Replies

This morning, I had a chance to read Robert Mesle’s perspective on “process naturalism” in his book, PROCESS THEOLOGY. The book has many rave reviews, and it is to his great credit that he lays out his own perspective only after carefully detailing a different view.

After briefly restating some key values of process thought – diversity, experience, interrelatedness, relational power, Mesle states, “Process naturalism shares virtually every value and every ethical standard with process theology, and many of those are shared with Christianity and other religions. The only difference is that process naturalists see these values as entirely rooted in natural processes themselves, as temporal, contingent and ambiguous as they may be.” (p131)

Here is the rub for me. I see a value such as “interrelatedness” as an observable characteristic of reality, manifest in both a flourishing Amazon rainforest ecosystem and a gnarled, CO2 omitting traffic jam in New Delhi. Yet, I believe one is better than the other. What makes it so?

And within nature itself, it isn’t crystal clear that “relational power” is all that widespread. Why shouldn’t international affairs follow those elements of reality mostly manifest as “nature tooth and claw”?

There are other virtues that don’t even fit within the process lexicon – Where does courage come from? Or self-sacrifice? Or unconditional love?”

Tom – I really appreciate your post and have observed the same “mood” on the discussion board. It would be helpful to allow those thinkers – process and non-process alike – who leave out God to have their say as to (for instance) where do possibilities reside. I know Bernard Loomer retained “God” but felt like the abstraction required was excessive, a violation of Whitehead’s own “misplaced concreteness.” And Mesle acknowledged that Whitehead flew too high into speculation with his ideas, which seems a bit odd. ANW wasn’t writing science!

Thanks for sharing your argument.

This conversation made we think of another poem by Mary Oliver –

THE WORLD I LIVE IN

I have refused to live
locked in the orderly house
of reasons and proofs.
The world I live in and believe in
is wider than that. And anyway,
what’s wrong with “Maybe?”

You wouldn’t believe what once or
twice I have seen. I’ll just
tell you this:
only if there are angels in your head will you
ever possibly, see one.

Evan, I’m thinking we are glorified octopi! 🙂
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Soul-of-an-Octopus/Sy-Montgomery/9781451697711

Hi Eric,
Of course, this week, Hosinski offers a new batch of vocabulary in the readings (ex. “mental pole”, “appetition”, “superject”) to absorb, so I am re-working my analogy! However, I was drawn to his section – Is This Theory Applicable, The Problem of Anthropomorphism. Thus far, I understand ANW as starting with human “experience” and then working outward, linking concepts with other domains, such as physics and biology. However, given his background in math & physics, it is easy to wonder if he was intuiting the entire metaphysics across subject areas simultaneously.
Thom

I was initially taken aback by Hosinski’ use of “common sense”. How could this abstract perspective requiring its own lexicon relate to common sense. Slowly, in at least some aspects, the light may be dawning. Take “freedom”. While I can’t argue them well myself, I’m aware of tight rational arguments from Leibniz, Spinoza, et al against free will, yet ANW declares, “In each concrescence, whatever is determinable is determined, but there is always a remainder for the decision of the subject-superject of that concrescence…”(Process & Reality, p27). So, what do I think? I think Saturdays are always family movie night in our household and we take turns choosing the movie. This Saturday is my turn, and I haven’t decided what we will watch yet. Maybe “Mamma Mia” or “Elemental”.

Add me to this list of people looking forward to this topic of discussion. I went back and looked at Mesle’s book and was surprised to find “experience” is not defined – yet somehow linked to “feeling” and “emotion”. I have a sense of what those words mean, but the problem is ANW’s belief that “experience” is not confined to a portion of the animal kingdom, but fundamental to all reality.

Tony, your post highlighting “Systems” made me think of another word, “Ecology”. Up until Darwin, and prior to ANW, the natural world was predominantly considered static and unchanging. So far, I have read about ANW’s connections to physics, but I am curious about how the emergent ecological understanding of nature in the late 19th/early 20th century influenced him. Seems to be allot of convergence. ANW might not be well-known, but an ecological understanding of reality has found favor well beyond the natural sciences and into the domains of business and organizational systems (https://hbr.org/2004/03/strategy-as-ecology).

“If a dog jumps in your lap, it is because he is fond of you; but if a cat does the same thing, it is because your lap is warmer.” ANW

Hi Olivia, I enjoyed reading your post. And it so nice to meet another member of the Westminster Shorter Catechism Recovery Group!

Hey Dennis, Our family loves Berea!

Hi (again) Dennis, I majored in elementary education, which was only one point along the way of ever shifting majors. I played tennis at ETSU, and of course, all our sports teams played Appy State. After ETSU, I went to Columbia Theological Seminary in Atlanta. Even now, I don’t know what I want to be when I grow up, but alas, I don’t have as much time to figure it out. It was at Columbia that I did an independent study on process theology, but I didn’t have a good enough philosophical grounding to understand it very well. So, I had been waiting for almost 40 years for a lay-oriented “process” course and loved Jay’s course. Hope I am no in over my head with this course.

I grew up in Morristown, TN – just an hour from ETSU – and get back that way about twice a year. I do love the area! I grew up Presbyterian and had an aunt who lived in Montreat, and I went to Banner Elk quite a few times for camp.

Are you doing the full certificate program? If so, have you selected a project yet?

I will be able to attend these sessions live, so I will finally see you face later today!

Cheers, Thom

Thanks, Zhenbao for your comments. Whitehead idea was that “God” through the initial aim lures actual entities towards the relatively best possibility in each given situation. Am I understanding you correctly that there is no correlate for Whitehead’s God and God’s activities in Chinese philosophy (Taoism & Confucianism)? There’s creativity, yes and ongoing change, yes, but there is nothing that lures each entity towards the relatively best possibility in each moment.

Thank you so much for offering this course.
Should there be another cohort, I would be interested in joining.

Jeremy, I don’t have a background in theater, but a few years ago, I completed a 2-year certificate program in improv at GoComedy Improv Theater. Your comments have me reflecting on that experience with a process lens…diverse people, continually making choices in the moment, influenced by their past experiences, at our best using relational power and lured toward beauty (laughter, joy, good-will).