process studies articles @ religion online...
Volume 28 (1999)
- Number 1-2, Spring-Summer 1999
- A Process View of the Flesh: Whitehead and Merleau-Ponty by William S. Hamrick
- Discussion of Palmyre M.F. Oomen’s Recent Essays in Process Studies by Duane Voskuil
- Error in Causal Efficacy by Robert H. Kimball
- God as the Future: On Not Taking Time Seriously by George Allan
- Is Divine Relativity Possible? Charles Hartshorne on God’s Sympathy with the World by Henry Simoni-Wastila
- On Situating Process Philosophy by Nicholas Rescher
- Physicalism and Panexperientialism: Response to David Ray Griffin by Jaegwon Kim
- Rationality, Contributionism, and the Value of Love: Hartshorne on Abortion by Anita Miller Chancy
- What is Wrong with the Mirror Image? A Brief Reply to Simoni-Wastila on the Problem of Radical Parti by Donald Wayne Viney
- Whitehead and Santayana by Timothy T.L.S. Sprigge
- Whitehead, Deconstruction, and Postmodernism by Luis G. Pedraja
- Why Avoid Statements About What God Cannot Do? by Theodore Walker, Jr.
Dr. Hamrick believes that Merleau-Ponty’s work might have been different if he had known Whitehead’s mature process metaphysics. Hamrick’s view is that Whitehead’s metaphysics can explain almost all of Merleau-Ponty’s subsequent reflections on the flesh.
Dr. Voskuil believes Palmyre M. F. Ooman blurs the distinction between concrete states and their generic aspects. She either imputes concreteness to common, abstract factors found in a series of concrete moments, committing the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness, or equivocates on the meaning of basic concepts.
The author has written critiques of Whitehead’s theory of perception and here gives new reasons to doubt the cogency and consistency of this theory of Whitehead’s. In particular, he argues that Whitehead’s account of perception in the mode of causal efficacy is question-begging.
The author shows that Lewis Ford’s attempt to solve the dilemma between Whitehead’s creativity and eternal objects is not solved but simply relocated.
Hartshorne’s theory of Divine relativity means that God not only knows but feels.
The author discusses "process" on the one hand and "process philosophy" on the other. "Process" is a sequentially structured sequence of successive stages or phases whereas "process philosophy" sees processes as central in the ontological scheme of things.
Kim responds to Griffin’s article, Materialist and Panexperientialist Physicalism: A Critique of Jaegwon Kim’s Supervienience and Mind. (See his article in www.religion-online.org.): Kim wrote his material over a long period of time, so much of his thought have changed. Hence, he does not so much answer as discuss ideas from Dr. Griffin’s comments.
Charles Hartshorne believed that no other person and certainly no governmental body should dictate a woman’s decision about abortion. His theory of contributionism holds that the ultimate value of human life is in the contribution it makes to God.
Henry Simoni-Wastila’s preferred way of expressing the problem of radical particularity is by thinking of God’s experience as a mirror image of the universe. Dr. Viney sees this as misrepresenting the relation of prehension, of "feeling of feeling." See Is Divine Relativity Possible? Charles Hartshorne on God’s Sympathy with the World by Henry Simoni-Wastila.
The contrast and affinity between Whitehead and George Santayana. These contemporaries represent the most important contributions to traditional metaphysics of their time in English, and probably in any language.
There is a rich diversity in Whitehead’s work which postmodern writers have ignored. The author resurrects several of these areas demonstrating that they are very much postmodern.
Absurd-nonsense statements about God should be exposed as such. It is misleading to contradict them with formulations (such as "God cannot x" or "Not even God can y") implying they make sense and are merely untrue.
- Number 3-4, Fall-Winter 1999
- A Dialogue on Bergson by Randall E. Auxier
- A Whiteheadian Chaosmos: Process Philosophy from a Deleuzean Perspective by Tim Clark
- Bergson and the Calculus of Intuition: Special Focus Introduction by Randall E. Auxier
- Bergson, Mathematics, and Creativity by Pete A. Y. Gunter
- Bergson, Peirce, and Reflective Intuition by Carl R. Hausman
- Hartshorne, God and Metaphysics: How the Cosmically Inclusive Personal Nexus and the World Interact by Duane Voskuil
- Historical Process Theology: A Field in a Map of Thought by Willliam Dean
- Influence as Confluence: Bergson and Whitehead by Randall E. Auxier
- On the Unique Origin of Revelation, Religious Intuition, and Theology by Roland Faber
The author presents a dialogue with Bergson involving Gunter and Hausman with occasional comments by Auxier and Stark. The dialogue shows how their minds have been changed.
The author sees Giles Deleuze as a pagan in his theory of evolution, metamorphosed into a Chaosmological Myth: an unqualified affirmation of the endless, goalless, production of Difference.
The author introduces three papers concerning Henri Bergson the Calculus of Intuition. The three: 1. Pete A. Y. Gunter, Bergson, Mathematics, and Creativity; 2. Carl R. Hausman, Bergson, Peirce, and Reflective Intuition; and 3. Randall E. Auxier, Influence as Confluence: Bergson and Whitehead.
Dr. Gunter corrects two misunderstandings of Henri Bergson: 1. That his philosophy is "irrationalist." 2. That his philosophy is "literary." The author’s basic goal is to explain Dr. Bergson’s concept of the calculus.
Dr. Hausman suggests that both Bergson and Peirce had the insight to see that the cosmos, as well as human language, involves evolution from past to future and expands reality.
God’s cosmic presence establishes an influence in every new actuality. God’s supraluminal influence on worldly events may be finding empirical supports in addition to its metaphysical necessity.
The author discusses an "historical process theology," and compares it to the already well developed and still valuable rationalistic process theology, empirical process theology, and speculative process theology.
Bergson’s account of intuition and his method of intuitive calculus provide us a way of experiencing and describing what is there between the "frames." (Analogous to the space between motion picture frames).
Dr. Faber reflects on the non-metaphysical nature of revelation and also on the possibility of a process-theological notion of genuine revelation.