Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Monday, February 15, 2021

Integral Hermeneutics ala Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems



Integral Hermeneutics ala
Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

The Post-Structuralism of the
Hermeneutics of Belief or Suspicion

by R.E. Slater

Introduction

If I understand Godel's Incompleteness Logic correctly then it says that for any truth system to be used, or believed to be true, it's same system cannot be used on itself to prove its own system of beliefs and truths. All systems are self-reinforcing. Both large and small.

But this is the corollary meaning to Godel's fuller Incompleteness Logic which states that no truth system can be proven complete. That all truth systems are incomplete in-and-of themselves alone as single-ordered or multi-ordered systems.
"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency." - Wikipedia
And again,
In hindsight, the basic idea at the heart of the incompleteness theorem is rather simple. Gödel essentially constructed a formula that claims that it is unprovable in a given formal system. If it were provable, it would be false. Thus there will always be at least one true but unprovable statement. That is, for any computably enumerable set of axioms for arithmetic (that is, a set that can in principle be printed out by an idealized computer with unlimited resources), there is a formula that is true of arithmetic, but which is not provable in that system. To make this precise, however, Gödel needed to produce a method to encode (as natural numbers) statements, proofs, and the concept of provability; he did this using a process known as Gödel numbering. Wikipedia
And semi-humorously - should we not learn to laugh at ourselves for being over strict in our personal assessments and valuations of other competing ideas and works (I think of Einstein and his cosmological constant that has been fussed and fumed about over the years), we might describe all instances of unknowing, or inability to prove themselves, as subsets of "fuzzy logic" deemed helpful in explaining the unexplainable:
"Fuzzy logic is based on the observation that people make decisions based on imprecise and non-numerical information. Fuzzy models or sets are mathematical means of representing vagueness and imprecise information (hence the term fuzzy). These models have the capability of recognising, representing, manipulating, interpreting, and utilising data and information that are vague and lack certainty." - Wikipedia

We might also think of incompleteness systems as asymmetrical to their intended design for symmetry. Similar to the bow tie which accompanies a tuxedo, bow ties are not meant to be perfectly straight but a bit off, a bit imperfect. Thus I had mentioned Einstein's Cosmological Lamba Constant. He purposely introduced it to account for the universe's vacuum energy densities and gravitation push-pulls on itself. The universe isn't perfectly in equilibrium throughout it's vastness. It's off a little bit here-and-there. It holds some asymmetry within it. To account for its imbalance Einstein pushed a variable into his relativity formula to help "balance" out its messiness so that it might become "perfect". In doing so he believed what he was doing was correct but stated later even he made certain assumptions, and held expectations, which do not conform to perceived truth. Science is still trying to work this out having now understood it was in Einstein's assumptions that he erred.

The Challenge of Pursuit & Discovery

And so, when I set out to write an updated contemporary and postmodern theology I began wondering many years ago about the helpfulness of the Protestant Reformed system of biblical hermeneutics using it's universally approved literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual applications to the biblical text.

Of course, this must also include any informed Protestant Reformed religious interpretations on the biblical text using only religiously approved externally confirming sources. To step out of one's religious system to approach a "truth-based system" would be anathema to the one who did it. Historical examples abound: Conipericus, Galileo, Einstein, Quantum Physics, Darwin, or even church figures such as Rob Bell, Emergent Christians, Progressive Christians, and such like. One places one's reputation on the line should it cross over to "the dark side" of unapproved speech, thinking, or act.

At the last, I finally decided that any kind of truth system such as the one I grew up under and was trained in must be stepped outside of if I were to consider other forms of information helpful to my writing project of post-structure Christian theologies. For the one I was living in had become its own self-contained system which was sealed from within-and-without, much like any unassailable fortress becomes its own self-insulating system protecting from criticism, contradiction, expandability, rejection, or improvability.

Consequences of Staying with Corruptible Older Systems

Thus and thus I could not use it's self-confirming system any longer if I were to discover an Integral hermeneutical system for all occasions of religious expression or moral/aesthetic novelty. It had become an insular system used to breed it's own religious vernaculars and biblically accepted cultures and I knew then that it would not be useful for any future study.

Which, in hindsight, I'm glad I did when viewing our my old line evangelical faith has now become overrun with unholy values of society and personages in its pursuit of discrimination against human beings differing from its beliefs. Or usages of denial, blame, slandering, and acceptance of duplicitous character such as is being seen in the pulpit and congressional leaders. Or its pursuit of the undemocratic ideals of personal liberties, freedoms, equalities and justice for all rather than for some.

But worse for me is it's lately incursion into Q-anony conspiracy theories which racks right up there with fragile theological systems uninterested in all other biblical or helpful "secular" systems (a word I abhor) unless it speaks of the harsher form of neo-Calvinisms with its judgments, wrathful God, and religious legalisms which all must submit to in order to be worthy of God's love. I find such speech and actions wholly untrue, unhelpful, worthy of condemnation of their God and beliefs, and intentionally divisional to a democratic society attempting to unify in difference around common cores of humane living and humanitarian cause.

Apologies for becoming sidetracked. However, these are the issues to any system which asserts itself over all other systems as being true and worthy of being followed. They can become corrupted in time and unuseful to the original cause of declaring in witness and testimony for a God of love who sacrificed Himself in atoning for the sins and evil of mankind - where secular or religious. Redemption is for all, as is God's unending streams of embracing love. Neither should the two be used as condemnation upon society or nature. These would be blasphemous offenses.


A Conclusion of Sorts

I then tried to discover a broader integrating system more open to criticism and reflection. Though there are many critical theories out there beyond an assortment of protestant Christian hermeneutics I decided in the end on two principles only, of which I now wish to add a third...

Principle 1

To construct allow Christian belief and action around a God of Love. God is always loving in all ways unimaginable to ourselves. By constructing a God who withholds His love is untrue and unethical. People should never live in fear of God who brings healing and beauty into the world by preaching a wrathful God of terror and fear of Hell. God is not this and cannot be this. It is only in our imaginations this kind of awful God lives. Sin is its own Hell but is isn't God who makes it or takes one there. God is a God of Love.

What does this mean? That we should structure our beliefs, lives, ministries, relationships, all around a God of Love. It's that simple. It's the most radical theology we could espouse. Take as illustration the two diagrams below then replace their centers with the Love of God. Then think about it. Every part of one's theology and beliefs about God would radically change. No biblical genocides. No murder and killing. No religious fiats for harm or theft of land. It all goes away.

We only see religious leaders and people doing unloving acts to one another. And why? Because the God they had envisioned acted like the other gods around them. And of course, is molded in the form of sinful man himself. I may now read the bible as a set of narratives of failed apprehensions of the God who loves. Rather than blaming God for sin and evil I may now understand that even religious man has a difficult time imagining a thoroughgoing God of Love.





Principle 2

As God's Love is in the center of Theology even so Jesus must be in that same center. There is no first or second here. Both are one and the same. Jesus pictures God's love to mankind in life, ministry, and death. What can be said of the one can be said of the other. If I, as a Christian, am to proclaim God's love than I, as a Christian, must learn to live as Jesus did in servitude to the benefit and welfare of those around me.

The acronym, WWJD, is just as true today as it was when it was first produced in the 1970s. "What Would Jesus Do?" It declares to the Christian and to the Christian Church that it is to act like the God of Love in people's lives. Which also includes in society's life. No more bad mouthing those who are sexually different, genderly-abled, or culturally oriented than ourselves. We are not the basis for judgment. All are loved by God. Only that which harms and does not heal or love is to be judged as fallen and corrupt. Let not the church join in with such harmful causes of unloving policies, discriminating acts, or foolish companies of angry mobs. Be done with these and place Jesus first in all that we do.

Principle 3

"If a truth theorem is complete, it's closed.
If a truth theorem is incomplete, then it's open."

I asserted in Integral Hermeneutics ala Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems that there can never be a final hermeneutic to help interpret God or His Word fully (sic, the bible, nature, event, experience, or enlightened insight). Nor can there be a final hermeneutic for one's life. There are many systems out there. Some closed, some open. Some are preferred over others such as we are using now with Process Philosophy and Process Theology. They seem to address both the divine and the creational in expressive, uplifting terms of hope. These systems can inform us how God operates in the world and how we must live in symmetry with the world. Such helpful systems can help break other systematic modes of self-imposed, or religiously-imposed, constrictions we chain or bind ourselves and others to.

And like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, no one system is ever enough in the infinite, open-ended streams of life. Or, processes of life. Some come and go while others stay and expand. But they can never be complete because the (cosmopanpsychic) process of evolving life is ever evolving towards a process future of becoming. All events and experiences are incomplete and it is best to learn how to flow with them while learning to unlearn our set boundaries in order to relearn and expand them if we are to be testimonies to the God of grace and mercy.

As such, all of life is a never-ending process and there will never be a time on this earth, or in the life to come, where process isn't bubbling forth newness, novelty, creativity, or redemption. It is who God is. It is how God's creation works. It is what God's Love means when enacted through the process creational system expressed from His ontic being and essence.

In conclusion, let me propose a new axiom:
"If a truth theorem in complete, it's closed. If a truth theorem is incomplete, then it's open." - re slater
Any formal dogmatic systems of religion, regardless of that religion, be it Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian, must always be rightly expanding and growing from all previous instances of itself. Thus, it would be wise to affirm that all religionists should be careful of what they plant in this world - be it good or be it bad.

As seems all too familiar with too many historical examples of good religion gone bad in this world. (I think of American evangelical faiths moving towards neofacism having lost its center in God's Love and Jesus' examples of service of ministry through grace and mercy, forgiveness and hope.

From this we can see that the former statement re closed dogmas have sealed themselves off from outside criticism becoming insular within itself alone shunning all other voices. Whereas the latter statement has attracted more open religions to examine themselves in healthy ways of reflection, revision, and enlightenment, much like the many disciplines of science attempting by their own assertions, explorations, and continual revisions of its set theorems, objectives, and momentary conclusions.

Open systems live in tension with themselves and are the better for it. Closed systems do not and are the worse for it. Learn to live in tension. And in the tension exploit your inner creativity towards goodness, love, and peace.

Peace,

R.E. Slater
February 15, 2021

I wrote a helpful parallel article some months back
which may be pertinent to the discussion here:



* * * * * * * * *


Hermeneutics of faith, the counterpart to hermeneutics of suspicion, is a manner in which a text may be read. It was the traditional or predominant way of reading the Bible for at least the first fifteen hundred years of Christian history. Both interpretive approaches combined are necessary for a complete knowledge of an object.

Hans-Georg Gadamer, in his 1960 magnum opus Truth and Method (Wahrheit und Methode), offers perhaps the most systematic survey of hermeneutics in the 20th century, its title referring to his dialogue between claims of "truth" on the one hand and processes of "method" on the other—in brief, the hermeneutics of faith versus the hermeneutics of suspicion. Gadamer suggests that, ultimately, in our reading we must decide between one or the other. [re slater - or to both equally in tension...]

According to Ruthellen Josselson, "(Paul) Ricœur distinguishes between two forms of hermeneutics: a hermeneutics of faith, which aims to restore meaning to a text, and a hermeneutics of suspicion, which attempts to decode meanings that are disguised." Rita Felski posits that Ricœur's hermeneutics of faith did not become fashionable because it appeared dismissive of the work of critique that defined an ascendant post-structuralism.

In his early essay "The Universality of the Hermeneutical Problem" and especially his Wahrheit und Methode (Truth and Method), conservative German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer asserts that one is always deciding between a hermeneutics of faith (truth) or a hermeneutics of suspicion (method) when engaged in the act of reading.


* * * * * * * * *



Gödel's incompleteness theorems - 



* * * * * * * * *


  • Allegorical interpretation of the Bible
  • Anagoge
  • Asian-American biblical hermeneutics
  • Christian apologetics
  • Biblical accommodation
  • Biblical law in Christianity
  • Biblical literalism
  • Biblical studies
  • Brevitas et facilitas
  • Formulary controversy concerning Jansenius' Augustinus in the 17th century
  • Jewish commentaries on the Bible
  • Literary criticism
  • Literary theory
  • Narrative criticism
  • Patternism
  • Postmodern Christianity
  • Principles of interpretation
  • Quranic hermeneutics
  • Summary of Christian eschatological differences
  • Syncretism
  • Trajectory Hermeneutics


* * * * * * * * *



1 Etymology
1.1 Folk etymology
2 In religious traditions
2.1 Mesopotamian hermeneutics
2.2 Islamic hermeneutics
2.3 Talmudic hermeneutics
2.4 Vedic hermeneutics
2.5 Buddhist hermeneutics
2.6 Biblical hermeneutics
2.6.1 Literal
2.6.2 Moral
2.6.3 Allegorical
2.6.4 Anagogical
3 Philosophical hermeneutics
3.1 Ancient and medieval hermeneutics
3.2 Modern hermeneutics
3.2.1 Dilthey (1833–1911)
3.2.2 Heidegger (1889–1976)
3.2.3 Gadamer (1900–2002)
3.2.4 New hermeneutic
3.2.5 Marxist hermeneutics
3.2.6 Objective hermeneutics
3.2.7 Other recent developments
4 Applications
4.1 Archaeology
4.2 Architecture
4.3 Environment
4.4 International relations
4.5 Law
4.6 Phenomenology
4.7 Political philosophy
4.8 Psychoanalysis
4.9 Psychology
4.10 Religion and theology
4.11 Safety science
4.12 Sociology
5 Criticism

* * * * * * * * *

Set Symbols

set is a collection of things, usually numbers. We can list each element (or "member") of a set inside curly brackets like this:

Set Notation

Common Symbols Used in Set Theory

Symbols save time and space when writing. Here are the most common set symbols

In the examples C = {1, 2, 3, 4} and D = {3, 4, 5}


SymbolMeaning                    Example
{ }Set: a collection of elements{1, 2, 3, 4}
 BUnion: in A or B (or both) D = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
 BIntersection: in both A and B D = {3, 4}
 BSubset: every element of A is in B.{3, 4, 5}  D
 BProper Subset: every element of A is in B,
but B has more elements.
{3, 5}  D
 BNot a Subset: A is not a subset of B{1, 6} ⊄ C
 BSuperset: A has same elements as B, or more{1, 2, 3} ⊇ {1, 2, 3}
 BProper Superset: A has B's elements and more{1, 2, 3, 4} ⊃ {1, 2, 3}
 BNot a Superset: A is not a superset of B{1, 2, 6}  {1, 9}
AcComplement: elements not in ADc = {1, 2, 6, 7}
When set universal = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}
A − BDifference: in A but not in B{1, 2, 3, 4} − {3, 4} = {1, 2}
a  AElement of: a is in A {1, 2, 3, 4}
b  ANot element of: b is not in A {1, 2, 3, 4}
Empty set = {}{1, 2}  {3, 4} = Ø
set universalUniversal Set: set of all possible values
(in the area of interest)
 
   
P(A)Power Set: all subsets of AP({1, 2}) = { {}, {1}, {2}, {1, 2} }
A = BEquality: both sets have the same members{3, 4, 5} = {5, 3, 4}
A×BCartesian Product
(set of ordered pairs from A and B)
{1, 2} × {3, 4}
= {(1, 3), (1, 4), (2, 3), (2, 4)}
|A|Cardinality: the number of elements of set A|{3, 4}| = 2
   
|Such thatn | n > 0 } = {1, 2, 3,...}
:Such thatn : n > 0 } = {1, 2, 3,...}
For Allx>1, x2>x
There Exists x | x2>x
Thereforea=b  b=a
   
Natural NumbersNatural Numbers{1, 2, 3,...} or {0, 1, 2, 3,...}
IntegersIntegers{..., −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
Rational NumbersRational Numbers 
Algebraic NumbersAlgebraic Numbers 
Real NumbersReal Numbers 
Imaginary NumbersImaginary Numbers3i
Complex NumbersComplex Numbers2 + 5i





Sunday, February 14, 2021

Bruce Epperly - A Holy Lent for Pastors




A Holy Lent for Pastors

FEBRUARY 13, 2021 BY BRUCE EPPERLY


Ash Wednesday is on the horizon. In just a few days, we will gather on Zoom or, in some places, in person and place ashes literally or symbolically on congregants’ foreheads and embark on the Lenten journey. Lent, Holy Week, Advent, and Christmas are the most challenging seasons of the Christian year for spiritual leaders. During Lent, pastors usually have at least one more service or program each week and often spend extra time visiting shut-ins and giving home communions. Even in pandemic, we have extra activities to nurture our congregation’s spirituality. Zoom often adds, rather than subtracts, from our responsibilities.

Then, before we know it, there’s Holy Week with at least two and often as many as six or more extra services to be planned and led. Most pastors hardly have time to catch their breath, must less live in the complacent spirit of Lent and Holy Week. Recently, I met with a group of pastors who lamented that although they counseled their congregants to spend extra time in prayer, their own prayer lives deteriorated, even in time of Zoom, during these seasons of penitence and retreat. I believe that pastors can heed the Ash Wednesday affirmation, “Repent and believe the Gospel.” We can turn around, choose an alternative ministerial path, reclaim our understanding of prayer, and discover the good news of God’s abundant life in our daily duties.


How do pastors live a holy Lent in a time of pandemic? The answer is obvious, we live a holy Lent by intentionally cultivating your spiritual life through a focus on spiritual disciplines. Spirituality involves a dynamic call and response, joining divine grace and human intentionality. Grace abounds and God is near, but our calling during Lent is to open our hearts to the grace in which we stand. Our challenge is to be agents in shaping our ministries, rather than passively being shaped by the expectations of others.

Like everything important in ministry, the key element of pastoral spiritual formation is intentionality and agency, of opening to God in our daily lives and ministries. Our intentionality shapes our understanding of time. Ministry is a 24/7 profession, but much of a pastor’s time is discretionary, that is, a matter of priorities and prayerful decision-making. Living a holy Lent is not optional for good ministry any more than study is not optional for good preaching. Time is of the essence, but not the time of fast-food spirituality. Knowing that we -can never fully manage time – we sure have learned that over the past year! – we nevertheless need a slow-cooked spacious spirituality for the Lenten season. Pastors need to make time for retreat during Lent. Though we may be homebound and seldom go to work at church, we can find quiet time at home, or in our deserted church building, or rent a cabin in the woods or a beach house.

Ministry doesn’t need to be done in the hurried pace of focusing on one week at a time, especially in terms of our preaching and worship preparation. The coming of Lent can inspire us to purposeful moments of prayer and meditation and time apart for retreat. As a matter of fact, depending on family obligations, I would suggest that a pastor take minimally three retreat days during Lent to gain spiritual perspective and insight on the scriptures as well as God’s presence in her or his life.

These days, or half days, need not be sequential. We simply need to find a quiet place for prayer as did Jesus during times of important decision-making.


While the hour is late in terms of the liturgical calendar, one pathway to a spiritual formation in Lent can begin during the first week of Lent. While ideally, you’ve read the Lenten readings during Epiphany and charted out your sermons for Lent, on Monday or Tuesday prior to Ash Wednesday, find a quiet place, where you can spend a full morning or afternoon, or better yet, a whole day in prayerful solitude and study. (If you can’t do this prior to Ash Wednesday, Thursday or Friday following Ash Wednesday will also work.) With nothing but your bible and laptop or journal, take one morning or afternoon simply to read imaginatively once more the Lenten lectionary passages. Let ideas and images emerge through practices such as lectio divina or imaginative prayer. Gather these ideas up and begin to reflect on common themes that emerge throughout the season. Let them shape your perspective throughout the Lenten season.

Then, you can choose to take a brief retreat on Ash Wednesday. Rather than scurrying around completing your homily, liturgy, or finding last year’s palm branches to burn for the Ash Wednesday service, begin the morning in prayerful reflection – perhaps in a time of reflection on the meaning of Ash Wednesday as a day of transformation and change, a day to recognize your mortality and seize the moment to live abundantly and faithfully. You may choose to meet for a few hours of prayer and meditation with colleagues in ministry, concluding your time with communion and the imposition of ashes. (If you have an Ash Wednesday Service in the morning, I suggest that you wake up an hour early for retreat time or immediately adjourn to your retreat following the service.)

While the first retreat is more ambient and intuitive, the second scripture-based retreat is more goal-oriented. In this retreat, taking place during the second Thursday or Friday (or a day of your convenience) of Lent, bring your bible and worship resources. Grounding your time in prayerful meditation, take time to harvest key points for your preaching and worship preparation for the remaining weeks of Lent. Take time to reflect on appropriate worship materials, including global and innovative as well as traditional styles of worship. Rough out yourLenten services in advance. Once again, let your retreat time join prayer and preparation for your own spiritual formation as a pastor.


These retreats join prayer, worship, and preaching, and refresh the spirit of ministry. Advance preparation enables the pastor to experience Lent in a more spacious way. Well-prepared pastors can practice what they preach. Amid the busyness of Lent, they have the time to take a weekly morning or afternoon retreat for prayer, meditation, and study each week. I would suggest a regular time each week. Even in the midst of Holy Week and Easter, the spiritually-prepared pastor has time for prayer, exercise, study, and family time. This truly is a matter of priority as well as necessity.

Time can be our friend in ministry, and not an enemy constantly thwarting our purposes. We can experience time and energy in terms of abundance rather than scarcity. We can, like Jesus, find our own places of solitude despite a busy schedule. In the process, our ministries will become more spacious and we will become more hospitable and creative in living out our ministerial duties. We will be less hurried and more present to persons. We may even experience Lent as one long retreat, in which we deepen our spirits through living through a holy Lent in an intentional, leisurely, and effective way. (For more on ministerial spirituality and wellbeing, see A CENTER IN THE CYCLONE: 21ST CENTURY CLERGY SELF-CARE and TENDING TO THE HOLY: THE PRACTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD IN MINISTRY.

+++

Bruce Epperly is a Cape Cod pastor, professor, and author of over sixty books, including:
  • WALKING WITH FRANCIS OF ASSISI: FROM PRIVILEGE TO ACTIVISM
  • MYSTICS IN ACTION: 12 SAINTS FOR TODAY
  • PROPHETIC HEALING: HOWARD THURMAN’S VISION OF CONTEMPLATIVE ACTIVISM
  • GOD ONLINE: A MYSTIC’S GUIDE TO THE INTERNET
  • PROCESS THEOLOGY AND POLITICS
  • THE JUBILEE YEARS: EMBRACING CLERGY RETIREMENT





Saturday, February 13, 2021

Whitehead's "Philosophy of Organism" Explained



Alfred North Whitehead (b. 1861, d. 1947)


Alfred North Whitehead

PHILOSOPHY OF ORGANISM


   


Here in this last series of articles on Whitehead and Process Thought I will encourage the reader to investigate on their own an Index I've been making over the years rather than try to repeat the many specifics of process philosophy and theology. I've given a brief overview of each, both together and apart in this series, but now it's time to delve into the details.

Here, you'll find an expired link to John Cobb's instructive classes (check youtube.com as well) along with a brief intro of Whitehead's book, Process and Reality in the Wikipedia article found further below. Of third generation Whiteheadian books which I think you'll find most helpful would be from the pens of Bruce G. Epperly, C. Robert Mesle, John Cobb, Thomas Oord, along with a host of other writers whom you'll uncover through their book's indexes and notes.

I mention Epperly and Mesle as the most accessible reads by the third generation of Process Pragmaticians; Oord for his Process Theological insights to "Open and Relational Theology"; and John Cobb as the first evangelist of Whiteheadian thought (along with Charles Hartshorn, Whitehead's partner; and David Ray Griffin who was John Cobb's partner out of the University of Chicago's Divinity School in the 1950s). These are the first and second generations to Whiteheadian thought.

Reading Whitehead is something which must be done. It cannot be avoided through the thoughts of others. But to make it easier, by reading Robert Mesle especially, then John Cobb, helps Whitehead become a much easier read in its heavy sections.

What I did was start with Whitehead's Process and Reality first by reading it and rereading it until I kinda understood it. I forget the chapter when it got into the weeds - perhaps chapter 4 (I don't have my book with me to check it out) - but there was one chapter in there which was the hardest to wade through. At this point I needed help from Cobb and Mesle. However, for much easier reads I suggest the well written books Bruce Epperly and Thomas Oord who bring it home in terms of practical living and thinking through of the ramifications of process thought. One last also comes to mind in Tripp Fuller of Homebrewed Christianity podcasts and website where a newbie might find a plethora of resources!  :)

But to help with these efforts I've developed my own index of personal and outside writings to help begin to grasp Process Philosophy and Theology. I think it is a good index and quite helpful. Still, it cannot replace the rigorous studies I've mentioned above. Only to give a glimpse into the wonderous lands where the brave dare to wander, the prophet to envision, and the preacher to recapture his imagination and burning heart's burden to share God's love with all who will hear.

And with that, I'll leave these final links below as guides and help along with Wikipedia's intro article on Process & Reality to show what we're up against when attempting to digest Whitehead's astoundingly profound thoughts.

Once grasped, you'll understand as I did why our entire postmodern lives need to be turned around. From its attempted grasp of God and the theology of the bible, to very nature itself and the abounding world around us. The revival I promise will come from the balance and symmetry of the Spirit of God who intends to rain upon the land God's harmonious goodness and love. It is God's Valentine Message to the World He Made and Cares for deeply. Enjoy.

R.E. Slater
February 14, 2014
(Valentine's Day)






A Six-Session Course

Introducing
Alfred North Whitehead’s

PROCESS & REALITY




In these lectures John Cobb provides an introduction to one of the most compelling and challenging philosophical texts of the Twentieth Century. Process and Reality is a notoriously difficult text, but the goal of this course is to enable students to not only skim the surface but probe its deeper dimensions. With his decades of experience as a scholar and teacher of Whitehead, Cobb will elucidate the major themes and illuminate the major concepts in a way that is accessible to anyone.


Each week features a

LECTURE + READING + DISCUSSION + Q/A



We are extremely excited about both the content and the format of this class. Each of the elements are inteneded to provide all the resources necessary for the engaged nerd like yourself to wrestle deeply with a powerful text - PROCESS & REALITY.

The LECTURE each week will be given by world’s foremost living expert on Whitehead’s philosophy, Dr. Cobb. Session by session we will walk through the text, developing Whitehead's larger philosophical project.

Following the lecture there will be a DISCUSSION of the texts and themes explored in the lecture between John and Tripp.

Throughout the class everyone will be invited to join and engage each other in our private group page. In additon to all the converstion threads the community will bring, Tripp will be hosting live streamed Q/A SESSIONS within the group & have SPECIAL GUESTS join to explore thier favorite themes in Whitehead.

Can't join live? Want to save the content for later? Go ahead and join.

ALL THE CONTENT OF THE CLASS WAS RECORDED AND SHARED AS BOTH AUDIO AND VIDEO.

In this intro to the course Dr. Cobb asks and answers: "Why Whitehead?"




Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr. taught theology at the Claremont School of Theology from 1958 to 1990. In 2014 he became the first theologian elected to the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences for his interdisciplinary work in ecology, economics, and biology. He has published over 30 books including the first full length text in eco-philosophy.

In 1973, with David Griffin, he established the Center for Process Studies. In retirement he lives at Pilgrim Place in Claremont, California. Throughout his career he has contributed to Whitehead scholarship and promoted process-relational programs and organizations. Most recently, he helped found the Claremont Institute for Process Studies, and has been heavily involved in supporting work toward the goal of China becoming an ecological civilization.

This course is made possible through a collaboration between friends.


        



* * * * * * * * *


Process and Reality

Jump to navigationJump to search

Process and Reality is a book by Alfred North Whitehead, in which the author propounds a philosophy of organism, also called process philosophy. The book, published in 1929, is a revision of the Gifford Lectures he gave in 1927–28.

We diverge from Descartes by holding that what he has described as primary attributes of physical bodies, are really the forms of internal relationships between actual occasions. Such a change of thought is the shift from materialism to Organic Realism, as a basic idea of physical science.

— Process and Reality, 1929, p. 471.

Whitehead's Process and Reality

Whitehead's background was an unusual one for a speculative philosopher. Educated as a mathematician, he became, through his coauthorship and 1913 publication of Principia Mathematica with Bertrand Russell, a major logician. Later he wrote extensively on physics and its philosophy, proposing a theory of gravity in Minkowski space as a logically possible alternative to Einstein's general theory of relativity. Whitehead's Process and Reality[1] is perhaps his philosophical master work.

The following is an attempt to provide an accessible outline of some of the main ideas in Whitehead's Process and Reality, based on the book itself, but guided by a general reading of secondary sources, especially I. Leclerc's Whitehead's Metaphysics. An Introductory Exposition.[2] Whitehead often speaks of the metaphysics of Process and Reality as 'the philosophy of organism'.

The cosmology elaborated in Process and Reality posits an ontology based on the two kinds of existence of entity, that of actual entity and that of abstract entity or abstraction.

The ultimate abstract principle of actual existence for Whitehead is creativity. Actual existence is a process of becoming, and "... 'becoming' is a creative advance into novelty."[3] It is manifest in what can be called 'singular causality'. This term may be contrasted with 'nomic causality'. An example of singular causation is that I woke this morning because my alarm clock rang. An example of nomic causation is that alarm clocks generally wake people in the morning. Aristotle recognises singular causality as efficient causality. For Whitehead, there are many contributory singular causes for an event. A further contributory singular cause of my being awoken by my alarm clock this morning was that I was lying asleep near it till it rang.

An actual entity is a general philosophical term for an utterly determinate and completely concrete individual particular of the actually existing world or universe of changeable entities considered in terms of singular causality, about which categorical statements can be made. Whitehead's most far-reaching and profound and radical contribution to metaphysics is his invention of a better way of choosing the actual entities. Whitehead chooses a way of defining the actual entities that makes them all alike, qua actual entities, with a single exception, God.

For example, for Aristotle, the actual entities were the substances, such as Socrates (a particular citizen of Athens) and Bucephalus (a particular horse belonging to Alexander the Great). Besides Aristotle's ontology of substances, another example of an ontology that posits actual entities is in Leibnizmonads, said to be 'windowless'.

Whitehead's actual entities

For Whitehead, the actual entities exist as the only foundational elements of reality, the ultimately existing facts of the world. Nothing "either in fact or in efficacy"[4] underlies or lies beyond the actual entities; rather they underlie all reality.[5]

The actual entities are of two kinds, temporal and atemporal.

With one exception, all actual entities for Whitehead are temporal and are occasions of experience (which are not to be confused with consciousness, or with mere subjectivity). This 'actual entity' idea is most distinctly characteristic of the metaphysics of Process and Reality, and requires of the newly approaching reader a philosophically unprejudiced approach. An entity that people commonly think of as a simple concrete object, or that Aristotle would think of as a substance – a human being included – is in this ontology considered to be a composite of indefinitely many occasions of experience.

The one exceptional actual entity is at once temporal and atemporal: God. He is objectively immortal, as well as being immanent in the world. He is objectified in each temporal actual entity; but He is not an eternal object. Whitehead uses the term 'actual occasion' to refer only to purely temporal actual entities, those other than God.[6]

The occasions of experience are of four grades. The first comprises processes in a physical vacuum such as the propagation of an electromagnetic wave or gravitational influence across empty space. The occasions of experience of the second grade involve just inanimate matter. The occasions of experience of the third grade involve living organisms. Occasions of experience of the fourth grade involve experience in the mode of presentational immediacy, which means more or less what are often called the qualia of subjective experience. So far as we know, experience in the mode of presentational immediacy occurs in only more evolved animals. That some occasions of experience involve experience in the mode of presentational immediacy is the one and only reason why Whitehead makes the occasions of experience his actual entities; for the actual entities must be of the ultimately general kind. Consequently, it is inessential that an occasion of experience have an aspect in the mode of presentational immediacy; occasions in the grades one, two, and three lack that aspect. The highest grade of experience "is to be identified with the canalized importance of free conceptual functionings".[7]

There is no mind-matter duality in this ontology, because "mind" is simply seen as an abstraction from an occasion of experience which has also a material aspect, which is of course simply another abstraction from it; thus the mental and the material aspects are abstractions from one and the same concrete occasion of experience. The brain is part of the body, both being abstractions of a kind known as persistent physical objects, neither being actual entities. Though not recognised by Aristotle, there is biological evidence, written about by Galen,[8] that the human brain is an essential seat of human experience in the mode of presentational immediacy. We may say that the brain has a material and a mental aspect, all three being abstractions from their indefinitely many constitutive occasions of experience, which are actual entities.[9]

Inherent in each actual entity is its respective dimension of time. Potentially, each occasion of experience is causally consequential on every other occasion of experience that precedes it in time, and has as its causal consequences every other occasion of experience that follows; thus it has been said that Whitehead's occasions of experience are 'all window', in contrast to Leibniz's 'windowless' monads. In time defined relative to it, each occasion of experience is causally influenced by prior occasions of experiences, and causally influences future occasions of experience. An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them.

The causal outcomes obey the usual well-respected rule that the causes precede the effects in time. Some pairs of processes cannot be connected by cause-and-effect relations, and they are said to be spatially separated. This is in perfect agreement with the viewpoint of the Einstein theory of special relativity and with the Minkowski geometry of spacetime.[10] It is clear that Whitehead respected these ideas, as may be seen for example in his 1919 book An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge[11] as well as in Process and Reality. Time in this view is relative to an inertial reference frame, different reference frames defining different versions of time.

The actual entity, the occasion of experience, is logically atomic in the sense that it cannot be cut and separated into two other occasions of experience. This kind of logical atomicity is perfectly compatible with indefinitely many spatiotemporal overlaps of occasions of experience. One can explain this atomicity by saying that an occasion of experience has an internal causal structure that could not be reproduced in each of the two complementary sections into which it might be cut. Nevertheless, an actual entity can completely contain indefinitely many other actual entities.[12]

Whitehead's theory of extension concerns the spatio-temporal features of his occasions of experience. Fundamental to both Newtonian and to quantum theoretical mechanics is the concept of velocity. The measurement of a velocity requires a finite spatiotemporal extent. Because it has no finite spatiotemporal extent, a single point of Minkowski space cannot be an occasion of experience, but is an abstraction from an infinite set of overlapping or contained occasions of experience, as explained in Process and Reality.[1] Though the occasions of experience are atomic, they are not necessarily separate in extension, spatiotemporally, from one another. Indefinitely many occasions of experience can overlap in Minkowski space.

An example of a nexus of temporally overlapping occasions of experience is what Whitehead calls an enduring physical object, which corresponds closely with an Aristotelian substance. An enduring physical object temporally has an earliest and a last member. Every member (apart from the earliest) is a causal consequence of the earliest member of the nexus, and every member (apart from the last) of such a nexus is a causal antecedent of the last. There are indefinitely many other causal antecedents and consequences of the enduring physical object, which overlap, but are not members, of the nexus. No member of the nexus is spatially separate from any other member. Within the nexus are indefinitely many continuous streams of overlapping nexūs, each stream including the earliest and the last member of the enduring physical object. Thus an enduring physical object, like an Aristotelian substance, undergoes changes and adventures during the course of its existence.[13]

Another aspect of the atomicity of occasions of experience is that they do not change. An actual entity is what it is. An occasion of experience can be described as a process of change, but is itself unchangeable.[14]

Whitehead's abstractions

Whitehead's abstractions are conceptual entities that are abstracted from or derived from and founded upon his actual entities. Abstractions are themselves not actual entities, but are the only entities that can be real.

An abstraction is a conceptual entity that involves more than one single actual entity. Whitehead's ontology refers to importantly structured collections of actual entities as nexuses of actual entities. Collection of actual entities into a nexus emphasises some aspect of those entities, and that emphasis is an abstraction, because it means that some aspects of the actual entities are emphasised or dragged away from their actuality, while other aspects are de-emphasised.

Whitehead admitted indefinitely many eternal objects. An example of an eternal object is a number, such as the number 'two'. Whitehead held that eternal objects are abstractions of a very high degree. Many abstractions, including eternal objects, are potential ingredients of processes.

Relation between actual entities and abstractions stated in the ontological principle

For Whitehead, besides its temporal generation by the actual entities which are its contributory causes, a process may be considered as a concrescence of abstract ingredient eternal objects. God enters into every temporal actual entity.

Whitehead's ontological principle is that whatever reality pertains to an abstraction is derived from the actual entities upon which it is founded or of which it is comprised.[15]

Publication data

The several originally published editions of Process and Reality were from New York and from Cambridge UK. There were many textual errors, partly due to Whitehead's imperfect handwriting and lack of interest in proof-reading. A largely corrected scholarly redaction was eventually prepared and published as Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (1929). 1979 corrected edition, edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne, Free Press, ISBN 0-02-934570-7.

See also

References

  1. Jump up to:a b Whitehead, A.N. (1929). Process and Reality. An Essay in Cosmology. Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927–1928, Macmillan, New York, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
  2. ^ Leclerc, I. (1958). Whitehead's Metaphysics. An Introductory Exposition, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London, and Macmillan, New York.
  3. ^ Whitehead (1929) p. 42.
  4. ^ Whitehead (1929) p. 64.
  5. ^ Whitehead (1929) pp. 41, 116.
  6. ^ Whitehead (1929) p. 135.
  7. ^ Whitehead (1929) pp. 269–270.
  8. ^ Siegel, R.E. (1973). Galen: On Psychology, Psychopathology, and Function and Diseases of the Nervous System. An Analysis of his Doctrines, Observations, and Experiments, Karger, Basel, ISBN 978-3-8055-1479-8.
  9. ^ Whitehead (1929) p. 114.
  10. ^ Naber, G.L. (1992). The Geometry of Minkowski Spacetime. An Introduction to the Mathematics of the Special Theory of Relativity, Springer, New York, ISBN 978-0-387-97848-2
  11. ^ Whitehead, A.N. (1919). An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
  12. ^ Whitehead (1929) p. 195.
  13. ^ Whitehead (1929) pp. 52, 87, 285.
  14. ^ Whitehead (1929) p. 52.
  15. ^ Whitehead (1929) pp. 48, 64,68.

Secondary literature

External links