Andrew Davis
Dennis, this is wonderful text and recommended to all, especially given the questions concerning time raised in class. Whitehead and Bergson side together over and against Einstein, and Canales draws out the story beautifully.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Robert and Christie,
There is a robust discussion in bio-philosophy drawing from the insights of Whitehead’s philosophy, and reconceiving evolution is front and center. See for example a recent text below.
Process-Philosophical Perspectives on Biology
Also, in July the Center for Process Studies is co-sponsoring an online “Revitalizing Bio-Philosophy” conference with some heavy hitters participating Not to be missed. Stay tuned for more info.
Dr. Davis
Paula,
Well put, indeed. The death of depth is behind much of our dysfunctional moment, including the so-called “meaning crisis.” Rediscovering depth via practices is central to a recovery of meaning and stability both individually and communally. Whitehead can help with this, certainly.
DR. D
Friends,
Great discussion here, prompted by Nelson’s rich post. Two texts I would recommend exploring on these topics. Henning’s recent Value, Beauty, and Nature and Donaldson’s Creaturely Cosmologies.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Alas, too large. Sorry, but give it a read if you have SMW.
DR. Davis
Randall and Bill,
Have either of you read the chapter “Abstraction” from Science and the Modern World? Essential reading given Bill’s exploration above.
See attached.
DR. D
Kaeti, thanks for your post. Whitehead would say that we know there is infinity because we are finite and there’s a deep sense in which the entire universe is reaching for infinity, but this relationship is not unilateral because infinity also reaches for finitude. Both require each other. Whitehead critiques what he calls the “superstitious awe of infinitude,” stressing that all value is the gift of finitude in the sense of realization of value in the moment. Each moment is a temporalization of the eternal. In Whitehead’s universe, Blake thus rings true: “Eternity is in love with the productions of time.”
Cheers,
DR. D
Friends,
Great discussion brewing here! Eternal objects remain one of the most debated aspects of Whitehead’s metaphysics, certainly. For his technical discussion, I recommend you all read the chapter titled “Abstraction” in his book Science, and the Modern World.
Some have questioned the need for eternal objects and suggested they might be “removed” in a certain sense. Yet, as Auxier and Herstein have rightly argued in The Quantum of Explanation, anyone trying to remove eternal objects is trying to cut out the category of possibility from Whitehead’s philosophy–and it can’t be done. In fact, they would say the same about “God” who grounds and requires eternal objects.
Cheers,
DR. D
Montgomery and Robert,
A nice discussion emerging here and I appreciate the points you are making: the felt experience of Whitehead’s universe, pulsating with life and experience. I often say that I’m less concerned with newcomers understanding the technicalities of Whitehead’s language. It is more important to first get a feel for the kind of universe he’s imagining and whether or not this aligns with your own experience. The JWST images are truly mindboggling and inspiring. Words fail and appropriately so.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Roni, thanks for your rich comments! That process is oriented toward “importance” in the form of primordial values in no way necessitates that these are always achieved. Possibilities of higher value necessarily bring with them the possibility of their opposites, and not even God can change this! Advancing creativity and freedom means creation inherently involves risk, tragedy, and evil in the form of missed achievements of positive possibility. It’s no small business brining a world into being. In Whitehead’s universe, we are co-creators of this world for better and worse. There is creative unrest in a process universe that opens the world to triumph and tragedy. Whyte’s poem is very rich, too. Thanks for sharing.
DR. Davis
Sorry, Brian. These files are too large.
Here Pittenger’s text:
Look like Suchocki’s chapters are too large, but here’s Norman Pittenger’s chapter (also one of the first openly gay process theologians, and wrote much on the topic).
Cheers,
Dr. D
Brian, here’s a few more…
Brian,
A rich post! You are rightly seeing the ways in which a process lens can transform our understanding of traditional notions like sin, soteriology, grief, tragedy–all of which God also participates in via the consequent nature. Process Theologians have written much on sin. If you have not read Marjorie Suchocki’s Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology, you must.
I attach portions of here book below, as well as several other chapters you may want to consult on the topic.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Dear Brain,
I’m not aware of any process theologians who would say “rocks and rivers” are made in the image of God in the same way humans are. Nor was this suggested in our readings. I think we can preserve the central meanings of Imago Dei within a Whiteheadian framework. In fact, in my book I emphasize Whitehead’s statements concerning human uniqueness. Although we are part and parcel of animal nature, we are also drawn out from nature by the uniqueness of our capacities. Every threshold of evolutionary achievement involves continuity and uniqueness. Imago Dei is an achievement of evolution, God in search of himself in another. I think it is very important to preserve imago dei in humanity, but this doesn’t mean we cannot learn of the divine in ways other than human. For example, there may be an extraordinary civilization in our neighboring galaxy that images God far more intensity than we do!
Thoughts? Thanks.
Dr. Davis