Andrew Davis
Bill and Nelson,
Great constellation of questions here. The analogy I use is limited as Nelson points out, but it does give a sense of the how a character remains steadfast amidst a continual flux. Immutability and mutability cannot apply to God in the same way–that would be contradictory. But Whitehead stresses the reconciliation of permanence and flux in both God and world by virtue of their dipolar dynamic. God’s purposes for the world are unchanging in nature and goodness, but God’s expression and receptions of those purposes is ever-changing in relation to the world. As Whitened puts it: it’s not so much that God changes from A to B; rather God grows and is historical in the consequent nature.
Cheers,
DR. D
Christie and Bill,
Great discussion brewing here stimulated by Christie’s original question(s).
As you both touched on, God’s initial aims for us are always contextually based, so they change with our change. They are at the base of each arising moment of our experience in the world, both as inspiration and direction. Most of the time we are completely unconscious of this initial aim which grounds the continuity of experience. Whitehead, you’ll recall, speaks of the “secular function of God” which need not always be religious in nature. Most of the time we are unconscious of God’s involvement in every moment.
But at other times, we might be more aware of a prompting interior to experience that takes on quite a religious flavor/experience. How do we become aware or transparent to these aims? It is here that forms of spiritual practice emerge as means of more consciously aligning our subjective aims with the divine initial aim. To align the two in a single moment is to achieve the will of God for that moment. Is God leading to more than Costco? You bet! God leads us toward the highest achievement of value possible given our context. As Christie put it, traveling is the purpose in part, but God also travels with us toward our life’s purposes, that is, the cultivation and expression of our talents on behalf of value.
Cheers,
DR. D
Dear Bhavana,
Reaching for a practical case study to understand some of this (admittedly) difficult material is exactly what I might recommend. Yes, I think this personal experience of your mother can translate into process expression certainly. Breathing, in fact, is such a potent image for what God does for Whitehead. While the primordial nature breaths out salvific possiblities for the betterment of the world, the consequent nature breaths in what the world actually achieves on behalf of preservation. Your mother’s example reminded me of the great short essays by Jay McDaniel on Open Horizons, many of which speak of God as “Deep Breathing.” Here is a selection you may enjoy perusing:
https://www.openhorizons.org/apps/search?q=Breathing
Cheers,
DR. Davis
Rich, indeed, Montgomery! Theo-poetics at its finest: where God and world make each other on behalf of value. Dennis, thanks for sharing the sounds of spring, with the birds guiding us. It’s an example of the qualitative richness of sensory experience.
To all: Don’t forget to check out Charles Hartshorne’s truly impressive investigation of birdsong in his book Born to Sing for all its qualitative richness.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Bahavana and Andrew: a nice exchange here.
You raise some great questions, Bahavna. One thing to remember is the context in which Whitehead developed his understanding of God, especially World War I which took many of his students, including his youngest son, Eric. He knew war and tragedy in his bones.
Yes, God for Whithead 1. pursues the good that can be achieved in any context and 2. through lures (not force) for us to act to achieve these ends. To this we must add 3. God also suffers the evils of war and tragedy. Tragedy for Whitehead is as real in God as it is for the world in the consequent nature: the “fellow sufferer who understands.”
Yet God is never exhausted by sufferings in the ways we are. This is what the process theologian Bernard Loomer called God’s S-I-Z-E as indicating God indefatigable ability to endure the horrors of war into the divine nature without defeat. God’s suffering is also in the context of God’s endurance on behalf of Good. God is the hope of the world, but relational collaboration is always required.
Cheers,
DR. D
Great diagram, Bill. Nice comments too, Nelson.
It is definitely a challenge to visualize this God-World dynamic and various attempts have been tried. I wonder what you think of Kaeti’s diagram/animation (see her post)? Seeing actual movement in a diagram assists Whitehead’s cause, since any static diagram fails hard! We have to bring our imaginations to any diagram, that’s for sure. We will come to a few diagrams of panentheism in our class this week.
best,
DR. D
Kaeti, I love this!
It’s a wonderful attempt to visualize our material. I especially like the animation which brings it to life!
To your question of whether God prehends our best possible outcomes, the answer I think is “Yes, along with all other possible outcomes.” Imagination is a form of conceptual prehension: of feeling of possibilities as forms of value. You also asked whether God needs a body to “feel” like we do. In short, I think Whitehead would say “No, but God’s physical prehensions of the world achievements are real feelings nonetheless.” Some have argued on Whitehead’s account that analogously to us with our mind-body intimacy, we can see the world as God’s body in the consequent nature. There is something to be said for this and we will touch on this analogy in our discussion of panentheism in our next session.
Cheers–and thanks.
DR. D
George and Zhenbao,
A solid analysis by DeepSeek. Whitehead did view God as a single everlasting event rather than a series of events. Hartshorne, Griffin, and others have critiqued Whitehead’s view as itself problematic and promoted a change to his position. Others like Faber, Suchocki, and Lewis Ford argue that Whitehead’s position is coherent. Whitehead, in part, acknowledges the difficulties posed for God as singled event, but I trust he also intuited the problems emphasized by DeepSeek.
Zhenbao, yes, God as primordial and consequent reflects the mental and physical poles of God. Finite actual entities are dipolar with mental and physical poles, but Whitehead doesn’t characterize them as primoradial or consequent. These functions do not apply in the same way to actual entities as they do to God.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Roni and Paula,
Thanks for your comments. Yes, not everyone will read Whitehead, but you are both correct to link some of his deep themes to ancient wisdom traditions. Part of the creative challenge of being a process thinker in the tradition of Whitehead is the translation of his language such that wider audiences can also feel his universe.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Robert,
Good question! This brings us back to a point we discussed a bit in our live session, namely, that for Whitehead “proper limitation is essential for the growth of reality” and, indeed, the growth of value. In our experience, to choose this rather than that is a means of limiting or restricting the possible in such a way that a certain value can be achieved. You can apply this to works of art, certainly. Not all possibilities of color, contrast, harmony can be included in a single work of art without chaos resulting. Limitation is required among possibilities of value and valuing. Even in the case of the child’s love for his mother, limitation is at play by virtue of the fact that this child’s love it restricted in its uniqueness to his mother and not his next-door neighbor. All such limitations happen amidst a cauldron of possibilities and value-standards we navigate via our everyday decisions etc. From a cosmological perspective, Whitehead also points out seemingly “arbitrary” limitations like the three dimension of space which seems absurd against a backdrop of infinite possibility. Or, our example from class, the “finetuning” of cosmological constants. Assuming they could be different, why are they the way that they are? They are not finally arbitrary for Whitehead, but limitations on the possibility for the sake of value. From this altitude, this limitation on the possible is only a function “God” can provide.
Cheers,
Dr. D
Bill, you’ve offered a beautiful set of theo-poetic insights here. I feel them rather than simply read them. I like your notion that not simply God functions panentheistically, but we do too! All as related to All in the dipolar dance between God and the World. Cosmological Emmanuel: God and Cosmos with each other.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Bahavana, now add to this that it all happens internal to experience in the form of the feeling of values. I believe what Whitehead is getting at with the “essence of the universe” language is that it is value-experience that constitutes the universe and its movements as such. Meaning and value is the content of experience which pervades his universe. Value is what experience “feels.” It is the territory of experience, actualizing the map of abstract possible values.
Dr. Davis
Dennis,
To your question, yes: true value (actualized value) for Whitehead is the gift of finitude.
Isn’t this why “eternity is in love with the productions of time?” 🙂
Dr. D
Andrew, thanks for this great contextualization of our material. A great photo too: bright clouds of the possible.
Cheers,
DR. Davis
Larry, yes, we don’t want to lose sight of landing the plane! Theory and practice require each other for Whitehead. Struggle is inherent in learning and I’m still at it :). What is the infinite? Time? God? We do our best to think with Whitehead and the wonder remains. But I take your point about “landing,” certainly.
DR. D