Replies

Well, it seems that the current discussions on the concept of God highlight the fluidity of the concepts of theism and atheism, so not need to rush your thought process or even come to some conclusion (it seems to me anyway). I mean God is in process as well right? lol

The discussion is mind provoking so thanks to both of you. It seems that we have to be very intentional in explaining the terms we use in discussions about freedom. For instance, I wonder what constitutes a voluntary muscle action? To use the example of nose itching, is that voluntary or involuntary, or somewhere in between? There is the involuntary muscles system (heart, lungs, etc.) and voluntary )skeletal muscles). Can voluntary muscles function involuntarily? Or can we actually stop involuntary actions of muscles (ie. a so-called poker face)?

Well since I am also struggling, Dennis, I am not sure where this post will go but I think a pragmatic approach could be helpful for a start. There is nothing in the federal govt that can be done. I’m in CA so there are still enough people to offer resistance to Trump’s policies. So perhaps relational power needs to be focused. If your state endorses Trump’s policies, then find organizations and place your energies there. Perhaps another paragraph should be added to Loomer’s discussion of relational power to include the possibility of focusing that relational power, I mean, we seek to serve all whom we come in contact with, but focused attention of our resources to where they will make the greatest difference.

I appreciate your concern, Andrew, about the lack of “power” shall we say about cnanging our “world” (world can be defined broadly, or your immediate purview). If I was to focus on Loomer’s concept of relational power, it would be on a very small scale, small enough not to overwhelm myself. My own residence, neighborhood, friends, and so forth. Maybe I could have a view such that I can’t do much about protecting the wilderness areas, but maybe I could bring the wilderness to my residence–plant flowers that attract butterflies, trees that attract bees, etc.

Sounds like you have had a full and meaning experience so far in the institutional church. Wish that experience was more wide spread. Anyway I was interested in you comment about “I’ve tried both methods…” I was wondering what prompted/caused/made you to decide on a relational approach? Did the unilateral method not work well? Did you come to a different understanding? And have you ever had to deal with either a member or staff member that thought a unilateral approach was the best?

Thank you, Andrew, as well. Where does creativity/novelty come from? Is the mind/soul more than past occasions, and how does memory fit in? Seems to me that there are more to past occasions than those made by our past decision and events that we encounter. That seems like rationalism a little. If humans and nature/world (and the universe?) encounter experience naturally, then the diving presence (however you define it) would also be a source of our experience? So creativity would manifest itself from these experiences as they become a part of our journey. Artists and others experience these moments of novelty without knowing where they came from exactly. As for the lack of stability of identity if life consists of our prehending of pqst occasions in the present, it seems to me that the metaphor of a river helps. At any one moment the river’s water content is not exactly the same but the shape of the river is. The current follows past courses.

Your post, Montgomery, has got me thinking about how traditional views of Xty fit in a process framework. For instance, both process thought and forms of Buddhism karma in non-personal terms, which has been a sticking point among some theologians even open to process dialogue (a process is rather impersonal). Also the role that Jesus plays in making us “children of a new humanity” like a fish out of water. For me, process perspectives open up connections: a new humanity is still a natural humanity but with an enlightened perspective. And the living in relation to Jesus, for me, sensitizes me to seeing that divine presence is the water and encourages me to live life in the current and not on the beach. Again these are a way for me to talk to myself using your thoughts as a springboard.

Thanks, Nelson, for highlighting the connections between philosophical theology and ecology. I think this has already but said but we all live in a love/hate relationship with the concept of categories, like consciousness. When we think of what consitutes an eco-system is an occasion when categories fall short. Even the category of eco-system, which, I try to be as expansive as possible, can be truncated to just the biological arena. The way that soils, rocks, streams, plants and animals interact-consciousness?-can be explored further.

Seems like a good summary of the discussion. Whitehead and others certainly have both added to and challenged the way we look at reality. As as Whitehead’s thought seeped in theological circles, he created quite a stir.

I appreciated reading your post. Expressed in the session today was the comment that Whitehead emphasized the importance of integrating the what we learn into the way we live.

I appreciate your post. Well I am not sure how a process expert would say, but it might have to do with the concept of pretensions, positive and negative. So Mesle writes “Negative prehension means blocking out those elements of past actual entities that will not be incorporated into the present moment” which has an impact on us. But you comment about the roles of sin and grace also intrigues me. My question is how far back does sin and/evil/non-being go? And how deep does it go? Surely evil and sin were not created by God, but could evil in the form of non-being reside in the being of God? Consequently if God is in the process of change like the rest of the universe perhaps a part of God becoming is God overcoming evil/non-Being? Perhaps too many questions.

Appreciated your post. I live in southern California and we are in the midst of another horrific fire season partly due to the changes in climate patterns from climate change. Right now because of the devastation people from different viewpoints are coming together temporarily to help those in need. But…as welcome as the pulling together for help is the political leaders of California are already returning to their previous positions that frankly got us into this predicament in the first place. So process understandings are helpful but the problem are those who have a different and contrasting perspective–those who receive their support from problematic industries.

I think it would. My question is (and this is because I just finished the text for the class) “are eternal objects and actual entities things?” From the book, “an ‘eternal object’ is a ‘pure potential'” and “each actual entity must create itself out of the past actualities.” So would’t these term come close to “non-material, experiential, evolving and necessary? I’m not quite sure.