Process Theology

[Wayseer]

So, how do you personally engage the myth of the Resurrection? Is this 'engaging' what Process Theology, as applied to Christianity, is all about? It would seem so to me, though I suppose it depends on how much emphasis one puts on the Resurrection. I personally find it important - though not as an isolated event in history, if indeed such an event occurred; but I guess this goes back to the mythological aspect of it. Maybe this is what Crossan (I think that's who it was) meant when he said something like, "The Resurrection never happened. The Resurrection always happens." I may dispute him about the first point, but I agree with the essence of what he was saying (that is, if I'm understanding him correctly!).

 

I think it is you that is teaching me here.

 

The quote from Crossan I think perhaps is Emmaus never happened; Emmaus always happens. No matter, you can apply the essence of those words to the resurrection or to Easter or to any other episode. I could, using Crossan's example, claim, 'Church never happens; Church always happens'.

 

In this sense these 'happenings' are 'events' in the true sense of PT. 'Doing church' is an event. The experience on the road to Emmaus was/is an event, as was/is the resurrection. And when true friends share something together, an event, something else happens. When I confront the words of the Bible there is me and God - friends, and then something happens. Perhaps I gain a new insight, perhaps some course of action opens up, perhaps I need to consider some past action - the thing is 'something happens' - things are no longer the same. This progression of 'events' is what PT recognises - that those decisions we make when confronted with Emmaus or the resurrection - provide that opportunity and potential for other good things to eventuate. And as a true friend God feels my pain as well as my joy as a result of those decisions - He is no longer the 'unmoved mover' - but a partner with his created in His creation. So, what I do does matter - however small that may be.

 

GWB

The realm of myth is a hypothesis that is repeated enough times to finally be believed as true just as the origins of the universe could have been created from a single event is a myth ...

Myth is more than a repeated story. Myth is a conduit along which something of value is transported across time. Myth might have a connection with a historiacl event as such but it coveys more than the historical events themselves - it provides a meaning -

 

not in a scientific sense but in a sense of -

As for the resurrection always happens? Maybe re-creation always happens almost like recreation... (tongue in cheek )

 

- which is perhaps closer to the mark than you might realise.

[McKenna]

I think it is you that is teaching me here.

 

It certainly feels the other way around to me Thank you for this discussion!

 

The quote from Crossan I think perhaps is Emmaus never happened; Emmaus always happens. No matter, you can apply the essence of those words to the resurrection or to Easter or to any other episode. I could, using Crossan's example, claim, 'Church never happens; Church always happens'.

 

Oh goodness, you're right. Oops! But at least you got what I was saying

 

In this sense these 'happenings' are 'events' in the true sense of PT. 'Doing church' is an event. The experience on the road to Emmaus was/is an event, as was/is the resurrection. And when true friends share something together, an event, something else happens. When I confront the words of the Bible there is me and God - friends, and then something happens. Perhaps I gain a new insight, perhaps some course of action opens up, perhaps I need to consider some past action - the thing is 'something happens' - things are no longer the same. This progression of 'events' is what PT recognises - that those decisions we make when confronted with Emmaus or the resurrection - provide that opportunity and potential for other good things to eventuate. And as a true friend God feels my pain as well as my joy as a result of those decisions - He is no longer the 'unmoved mover' - but a partner with his created in His creation. So, what I do does matter - however small that may be.

 

This is fascinating to me; there is little I can say in response (for it brought about an emotional - or perhaps intuitive - response, rather than an intellectual one), but I really do find this interesting. I will need to ponder this more. If this is what PT is, in its essence, then it seems to me to be a great way to approach God.

 

Do you have any recommendations for reading I could do on the topic of PT (particularly as applied to Christianity)? (I don't think I've asked this yet...?)

 

Thanks again

[Wayseer]

Do you have any recommendations for reading I could do on the topic of PT (particularly as applied to Christianity)? (I don't think I've asked this yet...?)

 

Alfred North Whitehead is the 'father' of Process Theology. I have one book by him, Religion in the Making (1927). His major work is Process and Reality. I find Whitehead is dense and difficult to read and some will tell you Whitehead is outdated. Personally, I think he was way ahead of his time. But whom am I?

 

Another book subtitled 'a basic introduction' by C Robert Mesle Process Theology (1993) is more my style - easy and readable and has a recommended reading list at the back. John B Cobb has written extensively on Process Theology and thought. I have yet to read him but from various reviews he sounds a worthwhile choice. I have one of his books on order.

 

Hopes this helps and thanks for the journey.

[Wayseer]

I have been a little remiss in not elaborating on PT view on such issues as sexism, racism, and environmetalism.

 

PT, as Whitehead notes, acknowledges that as much as God effects the world, the world effects God - that the world is immanent in God. In the repect social issues become paramount as they effect God. Thus the treatment of women, the way the world is divided into black and white, as the world's evironment is degratated for the profit of the few all become theological issues because they effect God. For me PT provides me with a theology that assist me to understand the systematic and endmic evils that prevail in the world. Rather than seeking shelter in a save haven of some other worldly salvation supported and promoted by a popularism that promises and temps us with easy answers to hard questions, process theology confronts those issues precisely because those issues confront God. There is no miraculous view of social reform. All those who who are intent of 'saving souls for Christ' have not made those issues dissolve. Quite the opposite - it seems such issues become compounded though a salvation that says 'I'm alright Jack'.

 

'Go is a friend who wishes to befriend all' (Williamson & Allen 1991:32). There is no divide and it is only in this authentic way, we as humans, can experience what a friend might wish with respect to those social ills that bedevil the world. The other worldy salavation cuts this ground out from beneath our feet by affirming that God remains aloof from His/Her creation where only ends results matter. PT would argue that how we get to that end is more important. A Buddhist saying acknowledges as much - the path is the goal.

[McKenna]

Alfred North Whitehead is the 'father' of Process Theology. I have one book by him, Religion in the Making (1927). His major work is Process and Reality. I find Whitehead is dense and difficult to read and some will tell you Whitehead is outdated. Personally, I think he was way ahead of his time. But whom am I?

 

Another book subtitled 'a basic introduction' by C Robert Mesle Process Theology (1993) is more my style - easy and readable and has a recommended reading list at the back. John B Cobb has written extensively on Process Theology and thought. I have yet to read him but from various reviews he sounds a worthwhile choice. I have one of his books on order.

 

Hopes this helps and thanks for the journey.

 

Great! Thanks so much

 

I have been a little remiss in not elaborating on PT view on such issues as sexism, racism, and environmetalism.

 

PT, as Whitehead notes, acknowledges that as much as God effects the world, the world effects God - that the world is immanent in God. In the repect social issues become paramount as they effect God. Thus the treatment of women, the way the world is divided into black and white, as the world's evironment is degratated for the profit of the few all become theological issues because they effect God. For me PT provides me with a theology that assist me to understand the systematic and endmic evils that prevail in the world. Rather than seeking shelter in a save haven of some other worldly salvation supported and promoted by a popularism that promises and temps us with easy answers to hard questions, process theology confronts those issues precisely because those issues confront God. There is no miraculous view of social reform. All those who who are intent of 'saving souls for Christ' have not made those issues dissolve. Quite the opposite - it seems such issues become compounded though a salvation that says 'I'm alright Jack'.

 

'Go is a friend who wishes to befriend all' (Williamson & Allen 1991:32). There is no divide and it is only in this authentic way, we as humans, can experience what a friend might wish with respect to those social ills that bedevil the world. The other worldy salavation cuts this ground out from beneath our feet by affirming that God remains aloof from His/Her creation where only ends results matter. PT would argue that how we get to that end is more important. A Buddhist saying acknowledges as much - the path is the goal.

 

That view makes sense to me. After all, if God is loving, then anything that causes pain in His creations must also cause Him pain. At least, that seems logical to me.

 

The only problem I see here, however, is that liberals (and I am one too) will jump right on the idea that sexism, racism, the degradation of the environment, etc. are harmful to God. I see no problem with this; I do believe that we should fight for social justice and should do our best to repair (and prevent) damage done to the environment, both out of respect for our fellow humans and out of respect for God. However, what about issues like abortion that are usually dominated by conservatives? Now, I don't want to get into a huge debate about abortion and the government's involvement in it and when life begins etc., but I do think that if we're being honest with ourselves, we have to know that a loving God would probably not be pro-abortion. (Maybe that's just my opinion, but I just can't see a peaceful, loving God being okay with people ridding themselves of their children while they're still in the womb.) I guess the reason I bring this up is that I don't want PT to become merely a justification for liberal politics, if that makes any sense. If we are true to PT and its implications, we have to consider all its implications.

 

I say this partly out of my perspective as a member of a UU church. UU's first principle is "respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person," which to me says that I cannot be pro-abortion if I am to uphold this principle (although personally I don't believe it's really the government's business, so I guess I'm still pro-choice in that respect, but it's a big ethical dilemma for me), because I need to respect the unborn person's inherent worth. However, the General Assembly of the UUA has concluded that because of this principal we must be pro-choice. Since it is ambiguous at best which position one would adopt while holding onto this principle, it seems to me that the only explanation for the reason they chose to interpret it this way is because of the liberal politics of most UU members. Therefore they are not necessarily being true to the principle but rather using it to further a liberal agenda.

 

This isn't a reaction to you, because you didn't say we should 'further a liberal agenda' in any way. I just thought I'd throw this out there as a concern of mine.

 

And again, everyone, let's please not get this thread off topic in a discussion of abortion...that can be done elsewhere.

[Wayseer]

However, what about issues like abortion that are usually dominated by conservatives?

 

A worthy question indeed and I'm not sure I will do it justice. My thoughts are, naturally, my own.

 

First - it seems that the pro-lifers are not so much concerned with life but with human life. What happens to cattle ending up in hamburgers is, apparently, of little or no concern. It would seem that pro-lifers enjoy eating meat, just as the next person does, which is the end process of a rather brutal means of providing for our daily requirements in protein. They seem to have little to say about the existence of aboitoirs - only abortion clinics. This seems to me to be somewhat hypocritical - and it is a fallacious argument in that it takes what appears to be a universal, 'life' but in practice apply it to only one restricted area of 'life' - humans. Of course the example could be extended to include a whole range of animals which must suffer and die on a daily basis to satisfy human needs. This position stems from a literal reading of the Bible which is a convienient way to read something that might otherwise cause discomfort if one is to think a little more deeply.

 

Second - Process Theology would argue that God is involved in all choices humans make - for better or for worst. Having set in motion a portion of freewill it would seem that God would circumvent His own creation if He intervened at some times and not at others. So let me tell you a story which might illustrate what PT has to say on the subject.

 

During WW II in a Nazi concentration two Jewish men, along with other prisoners, were ordered to witness an execution by hanging. The victim was a ten year old boy who had probably committed some minor infraction. But the lad's body was so emaculated and feebly that his weight failed to effect the hanging and he slowly strangled to death. One of the men whispered, 'Where is God now'? After a moment the other man answered, 'At the end of the rope'.

 

Where was God when that woman who had been held on life support for some 18 years was the subject of numerous legal applications?

 

Where was God when my niece pulled a drowning man from the surf only to find out later that he ended up a quadriplegic?

 

'Emmaus never happened: Emmaus always happens'.

 

I don't have answers that will satisfy - there are no easy answers to such questions. PT would argue that God feels our pain as we do because God is present in all situations.

[minsocal]

Second - Process Theology would argue that God is involved in all choices humans make - for better or for worst. Having set in motion a portion of freewill it would seem that God would circumvent His own creation if He intervened at some times and not at others. So let me tell you a story which might illustrate what PT has to say on the subject.

 

I don't have answers that will satisfy - there are no easy answers to such questions. PT would argue that God feels our pain as we do because God is present in all situations.

 

"The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot totally control any series of events or any individual, but God influences the creaturely exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. To say it another way, God has a will in everything, but not everything that occurs is God's will."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

 

I suspect that your first statement is somewhat incorrect, but the second is true.

 

"In this sense, God is the great companion -- the fellow sufferer who understands (Whitehead, 1929, p. 351)."

 

BTW ... Emotion and intuition play a major role in Whitehead's theory (see other thread). His is an "atomic" theory that constucts consciousness from "the bottom up". Roughly speaking, from "blind emotion" through intuition to consciousness. It is virtually the same theory Jung proposed.

[minsocal]

I apologise for labouring this point but I think it is essential to the concept of Process Theology, as far as I understand it. As Whitehead notes; 'Christ represents rationalism derived from direct intuition and divorced from dialectics' (1927: 57). On the other hand, dialectics is all important to Buddhism. 'The historical facts [myths] about him [the Buddha] are subsidiary to the doctrine' (1927:51). However, 'The reported sayings of Christ are not formularized thought. They are descriptions of direct insight' (1927: 56).

 

For me, Process Theology seems to give me the tools to balance 'direct insight' with 'dialectics' - intitution with experience. That intitution is largely generated from meditating on Bible passages while my experience is moulded by participation, be it a bible study course or a discussion forum.

 

I hope I'm making some sense here.

 

This bothers me because on the moral inuition thread you appear to deny any connection between intuition and rationality.

 

"According to the philosophy of organism, a pure concept does not involve consciousness, at least in our human experience (Whitehead, 1929, p. 243)." This is from Theory of Prehensions: The Primary Feelings. This precedes his discussion of consciousness where he discusses the relationship between propositions and feelings that are "not necessarily conscious" (p. 256). Whitehead inverts many of the traditional Kantian assumptions concerning the primacy of propositions exclusively in the realm of conscious rationality. But, Kant also accepted the role of intuition in mediating rationality.

[Wayseer]

I suspect that your first statement is somewhat incorrect, but the second is true.

 

"In this sense, God is the great companion -- the fellow sufferer who understands (Whitehead, 1929, p. 351)."

 

Which, to me, seems to be saying the same thing.

[minsocal]

Which, to me, seems to be saying the same thing.

 

Yes ... on this point we agree. (On point two, the consequent nature of God). Whitehead also framed this in the context of "love" as opposed to "suffering".

[Wayseer]

This bothers me because on the moral inuition thread you appear to deny any connection between intuition and rationality.

 

"According to the philosophy of organism, a pure concept does not involve consciousness, at least in our human experience (Whitehead, 1929, p. 243)." This is from Theory of Prehensions: The Primary Feelings. This precedes his discussion of consciousness where he discusses the relationship between propositions and feelings that are "not necessarily conscious" (p. 256). Whitehead inverts many of the traditional Kantian assumptions concerning the primacy of propositions exclusively in the realm of conscious rationality. But, Kant also accepted the role of intuition in mediating rationality.

 

I find Whitehead rather deep and I have difficulty in understanding him - I am a simple human and I admit that much of what you write sounds like Whitehead. And, I'm not at all sure I understand Whitehead's use of 'prehension'. This seems to reflect that tried and trued method of academia - when you can't explain something give it a name and everyone will think they know what you mean, Subsequently, I'm not sure Whitehead is all that conviencing on his ground of 'prehension'. As I indicated, the Buddhist practice of meditation blows these concepts apart - the practitioner eventually realises that all these 'emotions' are nothing but the mind being triggered by pereceptions - and being triggered by perception they are therefore controllable. - there are not somehow innate.

 

I'm not sure which particular comment of mine 'bothers' you. For me there is physiology, what the human body is programed to do in the normal course of events, and then there is those 'conscious' decisions I might make. Those decisions are initiated through the senses - and I include the brain as a sense (Buddhism). So I don't understand your use of 'emotions', 'initution' and 'feelings' as I have a healthy suspicion of anyone, including Jung, who think they think they know what other people think. What they really mean is 'prediction' - and as you might concede, the universe is a somewhat 'unpredictable' place at times.

 

So, in turn, I am bothered by your use of such terms as 'blind emotion'. Now what is that? And, if as you indicate, we are guided by 'blind emotion' at some lower level how does God come into play at all? If feelings, emotions, initution are not conscious, but operate at some sub-conscious level, does not mean we are simply programed - hardwired might be a better word.

[Wayseer]

Yes ... on this point we agree. (On point two, the consequent nature of God). Whitehead also framed this in the context of "love" as opposed to "suffering".

 

Minsocal - you have taken my statement out of context and written in your own bias. My post from which you quote was in response to a particular issue. You might like to revisit that post and acquaint yourselve with the 'issue' and then you might understand my specific choice of words. I was not talking about the 'nature of God'. If I had been I could accept your proposition.

[minsocal]

I find Whitehead rather deep and I have difficulty in understanding him - I am a simple human and I admit that much of what you write sounds like Whitehead. And, I'm not at all sure I understand Whitehead's use of 'prehension'. This seems to reflect that tried and trued method of academia - when you can't explain something give it a name and everyone will think they know what you mean, Subsequently, I'm not sure Whitehead is all that conviencing on his ground of 'prehension'. As I indicated, the Buddhist practice of meditation blows these concepts apart - the practitioner eventually realises that all these 'emotions' are nothing but the mind being triggered by pereceptions - and being triggered by perception they are therefore controllable. - there are not somehow innate.

 

I'm not sure which particular comment of mine 'bothers' you. For me there is physiology, what the human body is programed to do in the normal course of events, and then there is those 'conscious' decisions I might make. Those decisions are initiated through the senses - and I include the brain as a sense (Buddhism). So I don't understand your use of 'emotions', 'initution' and 'feelings' as I have a healthy suspicion of anyone, including Jung, who think they think they know what other people think. What they really mean is 'prediction' - and as you might concede, the universe is a somewhat 'unpredictable' place at times.

 

So, in turn, I am bothered by your use of such terms as 'blind emotion'. Now what is that? And, if as you indicate, we are guided by 'blind emotion' at some lower level how does God come into play at all? If feelings, emotions, initution are not conscious, but operate at some sub-conscious level, does not mean we are simply programed - hardwired might be a better word.

 

"Blind emotion" is Whitehead's statement, not mine. Whitehead developed his theory with Buddhism in mind. Read the book!

[Wayseer]

"Blind emotion" is Whitehead's statement, not mine. Whitehead developed his theory with Buddhism in mind. Read the book!

 

Yes - and like most Westerners who have some knowledge of Buddhism that theory is narrow. You might note I have referred to Whitehead's use of Buddhism is other posts. In that narrow use he is sound. On the wider implications of Buddhist thought and philosophy he is very silent.

[minsocal]

Yes - and like most Westerners who have some knowledge of Buddhism that theory is narrow. You might note I have referred to Whitehead's use of Buddhism is other posts. In that narrow use he is sound. On the wider implications of Buddhist thought and philosophy he is very silent.

 

Funny ... my Buddhist friends say otherwise.

[Wayseer]

Funny ... my Buddhist friends say otherwise.

Perhaps you have funny friends.

[minsocal]

Perhaps you have funny friends.

 

And the Dalai Lama is funny I suppose.

[Wayseer]

Now, that is funny.

[Wayseer]

I'm not at all sure I understand Whitehead's use of 'prehension'.

 

Having reread parts of Forest Wood Jr's work, Whiteheadian thought as a basis for a Philosophy of Religion I get a better idea of what Whitehead was up to with his term 'prehension' - I think he means a 'perception that is loaded with meanings'. Not only are the sensory preceptors being bombard with visual images, the mind is busy placing tags on these images - chair, table, motor car all of which are value laden - that's a good chair, an no so good motor car. And these values have been the result on a learning process from day one. If Wood is correct in understanding Whitehead then it may well be argued that Whitehead is close the Buddhist concept of relative and ultimate reality.

 

Unfortunately, Wood is silent of 'blind emotion' and I do not have a copy of Process and Reality so if someone can elightment me I would be grateful.

[minsocal]

Having reread parts of Forest Wood Jr's work, Whiteheadian thought as a basis for a Philosophy of Religion I get a better idea of what Whitehead was up to with his term 'prehension' - I think he means a 'perception that is loaded with meanings'. Not only are the sensory preceptors being bombard with visual images, the mind is busy placing tags on these images - chair, table, motor car all of which are value laden - that's a good chair, an no so good motor car. And these values have been the result on a learning process from day one. If Wood is correct in understanding Whitehead then it may well be argued that Whitehead is close the Buddhist concept of relative and ultimate reality.

 

Unfortunately, Wood is silent of 'blind emotion' and I do not have a copy of Process and Reality so if someone can elightment me I would be grateful.

 

"... the mind is busy placing tags on these images" -- unconsciously, including emotional tags as in "good" and "bad". Nothing rational here. Now change the "object" to a fellow human being and see what happens.

 

From the Index "blind emotions": "... feeling the feeling in another and feeling conformally with another (Whitehead, 1929, p. 163)."

 

"Religion should connect the rational generality of philosophy with the emotions and purposes springing out of existence in a particular society ... Religion is the transmission of general ideas into particular thoughts, particular emotions, and particular purposes ... (Whitehead, 1929, p. 15)." (see thread in moral intuitions)

[David]

Process thought seems now to be a favorite for Progressives. Since it is so much better than fundamentalism I hesitate to criticize. Certainly I would not want to fully discuss Tillich on this message board, but since people have attempted to explain Whitehead here, let me attempt to respond.

 

For me the weakness of process thought has to do with its association with nature and with evolution. It’s not that evolution is wrong, it is just that the assumption that evolution is guided by a force that makes it better than it was before is not clearly evident in nature. In fact, there is as much evidence for pessimism as there is for optimism (more?).

 

Some process thinkers do not make the claim that evolution is guided by an optimistic force that makes the process of evolution better. But the theological version depends upon seeing evolution controlled by a force that makes each event better. For this thinking to be correct it needs to show the optimistic function of evolution and show how evolution has made nature better. So show me the evidence that evolution has always been giving us a “value added” process and explain the evidence to the contrary.

[minsocal]

I think that process theology places a heavy emphasis on our personal and communal responsibility within the process of evolution. In a sense this is the "being and becoming" contrast. For Whitehead, God is both Being and Becoming. Progressive theology generally accepts the notion of "comogenesis", Creation is not yet complete.

[David]

I think that process theology places a heavy emphasis on our personal and communal responsibility within the process of evolution. In a sense this is the "being and becoming" contrast. For Whitehead, God is both Being and Becoming. Progressive theology generally accepts the notion of "comogenesis", Creation is not yet complete.

Well obviously if evolution is thought of without God then you can say that evolution is not yet "complete". I guess the important concept is what would make it "complete". Process theology (as opposed to process thought") gives some "value added" to the process by a force called God. God will make it "complete" or "more complete"? I am asking for evidence that nature via evolution is moving towards some concept of "completeness". In effect with this you are saying that "natural law" in nature is changing for the better. I see no evidence of that but I would think there would be visable evidence of that if the theory has any validiity.

 

P.S. What is comogenesis? Do you suppose I should have understood that before responding?

[minsocal]

Well obviously if evolution is thought of without God then you can say that evolution is not yet "complete". I guess the important concept is what would make it "complete". Process theology (as opposed to process thought") gives some "value added" to the process by a force called God. God will make it "complete" or "more complete"? I am asking for evidence that nature via evolution is moving towards some concept of "completeness". In effect with this you are saying that "natural law" in nature is changing for the better. I see no evidence of that but I would think there would be visable evidence of that if the theory has any validiity.

 

P.S. What is comogenesis? Do you suppose I should have understood that before responding?

 

David,

 

Cosomogenisis is the term for the basic vision that the universe is evolving. It belongs with a series of related concepts. The next is the view that humans, like the universe are also not yet fully formed. According to the source I am using "the theological emphasis is The Adam, Christ, at the end of time." Humans are imperfect and struggle for for the fullness of creation. The focus is on re-creation and growth.

 

My own views tend towards naturalism, but I suspect we could well create our own "end of time". This is an area where I rely on intuition and have a difficult time forming rational explanations. The "value added" question is a valid and very difficult issue. I am with you on the points you have raised. Perhaps others in the thread can shed some light on this.

 

Somwhere in all of this the concept of an indwelling God makes a crucial difference. I go with the indwelling God view myself.

 

minsocal

[Wayseer]

"... the mind is busy placing tags on these images" -- unconsciously, including emotional tags as in "good" and "bad". Nothing rational here. Now change the "object" to a fellow human being and see what happens.

 

That explanation does not help. If placing tags on things is irrational, which is what you seem to be advocating - how would the process change when the object is a human? Fail to understand your point here. Apparently that perception is suppose to change. I also not that you inserted the 'emotional' in the comment I made about tags. That's interesting. What are you trying to tell me by doing so? That all this 'tagging' is somehow innate?

 

From the Index "blind emotions": "... feeling the feeling in another and feeling conformally with another (Whitehead, 1929, p. 163)."

Thank You for the explanation. But this 'blind emotion' sounds more like 'empathy' to me.

 

"Religion should connect the rational generality of philosophy with the emotions and purposes springing out of existence in a particular society ... Religion is the transmission of general ideas into particular thoughts, particular emotions, and particular purposes ... (Whitehead, 1929, p. 15)." (see thread in moral intuitions)

 

Not sure where this fits in. Are you suggesting that Whitehead treats emotions as 'irrational'? Emotions are rational - that's why we have been taught how to act emotional at certain times. It's a cultural thing.