PantaRhea

WindDancer, If Clayton is an advocate of Harteshorne as he claims, he is definitely a Process Theologian: 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. His reference to Joseph Bracken is to subtle differences which would probably only interest a professional philosopher. You are correct, and I was surprised to see Clayton's position on Divine Agency. His argument by analogy that God can "in principle control any part of the physical world to which God is related", is not developed (in that article) and is an exception to the mainstream of process philosophical thought. I would be interested in knowing where and why his understanding differs from Harteshorne and Griffin. At this point, knowing something of his history, I suspect that his understanding of Process Theology is somewhat underdeveloped. A very well developed argument for the idea that God cannot, rather than does not, act in the world so as to nullify an entity's self-determination can be found in Griffin's book, Evil Revisited. My own criticism of Clayton's position is that the reasons he provides for God NOT intervening are not strong enough to counter the argument that if God COULD intervene, God SHOULD intervene to overcome the magnitude of evil we see in the world. In any case, it's somewhat of a moot point (except for a valid theodicy)in that although he believes in principle that God can intervene in a "supernatural" way, it doesn't happen.

Cynthia, It has everything to do with supernatural vs. natural. The central concept behind a supernatural God is that of a Being which is outside of time and nature. All concepts are constructs including the concept of time. However, we do not construct our experiences. We experience time because of the process of reality. Time is created by events. If God has no experiences, God cannot experience time, of course. A God with no experiences might be described as infinite and absolute - supernatural. 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.

I thought there was general agreement that God is not "supernatural"? Should we begin another topic on Natural Theology vs. Supernatural Theology? Anyway, here's a very interesting post on the subject of "time". From : George Shields <gshields@GWMAIL.KYSU.EDU> Reply-To : Topics pertaining to Process Thought <PROCESS-PHILOSOPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> Sent : Wednesday, April 6, 2005 3:18 PM To : PROCESS-PHILOSOPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject : Re: arrow of time Just a quick post in light of the earlier comments by process folk with a physics orientation regarding temporal asymmetry. Milic Capek presented an argument that seems to me to be unanswerable, yet it has not quite received the attention it deserves in process circles. In a paper I published several years ago in the American Journal of Theo. & Philosophy (May 2001), I call this the 'Capek Argument'. It is directed against those who, like Gruenbaum, Putnam, and Weyl, want to interpret relativity physics as supportive of a monistic 'block of being' ontology. I stylized the Argument this way: Premise 1: All partisans accept the notion of A-series temporal experience as a phenomenological given. The notions of "past," present" and "future" are intelligible and communicable, because we experience past and present and anticipate the future. Presmise 2: Parallelism, which denies mind-brain causal influence in either direction, is inherently mysterious and arbitrary; it is an ad hoc solution to the difficulties of Cartesian mind-to-brain causation. Premise 3: All other models of the mind-brain relation posit at least sine qua non causal influence in the direction of brain (or neural system) to mind. Premise 4: If a tenseless monistic ontology holds, then brain "events" are themselves tenseless and are all present simultaneously somewhere on a continuum of being. Premise 5: If brain events are at least sine qua non causal influences upon mental or conscious states, then the conscious states themsevles should be tenseless. Conclusion: Either we must embrace parallelism (with its mystery and arbitrariness) or reject the notion that temporal experience is even a phenomenological fact. These are unpalatable horns of a dilemma that proponents of atemporal monism surely want to avoid. In effect, how can we explain even the illusion of temporal experience if we factor in the mind-brain relation? One implication of this argument (if sound) is that, special epistemic pressure ought to be brought to bear against interpreting physical theories in a way that gives rise to a denial of the arrow of time. We ought to look for the artificial ontologizing of quantities in our mathematical formulae and be on the look for the 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness' (e.g., in the interpretation of the abstract 't' in formulae of physical theories). Thanks, George Shields

Alethia, This is where "dialectical monism" goes astray (other than the fact that dialectical monism is an oxymoron): It denies the Ontological Principle. This Principle is not the invention of Whitehead but has been well-tested by philosophers going back to Aristotle. DesCartes said that, ""For this reason, when we perceive any attribute, we therefore conclude that some existing thing or substance [actual entity] to which it may be attributed is necessarily present"' Whoever came up with this "dialectical monism" has to be credited with understanding the dilemna that the "substance monists" are in. However, s/he commits the logical fallacy of assuming that his/her argument is a necessary conclusion because the other's argument fails. Dialectical monism may be found on the internet, but I doubt if it has any history in philosophy. The question which must be answered is whether agency or creativity is an attribute of potentiality. In order for "potential" to be capable of actualizing, it must have the power to do so. John Locke argued that only "substances have the power to produce". Whitehead said of Locke's argument: The notion of'substance' is transformed into that of 'actual entity'; and the notion of 'power' is transformed into the principle that the reasons for things are always to be found in the composite nature of definite actual entities--in the nature of God for reasons of the highest absoluteness, and in the nature of definite temporal actual entities for reasons which refer to a particular environment. The ontological principle can be summarized as: no actual entity, then no reason.

Boy did I screw up the formatting of my last post! Fred, You continue to put forth the concept of God as being infinite and absolute - a God that is "Wholly Other". But upon what basis should I accept such a concept? If I have a choice between two concepts and one of them makes sense and the other claims to "transcend logic" and involves contradiction and incoherency - why should I accept it? As you know, if there is a thesis and an antithesis, a synthesis is only possible when presuppositions are re-examined and changed. The concept and worship of an "infinite" God has been around for a long time. Why assume its truth? Especially if it leads logically to the denial of our experience? The choice is to either accept the idea that the concrete (actual) can be produced from the abstract (infinite) [which it can be shown to be an impossibility], or the abstract is produced by or abstracted from the concrete. In another post to Alethia, I defined the Ontological Principle. Basically, it is the principle that EVERYTHING must be derived from an actual entity. Is God an exception to this? If everything is derived from an actual entity, it becomes very important to understand the nature of an actual entity. Whitehead's description is very complex and in some ways more complete than Wilber's, but on the other hand, Wilber's description is more complete than Whitehead's. Wilber uses the term "holon" rather than "actual entity": Individual holons are entities that have agency and localized interiority or consciousness—in addition to unified exteriority. (If the interiority was not localized or the exteriority not unified we would be talking about collective or macro, as opposed to individual or micro holons). Every holarchy is composed of holons, each one simultaneously a part and a whole. As a part, we have called the holon a "junior" or "constitutive element"; other names we could use are "primitive" or "root". As a whole, we have called the holon a "senior" or "holonic system"; other names we could use are "evolution" or "development". For example, atoms are "primitives" of the molecule and the molecule is an "evolution" of the atoms. This holonic inclusion refers to the creative emergence of organic components, as opposed to the natural or artificial composition of atoms into bigger but still inorganic structures (heaps or artifacts). As Whitehead would say, when creativity approaches zero there is strict causality. Creativity shifts the balance, making the "transcend" part more important than the "preserve" part. Thus, the novel holon emerges. To explain the universe, Whitehead says that one needs three foundational concepts: one, many, creativity. Wilber's Kosmos can be explained with only two: holon, creativity. Examples of individual holons are the ones in the top two quadrants of SES's AQAL (all quadrant all level) diagram: prehension/atoms, irritability/molecules, etc. (Wilber's model is really all quadrant all levels all lines all states and all types, I'm focusing here only on the quadrant-level pair.) It is important to note that each holon has both an interior and an exterior dimension: prehension is the interior view and atom is the exterior view of the "same" holon. Other examples are the memes from Spiral Dynamics (with their corresponding neuronal patterns). In this theory, the orange meme is a senior holon that transcends and includes the blue meme. Another example is the holarchical nature of time. Each holon, at a particular instant, is a junior holon of itself at the next instant: that is to say that over time, a holon evolves integrating and transcending itself continuously. The whole "this moment" is the part of the whole "next moment". Each moment prehends its predecessors, as Whitehead would say. It seems to me, that your idea of God matches Whitehead's (and Wilber's) CREATIVITY. But CREATIVITY has no agency. It doesn't DO anything. Creativity is exercised by a holon. Anselm defined God as that which is unsurpassable by all others. Unfortunately his concept of God was that of an Infinite and Absolute Whole, and therefore his Ontological Argument failed. But if there are holons which include other holons, we can ask Anselm's question - is there an Unsurpassable Holon? It would be a Holon which included all other Holons (the Kosmos) but would transcend the Kosmos as its "this moment" became part of the next moment.

All "actual entities" have power. '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] God is omni-potent only in the sense that God has the most (internal) power it is possible to have. Internal power is relational power - the power to influence and be influenced. God is influenced by all and influences all. Coercive power can only be possessed by a less-than-all-inclusive individual. It is metaphyscially impossible for God to have coercive power. Confusion arises because coercion and persuasion are often used in a psychological sense. Process Theology generally uses the terms in a metaphysical sense. One way to understand the difference is in terms of self-determiniation or freedom and the difference is either none or some. If the power exercised is coercive, the entity it is being exercised upon has no self-determination or freedom as to the outcome. If the power is persuasive, the entity has at least some freedom. This, by the way, is an important concept for the theodicy of Process Theology. Because God does not have ALL the power, God cannot be indicted for evil. The "physical pole" is the prehension of objects (past events). The "mental pole" is the prehension of possibilities or forms. "Material" implies substance and according to Process Theology (and quantum physics, for that matter), there is no substance, no "matter". It seems to me, that this way of putting it denies panentheism and regresses to pantheism. If whatever IS, is God, then how can God be the source of value and ethics. The classical complaint against pantheism is that IS = OUGHT. Changeability and unchangeability are attributes of created things. God is neither changeable nor unchangeable, just as God is neither being nor becoming, neither free nor determined, neither existent nor non-existent, and so forth... more precisely, God completely transcends and unites these distinctions in a Reality more fundamental than any of them. One of those mandalic paradoxes that logic cannot grasp. It is not a paradox, it is irrational and meaningless. Why insist that God "transcends" all categories? What is the point, unless it is to completely separate God from reality and our experience? There would be no way to relate to this kind of "Gobbledegook God". How can the concept of this kind of God be the ground of value, a source of comfort, a "fellow-sufferer who understands"? Is there any sense that we can say of this concept of God, that God is love? What would be the basis for trying to decide whether process philosophy is more or less misleading that classical theism? Your "God" doesn't fit any rational categories, so what are you going to do? Trust your "intuition"?

WindDancer, Yes, I've got the book and have used it in a discussion group to help others understand Process. Most of the participants felt that it was very valuable.

I began a House Church in Wyoming in my days as a fundamentalist but it grew to about 50 people, we moved into a building, and then came to the push to become an institution. In the meantime, my theology was rapidly being transformed and I would have been trapped in an institution. I'm wondering if now things might go differently. This is one reason I've joined a Unitarian Universalists fellowship which wants to develop "Small Group Ministry". I've got tons of books on how to do House Church and I've got a lot of experience so... I am thinking I might be useful. I like the idea of being associated with a larger community. There's nothing too difficult about starting a House Church really. That's one of the things that really neat about it. You don't have to get permission, you don't have to set up a Steering Committee... none of that nonsense. You don't even need to call it a "church" - and in some ways it is preferable not to. Invite a few friends and neighbors over for a discussion about some topic - or simply present the idea that you'd like to form a group with others interested in community (use some language that will appeal to their need) and get it going. As community bonds are formed, rituals can be adopted or will simply appear. There are certain things which should be avoided and certain things should be done to help the community grow and survive, but there's a lot of material available to help in the "birthing" process if one looks for it. The obstacle to doing this kind of thing, in my opinion, is that people have a formed concept of what a "church" is. Unfortunately, many don't think it is "church" unless there is a clergy person around to bore everyone with a monolog. I've told members of my affinity group that what we are doing when we get together is really what church is all about. The formal meeting with a sermon and all that stuff is just "accidental" to church.

Lolly, Thanks muchly for explaining "emptiness". It helped me a lot, although once you explained it, I remembered understanding the concept. Process would use the term, 'the Primordial Nature of God' and mean essentially the same thing. It's hard to communicate when we don't use the same language, isn't it? If we dialog long enough though, eventually we might become multi-lingual?

Earl, I believe if you look closely what Wilber had to say about Whitehead's theory you will see the beginning of the answer to how things come in to being. In fact, that's what Whitehead's system is all about. His book sitting in front of me now is titled, Process and Reality, but it could have been titled equally as well, The Process OF Reality I agree wholeheartedly with this and so did Whitehead. We had discussed whether God was ineffable - well (and this is something Wilber draws attention to also), all of our experiences are ineffable - including tasting an orange - UNLESS tasting of an orange has been experienced by others. At that point we can begin to practice a community hermeneutic. Whitehead was of the opinion that all experiences are of the same reality. Harteshorne said, "God is the wholeness of the world, correlative to the wholeness of every sound individual dealing with the world.... Any sentient individual in any world experiences and acts as one: the question is if its total environment is not therewith experienced as, in some profoundly analogous sense, one. An individual (other than God) is only a fragment of reality, not the whole; but is all individuality (in other than the trivial sense in which a junk pile, say, is an 'individual' junk pile) similarly fragmentary? Or is the cosmic or all-inclusive whole also an integrated individual, the sole non-framentary individual?" If this has any correspondence to reality, we can say that when we taste the orange, we experience God. If two of us taste the orange, we can share our experience of God and form concepts about our experience which we might label as "orangeness". That is all philosophy and theology are about, in my opinion. I don't think it is a matter of what "God" allows or doesn't allow. There will always be unanswered questions because new "facts" are always being added and therefore new Wholes are always being created.

Ya know, with all my frustration and "rawness" not one person here was condemning, condescending, offensive, or uncool. Is anyone else as amazed at that as I am? So, I may be committing the pre/trans fallacy OR it may be that process philosophy is more integral than the Perennial Philosophy or pantheism, or gnosticism. If so, what I am rejecting is the partialness of those views and what we are experiencing is the Battle of the Worldviews. When I was just in the process of replying to AlethiaRiver in the other panentheism topic it dawned on me that Process Philosophy is a SYSTEM of thought; ideas are connected and interdependent. The way we've been going about looking at panentheism is definitely not systematic and therefore we mostly cause confusion and chaos when we try to contribute - because very little is understood in context. And as Wilber points out, all meaning is contextual. What I'd like to do, is to begin presenting Process philosophy in a more systematic way. I may not be the best person to do this (because at times I am scatter-brained) but I may be the one most familiar with it. I would also love to see where the intersections are between Wilber, Gnosticism, Pantheism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Process Thought. Ultimately, what I am MOST interested in, is Wilber's concept of Spirit (which, frankly I don't understand) and Whitehead's idea of two Ultimates - Creativity and God. But, to do this it will probably be best to begin another specific topic. If there is no interest in this, I'm not going to do it. Gee, I've never started a Topic before.

Do I need to conceive of God's transcendance as being SENTIENCE or AWARENESS rather than PHYSICALITY? Did that make sense? Would I be starting to grasp what Harteshorne means by panenetheism if I started to think of God's trancendance as being MIND instead of SPATIAL? So basically, the universe "is" all that "is" spatially, but it is AWARE transcendantly? Am I getting closer? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, you are getting closer. One of the things which has frustrated me, I guess, is that Process Theology or Process Philosophy is a SYSTEM of thought. The ideas are connected and interdependent. To understand it, you must understand the system, which is very difficult to do if you are just getting bits of it from various sources which aren't presenting it systematically. I've made a start here beginning with the Ontological Principle, but I'm thinking it may be best to begin another thread and start fresh. Right now, we've got this topic spread all over the place. What do you think?

Alethia, EXCELLENT questions!!! I hope I can explain, but if I fail, please let me know where. Let's see if we can break it down... It is extremely important to understand, first of all, the ontological principle: In taking the ontological principle as fundamental Whitehead explicitly returns to a standpoint which characterized philosophy prior to the introduction of the 'subjectivist bias' by Descartes. This had brought epistemology into the foreground; epistemology became basic to the whole philosophical enterprise. For on this standpoint all that we can be completely certain of is our experiencing, now. Accordingly the central problem becomes how we can justifiably proceed from the subjective experiencing to external existents; how one can, for example, validly infer from perception to the existence of external things. The consequence of the adoption of this standpoint is that modern philosophy has been haunted by the solipsist difficulty, from which the only escape is the irrational appeal to 'practice' or what Santayana has called 'animal faith'. Whitehead maintains that it follows from the ontological principle that in its predominant characteristic modern philosophy has been in error. For according to this principle our perceptions, our 'impressions of sensation', cannot be 'produced by the creative power of the mind' (to use Hume's phrase), but must be derivative from some actual entity. In other words, our perceptions, our sensa, etc., cannot be of entirely subjective. origination, 'belonging to the mind only', for if they were it would in fact mean that they came into existence de novo, 'out of nowhere'. But according to the ontological principle this is impossible. As Whitehead has put it, 'according to the ontological principle there is nothing which floats into the world from nowhere. Everything in the actual world is referable to some actual entity'; 'it is a contradiction in terms to assume that some explanatory fact can float into the actual world out of nonentity. Nonentity is nothingness. Every explanatory fact refers to the decision and to the efficacy of an actual thing'. Our percepts and concepts, our sensa and 'ideas' ('explanatory facts', 'reasons'), must in any complete analysis be derivative from other actualities; they cannot be subjectively generated... The notion of 'substance' is transformed into that of 'actual entity'; and the notion of 'power' is transformed into the principle that the reasons for things are always to be found in the composite nature of definite actual entities--in the nature of God for reasons of the highest absoluteness, and in the nature of definite temporal actual entities for reasons which refer to a particular environment. The ontological principle can be summarized as: no actual entity, then no reason. This is of particular significance for the whole philosophical enterprise as such. This enterprise, as we shall see in more detail in the next chapter, is the pursuit of rationalism to its fullest extent: it is the endeavour to discover the final 'reasons' for things. According to the ontological principle these 'reasons' are to be discovered in 'the composite nature of definite actual entities'. That is, these actual entities themselves embody the 'reasons' which philosophy seeks. These particular 'reasons' are nothing other than the 'nature', the 'what' of actual entities which constitutes the essential problem of metaphysics. Thus the notions, the ideas, in terms of which we are to conceive the nature of actual entities must be derivative from the actual entities themselves. The ontological principle therefore involves the repudiation of any 'subjectivist' doctrine of 'forms of thought' belonging essentially to the knowing mind, such as was asserted by Kant in his 'Copernican revolution' and was before him already implicit in Descartes and in British empiricism.

Thanks Earl and Alethia. Here's some of the references Wilber makes to Whitehead: Wilber and Whitehead For example, Whitehead gave the classic explanation of how the interiors of individual holons are passed on as future inheritance: namely, prehension (or prehensive unification). Each actual occasion--or each present moment--as it comes to be, does two things at once: it prehends (or experientially feels) its immediate predecessor (i.e., the present moment touches, prehends, or feels the immediately preceding moment), so that the subject of this moment becomes the object of the subject of the next moment. This means that the present moment is, in part, determined by the nature of its predecessors: it is handed an inherited past as part of its feeling in this moment, a feeling that is therefore a prehensive unification of all ancestral feelings, and this inheritance is the basis of a type of causality exerted by the past on the present (i.e., a causal inheritance of past objects that were once present subjects, or a feeling of feelings). But two, according to Whitehead, the present moment then adds its own moment of creative novelty or emergence--it feels something entirely new--and thus it also transcends the past to some degree. Thus, each moment transcends and includes its predecessors, inheriting a history of feelings (or objects that were once subjects) but also adding a creative novelty found nowhere in the past--but a creative novelty that then itself becomes part of the inherited feelings handed to the future, which will then likewise transcend and include that inheritance. With a few qualifications, I strongly agree with that general Whiteheadian view of the nature of moment-to-moment existence. Whitehead actually discovered the inescapable reason that the Kosmos is holarchical in its very nature: each moment transcends and includes its predecessors, the very definition of holarchy. But we add a crucial item: this is a four-quadrant affair, all the way down--a view we also call quadratic. That is, each holon or actual occasion has subjective (I), intersubjective (we), objective (it), and interobjective dimensions (its)--the four quadrants. Whitehead brilliantly described moment-to-moment manifestation in the subjective and (to some degree) intersubjective dimensions. But we will be adding non-prehensive inheritance in the objective and interobjective dimensions, as well as fleshing out the intersubjective realms in a way that is clearly not found in Whitehead. David Ray Griffin, Whitehead's ablest interpreter, suggested that Whitehead's approach be called partial dialogical and the quadratic approach be called complete dialogical, which seems fair enough [see "Do Critics Misrepresent My Position? Appendix A--My Criticism of Whitehead as True but Partial: The Move from an Incomplete Dialogical View to an Integral/Quadratic Formulation," posted on this site]. Nonetheless, the important point is that Whitehead was the first to spot the general features of the microgenetic holarchical nature of moment-to-moment existence, so we are more than glad to be Whiteheadians in this general area.

Earl, I may be mistaken about this, but I recently read something from Ken Wilber which mentioned that he had rejected Transpersonal Psychology specifically because it had refused to be validated by the scientific method. I'll try to look it up again when I have time.

Alethia, Yes, I think I understand. It takes awhile to work out the SEEMINGLY irrational components of our faith. It was this and the ineffable pantheistic God that Earl was referring to that I was reacting to:

What I'd really like to see are Progressive House Churches! That said, there are a number of liberal churches experimenting with the Cell Church or Small Group Ministry concept. People are starving, I believe, for intimate communities of faith. Unfortunately the conservative Christians have had almost a monopoloy on this concept for about 30 years. The Unitarian Universalist church I've recently become affiliated with is beginning a program to develop "Affinity Groups". I am very hopeful that it will catch on, but I have my doubts.

I can't quite figure out where Wilber is going but he seems to be moving more and more to a better developed Process Theology than exists at Claremont perhaps. He's moved away from the Perennial Philosophy, he's moved away from Transpersonal Psychology, and the last thing I've seen him to say is that EVERYTHING can be explained by the existence of sentient holons and their perspectives. He's mentioned in several places that he accepts Whiteheads philosophy almost 100%. I suspect that his idea of Spirit is a hangover from his Buddhism which in turn is a hangover from the pantheism of Hinduism. Anyway, our passions can be expressed in poetry in ways which cannot be expressed by philosophy. We can conceptualize beauty but art expresses it. Art can also express things in the imagination which do not exist in reality. The "Absolute" does not exist except in imagination.

The philosopher, some theologians, and probably the curbside bum understand that no explanation is needed for something which doesn't happen. Is it just a few mystics who continue to believe it does happen? I don't expect physicists to understand the "material" origins of the universe either because I don't think there are any "material" origins because I don't believe matter exists. I also don't believe an infinite, absolute, impassive, immutable, ineffable God exists (and for the same basic reasons that I don't believe something can come from nothing). However, I do think that an explanation of the origin of the universe is possible and I don't think we're too far from it - definitely a lot closer than we were in Meister Eckhart's time. To say we will never have an explanation is a claim to know more than can be known. Fortunately I don't think many people try to get their theology from Joan of Arcadia, although I think the program, although lacking answers, provides a lot to consider. If by "existential anst" you mean the sense of unconnectedness, meaninglessness, and purposelessness that is the result of feeling "trapped inside my head", isolated in a world which I've created, I don't have the disease. I do believe the cure has to do with an intellectual insight, which opens the door for an experience of union with the Whole. Sharing those insights is much more likely to lead to a fruitful path to God/dess than telling others that their questions are unanswerable.

Ken Wilber has also said this: If the best we can do is to remain silent about God, and Meister Eckart and St. Augustine knew this, why didn't they do so? Would you deny that these men had a worldview from which they interpreted their experiences of God?

Don't misunderstand my frustration. It's not a frustration in trying to understand it all - I know I'll never be able to understand fully - but when there is a basic failure (from my perspective) to rethink basic assumptions (like the assumption that "God" is infinite) when they lead to logical deadends... I've been in a discussion group for some time which had been monopolized for some time by atheists. Any expression of spirituality was derided - and very, very, very often for good reason. There has been a subtle change in the group over the last year. A little dose of Wilber and Process philosophy has the atheists on the defense. What has really been exciting though, is that many have mentioned how their life has been changed because of the discussions. Some who had lost their faith have regained it in a new and more meaningful way. There are some who have been coming to the discussion though (now that it is an environment more open to spirituality) who aren't interested in the world of ideas. They simply want to feel that the world is a nice cuddly place to be in. They are narcisstic and magical in their thinking. They seem to share different versions of New Age crap. They're into tarot, and UFO's, and books "channeled by Jesus". They substitute meditation for thinking, gnosis for philosophy. They're not into transforming the world through love and dialog, they're into "personal evolution" with the ultimate goal of arriving at Nirvana (deep sleep where there is no suffering, no desiring, just emptiness). I feel caught between these two (what I feel are) extremes. I believe science and spirituality can be - MUST be integrated. But it will require new ways of looking at reality, of examining our cultural presuppositions. I'm convinced that gnosticism and buddhism, etc., have a lot to add to our overall picture of reality - but those forms of thought must be integrated with science and not simply adopted wholescale. This means, that we acknowledge that the ancient mystics were influenced by their culture. Some of what they believed were ineffable experiences (experiences which couldn't be expressed in the thought forms of their day) can be interpreted in the light of current knowlege. If there is another philosophy out there which is as inclusive as process thought then I want to become familiar with it. I will not be convinced though, that all concepts are equally valid, and/or that ultimately life is meaningless.

Magic is an explanation given when reasons aren't sought. Magic occurs when an event has no sufficient cause. I don't think you are seeking "comfortable" ideas. What I do think however, is that it is possible to become comfortable with meaningless terms (like perfect emptiness) and reassuring ourselves that God is ineffable or "beyond knowing". If this is true, let's simply give up the field to every whacko "mystical" concept that any mindless dolt can come up with. I tried to issue a warning that I am FEELING frustrated. I've invested years of my life in the study of philosophy and theology and then to find out that it has all been wasted and that what I should have been doing is sitting on my ass for years in meditation... Ya know, it's not that I don't meditate... and it's not that I don't think that what is gained in meditation is not ineffable...

I think this "ineffability" stuff is a cop-out. The Church has been using it for years to prop up incoherent and irrational ideas - such as God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Another quote from Harteshorne: "Here countless theologians long ago made an initial mistake for which the full price has yet to be paid: they began the idolatrous worship of 'the infinite'. I asked a few questions about the concept of 'emanation' - or the idea that creation is an outflow of a primordial unchanging substance. You offered this idea as a coherent explanation from the Perennialist perspective. And now God is "ineffable"?

I'm not ready to concede this - if it means that the universe is essentially irrational.

WARNING! By reading any further you will encounter evidence of frustration. I'm wondering if we all live in different worlds where words are spelled similarly but have totally different meanings. What am I missing here? What is "perfect emptiness"? How is the idea that something can come from nothing not a magical idea? Like pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat? What could this possibly mean? Why remain comfortable with "somehow"? I keep thinking we are on the same page and then the evidence becomes shattered.