Replies

Bill, the Whitehead quote above also spoke to me. I had not thought about the inability of animals and plant life to enjoy and appreciate the “total effect…the details of the totality…” before reading this. And, I appreciated your pushback! “Who are we to measure the fullness and subtlety of another species’ wonder at the beautiful…” I take from your response that we each have our unique roles in co-creating and appreciating the wonder and mystery of creation and the sacred. Thanks for taking me there!

Thank you for your comments, Nelson. I’ve always recognized a process-oriented side to Richard Rohr, and I appreciate you pointing that out. The question about persuasive love being enough to counter what we’re up against, is huge. I hope so.

Thanks for this, Roni. I agree with the inaccessibility of Whitehead’s philosophy for many, although I appreciate our professor’s ability to translate it for us in his book and teaching!

I was introduced to process relational thought through the lens of process theology at seminary, and it reinforced so much of my own experience, as well as my knowledge of historical indigenous and Celtic peoples, with their expression of a “personal immediacy of God to us,” as Newell puts it. This is my experience of God as well, and the process pillars of co-creation, suffering-with, and a luring vs. angry God are the furthest thing from “sentimental piety.” They reflect my own experience and provide a language for communicating this life-giving perspective.

Andrew, this really resonated with me: “Whitehead’s notion of experience everywhere challenges the human-centered view that only humans have meaningful experiences. If everything experiences reality in some way, then nature is not merely a resource for human use but a community of interrelated entities with intrinsic value. Reality is a web of interrelated processes. Since each entity affects and is affected by others, ethical responsibility extends beyond humans to include nonhuman nature. Environmental destruction is thus not just a practical problem but an ethical failure, a failure to recognize and respect the experiences of other beings.”

Our inability (unwillingness?) to accord recognition of and respect for the intrinsic value of the environment and other human beings is at the root of our society’s downward spiral. Ethical failure is exactly what this is, and I worry about the implications of this for our future. Thanks for your take on this, inspired and informed by Whitehead.

Hi Roni. Thanks for your thoughtful reflection on varieties of consciousness vs. levels. Your examples of the rapidly evolving adaptation of animals and viruses as compared to humans is interesting. Relating that sluggishness to varieties of consciousness and wisdom instead of categorizing these as “levels” opens the door to “…broadening our vision of the spiritual…and seeing value where we have not seen it before.” (Mesle, p. 40) Assuming we humans are “advanced” can keep us from recognizing the myriad of ways to use language, and to be conscious and wise.

Daryl, thank you for sharing this. I also read the stone poem you shared. It’s lovely, and captures my experience as well.