Leslie King
Thanks Roni for this! Indeed, there is often a great concern for “getting worship right” rather than allowing worship to be appropriately provocative. I often think of worship/liturgy/homiletics as a propositions in the Whiteheadian sense. Remembering Whitehead, “It is more important that a proposition be interesting than that it be true.” Propositions, for Whitehead, are similar to eternal objects but not the same. While eternal objects hold pure potential, propositions hold impure potential and are often related to logic. (Whitehead Word Book, 46)
With our propositions, what appropriate provocation are we intending? What is catalyzed in the life of the one who worships? Are we trying to keep worship domesticated to “right” ideas that too quickly become jargon or some code of religiosity?
Afterall, could we not tap into the deep energy of tradition and find archetypal strength for new considerations? That adds a whole lot of rigor to the weekly gig but the consequence could be increased vitality within a religious tradition.Wow! You all are into some deep aspects of process. I wanted to include an excerpt from the Whitehead Word Book out of the section on Intensity pages 73 and 74. I think it particularly addresses some the Whiteheadian concepts related to how things might coexist in value-laden ways.
For Whitehead, on the other hand, human valuing is by no means central. The world is made up of present and past subjects. To be a subject is to be something for itself. There are better and worse ways of being something for itself. Thus the question of human desire is irrelevant to the basic question of the value of things in themselves. Each actual occasion was what it was with the value that it had. One can also speak of the value that it contributes to later occasions, and this is also quite independent of human desire.
The values of occasions vary in many ways. One of these differences can be described in terms of more or less. But what characteristic of one occasion makes it more valuable than another? In Process and Reality Whitehead uses the term “intensity.” The feelings of one occasion have greater intensity than the feelings of another and also contribute more to the intensity of feeling in successor occasions. God primordially orders pure potentials in such a way as to evoke increased intensity of feeling in the world. The evolutionary advance to central nervous systems is an advance because central nervous systems make possible far more intense experiences than are possible without them.
Whitehead devotes considerable attention to what occurs in the pro-cess of concrescence that increases intensity. The simplest answer is that this is accomplished by contrast, and that beyond simple contrasts there are contrasts of contrasts, and contrasts of contrasts of contrasts. But Whitehead also provides more detailed analysis. He shows that the most intense experiences require “harmony” arising from the right combina-tion of “width” and “narrowness.” Width points to the need for variety in the data of the occasion. Within this width, concentration and focus are needed, and this is made possible by narrowness. This narrowness is achieved by the social ordering of much of the environment. Transmu-tation makes it possible to ignore the great variety of occasions within a society and objectify it as a single entity. This entails “vagueness” in the prehension of the many occasions that make up the society.
Those nexūs that are not social constitute “chaos.” Because their contributions tend to cancel each other out rather than make contrasts possible, their contribution to the occasion is “triviality.” The intensity of experience requires triviality and vagueness to support width and narrowness.George, who is this question for?
What a great discussion conversation. What was coming up for me, as I was reflecting on the varied impact of Iqbal’s work, was the notion of creativity and its being “completely neutral of from a moral perspective.” The quote is from McDaniel citing Cobb in an Open Horizons article: https://www.openhorizons.org/a-stick-is-a-stick-the-metaphysics-of-zen-christianity.html.
The creative ultimate, in Whitehead’s philosophy does not promise “good” or “bad” but holds potential for both…or to be either.Nelson – thank you for this post. You have provided us a nice three point distillation of Artson’s offerings. That’s generous work for our class. Paragraph one was very helpful to me as the facilitator of the class. I appreciate knowing more about the possibilities of offering a course like this in the future. May want to chat more about this with you sometime. Bravo on paragraph 2 where you work in some key process thoughts that are uniquely positions thanks to Artson’s provocations.
Brian – thank you. I have just purchased Hays book a couple of days ago. So, it was delight see your citation of it here. Interpretation is such a privilege and a discipline. Loved your sentence: “I find it odd that as Christians, we have inherited these Jewish Scriptures but not always their intepretive methods.” I’m attaching my own diagram for interpretation that riffs off of Otto Scharmer’s Theory U work. The diagram suggest a beginning and an end but that is not necessary….whereever we are in the U, can be a very fine beginning point and whereever we experience satisfaction can be a very find place to rest.
Yingying – thank you for this post. Leading us into the depths of embodied love is not something that I had considered before. Your perspective as a non-religious person is invaluable in this course which seeks to understand religious tradition but also the way that process philosophy/theology critiques it. “showing” love might be likened to rote religiosity or religiosity for its own sake. Alternately, embodied love might be likened to personal transformation that is sought to varying degrees in our relationships whether they are immanent or trascendent. Appreciate your insight.
Alexandre – thanks for this insightful post. Rabbi Artson’s emphasis on interpretation and practice is an important one. When we commit to a religious tradition or a wisdom tradition, in our practicing of it, it does become our own given the interesection of past, present experience and future becoming. Arston, in the opening chapter of Conviviality (required reading in our first session) is bold in suggesting that various religious traditions might identify as members of the process family.
Thank you Roni – Acknowledging that “….all religious traditions have a vital place and role in human evolution and purpose.” is a profound and important acknowledgement. It still begs the question, which traditions shall we commit to and why? How do we cultivate a world where these vital religions are being practiced in such a way that people are experiencing their strength?
Thank you Yingying – this is a very important question. I think you are one to an important wrinkle. While one might say that Karma is an ongoing process, there is also the suggestion that one arrives. As I am not a Hindu practitioner, I cannot comment on karma specifically though traditionally, I think it is understood as a description of causal relationships.
Regarding process thought, as was suggested in Dr. Long’s work, we do have a sense or “prehension”. Prehension as the bridge between two actual occasions…one of the past and one that is emerging. While process philosophy will not concede this is simple causation, there is a correlation. Perhaps the notion of prehension adds nuance to the more traditional notions of karma.
Bringing process into religions does require micro or macro adjustments to the tradition.
Montgomery – Thank you for your image of a classroom for religious pluralism. the image of the classroom seems obvious for us in this course, but I think less so in civic life. Lots of potential.
Nelson -Thanks for integrating our content with prior courses and addressing the very real threat or compromise of confirmation bias.
Bill – thanks for highlighting the relationship between practice and intellect.
In your three responses, I feel the various traditions come together in a classroom, feel safe laying aside preferences for new discovery and extending energy out into the world for the sake of a common good that no one religious tradition can address on its own.
What a lovely reflection on struggles with the trinity. A witness to the fact that even as we may abide in a tradition, not all aspects of that tradition resonate with the practitioners. Thank you.
Thanks Douglas. I, too, appreciated the history of the Hindu tradition and its sourcing other religious traditions. On your suggestion of the role of nature in a process pluralism, how might you distinguish nature from indigenous? Long does indicate a preference for a more specific indigenous term (SD) on page 156.
Thanks Brian. You are tapping into an issue that brings me back to LoPresti’s diagram as one of our courses primary resources. LoPresti is concerned that Griffin’s work in Deep Religious Pluralism does not good deep enough on the matter of pluralistic theologies. For LoPresti, there is still a risk there. Pluralistic theologies can default into panglossian (extremely optimistic) relativism. More to the point, LoPresti’s concern is that pluralism can be conflated with relativism.
For him, deep religious pluralism results in mutual transformation.
“It does not require that one’s beliefs be altered or that one disassociates oneself from one’s inherited dogma. These may in fact occur, but at minimum transformation means enriched by contact. Transformation thus occurs as a result of any hermeneutic activity, but this does not mean abandoning one’s own position, but seeing some of its gaps and places for it to grow. We are unavoidably (and sometimes uninterestingly) changed by the activity of dialogue; amending our loyalties to particular ideas or themes is not a necessary aim. Rather, the aim is to transform one’s views of one’s won tradition and that of others simply by engaging in interreligious dialogue with traditions other than one’s own.” (177, LoPresti) I appreciate the way you are tapping into LoPresti’s concerns and recognizing the deep religious pluralism at work in your colleague’s reflections.Good morning Dennis – Thanks for sharing the intensity and density of this chapter for you. Thank you also for sharing a highlight of what you gleaned (despite the complexity) from the chapter. Thanks also for the quote from Ghandi.
What I appreciated about the chapter, Anekanta Vedanta: Toward a Deep Hindu Religious Pluralism was Long’s offering of a systematic process by which process thinkers can examine religions, empowering us to continue the work in our own life experience. While I am sure this is grossly simplified, I’ve drafted my understanding of his process as he worked the Hindu history. My diagram attached.