One of the questions that follows me everywhere is the relationship of a Jamesian pragmatism and the pragmatics of evolving the relationship between mental and spiritual health. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy CBT does not seem like a deep response. I know James met Freud and Jung toward the end of his life but I am unaware of him advocating a framing of mental health treatment. Also, I read that John Dewey attempted to develop a social philosophy based on pragmatism but did not succeed. Do you see Whitehead saying anything about the pragmatics of social philosophy. Are your characterizations of left vs right politics grounded in Whitehead. If my very preliminary understanding of what I have heard you say, the engagement with the world is at the center of his philosophy. You have been a source of encouragement to me to read Whitehead in the original so my obviously gross ignorance will be allowed to dissipate.
I deeply appreciate this reflection. It is erudite, humble, and plainly sincere all at once.
Your reflection sheds insight into philosophical and spiritual questions I have experienced in my spiritual practice and meditation. However, being unable to articulate, I have buried these brief insights as unfathomable mysteries and resumed daily preoccupations.
It may be less important to intellectually resolve these ultimately unknowable questions, I don't know.
Your reflection is hugely interesting and simultaneously comforting that others, like yourself, wrestle with them at greater depth and greater study. Thank you.
Thanks for this. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece. I’ve been following Peter’s work for years, as much of what he carefully and genuinely articulates seems to resonate deeply with me. I’ve also been exploring process thought for some time now, although admittedly, more on the periphery. Process philosophy/theology also moves me in ways that feel in tune with “what’s really going on here”. Your work has recently become known to me as I dive deeper. Thank you for your thoughts and explorations. I’ve seen the pattern similarities and overlaps between process and radical theologies, but haven’t been able to easily articulate them in my own head. I’m looking forward to hearing your conversation once to podcast has been released. Can you recommend a Katherine Keller work that would serve as an introduction to her thought? It’s sounds as if she may bridge the gap in which my own thoughts have been churning. Thanks again for your insight into all of this.
Thanks Matthew for your insightful reflection and sharing your spiritual experience. Where would you encourage an amateur to start with reading Whitehead and process theology?
Kudos to you for being so open about such an intimate experience. (I haven't yet read through your post till the end, so I may be speaking here prematurely, but here goes anyway.)
That said, I assume it would be redundant to point out all the philosophical literature available online and/or in print discussing the phenomenology of spiritual/mystical experience, and why it just "so happens" that mystics inevitably experience any experience as a confirmation of their own underlying faith. You might want to argue that at that time you had no "faith" in Christianity, but the point just made is that anyone raised in any specific culture will inevitably have the imprints of the dominant faith deep inside them, unless of course one was brought up within a strong minority religion. To quote Thomas Aquinas, "Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur."
I am not in any way trying to diminish the reality and the impact of your experience, but just that it does not inevitably point to an "objective reality" of a "Christ-being," but at most of such "Christly beingness," or "energy" as some may say, just as Truth, Goodness, Love, Beauty, etc., are existential in that way.
And on that point, having lived most of my life within a fundamental monotheistic religion, I now find any idea of a God Who is "A Being," "An Entity," completely unbelievable, so I find your statement, "Schelling and Whitehead each depict God as a being...," as perplexing. The only "God" is the Ground of All Being, the Ultimate Source of Truth, Goodness, Love, Beauty, etc., that inherently seeks to manifest Itself, which requires conscious beings as ourselves to acknowledge and promote Its further manifestation. Even the quote from Whitehead, "God’s power is the worship [God] inspires," does not necessarily mean "A Being," but rather what I just said. Truth, Goodness, etc., call upon us to "imitate" it.
And as far as God as "the intimate Relator" - or maybe "ultimate" is even more appropriate - Truth, Goodness, etc., can only be known through relationship, through some degree of subject-object, and I recently came across something beautiful: In Luke 17:21, Jesus is quoted as saying, "The Kingdom of God is ἐντὸς/entos you," which is traditionally translated as among you, or even better, within you, but Raimon Panikkar translates it as between you - in the relationship. All this of course I am seeing not from within a monotheistic mindset, but from that of the Ground of Being. We can see the Ground of Being when we look deeply into each other's eyes.
p.s. I see that at the end you say, "We can transform and repurpose it (the word God) so that it no longer points to an omnipotent creator being but rather to a relational process and precondition for loving relationship," which sums up this post. I also realize that I am not using "Ground of Being" in the same sense that Schelling does.
Only after reading through the entirety of the first one and wondering who wrote it, I noticed the almost unnoticeable in the upper left corner that it is by Adi Da.
Beautiful and completely self-evident, and I am assuming an unedited transcript of a lecture. He had a tendency to be very repetitive. It is an excellent summary and overview of the "point of view" that must be internalized from the mind to the heart, which I guess is a reason for the repetitiveness. The "ecstatic" element in Jesus' teaching mentioned there was/is a facilitator of that move from mind to heart, something that is sorely missing in philosophical dialogue and unacceptable even in most spiritual circles. It is said that Socrates was "ecstatic" in his discussions with the masses, for which reason he was considered crazy and dangerous, for which reason he was "crucified."
Please find an Illuminated Understanding of the life & teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee via this reference from a book titled The Enlightenment of the Whole Body
One of the questions that follows me everywhere is the relationship of a Jamesian pragmatism and the pragmatics of evolving the relationship between mental and spiritual health. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy CBT does not seem like a deep response. I know James met Freud and Jung toward the end of his life but I am unaware of him advocating a framing of mental health treatment. Also, I read that John Dewey attempted to develop a social philosophy based on pragmatism but did not succeed. Do you see Whitehead saying anything about the pragmatics of social philosophy. Are your characterizations of left vs right politics grounded in Whitehead. If my very preliminary understanding of what I have heard you say, the engagement with the world is at the center of his philosophy. You have been a source of encouragement to me to read Whitehead in the original so my obviously gross ignorance will be allowed to dissipate.
Great reflections!
I deeply appreciate this reflection. It is erudite, humble, and plainly sincere all at once.
Your reflection sheds insight into philosophical and spiritual questions I have experienced in my spiritual practice and meditation. However, being unable to articulate, I have buried these brief insights as unfathomable mysteries and resumed daily preoccupations.
It may be less important to intellectually resolve these ultimately unknowable questions, I don't know.
Your reflection is hugely interesting and simultaneously comforting that others, like yourself, wrestle with them at greater depth and greater study. Thank you.
Thanks for this. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece. I’ve been following Peter’s work for years, as much of what he carefully and genuinely articulates seems to resonate deeply with me. I’ve also been exploring process thought for some time now, although admittedly, more on the periphery. Process philosophy/theology also moves me in ways that feel in tune with “what’s really going on here”. Your work has recently become known to me as I dive deeper. Thank you for your thoughts and explorations. I’ve seen the pattern similarities and overlaps between process and radical theologies, but haven’t been able to easily articulate them in my own head. I’m looking forward to hearing your conversation once to podcast has been released. Can you recommend a Katherine Keller work that would serve as an introduction to her thought? It’s sounds as if she may bridge the gap in which my own thoughts have been churning. Thanks again for your insight into all of this.
Great reflection. I look forward to the release of the podcast!
Thanks Matthew for your insightful reflection and sharing your spiritual experience. Where would you encourage an amateur to start with reading Whitehead and process theology?
Hi Matt,
Kudos to you for being so open about such an intimate experience. (I haven't yet read through your post till the end, so I may be speaking here prematurely, but here goes anyway.)
That said, I assume it would be redundant to point out all the philosophical literature available online and/or in print discussing the phenomenology of spiritual/mystical experience, and why it just "so happens" that mystics inevitably experience any experience as a confirmation of their own underlying faith. You might want to argue that at that time you had no "faith" in Christianity, but the point just made is that anyone raised in any specific culture will inevitably have the imprints of the dominant faith deep inside them, unless of course one was brought up within a strong minority religion. To quote Thomas Aquinas, "Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur."
I am not in any way trying to diminish the reality and the impact of your experience, but just that it does not inevitably point to an "objective reality" of a "Christ-being," but at most of such "Christly beingness," or "energy" as some may say, just as Truth, Goodness, Love, Beauty, etc., are existential in that way.
And on that point, having lived most of my life within a fundamental monotheistic religion, I now find any idea of a God Who is "A Being," "An Entity," completely unbelievable, so I find your statement, "Schelling and Whitehead each depict God as a being...," as perplexing. The only "God" is the Ground of All Being, the Ultimate Source of Truth, Goodness, Love, Beauty, etc., that inherently seeks to manifest Itself, which requires conscious beings as ourselves to acknowledge and promote Its further manifestation. Even the quote from Whitehead, "God’s power is the worship [God] inspires," does not necessarily mean "A Being," but rather what I just said. Truth, Goodness, etc., call upon us to "imitate" it.
And as far as God as "the intimate Relator" - or maybe "ultimate" is even more appropriate - Truth, Goodness, etc., can only be known through relationship, through some degree of subject-object, and I recently came across something beautiful: In Luke 17:21, Jesus is quoted as saying, "The Kingdom of God is ἐντὸς/entos you," which is traditionally translated as among you, or even better, within you, but Raimon Panikkar translates it as between you - in the relationship. All this of course I am seeing not from within a monotheistic mindset, but from that of the Ground of Being. We can see the Ground of Being when we look deeply into each other's eyes.
p.s. I see that at the end you say, "We can transform and repurpose it (the word God) so that it no longer points to an omnipotent creator being but rather to a relational process and precondition for loving relationship," which sums up this post. I also realize that I am not using "Ground of Being" in the same sense that Schelling does.
These two essays address the theme of your second paragraph, and the limitations of theology too.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-1.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-4.htm
Thanks for those references.
Only after reading through the entirety of the first one and wondering who wrote it, I noticed the almost unnoticeable in the upper left corner that it is by Adi Da.
Beautiful and completely self-evident, and I am assuming an unedited transcript of a lecture. He had a tendency to be very repetitive. It is an excellent summary and overview of the "point of view" that must be internalized from the mind to the heart, which I guess is a reason for the repetitiveness. The "ecstatic" element in Jesus' teaching mentioned there was/is a facilitator of that move from mind to heart, something that is sorely missing in philosophical dialogue and unacceptable even in most spiritual circles. It is said that Socrates was "ecstatic" in his discussions with the masses, for which reason he was considered crazy and dangerous, for which reason he was "crucified."
May we all awaken as the Divine that we are.
Please find an Illuminated Understanding of the life & teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee via this reference from a book titled The Enlightenment of the Whole Body
http://beezone.com/current/ewb_pp436-459.html
http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm The Spiritual Gospel of Saint Jesus of Galilee Retold - the last eight paragraphs are extraordinary
An essay titled The Culture of Ecstasy
http://beezone.com/current/cultureecstasy.html
An essay titled Stress Chemistry
http://beezone.com/current/stresschemistry.html
The table of contents of the book introduced above
http://beezone.com/current/tableofcontents-5.html
Thank you. Very clarifying and inspiring. Oneof my favorite combinations.