God as Eternal Becoming: McGilchrist's Hemispheric Process Panentheism | Andrew M. Davis
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 02. 2023
- This presentation was given at 50th Anniversary Conference of the Center for Process Studies (CPS) at the Claremont United Church of Christ in Claremont Ca, on Feb. 15th, 2023. The event was organized CPS and co-sponsored by The Cobb Institute, the Institute for Ecological Civilization, and the Institute for the Postmodern Development of China.
Andrew M. Davis is Program Director for the Center for Process Studies at Claremont School of Theology, where he earned his Ph.D. in Religion and Process Philosophy. As Program Director, Davis researches, writes, teaches, and organizes conferences across process-relational thought. He is the author and editor of several books including Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy (2020), Nature In Process: Organic Proposals in Philosophy, Society and Religion (2022); Process Cosmology: New Integrations in Science and Philosophy (2022), and Whitehead’s Universe: Philosophical Foundations of Process Theology (forthcoming, 2023). Follow his work at andrewmdavis.info.
Thank you for such a comprehensive, accurate, respectful and succinct precis of two extraordinary and formidable philosophers in relation to the most profound and vitally important topic == the sacred, the basis of all life and reality. Thank you !
Very accurate summary of McGilchrist's life-transformative work, which I've just finished reading. Will forward this video to anybody wanting to get into his work.
Much appreciated, Jacob. Thanks!
I think McGilchrist's ideas on re- presentation could have interesting interfaces with sacramental theology.
This is very good stuff! I'm pleased McGilchrist is being taken seriously within process theology.
I feel a greater emphasis on personhood as an emergent quality growing in the interplay of being and becoming (Buber) is helpful. I'm thinking about Bonhoeffer's ideas of personhood extended in time resolving the Act and Being instability.
Stuart, great comment. Stay tuned for further engagement of McGilchrist's recent work by process thinkers. You're right that personhood and the personal were less emphasized here, but I fully agree that these cannot be lost--either in ourselves or the divine. Cheers.
As one master long time ago suggested in a metaphor: “Cast your net to the right...”
Love it!
#EmergentistSpirituality
Reality = That which is/That I am.
That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
Since that which is not, is not; That which is, is all-inclusive: Absolute, Infinite, Eternal.
The potential for actualization is Infinite, and the actualization of potential is Eternal, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
We actualize potential by dreaming our experience (rehearsing the future), and experiencing our dream.
Ultimately, the most significant choice we make at any moment of the day, is between unconscious compulsive reaction and conscious creative response.
Just a tribute to a polymath who combines quantum theory, biology, neuroscience, literature and phiosophy into one vortex. I know he doesn't really approve of structured religion and theology. I decided on that nearly 40 years ago and do not regret it. The consitutions of Vatican II finally overturned the appalling "long 19th century" of Pio Nono and gave us oxygen to think. An epideictic dialogue, not anathemata.
Hey thanks for this.
Just a wee thought coming through for me. It seems that Iain McGilchrist plays the paradox game sometimes and other times leaves it alone (if I can put it so crudely).
So the idea of Iains and process theologys', as I understand it, goes something like; we are co-creating with God and god with us in an emergent cocomposition that is both immanent and transcendent?
I am wondering why McGilchrist doesn't make the paradoxical move and include both the process theological move/view AND the New Testaments incarnation crucifixion resurrection and revelation move.
An emergent AND a superdetermined model if you will, inter and intra-acting with one another.
I believe Valentin Tomberg might have been on this trajectory with his 'Meditations on the Tarot'. Taking into account the immanent becomings of Bergson alongside church fathers Christisn mystics and the being of CHRIST at the centre and periphery and nowhere in between.
Thanks for the sharing.
Much love.💚
Graham, I think you've understood the co-creative dimension rightly: "emergent co-composition that is both immanent and transcendent." Paradox is important for McGilchrist, and he often appeals to the mystics. Cusa and the coincidence of opposites plays a major role in his metaphysics, and I know he admires the Christian mystical tradition (and indeed the Christian mythos in general). I'll have to look into Tomberg's work, but Bergson too figures heavily in McGilchrist's recent work. Cheers.
In a recent Q&A with members of channel McGilchrist, he, McGilchrist, stated he tended towards a feudal system of social organization. He has studiously avoided social philosophy for as long as I have been following him(I purchased my copy of TMAE in 2015) so I was surprised by his saying that. I was not surprised by the content only the fact of his stating that preference. The relationship of the individual to society is just as much a valid area of philosophy as the relationship of the individual with her God. Cultures that have embraced Buddhism and have become collectivist still have trouble with that relationship. I would really like to see a panel discussion with Elaine Pagels, Brian Victoria and Dr. McGilchrist. I know many people say that if everyone is enlightened then we will have the perfect libertarian culture. Any thoughts along those lines?
I don't get it. What is it about MacGilchrist's understanding of brain hemisphere lateralisation that aligns with process philosophy?
Hi Brendan, it has to do with the ways in which the right hemisphere grasps the nature and character of the world in ways that are far more truthful and meaningful than the left, and in ways that are deeply resonate with the metaphysical vision provided by process philosophy (ies). McGilchrist imaginatively extends hemispheric data into the domain of metaphysics. I would point you specifically to the second vol. of The Matter With Things which is his contribution to metaphysics. Cheers.
I see nothing in Mcgilchrist's process theology which is in conflict with Catholicism's core tenets. Christianity is perhaps unique in positing a divinity which is a profound relationship: Father, Son and (from their love) the Holy Spirit. A divinity that decides to become humanly immanent by the incarnation. Reading him has hugely informed my understanding of creation and a theological explanation of evil. In creation a long process is set in motion that eventuates in human beings who begin to be able to glimpse the divine, with a clear purpose of knowing the divine better, but of remaining free. Within our brains and our very cell structure, we are gently nudged to partake of and commune with the divine. We are not forced.
Great post, William!
A question. You say "A divinity that decides to become humanly immanent by the incarnation". In your understanding of Christianity, is this also true for all individuals destiny? Is it our destiny to become aware of our own divine heritage and nature? I understand John 10:34 literally, not merely allegorically or metaphorically. How about you?
@@TheExceptionalState Very much so. The Passion and Resurrection were for every human being and each partakes of it in his or her own way. I cannot believe that God would wish any creature made in His own image to be destroyed. So "Extra ecclesia nulla salus" rings rather hollow to me.
I believe Whitehead's fallacy was better corrected by Wieman's Creative Interchange. Process philosophy of Whitehead has been bought and implemented by Chinese Educational system, to the detriment of both Chinese and the globe. If MacGilcrist had been presented Wieman's continuous evolution, he may find a closer theological expression for his neurological discoveries.
The Council of Nicaea was an ecumenical council of Christian bishops held in the city of Nicaea, in what is now modern-day Turkey, in the year 325 AD. The council was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in order to resolve a number of theological controversies that had arisen within the Christian church, most notably the Arian controversy.
The Arian controversy centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was fully divine, or whether he was a created being. The Arian position held that Jesus was a created being, while the orthodox position held that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.
The Arian position, also known as Arianism, was a theological belief that emerged in the early Christian church, named after its founder, Arius of Alexandria. The Arians believed that Jesus Christ was a created being, rather than being co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.
Arius and his followers argued that, although Jesus was divine, he was not fully equal to God the Father. They believed that Jesus was the first and greatest of God's creations, but that he was not divine in the same sense as the Father. They saw Jesus as a kind of intermediary between God and humanity, rather than as an equal member of the Trinity.
This belief was based on a particular interpretation of scripture, particularly passages that refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" and suggest that he was subordinate to the Father. The Arians believed that the term "Son of God" meant that Jesus was a created being, rather than being of the same substance as the Father.
The Arian controversy was one of the most significant debates in early Christianity, and it was ultimately resolved in favor of the orthodox position at the Council of Nicaea, which affirmed that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. However, Arianism continued to be a significant theological belief among some groups of Christians for several centuries after the Council of Nicaea.
At the Council of Nicaea, it was primarily the bishops who ruled in favor of the orthodox position that Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. Among the most influential of these bishops were Alexander of Alexandria and his young deacon, Athanasius. The Emperor Constantine, who had convened the council, also supported the orthodox position and used his political influence to help enforce it. The Nicene Creed, which was adopted at the council, declared that Jesus was "begotten, not made" and was "of one substance with the Father". This creed became the standard of orthodox Christian belief on the nature of Jesus and has been widely accepted by Christians ever since.
Establishing the orthodox point of view at the Council of Nicaea would have had several potential benefits for Emperor Constantine.
Firstly, by promoting a unified understanding of Christianity, Constantine may have hoped to stabilize the empire and prevent religious divisions from leading to further conflict and instability. This was particularly important given that Christianity was becoming increasingly popular and influential in the empire, and disagreements over its core beliefs threatened to tear the community apart.
Secondly, by aligning himself with the orthodox position, Constantine could have strengthened his political power and authority over the church. The emperor had long sought to exert control over the church and its leaders, and by supporting the orthodox position, he could position himself as a defender of true Christian doctrine and use this to strengthen his own authority.
Finally, by establishing a clear and unified understanding of Christian doctrine, Constantine may have hoped to foster greater loyalty and support among the Christian population. Christianity was becoming increasingly important in the empire, and by aligning himself with the orthodox position, Constantine could have garnered greater support and legitimacy among Christian leaders and followers.
Meaning, the Trinity is bologna. Man made creation for political power by the catholic church and Constantine the emperor.
HASHEM IS ONE. PERIOD.
Relevance to McGilchrist?
@@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm McGilchrist center or audience is center?
A word salad of completely untestable, arbitrary and totally unnecessary hypotheses.
Tullius, have you read McGilchrist's The Matter With Things? Doing so I think would soften your use of works like "untestable," "arbitrary," and "unnecessary." I take it you are aiming these words not at the neuroscientific data which fills the pages of volume 1, but the philosophical interpretation and theological reflection of vol. 2. So what exactly is "arbitrary" and "unnecessary," about his metaphysics?
I was just wondering when I would come across the first ''wordsalad''.@@AndrewMDavis-yo3mm
@Neon_White Aaah. The hemispheres. More unwarranted and untestable hypotheses.
A becoming God is, by definition, not God.
"by *your* definition"
@@Footnotes2Plato Not just by _my_ definition.
@@bradwalton3977 Might we agree that God is beyond definition? Given that, we can pursue ways of conveying the infinite more effectively in our God-talk and in our God-deeds.
@@Footnotes2Plato Perhaps it depends on how apophatic one feels. Actually, there are various definitions of God, depending on one's conceptualization (common, philosophical, revealed / Scriptural). Admittedly these definitions are not particularly easy to understand, but they are nevertheless definitions, nor necessarily incoherent. I am not sure what you mean when you say that God is beyond definition, unless by that you mean that, as "subsistent being" or "pure act," God is unlimited ("undefined") either by matter or essence. Is that what you mean?
Brad, your comment is a quick response to the title of the presentation, and *not* to the presentation itself. Eternity and Becoming in God are not contradictory, but complementary.