Replies

The universe is my God.
Nature is my religion.
Trees, and blades of grass, and tufts of moss are my ministers.
There are no angels, so watch your own back.

I, too, was surprised/impressed by the litany of scholars who, in one way or another, are associated with the concept of panentheism. Who knew, right?
I second your sentiments regarding the rigorous workload of this course. Makes it all the more worthwhile. I, too, have shed a few shekels for books.

It is a travesty that religion has given God such a bad name. I’m still hanging on to the God thing, but my disgust for religion just grows daily.

Whitehead does actually move away from God-talk in his later works, specifically Adventures of Ideas and Modes of Thought.
Both works are more readable than PR, but if you haven’t understood the system Whitehead presents in PR, you won’t get the most out of those works.

Griffin’s point is the repudiation of supernaturalism. What he has done is shown how process theologians can embrace a non-supernaturalist explanation without the quandaries encountered by those who cling to a materialistic view of the universe. I like Kent’s reference to small-minded naturalists who believe in miracles. I would add the Big Bang as one more of those miracles.
Whitehead’s God, is not supernatural, he is not an exception to nature, but the “chief exemplification.” Whitehead’s metaphysics are not something in addition to nature, but a description of the most general characteristics of nature.

Now that’s amazing!

Hey, I’m just here with Rolla. That’s just a whole pile of erudite ***t there. I’mma let that sink in for a bit. Thank you so much to all the brilliant contributors: Jason, Leslie, Charles, Dr. Davis, et.al. It is amazing. (I first wrote “It was amazing”, but it’s still here, objectively immortal.) 😀

I would add, even though you don’t cite them:
HL1= Harvard Lectures Volume One from the Whitehead Research Project
HL2= Harvard Lectures Volume Two from the same group.
Both are transcribed notes from actual students in Whitehead’s classes at Harvard, so not a work BY ANW, but full of insights and direct quotes from his lectures.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Charles. I am aware of Hartshorne’s position entirely from what others have written about it. I have read little of Hartshorne’s work, but I think I may have a fair amount in common with him.
As for Suchoki, other than her book on prayer from a process perspective, which I read for a class with Jeanyne Slettom, I haven’t read her work. So much to read, and such an inadequate brain to stuff it all into.
I greatly appreciate your thoughts and insights.
Thomas

Thanks, Kent. That was very helpful. I think I have a tendency to overthink problems, and that sometimes gets in my way. Now to put your advice into practice.

Good to know I wasn’t off on a limb about to be cut off. 😀 (if that makes any sense, there was the apprehension…)

Thank you, both, Leslie and Kent, for these vivid and extended metaphors of the meaning of “emergence.” I think the notion that a “society” is more than a mere amalgamation, a sum of the parts, is the gist behind ANW’s statement “… the many become one and are increased by one.” And to Leslie’s point, the “marriage of flavors” that result from the slow simmering of individual ingredients results in a complex flavor that is unattainable by a mere combination of raw ingredients.

Another reason Whitehead did not like the use of panpsychism is that it implies that an actual entity has a soul which endures. Not only does this position open the back door to dualism, but it’s a concept incompatible with the process of actual occasions. Actual occasion are dipolar, ie, physical and conceptual, but there is nothing resembling a soul that endures from its satisfaction. While the prehensions of the conceptual pole are integrated into that superject, its subjective actuality is not an enduring part of that actual entity’s objective immortality.

OH YEAH!
DW= Dialogues with Alfred North Whitehead. Not one of Whitehead’s works, but as collection of dialogues with him in his Harvard years by Lucien Price. Fascinating book even though it has faced some harsh criticism for presenting the work as ostensibly a definitive record of what Whitehead actually said in any given setting. If I remember correctly, the author even admits in the intro to not taking notes, but transcribing from memory.

PR= Process and Reality
RM= Religion in the Making
AI=Adventures of ideas
FR= Function of Reason
AE= Aims of Education
MT= Modes of thought
CN= Concept of Nature
R= Principle of Relativity
PNK= Enquiry into Principles of Natural Knowledge
S= Symbolism
IM= Introduction to Mathematics
PM= Principia Mathematica
SMW= Science and the Modern World
SP= Essays in Science and Philosophy
DW= ?

I know there are others, but I can’t spit ‘em out right now
Sorry about DW. 😀