Replies

Kent, Thanks again.

I have to say Arne Naess is a philosopher, not a theologian. His key area of study was Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher and his ethics. That’s the way Naess moved to connect self-realization to one’s awareness of being part of the ecosphere, hence, deep ecology. There are Christian eco-philosophers and theologians, like Holmes Ralston III, Marcus Borg, Anne Primavesi, etc. My process perspective comes much more from a religious naturalist tradition, so what I say might send you off along different pathways that are outside of the Christian tradition.

Like I said for myself: Focus on Whitehead.

Thanks for your response, Kent. Yes, I recognize the need to offer a limited sample, I’m merely calling for a paragraph that points to how wide the movement of these vast waters are at this time. Since we moved toward a water metaphor, talk can shift to the massive flow the Everglades waters, surfing ocean waves, navigating the rapids, etc…. The image of simply working with wet and dry works for me here as a learner, too…. Maybe I should say, “Thanks for tossing me a towel.” Stay focused on Whitehead. I might be asking for too much. At the same time, I want to let Dr. Davis know what I am thinking and looking for as a reader.

Our course is about Whitehead and not the additional process philosophers I want mentioned in Chapter 4. I think I wrote what I did because the deep ecologist philosopher, Arne Naess is in that long and deep process tradition, and he has has an impact upon my development. I’m curious if there are any links between him and Whitehead, and I am very curious who some of the other contemporary process philosophers beyond the Whiteheadians are.

I remind myself: focus on learning Whitehead. I also remind myself to stay curious and open-hearted, and not to come off like a pain in the butt or complainer. My gratitude learning this is way beyond getting stuck on something that ruptures dialogue. Genuine dialogue is where my learning takes place.

Great to see you in this course, Leslie. I appreciated your thoughtful comments in Jay’s course.

Hello Weidong,
Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful comments in our last course. I look forward to learning more from and about you.

Kent, I like your link to the first course and your additions in this introduction. Thanks.

I really appreciate your thoughtful response, again, Charles. This is very helpful.

Jace, I really appreciate your reflections and learn from them. I’ll keep this short since I’m learning and just beginning to play with this technical language.

I love your notion that concrescence as creating/perishing in the moment.

I am framing the “Nowness” of concrescence as shimmering possibilities coming into concrete being in the moment.

Joe, I have appreciated your heart-felt responses. Like you, I am thankful for what I’ve learned from the texts, the powerpoints, and videos. Equally, I value what I have learned from my fellow students. I’m with you on finding ways to enact an empathic civilization, or what the Cobb Institute endeavors to do, bring about an ecological civilization.

Great thread. I’ll riff on Thomas here:

Professor McDaniel’s Neighborhood– societies in societies in societies….

Ben, Thank you for this one. I shared the notion of unilateral vs. relational power last year with a professor friend, and have shared it with teachers and counselors friends, too. It reminds me of Gene Gibbs Tribes where she talks about creating “Community Agreements” with students rather than posting rules for students. Relational power is just that– very participatory and inclusive. So many schools operate with chain-of-command, hierarchies, and forms of unilateral power that great effort is called for to transform the cultures. I taught graduate students how to develop lifescaping action research projects to create more participatory and inclusive school communities but I did not have the unilateral vs. relational power language. I wish I had. Those terms would have helped me map ways to move from FOR students toward WITH students in different ways.

This is is very helpful. I am wondering, why the sacred whole needs to be positioned as not one “we can pantheistically equate with God”? I’m still unclear on what separates panentheists from pantheists among process thinkers. Obviously, I have huge gaps in reading and understanding.

Yes, put me in that group. I also enjoy and learn from Charles’ “long-winded explanations.” Charles, thank you for sharing how you understand and practice process. You have helped me to learn.

What a thread!!! Thanks for your powerful and helpful comments.

Charles: “Yes, I think that we can say that the self is created and destroyed in a moment-to-moment oscillation between the creative processes of concrescence and transition.”

Me: Becoming/perishing as concrescence?

Jace: “I also wonder if Enlightenment is a moment-by-moment event as opposed to a permanent state? Perhaps Enlightenment is located in the perpetual activity/process of becoming as opposed to an illusory sustained state of being.”

Me: Boom! Of course, enlightenment as a perpetual activity/process (practice?) of becoming rather than a sustained state of being. I’ll be thinking about this one for a while.

Thanks, all. This is an illuminating thread.Rick’s quote of Charles was a key.

This is a wonderful thread.Thanks for starting it, Rick.