Replies

[Leslie King]

I appreciate this thread. Not only for the deep way that Bhavana has read the chapter, but also for the way we strive to engage – adding complexity and returning to the effort to see the world through the process lens. Such advance work is a great way to cue up for our session tonight. Thank you all.
By the way, Pannikar gets a shout out from LoPresti on page 21 of his work.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 4 weeks ago by Leslie King.

Yingying’s post in the discussion forum asks about the possibility of being un-indigenous. I playfully responded with a constructed word “own-digenous” getting at the idea of commodity as I understand you to be using it MarySue. You have made a strong connection to religion. Many have noted that the Judeo-Christian tradition was organized as a reaction against the agrarian religions of surrounding cultures. And thus, perhaps, more transaction to own, coerce and manipulate. Am I tracking?

Brian – The sentence, “Letting it rearrange us.” seems so indigenous and Whiteheadian in sensibility. Whiteheadian in at least one way, holding a sense of the agonizing Creative Advance. Indigenous sensibility perhaps imaged through a tree’s ever re-arrangement in growth….roots that rearrange the soil, branches that rearrange the canopy. Thank you.

Roni – as i read your post, I resonated deeply. For myself, I am disinterested in traveling and often feel that my backyard or my local walk or getting my hands in my very small garden is a profound journey in an of itself. In as much as I feel this way often, it was your post that allowed me to connect my own sense of relationship to the land and to imagine it not just as an escape but as connection to something deeper perhaps from my Eastern European farming ancestors. Thank you.

Thanks Dr. Daniels for resourcing us for the rabbit hole. George, I have stuck my nose in the book as well but this stream is enlightening to me.

Thanks to you both.

Thank you yingying and Chris. So much to think about here. Yingying to your question about an un-indigenous person, I think fundamentally “no” but practically “yes”. As Dr. Daniels indicated in the lecture, we all have indigenous roots but the extent to which we are talked out of that deeper awareness may be where the “yes” comes in. If indigenous identity (land, nature, people) has a competitor it might be the own-digenous (playful here with a new word) or the cultural overlays that look at land, nature and people as objects toward an end. It seems the more we invest in own-digenous behavior, the more un-indigenous we may become.

Thanks George. Preconditions on pluralism seem to require a reciprocity. Before reciprocity, valuing personal transformation is important. Before personal transformation a valuing of becoming is necessary. So the pluralism we are hoping for valuing in this course, is reliant on so much more. Thanks to people like you are broadening the base of folks who value becoming…our own and others.

Really appreciate your notion of quiet violence. I share your experience with interfaith efforts that dilute rather than “brighten” the different contributions. Also appreciated your reminder about God is Not One. I had read this and submitted as a reading option to our own interfaith group. It was not well received here…perhaps I should try again.

Bhavana, you have a poetic way of reflecting on the readings and appropriately unfurling a bit of your experience for us. As I read your post, I wondered, how might Whitehead’s notion of perishing play into what Bhavana’s experience of becoming? Is perishing ever redemptive especially in light of Daniel’s readings?

Thank you for integrating Campbell with Indigenous conversations this week. Appreciate you resourcing the class this way. The challenge in our day and time is how to transverse between the intrapersonal, interpersonal and the ecological relationships.

Dennis – what a wonderful reading and resource. Thank you for inviting us to think about “how” we might engage indigenous practice. Deeply relevant for process philosophy and theology.

Thank you Bill! Not only have you been able to deeply enrich a single reference by Cobb but you have moved us beyond it to provide a rich forecast of session 5, Process and Buddhism. You post will remain rich throughout this course series.
As Cobb is attending to the matter of pluralism, it seems the notion of decentering at its more ordinary and functional meaning is worth retaining.
Decentering from our spaces of worship or sacred experienc toward the space of another’s sanctuary or sacred can enrich our experience. Or drawing toward the peripheries of our own convictions decenters toward the edge of another’s understanding. In this way, decentering might become a personal practice within any wisdom tradition that can keep us from excessive religiosity or rigidity of thought, opening us to examine the wider landscape with a resilient conviviality.

“Just the act of opening out other identities — the complexity of being before the tumble of the new becoming, softens everything.” What a beautiful sentence. Thank you. I think Roni was getting after some of this in his post where I responded with some anatomy imagery.
I, too, connected with the problem of monopolarity. Artson cites Whitehead, “Seek simplicity- and mistrust it.” (9) Monopolarity may be a necessary beginning place to find our leverage but then moving toward dipolarity because, citing Hartshorne, “ultimate contraries are correlatives, mutually interdependent, so that nothing real can be described by the wholley one-sided assertion of simplicity,….”.
Your encouraging presence in the class provides a courage for us all to go deeper. So glad to experience you in this effort.

Roni – thanks for this sophisticated reflection. What came up for me as I read it was the work you are doing (we are all doing) to appropriately offer what has value in our lives without coercing others toward our value. This is really a beautiful effort.
On the issue of sharing with friends who remain in a more conservative form of Christian practice, I do think Artson’s attention to dipolar is helpful. My yoga practice has influenced the way that I “see” dipolar. Imagining a muscle, a bicep for example, tethered in at least two places. I imagine the role of contraction in the muscle: a unique bulking up and strenthening of a muscle. This strenghening can cause muscles to become tight and entangled. There is one kind of strength in the entanglement of fascia and muscle but it is not entirely functional. Then, imagining the elongation of the muscle as a move toward functionality. Here the strength is different but no less necessary. The gentle stretching allows the bulked up strength to draw out and extend the reach of the entire arm. This is why the bicep exists.
Such imagery has helped me to find a tone and intensity I am comfortable with when I talk to people about faith differences. Sometimes I am the contractor and sometimes I am seeking to elongate.
Keep the rich reflections coming. Enjoyed reading.