Replies

I almost didn’t read the sponsor’s word, Bill (old habit). But you offered an interesting invitation, so I thought I’d try it.

My first thought was that I shouldn’t read this late at night when my mind is slipping into a less prehend-able mode (fortunately, I decided to wait until morning coffee to revise the more cluttered thoughts). Second, I carry a lot of hydrological science baggage that, if not rough on the river/wave metaphor, definitely carries it in different directions. With that, I’ll jump in.

I started by imagining myself floating downstream with a “cohort” of drops that passed by my jumping-in point/time. Though the water cooled and soothed me as it surrounded and carried me downstream, I still felt separated from the many drops. Perhaps a metaphor for dualistic thinking here. So I imagined shrinking to the size of “drops” of water (actual entities) and became more integrated into the stream and the cohorts of drops around me.

Here’s where the hydrology baggage started coming into play. Water doesn’t move at the same speed in a river. It moves faster a little below the surface, near the center, above the deepest part of the channel. Close to the shore it gets caught in the drag of river bank, vegetation, rocks, and such. It may get pulled into eddies that take it out of the main flow. On steeper terrain or where the channel is rocky, the water can be turbulent. All of this spreads out the cohort of drops I started with and I found myself mingling with other drops, some familiar, some new. As the water continues downstream, it receives additional water sources from runoff and merging streams. More mixing and infusion of different drops. Those drops that started together upstream have spread into different parts of the river. Some are farther ahead, some are behind, some are still working their way through eddies or rapids or evaporation.

With the added hydrological twists, which probably wrecked the metaphor, I imagined what prehensing and concrescing might be like. In my imagined river navigation, experience is perhaps a little more turbulent and chaotic than in Whitehead’s process world. Or maybe not. The cohort of drops with which I began the journey still carry the experience of being a stream/river-wannabe even as they engage with other cohorts of drops that carry their own experiences of being. As do I. And they also carry the possibilities of the future, which could be a lake, bay, sea, ocean… or a devastating flood. Other streams of drops join in with their own past and future possibilities. How similar or different are they? What holds us together in this river (metaphorically this time)?

Perhaps taking the metaphor far beyond what Whitehead and others intended, if these merging streams of experience carry both their objective past and their subjective possibilities of the future, how does that work if we encounter streams that merge from vastly different starting points? In the process of processing, do these differing pasts and possibilities merge together? What if the possibilities conflict? If we believe, as Whitehead posited, that all of the past and all of the possibilities are retained in the universe, how does that happen in a universe that includes diverse streams of experience? I can see why Whitehead would propose that something like God, or a luring entity, might be needed. For now, I find myself trying to imagine how Whitehead’s philosophy plays out without a luring entity.

This took a deeper plunge (pun intended) than I intended when I started. So I’ll stop for now and see if any brave soul made it through the ride and has a different perspective to add.

Peace,
Nelson

[Nelson Thurman]

Dennis,
I’m interested in Dr. Davis’s response to your comment. In the meantime, I’ll offer a perspective on doubt from my experience: I came across a quote long ago (I don’t even recall who said it): The opposite of faith is not doubt; it is certainty. My particular belief in the existence of a God continues to evolve because of these doubts. Over time, it has aligned more with Whitehead’s thinking than with the idea of an omnipotent, all-controlling god that both fundamentalists and atheists sometimes point to in order to justify their position on the existence/nonexistence of god. As a result of those doubts, I’ve deconstructed and reconstructed what I believe about the nature of God/creator/lure/divine energy in the universe many times.

I think I have a basic grasp of why Dr. Mesle says God isn’t necessary for process philosophy, although I still think there is a basic lure present in the universe, whatever it is called. I’ll be interested in hearing why Dr. Davis says God is necessary in Whitehead’s thinking. And, in all likelihood, my thinking on the nature of God will continue to evolve.

Peace, Nelson

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by Nelson Thurman.

Thanks! I checked out the table of contents for the text on Amazon – quite a few interesting paper titles. I look forward to digging in deeper (though probably not until I get through this class’s readings).
Nelson

Bill,
The links for the course readings are in each of the Session pages for the course. Here’s a link to Session 1: https://cobb.institute/whiteheads-process-philosophy-2025/lessons/session-1-being-and-becoming-3/

Nelson

Thanks for sharing that, Daryl!
I’m prehending the lure of a hazy IPA right now and wondering what it might mean for the IPA supply if the many become one and are increased by one!
Cheers,
Nelson

Dennis,
I wonder if the sense of joy (and laughter) has been pushed aside by the us-vs-them tone of public discourse that dominates today… or by a sense of dread and urgency from those who sense that we’re headed toward an ecological crisis we may not be able to avert.
Hope and love should lead to joy and laughter. I’m looking at ways to carry ideas of process thinking (the trunk of the metaphorical tree), especially as it relates to ecological civilizations, into something called “wild church” (see Wild Church Network and Church of the Wild by Victoria Loorz).
From my perspective, it should bring a sense of relationship with each other and with the natural world, a sense of belonging, a sense of the divine (however people perceive it), a sense of awe/wonder, and a sense of joy.
Peace and joy!
Nelson

Thanks! As one who was drawn to this program because of the key ideas (trunk) and hopes to apply those ideas in the springboard project to a “wild church” project (the branches), I appreciate the post. The emphasis on Whitehead’s technical concepts (the roots) has helped me better grasp the underlying basis for those key ideas, but there have been times in the forum discussions where I’ve felt like a fish out of water (which doesn’t really fit the tree analogy).
Looking forward to this evening’s session/discussion.
Nelson

George, I think there are some denominations of Christianity that don’t “exemplify the way of Jesus” as well. That’s a question many of us who don’t subscribe to the current “Christian Nationalism” wave that’s elbowing it’s way into the politics of this country (US). From my perspective, that’s neither “Christian” nor “Nationalism.”
I think we bridge in a way that Jesus exemplified in the gospel accounts – listen, engage, and, above all, reach out to those who have been marginalized, cast out, and dehumanized (or, in the case of nonhuman living beings, made less than other). Those are the ones who need the bridge. That means countering what doesn’t reflect compassion, empathy, love, and truth and being compassionate, caring, and supportive of those who are being pushed out.

I grew up in a Christian tradition that emphasized understanding God as love and living in love to the best we can. I struggled to reconcile this understanding with a view of God as omnipotent and unchanging. In the face of suffering and injustice in the world, an omnipotent god that allowed such things to happen didn’t come across as particularly loving. Something didn’t fit and I spent many years deconstructing and reconstructing my faith.
There were other reasons/experiences I won’t go into that led me to think that the universe and life as we know it are more than the result of a series of highly-improbable events. Whatever creative force behind it was “bigger” than what I could imagine, but not all-controlling.
By the time I encountered process thinking and process theology, I had come to believe that a loving God could not be omnipotent AND allow suffering and injustice. Process thinking has done a lot to offer a vision of a relational-loving-persuasive God (presence/sacred entity/spirit/whatever you consider it) that experiences what we experience (joy and suffering and everything in between) and calls us toward goodness, beauty, truth, and creativity without manipulating us.
I could also be wrong about any or all of this so I’ve learned to listen to other views and experiences with humility.
Peace!
Nelson

I appreciate your ideas on creating an alternative to the chaos we see coming out of the US (maybe that’s why the groups you found doing alternative work are in Canada?).
The metaphor of creating “eddies of alternative movements within this suddenly flooded river of overwhelm and distress” is wonderful. I’ve been wondering whether the small steps I’ve been trying and considering are bold enough. But maybe I need to think of them in terms of creating a series of eddies to redirect and slow down the floods.

Thanks, Dennis.
I plan to take Process Thought & Ecological Civilization. In fact, I’m hoping to incorporate aspects of Ecological Civilization into my springboard project.
Like you, I’ll go the the side of “too much empathy” (or err on the side of love) every time. That’s what makes watching what Trump is doing now so hard.
Peace!
Nelson

I’m also struggling. It seems to me that unilateral power is top-down by its nature (though I’m open to correction if someone has examples that show otherwise). To be effective, relational power, which relies on persuasion rather than imposition of some entity’s will, should be bottom-up, more of a grassroots movement.
Something Zhenbao said during last night’s discussion left me thinking and wrestling with how I’m viewing Trump’s actions. He asked, “What makes Trump Trump?” and suggested that Trump is made by (our US) society and not just by himself (I’m paraphrasing, so I hope I got it right). He depends on cheers of approval at campaign rallies to fuel his ego (using as a generic term) and points to this support as justification for his actions. That’s why he’s so sensitive about crowd size and approval ratings.
To change that, the resistance to Trumpism must come from the grassroots levels. I still believe that love and hope will prevail over hate and fear, but it will take time to be lasting. People respond to particularities, not generalities. They need to experience the impacts on their lives and on the lives of those around them. We’re more likely to respond when we see what it means in our lives. That’s where I hold hope.

This thread touches on some things I’m wrestling with regarding unilateral and relational power. A couple of thoughts here:
(1) Regarding Andrew’s concern that we humans have already caused so much damage to the environment that it won’t be able to heal itself, studies suggest we’ve caused damage that, if not irreversible, will not be healed easily. The more we continue the way we’re going, the fewer options we’ll have to change things. In a relational context, that damage also impacts humans and our ability to survive. This is what I believe those who are hell-bent on propping up the status quo of the fossil fuel and other pollutant industries miss. They think either they’re immune to those changes or can survive them. They see themselves as separate from the environment. For me, that’s the folly of thinking they can affect others without being affected. They may think they’re not being affected by climate change, but it impacts them all the same. In the end, the universe will likely (I don’t know the future for certain) continue, but humanity as we know it may not. Not exactly a comforting thought.
(2) Robert’s comment about relational power on a small scale offers hope for applying relational power in the face of overwhelming unilateral power. I believe relational power works best at the grassroots level, from the bottom up while unilateral power takes a top-down (authoritarian) approach. People need to see differences in approaches and in outcomes. They need to experience what a more sustainable approach to living means in their lives. That, in turn, is how relational power can gain a foothold and become a force of resistance in the face of unilateral power. You can see this happening in pockets today, where renewable sources of energy are becoming affordable (and sustainable) alternatives, despite subsidies that prop up the fossil fuel industries. Whether that will ultimately be enough remains to be seen, but there’s hope.
Nelson

I found the slide show by paging down to the section “Beauty in Process Theology” on the main page for Open Horizons. It’s roughly half-way “down” the page, nestled between the slideshows on Ecological Civilization and God in Process Theology. I ended up searching the page on “Patricia Adams Farmer” and eventually found the slides that way.

Kaeti,
You’ve raised an interesting question on how the soul differs from regular consciousness. I confess I’m still wrapping my mind around the roots of process thinking – I came in with a passable grasp of the ideas (McDaniel’s trunk) but the underlying theories are taking some time to sort through. Bob Mesle’s point that we’re trying to comprehend difficult process concepts while trying to overcome the limits of thinking in a substance language helps explain the difficulties, although the challenges still remain.
As someone who also makes that first cup of coffee in an unconscious fog, I appreciate your comment that becoming aware of ourself in a particular moment is “an experience of the soul.” In my later years, I’ve found meditative practices that draw me in to here-and-now moment are when I begin to see the connections with the other entities around me. That is what I consider to be an experience of my soul.
Thanks for the posting!
Nelson