this thread???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?