Processual Meaning in Motion, Part 2

Processual Meaning in Motion:

Frege, Process and Developing

a Living Language

Part 2

Metamodern Theosophy:

Semantic Reinterpretation in Process Philosophy

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Continue from Part 1

Question 1 - Using Frege's semantic analysis, briefly, give an example of using the same sentence with unequal, separate senses.

ChatGPT

Sure! Here's an example of the same sentence used with unequal, separate senses:

Sentence: "She broke the silence."

1. Literal sense: She suddenly spoke after a long period of quiet.

2. Figurative sense: She challenged a taboo or unspoken rule by revealing a hidden truth.

Though the wording is identical, each use carries a distinct and unequal meaning—one social and emotional, the other physical and acoustic.

RES

 

Now do the same where both sentences carry the same referent...

ChatGPT

Certainly! Here's an example where the same sentence is used with unequal, separate senses, yet both refer to the same event or referent:

Sentence: "The glass shattered."

1. Literal sense: The physical object (a drinking glass) broke into pieces.

2. Figurative sense: A tense or fragile emotional moment collapsed—e.g., a moment of calm or pretense was broken dramatically.

Here, we use the same referent: A single event where someone drops a glass during a heated argument. The literal shattering is real, but it simultaneously represents the breakdown of emotional restraint.

So the one action - of one referent - serves dual roles: material and symbolic.

RES

Now adjust these answers using the Fregian construction of "sense and reference"...

ChatGPT

Excellent. Let’s now analyze the examples using Gottlob Frege’s distinction between sense (Sinn) and reference (Bedeutung):

Frege’s Definitions (briefly):

Reference (Bedeutung): The actual object or event in the world that a term or sentence points to.

Sense (Sinn): The mode of presentation—the way the reference is understood or captured in the mind, or conceptualized.

Example 1 (Original Sentence): “She broke the silence.”

Single reference: The event of a woman speaking after a period of quiet.

Two unequal senses:

1. Acoustic sense (Sinn 1): She literally made sound, ending a stretch of quiet.

2. Social/emotional sense (Sinn 2): She disrupted a psychological or cultural silence (e.g., revealing a family secret).

✔ Although the reference is the same—an act of speaking—the senses differ: one presents it as an auditory event, the other as a symbolic or social rupture.

Example 2 (Original Sentence): “The glass shattered.”

Single reference: The actual event of a glass object breaking into fragments during a moment of tension.

Two unequal senses:

1. Literal sense (Sinn 1): The glass physically fractured.

2. Metaphorical sense (Sinn 2): The emotional or interpersonal situation collapsed (e.g., a relationship tension snapping).

✔ Again, the reference is one and the same—the breaking of the glass—but the senses present that event in two unequal ways: one as physical destruction, the other as emotional symbolism.

Summary Table (Fregean Analysis)

1Sentence - 2Reference (Bedeutung) - 3Sense 1 (Sinn) - 4Sense 2 (Sinn)

1She broke the silence - 2A woman speaking after a period of quiet - 3End of acoustic silence - 4Social/emotional rupture

1The glass shattered - 2A glass breaking during a tense moment - 3Literal, physical shattering - 4Metaphor for emotional breakdown

This shows how Frege’s model elegantly explains how the same reference can support distinct and unequal conceptual pathways, deepening semantic interpretation.

RES

Frege's philological construction had three operandi, the sign, the reference, and the sense...

ChatGPT

You're absolutely right—Frege’s philological (or more precisely, semantic) construction involves three components:

🔹 1. Sign (Zeichen)

The linguistic expression or symbol used in language (e.g., a word, phrase, or sentence).

• Ex. “The morning star”

🔹 2. Sense (Sinn)

The mode of presentation—how the referent is conceived or understood. The sense determines how we think about the referent, not what it is.

• Ex. “The morning star” = Venus as seen at dawn

🔹 3. Reference (Bedeutung)

The actual object or entity in the world that the sign points to.

• Ex. The planet Venus (which is also the evening star)

✴ Applied Example: “The glass shattered”

Let's reconstruct this Fregean-style, fully:

Element        Literal Sense                                   Figurative Sense

Sign                 The glass shattered                              The glass shattered

Sense (Sinn) A fragile object broke into                 A fragile situation or emotion collapsed                                      pieces suddenly

Reference      A specific real-world event: the breaking of the glass (possibly during a moment of tension)

🔁 Note: The sign is the same in both readings.

➡ The reference remains unchanged: one real-world event.

🧠 The sense differs: one physical, one metaphorical.

✴ Applied Example: “She broke the silence”

Element            Acoustic Sense                Social/Emotional Sense

Sign                    She broke the silence            She broke the silence

Sense (Sinn)   A voice interrupted               A taboo or emotional
                              a quiet environment             restraint was broken

Reference         A single utterance or           (same act in both cases)

                               verbal action by "she"

🧠 Frege’s Contribution

Frege helps us see how multiple senses can arise from a single expression, even when the reference remains constant. This is especially important in poetry, metaphor, and symbolic language—where one referent may carry many conceptual layers.

Here is a multilayered poem constructed to reflect Frege’s three-part semantic model—sign, sense, and reference—unfolding over metaphor, symbol, and concrete reality.

The Shattered Glass

a poem by ChatGPT

(A Poem in Three Layers)

I. Sign (Zeichen)

The words that tremble on the surface

> The glass shattered—three words, bare,

Framed in sound, suspended air.

A sentence whispered, sharp and clean,

With syntax taut and meaning lean.

II. Sense (Sinn)

The thoughts that shape what’s seen

> It cracked not just with brittle edge,

But like a vow near breaking’s ledge.

The silence screamed through sudden gleam,

A fracture in the woven dream.

> The moment held a double weight:

A hand let go—a held-back state.

The glass, a mirror, caught despair,

The room no longer breathing air.

III. Reference (Bedeutung)

What truly happened—there, out there

> A vessel fell. It met the stone.

It splintered sharp and left alone.

No metaphor, no echo’s lie—

Just shards beneath a kitchen cry.

🌀 Commentary

The first stanza focuses on the Sign—the linguistic shell, "the glass shattered."

The second stanza offers the Sense—how we might interpret or experience that phrase: metaphor, emotional collapse, or psychological turning point.

The final stanza anchors the Reference—a real event in spacetime, regardless of interpretation.

---

Below is a sublime, interwoven version of the poem that blends sign, sense, and reference into a seamless tapestry—so the reader experiences them all at once, intuitively, without explicit division. Each line carries linguistic form (sign), evokes layered understanding (sense), and gestures toward lived or living truth (reference).

Where the Glass Remembered

a poem by ChatGPT

(A Fregian Poem in One Breath)

> The glass remembered how silence held,

until her hand spoke louder than lips.

It leapt—no, it fell—no, it was freed,

like truth unlatched in a locked-up room.

A ring of sound stitched through the hush,

as though quiet itself had broken open,

not just the glass, but something beneath:

a decade of dinners, unspoken things.

Shards mapped the floor like stuttered thoughts—

some still, some screaming in sunlit flecks.

Her breath returned, a wave on wood,

soft as a storm, unbrushed by apology.

And though they swept the pieces clean,

the absence never quite stopped gleaming.

The glass had shattered, yes, and still—

the silence never truly mended.

🔍 Notes

• “The glass remembered…” — personifies the sign; it already holds its meanings and histories.

• “…her hand spoke louder than lips” — overlays literal and metaphorical rupture.

• “like truth unlatched…” — blends referent (shattering) with layered sense (emotional disclosure).

• Final couplet — circles back to permanence in impermanence, the residue of meaning even after the reference has passed.

continue to Part 3

Processual Meaning in Motion, Part 1

Processual Meaning in Motion:

Frege, Process and Developing

a Living Language

Part 1

Metamodern Theosophy:

Semantic Reinterpretation in Process Philosophy

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Introduction

I.

This dialogue explores the reclamation of theological meaning through the lens of Frege’s triadic semantics—sign, sense, and reference—as reinterpreted within process theology and metamodern philosophy.

Rather than allowing the discipline of theology to determine either the absolute or fluid philosophical categories on it's own apart from any philosophical guidance, we reverse the religious construction by first starting with a dynamic metaphysical framework such as process philosophy that is grounded in dynamic relationality, creativity, and becoming. From this foundation derivative categories such as theology, sociology, science, and ecology may then be birthed and enlivened having established a sufficient structural framework for each to flow and explore within.

II.

Of note is the fact that process philosophy in all its forms is a responsive framework which morphs with acknowledged academic studies so that it keeps its currency. But as a framing conceptual ideology it also guides as well as grows in response to era-specific discovery, need and demand. Thus, process philosophy is guide as much as it is companion on the journey of life previously walked by both the ancients and modern society.

This also addresses the question of which comes first, theology or philosophy? Though each affects the other the proper order is always philosophy first, theology second. And if this is so, then it behooves a theology, a doctrine, a denomination, or a theologian to build upon a worthy philosophy with worthy valuative goals.

Historically, the church has built it's theology upon an eclectic base of philosophies appealing to an admixture of era-specific ideas and principals. In contrast, a rigorous theology is always built upon a rigorous philosophical base and not the other way around. Thus the importance of discovering a worthy philosophical framework so that the subjectivity of a theology is reigned in from excess and abuse.

Without a guiding philosophical reference, a theology, a faith, or a religion, can set it's own tone according to it's own "philosophical bias" so that it is unrestricted to the harm and oppression it can - and most likely will - create upon it's own members and society at large. Today's American "Maga-Christian movement" is a perfect illustration of a faith or religion gone wrong.

In counterpoint, process theology is a worthy derivative of process philosophy as it flows in sympathy with an enlivening processual foundation. A foundation as much committed to value, worth and ethic as it is to metaphysical and ontological discussion. Whereas other Western philosophies have subscribed to the goal of "the worthy life" yet in historical reflection this worthy life came to mean separation from the world - and perhaps one's body  - for purposes of Christian sanctification and holiness.

In process theology the sanctification and holiness striven for in Christianity is always focused on loving outcome to the other as well as one's self. Hence, the worthy life is a life which loves others and self because of God's love given to mankind and creation at large. To Jesus, the purpose of sanctification and holiness had only one goal which he exemplified - to love one another. In themselves, the pursuit of sanctification and holiness is bankrupt before God. Without meaning. Meaningless. But in context to loving and serving others, one attains sanctification and holiness by one's selfless acts of sacrifice, thoughtfulness, kindness, and gifts of helps.

III.

Lastly, we may sometimes intertwine philosophy with theology and call this semantic admixture "theosophy."  Here, we lead out with theology as guide to philosophy should that theology be worthy. Such a theology gives the heart to the soul of its being. Each nourishes the other in healthy ways even as healthy actions nourish the soul and body of our being.

And by using the term theosophy in shorthand connotation we must stress that this is not in any measure of conception a focus on any forms of emerging esoteric mysticisms. Why? Because processual panpsychism can-and-will address this form of spiritual connection by grounding spirituality within the human experience of this world as explained earlier above when applied to the subjects of sanctification and holiness.

Furthermore, processual panpsychism emanates from within the more rigorous processual philosophical path of process theology which leads towards divine wisdom and human salvation. A path which revives the depth of religious language to match the depth of human suffering, betrayal, and abandonment, in a world saturated with flattened signs and meaningless reference points.

Consequently, this conversation focused on Frege's analytic usage of language intends to integrate poetry, diagrams, and semantic analysis to bridge logic and spirit, language and life, theory and beauty. To begin, let us proceed by developing this investigation moving from the simplistic to the complex.

Here we go....

Who Is Frege?

I.

Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege was a late 1800s German philosopher, logician, and mathematician, he is considered to be the father of analytic philosophy concentrating of the philosophy of language, logic and mathematics. Introduced to academia by later noted philosophers, Frege became widely considered as the greatest logician since Aristotle, and one of the most profound philosophers of mathematics ever (as noted by Bertrand Russell who, with Alfred North Whitehead, had jointly published Principia Mathematica)

In Frege's 1892 paper, "On Sense and Reference" he explained that expressions of language may have more than one meaning - or, multiple modes of representation - for the same referent. In practice, the one who is communicating may wish to differentiate what is being talked about (qua, refence) from how it's being described (qua, sense).

This is used all the time by artificial intelligence (AI). As example, Google's semantic search relies on Fregean-like logic to understand user queries in terms of sense and referent. If a user states they are going to NYC, AI might determine NYC as referring to New York City or The Big Apple as the user's destination. In law, the sematic frame of a minor may refer to an underage person. This would help in differentiating between intent (sense) from application (reference).

Essentially, a technical communicator may need to clarify intention from meaning so that they are not misunderstood by his audience. This helps in conflict resolution or intercultural communication, so that one might distinguish "how" something is said from "what" is meant.

II.

When coming to philosophical theology Frege's form of semantic communication can be quite helpful in modifying and expanding older descriptions and meanings towards newer descriptions and meanings.

As example, literalist readings of Scripture and doctrinal theology often collapse sense and reference to the modern mind whereas a process-based reading of Scripture or doctrinal theology will often expand traditional / classic sense and meaning.

Hence, Frege's work states that belief is more than just knowing what something refers to, but how it is understood. To say that God exists is not a sufficient explanation of "faith". It also involves "grasping the sense" of the meaning that "God exists". As such, an existent God may suggest that this God is loving, just, triune, incarnational, redemptive, etc.

Philosophical theology is always driving towards clarity while at the same time expanding the referent of its subject beyond the simple "senses" which sects, denominations, creeds, and doctrines have filled it with. In this case, process-based philosophical theology challenges the delimiting views of classical or traditional creeds and doctrines. Since God exists, then why does God exist? For what reason? And if for love, then what does God's love mean, imply, communicate, intends to do?

Earlier beliefs have insisted that God exists to be worshipped but today's progressive faiths wish to error on the pragmatic. The practical. And so they teach that God exists to serve humanity through all human institutions - including the church. That worship alone is not enough. That the church must act in love. Vote in love. Provision in love. Reach out in helps, in aides, in practical means, modes, and methods.

So when using Frege, "worship" may have a reference not only as "adoration of God" but now, in a processual sense, have another meaning, that of "self-sacrificial service."

continue to Part 2

Process Philosophy's Antecedents: A Family Tree of Dynamic Process Ontologies, Part 2

Process Philosophy's Antecedents

A Family Tree of Dynamic Process Ontologies

Part 2

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Philosophical ontologies study the nature of being and existence and is a subdiscipline of metaphysics. Broadly, formal ontologies investigate abstract features while applied ontologies utilize ontological theories and principles to study entities within specific domains.

INTRODUCTION

Building upon yesterday’s foundational overview of dynamic process ontologies, this second part traces the historical unfolding of processual thought within both religious and philosophical traditions. By mapping these antecedents, we see a continuous thread of dynamic, relational, and becoming-centered ontologies weaving through ancient cosmologies, classical philosophies, medieval theologies, and modern scientific insights.

This family tree highlights the converging streams that have shaped contemporary process thought — an evolving tapestry of ideas that resists static categories and instead affirms movement, change, and interconnectedness at the heart of reality.

I.

MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS ONTOLOGIES

• Includes both process and non-process traditions
• Grouped by era and tradition

I. Ancient Ontologies (Pre-Axial Age to Early Axial)

• Animism & Totemism – World as alive, all beings with spirit (prehistoric–indigenous)
• Polytheism – Many gods with various domains (Egyptian, Greek, Norse, Canaanite, Hindu)
• Henotheism – One supreme god among others (early Israelite, some Vedic thought)
• Pantheism – God and world are identical (early Upanishads, Stoicism)
• Panentheism – God in the world, world in God, but God transcends (Upanishadic Hinduism, some early Christian mysticism)

II. Classical Philosophical Ontologies (Axial Age)

• Platonic Idealism – Eternal Forms/Ideas as true reality
• Aristotelian Substance Ontology – Reality composed of substances with essential forms
• Atomism – Reality built from indivisible units (Democritus, Epicurus)
• Stoicism – Rational Logos as immanent in all things
• Buddhist Ontology (Śūnyatā) – Emptiness of inherent existence; interdependence
• Hindu Advaita Vedanta – Non-dual Brahman as ultimate reality
• Confucian Relational Ontology – Being defined by relationships within a moral cosmos

III. Medieval Ontologies

• Neoplatonism – Emanation of reality from the One (Plotinus, Augustine)
• Scholastic Theistic Realism – Being grounded in God’s essence (Aquinas)
• Islamic Kalam Ontology – God's will as ontologically fundamental (Ash'arite occasionalism)
• Jewish Kabbalistic Ontology – Emanations (Sefirot) from Ein Sof (Infinite)
• Nominalism (Ockham) – Denial of universals as real; reality as particulars

IV. Modern Philosophical Ontologies (Post-Renaissance)

• Cartesian Dualism – Mind (res cogitans) and Matter (res extensa)
• Monism (Spinoza) – Single substance = God or Nature
• Empiricist Ontology (Locke, Hume) – Reality apprehended through sense perception
• Idealism (Kant, Hegel) – Reality shaped or constituted by mind/spirit
• Materialism / Physicalism – Only matter (or energy) is real
• Process Ontology (Whitehead) – Reality is becoming, not static being
• Phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger) – Reality as experienced; being-in-the-world
• Existentialist Ontology (Sartre) – Existence precedes essence; freedom as ontological core

V. Contemporary / Postmodern Ontologies

• Post-Structuralist Ontologies – Reality constructed via language, power, and difference
• Relational Ontology (Process, Feminist, Ecological) – Being is constituted by relations
• Object-Oriented Ontology – Objects exist independently of relations or perception
• Quantum Ontologies (Field, Information) – Reality as fields, energy, information (modern physics)
• Panpsychism – Mind or experience as fundamental aspect of all reality
• Integral / Metamodern Ontologies – Integrative approaches blending multiplicity (Wilber, metamodern thinkers)

VI. Comparative Family Tree Overview

a diagrammatic family tree of ontologies reflecting both chronology and influence patterns.

A family tree of Ontologies
by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

A family tree of Ontologies showing Processual Elements
by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

II.

MAJOR PROCESS-BASED PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS ONTOLOGIES

• Includes PROCESS traditions only
• Grouped by era and tradition

I. Proto-Process Ontologies (Pre-Axial)

• Animism & Totemism – All things in flux, spirited; relational cosmos
• Indigenous Cosmologies – Cycles of nature as ongoing becoming

II. Emerging Philosophical Processes (Axial)

• Heraclitus (Greek) – "All is flux," the Logos as ordering flow
• Buddhism (India) – Śūnyatā (emptiness), interdependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda)
• Upanishadic Hinduism (India) – Brahman as evolving cosmic reality
• Daoism (China) – Dao as the ever-flowing way of nature

III. Process Threads in Classical Philosophy

• Stoicism – Logos as living reason, immanent in nature
• Neoplatonism (Plotinus) – Emanation as a dynamic outflow from the One
• Early Christian Mystics – God as flowing presence (Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius)

IV. Medieval and Islamic Contributions

• Kabbalah – Emanations (Sefirot), divine dynamism in Jewish mysticism
• Islamic Philosophical Theology (Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mulla Sadra) – Substantial motion (harakat jawhariyya), all beings in motion
• Christian Processions (East & West) – Theological language of Trinity as dynamic relations (though often staticized)

V. Early Modern Dynamics

• Nicholas of Cusa – Coincidence of opposites, unfolding creation
• Giordano Bruno – Infinite worlds, ever-unfolding universe
• Spinoza – God or Nature as single substance with infinite modes (proto-processual)

VI. Modern Precursors and Theorists

• Hegel – Dialectic as unfolding Geist (Spirit)
• Bergson – Creative evolution, élan vital
• Whitehead (Process Philosophy) – Becoming as metaphysical core; God as primordial, consequent, and superjective nature
• Teilhard de Chardin – Omega Point, evolutionary theology

VII. Contemporary Developments

• Process Theology (Cobb, Suchocki, Hartshorne) – Divine relationality and ongoing creation
• Ecological and Relational Ontologies – Panpsychism, Deep Ecology
• Quantum Ontologies – Dynamic fields, relational entanglement
• Metamodern Ontology – Integrative, open-ended becoming (e.g., Hanzi Freinacht)

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

CONCLUDING REFLECTION

In retracing the roots of process-oriented philosophies and theologies, we discover that what many modern thinkers articulate as “process” is neither a novel invention nor a narrow metaphysical project. Rather, it is a recurring intuition — surfacing in every age — that reality itself is relational, emergent, and perpetually in becoming.

By recognizing these antecedents, we anchor today’s processual frameworks within a broader historical dialogue, affirming both their ancient resonance and their contemporary relevance for philosophy, science, and faith alike.

Process Philosophy's Antecedents: A Family Tree of Dynamic Process Ontologies, Part 1

Process Philosophy's Antecedents

A Family Tree of Dynamic Process Ontologies

Part 1

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Philosophical ontologies study the nature of being and existence and is a subdiscipline of metaphysics. Broadly, formal ontologies investigate abstract features while applied ontologies utilize ontological theories and principles to study entities within specific domains.

To begin, a process ontology is a way of modeling and representing knowledge about processes, focusing on their dynamic nature and relationships rather than as static entities. It's used in religion, philosophy and computer science, with applications ranging from understanding fundamental reality to describing complex business operations.

In religion, process ontology emphasizes that God is not a static, unchanging entity but is intimately involved in the dynamic and ever-changing processes of the universe.

In philosophy, process ontology challenges traditional views that emphasize enduring substances, arguing instead that reality is fundamentally composed of processes, events, and relationships. This perspective, also known as process philosophy or process metaphysics, is associated with thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead. Some philosophers argue that process ontology offers a more accurate representation of the world's flux and becoming.

In computer science and knowledge representation, a process ontology provides a structured way to model-and-reason-about the components and relationships within an observed process. This is useful for tasks like (i) Modeling workflows: Describing the steps, inputs, outputs, and dependencies of a process. (ii) Developing knowledge-based systems: Creating systems that can understand and reason about processes. (iii) Enabling process analysis and optimization: Identifying bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and areas for improvement in a process.

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the history of thought, certain currents have continually resurfaced — currents that reject static conceptions of reality in favor of dynamic, relational, and evolving understandings of existence. Process Philosophy, particularly as formalized by Alfred North Whitehead, is often perceived as a modern or even postmodern development. Yet, when viewed through a broader historical and cross-cultural lens, it becomes evident that processual insights have long been seeded in the philosophical and theological traditions of East and West alike.

This survey traces a family tree of dynamic ontologies — spanning ancient Greek thought, Buddhist impermanence, Islamic metaphysical insights, dialectical European philosophy, and the revelations of modern quantum science. Each thread contributes a distinctive voice to the chorus affirming that reality is a living, unfolding process.

In this spirit, Metamodern Process Philosophy emerges not as a break with tradition but as a converging stream of ancient wisdom, critical modernity, and contemporary scientific discovery. This synthesis offers a fertile ground for reimagining metaphysics, ethics, and the nature of existence in an interconnected and ever-becoming world.

---

1. Heraclitus (c. 500 BCE) — “All is Flux”

• The Greek philosopher Heraclitus declared that change is the fundamental nature of reality. His famous aphorism, “You cannot step into the same river twice,” highlighted a worldview where all things are in perpetual motion.

• Process Resonance: Heraclitus affirmed becoming over static being, introducing an early Western articulation of dynamic ontology.

---

2. Buddhist Doctrine of Impermanence (Anicca) (c. 300 BCE)

• Buddhism, originating in India, teaches that all phenomena are impermanent (Anicca), subject to arising and passing away, emphasizing the interdependent nature of all existence.

• Process Resonance: Reality is transient, interdependent, and relational — a natural alignment with process metaphysics’ rejection of fixed essences.

---

3. Islamic Philosophy — Al-Farabi, Avicenna (c. 1000 CE)

• Islamic philosophers synthesized Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophy, emphasizing dynamic creation, contingency, and continual existential dependence on the Divine.

• Process Resonance: Though not overtly processual, Islamic philosophy nurtured metaphysical frameworks that valued dynamic creation and relational existence.

---

4. Mulla Sadra (c. 1600 CE) — Substantial Motion (al-ḥaraka al-jawhariyya)

• Mulla Sadra’s revolutionary doctrine argued that substance itself is in constant ontological motion, not merely its accidents or qualities. This notion placed change and becoming at the heart of existence.

• Process Resonance: A striking philosophical precursor to process thought — proposing a world of ontological flux upheld by God’s ongoing creative act.

---

5. G.W.F. Hegel (c. 1800 CE) — Dialectical Becoming

• Hegel’s dialectics proposed that reality unfolds through the triadic process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, embedding development and transformation into the core of history and metaphysics.

• Process Resonance: Reality as a self-developing, dynamic process — an essential prelude to relational and evolutionary metaphysical systems.

---

6. Alfred North Whitehead (c. 1920 CE) — Process Philosophy

• Whitehead constructed a systematic metaphysics where reality consists of “actual occasions” — discrete events of becoming interconnected in webs of relation.

• Process Resonance: Whitehead’s philosophy integrated ontology, cosmology, and ethics under the principle of creativity and relational becoming, offering a comprehensive processual worldview.

---

7. Quantum Ontology — Field Theory & Emergence (21st Century)

• Quantum physics reveals a universe of fields, probabilities, and emergent properties rather than static substances. Concepts like wavefunction collapse and quantum entanglement reflect a world defined by dynamic interrelations.

• Process Resonance: Scientific models affirm a reality in constant flux, resonating deeply with philosophical visions of process and emergence.

---

CONCLUSION

A Converging Stream of Becoming

Process Philosophy emerges not from a vacuum but from a global and historical tapestry of insights — where ancient wisdom traditions, classical metaphysical systems, and contemporary scientific understandings coalesce. Each tradition contributes a vital thread:

• Heraclitus — Change is the only constant.

• Buddhism — All is impermanent and interconnected.

• Islamic Philosophy — Dynamic creation and contingent existence.

• Mulla Sadra — Substance itself is a motion of becoming.

• Hegel — History and reality unfold through dialectical processes.

• Whitehead — Reality is constituted by creative relational events.

• Quantum Ontology — The universe dances in fields of dynamic potential.

Together, each aspect of process thought affirm a deep, metamodern truth: "The universe is not a static structure but a living, unfolding, evolving process.

Metamodern Process Philosophy stands at the crossroads of ancient metaphysics, postmodern critique, and scientific discovery — offering a dynamic, integrated vision of reality. It invites us to see existence as a vibrant, relational tapestry, forever in the act of becoming.

---

Final Reflection

In recognizing the diverse roots of process philosophy, we are reminded that the human quest to understand reality has always been marked by a reverence for movement, change, and connection. Far from being an isolated philosophical curiosity, process thought represents a universal intuition echoed across cultures, religions, and sciences. Its metamodern expression today serves as both a bridge and a horizon — bridging ancient wisdom with contemporary inquiry, and opening a horizon of hope for a world in search of deeper relational meaning. 

Process philosophy, in this light, is less an endpoint and more a continual invitation: to embrace the flux of life with creativity, courage, and a profound sense of belonging to the unfolding cosmos.

Commonalities between Islam, Process, and Quantum Science

Commonalities between Islam,

Process, and Quantum Science

An Integration of Islamic Substantial Motion,

Process Philosophy, and Quantum Field Theory

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

INTRODUCTION

In the evolving dialogue between metaphysics, philosophy, and modern science, certain convergences stand out as particularly illuminating. One such convergence is the shared resonance between Mulla Sadra’s theosophic concept of Substantial Motion, Alfred North Whitehead’s Process Philosophy, and the scientific insights of contemporary Quantum Field Theory. Though these systems arise from distinct cultural, intellectual, and disciplinary contexts, they each articulate a vision of reality grounded in dynamism, relationality, and ceaseless becoming.

• Mulla Sadra’s theosophic doctrine of Substantial Motion asserts that not only cosmic coincidence, but the very substance of all things, is in perpetual flux—a groundbreaking metaphysical stance within Islamic thought.

• Whitehead’s Process Philosophy, formulated within the early 20th-century Western tradition, describes reality not as a collection of static substances but as a web of interconnected events or “actual occasions.”

• Meanwhile, Quantum Field Theory, the bedrock of modern physics, reveals a universe woven from dynamic fields, probabilistic events, and continuous processes of interaction.

Reference
Rereading Mulla Sadra’s Substantial Motion: Bridging Whiteheadian Process Philosophy and Quantum Ontology by Abolfazl Minaee

Abstract

This study undertakes a profound exploration of the conceptual convergences among Mulla Sadra’s doctrine of al-ḥarakat al-jawhariyya (substantial motion), Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, and contemporary quantum ontology, aiming to forge a novel metaphysical synthesis that bridges Islamic philosophy with modern philosophy of science.

Through an intricate comparative and conceptual analysis, it argues that Sadra’s dynamic ontology of becoming offers a robust framework for interpreting Whiteheaud’s processual metaphysics while simultaneously providing a unique lens to address interpretive challenges in quantum mechanics, such as wave function collapse, quantum entanglement, and superposition.

By meticulously identifying shared ontological commitments to flux, relationality, and emergence, this paper proposes substantial motion as a unifying metaphysical paradigm that transcends cultural and disciplinary boundaries.

This interdisciplinary endeavor not only fosters a cross-cultural dialogue but also contributes to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the nature of being in a quantum world, inviting philosophers to reconsider the foundations of reality through a processual lens.

REVIEW OF SADRA'S PROCESSUAL ONTOLOGY

1. Islamic Metaphysical Origin (Mulla Sadra, 17th c.)

• Philosopher: Mulla Sadra (Islamic Iran, Transcendent Theosophy)
• Core Idea: Not only accidents (qualities, quantities) but substance itself is in constant motion.
• Classical Aristotelian thought saw substances as fixed while qualities (color, place, size) change.
• Mulla Sadra flipped this: "Substance is in continuous ontological flow—changing, becoming, never fixed."

Result:

• The universe is a ceaselessly renewing tide of being.
• God is the ultimate cause of this ongoing creative flow.
• Existence itself is dynamic, becoming is reality.

2. Comparison to Islamic Theology:

• Though built within Shi'a Islamic metaphysics, Sadra's idea was philosophical, bridging theology, cosmology, and ontology.

• It aligns with Islamic concepts of God as ever-creating (al-Khaliq) but isn't core to Qur'anic doctrine.

3. Comparison to Physical Science

Is Sadra's theosophy a physical science? No—but...

• It’s a metaphysical doctrine, not derived from physics experiments.

• It philosophically anticipates later ideas like process ontology and dynamic fields in physics.

• Contemporary physics (e.g., field theory, quantum fluctuations) finds resonance, but substantial motion remains a philosophical stance, not a scientific theory.

4. Comparison to Process Philosophy

• Whitehead’s Process Philosophy similarly holds:

• > “Actuality is a process of becoming, not a substance persisting through change.”

• Both reject static substance metaphysics.

• Both suggest reality is constituted by dynamic, interrelated processes.

5. Summary

• Aspect - Substantial Motion
• Origin - Islamic Philosophy (Mulla Sadra)
• Domain - Metaphysics, not physics
• Core Concept - Substance itself is in continuous change
• Relation to Islam - A philosophical reading within Shi'a tradition
• Modern Resonance - Similar to Process Philosophy & Quantum Process
• Science? - No, but overlaps conceptually with dynamic field theories

6. Diagram

Here is a visual alignment of Mulla Sadra’s Substantial Motion, Whitehead’s Process Philosophy, and Quantum Field Theory:

• Mulla Sadra (Islamic Metaphysics) — Theosophical, substance in motion

• Whitehead (Process Philosophy) — Ontological, becoming and relationality

• Quantum Field Theory (Modern Physics) — Empirical, fluctuating quantum fields

• They converge on dynamic ontology, relational being, and processual becoming, though each arises from distinct traditions: metaphysical, philosophical, or scientific.

CONCLUSION

The alignment of Substantial Motion, Process Philosophy, and Quantum Field Theory reveals a fascinating cross-cultural and interdisciplinary convergence: reality, at its deepest levels, is dynamic, interrelated, and perpetually in motion. Whether articulated through the theological metaphysics of Mulla Sadra, the philosophical constructs of Whitehead, or the empirical models of quantum physics, this shared vision suggests a profound metaphysical intuition running beneath the surface of human thought across centuries and civilizations.

Rather than isolated insights, these traditions together underscore a metamodern realization: existence is a flowing, unfolding tapestry of becoming. This synthesis offers not just a conceptual framework but also a powerful invitation—to embrace a worldview that honors process, fosters relational understanding, and recognizes the deep, dynamic interconnectedness of all things

--

A Poem
A Dance of Becoming
by R.E. Slateŕ and ChatGPT

From ancient scrolls and scholar’s pen,
To quantum fields beyond our ken,
A single thread through time does weave —
All things in motion, all things perceive.

Sadra saw the world in flow,
A ceaseless pulse in all we know.
Whitehead drew the cosmic chart,
Of fleeting moments, and worlds that start.

The physicist in labs confined,
Found dancing fields that seeming fate designed.
Across vast spaces and through the small,
Cosmic processes bind, enfolding all.

Then let us learn this subtle art —
To see the whole within each part.
The world as song, as shifting stream,
As living, breathing, woven dream.

The Necessity for Processual Relational Sustainability for Affective Cultural Transformation

A relational map illustrating entangled sustainability across human and non-human
cultures of feeling, knowing, and doing, promoting healthy connections and relationships.

The Necessity for Processual

Relational Sustainability for

Affective Cultural Transformation

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Entwined roots of connected, open futures

bespeak relational renewal of what

the world could be, would be, can be, might be.  - R.E. Slater

A relational approach to human cultural sustainability focused on healthy pluralism, cross cultural communities, and cosmoecological biotas.

Above is a tanglegram mapping significant relational approaches for developing cultural mindsets whereupon everyone, and all things, are understood (or, felt) to be intimately and uniquely, entangled together, one with the other. This includes not only humanity but nature as well (sic, conveying the idea of valuing all non-human  entities).

Within the tanglegram is a map of the many different academic fields and perspectives which connect the three main pillars of relational transformation. These pillars are:

• Relational Ontology (blue) → How we see reality as made up of relationships.

• Relational Epistemology (orange) → How we know and study those relationships.

• Relational Ethics (green) → How we act ethically within those relationships.

Additionally, the lines themselves illustrate how each field or idea links to one or more of the pillars. For example, Eco-feminism connects to Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics, meaning it helps shape how we see, know, and act relationally.

The net result of this mapping illustrates that many disciplines and cultural permutations overlap and contribute complexly together to build a relational way of understanding and practice between individuation and community for affective, transformal sustainability.

Descriptors such as Co-operation, Co-Flourishing, Nurturing,

and Nourishing would all be indicators of successful transformation.

In lay terms, relational sustainability does not simply involve "green infrastructural fixes," but is a deep and systemic multimodal approach for affecting solidarity between societies of humans and natural ecosystems as dynamic cooperative actors living together rather than as "separate sectors of self-involved operators."

Further, a processual approach to life recognizes that all people, ecosystems, cultures, and beliefs are interdependent each upon the other. Thus transforming how we live, learn, govern, and care not only for one another but - for the Earth as well - based on generative and beneficial relationships to-and-with one another.

In this form of processual arrangement we do not manage resources. Rather, we lean into one another for co-development for justice, resilience, and co-flourishing between communities of humans and non-humans. In short, this attitude is more than an approach for “sustainable development” but is an approach for sustainable processual relations and relationships.

R.E. Slater

July 8, 2025

Reference:

Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, and education

A Relational Approach to Sustainability:

Rethinking How We See, Know, and Act

Introduction

In an era of mounting climate crises, biodiversity loss, and deepening social inequalities, traditional ways of tackling sustainability issues often fall short. Many existing approaches focus on technological fixes or isolated interventions. However, a growing movement in research, practice, and education argues that true sustainability requires us to rethink how we see the world: not as a collection of separate parts, but as a dynamic web of relationships. This document reimagines sustainability through a relational lens, integrating ideas from systems thinking, indigenous knowledge, and contemporary relational philosophies.

Body

Seeing: A Relational Ontology

A relational ontology begins with the belief that things do not exist in isolation. Trees are not just trees; they are forests, habitats, carbon sinks, and cultural symbols. Rivers are not simply water channels but lifelines for communities, ecosystems, and entire regional climates. In a relational worldview, everything exists because of its connections to everything else. This stands in contrast to mechanistic views, which treat nature as a collection of separate resources to be extracted or managed.

Knowing: A Relational Epistemology

Traditional science often claims to produce objective knowledge that is detached from the observer. A relational approach challenges this, recognizing that knowledge is always produced within networks of people, places, and non-human actors. Indigenous knowledge systems have long embraced this view, integrating empirical observation with relational and spiritual understanding of the land. A relational epistemology calls for multiple ways of knowing, inviting dialogue between scientific, local, and traditional forms of knowledge.

Acting: A Relational Ethics

Ethics in a relational paradigm extend beyond human interests. It asks us to consider the well-being of animals, plants, ecosystems, and future generations as part of our moral community. Policies, research agendas, and educational programs must be designed with this broader ethical horizon in mind. This means shifting from resource extraction and exploitation to stewardship, care, and co-flourishing with non-human ecosystems of nature.

Conclusion

A relational paradigm reframes sustainability from a technical fix to a cultural transformation. It calls us to redesign how we see the world, how we generate knowledge, and how we live responsibly within it. By embedding relationships at the heart of our thinking and action, we can move towards a more resilient, just, and life-sustaining future.

Bibliography

• Capra, Fritjof. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

• Ingold, Tim. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Routledge, 2011.

• Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, 1993.

• Maturana, Humberto and Francisco Varela. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Shambhala, 1992.

• Shiva, Vandana. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. Zed Books, 1988.

• SpringerLink article: Escobar, Arturo et al. "Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice and education." Ambio (2020).

EPILOGUE

Threads of Relational Becoming
by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Within self and community, flows

a cosmic, natural weave wherein
co-operative threads blend

soil to sky and earth to man.

Once living kin to rivers and forests,

birds and beast, rain and fire,

fled Eden's nurturing lands

of promising, nourishing futures.

Circles of stewarding care are

learning to listen deeper than

we speak or act, variegated pulses

of life surging towards blended belonging.

Measured in co-operative acts of

co-flourishing choices, feeding many

not the few; tending relationships

like well-planted gardens sharing

harvest wild amid systems wide.

Attentive practices breathe

unmet allures of becoming,

renewing vagabond spirits

freed to be more when together.

R.E. Slater

July 6, 2025

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications

all rights reserved