Every enduring thing has overcome something.
Stars endure through dynamic physical conditions that sustain their existence across immense spans of time. Living cells persist through continual metabolic renewal. Forests may recover after fire. Rivers reshape landscapes while maintaining courses recognizable across generations. Species adapt, migrate, diversify, and sometimes disappear. Human beings heal from injury, reconcile broken relationships, learn through failure, rebuild communities after catastrophe - and sometimes do not.
Across these vastly different scales, reality presents us with something remarkable: persistence without permanence.
Nothing about relational becoming guarantees that a particular structure, organism, ecosystem, species, person, community, or civilization must continue. Relations may cohere, but they may also fragment. Systems may adapt, but they may also collapse. Organisms may heal, but they may also die. Communities may reconcile, but they may also remain divided. The openness that makes renewed becoming possible also leaves every embodied achievement vulnerable to loss.
This raises a profound metaphysical question.
If reality is fundamentally relational and continually becoming, what makes persistence possible at all?
The answer proposed in this essay is that overcoming is not merely a biological adaptation, psychological achievement, or moral virtue. Nor should overcoming be elevated into another metaphysical principle operating alongside relation. Rather, overcoming names what has occurred whenever relational becoming sufficiently negotiates instability, disruption, incompatibility, or change so that some coherent history may continue.
Every persistence is therefore an overcoming - but not every becoming persists.
That distinction matters.
The universe does not continually rescue its achievements from dissolution. Stars exhaust their fuel. Organisms die. Species become extinct. Ecosystems collapse. Civilizations disappear. Relations can produce coherence and decoherence alike. Yet wherever something does endure, its persistence cannot be explained by immutability. It persists through a history of relations sufficiently organized to carry some continuity forward through change.
Overcoming therefore describes neither cosmic optimism nor inevitable progress. It describes the conditional achievement of continuation.
To overcome is not necessarily to triumph.
It is to find, where possible, another way of continuing to become.
This understanding changes the question of persistence. We need no longer ask why reality universally “leans” toward coherence, as though coherence were its predetermined destination. We may ask instead why some relational configurations become capable of sustaining, recovering, transforming, or reorganizing themselves while others do not.
The metaphysical significance lies precisely in the difference.
Persistence becomes something to explain rather than something to assume. Stability becomes an achievement rather than a starting condition. Coherence becomes one possible organization of relational becoming rather than its guaranteed result. And overcoming becomes the name we give to those histories in which enough continuity survives transformation for further becoming to remain possible.
To exist is to become.
To persist is to have overcome.
Every enduring reality is a history of relational overcoming.
The preceding essays have argued that reality is fundamentally relational and continually becoming. Relations inherit histories, encounter changing conditions, respond to other relations, and remain open to possibilities not yet realized. Yet this immediately raises another question - one so ordinary that it often escapes notice.
If becoming does not guarantee persistence, why does anything endure?
Why do stars persist for billions of years? Why do atoms exhibit remarkable stability? Why do living organisms preserve recognizable identities despite continual material exchange? Why do ecosystems sometimes recover after disruption? Why do cultures, languages, and civilizations survive generations of change? Even human identity, though continually shaped by new experiences, may exhibit remarkable continuity across time.
Persistence, therefore, is no less mysterious than change.
Many traditional metaphysical systems have explained persistence by appealing to substances, forms, essences, or other principles of continuity. Within such systems, change often becomes something requiring explanation against a more enduring ground. The relational metaphysics developed throughout this series begins elsewhere. It asks what persistence means when relation and becoming rather than permanence provide the starting conditions of inquiry.
This reversal transforms the philosophical question.
The mystery is no longer simply, How does change occur within something that persists?
Instead, it becomes, How does anything persist within the openness of becoming?
That question reaches far beyond physics or biology. Molecules may maintain recognizable structures through dynamic interactions. Organisms preserve themselves through continual metabolic exchange. Minds carry histories through memory, embodiment, and relational inheritance. Communities may adapt to new circumstances while preserving sufficient continuity to remain recognizable. Even galaxies are not changeless objects but immense histories of interaction and transformation.
What these examples share is not a universal mechanism of persistence. A star does not persist as a cell persists; a cell does not persist as a person persists; a person does not persist as a culture persists. Persistence is scale-dependent, materially embodied, and achieved through different relational conditions. What remains common is the metaphysical problem: continuity must somehow be carried through change.
This allows us to distinguish persistence from permanence.
Permanence would imply remaining fundamentally unchanged. Persistence requires no such thing. A river may persist while changing course. An organism may persist while replacing matter. A friendship may persist while the persons within it change. A community may persist while revising traditions inherited from its past.
Persistence does not require sameness.
It requires sufficient continuity through difference.
Here the concept of overcoming becomes useful. Overcoming does not describe the elimination of difference, disruption, or instability. It names those occasions when changing relational conditions are sufficiently negotiated, reorganized, or incorporated that some continuity becomes possible.
Sometimes they are not.
Stars collapse. Organisms die. Ecosystems may fail to recover. Languages disappear. Civilizations end. Relationships break beyond repair. Persistence is therefore never demonstrated simply by pointing to becoming itself. It must be explained wherever it actually occurs.
The task of this essay is to examine that achievement. It proposes not that persistence is an inevitable accomplishment of becoming, but that where persistence occurs, it records a history in which relational becoming has sufficiently overcome the conditions that might otherwise have ended that particular continuity.
Every persistence bears a history.
Every history that continues has crossed conditions through which it might not have continued.
That continuing is what this essay calls overcoming.
Instability is not the opposite of reality.
It is one of the conditions through which reality remains open to becoming.
If persistence requires explanation, then so does instability.
Much of Western philosophy has privileged stability, permanence, or enduring being as marks of what is most real. Change consequently became something requiring explanation: How can what is become what it was not? How can identity survive alteration? How can order persist amid continual change?
A relational metaphysics begins from another direction.
Instability need not be understood as an imperfection imposed upon reality.
It belongs to the openness through which different futures remain possible.
Yet instability should not therefore be romanticized. It can be generative, destructive, or simply consequential. A changing condition may open possibilities unavailable before it, but it may equally close possibilities that once existed. Instability provides no guarantee concerning what will follow from it.
This is precisely why overcoming matters.
A star is not a motionless object. Throughout much of its lifetime, changing physical conditions are held within dynamic relationships involving gravity, pressure, temperature, and nuclear processes. Its apparent stability is therefore a temporally sustained achievement. Eventually those conditions change sufficiently that the star can no longer continue in the same form. What follows depends upon its particular history and physical conditions.
Living organisms disclose another kind of instability. Every cell continually exchanges matter and energy with its environment. Proteins are synthesized and broken down. Cells divide, repair themselves, and eventually die. Yet for a time an organism may preserve a recognizable identity through these changes. Life persists not by eliminating instability but by organizing change sufficiently to sustain itself.
Ecosystems reveal still more complicated histories. Some forests regenerate after fire. Rivers alter their courses. Ecological communities reorganize following disturbance. Yet other ecosystems may cross thresholds from which their former organization does not recover. Disturbance can generate new ecological possibilities, but it can also diminish, redirect, or destroy existing ones.
Human existence makes the ambiguity still clearer. Learning may arise through correcting error. Scientific inquiry advances partly through revision. Friendships may deepen through reconciliation. Communities sometimes develop healthier forms of cooperation in response to conflict. Yet error can also persist, relationships can remain broken, and conflict can destroy communities rather than strengthen them.
Instability creates conditions for difference.
It does not determine what that difference will become.
This observation helps distinguish instability from fragmentation. Instability means that existing relations remain susceptible to change. Fragmentation occurs when sufficient relational continuity can no longer be sustained within a particular configuration. The first belongs broadly to becoming; the second describes one possible outcome of becoming.
Between them lies the possibility of overcoming.
Overcoming occurs when instability does not terminate a relational history but becomes incorporated, negotiated, redirected, or reorganized into conditions through which some continuity may proceed. The resulting form need not reproduce what existed before. Indeed, genuine overcoming may sometimes require that an earlier organization be transformed precisely so that something of its history can continue.
This gives instability a more precise metaphysical role than simply calling it “generative.”
Instability opens.
Relation responds.
Possibilities diverge.
What follows remains contingent.
Some relational histories achieve renewed coherence. Some persist by changing form. Some fragment. Some end. And some become conditions from which entirely different histories emerge.
Instability, therefore, is neither reality's enemy nor its hidden benefactor. It is the vulnerability intrinsic to an unfinished reality in which what has become remains exposed to what may yet become.
Instability exposes the openness of becoming.
Without vulnerability, overcoming would have no meaning.
Overcoming is not an additional principle of reality.
It names what relation sometimes achieves within the vulnerability of becoming.
The preceding sections have reframed the problem of persistence. If becoming remains genuinely open, then persistence cannot be presumed. Relational histories may continue, reorganize, fragment, transform, or end. Instability creates conditions for difference without determining what that difference must become.
The question before us can therefore be stated more precisely:
What must occur for a relational history to continue?
The answer proposed here is not the introduction of another metaphysical force called overcoming. Reality does not contain relation, responsiveness, possibility, coherence, and then some additional power that intervenes whenever continuity is threatened.
Overcoming is an achievement rather than a primitive.
It names what has occurred when changing relational conditions become sufficiently organized for some continuity to remain possible.
This distinction matters because overcoming is always situated. There is no overcoming in the abstract. Something particular persists through particular conditions in a particular way. A star negotiates no crisis as an organism does. An organism does not overcome as a community does. A community does not overcome as a conscious person does. The relational pattern may correspond across scales without requiring identical mechanisms, capacities, or forms of experience.
Overcoming is analogous across reality, not uniform throughout reality.
This protects the concept from becoming another universal mechanism.
At physical scales, overcoming may describe the continuation of an organized configuration through changing energetic and material conditions. At biological scales, it may involve regulation, adaptation, repair, reproduction, or ecological interdependence. Within conscious life, overcoming may include memory, learning, interpretation, intentional response, and behavioral change. Within human communities, it may involve cooperation, reconciliation, institutional adaptation, cultural memory, and the reorganization of shared practices.
These are not identical activities hidden beneath different names. They are different embodiments of a corresponding relational achievement: continuity carried through change.
Nor does overcoming necessarily mean restoration.
This is especially important.
To overcome disruption does not always mean returning to an earlier state. A forest regenerated after fire is not the forest that existed before the fire. An organism that heals bears the history of its injury. A person changed by grief does not simply return to the person who existed before loss. A community surviving catastrophe may preserve itself only by becoming something it had never previously been.
Overcoming may preserve continuity precisely through transformation.
We may therefore distinguish at least three broad expressions of overcoming: maintenance, in which sufficient organization is sustained through changing conditions; recovery, in which disrupted organization is sufficiently re-established for a history to continue; and transformation, in which continuity becomes possible only through significant reorganization into a new form.
These distinctions help us see why coherence cannot mean simple equilibrium or sameness. What counts as coherence depends upon the relational history under consideration. Sometimes coherence sustains an existing form. Sometimes coherence restores what has been disrupted. Sometimes coherence requires the abandonment of an earlier organization so that another form of continuity may become possible.
And sometimes coherence is not achieved at all.
That final possibility remains essential. Overcoming acquires metaphysical significance precisely because it is neither automatic nor guaranteed. A relational universe possesses no universal immunity against loss. The capacities through which persistence becomes possible are the same relational conditions through which vulnerability remains real: openness permits adaptation but also disruption; responsiveness permits adjustment but also injury; inheritance preserves continuity but can also carry constraint; novelty opens possibilities but may destabilize existing organization.
Overcoming therefore emerges not by escaping the conditions of relational becoming but through them.
The openness that makes a reality vulnerable
is also the openness through which another response may become possible.
Seen in this light, overcoming is neither conquest nor victory over reality's opposition. It is not the stronger defeating the weaker, order defeating chaos, or coherence permanently defeating fragmentation.
It is something more modest and more pervasive:
Overcoming is the achievement of sufficient relational continuity for becoming to continue beyond conditions that might otherwise have ended it.
And because the resulting continuity remains open, every overcoming is provisional. What has persisted once may fail later. What has recovered may again become vulnerable. What has transformed may encounter conditions for which its inherited organization is no longer sufficient.
Every overcoming therefore becomes another inheritance.
It carries forward the history of what occurred, alters the conditions of what presently exists, and contributes possibilities and constraints to what may become next.
Overcoming does not close a history.
It changes the conditions under which that history may continue.
Becoming never outgrows relation... it continually embodies it.
Stability is not the absence of change.It is continuity sufficiently sustained through change.
Every stable world is an unfinished achievement of relational becoming.
If overcoming names the achievement of sufficient relational continuity for becoming to continue, then stability can now be understood more precisely.
Stability is often imagined as resistance to change. Something is called stable because it remains where it is, retains its form, withstands disruption, or returns to equilibrium after disturbance. Yet within a relational reality, none of these descriptions is sufficient by itself.
A stable reality must do more than remain unchanged.
It must remain viable within changing relations.
This gives stability a temporal character. Stability is not a property possessed once and thereafter secured. It is an achievement extended across time. Conditions change. Relations change. Environments change. What sustained a particular organization yesterday may no longer sustain it tomorrow.
For this reason, stability has a range.
Every enduring relational organization persists only within some range of conditions through which its organization remains viable. A star exists within particular physical conditions. A living organism survives within tolerable ranges of temperature, chemistry, energy, and environmental interaction. An ecosystem depends upon networks of relationships whose disruption may eventually exceed its capacity for reorganization. Human communities likewise persist within social, material, institutional, and ecological conditions that can be stretched, altered, or broken.
Stability is therefore bounded.
To be stable is not to be invulnerable.
This helps explain why the same change may be insignificant to one system and catastrophic to another. What matters is not change as such, but whether changing conditions remain within the range through which a particular relational organization can continue, adjust, recover, or transform.
Here the three expressions of overcoming developed in the preceding section become important.
A stable reality may persist through maintenance, continually renewing the organization already sustaining it. It may persist through recovery, reorganizing after disruption sufficiently to restore continuity. Or it may persist through transformation, altering its previous organization because continuation in its former mode has become impossible.
Stability therefore need not mean returning to equilibrium.
Sometimes the most stable response available to a changing reality is to become differently.
A river may maintain its identity while altering its course. An organism may survive because its behavior changes. An ecosystem may reorganize into a configuration unlike the one preceding disruption. A person may preserve continuity of self through beliefs, relationships, or practices substantially different from those once considered essential to identity.
The opposite of stability is not change.
It is the loss of sufficient continuity for a particular history to continue as that history.
This formulation allows us to speak about endings without treating them as metaphysical failures. A relational configuration may reach conditions beyond which its particular organization can no longer persist. The star changes phase. The organism dies. The ecosystem reorganizes beyond recognition. The institution dissolves. The civilization ends.
Something may follow, but what follows is not necessarily the persistence of what preceded it.
That distinction matters because relational metaphysics should not transform every ending into hidden continuity. Novel possibilities may arise from dissolution, but dissolution remains real. Loss remains real. Extinction remains real. Decoherence cannot simply be renamed transformation in order to preserve a philosophy of universal becoming.
Stability, then, is neither permanence nor immortality. It is the temporally extended viability of a relational history.
And because viability is always conditioned, stability remains provisional.
Every stability has conditions.
Every condition has limits.
Every limit leaves open the question of what may happen next.
This gives stability a different relationship to openness than we have previously described. Openness is not merely what allows stable realities to acquire novelty. Openness also means that no achieved stability possesses an unconditional claim upon the future.
The future must continually be negotiated through relation.
Sometimes sufficient continuity is maintained.
Sometimes continuity requires transformation.
Sometimes continuity ends.
Stability is therefore not the destination of becoming.
It is the provisional viability of a relational history within conditions that remain open to change.
Every stable world is consequently an unfinished world - not because it must become richer, more complex, or more coherent, but because its continuation remains unresolved.
Persistence is possible because relation can sustain continuity.Persistence is contingent because relation can also fail to do so.
The preceding sections have developed overcoming through the particular problem of persistence. Instability leaves relational realities vulnerable to change. Overcoming names those achievements through which sufficient continuity becomes possible. Stability describes the provisional viability of those achievements across time.
We can now ask a larger question.
Does the recurrence of persistence reveal a universal tendency within reality itself?
It is tempting to answer yes. Across the observable universe, stable patterns abound. Atoms endure. Stars persist. Organisms reproduce. Ecosystems reorganize. Species adapt. Memories carry histories forward. Communities preserve traditions. Cultures inherit languages, practices, institutions, and stories.
Yet the same reality also displays dissolution everywhere.
Particles decay. Stars exhaust themselves. Organisms die. Species disappear. Ecosystems collapse or become radically reorganized. Memories are lost. Relationships end. Languages vanish. Communities fragment. Civilizations pass into history.
A relational metaphysics must account for both.
Coherence is real.
Decoherence is real.
Neither may be explained away to protect the metaphysics.
This means we should resist describing overcoming as the universal condition of reality itself. Overcoming is universal only in a more carefully qualified sense: wherever persistence occurs, some form of overcoming has occurred. It does not follow that everything persists, that every disruption is overcome, or that reality possesses an irresistible tendency toward increasingly coherent organization.
The distinction is between a universal metaphysical possibility and a universal metaphysical outcome.
Relational becoming makes persistence possible. It does not make persistence inevitable.
This allows us to reconsider what universality means within a relational metaphysics. The universal claim need not be that every reality follows the same developmental trajectory. Nor need it mean that every relational history moves toward greater complexity, integration, consciousness, or value.
What may be universal is more modest:
Whatever becomes, becomes relationally.
Whatever persists, persists relationally.
Whatever ends, ends within relational conditions as well.
Relation therefore does not privilege persistence over dissolution. It provides the conditions within which both become possible.
This is especially important when moving across scales. Physical stability, biological survival, psychological resilience, social continuity, and moral reconciliation should not be collapsed into one phenomenon merely because all can be described relationally. Their mechanisms, histories, vulnerabilities, and meanings differ.
Correspondence is not identity.
A metaphysical grammar identifies patterns of intelligibility across domains.
It does not erase the differences between those domains.
This distinction protects relational metaphysics from becoming a universalizing metaphor. When we say that an atom, organism, person, and community may each exhibit persistence, we are not claiming that they persist in the same way. We are claiming that each presents a corresponding philosophical question: how is sufficient continuity carried through changing relational conditions?
The same caution applies to overcoming.
At one scale overcoming may involve dynamic physical organization. At another it may involve biological regulation. At another it may involve conscious adaptation. At another it may involve reconciliation, institutional change, or ethical transformation. Only at increasingly complex levels do terms such as interpretation, purpose, choice, responsibility, or meaning acquire the richer senses appropriate to conscious and social life.
Relational correspondence therefore permits continuity of philosophical inquiry without flattening reality into sameness.
And this gives us a different understanding of the universe as a whole.
Reality need not be described as an accumulation of ever-greater coherent achievements. Its history contains achievement and loss, persistence and dissolution, emergence and extinction, integration and fragmentation. What survives becomes inheritance for further becoming; what disappears may also alter the conditions inherited by what follows.
Even failure has consequences.
But consequence is not the same as persistence.
Nothing that happens occurs outside relational history.
But not everything that enters relational history continues as itself.
The metaphysics of overcoming therefore makes no promise that reality will preserve what it produces. It makes a more limited claim: relational becoming contains possibilities through which continuity may sometimes be sustained, recovered, or transformed despite the vulnerability intrinsic to an unfinished world.
Overcoming is remarkable precisely because it might not have occurred.
Persistence matters precisely because it could have ended.
And stability matters precisely because it remains conditional.
Reality does not guarantee continuation.
It continually leaves continuation possible.
The question guiding this essay has been deceptively simple:
Why does anything persist?
If reality is fundamentally open, relational, and continually becoming, persistence cannot be taken for granted. Stars endure and stars collapse. Organisms live and organisms die. Ecosystems recover and ecosystems disappear. Communities reconcile and communities fragment. Across every scale, reality presents histories of continuation alongside histories of ending.
Persistence therefore requires explanation.
The answer proposed throughout these pages is neither the permanence of immutable substances nor the continual imposition of order by an external power. Nor have we proposed overcoming as another metaphysical force ensuring that reality eventually succeeds.
Overcoming names something more conditional:
Where persistence occurs, relational becoming has achieved sufficient continuity for a history to continue through conditions in which it might otherwise have ended.
This achievement may take different forms. Some realities persist through maintenance, continually renewing the organization that sustains them. Others persist through recovery, reorganizing after disruption. Still others persist through transformation, becoming sufficiently different that some continuity can be carried forward under altered conditions.
None is guaranteed.
This is why instability need not be understood as failure. Instability belongs to the vulnerability of an unfinished reality. It exposes what has become to conditions through which it may change, persist, transform, fragment, or end. The same openness through which a relational history may be disrupted is also the openness through which another response may become possible.
Without vulnerability, overcoming would have no meaning.
Stability consequently acquires a different meaning as well. It is neither permanence nor immunity from change. Stability is the provisional viability of a relational history across time. Every stability possesses conditions. Every condition has limits. And every limit leaves unresolved whether an existing continuity can be maintained, recovered, transformed, or lost.
This means that overcoming should never be confused with inevitable progress.
Reality does not necessarily move toward greater coherence, complexity, integration, consciousness, or value. Nor does every disruption conceal a better future waiting to emerge. Loss is real. Decoherence is real. Extinction is real. Endings cannot be converted into hidden successes merely because something else may subsequently arise from their consequences.
And yet persistence is equally real.
Something extraordinary therefore occurs whenever a relational history continues.
Not because reality has defeated change, but because continuity has been carried through change.
Not because instability has disappeared, but because a viable organization has remained possible within it.
Not because the future has been secured, but because another future has remained available.
Every persistence is an overcoming.
Every overcoming remains unfinished.
The resulting metaphysics is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. It makes no prediction that reality must improve and no assertion that fragmentation ultimately wins. It recognizes instead an open universe in which relational histories remain exposed to possibilities of continuation and ending alike.
What persists becomes inheritance.
What ends also changes the conditions inherited by what follows.
But consequence is not persistence, and inheritance is not immortality. A history may contribute to further becoming without continuing as itself.
This distinction allows us to understand overcoming without conquest, persistence without permanence, stability without closure, and becoming without guarantee.
Reality does not guarantee continuation.
It continually leaves continuation possible.
And wherever that possibility becomes sufficiently embodied to endure, even provisionally, a stable world has begun to form.
The next essay therefore turns naturally from the question of persistence to the worlds persistence makes possible. If stability is neither permanence nor closure, what constitutes a stable world within an unfinished relational reality?
That question carries us forward.
Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. Translated by Arthur Mitchell. New York: Dover Publications, 1998. Originally published 1907.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. 2 vols. Edited by Nathan Houser, Christian Kloesel, and the Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992–1998.
Rescher, Nicholas. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Free Press, 1967.
———. Modes of Thought. New York: Free Press, 1968.
———. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected edition. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.
Organization, Constraint, and Emergence
Deacon, Terrence W. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. New York: W. W. Norton, 2012.
Juarrero, Alicia. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Kauffman, Stuart A. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.
Rosen, Robert. Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Persistence, Resilience, and Adaptive Systems
Goodwin, Brian. How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Holling, C. S. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1973): 1–23.
Margulis, Lynn, and Dorion Sagan. What Is Life? Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.
Morin, Edgar. On Complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2008.
Evolution, Temporality, and Open Becoming
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray, 1859.
Ellis, George F. R. How Can Physics Underlie the Mind? Top-Down Causation in the Human Context. Berlin: Springer, 2016.
Smolin, Lee. Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2008. Originally published 1955.
Open and Relational Conversation Partners
Cobb, John B., Jr. A Christian Natural Theology. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
Keller, Catherine. Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming. London: Routledge, 2003.
Oord, Thomas Jay. The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence. Grasmere, ID: SacraSage Press, 2023.
Unpublished ORPMOB Manuscripts
Slater, R. E.
———. Essays XVII–XXII, The Grammar of Relational Becoming.
———. Open and Relational Process Metaphysics of Becoming (ORPMOB). Ongoing philosophical essays.
No comments:
Post a Comment