Change Unsurpassable

Transcription

Change
and
Woodcut 1967, “Volution” © Duane Voskuil 2003
the
Unsurpassable
Duane Voskuil, PhD
Change and
the Unsurpassable
A Gender-Conscious, Process
Introduction to Philosophy
For Serious Readers at All Levels
By
Duane Voskuil, PhD
In Memory of
Charles Hartshorne
1897-2000
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∫∞∞∞∞∞∞∞√∞∞∞∞∞∞
© Duane Voskuil 2003
1002 N 8th St.
Bismarck, ND 58501
[email protected]
iii
iv
Contents and Illustrations
PART I
Philosophy: The Unavoidable Subject
Introduction..............................................................................................................................2
Doing Well in Philosophy ............................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 1: What is Philosophy?.............................................................................................7
Situations and Propositions Related to Necessity and Rationality ........................................................ 10
“Necessary" can mean:............................................................................................................... 10
Maya Cross .............................................................................................................................. 13
Mind Set 1: Galileo Vindicated .................................................................................................... 14
Mind Set 2: Continents Do Move.................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 2: Explaining Why Things Happen: The Principle of Sufficient Reason ..........16
Logical Contraries .................................................................................................................. 17
Logical Contradictories ........................................................................................................... 17
Quantification and Freedom......................................................................................................... 18
Relations of Necessary/Sufficient, Necessary/Contingent and Determined/Free ..................................... 19
Logical Contradictories ........................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3: Metaphysics versus Relativism..........................................................................21
Truth and Necessity ................................................................................................................ 22
Sentence ............................................................................................................................... 22
Proposition............................................................................................................................ 22
Modal Status of Propositional Types ............................................................................................. 23
Verifiability Principle ................................................................................................................. 23
Expanded Form of the Verifiability Principle .................................................................................. 24
Problem of Self-Consistency with the Verifiability Principle .............................................................. 24
Metaphysicians and Anti-Metaphysicians ....................................................................................... 25
Absolutely!............................................................................................................................... 26
Metaphysical First Principles ....................................................................................................... 27
Hartshorne’s Five Dimensions of Potentiality.................................................................................. 28
Queen of Heaven ....................................................................................................................... 29
v
Change and the Unsurpassable
Contents
PART II
The First Worldview
Chapter 4: Ancient Origins and Present Problems ............................................................31
Major Biological Events in a Female’s Life Cycle............................................................................ 33
Luna ....................................................................................................................................... 34
The Pubic Triangle ................................................................................................................. 35
Female Reproductive Organs .................................................................................................... 35
Bovine Scull.......................................................................................................................... 35
Embryos ............................................................................................................................... 36
Peace Signs.............................................................................................................................. 36
Litany of Mary of Nazareth.......................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 5: From Goddess to God ........................................................................................38
Male Student’s Response to Goddess Worldview............................................................................. 43
Female Student’s Response to Goddess Worldview.......................................................................... 48
The Hunt.................................................................................................................................. 49
Part III
Change and Permanence
Chapter 6: The Many Are One: The One Is Many............................................................47
Physicists hope smasher will look into God's mind ........................................................................... 51
Chapter 7: Pythagoreans: Mathematics and Salvation......................................................52
Pythagorean Gender Oppositions .................................................................................................. 53
The Divine Tetraktys .............................................................................................................. 54
Pythagorean Theorem ............................................................................................................. 54
Irrational Ratios ..................................................................................................................... 55
Alpha and Omega ...................................................................................................................... 56
Taboo U................................................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 8: Heraclitus (and Alice): Logos in the Flux and the Logic of Change..............57
Requirements for Change......................................................................................................... 59
Haiku One................................................................................................................................ 60
A Year Has Died ....................................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 9: Parmenides: The Logic of Being .......................................................................62
Absolutes and Unqualified (Necessary) Truths ................................................................................ 64
Chapter 10: Pluralists: Materialism: Atoms, Locomotion, Freedom and Determinism...............67
vi
A Process Introduction to Philosophy
Contents
Possible Relationships of Mind and Matter ..................................................................................... 69
Potential Color Solid .................................................................................................................. 70
Problems with Materialism....................................................................................................... 73
Potential Sound Sphere ............................................................................................................... 74
Chapter 11: Ancient Buddhistic or Platonic Series versus Monadic Substance..............75
Same Thing as the Same Series ................................................................................................. 76
Charles Hartshorne..................................................................................................................... 75
Chapter 12: Epistemology: How Is Knowledge Possible?..................................................80
Symbol................................................................................................................................. 82
Yggdrasil: Scandinavian World Tree ............................................................................................. 83
Conceiv ing as Surpassing ........................................................................................................... 83
Chapter 13: Whitehead: Moments of Growth ....................................................................84
Temporal Asymmetry ............................................................................................................. 85
Two Intersecting Personal Series .................................................................................................. 86
Space and Time...................................................................................................................... 87
Two Meanings of “One” .......................................................................................................... 88
Alfred North Whitehead.............................................................................................................. 89
Nexüs...................................................................................................................................... 90
Actual Entities .......................................................................................................................... 91
The Spatial-Temporal Continuum ................................................................................................. 92
Pogo ....................................................................................................................................... 92
Chapter 14: Summary of the Problem of Change ..............................................................93
Process Philosophy Inversion.................................................................................................... 98
Part IV
Historical Influences on Theistic Beliefs
Chapter 15: Ascendancy of Patriarchal Concepts ............................................................100
Caduceus ................................................................................................................................103
Spiritus Gladius........................................................................................................................104
Chapter 16: Mithraism: One Hellenistic Origin of Medieval Patriarchal Philosophy ..................105
Gorgon/Medusa ....................................................................................................................106
Greek Coin with Caps ............................................................................................................107
Precession............................................................................................................................107
Winged Feet, Lion and Bull.....................................................................................................108
Tauroctony ..............................................................................................................................109
Big Dipper as Shoulder...........................................................................................................110
Dante's Version of the Cosmos ....................................................................................................112
vii
Contents
Sky Map ca. 3000 BCE..............................................................................................................113
Chapter 17: Essenes: Another Hellenistic Origin of Medieval Patriarchal Philosophy .................114
Qumran ...............................................................................................................................115
Differences between the Essene and the Second Century Jesus Ethic ..................................................118
Jesus and the Essenes ................................................................................................................119
Nicene Creed ...........................................................................................................................123
Apostles’ Creed........................................................................................................................123
The Text from The Messiah ........................................................................................................123
Ancient Egyptian Circumcision ...................................................................................................125
Part V
Ethics and Psychological Influences
Chapter 18: Logic of Value Judgments .............................................................................127
Dimensions of Value .................................................................................................................129
A Student's Defense of Egoism ................................................................................................130
Value Flow Chart .....................................................................................................................131
Love God/dess Unconditionally...................................................................................................133
Orphic Cross............................................................................................................................134
Chapter 19: Two Faiths: Authoritarian versus Democratic Ethics ................................135
Two Faiths ..............................................................................................................................137
Summaries of Some Approaches to Social Ethics............................................................................139
Chapter 20: Gods and Goblins: Our Wounded Child:
Psychological Influences on Theistic Concepts....................143
1. An Unpredictable, Unpleasant World: Nothing I want or do makes any difference .............................144
2. A Just World: When I do my chores, everything is OK .................................................................145
3. A Merciful World: Please don’t spank me..................................................................................145
4. A Heroic World: Big brother will help ......................................................................................146
5. An Unconditionally Loving World: They love me whatever I do ....................................................146
Anguish over Inadequate Philosophy ............................................................................................147
Summary of Wounded Child’s Gods ............................................................................................147
Safe Sects................................................................................................................................148
viii
Contents
PART VI
Rational Basis for a Theistic Worldview
Chapter 21: Uni and the Unsurpassable: Five Concepts of God/dess and Morality.................150
Five Concepts of God/dess: From Fear to Love, From Will to Essence................................................151
Cosmology and God/dess ...........................................................................................................153
Chapter 22: The Ontological or Modal Argument: Necessity or Nonsense..........................155
The Anselmian Principle.........................................................................................................156
Anselm’s Questionable Assumption..........................................................................................157
Better Conceptual Tools .........................................................................................................158
How Surpassable and Unsurpassable Are Alike and Different ...........................................................159
NonModal, Invalid, Form of the Ontological Argument ...................................................................160
Modal Form of the Ontological Argument .....................................................................................161
None Greater Means: ..............................................................................................................162
Discussion of the Modal Theistic Argument...................................................................................162
Knowing What Cannot Be Known ...............................................................................................164
Star of David ...........................................................................................................................165
Chapter 23: Theistic Attributes..........................................................................................166
Ultimate and Supreme ............................................................................................................167
Some Proposals for Theistic Attributes .........................................................................................167
To Be Is To Be Related To Something.......................................................................................171
Freedom ..............................................................................................................................173
Tragedy...............................................................................................................................175
Evil ....................................................................................................................................175
Interaction of God/dess and the World ..........................................................................................177
Haiku Two...............................................................................................................................179
Chapter 24: Problem: How God/dess and the World Interact........................................180
Synchronization: All’s Well That Ends Well ..................................................................................185
Cosmically Mediated Influence: Action at a Distance ......................................................................186
Ankh: Key of Life.....................................................................................................................189
The Ankh's Derivation ...............................................................................................................189
PART VII
Epilogue: Beyond Philosophy
Chapter 25: Ritual: Where Thought Meets Action ..........................................................191
Two Kinds of Differences .......................................................................................................192
A Flow-er ............................................................................................................................193
Chapter 26: Now What?......................................................................................................194
Alpha and Omega .....................................................................................................................195
ix
Contents
Part VIII
Supplemental Material
Appendix 1: Guide to Some Classical Problems ...............................................................197
Appendix 2: Historical Guide to Some Positions of the Patriarchal Period...................198
Orpheus ..................................................................................................................................200
Appendix 3: Whitehead's Categorical Scheme: The Metaphysical Logic of Change..............201
Glossary.................................................................................................................................204
Selected Bibliography ..........................................................................................................228
Creation Myths and Sex Role Stories and Legends ..........................................................................228
Contemporary Accounts of Male/Female Relationships....................................................................228
Philosophy and Religion ............................................................................................................228
Philosophy of Science................................................................................................................232
Prehistorical and Historical Social Structure...................................................................................232
Sexual Biology and Homosapian Evolution ...................................................................................233
Index......................................................................................................................................234
x
1
PART I
Philosophy:
The Unavoidable
Subject
Introduction
–––––
Explaining Why Things Happen:
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
–––––
Metaphysics versus Relativism
Copyright 2003 Duane Voskuil
2
Introduction
“You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the [Cheshire] Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Pig and Pepper.
“Take heed lest any one seduce you by philosophy.”
St. Augustine, On the Morals of the Catholic Church.
“Every man needs a little madness...otherwise he doesn’t dare cut the rope and be free.”
Anthony Quinn in the movie, Zorba the Greek.
P
hilosophy,” though a familiar word, is difficult
to define. This is one of many problems
encountered when trying to adequately introduce the subject. Often an Introduction will list some
philosophical problems and then examine proposed
answers to these problems. Such an approach is
flawed because one must first comprehend the
philosophy in which the proposed answer is anchored
before the answer can be grasped. In addition, an impression is left that one philosophical problem can be
solved in isolation from others.
Another approach, studying a few philosophical
positions in more depth, often bogs down in details.
Major themes and basic issues are forgotten or so obscured only the most perceptive and long-suffering
will discover the excitement of philosophy.
Furthermore, this approach can be so unhistorical or
so historically juggled, insights achieved through historical development are lost.
I can only hope to minimize these difficulties.
The approach used here grapples with a philosophical
issue through the eyes of the first major philosopher
who raised it, so far as we know. In this way I hope
one will more easily see,
(1) why the problem is, or should be, a problem,
(2) what were, or might be, the rejected alternatives,
(3) how the first answers can become so influential they are seldom or never again consciously
examined and
(4) how many problems originally had an
unsophisticated formulation.
I give a list of Problems (see Appendix 1), but
the traditional philosophical divisions, namely, the
philosophies of religion, science, knowledge, and so
on, will be de-emphasized, since none of these areas
can be adequately answered before grasping more
general or basic issues, for example, the relationship
of parts and wholes; the identity of that which
changes and yet remains the same thing; creativity;
causation; and so forth.
No area of philosophical concern can be adequately answered, if at all, until all are answered
together. This is disconcerting, but unavoidable, as
one tries to grasp what philosophy is about.
Philosophy Made Simple, is simply not philosophy.
Fundamental, philosophical problems are the
same for everyone regardless of one’s awareness of
them. An Introduction to Philosophy is an attempt to
foster such awareness, using pertinent illustrations to
draw one into the issues.
The problems raised, the evaluation of the
answers given, will be done from a standpoint largely
inspired by Alfred North Whitehead and Charles
Hartshorne. Reading the Suggested Readings for each
chapter, which contain some primary and secondary
sources, will help ameliorate the inevitable biases
that come from introducing a complex subject.
Philosophy is so radically reflective, a philosophy is required even to define philosophy, so one
cannot pretend to be neutral or unbiased. The adage
that one should not look for unbiased books, but read
more books, seems sound.
One difficulty I was not able to satisfactorily
handle is the use of gender language for personal and
nongendered references. “God” is masculine in most
people’s minds, and “Goddess” is feminine. “It”
refers to objects, not subjects. Divinity, I submit, has
no gender but is a subject, not merely an object.
However, until the English language develops
nongendered or common-gendered, personal
pronouns, some awkward conventions must be used.
“God” will be used when referring to a divinity in the
patriarchal view, “Goddess” when in the matriarchal
framework and “God/dess” for a nongendered
divinity. Various combined forms of personal
pronouns follow suit.
Some authors question calling the femalecentered worship during prepatriarchal times,
worship of the Goddess. Perhaps, many at that time
did believe the world was one Female reality who
included all other creatures and divinities. But
“goddess” can also be used as a common noun
referring collectively to the many forms of worship
which employed female metaphors in an attempt to
understand reality.
–––––––––––––o––––––––––––
A
llow me a few words here about Charles
Hartshorne to whom I owe much, not only in
coming to philosophical insights, but also in
achieving a saner approach to life.
3
Introduction
Fresh out of Hope College, rather isolated from
racial conflict in the northern town of Holland,
Michigan, I arrived at Emory University in Atlanta in
1960 at the height of the racial unrest and just before
Vietnam became a major national issue. The Ku Klux
Klan marched on one side of the street and the blacks
on the other by Macy’s department store. Hartshorne
(and as he points out, his name is pronounced “Hartshorn,” not “shorn”) was in the process of researching
and writing some of his major works.
He always struck me as a frail man, but he lived
th
longer than most, experiencing every year of the 20
Century when he died at 103 years old. Those of us
who took his systematic classes had a standing joke
that it made no difference what class one enrolled in,
it would be a course in the same concepts. This was
not only true, but to a great extent necessary, I later
found out. He was a professor in the true sense of the
word, “to profess,” and I feel fortunate to have had
him as my master’s thesis advisor.
Hartshorne usually rode to classes on a modest
bicycle. Tea-time with him and his gracious wife
Dorothy were times to see this family in a non-academic setting discussing a variety of subjects. He
loved bird-watching and developed some important
original work on the aesthetics of bird song.
He once told me he didn’t know whether to
become a poet or a philosopher. His decision to
pursue philosophy was done with much seriousness.
Though generally very gracious and tolerant of what
he saw as others’ mistakes, I’ve seen how seriously
he took philosophy in some sharp exchanges with or
about other professionals he felt should think more
adequately or “get out of the business.” Yet, while
driving him back to his hotel from the University of
Missouri, where he lectured while I was a doctoral
candidate, he quipped he had never lost any sleep
over philosophy––his response to my reference to an
exciting all-night discussion I had had at a philosophical convention.
I left Emory after one year. It took me four years
of hard work on my own to digest the process
philosophy he exposed me to before I felt ready to
resume my formal studies. His influence was due
more to the power of his ideas than to any
outstanding teaching charisma. For these I am
thankful and want to do what I can to share them with
others.
In April 1994, I sent Charles Hartshorne a draft
of this book. He soon responded with a long letter in
which he talked about the failing health of his
beloved wife (who died a year later) and how he
manages without her, bad marriages of professionals
he knew, some of whom took their own lives, the
wastefulness of our society, the relative merits of
men and women in their social and political roles, his
views on what it means to be a person (namely, “a
user of language”) as he discussed abortion, the
communication of animals (especially song birds for
several pages), and the main failing of his otherwise
loving parents, namely, letting him be circumcised. I
know of no other writing where Hartshorne addresses
this subject. In his words,
About circumcision, the only serious mistake my
parents made about me was in that. The effects you
specify [desensitization and distrust] I can identify in
my case, except that it was so different from all the
other things my parents did that some of the shock to
the child-parent relationship was mitigated. The
diminution of the pleasure I believe did occur and in
my marriage eventually caused some trouble. In my
years of being unmarried perhaps it was helpful. But
on the whole I agree such things should not be done to
either sex. My sex has a lot of misbehavior to answer
for. Our species is both the best and the worst of the
earth’s animal species, the wisest and the most foolish.
Our radical superiority in linguistic power is a
somewhat self-destructive advantage.
I, of course, was concerned how he would react to a
book about his philosophy and yet one that
introduced material on gender issues and pre-patriarchy, much of which I had never heard him speak
to. He responded,
Your understanding of Whitehead’s philosophy and of
mine seems excellent....Your fascinating speculative
views about the cosmic mother are a welcome plus.
They make sense to me, I have never cared for the
idea of God as a father, although (and I am aware of
no good reason for this) during most of my career I
have unthinkingly, like nearly all the other men, used
the male gender in referring to God or to our species;
but about two decades ago I did begin to think about,
and began avoiding, this practice. Women are too important to be treated as secondary.
Here is a man who at 97 years old, was still thinking
in very complex sentences even though it had
become more difficult for him to write, who was
enjoying his life and suffering his losses, who was
still very much concerned about the values of his
fellow humans and still able to look at his own life
and assess where he may have fallen short.
As we look back on his life, we can be grateful to
have had this man available for so many creative
years. 1
1See the article on Hartshorne in a popular magazine: “A
Hundred Years of Thinking About God,” U.S. News and
World Report, Feb. 28. 1998. Allow me a couple comments
here on the article to be discussed further later: (1) Rather
than saying that he believes God exists, Hartshorne would
say that “God” makes sense, and only so as necessarily
existing. The point to argue is not whether God exists, but
whether a “necessarily existing reality” makes sense. (2)
Rather than saying God does not know the future, he would
say God knows all there is to know about the future;
however, not even God can know as fact what is not yet a
fact without being ignorant of the difference between what
is and what isn’t. The details of the future are not knowable
because they aren’t yet, and, therefore, don’t exist to be
known or unknown.
4
Introduction
T
––––––––––––o––––––––––––
his work covers a wide range of subjects and
periods; I can't claim to be a specialist in all
the areas, or to present the facts in a manner
acceptable to all. Experts argue on just what the facts
are in many cases.
As for the metaphysical proposals, I do not
expect agreement, of course, even though I argue for
their truth. Philosophers can’t even agree
metaphysical knowledge is possible, though I think
those who deny it are contradicting themselves. The
mix of this book will make some uncomfortable. It
leaves me open to criticisms from several sides, but
it’s a risk I feel I must take, although I will try to
incorporate constructive criticism in future editions.
The introductory chapters in Part I plus Chapter
12, raise the question of the nature of knowledge, and
present the debate over the possibility of
metaphysical knowledge. Part II introduces
speculations on pre-patriarchal worldviews, picked
up again, in Chapter 15, after the problem of change
is examined. As the title suggests, the first half of the
text emphasizes the meaning of “change,” by
drawing on the implicit assumptions and explicit
declarations of the preSocratic Greeks and Plato, on
one school of Buddhism, and on Whitehead, which
cover the major possibilities.
The second half of the text, from Part IV on,
builds towards a rational concept of theism after
noting the successful subordination of femaleoriented rituals and metaphors by explanations
reflecting the rise of patriarchal power. Insights
gained here may help clarify the basis of some
religious ideas and rituals and point in the direction
of logical thought about the Unsurpassable. Chapters,
16 and 17, on European Mithraism and the Essenes,
give some historical roots of the transition to more
patriarchal worldviews and some influences on the
philosophical theory of divinity. Part V discusses
value theory (ethics and aesthetics) and its
relationship to metaphysics, and also looks at
God/dess as the basis for cosmic unity and ultimate
purpose. Part VI centers on the logic of theism with a
discussion of the Ontological Argument, but first
Chapter 21 discusses psychological influences and
historical theories that can cloud a rational view of
the nature of God/dess.
The Ontological Argument, Chapters 22 and 23,
brings to a head all the philosophical issues: Whether
metaphysical knowledge is possible; why theism
must be discussed as a metaphysical issue; the
relationship between necessity and contingency; the
relationship between abstract concepts and concrete
actuality; whether all concepts have a meaningful
opposite; the inter-relationship of ritual and thought;
the reality of the past and future; the meaning of life;
the meaning of unsurpassable knowledge, power, and
so on.
Chapter 24 addresses a serious problem in
process metaphysics. My attempted answer may be
outside the scope of an Introduction text, but is
included for completeness and to let students in on
the excitement of discovery.2 I have had students
able to think at this level.
Anyone who teaches philosophy as metaphysics
sooner or later has to respond to questions about the
relevancy of the subject to students’ lives. Anyone
teaching during the social activism of the ‘60s and
‘70s heard this question often.
One motivation I had in the organization and
content of this text was to make philosophy relevant,
or rather make it more obvious to students how basic
assumptions affect everything one does and believes.
For this reason, I have not shied away from
controversial and emotional issues, which in
themselves are not philosophical in the narrowest
sense, but do have a major impact on philosophical
thought since people are not logical machines. Some
of these issues can be very upsetting to students.
Despite the space given to developing historical
and psychological influences on philosophical
thought, I think fundamental philosophical concepts
must be justified, ideally, on logical grounds alone.
But the gender issues brought to consciousness by the
feminist writers of the last thirty years, for example,
have driven home how deeply indebted even
philosophers are to nonlogical influences in our
worldviews.
To make it somewhat easier to pick out what
one’s first reading should concentrate on, each
chapter will begin with an outline drawing attention
to,
(1) the most important issue(s),
(2) some important points made to support the
issue(s), and finally,
(3) an evaluation of the proposals made.
I will base much of my evaluation on the most
logical and adequate philosophy I know, namely, the
Whiteheadian/Hartshornean process metaphysic.
Since an unbiased evaluation is impossible, I, as
anyone else, can only hope to fairly present views I
find inadequate, giving important reasons for finding
fault with them, as well as giving credit for
significant insights they have contributed to the
history of thought. The reader is encouraged to evaluate my evaluation. This is where the excitement of
philosophy begins.
This is one book I wish I could have read in my
youth. I wrote it to provide this opportunity for
others. I hope there are some who will find my effort
worthwhile.
April 2003
Duane Voskuil, PhD
1002 North 8th Street
Bismarck, ND 58501
[email protected]
2 The ideas in Chapter 24 have been published as
“Hartshorne, God and Metaphysics: How the Cosmically
Inclusive Personal Nexus and the World Interact," Process
Studies, Vol. 28/3-4, Fall-Winter 1999.
5
Introduction
Doing Well in Philosophy
A few words on how a student can best approach philosophy might be appropriate. Peter M. Spader, has
written an essay covering this topic well which I reproduce here with his permission.
P
hilosophy is one of the few courses that most
students face for the first time at the college
level, and for many it is a scary prospect.
There is nothing more frustrating or discouraging
than working hard to accomplish something and then
not being able to do as well as you had expected.
Sometimes this occurs because you expect too much.
More often it happens b ecause you have not been
working in the right way. You have expended energy,
it is true, but not in a way to accomplish the task before you. That is why I am writing this short essay. I
want to help you focus your energies in this class.
Before I can do this we must examine an assumption (an assumption is an unexamined belief
often not even stated or clearly formulated). The
assumption I made in the second paragraph was that
it is worthwhile for you to work hard in this class.
Now that we have this assumption out in the open as
a stated belief (a belief is an idea you accept as true),
let’s look at a reason why it may be true.
One basic element of philosophy is “critical
thinking,” the careful examination of what we believe
to be true, and why. The goal of such examination is
to be able to judge our beliefs (a judgment is a
conviction arrived at by a weighing and testing of the
reasons and evidence supporting competing beliefs.)
The ability to analyze and judge our beliefs and
their justification is one skill we all need to develop.
For unless we can analyze and judge beliefs
ourselves, we must depend upon others to do it for
us. (This is sometimes necessary, since we do not
always have the time or the resources to judge for
ourselves.) Yet this can be risky, for how do we
know how skilled the “experts” really are?
The difference between everyday questioning
and what goes on in a good philosophy class lies in
the comprehensively systematic and persistent nature
of philosophical questioning. Incidentally, since
philosophical questioning is systematic and
comprehensive, the answers philosophers give to the
questions they raise are often also comprehensive.
Indeed, for many people the word “philosophy”
refers primarily to the fully developed systems of
thought (sometimes called “world-views”) of the
“great thinkers.” For us philosophy encompasses the
whole process of questioning, answering, and the
judging of the answers.
All of what I have been saying should begin to
give you a sense of why you could get off track in
this philosophy class. Simply “understanding the
material” is only the first step in this class. As
important as that first step is, if you spend all of your
time simply trying to grasp all “the main ideas” you
are quite likely to end up disappointed both in what
you get out of the class personally, and in your grade
as well.
Let us now turn to your preparation for showing
me what you have learned: your preparing for the
taking of tests and the writing of papers. Many
classes use multiple choice or short answer tests. This
is often quite appropriate (even in some philosophy
classes) given the goals of such courses. But I use
only essay tests and papers in this class because I
want to see your reasons for believing what you
believe; I want to see you making judgments and
using your critical abilities. My letting you know how
well you are doing by testing you is an important tool
in my helping you to develop these abilities. A poor
grade from me is not a condemnation, but a signal
that more work is needed.
In preparing for the essay tests and papers in my
class always remember not merely that you
understand an idea or that you believe it to be true. I
want to know why you believe it, and that you know
why you believe it, and that you can judge your belief
(to see how good the reasons and evidence
supporting it are).
Your performance on my tests and papers
depends to a good degree on your preparation for
those tests and papers. When you are reading an
essay in the text, or listening to me or others in the
class, or going over your notes, don’t just try to
understand what you are reading, hearing, or
reviewing. In addition react to what you are given.
Agree with it, or disagree with it. Then explore why
you agree or disagree, in as much detail and depth as
you can, and practice expressing your agreement or
disagreement, and the reasons for it, as clearly and
concisely as possible. Then step back and look at
how good your reasons are, and practice expressing
such judgments.
Let me give you one final tip on preparing for
tests and papers. You are writing an essay to show
that
(1) you understand the ideas you have studied,
(2) you know the reasons and evidence supporting the ideas, and
(3) you can back up your judgments concerning
competing ideas. This means that you have to write
down more than if you were simply trying to show
you knew the “right answer” or even the “right
procedure.” More here doesn’t mean more words, but
rather more kinds of things you have to show.
Perhaps the main reason some people do poorly
on philosophy tests and papers is that they forget to
write everything down. They try to condense a
complex idea into one short sentence that tells too
little, or they give one small part of their reasons and
evidence for an idea when there are several levels
6
Introduction
that must be presented before their reasons and
evidence make sense, or they simply tell their idea,
and their reasons and evidence for believing it true,
and forget to tell whether they think the reasons are
good, and why, and so on.
Always remember that you cannot say everything at once. You have to present your ideas, and
reasons, and judgments, in steps; and you must
remember to write all the steps down. Because all the
steps are “in your head” and you can quickly pass
from step to step mentally it is very easy to forget to
put down some of the steps when you are writing.
The problem is that I cannot “read minds.” All I
can know of what goes on in your “mind” is what
you write down on paper. Always let me know where
you are in the presentation of your thoughts. Do not
assume I know some thing. Even though I do have
familiarity with the “material” we are working with, I
do not know what you think, and I need to know it in
as great detail as possible if I am to help you develop
your critical thinking abilities. Finally, do not use
“big words” or complicated sentences. Be as simple
and straightforward as possible. Unnecessary
complexity will simply hide what you know.
I must now develop a very important new point.
Throughout this essay I have been emphasizing that I
want to help you develop your ability to clarify and
judge your beliefs. Yet, as you will find, we will
spend much of our time reading and examining the
ideas and judgments of other people, of the
philosophers you read in the text. Why, then, do I talk
so much about your ideas. To see why, we must first
get clear what I mean by “your ideas.” Some people
think that if an idea is to be theirs, they must come up
with it totally on their own, it must be a “brand new
idea.” Now I do not want to rule out the possibility of
such radical creativity on your part. One goal of
developing one’s critical abilities is to be able to
unearth new truths as well as to be able to recognize
and affirm old truths. One of you may finally solve a
problem that has perplexed philosophers for ages.
But it would be very unfair of me if I demanded such
creativity from you. I do not.
When I say “your ideas” I mean simply any idea
or judgment you accept as true (in other words, any
of your beliefs), regardless of whether you originated
them or not. An idea becomes yours when you
believe it is true. There is nothing wrong with
adopting and adapting ideas and judgments of other
people, with learning from other people. (Though if
you accept an idea exactly as it was developed and
expressed by another person, always give full
credit––plagiarism is stealing.)
There is a danger in accepting another person’s
thoughts, however. If you accept ideas and judgments
without examining them first, you run the risk of
accepting another person’s mistakes as well as that
person’s true insights. Thus, if you do accept another
person’s ideas or judgments, you ought to exercise
your ability to judge what you are accepting. That is
why your wrestling with the class’s readings is such
an important part of your development. I give you
classic examples of philosophical thinking to read not
to intimidate you into accepting what a particular
thinker had said, but to give you something worth
reacting to.
Much of what we learn in this world we will
learn with the help of others, and so we must be able
to understand what other people are trying to say, and
be able to judge what we want to accept as our own.
This is, incidentally, why it is so important to put
ideas you adopt from other people into your own
words. It helps you see better what you understand,
and what you then accept, of their ideas.
This brings me to a related point. Because any
idea you accept as true is then your idea also, some
people create for themselves an unnecessary problem.
They feel they cannot study or try to understand an
idea without it becoming theirs, without their having
to accept it as true. To believe this is to confuse
understanding something with having to accept it as
true. They are not the same thing. Indeed, you must
understand something before you can decide whether
it is true. It is only after you understand all sides of a
debate that you can fairly judge which side is best
supported as true.
Again, the faith of philosophy is that fully
understanding all sides of a debate does not endanger
true beliefs, but rather enhances our attempts to find
truth and be secure in what we do believe is true.
One last comment on the philosophical debates I
will introduce you to. Because of the careful,
thoroughgoing analysis philosophers try to make, the
debates they get into can go on for a long time––as
the combatants examine, re-examine, and challenge
each other’s ideas and reasons. Some students feel
the debates “go around in circles” without ever being
resolved. I think a spiral is a better image, for in a
spiral each time you go around you are a little higher;
and in a good philosophical debate each time you “go
around” an issue you gain new insight, even if you do
not yet have a winner (and what, exactly, do we mean
by “winner” in the search for truth?) [Let me add
here, that the time to raise your concerns and possible
disagreements is during class discussions, or on daily
written work, not for the first time on tests. The
Queen of Hearts’ observations of Alice’s behavior
may be right: “You’re thinking about something, my
dear, and that makes you forget to talk,” but talk you
must if both you and I are to learn.]
That is all I have to say for now. I wrote this
essay to help prepare you for this class and to put you
at ease. Some of what I have said will make more
sense as the class develops, so it may be a good idea
to read this essay over again later. I try to make this
class reflect the nature of philosophy. I want you to
do philosophy instead of trying to “learn about it” as
if it were something outside of you. Give it a try. It
really is fun once you get started.
7
Chapter 1
What is Philosophy?
“I will not be able to sleep tonight.” Student, 1994.
“Abandon hope all ye who enter.” Sign on entrance to hell. Dante, The Divine Comedy.
“Rule Forty-Two: All persons more than a mile high [are] to leave the court.” Everybody looked at
Alice. “I’m not a mile high,” said Alice. “You are,” said the King. “Well, I shan’t go, at any rate,” said
Alice; “besides, that’s not a regular rule; you invented it just now.” “It’s the oldest rule in the book,”
said the King. “Then it ought to be Number One,” said Alice. Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in
Wonderland, Alice’s Evidence.
“Philosophy begins in wonder. And, at the end, when philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder
remains. There have been added, however, some grasp of the immensity of things, some purification of
emotion by understanding.” Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 232.
******************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) How philosophy is alike, and different from, other disciplines.
(2) Why everyone must have philosophical assumptions.
–Approaches–
(1) Philosophy clarifies what one means, rather than finds facts.
(2) Philosophy seeks to find necessary or universal propositions that have no alternatives.
–Evaluation–
Agreement:
(1) Most agree that philosophy asks, “What do you mean by that?” rather than, “What are the facts?”
However, this agreement may not distinguish philosophy from some other disciplines.
Disagreement:
(2) Some say all truths have possible alternatives. They think one is arrogant to say s/he can have
necessary truth. Yet to say, as they do, “All meaningful statements are contingent, that is, not
necessary,” is itself a necessary assertion.
***************************************************************************
P
hilosophers, like poets or scientists, babies or
adults, like all of us, try to make sense of the
world around them. What does it mean to
“make sense”? How is the sense philosophy tries to
make different, if it is, from other kinds of
understanding?
Generally, what makes sense to us is what fits in
with what we already believe to be true. New ideas,
even if true, will be looked at with suspicion if they
are too “far out” or “off the wall,” that is, out of the
context we use to fit things together. But,
(1) what makes sense, and
(2) what seems to make sense to us, given our
context of interpretation, may not be the same,
although we may not be able to tell the difference.
Emily Dickinson wrote about a sunrise that rose
“a ribbon at a time.” She was making a comparison
between ribbons (something she felt her reader would
be familiar with) and the way the sun came up one
particular morning, us ing what in literature is called a
“metaphor.”
Metaphorical comparisons are between
something we are familiar with, know or understand,
and something we do not know. The unknown
becomes somewhat known because the metaphor
8
Chapter 1: Definition
tells us the unknown is somewhat like things we do
know.
Biologists tell us that all animals and plants
contain DNA, so all plants and animals have
something in common. If you were presented with an
unknown object, and you learned the unknown
contained DNA, you would know something about
the previously unknown, namely, it is like things that
contain DNA. You would also know something else:
It is somewhat different from the many things that
don’t contain DNA. To understand something usually
means finding what some things do have in common
and what they do not have in common with other
things.
Non-philosophical understanding finds
what some things have in common;
and
what they do not have in common.
Philosophy seeks to find what everything has in
common. Philosophy uses metaphors, as does poetry
and science, to explain how unknown things are like
known things. However, the goal of philosophy is to
find metaphors that apply to everything, not to just
some things while excluding others. If successful, the
metaphor literally expresses what reality is always
like is some way. Its universality forms a logical
bridge between all our restricted points of view. Its
universality describes something characterizing all
possible facts, not everything about any particular
fact.
Philosophy seeks
what everything has in common.
Many people think philosophers are trying to
know everything about everything. Few have claimed
to be all-knowing. But, many philosophers do claim
to know something about everything. Even so, many
people, and even other philosophers, declare this to
be an unaccomplishable and arrogant goal. Since no
one can know everything, how can anyone know
what everything has in common? Must not the
philosopher just assume that everything has
something in common? Isn’t s/he making a leap of
untestable faith?
L
ogic and Faith. A leap of faith in philosophy
is not an acceptable procedure. Philosophy is a
discipline in which reason, not faith or authority, is the only basis for making sense. Still, the
pursuit of philosophical insight is based on a kind of
faith. The philosophical faith, however, is not one
faith among others. It is the unavoidable faith
everyone must have, namely, that reality can be
(partially) understood.
If one were to deny this faith and claim reality is
complete nonsense, that claim itself would have to
assume to be asserting something meaningful. Is it
meaningful to say nothing is meaningful? The claim
that reality makes no sense cannot be established by
using an expression that supposedly makes sense. So
the claim that reality does not or cannot make sense
is also a faith and a self-contradictory one at that,
since this faith assumes it is meaningful to say,
“nothing is meaningful.”
Logic or rationality is the final arbiter of what
makes sense, not because someone decides it is, but
because it is the only way one can think and experience. Logic studies how things must be related. One
cannot decide how things must be related. Not even
God/dess can do what is meaningless to do (assuming
for the moment that “God/dess” makes sense).
If one starts with the assumption, for example,
of a circle, then logic demonstrates that one has a
figure wherein the distance across at the center and
the distance around the perimeter is related by the
unavoidable ratio pi, ! . Now, of course, one can
avoid all circles, and in so doing, avoid the so-called
unavoidable ratio !.
Logical relations are necessary,
and necessary relations are not created nor
chosen nor the result of anyone’s desire.
Logic does not and cannot demonstrate what
characteristics all things might have in common, only
those all things must have in common. All circles
must have ! in common, but not all circles are green
or blue or 2 inches or 20 miles in diameter, even
though circles can be those colors and sizes. All
circles are one kind of thing.
What do other things have in common with
circles? Circles have closed shape in common with
other closed shapes. And all closed shapes are
shapes, and so on. If some aspect is so basic or
general that every possible thing would exhibit it, just
to be a thing, this would be a necessary aspect. The
common characteristic discovered would not be an
arbitrary selection dependent on one’s interests or
abilities. Anyone, anywhere, at anytime could discover the same commonality if they were insightful
enough.
Even though we can never know everything, we
can still know we are not just arbitrarily assuming
there are common factors to be found in everything.
This is so because the attempt to find an alternative to
universal knowledge must fail. To maintain, “There
is always an exception to every attempt to find a
universal common factor” would require one to find
an exception to the statement that all statements have
exceptions. Of course, this exception must be the
9
statement that at least one statement has no exception, that is, at least something is true of everything.
All, Some and None is all there is.
One basic logical tool is the principle of
quantification. When we talk about things, we always
refer to All of them, Some of them or None of them.
This reference may not always be expressed, but it is
always implied. Words like “every,” “always,” and
“all” say there is no exception to the common factor
in the comparison. “Some,” “at least one, but not all”
and “not all” mean the comparison applies to some
things, but not everything. As an example, some
things are ribbon-like or red, but not all things. Likewise, “none,” “never,” “not at all” mean the
comparison fails to apply to anything at all.
So look again at this statement: Philosophy seeks
something that applies to all things, or something that
all things have in common. To deny one can find
something all things have in common is to formulate
a denial that doesn’t make sense because the socalled denial is self-contradictory.
The denial must assume everything has
something in common in order to deny that they do.
In the denial two universalities still emerge:
(1) Every thing is a possible thing. All possibilities have something in common, namely, what it
means to be a possibility.
(2) Every fact differs from all other facts. That
every fact not only is, but must be, different in some
way from all others (since each fact is unique), is a
factor all facts must have in common.
The adventure of the following chapters is
(a) learning what people have assumed are unavoidable commonalties,
(b) learning whether those assumptions make
sense, and
(c) learning how the conclusions relate to one’s
own assumptions about (ultimate) reality.
Philosophy is uncompromising
in its appeal to reason
to justify its conclusions.
–––––––––––o–––––––––––
F
ull, concrete reality is the result of the creative
activities of individuals. Every such act always
has alternatives. Circles are red or green or
blue, but not because they must be. We are happy or
sad, but not because we must be. Yet, a red circle or
our happiness is not irrational, even though it is not
rational or necessary. One’s happiness or the
relationship of color and shape is nonrational.
The ultra-rationalist (determinist) maintains
reality is identical to what is rational. They do not
distinguish between full reality and the rational
aspects exhibited by reality. An ultra-rationalist must
conclude either,
(1) that the universe is a changeless , block
universe, since everything is as it must be
(Parmenides’ metaphysic discussed later is a good
example of this attempted point of view as well as
some modern interpretations of space-time), or
(2) that every change is fully determined with no
creative spontaneity (a common assumption of
classical atomism).
Most of what we do and experience is created.
Yet each moment of our created reality contains or
exhibits rationality, that is, necessary relationships,
but those rational aspects themselves are not the
fullness of reality. Reality is far more than the
unavoidable relationships exhibited by reality. Most
of life is nonrational, that is, it need not be as it is.
However, no actual thing can be completely
nonrational since it must have some aspects in
common with others. Neither can any actual thing be
completely rational, that is, necessary or determined
since it will have unique aspects created at the
moment that could have been different. Gottfried
Leibniz (1646-1716) recognizes the two major
divisions in the kinds of truth:
There are two kinds of Truths: those of Reasoning and
those of Fact. The Truths of [unconditional]
Reasoning are necessary, and their opposite is
impossible. Those of Fact, however, are contingent,
and their opposite is possible. Monadology, 33.
Life at each moment is a whole that could have
been somewhat different from the way it is. In so far
as it could have been otherwise, it is
(1) nonrational. Life necessarily has aspects that
are not necessary, but are created during the present
moment. But each moment also necessarily contains:
(2) factors that could not have been otherwise
given the specific kind of creation. These factors are
contingently rational. They differ from
(3) factors that must turn up in every creation no
matter what is created, that is, factors that are
universally or ultimately rational. The major goal of
philosophy is to find these.
(4) Sentences that fail to be meaningful in any of
the above ways are self-contradictory or incoherent,
that is, irrational.
Keeping these four categories straight will go a
long way to furthering an understanding of what
philosophy is all about.
10
Situations and Propositions
Related to Necessity and Rationality
Type 1
Nonrational:
A created relationship. Things as they are, but not as they must be. A
proposition that describes an aspect of facts or possible facts that needn’t
be as they are or describes possible facts as they could be .
Type 2 Conditionally
Rational:
A necessary relationship given some conditions. If given a certain kind of
thing (for example, a circle), then something necessarily is the case (that
is, the relation of its diameter and circumference, !). A proposition that
describes aspects of possible facts that must be as they are if those facts
are to be or if the definition of that aspect is to make sense.
Type 3
Unconditionally
Rational:
A necessary relationship given anything at all. Such and such must
necessarily be the case no matter what is given. Something or other
necessarily must be given (exist) because “nothingness” is irrational. A
proposition that describes an aspect of all possible facts.
Type 4
Irrational
Expression:
An impossible situation or relationship. A self-contradiction. Nonsense.
Failure to make sense in any of the other three cases. A sentence that
describes nothing possible: A failure to be a proposition.
Reasoning can find what actual or possible
situations must have in common, but only direct
experience of the actual situation can discover what
non-necessary relationships actually exist. Reason
can also find what must follow from one’s
assumptions. If one starts with true assumptions
and makes no mistakes in reasoning, one’s
conclusion must also be true. “Validity” is the term
used to describe an argument that makes no
mistakes in reasoning from assumptions to a
conclusion. A valid argument can still have a false
conclusion if the assumptions one begins with are
false.
Deductive logic examines validity or what is
necessarily implied by one’s assumptions, not the
grounds for the assumptions themselves. The
logical relationships exhibited by the circularity of
circles, for example, can be avoided by not creating
circles. But something that is common to all
possible creations cannot be created or avoided at
any time by anyone. It can only be primordial and
everlasting. It must be
(1) uncreated, since it has always been, and
(2) never-ending since it is and will be found
wherever and whenever anything is found. Only by
establishing “nothing” once was or “nothing” could
come to be at some time, could one show the nonnecessity of something that is a factor of every possible
fact. The nonsense of ”nothingness” existing will be
examined several times as we proceed.
“Necessity” has two meanings:
(1) Conditional necessity and
(2) Unconditional necessity.
The first means: Given some particular kind of
situation, what necessarily follows? This use of the
term “necessary” means “necessary under these conditions.” The “necessity” can be avoided by avoiding
the given conditions.
“Unconditional necessity” means: Given any
possible situation, what can be truly said about it that
can also be said about all other possible situations? This
necessity is impossible to avoid, since all possible situations exhibit it.
“Necessary” can mean:
1. Conditionally Necessary: Necessary if such and such is to occur,
or if such and such is the case, or
2. Unconditionally Necessary: Unavoidable under any conditions;
occurring as an aspect of all possible circumstances and times.
11
When one begins to understand what philosophy
tries do, and even when one has no quarrel about the
possibility of finding universal comparisons, still
one’s reaction might be, “so what?” We know why
we must learn what to eat and what not to, when to
cross a busy street and when not to. The value of how
things differ is very important to our survival and
enjoyment.
Learning what a particular group of things has in
common is also important. We don’t have time to
relearn each time a truck bears down on us that it can
harm us. Trucks as a group have this property. This
stereotyping, so necessary for survival, underlies one
major philosophical mistake: The assumption that a
spatially arranged group of things is one thing, or that
something that lasts over time (with changes) is one
thing.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) calls this
mistake the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. We
generally recognize that common nouns like the
“class” (of students) or the “team” do not refer to one
thing but to one group. Whitehead says most
common and proper nouns function the same way:
One’s name, he says, refers to a temporally related
group and not one thing in the most fundamental
sense, a thesis to be examined later when the topic of
“soul” and “personal identity” are discussed. A chair
is also a group, but likely one with no unities more
inclusive than those at the atomic level.
But what value or interest is there in finding
what all things have in common? We can never
change these necessities. We cannot add to, nor
subtract from, nor alter them. The world is, has
always been and will always be, as it necessarily is.
One cannot ask what difference they make, since no
possible world could be imagined without them.
However, even though the necessities never
change, what we think they are does, and what we
think they are affects how we interpret the meaning
of life. Only when something we have taken to be
necessary begins to look arbitrary, do we begin to
wonder whether we really do know what life means.
Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000) gives four
reasons why the search for metaphysical truths is important:
“To know what is common to all possible experience
and existence is still to know something, though not
something factual. This knowledge may be valuable;
first, because its object is intrinsically satisfying
or beautiful,
second because it is sometimes, even if nonsensical, denied and this denial may be emotionally
harmful, [to say, for example, that there is no meaning
to life] and
third, because it furnishes a clue or ideal standard
relevant to all experiences, regardless of their specific
content [for example, where the reality of the past is or
what the meaning of “goodness” is] and
fourth, because it may tell us that there is an exalted kind of factual reality which we can but dimly
glimpse in its contingent particular content but can
nevertheless have reason to believe is there in its allsurpassing and all-enfolding majesty.” (LP 291)
The ultimate reason for developing an interest in
philosophy is that we all either
(1) philosophize at some level of awareness and
competence,
(2) or we have accepted another philosopher’s
conclusions.
Philosophizing is unavoidable. Unlike studying
chemistry or getting married, we all must assume
some universal knowledge . We all assume we know
something about everything. One’s culture makes
these assumptions. Usually our religious training
supplies the most verbalized expressions of these
beliefs: Catechisms often supply both the questions
and the answers.
We are all philosophers.
Philosophizing is unavoidable.
Humans have always assumed a natural,
necessary or divine order to the sexes. For tens of
thousands of years female metaphors explained
reality. For the last 5,000 years most people have
lived within cultures assuming divinity is male and
males (made in God’s likeness) are universally
ordained to control females. This thesis is called
“patriarchy.” The arbitrariness of patriarchy is now
seen by many. Gender’s arbitrariness is an indication
we need to find better insights about the “natural
order” of things.
E
thical Foundations. Ethical questions, also,
can only be resolved by an appeal to a general
standard of value that applies to all. Few
assume this standard is merely a matter of opinion.
How is it established? If it is something necessarily
exhibited by everything, it is not established at all but
has always been. Can we discover it?
The answer to those who say, “so what?” or
“who cares?” is that everything we do and believe to
be good is guided and interpreted within the context
of our most general beliefs .
Every context, like words in a sentence and
sentences in a paragraph, must itself be interpreted
within a larger context. Eventually, there must be a
context all things have in common that acts as the
final interpreter of meaning. Philosophy tries to find
the final context. This context provides the ultimate
answer to the purpose of life and the structure of
existence.
However, the most general context for value
cannot provide specific purposes for us, just as
knowledge of universal characteristics cannot provide
details of how one individual fact differs from
another. But specific purposes are meaningless unless
purpose in general makes sense.
Philosophy analyzes the meaning of concepts.
Few disagree with this. Philosophers of all
12
persuasions ask the question, “What does that
expression mean, if anything?” rather than the factual
question, “What is (f)actually the case (as opposed to
what might have been)?”
Philosophers are not asking what the facts are.
They are asking what it means to be a “fact.” If
everything, large or small, that is or has been, is a
fact, and if everything that will ever come to be is a
possible fact, then knowing what it means to be a
“fact” is to know something about everything.
Yet, not all those who agree that philosophy
examines the meaning of concepts, agree with those
who claim there must be some ideas or concepts that
are universal in scope and, therefore, necessary or
unavoidable.
–––––––––––––o––––––––––––
T
he following articles, Mind Sets 1 and 2,
illustrate how hard it is to see the world in new
terms. Seeing how religious and scientific authorities have been wrong, may allow the reader to
more easily entertain new ideas or ideas that are not
sanctioned by the prevailing assump tions of our
society. Those of us who have lived through the
cynicism evoked by Watergate, JFK’s missing brain,
missed employment advancement because of sex or
race, people used unknowingly as guinea pigs for
U.S. radiation experiments, tobacco advertising and
endless holy wars, have good reasons to find a basis
for knowledge other than prevailing authority or bias.
Despite my emphasizing philosophy’s concern
with logic––humanity’s only safeguard against
misguided emotional excesses––philosophy in some
guise or other has always promised to give its
initiates the secrets of the universe. This knowledge
is usually considered sacred and precious, and often
guarded and passed on only to those deemed capable
and worthy.
Appendix 2, an Historical Guide, will be useful
to help the reader locate where and when in the past a
philosopher worked. It will also give an overview of
the history of philosophy since the ancient Greeks.
As one gets deeper into the subject, one might do
well do return to this Guide and to Appendix 1,
Guide to Some Classical Problems, that outlines the
main issues with which philosophy has struggled, to
see how many of the issues have been discussed.
Chapter Summary
Finding one definition of “philosophy” that all will agree on is highly unlikely, apart from some general
observations that philosophy is seeking wisdom and clarification of one’s thoughts rather than seeking what
is factually the case. Yet, philosophers must either maintain philosophy tries to discover what every
possible thing has in common, or deny such knowledge is possible. The view expressed in following
chapters is that some universalities, some unconditionally rational concepts, are unavoidable. The meaning
of life in its most sweeping dimension is expressed by such universal statements.
********************************************************************
13
Maya Cross
A pre-Colombian Mexican god, Yiacatecuhti Lord of the Vanguard,
bearing a cross. “The cross shape as the emblem of the World Tree was
at the heart of Maya religious thought for at least two millennia before
the Spanish ever arrived. Friedel, Maya Cosmos, 254. Fix, 223.
**************************************************************************************
“I want to thank you for opening my mind to philosophy. At the beginning of this class I was very skeptical, but
after soaking it in for a semester, it makes sense. Hopefully, this will help me become a better person and a
better student!” Student, 1994.
“I wish I would have kept a journal of my thoughts while I was in class.” Student, 1994.
“I made a mistake by not reading the glossary before doing the rest of the book.” My father, who often said,
‘Any fool can tear down a house,’ during my youth when I was questioning my Calvanistic upbringing. This
book is one attempt to fulfill the metaphorical house-building, as my designing and building solar-heated, earthsheltered houses was the literal way I rose to his challenge.
14
Mind Set 1: Galileo Vindicated
Mind Set 2: Continents Do Move
Only in the last few decades have geologists taken seriously the idea
that whole continents have been drifting around the globe, an idea previously ridiculed.
15
16
Chapter 2
Explaining Why Things Happen:
The Principle of Sufficient Reason
“Provides immunity to the state and state employees for claims relating to:
(n) Natural disasters or acts of God” (emphasis added). North Dakota Senate Bill 2080, passed 1995.
First Question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
“There has never been a time when nothing existed.” Leibniz, 1646-1716, Of Knowledge.
******************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) Assumptions one makes when giving a reason for why something happens.
(2) How the nature of the universe and the meaning of life depend on the way things happen.
–Approaches–
(1) Something happens because someone chooses to do it. A theory often used by mythologies.
(2) Something happens because it is forced by blind necessity to be as it is: A theory often used by
science.
(3) Something happens as it does partly because the present moment exercises some freedom, and
partly because of conditions inherited from the past.
–Evaluation–
Cons:
(1) Many things occur with lawful regularity, so an appeal to a reality that chooses these outcomes
seems arbitrary.
(2) Many things seem to occur because someone chose to do them, so an appeal to hidden causes of the
“choice” in all cases seems arbitrary.
Pros:
(3) Each happening is conditioned by unchosen causes to be somewhat as it is, yet it becomes just as it
is because it exercises freedom or spontaneity in the present. Common sense assumes this is the
case, and logic requires a present that is both conditioned by the past and somewhat creative.
******************************************************************************
F
aith in Causation. Most of us believe happenings occur. Most of us believe the changes
we experience are real. Most of us believe
when something happens there is an explanation for
why it happened. Today’s newspaper has a story of a
man who left his false teeth on the dashboard of his
pickup while he was at a cattle auction for two hours.
He returned to find them gone. His response was to
look around the auction on the assumption that he
dropped them. Not finding them, he went to the
police to report them stolen.
Never once, we can safely assume, did he believe
the teeth just went out of existence. If the teeth are
gone, someone must have taken them and they still
exist and can be found, or someone took them and
deliberately or accidentally destroyed them so they
no longer exist for a reason.
Similarly, when one finds large areas in grain
fields knocked down in geometric patterns, s/he says
“Who did it?” not, “My grain is knocked down for no
reason.”
The Principle of Sufficient Reason tells us, as
Leibniz says, “that nothing happens without a
sufficient reason.” We usually accept two kinds of
answers for why something happens:
(1) Someone chose to do it and had the power to
fulfill the choice, or
(2) What happened was the result of unavoidable
causes; it happened because there was no other
option, no choice at all.
17
Chapter 2: Sufficient Reason
D
eterminism vs. Freedom. The search for an
explanation for a particular happening
implies we understand what a “happening” is.
Notice that here again we are looking for what
something means, not whether or not it exists. If we
assume we or other agents have the power to do
things, we can appeal to that power as the explanation, or partial explanation, for happenings.
Yet, few of us assume we have the ability to do
anything whatsoever. Our power or ability to cause
something to happen is limited by the circumstances
in which we find ourselves. But those circumstances
also provide opportunities for us to do things. So
freedom to act is gener ally assumed to be restricted
or conditioned: We can do some things, but not anything whatsoever.
Does the notion of “complete freedom” even
make sense? This expression usually occurs when
discussing divine power. Our power is limited, but
divine power is supposedly unconditioned, wholly
able to do anything at all regardless of circumstances.
The examination of this completely capricious use of
power or completely arbitrary fiat, will be looked into
later when theistic attributes are discussed (in Chapter 23). For now “complete freedom” can be seen as
one pole of the continuum:
All––Some––None.
The opposite pole, no freedom, has been a
popular faith for scientific explanations. The faith
was: We only have explained why something
happens when the happening can be shown to be as it
is because, given the antecedent circumstances as
they are, nothing else could have happened. Only
complete determinism is assumed to be sufficient to
explain why something happens.
A determinist’s faith says: When all the
conditions are known that bear on a situation, the
outcome is fully knowable. This faith has now been
nearly abandoned since the introduction of quantum
physics. Physical theory has come to realize we can
never achieve knowledge sufficient to assert
complete determinism. Many physi cists now
maintain spontaneity is an essential part of reality.
Logical Contraries
All T is R, versus, No T is R.
Logical Contradictories
No T is R, versus, Some T is R.
All T is R versus, Some T is not R.
Between the poles of All freedom and No
freedom (None determined and All determined,
contraries of each other) lies Some freedom (the
contradictory of both All and None). To assert
happenings occur somewhat free is also to say they
are somewhat determined.
Some (at least one, but not all) is simultaneously
the denial of both poles, and so is the logical contradictory of both All and None.
Can those who insist on claiming logic is merely
psychology, or merely humanity’s way of looking at
things, claim All, Some and None are related in any
other way? Is there an alternative to Some always
contradicting All and None, that is, necessarily
contradicting All and None?
The room lights will not go on unless there is
electricity in the wire, intact bulbs in the socket and
unbroken wires. These are (some of) the necessities.
If the lights are on, then we know these necessities or
causes are there. But given all the necessities, can we
know exactly what the outcome will be? Perhaps in
this example all the necessities would require that the
lights to be on in some way or other, but there are
many ways they can be on. We cannot know just
where every electron and photon would be.
Necessities do not imply (necessitate) sufficiency. Antecedent causes or conditions are not
sufficient to explain a happening, unless determinism
is a meaningful philosophy.
The opposite pole, “complete freedom,” asserts
that no matter what is known about a circumstance,
nothing can be known about the outcome. The
unavoidable logic of All, Some and None makes
clear there is no middle ground between Some and its
contradictories, All and None. If we say we have
some freedom to act on our own, then we are not
fully determined. If any one of us has some freedom
or power, then no one else can have it all. The options are forced. Either every happening (involving
atoms, people or divinity, and so on) is an exercise of
some power of choice or it isn’t.
Freedom to create is either a universal fac tor in
every fact (happening) or it isn’t. If it isn’t, one must
explain what it means to be a fact “completely devoid
of freedom.” Either all facts are devoid of freedom
(which sets up complete determinism as one common
factor of all existence), or only some facts are devoid.
If some happenings can occur somewhat free and
others completely determined, then freedom is not
essential for every happening.
The following matrix exhausts all the possible
combinations of the quantifiers All, Some and None
that can be arranged having two place-holders per
statement. Number 1 is generally not interesting
unless one assumes it is the same as Number 2. Lipservice is given to Number 2, but few really think
God/dess acts without considering what the situation
is. Religions are much concerned with the way
God/dess acts depending on how we act.
18
Quantification and Freedom
1. All (complete) freedom is found in
All happenings (No order at all)
Some happenings (Some say this is God’s way)
No happenings (Likely thesis)
4. Some freedom is found in
All happenings (Likely thesis)
Some happenings (Same as #4 or #8 makes sense)
No happenings (Same as #7 and/or #8)
7. No freedom is found in
All happenings (Universal determinism)
Some happenings (Localized determinism)
No happenings (Not meaningful)
Number 3 seems to say complete freedom is not
something possible to find anywhere. If so, it says the
same thing as Number 4, which is the only one of the
nine verbal distinctions likely to have any logical
sense if “complete freedom” and “complete determinism” are self-contradictory expressions.
E
fficient and Final Causes. The basic logical
principle concerning freedom and causation
has to do with how the parts or aspects of
something are related to the whole of which they are
parts.
The concept of “part” is meaningless unless one
is referring to parts of some whole. Parts cannot exist
alone. Parts are always within, or part of, a whole.
The relationship of dependence is one-directional, or
asymmetrical. Wholes depend on the particular parts
they contain to be the specific wholes they are, but
the parts do not depend on the particular whole they
are in to be what they are. Likewise, a happening
depends on the necessities or causes that help bring it
about. The causes don’t depend on the outcome.
All, Some and None
exhaust all the possibilities of quantity.
Other examples: An act, which as a whole
exhibits freedom, can contain aspects that are
necessary or determined, but the attempt to conceive
a “completely determined act,” yet one somehow
containing even one free part, is nonsense.
Again, using slightly different language: A
whole can be contingent (capable of being different
from the way it is) and contain necessary parts
(aspects not capable of being otherwise). However, a
whole cannot be completely necessary and contain
even one aspect that is contingent.
“Cause” or the reason for why something
happens has two meanings,
(1) the unavoidable past circumstances that
become parts of the present happening, and
(2) the created, determinate situation made by the
present whole itself.
19
Relations of Necessary/Sufficient
Necessary/Contingent and Determined/Free
Whole but
Free
only
Nonsense
Det.
only
Whole with
no real parts
Nonsense
Nonsense
Free
Det.
Det.
Nonsense
Meaningful
real parts
Meaningful
Free
Suf.
Nec.
Nonsense
Nec .
Cont .
Nonsense
Aristotle’s categories of efficient cause and final
cause are similar to these two meanings. These two
kinds of cause are not mutually exclusive. They are
likely both required to determine a sufficient reason
for a happening. Past conditions are necessary for
present decisions, but present decisions have no
effect on past conditions. Present decisions become
conditions for future decisions.
Early attempts to explain the world and our
existence in it, emphasized the power of choice. Even
if we were powerless, things happen because
supernatural powers have chosen to bring them
about. This type of explanation is often called
“mythological.”
Early Greek philosophical or scientific explanations said choice was not a factor in some or all
happenings. Events happened because there was no
other possible way they could happen.
No Whole. Each
"Part" is a whole
Nec . Suf.
Meaning of Causality
Cont.
Nec .
Meaningful so long as
there must be some
contingency or other.
Mythological explanations in terms of capricious
decisions or explanations in terms of scientific
determinism are both problematic. Yet, mythological
and deterministic explanations both looked for what
events have in common.
Parts and Wholes
Appreciating that
the relationship between parts and
the whole of which they are parts
is necessarily asymmetrical,
that is, one-directional, lies at the heart of
making sense of reality.
Myths appeal to the actions of personal powers
as the threads relating events. Determinism appeals to
20
unavoidable laws that are supposedly found in all
events.
The truth is likely between these historical
pendulum swings: Choice is always determined or
conditioned by circumstances. Circumstances are
what previous choices made that now condition the
present choice.
Chapter Summary
The reasons that can be given to sufficiently explain why something happens comes down to three mutually exclusive theories, two of which must be wrong. The way something happens is:
(1) Totally because of the causes or circumstances that precede the happening (so the
present does nothing), or
(2) Partly because of causes or circumstances that precede the happening and partly
because of freedom or creating in the present moment, (most likely thesis), or
(3) Totally because of freedom in the present moment, (so past has no affect on the present).
Suggested Reading: Leibniz.
Chapter 3
Metaphysics versus Relativism
“...Every statement has a [meaningful] denial.” Irving Copi,
Introduction to Logic, 9th ed., 406.
“Every rule has an exception.” Cultural aphorism.
“Metaphysical categories are not dogmatic statements of the obvious; they are tentative formulations
of the ultimate generalities.” A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 12.
“...I endeavored to demonstrate...that even if God had created more worlds,
there could have been none in which these laws were not observed.”
Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method, Part V, Para. 2.
Alice laughed... “One can’t believe impossible things.”
“I dare say you haven’t had much practice.” said the Queen.
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Wool and Water.
******************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) The fundamental dispute among philosophers between relativists (or positivists) and
metaphysicians.
(2) The difference between two kinds of metaphysicians: Moderate Rationalists, and UltraRationalists.
–Approaches–
(1) Positivist or Relativist: Only sentences
(a) make sense that have the possibility of being wrong (even if they are factually right), or the
possibility of being right (even though they are factually wrong); or
(b) make sense that follow (arbitrarily) defined rules.
(2) Metaphysician:
(a) Ultra-Rationalist: All meaningful sentences state necessary conditions of reality. Reality
exhibits no freedom for alternatives.
(b) Moderate Rationalist: Some sentences describe something about reality that has always been
and will be as it is because there is no alternative to reality exhibiting these characteristics.
–Evaluation–
Cons:
(1) Positivists fail because they use a necessary proposition to deny any necessary propositions make
sense.
(2a) Ultra-Rationalists fail because determinism is the denial that anything happens at all since nothing
new is possible.
Pro:
(2b) Moderate Rationalists: Meaningful sentences either express relationships
(a) among actual or possible facts that could have been otherwise, or
(b) among definitions that are conditionally rational (that is, necessary, but only because they
follow defined rules that can be changed), or
(c) among some aspects of actuality that are unconditionally rational, that is, must be as they are.
There is nothing illogical about the approach which allows all three types of propositions (that
is, a, b and c) and claims there must be some of the third kind.
22
Change and The Unsurpassable
Chapter 3: Relativism
******************************************************************************
T
ruth and Sense. Historically and logically
there are two fundamentally different attitudes
towards philosophy, metaphysical and antimetaphysical or relativism. The battle between
relativism and metaphysics is at the heart of
philosophy.
A metaphysician claims every possible thing
must have at least some characteristics in common
with all other possible things. These characteristics
must be knowable even if all are not yet known to us.
A metaphysician says at least some knowledge we
have is unconditionally rational or necessary: Some
things we know as true have no possibility of being
false.
The ultra-rationalistic metaphysician says a l l
truth is necessary: Nothing could ever have been
different from the way it was, is and will be.
All anti-metaphysicians counter, on the other
hand, that such universal knowledge is not possible.
Relativists claim all truth is relative to a point of view
and does not apply universally: No truth is necessary.
Unsurpassable really does exist,” or “that was
completely different,” are clauses with no cognitive
content and, therefore, can be neither true nor false.
Why some of these expressions fail to make sense
may not yet be obvious, though I hope to show why
they fail as we proceed.
The metaphysician and the positivist do differ on
the criteria used to determine whether sentences
really are propositions. A positivist tries to determine
which are meaningful by using the Principle of
Verification. Simplified, it says only sentences are
meaningful whose truth or falsity can be established
by factual evidence.
Truth and Necessity
A (linguistic) structure conveying information. A
sentence that says something meaningful.
However, not all propositions are sentences: A
gesture can be a proposition.
All truth is necessary.
Some truth is necessary.
No truth is necessary.
Yet, both agree philosophy is not the search for
facts. Philosophy, they both maintain, is the search
for meaning. Philosophy is trying to determine
whether a statement really makes sense.
Logical Positivism, an anti-metaphysical position
of this century, and other ana lytic schools emphasize
the important distinction between the meaning of a
proposition and the truth of a proposition. Positivism
maintains most, if not all, philosophical problems
will disappear if one can determine which sentences
really say something and which are merely nonsense,
even if they have correct grammatical form.
Metaphysicians like Alfred North Whitehead and
Charles Hartshorne have no quarrel with the
distinction between conceptual sense and nonsense.
Both metaphysicians and relativists agree: Some
sentences masquerade as meaningful propositions,
and we should learn to detect them.
Only sentences that make sense can be true or
false. However, some meaningful sentences can only
be true and never false, if metaphysicians are right.
Meaningless expressions can be neither true nor
false. “Round-squares are pink,” or “the greatest
conceivable number is happy,” or “absolutely nothing
is in the refrigerator,” or “we can prove the
Sentence
A linguistic structure that satisfies grammatical
conditions. A sentence need not make sense.
Proposition
Evidence may be unavailable for some
propositions, such as, “There is intelligent life on
other star-systems’ planets,” but a sentence that fails
to be a proposition has built-in definitions making it
logically impossible or inconceivable any facts could
ever be found that would be relevant to its truth or
falsity. Facts cannot be relevant to nonsense. “There
are little green people in the desk drawer, but
anything you do to get evidence on their existence
makes them disappear,” is not a proposition for
positivists or metaphysicians.
Merely empirical propositions are those whose
truth or falsity can be determined by facts. These
propositions are statements about how things one
experiences happen to be or could be. Since they do
not state that experience must be as stated, they are
not rational propositions. They are about created
relationships.
Factual propositions are not the only kind of
propositions that positivists say make sense. Some
propositions make sense, not because they express
something about possible facts, but because they
follow rules defining the terms and operations they
contain. These are merely rational propositions. The
relationships they state are necessary, but only
because the definitions happen to be as they are.
Alternative definitions would be possible without
self-contradiction.
23
If a chess player moves his king off the board to
avoid checkmate, he ceases playing chess as usually
defined, that is, his move was not meaningful. On the
other hand, “All unmarried men are bachelors” is
meaningful by definition, not because of any relevant
facts.
Since merely rational propositions are logical
propositions, the philosophers who say only these
and merely empirical propositions are meaningful are
called Logical Positivists.
The positivist’s Principle of Verification must be
expanded, then, to include merely rational
propositions. Only propositions are meaningful to a
positivist
(1) whose truth or falsehood can be established
by facts, or
(2) whose meaning can be established by
definition.
Because a sentence’s meaningfulness depends
the possibility of finding facts that can verify or
falsify it, one must face the problem of defining a
“fact.” For now, consider only one aspect of a
possible definition, namely, whether a fact is, or is
not, fully determined. Unless “complete determinism” is meaningful, no fact is necessary just as it
is. The consistency of determinism, otherwise known
as the metaphysic of ultra-rationalism, will be
examined later.
“It could have been otherwise,” is a condition all
facts (seem) to display. “To have a possible
alternative” is a partial definition of “fact” that all
metaphysicians (who are not ultra-rationalists, that is,
rigorous determinists) and all positivists affirm.
Facts, in other words, are contingent. Facts are not
necessarily the way they are. No particular fact must
exist. But must some fact or other exist? If not,
metaphysics is meaningless. If so, relativism is
meaningless.
Modal Status of Propositional Types
Type 1
Merely Empirical
Possible Fact
Contingent
Type 2
Merely Rational
Possible Definition
Contingent
Type 3
Unavoidably Rational
(Metaphysical)
Necessary Description
Noncontingent
Type 4
Impossibly Rational
(Nonsense)
Necessarily not
Possible
Noncontingent
Not only must all facts be contingent, but all the
rules defining rational propositions must also be
contingent, according to a relativist. Though
meaningful propositions will necessar ily follow a
given set of rules or definitions, the definitions
themselves must also be given, that is, be arbitrary:
Other definitions are always possible. “Necessary” to
the positivist always means “necessary by
definition.” “Necessary,” to a relativist, never means
“unavoidable under all possible circumstances.”
Positivism can now be defined as the position
that says, “All meaningful propositions are contingent.” Logical Positivism maintains only merely
empirical and merely rational sentences make sense
(neither of which assert something universal or
unqualifiedly necessary about reality). Despite
disagreement among metaphysicians as to what the
metaphysic is, no metaphysician can fully agree with
the Verifiability Principle’s criterion for determining
which expressions are meaningful.
Verifiability Principle
All meaningful propositions are contingent.
Only propositions dependent on either,
(1) factual or (2) definitional circumstances make sense.
If true, all meaningful propositions could have been false;
if false, they could have been true.
Change and The Unsurpassable
Expanded Form of the Verifiability Principle
Positivists say only the following two types of propositions make sense:
Type 1
Merely Empirical
Propositions
Meaningfulness is established by the possibility of finding
factual evidence that can prove the statement true or false.
Type 2
Merely Rational Propositions
Meaningfulness is established by conceptual (logical)
definition. Truth is “necessary” if the proposition follows the
given (arbitrary) definitions.
Problem of Self-Consistency with the Verifiability Principle
Is the Verifiability Principle a meaningful proposition?
Does the Verifiability Principle itself fit either Type 1 or Type 2?
Is there a possible alternative to it? If not, is it meaningful?
The reason for this disagreement arises because
the metaphysician finds problems with the
Verifiability Principle of Meaning, the positivist’s
proposal for determining which sentences makes
sense. The Principle says: “All meaningful
propositions are necessarily not necessary.” If this
sentence is, as it seems, a self-contradiction, it cannot
be a meaningful proposal.
P
hilosophical Procedure. A dispute between
philosophical positions is not a factual issue.
Philosophical disputes are over questions of
meaning. The meanings, that are philosophy’s main
concern, define reality in some general way.
Philosophy is the discipline trying to find universal,
meaningful descriptions. One or both of two
opposing views on universal issues must be wrong,
not factually wrong, but meaningless. One or both of
the positions must be illogical.
Evaluation of a philosophical position ideally
proceeds by examining the logical rela tionships of
the assertions within the system itself. A
philosophical position will fail, if it does, not because
it is different from another po sition, but because its
own criterion for meaning fails to make sense of
itself. Unfortunately, philoso phers have a bad habit of
allowing contradictions or incoherencies in their own
work while pointing them out in others'.
If the positivist’s criterion for meaning (the
Verifiability Principle) makes sense, it must be one of
the two kinds of propositions that make sense
according to its own criteria. Is the Verifiability
Principle of Meaning itself an example of a merely
empirical or a merely rational proposition? Is the
Principle contingent?
The Principle of Meaning’s own meaningfulness
is established neither
(1) by its ability to be true or false depending on
some fact or other, nor
(2) by definitions that could be set up in a different way.
The Principle seems to be unqualified,
unavoidable and necessary. What could possibly be a
meaningful alternative to the Principle of Verification
in the positivist’s mind?
But necessary propositions are meaningless
according to positivists and relativists. Either the
criterion for meaning is not meaningful or there is an
implicit appeal to a third kind of proposition.
If one starts by saying:
(A) “All meaningful propositions are contingent;
they all have alternatives,” then one is obligated to
find an alternative to A. This alternative to A can
only be:
(B) “At least one proposition is necessary” (or
the even stronger contrary assertion, “All
propositions are necessary”). So in maintaining A,
one is also logically committed to asserting B, or as
Parmenides will say later (see Chapter 9), one is
committed to maintaining A and not-A at the same
time; and B (not-A) is the logical contradictory of A.
To employ a necessary proposition to deny
24
Metaphysicians and Anti-Metaphysicians
(Also see Situations and Propositions Related to Necessity and Rationality, Chapter 1.)
Those who assert only
Types 1 and 2:
Positivists, Relativists,
Anti-metaphysicians,
Skeptics.
All meaningful propositions are contingent.
There is a meaningful opposite to everything we can say.
All empirical and definitional (logical) propositions
are contingent.
Only propositions of Types 1 and 2 make sense.
Those who assert
Types 1, 2 and 3:
Metaphysicians.
Some meaningful propositions are necessary.
Some things we say have no meaningful opposite. Propositions of
Types 1, 2 and 3 make sense.
Those who assert
Type 3 only:
Ultra-Rationalistic
Metaphysicians,
Determinists.
All meaningful propositions are necessary.
Everything we meaningfully say could not conceivably have been
otherwise.
Only propositions of Type 3 make sense.
Those who assert
Type 4:
Irrationalists.
Failure to assert a proposition. It is doubtful anyone deliberately fails
to make sense. Zen Buddhists?
necessary propositions are meaningful is a selfcontradiction. Propositions that are necessary and not
self-contradictory, that is, those whose denial is
impossible, are metaphysical. Metaphysical propositions are simply necessary, and must be carefully
distinguished from those that are necessary by
definition.
A proposition that is true
and cannot be false,
is a philosophical
(metaphysical) proposition.
Whitehead and Hartshorne do not deny the existence and meaningfulness of the first two types of
propositions, but they assert the heart of philosophy
lies in discovering propositions and their
interrelationships of the third kind. They can be
variously called Metaphysical Propositions,
Necessary Truths, or Ultimate Generalizations. To be
a metaphysician one must believe there is some unavoidable or necessary truths––at least one. Some
metaphysicians (ultra-rationalists) have often thought
all meaningful propositions are necessary.
Metaphysical propositions, and the necessary
scheme of concepts they form, have two characteristics according to Whitehead: They are simultaneously
rational and empirical.
R
ational Aspect. Metaphysical propositions
are rational because they exhibit the properties any merely rational scheme (set of
propositions) must, namely, coherence and logicality.
To be logical means the sentences of the scheme are
propositions. They are self-consistent. “Greatest
numbers” and “round-squares” will not be among
metaphysical assertions either.
Coherence is a function of the interrelationships
of propositions. No proposition, including an ultimate
proposition, can be meaningful by itself; its meaning
hinges upon the meaning of the rest of the system.
This doesn’t mean one defines a metaphysical
proposition in terms of others, for then the defined
proposition would not be essential at the most basic
level.
An example of coherency is the way functional
grammars demonstrate the interdependence of
meanings. A “noun” is indefinable apart from other
notions like “verb” and “preposition;” yet a verb or
preposition is dependent on the meaning of “noun”
for its explication.
E
mpirical Aspect. A metaphysical or ultimate
generality must also interpret experience. To
do so it must have application to experience.
To be applicable means that there must be some
items in our experience that are drawn together or
exhibit the common factor expressed by the concept.
But to have just some application is not enough for a
metaphysical assertion.
25
26
**********************************************************************************
Absolutely!
**********************************************************************************
The concept expressing the proposition must also
be a d equate. All actual and possible items of
experience must be capable of explanation in terms
of the principle, that is, all must exhibit the
characteristic. But “adequate” is ambiguous. It may
mean “adequate to interpret those items of experience
under consideration.” In this sense the generality of
the proposition is qualified, or restricted to items
considered. Propositions of this type are scientific.
Each area of science seeks to find generalizations or
descriptions of experience adequate to its domain.
DNA goes a long way in explaining biology, but is
not much help in physical geology.
Metaphysical propositions are abstractions that
are universally exemplified. They are necessary principles, not because of some outside agency, choosing
to make them so, but because no agent could be
anything at all without displaying these principles.
They are not necessary by definition. They are
necessary because any attempted denial turns out to
be impossible. Seeming denials of metaphysical
propositions can only be maintained because of
confusion or vagueness. Since metaphysical propositions have al ways been as they are, we do not define
them nor create them. We can only discover or
become aware of them.
Metaphysical knowledge is
not knowledge of how things differ
or how they could be different
from the way they are.
27
Metaphysical First Principles
Metaphysical First Principles:
Necessary Scheme of Ideas:
Ultimate Generalizations
Rational Aspect
("Necessary" or Analytic Truth)
Coherent
(Any principle
abstracted from
the rest will
become
meaningless)
Logical
(Self- consistency)
Empirical Aspect
( Factual or Synthetic Truth)
Applicable
(Some ideas are
capable of interpretation by the
scheme)
Meaning:
(of those items
considered)
Adequate
No items are
incapable of
interpretation
Meaning:
(all possible items,
including those
that are actual)
Principles Universally Exemplified,
or Necessary by Unavoidability
Examples of statements that ideally fulfill the
criterion for this third kind of proposition are difficult
to assert with any assurance. The history of
philosophy is really an examination of various proposals and how far they met the dual requirements of
rationality and explanation of experience at the most
fundamental level. But the assertion, “something
makes sense,” seems to be metaphysically necessary.
The attempted contradictory of something makes
sense is, “nothing makes sense,” which is either,
(1) something supposedly meaningful even
though self-contradictory or, as seems necessary,
(2) no assertion at all, but simply nonsense.
To know what it means
to be all-knowing
is not to be all-knowing.
Another way to approach metaphysical
knowledge is to ask how much knowledge is
possible. Excluding the case of “knowing nothing” as
self-contradictory, a knower must either know:
(1) All about All.
(2) All about Some.
(3) Some about All.
(4) Some about Some.
The meaning of “all-knowing” will be discussed
in Chapter 23. One must be very careful to
distinguish Number 3 from Numbers 1 and 2.
To know what it means to be all-knowing is not
to be all-knowing, but it does imply one knows
something about everything. That everything that
does or could exist is experienced by someone, is one
proposal for one metaphysical truth.
Hartshorne has proposed a list of metaphysical,
(that is, nonrestrictive and existential) truths
(MSNE):
• Something must exist,
28
• Experience must occur,
• Creativity must occur,
• Concrete realities must exhibit both internal
and external relationships,
• Infallible experience must occur which
includes others’ fallible experiences.
Whitehead has a whole chapter of categorical
conditions most of which he assumes all actualities
must exhibit (see Appendix 3 and PR Chapter II).
Hartshorne also proposes a list of five categories
or dimensions found in all moments of existence in
some way:
Every experience is a whole (or a subject) that
includes others as objects.
(1) The whole is here, the objects there. This
here-there dimension sets up spatial depth. Two or
more others experienced simultaneously set up
spatial width.
(2) All objects are felt with more or less aggressiveness. In colors, scarlet is most aggressive, seagreen least (see the Potential Color Solid, Chapter
10).
(3) All objects come with some degree of
positive value or en hancement for the subject. In
fully saturated colors, buttercup yellow is the least
somber, violet most so.
(4) Each element of experience comes with a
specific degree of intensity or brightness, a valuation
of importance or insistence. In color, this is the blackwhite axis.
(5) Experience always moves from a somewhat
general possible kind of object to one that is less so.
A moment of creation specifies in some way a more
general possibility.
Once formulated, many metaphysical truths are
so self-evident as to seem platitudinous, but the belief
“that metaphysical thought started from principles
which were individually clear, distinct and certain,”
(Whitehead, FR, referring to John Locke) instead of
meaningful only in context with all other metaphysical principles, has foiled many attempts at
metaphysical formulations. These principles are
usually very difficult to formulate because of their
extreme generality.
Hartshorne’s Five Dimensions of Potentiality
Dimension
Example or Meaning:
1. Self-Other
1. Spatial Depth
2. Active-Passive
2. Scarlet-SeaGreen
3. Positive-Negative
3. Yellow-Violet
4. Intense-Faint
4. Brightness
5. Generic-Specific
5. Duration (and Change)
The rest of this book is an examination of proposals
for statements that assume to be about the final interpretation of things: Statements that try to explain how
everything fits together, or describe what everything
is made of, or express what the general purpose of
everything is.
Chapter Summary
Modality, that is, whether a statement is contingent (possible, but not necessary or nonsense) or noncontingent (necessary or nonsense) applies to all meaningful expressions whether expressed or not. A metaphysician believes either some or all meaningful statements are necessary. An anti-metaphysician believes
no meaningful statements are necessary.
There can be no middle ground: Either there are some (at least one) statements that are unavoidably true
or there are none. Someone who says there are no necessary truths, is saying: It is necessarily true that there
are no necessary truths. Self-contradictions are evidence of nonsense, not a truth of any kind. Both
metaphysicians and relativists believe some things people say are not statements at all, but merely
nonsense.
Suggested Reading: Whitehead, Process and Reality, Part I “Speculative Philosophy,” Sec. 1,2; Morriz
Schlick, Meaning and Verification; Hartshorne, MSNE; Frankl (who can’t make up his mind about ultimates).
************************************************************************
Queen of Heaven
Standing on a heavenly cloud and crowned, this representation of the Goddess in
the Roman Catholic Diocese Cathedral in Rapid City, SD, is surrounded by stained
glass windows proclaiming some of her titles: Mystical Rose, Queen of Peace,
Queen of Martyrs, Mirror of Justice, Queen of Angels. Photo by author.
************************************************************************
29
30
PART II
The First Worldview
Ancient Origins and Present Problems
–––––
From Goddess to God
31
Chapter 4
Ancient Origins and Present Problems
“Make love, not war.” ‘60’s antiVietnam war chant.
“Celebration of life is the leading motif in Old European ideology and art.
There is no stagnation; life energy is constantly moving as a serpent, spiral, or whirl.”
Marija Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddess, 321.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
How gender, the first metaphor employed to understand the cosmos and our purpose in it, became
(1) used to interpret the universe, and
(2) misused in metaphysics.
–Approaches–
(1) Female physiology is used as an early metaphor to express cosmic truth.
(2) The female cyclical (menstrual) period is reflected in the cosmos (the moon’s monthly rhythm).
This view of reality emphasizes change, process and recycling (rebirth).
(3) Menarche and menopause divide the female and her cosmic deity into the trinity of maiden, mother
and crone.
(4) Creating, including cosmic creation, is seen as a function of giving birth, a fundamental
characteristic of divinity only females possess.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) Was life-affirming–even sexuality was integrated with the wholesome and holy.
(2) Allowed a logical way to conceive of cosmic unity.
(3) Provided a view of reality that allowed people to feel meaningful.
(4) Saw everything related to everything else. Everything in the universe is our kin
(blood relative).
(5) Placed emphasis on process.
Cons:
(1) The system is not yet explicit on some technical problems that must be answered to have an
adequate explanation of “change” or “being saved .“
(2) The use of (one) gender to explain cosmic unity and creation relegates the other gender to a
secondary status.
(3) Gender is not a necessary aspect of existence, and so can’t be philosophically general.
******************************************************************************
T
he history of ideas is not unlike biological
evolution or an oft-remodeled old building.
New ideas, like new species or remodelings,
depend on what has existed previously. New thoughts
must be interpreted within old contexts. The more
general the contexts, the harder they are to modify.
One of the more persistent themes, in humanity’s
attempt to understand what life is all about, is gender.
We see ourselves as male or female. Most living
beings in our experience are gendered. We easily
assume being alive is to exist as a male or female. If
we assume everything of importance has a gender,
we must choose between calling it male or female.
However, where there can only be one, like the whole
universe, this causes serious problems as to which
gender, if any, to use.
At the heart of religion and philosophy is the
drive to explain where everything came from or what
32
Chapter 4: Origins
the unity of everything is and how we are related to
(or tied into, religio, Latin) the whole of things. Most
peoples have assumed everything has been created or
born. With this assumption, what kind of reality
could have created or given birth to every thing that
exists? What could have given birth to the whole
universe? And if we are all parts of a larger reality,
what gender is it?
Gender is historically important,
but philosophically superficial.
At the earliest dawning of concern for our human
origins and destinies, perhaps hundreds of thousands
of years ago, the experience of our own birth-origin
was used as a metaphor to explain the origin of all of
us, namely, our mother. We all come from our
mother. Within the all-enveloping, undifferentiated
womb-liquid, the amniotic sea, we took shape. Since
it is likely the male role in reproduction was either
not known or considered peripheral, the all-inclusive,
primordial reality was naturally thought to be female.
Maria Gimbutas concludes,
My archeological research does not confirm the
hypothetical existence of the primordial parents and
their division into the Great Father and the Great
Mother figures or the division of the Great Mother
figure into a Good and Terrible Mother. There is no
trace of a father figure in any of the Paleolithic
periods. The life-creating power seems to have been of
the Great Goddess alone....the Life Giver and the
Death Wielder are one deity. Her manifestations are
manifold. (Gimbutas, Language of the Goddess, 316)
The Universe was first seen to be
a Great Cosmic Female.
Only the female creates new life from her womb
liquid and sustains that life with her breast liquid.
From her one body comes many. We are our mother,
and yet we are ourselves. How the many lives created
are related to each other and to their Creatress is one
of the deep mysteries all intellectual schemes try to
understand (see Chapter 24, for an example).
Destruction of creations is another mystery.
What is death? Why does it happen? Where do we
go? Where is the past? The first answers given to
questions about death were also in terms of the
universal female. We came from the cosmic womb
and we return to the cosmic womb, the tomb. The
Great Goddess creates us all from her body and takes
us all back into her body, the dark underworld.
The taking back is a destruction of what has
been. Only the loss of present ways of existing seems
to allow new forms to come into being. But people
reasonably concluded the loss could only be
temporary. After all, once one is back in the cosmic
womb, one must be reborn, since giving birth is the
womb’s essence.
The unity of all reality is the cosmic body of the
female mother. Symbols of the changing processes of
life were boiling pots (as in pot-bellied or pregnant)
or in mounds of earth (constructed or natural)
swelling up from the ground like England’s Silbury
Hill. The Goddess was the beginning and the end of
all life, and the transformer of death into new life.
Rebirth can be thought of in several ways:
(1) One model is the butterfly’s emergence from
the cocoon/womb after a major reordering of the
physical body from a worm-type creature to a
beautiful flying creature. One need not, in this case,
assume a continuous consciousness or soul, but the
butterfly’s body is born from the body of the worm.
(2) Another form of rebirth is reincarnation, or
rebodying, which assumes a continuous thread of
personal identity residing in some thing other than the
body. This entity (often called the “soul”) is reborn
by being placed in a new body.
The belief in renewal by rebirth is inspired by the
great cycles of renewal we see all around us. The
year lives and dies and is reborn in the spring. The
day grows and dies at night to be renewed in the
morning. Grain grows and dies at harvest-time, but is
reborn in the spring planting from its seed/soul.
Perennials return to life each spring with the
renewing power of the sun.
Hard archeological evidence of the Goddess as
humanity’s first concept of divinity goes back a hundred thousand years and perhaps 500 thousand.3
There are thousands of artifacts from the long period
of time before societies began asserting the primacy
of the male, about 4000 BCE.
Valuable sources for information on the time
before male domination, are the surviving intellectual
or religious schemes known as mythologies. Though
no myth has come down to us unaffected by changes
made to it by later worldviews dominated by male
metaphors, still careful study of myths can
extrapolate much information about the
prepatriarchal period.
The concept of the Goddess pulled together
experiences of people’s daily bodily functions and of
the larger world around and above them. The realm
within the earth, though not directly observable, was
assumed to be teeming with the Goddess’ activity
also. Reality was seen as an interconnected whole, as
the organic unity of the Goddess. Her desires,
thoughts or words need only to be spoken and they
become real. Her word becomes flesh and blood.
The Goddess had many forms: She was personified as different kinds of ani mals either because
of the animal’s ability or shape. The Goddess also
3The recent find of sophisticated throwing spears in a
German coal mine dating to 400,000 BCE seems to indicate
that people had the awareness and skill at that time to do
so, even if a stone mentioned by Gimbutas with a pubic
triangle inscribed on it is not as old as the purported date of
500,000 BCE.
33
Chapter 4: Origins
reflected the stages of a woman’s life: maiden
(virgin), mother and wise old woman (hag or crone).
Each of these stages was given a different name, like
Hebe, Hera and Hecate, but these three were still seen
as one person.
Biological cycles are tied to the cosmos.
Women, and their divinity, lived their lives in
cycles. Years came and went with the same seasons.
The stars circled around the earth in their yearly
whirl. One generation went through the stages of life
and gave rise to another generation. Ancestors were
revered for the efforts they gave to establish those
now living. Day gave way to night, but night succumbed to day.
But the one cycle that must have convinced
women they were part of the grand cosmic scheme of
things was the mo(o)nthly cycle. The moon waxes to
fullness and wanes to darkness. A women’s
menstrual cycle matched that of the moon. She was
tied to the moon. The very idea of measurement and
math, that is, systematic repetition of space and time
units, started with the moon/menstruation cycle.
“Menstruation,” “measuring” and “moon” are all
cognates. Even “math” and “matrix” come from
“ma” the Indo-European word for “mother,” or
“mama,” which is also the word for breasts:
“mammaries.”
Before accurate knowledge of reproductive
systems was known, menstrual blood was thought to
be the material of new life. Before women
menstruated and after they stopped, they did not
reproduce. The magic, mysterious womb fluid was
blood. It was thought to coagulate or curd like that
other wondrous body fluid, milk. A pregnant woman
was putting her creative blood into a new life within
her. Parthenogenesis was the norm for females.
People often interpreted dying as being eaten.
We kill plants and animals when we eat them, so by
analogy, we are eaten by the God dess when we die.
The Goddess in her death aspect was often pictured
as a scavenging bird, a vulture. The Mother must eat
us or we cannot be assimilated into her body to be reborn. Even today the Happy Buddha of Eastern
religions grows fat eating the filth and negative
things of the world.
The close relationship of death and eating is also
found in the similarity of sex and eating. Lynn
Margulis, a well-known contemporary biologist,
points out that the earliest life forms, prototypes of
bacteria, developed the ability to use each other’s
genetic material. Not only could early life forms use
other life forms for building blocks, they could also
use their genetic material for blueprints. The
ingestion of genetic code material was done much in
the same way as other chemicals were ingested for
food. The ability to use code chemicals another has
produced is called “sex.”
Sex allowed new patterns to be inherited without
the novelty of random mutations which are generally
life-threatening. Radiation was one of the forces that
constantly threatened the code by mutating its
chemical bonds. Sexual exchange was,
(1) a hedge against loss of the code since it could
supply an intact code for one to use if its own code
was damaged. Sexual exchange also
(2) disseminated new information that allowed
new kinds of behavior without the risk of random
mutations.
Eventually, some members of these early life
forms developed specialized organs to gather the
chemicals from the ocean used for building and
repairing. They also developed special organs to
exchange the chemical codes. Organs involved in
code exchange must have differentiated early on into
two complementary types to facilitate the exchange.
This gave rise to gender or the male/female
difference.
The specialized organs of gender used for
genetic material exchange eventually developed the
ability to duplicate the chemical code. The duplicate
could be donated to give new life to others in a new
form of reproduction. The ingesting of others was
biologically specialized: The mouth to gather materials for building and repairing, and the female reproductive system to gather chemical codes from
another similar (male) individual which the female
sex cell assimilates as it is fertilized.
Major Biological Events in a Female’s Life Cycle
(1) Birth, (2) menarche (childbearing-ability–dispenser of blood creations), (3) menopause (keeper-ofthe-wise-blood) and (4) death with its cyclical return to birth (rebirth) gave rise to a female’s three stages of
life: maiden, mother and crone (or hag, the wise women) and then death before rebirth. Nature too had
three seasons: growth, reproduction and harvest, with a period of stasis or death before rebirth.
The male sex cell is sacrificed as it enters the
female since its cell wall is destroyed and its genetic
information is combined with the female. Sexual
exchange is risky. Even for the female there is risk:
Chapter 4: Origins
The female’s cell wall, that controls the cell’s
immediate environment and the stability required for
life, is opened. What comes in are not relatively
passive chemicals fully under the control of the cell,
but chemicals capable of directing the cell itself.
Luna
Early people knew the female sex organs created
life. They also knew mouths caused death. Birds kill
insects; cats kill mice. Eating was known to be
necessary to give the reproductive organs material to
work with. Death and life were two aspects of the
same cosmic cycle. Someone’s life was always taken
to make, remake or sustain another’s life. Even the
Goddess was thought to need renewal of her creative
material, mainly her blood. Death renewed her. Death
was not an unexplained mystery, nor punishment.
Humans, animals and plants were often deliberately
killed as sacrifices either to feed the Goddess (as a
thanksgiving), or as a propitiation of her anger (to
win her favor).
Gendered sex, like eating,
requires one to die for another to live.
The ancient sex roles of men and women were
determined by their basic body functions. Women
reproduced and nurtured others with their bodies.
Men were probably secondary to the basic social
structure, especially as agriculture and domestication
of animals became more important than foraging and
the killing skill of the hunt. But both men and women
could enjoy sex and eating. Often this enjoyment was
expressed as a sacred ritual.
Men were renewed by their sexual connection to
the Goddess embodied in women. Through women,
men could participate in the Goddess’ blessing,
literally, “being bled upon.” Even today the male
priest’s blessing retains the gesture of the hand
sprinkling the blood (or salt which was a blood
substitute because of the similar taste).
Pornography and rape can be seen, in part, as a
desperate, ritualistic attempt to keep in touch with the
Goddess, the female energy, when it becomes denied
and difficult to access, even though such brutal acts
are also ways for men to assert control of women.
Kinky sexual activities often reflect the need to
have her body fluids on or in one, despite the strong
menstrual blood taboos in force today or reactions of
disgust some have toward those who desire Annie
34
35
Chapter 4: Origins
Sprinkle4 to “baptize” them. Ingesting menstrual
blood (and also semen) was/is a communion ritual for
some Gnostic and Tantric groups.
The sacredness of eating flows from its ability to
sustain us as well as from the recognition that selfmaintenance destroys others. Also, in a philosophy
that saw all of reality as the body of the Goddess,
eating is eating the divine. Her flesh becomes our
flesh which is still her flesh. Her blood gives life to
our body, wisdom to our minds.
The priestesses of Charis, the Goddess of sexual
love, whose name is remembered in the eucharist
(communion), bade worshippers to drink and bath in
her lunar, womb blood, the original Holy Grail.
As personal afterlife became a goal, people had
to acquire the divine attribute of immortality. Only
gods and goddesses were immortal because they had
access to the blood of life or the fruits from the tree
of life. These fruits the Goddess freely gave to all
until the age of patriarchy enthroned its jealous and
competitive gods, the Goddess’ sons.
Symbolism during the Neolithic civilizations of
the Goddess was highly developed. Gimbutas thinks
the voluminous symbols inscribed on bone, clay and
stone artifacts was a fully developed script that will
someday be deciphered.5 Even if this is not the case,
the patterns and placements of the symbols make
many of them very obvious. This gives us an insight
into this civilization’s mind, into the concepts developed out of that culture which we still use. Some
examples:
three-fold division of the universe: sky, earth and
underworld.
The owl with its nocturnal habit and wise look
stood for the crone aspect of the Goddess, or the
death Goddess.
Female Reproductive Organs
The crescent stood for the moon which was
considered female because it waxed and waned with
the female’s menstrual cycle. The moon’s three
phases matched the basic female trinity: maiden,
mother, crone. The forth dark, new moon phase, was
the transition phase from death to new life.
Bovine Scull
The Pubic Triangle
The triangle was inscribed on the pubic region
of many female sculptures. It symbolized the
female’s reproductive powers, especially the power
of the cosmic female, the Goddess. It also stood for
the earliest trinity: maid, mother and crone, and the
4Annie Sprinkle, a famous porn star, would urinate on men
who volunteered to come up on stage with her. Perhaps it’s
only coincidence that Anna is one of the oldest names for
the Goddess, giving rise to “mama,” “mammaries,” and
“man,” (moon people).
5Compare Ogam, a script for writing many languages that
looks like tally marks, found on rocks in Europe and
America. See McGlone, Celtic America.
The bovine skull with horns is very similar in
shape to the uterus and fallopian tubes of the female
reproductive system, and so seems to have
symbolized female reproductive power, not
masculine bullishness, even though horns are phallic
symbols referring to the pleasure the organ can give.
Georgia O’Keeffe’s painting of a skull and flow-er,
“Summer Days” could be a modern example of such
symbolism.
The snake, with its ability to shed its skin and
burst forth with new life, stood for rebirth. Its
unhinged mouth is like a vulva able to ingest whole
individuals into its womblike body (or give birth
from it). The wiggling energy of the snake stood for
36
Chapter 4: Origins
process, flux or becoming as opposed to the static
existence of being. Spirals and wiggles are still
shorthand today for the snake’s energy.
Process is more basic than being.
This distinction between being and becoming,
between process (that is, coming into being or
creating) as opposed to the being that has become and
now is created, lies at the very core of all philosophical concepts and attempts to explain the nature
of reality.
The snake is also a phallus, created by the
Goddess and a source of pleasure for the female.
The tree with its roots in the underworld, its
trunk in the world and its arms in the sky symbolizes
the three-fold universe. Uni, a cognate with “yoni”
(vulva), was actually one of the names of the threein-one Goddess. The tree or cross is the axis of the
universe upon which the heavens were assumed to
turn. The tree or pole also supposedly held the
heavens and the earth apart after their initial
separation.
The Goddess was often seen as a bird because
the universe was thought to be a cosmic egg laid by
the cosmic Creatress. The egg-like structure was
devised to account for the stars circling around the
earth.
Flies and butterflies, were thought to be souls
in transition to a new life. Flies were seen leaving
decaying bodies. The Lord of Flies was the chief of
psychopomps, those who transport souls.
Embryos
The frog was symbolic of the fetus. In one of the
many developmental stages a human embryo/fetus
goes through, it looks very much like an amphibian.
Chapter Summary
Gender was a significant factor in humanity’s first attempts to understand the greatest dimensions of
existence. The female gender was considered to be the inclusive gender. Female anatomy and physiological
functions were the basis for the original metaphors to explain the universe, including how anything was
created, that is, born, and what happened to us at death, that is, return to the womb to be reborn in some
form.
Life was seen as a process where each step led to another, where the periodic cycles of women were also
the cycles of the cosmos: All reality was seen as one and interconnected. If this cosmic understanding is
philosophy, then religion (the word derives from the Latin religio, “to be tied to or into” the whole) carries
out the rituals that evoke our emotions and express our interconnectedness with the cosmos and, therefore,
the meaning of our life.
Suggested Reading: See the works cited in the Bibliography under the Prehistorical and Historical Social
Structure and Human Sexuality section, especially, Gimbutas, Grahn, Stone and Walker. Also see The Goddess
Remembered, a video by the Canadian Film Board.
**************************************************************************
Peace Signs
Chapter 4: Origins
UNIVERSITY OF MARY
[Handout as part of a faculty orientation ceremony]
LITANY OF MARY OF NAZARETH
R: Be our Guide
Mary, wellspring of peace
Model of strength
Model of gentleness
Model of trust
Model of courage
Model of patience
Model of risk
Model of openness
Model of perseverance
R: Pray for us
Mother of the liberator
Mother of the homeless
Mother of the dying
Mother of the nonviolent
Widowed mother
Unwed mother
Mother of a political prisoner
Mother of the condemned
Mother of the executed criminal
R: Empower us
Woman of mercy
Woman of faith
Woman of contemplation
Woman of vision
Woman of wisdom
Woman of grace and truth
Woman, pregnant with hope
Woman, centered in God
Closing Prayer:
Mary, Queen of Peace,
we entrust our lives to you.
Shelter us from war,
hatred and oppression.
Teach us to live in peace,
to educate ourselves for peace.
Inspire us to act justly,
to revere all God has made.
Root peace firmly in cur hearts,
and in our world. Amen.
37
38
Chapter 5
From Goddess to God
“[In a public place] O. J. grabbed Nicole’s crotch and said [to strangers]:
‘This is where babies come from, and this belongs to me.’” Denise Brown, 2/3/95.
“I don’t take her for granted. I do everything for her. I give her everything.” O. J. Simpson, 1995.
“She liked it.” Boxer Mike Tyson commenting on his rape victim, Desireé Washington.
“Look how selfish you are...If each [man] would have a woman, there would be no war. That’s why you
[women] are the source of war on the planet.” Vladimir Zhurinovski , Chechen nationalist, chiding writer,
Jennifer Gould, for not agreeing to have group sex with him and his body guards, 1995.
Sampson. ...Women, being the weaker vessels, are ever thrust to the wall; therefore I will push Montague’s men
from the wall, and thrust their maids to the wall.
Gregory. The quarrel is between our masters, and us their men.
Sam. ‘Tis all one; I will show myself a tyrant: when I have fought with the men, I will be civil with the maids: I
will cut off their heads.
Gre. The heads of the maids?
Sam. Aye, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads, take it in what sense thou wilt.
Gre. They must take it [in] sense that feel it.
Sam. Me they shall feel while I am able to stand....My naked weapon is out.”6
Romeo and Juliet, Act I, Scene I
*****************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) Social control and respect as residing in the gender that creates new life and sustains it.
(2) Meaning as founded on the biological urge to survive one’s death (be saved) by passing on one’s
genes.
–Approaches–
(1) Female-Based Theory:
(a) Body fluids: Menstrual blood is the stuff of new life and breast milk sustains it.
(b) Genes are passed on with every pregnancy.
(c) Males’ meaning is in
((1)) furthering female ends, especially reproduction, and
((2)) being sacrifices whose blood both fertilizes nature, by returning a portion of the
Creatress’ blood in thanks, and imitates the female bleeding (blessing).
(2) Emerging Male-Based Theory:
(a) Body fluids:
((1)) Semen is the stuff of new life in miniature.
((2)) Genital blood-letting is less an imitation of the female and more a sign of passage to
manhood and commitment to a misogynist or separatist worldview.
(b) Genes are only passed on if seed is placed in a unfertilized womb. A virgin womb assures a
male he is not cuckolded and raising another man’s child.
(c) Females find meaning by nurturing and nursing male creations.
6Some public school English textbooks that include Romeo and Juliet have had a footnote at this point saying,
“Shakespeare is punning; do you get it?” The more recent ones I’ve seen leave this whole sequence out and renumber the
lines leaving no indication of an ellipsis, fraudulently “sanitizing” Shakespeare by the expurgation.
39
Chapter 5: Goddess to God
–Evaluation–
Pro:
The female gender-based cosmology is one-sided, so a reaction can be expected.
Cons:
(1) Each gender-based theory implies lack of equal respect for half the population.
(2) Patriarchy tends to set up groups of ins and outs to polarize society since a male’s biological
success is increased by excluding other males from females and subordinating females so they
can’t control when they become pregnant.
******************************************************************************
I
f the female in the guise of the Goddess was the
beginning and the end, the whole of reality, what
was left for the male? The human male is
somewhat more specialized for combat, though
probably not to protect females. Females, except
those who have been co-opted by the myths of male
dominator societies, can generally defend themselves
and others; consider the legendary ferocity of a
mother defending her young.
Biologists suggest the male is designed to
compete with other males for access to females. So,
where females tend to further their needs by
cooperation and inclusion, males tend to see the
world competitively, in terms of ins and outs, right
down to the biology of reproduction.
Biologically, males can further their genes:
(1) by gaining access to females and preventing
other males’ access, or
(2) by having their access be more successful
than other males. Access can be more successful if
one has:
(a) more frequent access,
(b) more sperm, or
(c) deposition of sperm in a more advantageous position.
In all cases the female is successfully
impregnated, even though some kinds of male genes
may make her children more successful than others,
since if her off spring die before reproducing, her
genes will still fail to be passed on.
Access to the female originally depended on the
grace of the female. Rape, as in the rest of the animal
world, was likely rare. The female chose her consorts
and dismissed them as she wished.
Rape as a means of access to a female would
have been largely unnecessary anyway since females
must have generally sought and enjoyed sexual
experience, so the deprivation of sexual experience or
a variety of such experiences for men would have
been far more unusual than is the case in patriarchy.
Judy Grahn puts forth a theory in Blood, Bread
and Roses that one reason for humans to become
conscious of the division into ins-and-outs groups
within their own species may have came from the
danger posed to menstruating females by predators
attracted to blood. The females, to save themselves
and lessen danger to the tribe, climbed trees or
otherwise isolated themselves (or were forced) from
the group, forming a separate group.
The behaviors involving menstruating females
became ritualized. The woman’s power to affect the
lives of others was projected by sympathetic magic
and empirical observations (for example, that the
moon’s cycle was synchronized with the female’s )
onto the world around her. The creative power of
blood, its danger and its tie to the cycles of the
universe at large, made menstruation the central
blood rite and first explanatory mind-set. The menstruating female was seen as the conduit of spiritual
powers into the physical world. She was the first
shaman, the first holy person who could unleash both
positive and destructive powers.
The Goddess’ priestesses combined what we
today call the sacred and the profane, the holy
(wholesome) and the prostituted. In an article in
Penthouse 1 a priestess/prostitute restates this
controversial theme:
To guide another person to orgasm, to hold and caress,
to provide companionship and initiation to new forms
of sex, to embody the divine and embrace the
seeker––these are healing and holy acts.…We show
the face of the Goddess in a culture that has tried for
millennia to break and deny Her....Were the attack on
us over, we could begin to heal the whole world. After
7,000 years of oppression, I declare this the time to
bring back our temple.
Merlin Stone (When God Was a Woman, 211)
points out the Hebrew word zonah is translated both
as “prostitute” and “prophetess,” meaning the one
with the power to reveal the Goddess.
But only females had this power, the power of
the blessing (bleeding on). Young females could
anticipate it, old females had experienced it. It was
the defining characteristic of a female’s mid-life,
even more than giving birth.
The great chasm between male and female was
the menstrual mind-set. Men had to be brought into
the scheme of explanation. Men had to bleed and
have blood rites. The answer came in terms of genital
and other bodily mutilations, and in the blood-letting
rituals of the “kill” both in the hunt and in war and
more symbolically in sports.
7 Fall 1994 , “Sacred Prostitute.”
40
The comfort and security all have felt at the
breast evokes longings of a better, more peaceful life
when we are threatened or weary of the destruction
brought by competition. The pleasure of sex gives
rise to metaphors of bliss that the religious mystic
seeks as a perpetual state of existence.
Still, the ancient male understood his existence in
female metaphors. He was still seen as a means to
female pleasure and a supplemental helper of her
divine mission of creating and recreating life. A male
had to find his purpose for existence in his
relationships to the female. Even the pleasure and
security of a woman’s body, suckling her breast,
would come to signal to the male mind, his
dependence on the female, a dependence which, in
the new patriarchal social order coming into
existence, could be seen as unmanly weakness. His
anxiety in this vulnerable position likely underlay his
need to see sexual intimacy, too often, as
synonymous with male domination.
Social power for the Neolithic male came from
his relationship with a female. A king originally
acquired power because he was a queen’s consort.
But with the domestication of animals and women’s
awareness of her cycle in numerical terms, came the
knowledge that sex was necessary for reproduction.
What the connection was, must have been vague at
first. Many thought, perhaps, the male did something
that awakened the natural parthenogenic process.
Philosophies have struggled with this issue for
thousands of years. Only in the mid-nineteenth
century was the biology fully understood.
As his awareness of the male role in reproduction
became more obvious, his role in the theories
developed to explain the meaning of life were given
more prominence. The female explanatory metaphors
(collectively known as the Goddess) were modified
to accommodate male metaphors so gods became
more important.
The Goddess created, that is, gave birth to the
gods. This was a natural conclusion since the
Goddess was believed to create everything.
Eventually, some people concluded there have
always been two divine realities, one of each gender.
The male child (god) and his (divine) mother is a
pervasive theme in many religions, including
Christianity, yet today. Eventually, the male (in later
myths) becomes the mother’s mate. In this rather
equalitarian mythical state they conceive the universe. One of the realities they create is other
children, one of which will grow up to challenge and
eventually usurp the females’ male consort or king
and take his place. The old king is dead, killed by his
“son” who really is the old king reborn in new form.
The son is in turn killed (after he becomes a
man) by his father reborn as a son. This is the
fundamental menstrual cyclical pattern of reality but
now with a large dose of male competitiveness.
Queen matriarchs, seen as incarnations of the
Goddess, embodied both the civil lawgiver and the
spiritual priestess (as the collective ritual
consciousness of the tribe). She could take a male for
pleasure and breeding for a season or two. When she
tired of him, she could have him eliminated by her
new interest. The new king had to prove his
worthiness by his ability to eliminate the old king.
This turnover eventually became ritualized. Kings
knew to be loved by the queen meant certain death.
The privilege and consequence of being the mate of
the Goddess’ earthly representative was to be consumed by that love, to be offered up as a blood sacrifice to placate the spirits by returning to them, in
thanks, part of what the spirits had so generously
given to humanity.
As gruesome as it may seem to us, it is likely
many men accepted death for the chance to make
love to the Goddess’ representatives, the queen and
the queen’s priestesses. They believed they would
become gods immediately upon death because they
had become divine through their sexual relationships
with the Goddess’ human incarnations.
The sacrificial males were suspended on poles in
the fields. The divine’s son/consorts were often
speared, chopped to pieces and spread on the land.
Their flesh and blood were thought necessary to
made the ground fertile. In death, these men become
divine. Eating their flesh and drinking their blood assured others of immortality also, the main attribute
that gods and goddesses had that people didn’t. We
become what we eat and drink.
But as the day grew near for a king to give up his
life to fructify the land and make room for a new
king, many must have had second thoughts. One way
for a king to save his life would be to find a substitute
to die for him. This substitute became known as a
“sacred king. ” For a king to satisfy his death ritual
by finding another to take his place suggests the
queen must have been willing to keep him as her
mate a while longer or that the power of the king to
act independently of the queen’s wishes was
increasing.
The sacrifice of the queen’s consort was perhaps
thought necessary to preserve the sanctity of the
queen. Later, removal of his genitals and/or the
substitution of sacrificial animals may have been
thought sufficient. Even animal sacrifice started
disappearing as vegetation metaphors became ritually
more important.
The story of Cain, who offered vegetation (that
God rejected) rather than an animal as a sacrifice as
did Abel, tells us the Hebrews were not yet willing to
give up animal sacrifices. However, Abraham’s
substitute of a lamb for his son’s sacrifice likely tells
us that human sacrifice was being reconsidered at
that earlier time.
Many men choose to become eunuchs to be more
like women, a practice popular in some religions well
into the Middle Ages, even in Christian sects. Genital
mutilation for religious or cultural purposes is still a
41
very common practice, even though many deny our
forms of genital cutting are mutilations.
The majority of American male babies have, for
the last fifty years, the most innervated part of their
genitals cut off, the prepuce, a practice started in the
late nineteenth century to try and stop masturbation.
The myth that circumcision is for medical reasons is
our way of rationalizing this behavior since other
“reasons” given in other times, like “God told us to
do it” or pleasure is bad, are not widely accepted in
our more secular world.
Sometime around 2000 BCE mythologies begin
to reflect the increasing male independence and
dominance. The mother Goddess is killed: for
example, Tiamat in Sumerian/Babylonian myth is
used by the male god Marduk to make the universe.
Her tears become rivers, her body the earth.
Eventually, she is nearly written off all together
as the male god needs her only as a passive and
chaotic substratum or genderless boundless stuff (the
basic cosmic life fluid) on which to impose his order,
as the Hebrew tradition puts it in Genesis or the
Milesians suggest (see Chapter 6). Later, with the
male gods’ ability, supposedly, to create ex nihilo
(make something out of nothing) the Goddess is gone
completely, and all possibility of logically understanding process, change and creating is given up.
The transition from the female birthing-creator to
the male ex nihilo creator took thousands of years and
reflects not only the transition from a female-centered
culture to a male-centered one, but also the change
from creating by giving birth to creating by
manipulating our physical surroundings.
The stories, relating how a goddess (and later
gods) created by molding clay, often retain the tie to
menstruation and birth creating since the clay is
reddened or bloodied. For example, the Assyrians say
Eve, that is, Mother-Womb, Creatress of Destiny,
made humans out of clay and gave them life with her
blood. Blood was thought to be the essence of life.
“Adam” means “[blood] reddened earth.”
Males, after thousands of years, had found the
conceptual basis to turn their fate around, but at the
expense of the female. The male becomes the true
creator. The sperm is the source of new life. The
female becomes a passive field wherein a male plants
his seed when he plows her furrow; she is a nursemaid, man’s helpmate, plaything and slave. She
incubates the life placed in her body which is
considered sterile and passive without man’s creation. Even the moon milk of the milky way becomes
the god’s cosmic ejaculate, though the asceticism of
the new belief systems generally found it easier to
retain the female imagery than refer to the gods’ masturbatory issue. The faith of patriarchy was being
born.
Patriarchal gods reflect the male’s dominant
status. Not only do gods dominate goddesses, but
gods dominate other gods. Even tually, the god of a
particular group of male gender-worshipers claims to
be the only God for the group (the god being jealous
of all others) and eventually for everyone else. This is
one factor in the development of monotheism, and
particularly one strident form known as classical
theism. Logical reasons for another form of
monotheism will be discussed later along with the
concept of “unsurpassability.”
The question of the unity of divinities is again
answered by claiming there is only one, only now the
gender is male and the “unity” is usually “up there”
apart from the world needing unification. But gender
is an unstable attribute for cosmic unity. It either
requires its opposite, and so destroys the unity, or
makes one gender subordinate to the other.
Patriarchy requires a man know who his
offspring are. 8 His name, wealth and social status
must be passed down to his sons. Since a man must
still employ a womb to nurture his creation, the only
way for a man to know for sure whether the child in
the womb is his is to make certain no other male has
planted seed in “his” womb.
Womb control
drives every factor of patriarchal ethics.
Virginity, not in the old sense of a strong, viral
and independent woman, but in the pre sent sense of
an unopened vagina, is valued as assurance that the
womb will nurture only its owner’s creations.
Love, Honor and Obey.
Marriage, meaning a woman pledges her womb
only to the man who owns her, becomes an important
institution, so extra-marital sexual experience
becomes highly censured, at least for women. As
stated in Deuteronomy:
If a new bride is not a virgin...they shall bring the
damsel to the door of her father’s house and the men
of the city shall stone her with stones that she die.
Deut. 22:21.
Patriarchal societies yet today try to control female
virginity and interest in sex for pleasure. The radical
patriarch believes female sexual experience should be
restricted to reproduction, the nurturing of a male
creation. Sex for pleasure, masturbation, oral sex, sex
with anyone else but her master, are all evil.
8Most of us are surprised to learn people can live together
without sexual possessiveness and monogamy. Both males
and females of the Amazon hunter-gatherer tribe, the Arara,
have multiple sex partners, even during one night. Not
knowing who has fathered the children give all men a sense
of responsibility for all children. Those who are possessive
and selfish are ostracized and cannot survive.
42
One extreme way to control frightening and
unwanted female sexuality, a way that affects 100
million women alive today (though practiced for
thousands of years), is amputation of a young girl’s
clitoris, and often her inner labia as well, to remove
the pleasure-producing tissue, before stitching her up
to make intercourse impossible until cut open again.
Men in these societies are making sure that genital
mutilation is not only a male’s experience.9 Evidence
that female sexuality was considered frightening is
found expressed by many of the most revered of
patriarchs. Consider St. John Chrysostum (345-407):
“Among all savage beasts none is found so harmful
as woman.”
The subordination of women has its effect on
men also. Patriarchy is not only male gender against
female; it is also male against subordinate male.
Dominant males only tolerate other males in so far as
they are obedient. The motivation in patriarchal
religions is usually fear. God loves those who do as
he says. He rewards those who do and punishes those
who don’t. Egoism, ultimate concern for oneself in
the long run, underlies all motivation.
In patriarchy, genital mutilation (for example,
male circumcision) is practiced, not to imitate the
female, but as an initiation sacrifice into the dominant
males’ world. It is a sign that one entrusts himself or
his son to the powers that be. It is the ultimate male
exposure, causing deep feelings of vulnerability. It is
a sign one is subordinate to those who can ask for
such a sacrifice. Many believe it is also one way for
the old males to strike back at the growing virility of
their upstart rivals.
The competition between males is reflected in
their cosmic schemes. There is always one place for
those who have obeyed and another place for those
who haven’t. Cosmic unity can’t reside in the
patriarchal God or his heaven since there is reality
outside this God. If all must be in God, then the motivation based in the fear of being left out disappears
and the ability to control others by fear is lost.
Patriarchy uses the first breeding strategy noted
earlier: Gaining access to a female (by removing her
ability to reject the male) and holding her off limits to
other males by physical or moral force. The more
females a male controls, the more offspring he can
have. Not only does the monopoly of females by
dominant males leave many males without access to
a female, but females now must become competitive
with other females to win the favor of dominant
males even when they are part of his harem.
9Sad to say this is not just an activity found in African and
other foreign countries. Clitoridectomies in the U.S. was
one way tried to control women’s sexuality in the
nineteenth century. Fortunately, it did not catch on the way
male circumcision did. There is a least one Dakota woman
of Scandinavian descent who has lived her fifty years since
she was three years old sexually and psychologically
maimed by this operation because her parents and
physicians were trying to stop her from masturbating.
Females who are not controlled by
a father, spouse or son are suspect.
Margulis suggests that hominoids have not
always functioned this way, since the relatively large
size of human sex organs suggests a strategy less like
the baboon model of male domination and more like
the chimpanzee model of promiscuous sexuality.
Many works that examine the civilization of the
Goddess paint the period as cooperative with little
war. Evidence does seem to support a much less
contentious time. But on the steppes of southern
Russia about 4000 B C E , a group arose who
domesticated the horse and devised spears and
daggers (first of hardened copper, but eventually of
iron) for use against other humans. The ancient
Mideast world had many memories of warriors from
north of the Caspian and Black Seas. They were
called Amazons; they were, likely, originally a matriarchal society, as all early tribes seem to be. They
were among the first Indo-Europeans.
Perhaps, before more evidence is in, one can
conjecture that the ability to dominate others with
new, more powerful weapons, along with the
development of rapid transportation provided by the
horse, diminished the value of (h)earth and home and
enhanced the warrior ethic which valued mobility to
facilitate plundering, dominating and killing. This
was activity in which men could eventually excel, not
having to get pregnant and care for children. In any
case, the militant mentality and social structures of
these proto-Indo-Europeans that developed after 5000
BCE north of the Caspian and Black Sees came to
dominate most of Europe, North Africa, the Mideast
and India in the two to three thousand years from
4000 to 1000 BCE.
By 2000 B C E this movement was forcibly
converting goddess-worshipping cultures to worship
of male gods. The dominators claim to rule by the
“mandate of Heaven,” as the Chinese say. They also
claimed the right to rule because they were made in
the image of the divine. The use of force continued
for thousands of years, up to the 500 years of the
witch-burning craze in the late Medieval and
Renaissance periods and even up to the present day.
It surfaces in sex-discrimination, homophobia and
racism. The pain sustained by those subordinated and
the sacrifices required of them were supposedly
justified by the protection the dominators provide
against other competing dominators.
Women’s place was no longer her three-fold role
of independent maiden, strong and nurturing mother
and wise (and sometimes fearful) old women. She
existed to serve men and his institutions, including
his male divinities and their priesthoods. But the old
tradition is not gone, it is trivialized: The Goddess in
her many forms has become transformed into saints,
little people, fairies and Halloween witches.
43
The myth that God sanctions any action, including exterminating those who are not believers, if
they will not “submit” (the meaning of “Moslem”),
for their own good, of course, has bathed the world in
more blood than the Goddess could have ever
imagined.
Yet, it is sentimental to long for a return to
Goddess worship. Men were not equal to women, and
discrimination may have given rise to the anxiety and
anger that may have produced the backlash the world
has lived with for 5000 years.
After examining more closely the logic of
change and unity, Chapters 15-17 will look at
patriarchal systems developed in the Modest in the
first millennium BCE that have had a major influence
on our present philosophies, religions and social
orders. Finally, the philosophical basis for a
genderless, but personal, cosmic unity will be
examined. The conclusion will be that only such a
view is logical, and only such a view can underlie an
equalitarian ethic.
Chapter Summary
Evidence is accumulating that the first philosophies or worldviews, were based on the incorrect belief
that the female’s physiology was self-sufficient in reproductive creativity. These philosophies focused on
the female’s natural flow of her sacred body fluids: Blood, milk and the salt water we first developed
within, the amniotic fluid. Men were drafted or volunteered to be mutilated and sacrificed as one way to
find their purpose within such a world view.
A reaction to this “goddess” tradition began in the late Neolithic, and by the second millennium BCE was
well underway. Perhaps as men discovered their essential role in reproduction, they over-emphasized it,
seeing women as incubators only. Religions developed that worshipped male gods and saviors wherein
blood-letting was still important. Male gods and his sons were worshipped and sacrificed. Those who were
made in the image of male gods with their aggressive behavior, became revered, reversing the view that
women were to be revered because they were created in the image of the tripartite divine. Controlling
women, more particularly their wombs, is a paramount motivation in cultures where there’s a strong need
to know whose sons are whose.
Suggested Reading: Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy. Teubal, Sarah The Priestess; Stone, When God
Was a Woman; Gallenkamp, Maya; Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans; Wolkstein, Inanna: Queen of
Heaven and Earth; Gardner, Gilgamesh.
*************************************************************************
Male Student’s Response to Goddess Worldview
“It’s very hard to believe there are women who truly believe in the Goddess as the creator. It is one thing
to have thoughts [of] a time when woman was worshipped as the ‘one most powerful,’ but it’s another
thing to actually voice your thoughts and beliefs to others. Coming from a background of strong
Christianity, it’s difficult to believe any other belief. However, seeing the paintings and sculptures and
[listening to] what these women are talking about can be very unsettling to my thoughts and beliefs.”
Student response to the videos, The Goddess Remembered and The Burning Times and discussions of
prepatriarchal times.
44
Female Student’s Response to Goddess Worldview
“Many times I have wondered why God is always referred to as ‘he,’ and my questioning has often been
thwarted with statements like, ‘It’s just a word. We need to call him something!’ No matter how non-sacred
it may seem, many people look for the higher power that makes the most sense or works the best in their
lives. I think that the Goddess is a higher power that many people have overlooked due to the social
programming calling for a male deity. I also think that for many people like myself, who are searching for
that ‘spirituality’ that will fulfill some emptiness, the Goddess seems to occupy certain vacancies that the
religion of God has left open.
“The Goddess and her aura also diminish certain feelings of insignificance or unworthiness that this
patriarchal society has, purposefully or not, brought to women in general. As I viewed the video in class,
the reverent way in which woman and her cycles was discussed made me feel proud and grateful for having
the chance to experience it all.
“In grade school when I first learned what menstruation was and what it would mean for me when it
happened, I celebrated the fact that it was approaching. I researched it at the library and would spend many
recesses on the playground instructing my friends on what was going to soon happen to us, first making
sure I was correct in all my terminology. In sixth grade, when my friend got her first period, I made her a
card and a package with feminine products and I called it her ‘Welcome to Womanhood’ present.
“I can’t remember how it happened, but soon thereafter menstruation (and sometimes being a girl in
general) was looked upon with disgust both by my family and others. I eventually began to dislike the
occurrence and dreaded the bleeding time, as well. It wasn’t until I saw this video, The Goddess
Remembered , that I realized I had forgotten how I had initially treated the event with respect. I had
forgotten the kinship we felt on the playground as we excitedly awaited menarche and how worshipful we
girls were of the experience when it happened.
“It scares me to think of how in just a few short years I lost the excitement I initially had (even as such a
young girl) for being a woman. I’m not sure where I lost it or why, but I am so grateful that it is returning. I
was jealous as I watched the women at the table in the video communing with each other. Each woman
seemed so powerful and wise and strong. I think just as I had lost reverence for the powers I possessed just
by being a woman, I lacked other strengths; I have also lost a great deal of self-respect.
“I wish I could remember how and why my enthusiasm regarding womanhood was crushed. Sometimes I
blame the separate rules and treatment given to my brother and me. Call it greed, but I never understood
why just because I was a girl, I could only eat a half a donut, whereas my brother could eat one or two
whole donuts. Why could my brother burp out loud and enjoy laughter and encouragement from my dad?
Whenever I tried it, I was called a pig. I can only deduce that eventually, I realized that being a girl wasn’t
fun because there were too many restrictions and laws for behavior.
“The spirituality that many people find in the Goddess seems exciting and contagious. Whenever I have
been in church or when I have tried praying to God, I have felt shameful and fearful. When thinking of the
Goddess, a renewed sense of self is apparent. I am able to find spirituality and calm from within instead of
a tense feeling of worry.” Student response to the videos, The Goddess Remembered and The Burning
Times and discussions of prepatriarchal times.
The Hunt
My ambiguous wait broken by
A flurry of leaves
Rushing of brush
Bunching of power bound by grace
A leaping race to clear the stream––
My shot: neck-breaking,
A crumpling heap of meat, kicking,
My rushing, thumping joy, dying,
Slicing steel sharp to the guts,
My hand plunged deep in blood
Wrenching out my heart
And my mind deep in death.
45
46
PART III
Change and
Permanence
The Many Are One:
The One Is Many
–––––
Pythagoreans:
Mathematics and Salvation
–––––
Heraclitus (and Alice):
Logos in the Flux and the Logic of Change
–––––
Parmenides:
The Logic of Being
–––––
Pluralists: Materialism:
Atoms, Locomotion, Freedom and Determinism
–––––
Buddhistic or Platonic Series
versus Monadic Substance
–––––
Whitehead:
Moments of Growth
–––––
Summary of the Problem of Change
47
Chapter 6
The Many Are One
The One Is Many
“And this [first principle] is eternal and does not grow old, and it surrounds all the worlds.”
Hipparchus, Phil. 6. Dox. 559, describing Anaximander’s Boundless Stuff.
“And from what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed; for they
suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of time,
as he [Anaximander] says in somewhat poetical language.” Simplicius, Phys. 6 r, ca. 500 CE .
******************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) Seeking what all things have in common; more specifically, seeking what stuff the four elements,
earth, water, air and fire, are made of.
(2) Seeking to explain how changes occur and what underlies differences.
–Approaches–
(1) Reality is one stuff (one cosmic energy soup) that takes on different forms.
(a) Thales: All is water.
(b) Anaximander: All is Boundless Stuff. Vortices set up centrifugal tensions that separate out
opposites.
(c) Anaximenes: All is air. More or less air (quantity) explains everything (quality).
(2) All changes have one explanation.
(a) Determinism: Changes occur blindly (and necessarily as they do?) without any conscious agent
choosing to bring them about.
(b) Reductionism: All qualitative differences are merely differences of quantity; or the whole is
not more than the sum of “its” parts.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) The discovery that universal knowledge is necessary in order to understand reality.
(2) Natural, lawful changes are not up to arbitrary choices by any one agent.
(3) The attempt to explain comic unity focused the need to find a logical way to express cosmic
wholeness.
Con:
(1) A single stuff cannot be a unity throughout changes. Either another theory must be found, or one
must deny that change and (successive) diversity is real.
(2) No whole is meaningful if it is not more than the sum of the parts it contains.
(3) The bias against the reality of change has an ethical side: Stability is not only seen as more real, but
better than a changing reality.
******************************************************************************
T
raditionally, courses in Western philosophy
have started with Thales, one of three men,
called Milesians, who discussed the nature of
the universe in the town of Miletus in western Asia
Minor, one of many Greek port cities around the
Aegean Sea. The questions they asked and much in
the answers they gave had been around for millennia.
Their answers did differ somewhat from the earlier,
more goddess-oriented attempts, however, since they
did not couch their philosophies in the personalistic
48
Chapter 6: Milesians
terms used to describe the acts of the gods and
goddesses. Perhaps this is one reason their names and
theories survived in the increasingly patriarchal
millennia ever since.
Philosophy is distinguished by the generality of
its questions: What is everything like? What is the
stuff that everything is made from? What is the unity
that holds all the many things together? What does
everything have in common? Where did everything
come from? These questions had been asked and answered within the philosophical assumptions of the
Goddess-oriented civilizations.
The Great Goddess was the whole universe. She
was one reality with three parts or aspects which
reflected the threefold division of a woman’s life:
maiden, mother and crone. Cosmologically, there
were also three realms:
(1) The world we live in, called Mitgard (middle
yard or home) according to Scandinavian tradition
(see illustration of Yggdrasil, Chapter 12). There was
also
(2) the sky above or heaven, and
(3) the underworld below. The tree symbolized
the three regions with its roots, trunk and branches.
The three regions of the universe were three-in-one.
One name for the Goddess was Uni, Three-in-One.
The body of the Goddess was the cosmos. Whether
this is pantheism or panentheism was never clearly
distinguished. Later chapters will clarify this important distinction.
All reality came from the womb of the Great
Female Divinity. Her womb flowed with blood. From
the flow of this flow-er we all are created. Early
theories were parthenogenic: She needed no help
from man. Her menstrual fluid coagulated, like her
curdled milk, to form the physical reality we see.
Later theories, influenced by the knowledge that in
some way a male was required to give birth, said
male fire in the form of lightening was quenched in
the female water to make blood, the fluid of creation.
Another theory suggested a man stirred up the latent
reproductive energy of the female.
The ancient world’s cosmologies had consolidated the many things found in the universe into four
kinds of things or elements: earth, water, air and fire.
During the Neolithic, all elements were parts of the
Goddess, even males, since they were created by her.
As the male contribution to creation became vaguely
recognized and men gained more social power, the
elements took on different genders as did other aspects of reality. Genderizing, even of those things
around us that don’t have biological gender, should
be expected when the very foundation of reality is
gendered.
Early gender assignments gave to the female the
qualities of red and active, and to the male white and
passive. These divisions follow the menstrual blood
and semen distinction and the earliest understanding
of women as creators by giving birth. The symbolism
of the red berries of holly and the white berries of
mistletoe still hark back to this sexual distinction.
The dark earth grows and gives birth. Water is
the primal ocean, the ambiotic fluid of the womb,
from which we all have come. Dark and wet is
female. This left light and dry, that is, fire and air, as
male. Eventually, even water was masculinized, but
the dirt of the ground and the darkness of the ground
and underground have remained female or become a
demonized male. All patriarchal religions worship
some form of a light/sun god.
T
hales had learned the ability to predict some
heavenly events, probably from the Egyptians.
He is said to have predicted the eclipse of May
28, 585 BCE . The astronomical knowledge to make
these predictions was acquired over thousands of
years of watching the moon. The moon represented
the threefold God dess, dispenser of the water/blood
of life in women’s monthly cycle. Thales is best
known for saying everything in the universe is water.
He is expressing the ancient belief that all reality
forms from the primordial female fluid of the All-Inclusive Female. This water, the earliest myths say,
had to be separated into the waters above and the
waters below in the first act of creation and, then, be
held apart with a pole, tree or cross: the celestial axis.
We can also imagine Thales knew water could
become hard and earthlike, that is, frozen, and “airy”
when it evaporates. Fire would be harder to explain,
since water quenched fire, though in so doing, water
turned to blood according to the bi-gendered theory
of elements, long before water was said to be turned
into wine (the universal blood symbol) by Jesus as
the Christ. Thales makes the re-assertion that
everything is really water without reference to the
Goddess as far as we know. His answer seems to
imply the stuff of reality is not personal, nor
conscious.
Neither do we know for sure whether Thales’
answer is numerically monistic or pluralistic. Is there
one water or many waters? He does seem to say
water is the unavoidable stuff of reality. Water is.
Water is, to be redundant, being. But water becomes
or comes to be the other elements. So, water is a
reality that is, but also one that changes into other
“less real” realities. Is water no longer water when it
becomes a tree? Are elements other than water not really real? Can an actual, concrete material or stuff be
what it is and change? (These questions will be
examined later, Chapter 9.)
A
naximander, born about 611 BCE, another of
the Milesians, did not pick one of the four
particular elements to explain the others.
Particulars, like gender, are always restricted to be
this and not that. A particular is set off from others or
“limited” as the ancient Greeks would say. The
reality from which all particulars are made and into
which they all dissolve again, must itself be nonpar-
49
ticular. It must be the Unlimited, the “Unnamable,”
the Indeterminate, or the Unbounded. He also calls it
divine, but his divine is not conscious nor personal.
Anaximander’s expression echoes how the Great
Goddess was “defined” before she created anything
particular, namely, by saying what the divine is not.
Yet, as we will see time and time again, trying to
describe something by saying we cannot say anything
positive about it, is always a strange logical construction. (See Unsurpassable in Glossary.)
Though he says Reality is unbounded, that is, has
no particular description, he still assumes the
Unbounded has certain unavoidable characteristics. It
seems to be one, not many. It is capable of taking on
limitations and becoming particulars. It is capable of
whirling since the explanation for particulars is the
separating pressure set up when vortices form in the
Unbounded causing opposites to separate out like
chemicals in a centrifuge.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason (see Chapter
2) asserts there must be a reason why particular
things exist at all. He pro vides the Vortex as the
reason. It sets up a tension that separates opposites
from each other.
An explanation must also be given for why just
the particular things that have come to be, have done
so. Who desired them or designed them?
Anaximander does not appeal to any personal agent.
He appeals to an innate, inherent natural law or logos.
This law or order is not imposed from without. It is
necessary, unavoidable and immanent . Blind
necessity is the sufficient reason.
Belief in blind determinism as a true metaphysical principle is now used to explain why things
are as they are rather than saying a goddess or god (or
anyone) chose things to be as they are. This
opposition in the ancient world between choice and
necessity was known as Zeus versus the Vortex.
Today it is often referred to as Religion versus
Science.
The contemporary attempt to find explanations in
terms of the Grand Unified Theory or Theories of
Everything which say the universe began in the
undifferentiated energy soup of the Big Bang, are
very similar to Anaximander’s approach. Physicists
also say every particular form of energy/particle
which evolved out of the primeval matter/energy
soup has an opposite form, that is, antimatter/energy.
Even when the Cosmic Mother is ignored or
denied, the conservatism of language betrays the
earlier explanations: “matter” comes from an IndoEuropean root that gave us m a t e r and meter,
“mother” and “measurement.”
A
naximenes, another Milesian, marks the
transition to a more patriarchal view. He
asserts air is the stuff from which all reality is
made. Air, with fire, were considered masculine by
the middle of the first millennium BCE as they still
are in astrology. By picking a particular to explain
other particulars, he seems to be retreating from the
more general position of Anaximander.
Anaximenes’ contribution to philosophy lies in
his reduction of the many opposites found in
Anaximander’s theory: light-dark; hot-cold, and so
on. He sought more coherence by suggesting one law
can explain all the differences experienced, namely,
the Principle of Rarefaction and Condensation, that
is, more or less air. The multiplicity of things experienced, not only are made of one stuff, but change
according to one pattern or law, what scientists today
would call The Theory of Everything. Anaximenes
looks for one principle, but he really has two:
(1) Air, to satisfy the meaning of “principle” as
the stuff reality is composed of, and
(2) Condensation and Rarefaction, to satisfy the
other meaning of ”princi ple” as the pattern, function
or law, that explains the changes the first principle
undergoes.
Anaximenes was one of the first to express the
Principle of Reductionism. The reductionist thesis
which has become nearly an unquestioned dogma of
scientific method, maintains an explanation is only
successful when one has reduced the multiplicity of
differences of complex forms of actuality to the stuff
and behavior of simpler forms.
Reductionism can be expressed in at least two
ways:
(1) All differences of quality are differences of
quantity, and
(2) a whole is reducible to its parts without loss,
that is, a whole is not greater than the sum of its
parts.
Even today scientists assume the only difference
in the quality of one color from another is the length,
or quantitative difference, of the wave.
Reductionism denies the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts.
The psychologist who asserts the complete
explanation of higher animal behavior is a function of
cell physiology, the chemist who reduces actuality to
one hundred odd elements, and the physicist who
reduces them further to one something like “quarks”
(though there are still six kinds of these), are all in
the shadow of the thinkers from Miletus about six
hundred years after Troy to the north was sacked.
What can be said about the Milesian assumptions
lying behind their questions and answers? Their
positions assume:
(1) That behind the multiplicity of our experiences lies something that does not change,
or if it does, it always returns to what it
began with: water, boundless stuff or air.
Change is not quite so real as the
changeless.
50
(2) That it makes sense to reduce the multiplicity
of concrete reality to one concrete stuff,
either one kind of stuff or one thing
numerically, that is, monism of kind or
number. Monism is more real than
pluralism.
(3) That explanations in terms of blind necessity
make more sense than appeal to decisions.
Mechanistic or cybernetic metaphors are
truer than those appealing to purpose and
freedom. Purpose is less real than Blind
Law. Freedom is less real than
determinism.
(4) That the world of changing experience is not
so real as the changeless world of thought.
What the mind determines to be logically
necessary is more real than sense
experience. The degrees of reality are
discoverable by thinking, not sense
experience. The real world is the unseen
“spirit” world; the experienced world is a
world of appearance or reflection of the
unseen. Reality’s relation to appearance
must now be explained, though it seldom is.
(5) That related to the degrees of reality, are
degrees of goodness. What is changeless is
better than what changes (or, historically,
will soon be thought to be so).
With the rise of static and linear descriptions of
reality, the cyclical menstrual metaphors that first
explained reality, fade. But many problems remain.
Traditional Western philosophy began with the
Milesians saying in effect that the female’s life fluids
can be the stuff of reality without the female. With
Anaximander’s assertion that the stuff of reality was
beyond description, philosophy took another step
away from the familiar female metaphors.
Finally, with Anaximenes’ formulation that the
male-gendered, dry air is the only stuff of reality, the
Milesians’ deprecation of the warm, wet, dark wombworld from which we came and to which we return is
complete. Soon this underworld will come to be a
place of fear and punishment for one’s failure to
believe or obey those who proclaim the male gender
supreme.
Chapter Summary
The drive to find one principle of explanation is valid. The assumption there must be numerically One
Being or Stuff of which all reality is composed is a major mistake. The pluralists will try to overcome this
mistake by saying there are many stuffs, for example, many souls or atoms. But their belief that each of the
many things in reality can remain the same actuality as it moves or alters, is undoubtedly philosophy’s
second biggest mistake. These mistakes will be examined in the next chapters.
We are still being negatively affected by the assumptions contained in the Milesians’ proposals for what
reality is like, namely, (1) that change is not real, or not so real as what does not change, (2) that one stuff is
more real than many, (3) that blind determinism is more fundamental than creativity and choice, (4) that
what is conceptually rational is more real than what is directly experienced with the senses, and (5) that
change is less valuable than changelessness.
Suggested Reading: Freeman; Nahm; preSocratic sections from Histories of Philosophy.
51
**************************************************************************
Physicists hope smasher will look into God's mind
Sunday, August 28, 1988
The Bismarck Tribune
Physicists hope smasher
will look into God's mind
LOS ANGELES (AP)—Physicists wanting to
“People are frustrated, “ center director Burton
“understand what's in the mind of God” are frustrated by
Richter said last week. “There are thousands of comglitches in a new $115 million atom smasher that may
ponents to this machine which all have to work at a
someday yield secrets about the makeup of matter and
high level of reliability to get everything to work
the birth of the universe.
properly. It's going to take months to get this thing in
“It's like you've been on a long trek to a mountain top
decent shape. I hope people don't get depressed
and thought you were going to reach it, but discover
waiting.”
you're only on a ridge with another valley to cross,” said
But Richter, who won the 1976 Nobel Prize in
physicist Michael Riordan, spokesman for the Stanford
physics, declared: “We'll make this thing work. I have
Linear Accelerator Center, 30 miles southeast of San
no doubt about it.”
Francisco.
Z particles are so unstable they existed naturally only
Construction was completed May 1987 on the tax- for an instant after the “big bang,” the explosion scipayer-funded collider, a 3-mile-long underground
entists believe formed the universe up to 20 billion
machine shaped like a tennis racket. That summer, it was
years ago.
expected to start its major task: mass-producing what are
By using the collider to manufacture Z particles and
known as Z particles.
analyze how they decay into other particles, scientists
But numerous technical problems have preventedcan study the makeup of matter and the fundamental
proper operation of the device, so “it's unlikely we'll
forces that governed the development of the universe.
make a Z particle before the end of the year,” narrowing
the U.S. lead in a race against European physicists to
make new discoveries, Riordan said.
***********************************************************************************
52
Chapter 7
Pythagoreans
Mathematics and Salvation
“The Pythagoreans say that fire is at the center and that the earth is one of the stars, and that moving in
a circle about the center it produces night and day. And they assume yet another earth opposite this
which they call counter-earth....” Aristotle, de Caelo II. 13. 293 a 19 in a passage that inspired
Copernicus.
“[Physical laws] lie within the power of understanding of the human mind; God wanted us to perceive
them when he created us in His image in order that we may take part in His own thoughts....Our
knowledge of numbers and quantities is the same as that of God’s, at least insofar as we can
understand something of it in this mortal life.” Kepler, 1571-1630, to von Hohenberg, expressing his
reasons for believing mathematical physics is well-founded.
“We must fight the temptations of the vehicle [body]...overcome the world...and get out of here.”
Heaven’s Gate members, who were math-computer sophisticated, just before committing suicide to
reach the “next level” on their way to the Kingdom of Heaven, March 1997, by way of aliens [angels]
supposedly traveling in a UFO in the wake of comet Hale-Bopp. They lived an ascetic life––several
were mutilated by castration, presumably with their consent.
“Life is a voyage towards home.” Tombstone inscription, St. Mary’s Cemetery, Bismarck ND.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
(1) Finding the way to salvation.
(2) Finding patterns that reality exhibits.
(3) Finding the ratio of the side of a square and its hypotenuse, and other irrational ratios.
–Approaches–
(1) Salvation is releasing the soul from the body so it can go back to heaven away from contaminating
matter:
(a) through ascetic living, and disparaging things female (mater),
(b) through knowledge of the true nature of reality, that is, the numerical ratios things exhibit, like
the Pythagorean Theorem.
(2) Reality can be understood by finding common mathematical patterns (rather than a common stuff).
(3) The “infinitesimal” is supposedly large enough to measure a figure (that is, it’s finite), yet not so
large as to have any size (that is, it’s not finite), or it won’t fit evenly along the side and
hypotenuse of a square, and other figures with irrational ratios.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Their approach pointed in the direction of finding patterns that all reality exhibits, rather than looking
for an altering stuff of which all reality is supposedly composed.
Cons:
(1) They assume mind can exist independently of matter.
(2) They assume the best place to be is apart from the disgusting, if not evil, physical world.
(3) They assume the “infinitesimal,” a SomeNone, makes sense.
******************************************************************************
53
Chapter 7: Pythagoras
D
uring the second half of sixth century BCE,
Pythagoras founded a school of philosophy in
southern Italy that to our modern mentality
was a curious mixture of mysticism and mathematics.
He is generally credited with discovering the
Pythagorean Theorem, though Egyptian and
Babylonian geometers certainly knew the
relationships of the sides of some right triangles.
The Pythagoreans seemed to have claimed reality
not only exhibited numerical patterns, but is
composed of numbers. By knowing the secret
numbers or numerical patterns of things, we become
enlightened to the truth of reality. This truth sets us
free from the physical bonds entrapping our souls in
this world, allowing them to return to the stars from
which they came and where they naturally belong.
This Gnostic or Orphic belief in the preexistence of
the soul was becoming common in the ancient world.
The Pythagoreans believed people were part
divine (from the heavens), and part nondivine (from
the world). Souls are made of the divine heavenly
star stuff, sometimes called aether (a fifth element
identified with the fifth regular solid, the
dodecahedron, whose mathematical description they
discovered); our bodies are made of matter.
Pythagorean Gender Oppositions
Male
Female
Right
Left
Limited (Specific)
Unlimited (Vague)
One (Unity)
Many (Diversity)
Odd Numbers
Even Numbers
Changeless
Changing
At Rest
Moving
Straight
Curved
Light
Dark
Square
Oblong
Good
Bad
Air, Fire, (Aether)
Earth, Water
Harmony
Discord
Like the constellation Gemini, people were
twins, living in two worlds, but the Pythagoreans
deprecated the feminine physical world and longed to
break the bond between body and soul so the spiritual
twin could return it his natural place in the heavens.
See Buddhist quotation heading Chapter 11: An
insightful, virtuous “man does not return to enter a
womb again....” Their dualism reflects the increasing
influence of the male over the female principle. Everything was assigned to one side or the other of the
dualistic opposition of gender.
Each of the five elements had a natural place,
and when their natural order or location was
disrupted, things were out of harmony. Goodness was
harmoniousness, a common Greek ethic. Since the
heavens are the realm of light and goodness, they
must be harmonious. Therefore, the planetary spheres
that define the various levels of heaven in the ancient
cosmology must be related to each other by harmonious intervals.
The Pythagoreans had learned musical pitches
could be assigned numbers; and the relationships of
these numbers, their ratios, explained why some
chords are harmonious and others not. The relationship of something vibrating twice as fast as another is
the ratio of 1:2, the octave. Something vibrating two
times to another’s three, 2:3, is the ratio of the fifth.
Instruments that are tuned and songs composed using
fifths and octaves as the only intervals are still said to
use Pythagorean Tuning.
The soul itself was thought to have three parts
that needed to be harmonized. The insight that
aesthetic integration is the meaning of positive value,
so that goodness is a subclass of beauty, is a core
54
Chapter 7: Pythagoreans
theme in Whitehead’s philosophy (Voskuil,
“Whitehead’s Metaphysical Aesthetic”).
Physical reality reflects or mirrors the “real”
world (the unseen, spiritual world) of numbers. Plato
alludes to the Pythagoreans when he says knowing
the truth is like looking into a clean mirror that
returns to us the real world as it is. Ignorance is not
seeing clearly. When looking into a clouded or dirty
mirror, truth does not meet us face to face, a
metaphor Paul of Tarsus borrowed.
Pythagorean Theorem
The Divine Tetraktys
Numbers were likely seen as the stuff of reality,
not mere abstractions. If so, the Pythagoreans may be
atomists, though they seem to say complex things
composed of many numbers are not reducible to a
group of ones without loss. They saw wholes as
greater than the sum of their parts, which is a denial
of Anaximenes’ reductionist thesis.
Numbers were arranged in geometrical patterns.
The One, or point, gives rise to the line when doubled
to Two. Three Ones are a triangle or the simplest
plane. Four Ones define the simplest three-dimensional and regular solid, the tetrahedron, and so
physical reality, which was believed to be made of
regular solids, is explained. All the numbers from one
to four add up to ten (1+2+3+4 =10). All things are
said to be contained in ten, a sacred number. Its
geometry is still used in the bowling alley.
Some numbers can be geometrically arranged in
a square, like four or nine. Others can only be
arranged in oblong or non-square rectangles, like six
or twelve. If one takes the square numbers Nine,
Sixteen and Twenty-Five which have Three, Four
and Five units on the sides of their squares, and
places the corners of the squares together, a right
triangle is formed. Take the square root of each
square and you have the number of units on the sides
of the square.
The so-called Pythagorean Theorem states this
relationship: The total number of dots in the squares
on the two shortest sides of a right triangle (9 + 16)
are equal to the number of dots in the square on the
longest side (25). The square roots of these squares
form the sides of a right triangle. Builders still use
multiples of the 3-4-5 triangle to layout right-angled
foundations.
The attempt to find other right triangles whose
sides were exact ratios of some number of units was
the beginning of some serious logical problems for
the Pythagoreans. Take another simple right triangle,
that formed by two sides and the diagonal of a
square, or what is often called the unit triangle with a
unit length of one on each side. What is the number
of units along the diagonal, the hypotenuse?
Obviously, the unit length along one of the sides is
too short to fit along the diagonal and too long to fit
along the diagonal twice. But if one divides each side
into two units, then three of these units comes much
closer to exactly measuring the hypotenuse than one
or two of the previous units did.
If the unit used is one fourth the original unit, so
the sides are composed of four units, the new unit
will come even closer to fitting a certain number of
times along the hypotenuse. But, again, not exactly
an even number of times. There is always a bit too
much or too little with the last application of the unit.
The unit that fits exactly a certain number times
along the sides is always a bit too long or too short
when used to measure the hypotenuse, no matter how
small it is. The diagonal of a square is
incommensurable with the sides.
55
Irrational Ratios
2?
1
3?
1
1
However, the smaller the unit, the closer it does
come to fitting evenly along both the sides and the
hypotenuse. So the Pythagoreans required a unit so
small it could not be smaller. The name they used for
this so-called unit is the “infinitesimal.” Now this socalled “unit” must have some size since zero size
cannot measure anything, and yet if it has some finite
size it cannot exactly measure the sides and the
hypotenuse.
So the attempted definition of the “infinitesimal”
is something with no size (so it will fit) and some size
(so it can measure). We have seen earlier, however,
there is no middle ground between some and none, so
the attempted definition is no definition at all. An
“infinitesimal” cannot express a ratio; it is not
rational nor nonrational; it is ir-ratio-nal or nonsense.
Hippasus, the person who divulged the crisis of
the irrational infinitesimal was supposedly ostracized
and likely killed, a common procedure for those who
disagreed or disparaged faiths in the patriarchal
religious wars to come.
The “infinitesimal” is nothing meaningful. Every
potential finite is capable of possible division.
Between any two notes there is a possible third,
fourth and so on, forever. Whitehead, a respected
mathematician, said all talk about “infinitesimals” is
simply talk about finites so small no one is interested
in the size.
Since the “infinitesimal” is their attempt to
conceive the “smallest conceivable number,” which
is the inversion of the “greatest conceivable number,”
one must show that the “greatest conceivable
number,” makes sense which is impossible. Possible
numbers are endless, even if actual numbers are finite. The relationship of infinity, unboundedness or
indeterminateness to an attempted concept of “the
Unsurpassable,” or “the greatest conceivable reality,”
must be carefully thought out. (An attempt to do so
will be made, most pointedly, in Chapters 21-23.)
Chapter Summary
Finding patterns, rather than a stuff common to actual things, was a positive direction the Pythagoreans
furthered. To understand something was to know its number or numerical ratio. When common conceptual
“objects” were found for which no ratio of whole numbers could be found, they invented the
“infinitesimal,” a quantity both small enough to be nothing and large enough to be something. Both Zeno
(Chapter 9) and Whitehead say an actual infinitesimal is meaningless. We can see the strength of patriarchy
in the Pythagoreans’ sexism and their desire to be saved by being released from mater . Their
characterization of the “soul” does not carefully consider how such a reality can change and still remain the
same thing.
************************************************************************************
56
Alpha and Omega
Stylized alpha and omega, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, from the pulpit
of the First Lutheran Church, Enderlin, ND. Both are pictographs of the womb/tomb.
Alpha, now inverted, seems to have originally been a bovine skull whose head was the
womb and horns the fallopian tubes. Omega has retained its orientation with its
womb/tomb opening down, not up as everyone (in our more patriarchal era) hangs
horseshoes to retain good luck.
*****************************************************************************
Taboo U
Permission to reprint cartoon requested of Etta Hulme.
Introduction to Critical Thinking––A cartoon obviously inspired
by a professor run afoul academic freedom.
57
Chapter 8
Heraclitus (and Alice)
Logos in the Flux and the Logic of Change
“Is it me, or is it not me?” Clever Elsa. Grimms Fairy Tales.
“Who are you? said the Caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly,
“I––I hardly know, Sir, just at present––at least I know who I was when I got up this morning,
but I think I must have been changed several times since then.”
Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Advice from a Caterpillar.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
(1) The relationship of things that change to those that don’t.
(2) The logical conditions required to rationally explain what “change” means.
–Approaches–
(1) Heraclitus’ proposal:
(a) No physical thing is changeless; everything is constantly altering.
(b) Stability is appearance that arises when two fluxes balance each other.
(c) Logos, or the Law of Change, is the only universal constant in the universe.
(2) Logic of Change: Change only makes sense if one can,
(a) simultaneously compare
(b) successive differences
(c) of the same thing.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) Ultimate reality is composed of doings, processes or fluxes rather than beings that simply are or
that supposedly move or alter.
(2) The pattern of change is the ultimate constant.
Cons:
(1) If the past changes, that is, is no longer what it was, it does not exist to compare the present to, so
no differences exist, and change is meaningless.
(2) The logos seems to be conceived like a concrete Milesian stuff that is one, yet alters, rather than an
abstract principle found in all concretes.
***************************************************************************
58
Chapter 8: Heraclitus
A
nother approach to the nature of reality was
made by Heraclitus, born of nobility in
Ephesus around 536 BCE and died in 470
BCE. He detested the hoi ploi, the common herd of
people, as he called them, who were gaining political
power in the growing democratic movement, because
he believed they could not appreciate excellence, and
certainly didn’t appreciate the aristocracy.
Heraclitus, like the Milesians, also chose one of
the elements to be the substratum of reality. His
choice was fire which by then had become identified
with male power. But the element was also chosen to
emphasize his main thesis: Nothing remains as it is
even for one moment. One cannot step into the same
river twice, he says, because both the river and the
person have changed. Everything is changing
constantly into its “opposite,” that is, “something it is
not.”
Fire in its constant fluctuation, whether like
lightning from above or like burning wood from
below, symbolized well the constant change or
becoming of reality.
He admits we experience stability, or things that
don’t change (that is, things that are not coming to
be, but already are), but, he says, experience of
stability is only an appearance which arises because
the flux of fire in one direction is countered by fire
fluxing in the opposite direction. The Upward Way of
fire and the Downward Way reach an equilibrium for
a while. Modern analogies might be found in a
standing wave, or the constant pH of a chemical
solution.
Everything is changing
but....
A quick reading of Heraclitus might take him to
say everything changes, or all is in constant flux, but
this would be logically self-contradictory, on the face
of it, since “constant” means changeless. But
Heraclitus has another aspect to his theory, the logos.
Logos is One and changeless; it is the unity of reality,
a concrete universal, the One in the Many. The logos
has a long history. In the Greek world, Hermes, a
virgin-born hermaphrodite and conductor of souls to
and from the world, was the logos, Word, made flesh.
Logos is translated as “word” in the Gospel of John
1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God and the Word was God.”
The idea of the logos comes from ancient word
magic. The power of the Goddess’ utterance could
bring something into existence, just as her word
could also destroy it. The word of words that referred
to the source of all creations, the Goddess’ pregnant
womb, was “Om,” and many temples to the Goddess
had an omphalos, a stone rounded on top said by
some to represent the navel of the belly (but more
likely a female om-phallus, that is, a clitoris) and the
center of the universe.
“Om” in Arabic means “mother, matrix, source,
principle or prototype.” Om is the last letter of the
Greek alphabet and is drawn like a horseshoe
(omega, Ω), an Indo-European symbol for the
gateway to the womb, the yoni. It is a re peat of the
first Greek letter alpha, formed from the upside down
(patriarchal inversion of the) cow’s skull which likely
symbolized the female organs with horns as the
fallopian tubes. “Å” began its symbolic life with its
point down before its inversion. (See alpha and
omega photographs at the end of Chapter 7.)
As worship of maleness increased, many ways
were devised to usurp the birth-creating and breastnurturing of the Goddess, neither of which men nor
their male gods could naturally do. So strong,
however, was the need for birth-giving and nursing as
a sign of divinity that even male gods gave birth to
female ones, the reversal of nature and previous
accounts. Zeus, for example, is said to have given
birth to Athena, from his head.
Clement of Alexandria, a Christian patriarch of
the Third Century CE writes that,
The Word is everything to the child, both father and
mother, teacher and nurse....The nutriment is the milk
of the Father... and the Word alone supplies us children with the milk of love....For this reason, seeking is
called sucking; to those infants who seek the ‘Word,’
the Father’s loving breast s supply milk. [Walker,
WEMS. 547]
One way the Goddess did create, that males could
easily copy, was by her Word or Voice (logos) since
it required no womb.
The history of the logos indicates Heraclitus was
appealing to a real and necessary unity (universe)
despite the apparent multiverse. Change or flux is
universal in the world of sense experience, but in the
real world (the world “behind” sense experience for
an ultra-rationalist) the logos, that is, logic, is the
underlying constant.
Perhaps Heraclitus was trying to express a view
of reality that required both the many (the changing)
and the One (the changeless), but his emphasis on the
logos leads one to believe he thought the changeless
is more real than that which changes.
The ancient concept of the Goddess, going back
thousands of years, expressed the essential nature of
process, the constant change of things. Reality was a
process of growth, decay and rebirth. The energy of
change or becoming was symbolized by the snake
with its coils and wiggles and constant renewal or
rebirth because it sheds its old body and puts on a
new one.
The logos is the logical or intelligible aspect of
reality. It is what all particulars have in common.
Logically, it must be a changeless and abstract
characteristic that the particulars have in common.
But just as the Milesians thought there could be a
common or universal stuff that is not abstract but is
both universal and concrete, so does Heraclitus. This
59
notion in the history of philosophy is known as a
“concrete universal.”
Requirements for Change
(1) Differences. Without differences everything
is the same, that is, no possibility of change.
(2) Succession of Differences. Just having two
different things does not imply change. The
changes or differences must come one after the
other.
(3) Successive Differences of the Same Thing.
A car passing someone on the street is different
from, and successive to, the one that passed a
moment before, but the first did not change into
the second. Change requires the same thing to be
first one way and then a different way.
(4) Comparison of Successive Differences of the
Same Thing. We must be able to compare the
first state of affairs with successive ones. Change
is comparison. Where no comparison is possible,
rationalizing change is not possible.
(5) Simultaneous Comparison of Successive
Differences of the Same Thing. We cannot
compare, that is, contrast, differences unless they
are both present at the same time in our
experience. The problem, then, is: How can differences of the same thing be both present and
yet successive?
After millennia, philosophers are beginning to
see that concreteness is always particular, and
universals or necessities are necessarily abstract. A
question to be examined later is, Is it possible for
there be a necessarily existing reality if all acts of
existence are particular and contingent? This question
has significant impact on the possibility of making
sense of divinity.
What are the characteristics that must be
considered in order to understand what “change”
means? Change requires a comparison of differences.
These differences must be successive differences of
the same thing. They must be differences over time
since anything is the same with itself at any one time.
Without differences, nothing has changed. If the
differences are not of the same thing, there is also no
basis for saying anything changed. There is both this
and that: This did not change into that.
But can Heraclitus’ pure flux allow for the
possibility of comparison? If it were meaningful to
take an instantaneous cross-section of the flux, there
would be no change in the instant selected. At the
next instant, the previous cross-section would no
longer exist. Even if one assumes there are
differences in the second moment from the first, as
Heraclitus does, there would be no way to compare
them. One can’t refer to the first at all, perhaps not
even to say it doesn’t exist. Its changeless retention in
memory would violate the principle that nothing
(even excluding the logos) can remain the same. If
the first difference does exist somehow when the
second occurs, then the thesis that every concrete
particular changes (that no thing is ever the same for
two moments), is violated.
The Past is dead, not gone.
To assert that everything is coming-to-be without
ever achieving anything that has finally come to be
and is what it is, that is, changeless, is logically
impossible. If process or growth is the essence of life,
then Heraclitus tries to formulate a philosophy where
everything is alive. But pure life is meaningless. The
process of life or coming-to-be must come to be, and
in so doing, die. The end of a moment of life is its
death which must then contribute to new lives. Death
is changelessness. The past is dead, not gone.
A rational answer to the problem of change must
explain how it is possible to have:
Simultaneous Comparison of Successive
Differences of the Same Thing.
Heraclitus’ mistake was to assume the past is
destroyed or undone in order to make the present. He
denies the reality of being, or things that are. We will
see that process or becoming is indeed the inclusive
category to explain reality, but becoming or creating
includes beings which have been created. Creativity
includes the results of previous creatings. Not until
Whitehead in the early Twentieth Century was this
insight clearly expressed.
Parmenides analyses the logical problems
inherent in asserting something changes by altering
its state and still remains what it is. He will say
nothing can possibly change, so all reality is
necessarily being. Both he and Heraclitus use reason
or logic, not sense experience, to come to opposite
conclusions. Though they seem to be expressing very
different theories, they are not all that different when
the logos is interpreted as the universal constant, a
“concrete universal.”
60
Chapter Summary
Heraclitus’ valiant attempt to avoid the logical contradictions others have who maintain reality is made of
a stuff that alters, fails because coming-to-be, his counter-proposal that everything is in constant change, is
also self-contradictory. If the problem of unity over time cannot be solved by saying something is what it is
and then isn’t what it is/was, neither can the problem be solved if nothing remains the same. The past must
remain as it is throughout a change or else the comparison of what-was to the new what-is is not possible.
One must distinguish parts (beings) from wholes (comings-to-be) that contain parts. One must also learn
that wholes never change, that is, a whole cannot alter, nor take on new parts nor lose parts is has. Wholes
come to be and remain as the beings they are. Wholes are temporally bounded or momentary, not just
spatially bounded.
Simultaneous Comparison of Successive Differences of the Same Thing must be possible to make
sense of “change.”
**************************************************************************
Haiku One
The Utter-Flutter
Flaggingly flops behind flip––
Pancies flirtatious.
Duane Voskuil 1966
A Year Has Died
a year has died and no one seems to care;
leaves scrape along and scatter quickly
where one kicks; the dead do not resist;
they roll in waves around hollow
sycamores moaning in the mist
from gusts too warm to nip
tho cold enough to hold
one ill-at-ease.
a year has died; it’s so dead
no one seems aware
it ever lived; so what
the dust that fall be Anemone?
it makes one spit and swallow
just the same; to ask the dust
be damned is far too much to care
too much beyond a cough, a spit, a stare.
a year has died; its corpse lies around
above the ground; no one seems aware enough
to care to scrape a shallow
ditch to stow away his share;
it’s just another year, another year
so dead it brings no tear
and leans upon no ear, a year so dead
so old, so far from care, so cold
its death is dead.
61
62
Chapter 9
Parmenides
The Logic of Being
“To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether....” Shakespeare, Hamlet.
“The highest Brahman–ever-shining, unborn, one alone, imperishable, stainless, all-pervading, and
non-dual–That am I....pure and by nature changeless...deathless, free from old age, immortal....I am
neither cause nor effect....the continual series of pain is unreal...like an object seen by a dreaming
man....I have neither good nor bad deeds...nor stages of life, since I am bodiless.” Sankara (8th Century
CE in the Hindu Vedanta tradition): A Thousand Teachings, Chapter 10, Seeing: Quoted from A
Sourcebook in Asian Philosophy, Koller, 100.
“By substance, I understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; in other words, its
conception does not need the conception of another thing from which it must be formed.” Spinoza,
1632-1677, Ethic.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
Making obvious the logical contradictions of a stuff that alters or moves.
–Approaches–
(1) Reality is what is, namely, being.
(a) Being is what is and cannot alter without being both what it is and what it isn’t.
(b) Being is what is and has not been created.
(c) Being is what is and cannot be destroyed.
(d) Being is all there is, so there can only be one being. All relationships are meaningless.
(2) Change, either of motion or alteration, is appearance.
(3) “Nothingness” is nonsense.
(4) Reality is what logic says it must be; and reality is only what logic says it must be. Contingency is
meaningless (the position held by the ultra-rationalists).
(5) Reason, not sense experience, discovers the true nature of reality.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) A being can only be the being it is. The Law of Self-Identity.
(2) Something that is cannot change into something else and be what it now is and what it also no
longer is. The Law of Contradiction: Something can’t be both A and not-A.
(3) A being can’t become a nonbeing, that is, be destroyed leaving no-thing.
Cons:
(1) Parmenides does not distinguish between changing a being that is, and making a new being.
Assumes that creation is a function of being and not something more fundamental than being,
namely, coming-to-be (becoming).
(2) Reality can’t be described if it has no relationships to anything. The General Theory of Relativity in
some form is metaphysically true.
(3) Parmenides gives no explanation of the “reality” of appearance or its relationship to reality.
******************************************************************************
63
Chapter 9: Parmenides
W
ith Parmenides (who flourished around 475
BCE ), the tendency to say the changing
world of sense experience is a shadow or
reflection of true changeless being, becomes fullblown. Once the unity of the universe is thought to be
numerically one, not only spatially, but also
temporally, logic drives us to deny change or
successive differences. Parmenides thought logic
even required us to deny spatial differences, that is,
simultaneous contrasts, as well as successive
contrasts.
A unity is just what it is and cannot be anything
other than it is or additional to what it is. A unity is
either thought to have no parts––likely
impossible––or is what it is in part because of each
part contained in its unity. Different parts in a unity
would imply a different unity. Parmenides was the
first to correctly maintain that a unity which had parts
added to it, subtracted from it or altered within it,
cannot be the same unity. This means that the successive differences of the same thing (that is, the same
concrete unity) required for something (namely, the
unity) to change is impossible or self-contradictory.
Parmenides assumes, therefore, that reality can
only be (one) being. A being is something that is. It is
not something that is coming into being; it already is.
In this theory, predicates or attributes would have to
be attributes of being. A thing is red. Another thing is
green, and yet another is happy. Something cannot be
red without first being a being. Red is either being or
not being. The same can be said for green and
happiness. But not-being (nonbeing) cannot be, that
is, it cannot be something that exists–or better said,
“nonbeing” or “nothingness” is a meaningless
expression.
Since being is being, that is, just what it is, and
since red is being and green and happiness are also
being, it follows, Parmenides says, that red, green
and happiness are the same. The formalism is: If R =
B and G = B and B = B, then R = G. Distinctions are
not real.
If being were to change, it would have to change
into being or nonbeing. But being already is being, so
no change can occur, and “nonbeing” is meaningless.
Parmenides’ description of reality is:
(1) It is one, numerically one, and probably
spherical.
(2) It is unrelated to anything, since nothing else
exists.
(3) It is isotropic, that is, homogeneous.
(4) It cannot be experienced with the senses.
(5) It can only be known with the mind.
(6) It has never come into being or been created.
It is and has always been.
(7) It will never cease to be or become destroyed.
Being cannot become nonbeing, or no-thing.
The last point about nothingness deserves further
comment. We use the word “nothing” assuming it
makes sense. But does it, or if so, in what way?
Assume one has a container with nothing in it.
What’s between the sides of the container? If one
says “nothing,” that means the sides of the container
are touching each other, and the container cannot be a
container. All attempted references to “nothing” (as
attempts to mean: “no thing of any kind”) are selfcontradictory.
The only meaningful use of the word is in some
relative sense. We go to the refrigerator and find
nothing in it. But we mean the refrigerator is filled
with racks and air and light and a moldy piece of
cheese. “Nothing” always means something else, but
something we are not now interested in.
Something or other is necessary.
The realization that all attempted references to
nothing are self-contradictory is a major
philosophical insight. We are forced to realize
something or other is necessary or unavoidable. The
philosophical adventure is to meaningfully describe
what it is that is necessary. Another interesting task is
to determine, not only that something is necessary,
but whether one can meaningfully refer to a something that is the “greatest conceivable something.”
In addition to clarifying that “nothing” in an
absolute sense is nonsense, Parmenides teaches us to
rigorously apply the laws of contradiction and selfidentity. A being is what a being is, and a being
cannot be what it isn’t. A being is determinate since it
already is. For a being to change requires the being to
be what it is and, also, not to be what it is/was. It
would then be A and not-A, a clear self-contradiction.
Zeno, a later member of the Eleatic School,
became famous for pointing out the paradoxes which
occur when one assumes change occurs. One familiar
example concerns the race between a tortoise and a
hare. The hare allowed the tortoise a head start so the
hare could show off his speed.
Assume the racers are beings and beings exist
continuously and the distance they travel is along a
continuum. Say the tortoise is at the half-way point
when the hare begins. The hare quickly reaches the
half-way mark, but the tortoise has moved ahead a
finite amount. The hare then travels that amount, but
again the tortoise has moved a finite amount ahead
(even though it is a smaller finite amount). This can
continue forever, so Zeno says the hare will never
catch up.
A stronger application of Zeno’s argument,
which ignores the charm of the race would be as
follows: Assume we have a finite distance from A to
B, and a continuously existing object N. Before N
can go from A to B it must first go to 1/2B, but before it can get to 1/2B it must go to 1/4B, and so on.
Any movement must be a finite distance, since no
distance is no movement, and as we saw above, an
“infinitesimal distance” is either no distance or some
64
finite distance, since nothing meaningful can exist
between none and some.
A
Always a finite gap between A and the
first place one supposedly moves to.
•
B
1/8
1/4
1/2
Since to move a finite amount, no matter how
small, is to move through an infinity of finite
amounts before any finite moment can be accomplished, no movement will ever occur.
Zeno puts it another way. Say one shoots and
arrow. In any part of its path, is the arrow moving
where it is? He concludes it is where it is, not moving
where it is. Is it moving where it isn’t? He concludes
that something cannot move where it isn’t, since it
would have to be there in order to move there. Zeno
concludes that motion is, therefore, meaningless.
The problem of the “actual infinitesimal” is real
despite the fact modern mathematicians speak of
infinitesimal intervals with apparent impunity. They
do so only when they are dealing with possibilities.
Possibilities are forever divisible. But a calculation or
an actual move requires a definite finite interval, a
finite difference from the previous moment.
Actuality is necessarily discrete and finite.
Concreteness or something actually real (not just a
possibility), exists in discrete finite amounts. Money
has a smallest exchange unit, the penny in the United
States. Movement must occur in quantum units also.
Change cannot be continuous and be rationalized.
Change must come in discrete amounts with a finite
difference from the previous state of affairs. An
“infinitesimal dif ference” is nonsense, even though
this is what many think they mean by “continuous
change.”
“SomeNones” are nonsense.
Parmenides and Heraclitus have provided us with
the two extreme possibilities for trying to answer
what it means for something to change. Heraclitus
says change is unavoidable and continuous and
continues on forever without resulting in something
that is (being). Parmenides says change is nonsense.
If process is “life” and changelessness is “death,”
then we should see the futility of trying to explain
reality as only alive or only dead. Something dead
cannot explain or contain life, and a philosophy that
declares reality is only life leaves no room for death
and lasting accomplishment.
After examining a few more approaches to
change, we will see a life, not only can, but must,
include another’s death, even though, as Parmenides
correctly made clear, death can only be, and remain
forever, what it is.
Parmenides makes several assumptions which
have been accepted by many in the history of
philosophy:
(1) Being is the most fundamental, if not the
only, category in which to explain reality. Change or
process is a function or property of beings, not vise
versa.
(2) Being has not been created, that is, come to
be. It has always been.
(3) Being is devoid of qualities. It has only
quantity.
(4) Being is not directly experienced by the
senses. It is, however, what supports the qualities
(appearances) that we experience.
All of these assumptions must be thrown out to
make sense of reality. The failure to do so has
brought down nearly every philosophical system
since Parmenides.
Can the Law of Contradiction be used against
Parmenides’ own position? Parmenides’ Being is
unrelated to anything since it is the only real thing
that is. History has used the term “absolute” for
something that is complete in itself, requiring nothing
but itself to exist. It is unrelated, or need not be
related, to anything. This is how Parmenides speaks
of Being.
All attempted references to an absolute are selfcontradictory. If Being were the only real thing, how
could anyone one know it, since knowledge requires
two, the knower and the known? Trying to make a
true statement, or have knowledge, about something
beyond knowability is meaningless.
Another way to use the term “absolute” is as a
modifier, to speak of something unrestrict edly or
absolutely related to everything.
In terms of the logical quantifiers, All, Some,
and None, the following chart can be set up exhausting the possible positions one can take concerning Absolutes, Necessities or Unqualified Truths:
Absolutes and Unqualified (Necessary) Truths
(1) There are no absolutes or unqualified truths; all truth is contingent on particular
circumstances. (Heraclitus in part, Sophists, positivists, relativists.)
(2) There are some absolutes or unqualified truths, implying there are also
some truths that are not necessary. (Whitehead, Hartshorne and others.)
(3) There are only absolutes or unqualified truths; nothing is relative or contingent.
(Pure nothingness, Parmenides’ Being, Eastern pantheism, Plato? Aristotle’s and
Spinoza’s God, ultra-rationalistic metaphysicians, determinists.)
____________________________________________________
If “absolute” means “something unrelated to anything,” then there could only be one such Absolute (if
any), or there would have to be some kind of relationship between then. This attempt, to describe reality
with many absolutes, was undertaken by the atomists, to be examined next.
To say there are no absolutes refutes itself. It is
self-contradictory since it is an unqualified assertion
which denies there are any such unqualified
assertions. This was examined in Chapter 3.
Everything must be related to something.
Must something be related to everything?
To say there are only absolutes is also selfcontradictory: Knowledge is a relationship of knower
and known, so an Absolute would not only be
unknown, it would be unknowable. All attempts to
describe something that by definition is
indescribable, even by trying to describe it by saying
it is beyond description, are self-contradictory.
Since the third position, that of Parmenides,
namely, reality is unrelated to anything, is
meaningless, we know everything that exists must be
related to something. This is the philosophically
general statement of the General Theory of
Relativity. And since the first attempted position,
positivism, is meaningless because it’s selfcontradictory, we know at least one something must
be related to everything.
“To be related” means “to know” or “take
account of” or “make a difference in” or “be exemplified by,” some thing. A “thing” in this sense
must be an actuality (an empirical fact).
An idea, principle or concept (an abstraction
from fact) is also called a “thing,” but we must be
careful not to assume such an aspect of facts is itself
a fact. What the relationship is between facts and
common factors of facts, that is, universals or
abstractions, is a fundamental philosophical issue.
Facts versus Factors =
Particulars versus Universals.
However, no fact can be related to all possible
facts. If all future facts have to be related to a present
fact, before the present fact is a fact, then no fact
could ever be (unless the one absolute fact of
Parmenides makes sense). Although all facts are
necessarily related to some other facts and principles,
no one fact can be related to all possible facts.
Only concepts or principles can be universally
(absolutely) related to everything, that is, found as an
aspect in all actual or possible facts as well as other
principles. However, it may make sense to say at
each moment there is a fact related to all facts
existing at that moment. This would be the supreme
fact or Whole of the universe at that moment. More
on this later.
The Milesian approach to the metaphysical
question, “What is the stuff that is absolute (that is,
found everywhere in everything at all times)?” goes
wrong because it is the attempt to find a universal
fact, substance or actuality, the so-called “concrete
universal.” By this is meant a fact, not only related to
all there is, but will be related to all there will be.
This Fact would have to change as new things occur,
or deny new things occur. The approach Anaximenes
and the Pythagoreans began is more fruitful: “What
are the factors (principles), facts (all possible facts)
have in common?”
Their mathematical method, if considered as the
search for patterns displayed by all actual and
possible facts, is the metaphysical method if we ask,
What are the patterns displayed by all conceivable
facts? But mathematics defined either as finding restricted patterns or as merely drawing conclusions
from presuppositions is not the metaphysical method,
for metaphysics is the search for the premises
themselves that are rational and universally exhibited
by all facts. The drawing of logical conclusions from
premises is only a means of examining the consistency and adequacy of premises, not a method for
discovering them.
Now, it may be possible more than one principle
can be related to or exemplified by everything, but it
is not conceivable that more than one concrete
individual be related to everything, since there could
be no criterion to distinguish them. If “individual”
must mean some grand fact related to all present and
future facts (which is impossible as we have seen),
then the Unsurpassable (who must have at least the
attribute of omnipresence) is meaningless. But if an
65
66
“individual” or “person” means a series of wholes
(supreme facts), each one including the previous
whole as a present part and all future facts when they
occur, then perhaps making sense of cosmic unity
and time might be possible. More on this later.
Chapter Summary
Heraclitus’ effort to deny being can be the ultimate category of rational explanation, is matched by
Parmenides’ effort to stick with the logical consequences of such a position. Being(s) cannot change: On
this point Parmenides is right. Even his attempt to assert only one (irrational) being is certainly as rational
as a profusion of meaningless beings. But Parmenides’ attempt to convince us being must be eternal and
uncreated, is only convincing if we accept the mistaken and long-held belief that creation is the alteration
of beings, rather than the bringing into being of new beings.
Parmenides’ belief that being must be eternal influenced Plato (see Chapter 11) who said the eternal,
changeless patterns are more real than the actual things exhibiting patterns. When one is in love with
stability and repulsed by the changing physical and biological processes of real life, seen as processes of
women’s bodies and her Goddess, and when one correctly sees that abstractions are the only things that can
be changeless and uncreated, then we can see how so much philosophy has been seduced into thinking the
abstract aspects of reality are the real thing(s) of reality.
Continuous motion of continuously existing beings, Zeno correctly points out, would require meaningless
“infinitesimal” movements. However, the pluralists (Chapter 10), and many since, mistakenly, believe
change can be defined as rearrangement of continuously existing beings.
67
Chapter 10
Pluralists: Materialism
Atoms, Locomotion, Freedom and Determinism
“All things must be moved and borne along with equal velocity though of unequal weights through the
unresisting void...wherefore again and again I say bodies must swerve a little, and yet not more than
the least possible....For the first-beginning of things move first themselves...The seeds of things have
chanced spontaneously to clash....” Lucretius, 98-54 BCE, The Nature of the Universe (De Rerum
Natura), Book II, expounding on Epicurus’ doctrine of minimal, but innate, spontaneity.
“I will set out to discourse to you on the ultimate realities of heaven and the gods. I will reveal those
atoms from which nature creates all things....” “Spirit is flimsy stuff composed of tiny particles....mind
and spirit are both composed of matter...[and] the bodies of matter have no colour at all....”” Lucretius
98-54 BCE , The Nature of the Universe, Book III.
“Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without
relation to anything external....Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external,
remains always similar and immovable....Absolute motion is the translations of a body from one
absolute place into another.” Isaac Newton, 1642-1727 CE, Principia, Scholium on Absolute Space
and Time.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
(1) An attempt to explain how change is possible if each being must be what it is and cannot alter.
(2) The possible relationships between mind and matter.
–Approaches–
(1) Change is rearrangement of internally changeless beings.
(2) Anaxagoras:
(a) Beings (called “seeds”) fill up reality even when they move.
(b) Beings (seeds) contain some amount of every quality.
(3) Democritus:
(a) Beings (called “atoms”) move around in the Void, in Nothingness.
(b) Each being is internally changeless, indivisible and homogeneous without any quality.
(c) Beings have geometrical shapes and texture only.
(d) Mind is a group of atoms: The denial that mental reality is different from atoms.
(4) Epicurus: Some freedom in some of the atoms at some time is necessary.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) Change is real, not merely appearance.
(2) Qualities are in the realities: Anaxagoras.
(3) The basic units of reality must be (spatially) finite, not divisible forever into smaller and smaller
units: Democritus.
(4) Reality can only be explained by asserting the basic units have some freedom or spontaneity:
Epicurus.
Cons:
(1) Nothing in the system can make a comparison and, therefore, nothing can make sense of
differences.
(2) Even if differences could be explained, there is no logical basis for sequence.
(3) “Nothingness” is nonsense and cannot be a container.
68
Chapter 10: Pluralists
(4) “Continuous motion” is irrational, floundering on Zeno’s paradox: A being can’t move where it
isn’t and doesn’t have to move where it is.
(5) Mind must be one whole, not a group of wholes (atoms).
(6) Complete determinism, despite Epicurus’ assertion of minimal spontaneity, is the dominant theme.
******************************************************************************
O
nce the extreme form of monism, favored by
Parmenides and much of Eastern philosophy,
has been clearly stated and found wanting,
the only alternative left is some form of pluralism in
order to make sense of diversity and change. The
history of philosophy is the proposing and disposing
of various forms of pluralism, nearly all based on two
assumptions:
(1) the many things that exist are beings, and
(2) a being can remain the same being in different places or with successively different parts or
characteristics.
Acceptance of these two assumptions can be
defined as believing in enduring substances, or as
maintaining a substance/attribute philosophy.
Substance/Attribute Philosophy:
A being can alter, yet remain the same being.
A
naxagoras, ca. 460 BCE , agreed with Parmenides that the reality of nonreality, called
the “void” or “nonbeing” was meaningless.
The concept of the vacuum has a long history. It
originally meant the Voice Umm, the primeval state
of formless chaos, not pure nothingness (Walker,
WEMS 738).
Reality for Anaxagoras was a plenum filled with
being, or as a pluralist must say, beings. He called the
beings “seeds” since they were the microscopic
things that “grew” into the macroscopic things that
we see. Growth meant aggregation or accumulation
of many seeds that would move together as a group.
Everything is everywhere (somewhat).
Not only did Anaxagoras disagree with
Parmenides on the number of beings, he was one of
the first and one of few to disagree with him on the
internal make-up of being. Rather than saying beings
are devoid of qualities and the contrasts they set up,
he said every being or seed contains some amount of
every quality.
A being/seed can’t be a being without having
qualities. For Anaxagoras some beings contain more
of one kind of quality than another. Large objects that
are green or yellow, for example, are composed of
seeds that have more of these colors than others. In
this theory, every quality is a metaphysical property:
Nothing can exist without necessarily exhibiting
some amount of every quality.
To appreciate Anaxagoras’ insight, we must
examine the nature of potentiality. Hartshorne (PPS)
discusses the nature of the continuum of qualities, for
example, how potential colors are related. Pigments
are mixed to arrive at new colors. However, potential
colors are not mixed. (See the diagram of
Hartshorne's theory of intrinsic color relationships,
the Potential Color Solid, page 70.)
No part of the continuum of possible colors is
isolated from any other. Every possible color is
“impure.” The attempt to conceive of a “pure” color,
is like trying to conceive of a nonextended
point/instant. It is a limit of possibility, not a
possibility. And since every actual experience of
color emphasizes a range of possible color, every
actual color exhibits every other possible color in
some degree. An experienced color is lo cated in the
continuum of color regions, which means that region
is enhanced compared to others.
Anaxagoras also said seeds can be divided. No
matter how small a piece of being one begins with, it
can always be divided further, and every division, no
matter how small, will contain some thing of every
quality. Yet there is one exception: mind. Since the
ancients recognized being as motionless or dead, not
capable of doing anything on its own, there must be a
means to move it.
Mind is active and moves things that don’t move
on their own. Mind is a self-mover that also moves
non-mind reality. Mind is in some way “in” other
things (beings), but other things are not in mind. If
the mind were complex, the Pluralists (incorrectly)
assumed, it could be divided. Mind, Anaxagoras
correctly saw, must be a unit, a whole. The separation
of mind and seeds sets up a mind-body dualism
within this pluralistic theory.
The truth is probably the reverse: Whitehead in
Chapter 13 will argue that beings are always in some
mind or other, that is, in some process or coming-tobe. Being will be seen to be settled and changeless
determinations of past creations conditioning present
and future creative processes (minds).
There are many particular real things, but they
can be placed in two major categories: mind and nonmind. Given a distinction between mind and nonmind or matter, there are only certain ways they can
be related:
69
Possible Relationships of Mind and Matter
Relationship
Comment
Problems
(1) Mind and matter
are outside each other.
Neither needs the other in
order to exist.
Reasons can’t be given why reality contains
two kinds of things rather than three or more.
No sufficient reason can be given for why
they are related at all.
(2) Mind is in matter.
A seed, for example, would
not be a seed unless it also
contained mind.
An inactive being (as a whole) cannot contain
an active being as a part.
(3) Matter is in mind.
Mind would not be a mind
without containing matter.
The need for mind to be an indivisible unity
has not allowed this option to be seriously
considered, since philosophers have assumed
(wrongly) that distinctions, contrasts, imply
divisibility.
(4) Mind and matter
are not really basic.
Both mind and matter are
characteristics of a deeper
kind of reality.
Reality is supposedly some kind of indescribable stuff which gives rise to both mind
and matter.
(5) Only mind exists.
Matter is meaningless.
May be interpreted to be the same as (3).
(6) Only matter exists.
Mind is meaningless.
May be interpreted to be the same as (2)
Whatever the relationship of mind and matter, of
unmixed and mixed seeds, Anaxagoras’ answer to
change is clear: Change is rearrangement of seeds.
During this shifting around, the seeds must remain in
contact since seeds are all there is, there can be no
space, no non-seed, nonbeing reality, between them.
D
emocritus, who lived in Abdera in Thrace
from about 460 to 360 BCE as a contemporary of Plato, is also a pluralist, but he
believed Parmenides must not be modified
any more than necessary to explain change. He said,
“If there is a many, each should be as the one,” Parmenides’ One, that is. Leibniz, a seventeenth century
philosopher stated a corollary to this statement, “If
there is a many, there must be ones.”
The one (numerical one) of Parmenides had no
internal qualities. It was a pure continuum of being.
Each of the beings that Democritus calls “atoms”
(that is, indivisibles) is internally just like the one
Being of Parmenides. Democritus says of atoms:
(1) They have no internal qualities or distinctions.
(2) They do have geometrical properties
of size, shape and texture,
(3) They have position and velocity in the void,
and
(4) They are infinite in number.
(5) They may have holes and hooks. This is his
basis for a molecular theory: Atoms get
hooked together for a while, forming
molecules, until they are disrupted by others.
70
Potential Color Solid
Hartshorne’s theory of the intrinsic relationships of potential colors.
Note yellow is always closer to white than violet.
Philosophers over the centuries have called the
geometrical properties of things, “primary
qualities,” and the non-geometrical qualities of
things, ”secondary qualities” since they did not
think these so-called secondary qualities were
essential for a thing’s existence.
Philosophers and psychologists even talk about
tertiary qualities, or the feelings and valuations one
has about the secondary qualities. The common
belief is that matter can exist with only mathematical or geometrical properties (as Democritus
says), yet somehow colors, sounds and smells arise
in our experience from the primary properties of
matter. Finally, there arises the way we feel about
the colors, sounds and smells.
This analysis of reality is upside down. As we
will see, feelings are the stuff of reality. Colors,
sounds, and the like, are feelings. They are partly
describable by geometry. They are so big, just this
size and shape, changing position relative to other
such feelings, and so on.
Since matter alone cannot be experienced except as
qualified, some philosophers have denied matter makes
any sense. All that exists are the qualities in one’s mind,
Berkeley, a seventeenth century Idealist, said. But the
faith in the existence of something lying beyond all
possible experience is still maintained by most, whether
it be “matter” or a divine absolute.
The other reality, that Democritus says is real, is
the Void or Nonbeing. His metaphysic consists of
atoms and the void, or atoms “in” the void. The void
cannot be experienced either, since it isn’t anything.
E
picurus, 344-270 BCE , is the famous founder of
Epicureanism. His interest in philosophy focused
on how to live the good life. He espoused
atomism as a way to avoid fearing death since
nothing survives beyond one’s present experiences. We
only live once, so make the most of it. However, rather
than seeking pleasure, as Epicureansim is now usually
characterized, he emphasized avoiding pain.
71
The aim of the life of blessedness...is the soul’s
freedom from disturbance....Become accustomed to
the belief that death is nothing to us. (Letter to
Menoeceus)
For our purposes, we should note Epicurus was
one of the first to allow the basic units of reality
some degree of spontaneity, or freedom. He
believed the atoms were originally in a free fall.
They were all falling straight down at the same rate
(a thesis Galileo would make famous two thousand
years later). The Greeks had no concept of inertia,
so if something is moving, either it must be moving
to its “natural” place (heavy things move down,
light things up), or a soul must be moving it
(something Epicurus did not believe in). In order
for the atoms to group together, they had to start
bumping into each other, so some of them had to
initiate a minimal swerve from the vertical fall.
The idea that somewhere in reality there is
some freedom, is also essential for a successful
ethical theory. Without the ability to make choices,
responsibility is meaningless. Whitehead and
Hartshorne, as we will see, maintain every moment
of reality has some irreducible self-power or
freedom.
L
uretius (98-54 BCE ) restates the atomistic
thesis in his beautifully written De Rerum
Natura:
There can be only three kinds of everlast ing objects.
The first, owing to the absolute solidity of their
substance, can repel blows and let nothing penetrate
them....Such are the atoms of matter....The second
kind can last forever because it is immune from
blows. Such is empty space....Last the sum total of
the universe is everlasting, having no space outside
it into which the matter can escape and no matter
that can enter and disintegrate it by the force of
impact. The Nature of the Universe, Book III.
The beings, the atoms, are supposedly in the
void. They are always in motion. Their motion
changes when they are bumped by others. But there
is always a constant amount of motion. Atoms are
perfectly elastic and give up to another exactly the
amount of motion they lose. This is the
materialistic formulation of the Law of
Conservation of Energy, where energy means
“locomotion.”
For Pluralists, change is rearrangement.
Since atoms are never created nor destroyed,
the other conservation law, that of the
Conservation of Matter is also implied by Democritus’ metaphysic. The two Principles were
consolidated into one law in modern physics by
Einstein’s formula, Energy Equals Mass Times the
Speed of Light Squared, E = mc2 . Matter and energy
are convertible. However, since what is created cannot
be undone, the conservation laws cannot be the
unqualified truth about reality.10
The idea that energy and matter are conserved was
part of the Goddess belief system for thousands of
years. Life comes from the Goddess’ womb and goes
back to her womb (tomb) to be reborn in some new
form. Everything is recycled. Even the whole universe
will come to a chaotic end only to be restructured with
new divinities and creatures.
Democritus gives the deterministic answer to the
Principle of Sufficient Reason. Things happen, and
happen the way they do, because there is no alternative.
Each atom’s motion is exactly determined by the speed
and direction of those that hit it, and so on backwards in
time forever. Compare this to the initial swerving not
caused by anything prior to the swerving that Epicurus
postulates.
Deterministic atomism has been the dominant
metaphysic science has used to interpret its data ever
since the seventeenth century when it was revived as an
alternative to Aristotelian categorizing. The principles
of modern empirical science were founded by men like
Frances Bacon using the Inquisition’s methods, namely,
torture and interrogation, to wrest the secrets from
Mother Nature. Believing nature was dead, may have
made this wresting torture more conscionable when it
came to “live” animal experiments.
But does atomism make sense? Recall that having a
rational explanation of change, requires the possibility
of simultaneous comparison of successive differences
of the same thing. The things that are, in Democritean
atomism, are the atoms, groups of atoms and the spacevoid. All the rest is, as he says, “opinion.”
Either the atoms change internally or they don’t. If
they do, all the problems so clearly pointed out by
Parmenides of a whole existing as it is and not as it is,
must be answered. If unities don’t alter internally, and
10Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt in a chapter, “The Inflationary Universe,” The New Physics, 1989, discuss the
notion that “all matter and energy in the observable universe
may have emerged from almost [sic] nothing. The tradition,
dating back at least as far as the Greek philosopher
Parmenides in the fifth century BC, has manifested itself in
modern times in the formulation of a number of conservation
laws––laws which state that certain physical quantities cannot
be changed by any physical process. A decade or so ago the
list of quantities thought to be conserved included energy,
linear momentum, angular momentum, electric charge and
baryon number....
“If grand unified theories are correct in their prediction
that baryon number is not conserved there is no known
conservation law that prevents the observed universe from
evolving out of nothing. The inflationary universe model
provides a possible mechanism by which the observed
universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It
is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the
entire universe evolved from literally nothing. The recent
developments in cosmology strongly suggest that the universe
may be the ultimate free lunch.”
“Almost nothing,” is categorically different from
“literally nothing.” I leave it to the reader to ponder the
meaninglessness of “absolutely nothing.”
72
they don’t, according to Democritus, then the only
change they can undergo is locomotion or
movement.
As an illustration of the change of movement
according to classical atomism, suppose we start
with three atoms or marbles arranged in a line.
Then let’s say the same three “change” into a
triangular arrangement. Suppose someone walks
into the room after the new arrangement is in place.
If s/he were asked whether the three marbles had
changed, s/he would be at a loss to know. S/he
cannot compare the first arrangement of the line
with the triangle. Without comparison, rationalizing change is impossible.
a
a b c
b
c
So we must ask Democritus what or who is
making the comparison, given the assumptions of
his metaphysic. It cannot be any one of atoms in
the line, for if atom a, b or c knew it was one of
three in a line, it would have to change internally to
know it is one of three atoms in a triangle. It would
have to add the knowledge of the triangle to that of
the line or comparison would not be possible. But
internal alteration of a being is expressly denied by
Parmenides and Democritus, and for very good
reasons.
So what or who does the comparing? Democritus and Lucretius do talk about mind. They say
mind is (or is composed of) very small, smooth and
round atoms that move in subtle ways. Let’s try to
make a mind of these atoms that can retain the
arrangements of material atoms. Take a line of
atoms to represent “the” mind:
A.
The three material atoms above, that were in a
straight line, must somehow rearrange these mind
atoms in order for the so-called mind to have a
memory or brain-trace of the line; something like
this:
B.
The material atoms then change or rearrange into a
triangle, and “the mind” experiences this
arrangement also. Three different mind atoms must
be arranged or the brain-trace of the original line will be
lost:
C.
But what is it that compares the brain-trace of the
line to that of the triangle? Once again, it cannot be any
one of the mind atoms. Is there anything that can
experience the whole group of mind atoms with all their
different patterns? In other words, what is the unity or
wholeness of the so-called mind? What does the “the”
refer to in the phrase, “the mind?”
Democritus has two different realities and two
kinds of unities: The oneness of the Void, and the
oneness of each atom. A unity (atom) that contains
other unities (atoms) as parts is not anything possible in
his metaphysic. Some reality must experience the line
and the triangle at the same time in order to compare
them, just as one must see all three of the atoms in the
line or the triangle at the same time, or there would be
no way to say what the pattern is.
Can the Void be the unity and retainer of past
arrangements? Nothing can do nothing, and even if it
could do something, it would be a unity that changes
with each new arrangement and still remains the same
unity, which is a self-contradiction, as Parmenides
points out. The sense in which the atoms are “in” the
void is not clear. How a unity can be a unity of parts
and not be affected by the new arrangements of parts is
a mystery. How nothingness can do anything is a
mystery, a paradox. Parmenides is right: Non being, or
nothingness, is not capable of rational articulation.
But even if we allowed Democritus to mysteriously
have a unity of atoms that could compare one part of a
group to another, this would still not solve the logical
requirements for a meaningful answer to change. Not
only must there be differences, the differences must be
sequential.
Inspection of the last diagram, C, above shows
different patterns, but nothing intrinsic to the patterns
themselves gives any clue as to which one came first
and which second. We, of course, remember that it was
the line that changed into the triangle, but as
diagrammed they exist simultaneously. Reality does not
come to us with a, b, c’s, nor l, 2, 3’s, nor arrows, nor
right and left as expressions for then and now.
Beings, in whatever guise they take, are things
done. Whether a being is primordial or created, nothing
new can be done to it once it is. The only thing that
supposedly changes is the arrangement, but what is an
arrangement? Where is it? What is its reality status? It
is not a being because only atoms are beings. It is not
the void since the void is numerically one, and it can’t
have numerical differences since “it” is nothing to have
differences.
73
Finally, even if one were to overlook the inability of Democritus’ metaphysic,
(1) to have any way that can compare differences,
(2) to have any way to logically explain sequence and
(3) to have any way explain how nothing (the
Void) can contain something (atoms), still his
system flounders on
(4) Zeno’s paradox.
Each atom is a continuum of being, that is, a
being that always is. When it moves, it moves
through a continuum of distance (the Void,
nothingness?). It is not in one place and then in
another place a finite distance away a moment
later. A being must exist fully as it is halfway to
halfway to halfway, and so on, forever, since every
division of a finite distance still leaves a finite distance to traverse.
The attempt to define continuous motion as
moving an infinity of ”infinitesimal” distances
makes little sense. Every difference, or arrangement or state, must be a finite difference from the
original state or place, or nothing has happened,
but every finite difference is divisible (on a
continuum) into an never-ending series of differences.
Motion, not only in fact, but in principle,
is necessarily quantified; not continuous.
We must be suspicious of someone who says
actual motion is continuous. Democritus correctly
recognizes that the basic things that exist must be
spatially quantified. They are just the amount they
are, no more nor less. Their beings have forever
just the spatiality they have. But Democritus fails
to see that the basic units of reality must be
temporally finite also.
Even modern physics recognizes there is a
smallest act or change that cannot be analyzed into
smaller acts. Actual events “jump” from one state
to another, the so-called quantum leap that Einstein
discovered and so disliked because he realized it
made his belief in a deterministic universe
problematic.
In his concern to avoid wholes that don’t alter
internally, Democritus has not been able to make
sense of wholes at all, wholes, that is, besides in-
dividual atoms and the Void. Atoms are wholes that
have no meaningful relationship to others. All their
relationships to each other are external, but if all
relationships are external, no reality could know
anything exists external to itself (see Chapter 12).
Knowing or experiencing is in some sense having
others internally as objects of the experience. If an
object is not in the subject, the subject cannot know the
object. Apart from the strange relationship of atoms
being “in” the Nothingness, all relationships (of atoms
to each other) for Democritus are external.
If the arrangement presents more reality than the
atoms alone that make the arrangement, Democritus has
not explained what the “more” is. Yet he needs a reality
that is or contains the reality of the patterns. But his socalled whole is equal to the abstract mathematical sum
of the parts. To be real, the concrete or actual pattern
must be more than the atoms themselves. A pattern
might require the atoms, but cannot be reduced to them.
Problems with Materialism
(1) No way to compare differences.
(2) No way to logically express sequence.
(3) No way to explain “nothingness.”
(4) No way to explain continuous motion.
The inadequacy of atomism breeds dualism. Yet
a mind or soul doesn’t solve the problem of
something that can somehow simultaneously gather
up many parts and yet, somehow, retain their sequence. Dualism just raises another problem: How
are material atoms and spiritual “atoms” (souls), that
is, matter and mind related? This question is never
adequately answered. Dualism is a metaphysic with a
basic incoherence built into it.
The thesis of determinism, however it is stated,
does not allow anything new to really happen. Since
patterns or arrangements don’t really exist in atomism,
they can’t really change. At least Parmenides was up
front with the consequences of a universe of being: It is
a block universe. A universe of being only does nothing.
Chapter Summary
The pluralists hoped to avoid Parmenides’ analysis that all change is meaningless by not allowing their
beings to change, that is, not allowing them to alter. They believed beings that moved around could do so
without destroying the being’s self-identity, so change was defined as the difference between an arrangement and a rearrangement of “changeless” beings. But as intuitive as this attempted notion seems to
be, if no differences last, no change has occurred. No one can know an arrangement, much less the
74
difference between one arrangement and another. Succession is meaningless where there is no logical way
to explain temporal order. Also, continuously existing beings would have to somehow move in
“infinitesimal” amounts. And, finally, there is the problem of “nothingness” in which all the so-called
moving takes place. Space cannot be one; it cannot be the container of the many without altering when its
“parts” move.
Suggested Reading: Freeman; Nahm; preSocratic sections from Histories of Philosophy; Lucretius.
******************************************************************
Potential Sound Sphere
(Compare to the Color Solid, page 70)
Sounds have an intrinsic, logical relationship best described as a spiral on a sphere.
Sounds, also like colors, lose saturation at high and low intensities. But potential sounds don’t
seem to be located within the sphere like the grays and browns of color. Chords are the way
sounds achieve a similar effect.
75
Chapter 11
Ancient Buddhistic and Platonic Series
versus Monadic Substance
“Every Monad is subject to change, and indeed...this change is continuous in each.”
Emphasis added. Leibniz, Monadology, 10.
“Not falling into wrong views, virtuous and endowed with insight, one gives up attachment to sensedesires. Verily such a man does not return to enter a womb again....A vision of true knowledge arose in
me....Being dispassionate, he becomes detached; through detachment he is liberated....Now there is no
more rebecoming (rebirth).” Emphasis added. Samyutta-nikaya, XXXV, 28. Quoted from A Sourcebook
in Asian Philosophy, Koller, 196-199.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
(1) How to avoid one’s soul going through endless reincarnations in this world of painful suffering.
(2) How to explain “change” if beings can’t alter nor move.
–Approaches–
(1) Some early Buddhists maintain basic realities are moments of experience that do not alter.
(2) Change is the exchange of one moment for another, sequentially, in a series. Change is the
comparison of one moment (or its copy?) to another in a series.
(3) A moment of experience occurs and then disappears (is added to?) as a new one appears.
(4) “Souls” (spiritual beings that alter and yet remain the same souls) are meaningless.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) The ultimate units of reality are not only spatially finite, but are temporally finite, that is,
momentary.
(2) Realities that last over time are composed of a series of different units that are somewhat the same,
rather than one reality that alters and somehow remains somewhat the same.
(3) A “subject” or subjectivity is not the same as the identity of a person over time.
Cons:
(1) No way to compare one being (difference) to another, if each disappears as the next one occurs, as
some interpreters maintain.
(2) If moments are only related externally to each other, comparison would be impossible.
(3) For those who maintain cosmic reality is pantheistic, this explanation of change may be more about
appearance than reality.
(4) The temporal extent of a moment is a concern. If any temporal extension is composed of smaller
temporal durations, the basic moment seems to occur infinitesimally fast.
************************************************************************************
I
f making sense of beings that alter their state or
position is not possible, other approaches must be
tried. Two other ways have been tried. They both
have one fundamental insight in common: The basic
units of reality are temporally finite. They are
spatially and temporally quantified, not just spatially
finite. More specifically, whenever there is a change,
whenever there is a difference from a previous
situation, there is a new basic unity of reality.
For the ancient Sarvastavadin and Sautrantika
Buddhists (first heard of around 300 BCE ), a person,
or anything that lasts or changes over time, is a series
of units, rather than one substance or being that alters
its state or position. Anything that lasts through
76
Chapter 11: Ancient Series
changes is a series of concrete acts, not one concrete
actor having many acts.
Same Thing as the Same Series
t1
t2
t3
t4
Being Being Being Being
The direction arrow is assumed but is not allowed in
reality if there is only one being at a time, so the actual
past does not survive into the present.
These units have some of the same properties
Parmenides attributed to beings:
(1) They are what they are.
(2) They cannot alter nor move. For these
Buddhists, a reality that lasts over time and changes
is not one being that somewhat alters. It is a series of
many contiguous beings that are somewhat the same.
The projection of a movie on a screen might be
an analogy. An object persists on the screen only
because it is projected again and again (thirty times a
second or so), faster than one’s ability to see each
separate flash. Some interpreters of this momentary
thesis say each moment last for only an infinitesimal
length of time, but this would be a very questionable
thesis, given Zeno’s analysis of “infinitesimals” as
irrational.
This theory of momentary actuality was likely
proposed as an alternative to the endless cycle of
reincarnations found in Hindu metaphysics. The
belief that everything is recycled is a major point
Hinduism maintained from the Goddess cultures.
That everything is endlessly recycled in some sense
is probably a metaphysical truth, as we will see, when
better solutions to the meaning of “change,” “value”
and the unity of the universe are explored.
A one that is successively
somewhat different,
versus
successive many
that are somewhat the same.
But by the first millennium BCE the idea of rebirth was not just that some new life comes from the
death of previous life, but each particular life
continues on into a new life. Each person is reborn in
a new form. The new form depended on the kind of
life one had led in his/er previous life. The types of
lives were arranged hierarchically, from lowly and
disgusting physical forms to pure, intangible forms.
Only by great effort and many reincarnations
could one reach the point of salvation sought by the
Hindus (and Plato), namely, the cessation of the
painful and disgusting rebirth into this physical world
of maya (maria, mary) and reabsorption into the
spiritual and changeless One.
Since reality is only one being for the Hindus,
just as is was for Parmenides, the world of change
and diversity cannot be really real. They see salvation
as an escape from suffering which is caused by one’s
attachment to appearance, that is, the unreality of the
diversity of the world. We should stop longing to
maintain our individuality.
All [particular] existence is like a reflection in a
mirror, without substance, only a phantom of the
mind. When the finite mind acts, then all kinds of
things arise; when the finite mind ceases to act, then
all kinds of things cease. (Bardo Thodol, quoted by
Walker, WEMS.)
These ancient Buddhist sects not only
introduced,
(1) temporal atomism,
but also
(2) the subjective or experiential approach to
philosophy that our western tradition did not embrace
until Descartes and Bacon during the late Renaissance period.
These Buddhists were asking: What is a human
being? What is human experience? What makes one
the same person throughout this life and all his/er
reincarnated lives?
They understood that a “soul” (supposedly a
reality that remains the same soul, day in and day out,
lifetime after lifetime) is logically impossible: A
being cannot be what it is and alter. They concluded
that the “soul” was a fiction. The so-called soul was
not only problematic rationally, it was also never
experienced. They reflected on their experiences and
could not find a soul.
To these Buddhists sects, we are our experiences.
Just as on a movie screen where something continues
to last only as long as a new frame is flashed on the
screen, so too we only exist as long as new experiences occur in our series. Death of a person is simply
the end of a series. There is no finite soul stuff that
lives on to be re-embodied, to be trapped again in
mater.
One can be said, perhaps, to be “reborn” in this
view, but only in the sense that there is a new experience each moment renewing his/er series. But
when the series ceases to have a new moment, the
person ceases to exist. Only the welter of fleeting
moments of experience is real. There is nothing behind the experience that “has” the experience.
77
Though this metaphysic emphatically denies
beings can alter into another state or position,
according to some interpreters, it does allow beings
to come and go; “discrete moments arise and then
cease to be” (Datta). A being is in some sense
“created” when it occurs as an experience in a
person’s series, and it is uncreated, or goes out of
existence, as it is replaced (some say infinitesimally
fast) with another being. “Their essence is to
disappear without leaving any trace behind”
(Stcherbatsky, Logic, Vol. I, 80).11
There is much to learn from the view that an
enduring thing is a series of temporary things, as well
as from the emphasis on the introspective approach to
philosophical questions. However, some serious
logical problems may remain.
Can this position satisfy the necessary conditions
for rationalizing change: Simultaneous comparison
of successive differences of the same thing?
Obviously the “same thing” cannot be the same
being, if a being only lasts for a moment. The same
thing can, however, refer to the same series.
Unfortunately, what defines the “same series” is not
clear. Presumably, all the beings of one series have
something in common that sets them off from other
series, perhaps their contiguity to one another. But
how is it possible to know or experience whether two
or more beings or experiences are contiguous to each
other if each is mutually external to the other unless
former beings continued to exist for more than a
moment and survived into the next being of the
series? It is logically impossible for a knower to
know something external to the knower (see Chapter
12). How the past is in the present was a debated
issue for many Buddhists, and still is.12
To have something in common or to be
somewhat different requires comparison of one being
to another. But comparison is impossible in a
metaphysic that says the old being is gone when the
new one occurs. And if it is still around, how is it
related to the present?
We seem to be faced with the same problem
Heraclitus had in a pure flux: If the past is undone, it
cannot be compared to the present. In fact, this has
been the problem with all attempts to explain change.
A being that alters place or state or disappears does
11 According to Gene Reeves, whose opinion I value, this
interpretation of the reality of the past is a straw man posed
by nonBuddhists looking in from the outside, and if true,
not generally true of Buddhism. But despite the
oversimplifications involved, I hope the characterization
helps students see the issues involved in understanding
what it means for something to change.
12 Characterizing the thought of even this one early branch
of Buddhism as denying the past survives into the present
in some way, is undoubtedly setting up a straw man.
Hopefully, stating the issue in such unambiguous terms will
allow one to see clearly what is at stake in coming to a
rational answer to the problem of change.
not remain as it was, so comparison of how-it-was to
the way-it-now-is is not possible.
Where is the past?
The reality of the past is such an important issue
that an adequate answer to what the past is or where
it is, will be the key to most problems in philosophy.
To say the past is in memory, is not an explanation of
what memory is or how it can work. If memory of the
past were somehow “built into” (copied into) the present experience (that is, the present being) of a series,
how could one know the so-called memory is of
anything that was?
Memory cannot literally be the being (reality) of
the past if the past beings disappear or are copied into
the present. If the past isn’t anymore, there is nothing
for the memory to be a memory of. To have a socalled memory of something that doesn’t exist, is to
have a false memory, that is, no memory at all, just a
fantasy.
P
lato (428/7-348/7 BCE), writing about the same
time as the ancient Buddhists, has another way
of describing the world of sense experience as
a series. In one of his attempts (perhaps not his most
sophisticated) to explain how reality changes, he says
that the beings of reality remain changeless. They are
not created nor destroyed. They exist in a changeless
“heaven,” and are flashed like the frames of a movie
into the world of sense experience.
Plato agreed with Parmenides that beings cannot
alter nor move. Plato’s main difference from
Parmenides is in the number of beings his worldview
has. The beings which Plato calls Ideas 13 or Forms
are distinguished from each other by quality and
geometrical properties. They exist in a realm of pure
changelessness, organized by the Form of Forms
which he calls the Form of the Good.
This static realm of abstractions is further deified
by Aristotle who calls it the Unmoved Mover since
everything is moved by being attracted to the fully
actualized Form contained in divinity that it finds
partially actualized in itself. This changeless realm of
pure abstractions is thought by Plato and Aristotle,
and many others in philosophy and religion, to be the
most real reality, rather than a reality deficient in
concrete fullness. This realm of changeless, abstract
beings is inherited as a major part of our classical,
western concept of divinity.
Plato’s concept of change is the exchange of one
being for another in the spatial manifold, matrix or
matter of sense experience. The beings come and go
in experience, probably by the agency of souls, but
they are eternally changeless in themselves.
13 “Idea” means “goddess in me” or “goddess within. ”
78
Chapter 11: Ancient Series
Plato’s tie to ancient Buddhism and the older
Goddess concepts can be seen in the meanings of
“matter” “maya,” “matrix” and “manifold.” They all
are cognates and derived from M, originally a sign of
waves that are part of the original waters from which
we all came, the amniotic fluid of the mother womb.
Ma, mother, personified as Maria , or Mari or Mary,
the sea that waves, was the stuff of reality, still today
called the “marine.” M also symbolized the mother’s
mammaries, breasts, which like two mountains, twin
peaks, sustain all life.
But mater, which changes and fluctuates, is not
seen by the patriarchal philosophers of the first half
millennium BCE , and many since, as fully real. It is
maya or illusion. One does not do well to become
attached to her or long for her.
Matter may reflect, like a mirror, the dea (the
Goddess), but does so cloudily, imperfectly,
distortedly.
The taboo about breaking mirrors goes back to
the belief that broken mirrors distort a true refection
of reality. True knowledge, for a rationalist like Plato
and much of Eastern philosophy, occurs only when
we are face to face with the thoughts of the divine.
Then we have dea (or deo, god) in us (I-deas).
But mother matter cannot give us this truth of the
divine. In the increasing patriarchal view of cosmic
reality, the God dess becomes a “he” or an “it” and
resides changelessly apart from the world of
changing matter.
Plato assumes there are no new Ideas; the real
beings, or Ideas, have always been. The underlying
mistake philosophy made at this early period, that is
still plaguing us, is the assumption that beings are not
created, that they have always been.
All beings (results of wholes) are created.
Only metaphysical characteristics
of beings have always been.
We must regain the insight that all beings are
created, all beings, that is, except the common
characteristics of all possible beings and comings-tobe. The common factors of all possible creations
cannot themselves be created. They must have
always been.
Even divinity, as with anything that lasts
through time, cannot be one, eternal being. Divinity,
if anything meaningful, must be a series of creations
related in a unique way. More on this later under the
topic of “unsurpassability.”
Chapter Summary
Though some ancient Buddhists’ analysis of change may be motivated by a desire to show the
superficiality of all changing things, they do suggest a very important direction required to make sense of
change: Change is the comparison of changeless units in a series. Units of reality are moments of
experience that are temporally finite, “atomized,” not capable of being or becoming something other than
they are for the moment they are. However, if when the unit’s time is up and another replaces it, it’s gone,
it cannot be compared to anything, so change cannot be rationalized. A clearer answer to this problem had
to wait for Whiteheads analysis discussed in the next chapter.
Plato’s approach, keeping the units around as eternal and changeless (though they appear and disappear
in the world of sense experience), also interprets that which changes as deficient in reality compared to
Idea-beings that already, eternally, are. He seems to speak of souls as the active agents in the exchange of
beings, but then souls must alter and be, contradictorily, both changeless and changing units.
If the basic units of reality are units of making, then what is made can then remain to be parts of
successive others’ makings. Once made, beings are everlasting. Only metaphysical abstractions are eternal
and changeless “beings,” that is, characteristics descriptive of all possible comings-to-be.
Suggested Reading: Datta; Gross; Koller; Hiriyanna on Buddhism; Plato’s dialogues: the early
dialogues are easy to read; Hartshorne and Reese, section on Plato; Histories of Philosophy; Collett Cox,
Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence (Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist
Studies, 1995).
************************************************************************
79
Charles Hartshorne14
June 5, 1897–October 9, 2000
Signature from letter mentioned in the Introduction
14Reprinted by permission of Open Court Publishing Company, a division of Carus Publishing Company, Peru, Il, from
The Logic of Perfection by Charles Hartshorne, © 1962 by the Open Court Publishing Company.
80
Chapter 12
Epistemology
How Is Knowledge Possible?
“I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it.”
Descartes, Mediations on the First Philosophy in which the Existence of God and the Distinction
between Mind and Body Are Demonstrated, II. “Cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am.”)
Descartes. “I doubt that I exist, therefore I do.” Augustine, 354-430 CE.
“The absolute existence of unthinking things , without any relation to their being perceived, that is to
me perfectly unintelligible. Their esse is percipi; [to be is to be perceived]; nor is it possible they
should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them.” Principles of
Human Knowledge, Part I, 3. “The notion of it [material substance] is inconsistent.” Three Dialogues,
III, Bishop Berkeley, 1685-1753.
“Ideas which are clear and distinct can never be false.” Spinoza , 1632-1677, On the Improvement of
the Understanding.
******************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
How it is possible to know something, especially if one assumes either that:
(1) the thing known is not inside the knower, or
(2) the thing known is the one and only real thing, or
(3) the thing known is incapable of being known by limited, human minds.
–Approaches–
Knowing something has been taken to mean:
(1) Having a copy of the thing known,
(2) Becoming one with the One,
(3) Receiving a revelation,
(4) Grasping another directly.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
“Knowing” (the fourth proposal) is having in experience a symbol that is relatively clear and
somewhat like what is fully and directly grasped in experience, but vaguely so; or grasping the
known object directly and with awareness.
Cons:
(1) A copy can never be just like the original, and since the original is unknowable, knowing whether
the copy is in any way like the original is impossible.
(2) If the mind were to be “one with the One,” it would be impossible to know it is.
(3) There is no way to check whether a revelation is of reality as it is.
******************************************************************************
E
pistemology” is the Greek word philosophers
use for The Theory of Knowledge.
Philosophical problems can be approached
from several sides. Many of the problems of the last
few chapters on change have been approached by
asking, how can someone know what must be known
for him/er to assert what s/he does about reality?
81
Chapter 12: Epistemology
How could Parmenides know, for example, that
reality was One if knowing something necessarily
involves two, namely, the knower and the known? Is
a state of homogeneous being a state of knowledge?
Since Parmenides says there is only one Being, the
mind either is the one Being or knows it. But since
Parmenides says there is only one reality, either mind
or Being cannot be real.
How can unreality know reality? How can
appearance know what is not appearance? Is
appearance really appearance? Calling something
“appearance” does not avoid the problem of
explaining how appearance and reality are really
related.
A theory that proposes that the reality referred to
(known?) is beyond knowability could not know it is
beyond being knowable. And appealing to a
revelation to give us “knowledge” of what cannot be
otherwise known, is not knowledge, for how could
one know the revelation is true?
A theory of reality in which there are no real
relations cannot express a consistent theory. All
theories that deny relationships are self-contradictory.
This forces a Universal Theory of Relations on us.
Even mind must be complex, that is, contain
relations, in some sense. The simplest duality, or
better, dipolarity, that can be expressed is knower and
known (or feeler and felt).
The Representational Theory of Knowledge:
We know copies of the real things.
Democritus, or anyone who tries to explain
reality by beings that move, has another problem:
How can the knower know anything if the things
known are not part of the knower? Again, how can
one know something existing apart from and outside
the knower, that is, externally related to the place
wherein knowing occurs? The atoms, and their
changing relationships to each other, are what must
be known. But atoms continue on their merry way
and, therefore, cannot be part of the knower.
This problem is supposedly solved in many
systems by what is called The Representational or
Copy Theory of Knowledge. The knowing mind has
a copy of the thing known. Yet, how can anyone ever
know whether the copy is like the original? The socalled known, that is, the original, can never be
known; only the “copy” is knowable.
How can a copy be called a “copy” if it cannot
be compared to the original? Since it is logically
impossible to know both the copy and the original,
this theory is groundless, a pure leap of faith at best.
It is actually a self-contradiction since one must
know there is an original to speak meaningfully about
a copy. If one cannot possibly know there is an
original, the whole theory becomes meaningless as
Berkeley pointed out.
When is a copy not a copy?
The possibility of knowing simultaneous
differences of the same thing is meaningless in the
Representational Theory of Knowledge since one
never knows the thing, much less differences of the
thing. Solipsism (see Glossary) plagues all
philosophical theories of knowledge that assume the
basic units of reality are beings.
The Sautrantika Buddhists who propose an event
theory of human identity have a similar problem. The
knower, which in their scheme is the present being of
experience, must be able to compare itself to previous
beings of the series. But the past is gone when the
present occurs. Their attempt to build memory of the
past into the present, by saying the present being
contains memory of the previous beings, can only
mean the present being has characteristics of the socalled past beings. They cannot literally mean the
present has the past beings themselves.
“In every next moment, there is not the slightest bit
left of what has existed in the former moment. [Their
so-called memory can only be a representation or copy
of the previous beings:] “...An exact facsimile of the
previous entity crops up.” (Datta, 73).
But how could one know whether the copy is accurate? All the problems with the Representational
Theory of Knowledge apply here also.
Knowledge cannot mean the knower and the
known are external to each other no matter how close
together they are, even if they are contiguous, that is,
next to but external to each other. An adequate
metaphysic requires a theory of internal relations as
well as external relations.
Known
Knower
Yet, internal relationships make no sense without
external relationships. If something A is in something
B, then B cannot be in A. It must be outside or
external to A. The known A is part of the knower B.
The knower B is not part of the known A. The past
must be in and part of the present. The present
actuality cannot be in, nor part of, the past.
Known
Knower
Known
To know things are outside each other, and to
know they set up a pattern by the way they are related
82
outside each other, logically requires they not only be
simultaneously in the knower but they be what they
are, as they are, in the knower. Copies,
representations and the like cannot provide an
adequate theory of what it means to know. A copy
only makes sense if it is a stand-in for the original
that must also be knowable, even if it is not yet
known, or not known as clearly, as the copy at the
moment.
Symbol:
Something used to stand for something else.
Symbols are usually simple and easy to
manipulate and stand for things more vague or
complex.
A copy, as a stand-in, is a symbol. It refers to the
original. The act of referring the symbol to the
original takes place in the present which is the
knower. The knower knows, or could know, both the
symbol and what it refers to. When the symbol is like
the original in the ways one takes it to be like the
original, the knower is said to have the truth.
Symbolic truth is always abstract and can never
capture the complete reality of the original. Only the
original is just like the original.
But symbolic truth can capture how things are
partially alike. It can find and express changeless
characteristics, Forms or I-deas (Goddess within) as
Plato noted and made famous. But knowledge of
these Forms cannot ex press the full reality of the
original. The rich content of actual reality, can only
be known by grasping it as it is within the coming-tobe of the knower. The knower by embracing or
including the known must be more than the known.
“More than” cannot be “other than,” the embraced.
So the one embraced is not next to and outside, but
rather within the reality of the embracer. To know is
either
(1) to embrace the known directly or
(2) to embrace a symbol directly and refer it to
the original (that is, compare it to the original) in
some way that the original does in fact exhibit and
can be known to have.
Only by embracing and gathering the past into
the present can solipsism be rationally confronted.
Whitehead says the very act of consciously
perceiving the world around us necessarily abstracts
from the welter of entities there and presents to us a
useful but greatly simplified version of our surroundings.
To assume one’s experience of a visual object is
a single item that lasts over time (when it really is a
complex, lineal society of moments), is to commit the
Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. Committing this
fallacy gives rise to the mistaken notion of beings
that alter or move. Perceptual objects of conscious
experience are really symbols (appearances) of what
exists and what is experienced less clearly at a more
visceral and preconscious level.
Chapter Summary
Either one contains, grasps, embraces another, or one doesn’t. Insofar as one does, one can know the
other. If one partially grasps another, one can have truth of that aspect. If one doesn’t contain anything of
another, one cannot even know there is another. If things in reality are only externally related, knowledge is
not possible. If all relationships are internal, there is only one thing, one reality, and knowledge is not
possible despite Parmenides’ attempt to tell us he can know the One.
So-called copies of reality aren’t copies if the so-called original is not only unknown, but unknowable. If
reality is composed of units of making, which can only begin their making by grasping the
accomplishments of others, the main problem of knowledge is solved before it is a problem: To exist is to
exist in relationship to others. To exist is to include some others as parts of oneself. The attempted theory of
self-sufficient and isolated souls “knowing” only their own ideas or copies of a world supposedly outside
themselves, is called “solipsism;” it is merely an interesting fiction.
Suggested Reading: Whitehead, Symbolism; Woozley.
*************************************************************************
Yggdrasil
Scandinavian World Tree
The tree, as the axis of the universe from which Odin hung for
nine days before descending and then returning from the
underworld with women’s secrets to share with men. Drawn
from a picture in Fix, 127.
*****************************************************************
Conceiving as Surpassing
“If you can conceive of the unsurpassable, the unsurpassable has been surpassed....The unsurpassable, I
feel, is nonsense. If you think of unsurpassability and know the essence, existence and actuality, then you
have surpassed the unsurpassable. Some of the things Positivists believe, I don’t go along with, but I do
believe that the unsurpassable is nonsense.” Student, 1994.
83
84
Chapter 13
Whitehead
Moments of Growth
“The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel
entity other than [that is, in addition to] the entities given in disjunction....The many become one, and
are increased by one.” A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
Answering how it is possible to have simultaneous comparison of successive differences of the same
thing.
–Approaches–
Whitehead proposes that each moment is a coming-to-be of a new being around the results of previous
comings-to-be. His position draws from:
(1) the Goddess tradition by including the physical (things done) in the really real (his moments of
process creativity), and by recycling or retaining old accomplishments in the new present,
(2) the Milesians by asking the universal question, How is everything alike?
(3) the Pythagoreans by emphasizing the patterns realities exhibit rather than the stuff they are
made of,
(4) Heraclitus by seeing the fundamental reality as a coming-to-be rather than being,
(5) Parmenides by agreeing once a being is, it can never change in any way,
(6) Anaxagoras by maintaining all things in reality have, or are, qualities,
(7) Democritus by saying all moments have a finite spatial size that is indivisible,
(8) Buddhists by agreeing anything lasting over time is a series of wholes or moments, rather than
one whole that alters with each new difference.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Seems to give a logical explanation for how change is meaningful.
Con:
Is vague on the unity of the universe: On whether the universe over time is the same whole or a series
of wholes.
*****************************************************************************
T
hough there are a few, for example, Henri
Bergson (1859-1941) who countered the emphasis on being over becoming, it was not
until Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) that the
logical relationship between being and becoming was
sufficiently clarified to avoid obvious selfcontradictions. The answer to how simultaneous
comparison of successive differences of the same
thing is possible begins by maintaining that life,
process, growth, that is, coming-to-be, is the basis of
what is really real. “Really real” here means something that actually exists by acting or creating. Full
reality is,
(1) not just a possible act,
(2) nor aspects common to some or all possible
acts,
(3) nor an act already done.
Acts that are finished are beings, and all beings are
parts of fully real things, namely, actors or makers of
beings. Act-uality is acting. It is an effort to get
something done.
Whitehead realized coming-to-be, the effort of
creating something, makes sense only when the effort
pays off and the coming-to-be comes to be. The
process of creating15 creates something that has
15Whitehead’s term for process is “concrescence,” a
growing together of many into a whole. Actually, the
85
Chapter 13: Whitehead
never been before. A process creates, and what it
creates is a creation, a thing that now is, namely, a
being.
Each process is a moment of life that does
something with its life, but once that something is
accomplished, the process of that life is ended. A
moment of life must die, come to be, or nothing new
ever gets done. Heraclitus missed this essential point.
He proposed reality was life or process, that is, coming-to-be, but nothing ever came to be. He had no
real beings that are. Every coming-to-be must end
with an accomplishment, that is, as a being. A being
is created by a moment of life.
So Whitehead’s view requires beings to be real.
They are the real things created by present acts. They
are the things already created by past (dead) actors
or, as Whitehead says, by past and “objectified”
actual entities. They are no longer subjects, but
objects for other subjects.
But though the life is ended, what the life finally
did is in new lives forever, and so will continue to be
as it is forever. The past is being. Beings are created,
and are always parts of new comings-to-be. They are
changelessly forever what they are.
Beings are created, and are always parts
of new comings-to-be.
––––––––o–––––––
The Past is here, in the present!
This is the answer to the question, “Where is the
past?” that too few have handled adequately. Where
does being exist? Parmenides says one being is all
there is, so he dismisses the question. Democritus
says beings exist in the Void and have always been
there. Whitehead says beings cannot exist by
themselves. The substantial or self-supportive stuff of
reality is not being nor the Void. It is creative process
or coming-to-be, as Heraclitus suggests.
The fundamental stuff of reality is doing, not
something done. However, a unit of making can (and
in principle must) contain, as parts of its unit of becoming, things already done. Every act begins
somewhere with something already done. The
moment of creating does not leave behind what it
begins with. It enfolds it and carries it along. To be is
to be as a part of some becoming or other. Becoming
is always a whole; a being is always a part of some
whole or other and always something past, that is,
something done.
To be past is not to be gone. To be past is to be a
part of the present. To be part of the present is not to
be the present. To be past is to be settled. Nothing
about the past can ever be changed. Being is
completely changeless.
process itself is the whole. Wholes create beings that are
parts of successive wholes.
Those from Parmenides on who have insisted on
the changelessness of being were not wrong.
However, just because being must be changeless
once it is, does not logically require beings cannot be
created. Every being has come to be, except
metaphysical characteristics of beings (see footnote
29, Chapter 22).
Every being has been created, therefore, every
being is contingent, that is, could have been different
from the way it is. But once it is, it must forever be as
it is. Being is not capable of any alteration nor
locomotion. Beings cannot change.
What changes is the series, as some Buddhists
insisted. Change is the difference of one being from
another in the same series. Since Whitehead says the
series is a series of creatings or comings-to-be and
not a series of beings, it is possible for him to get two
or more beings together in the same moment simultaneously so they can be compared. The present
moment, the process in cluding the results of previous
processes, is the comparer. The (past) beings are the
objects compared.
So how is it possible to know which being came
before another if they are all together as parts of the
present? There must be a way of knowing which
beings necessarily come before others. The logic here
is one of nesting or depth of inclusiveness. Beings
contain other beings as parts because the processes
that made them also contained beings as parts.
In the following diagram, C is not just the shaded
area; C is the whole, complex area with three patterns
as parts. If A or B were different parts, C would be a
different whole. Likewise, B is an area of two
patterns. If A were different, B would be different
also. But it is important to notice that C could be
different (or not be at all), and B and A would be just
the same. If B had been different, A would still be the
same, but not C. This illustrates the logical
asymmetry of succession or time.
Temporal Asymmetry
A
B
C
A process ends up as a new being. The new
being, however, contains the beings the unit of
creating began with. In this way comparison of
beings is not only possible but inevitable. A process
can compare
(1) a being to a part of itself which is what time
or succession of the same thing (series) means, or a
process can compare
86
(2) two or more beings that are independent of
each other. If two beings, newly created, are taken
into a process, they are said to have occurred
simultaneously from the point of view of the process.
But simultaneity is only meaningful if the two
simultaneously occurring beings are both in, that is,
past to a process that contains them both.
Part of the realization of physical science’s
Theory of Relativity is that two occurrences, that
some moment experiences as happening at the same
time, need not be experienced as occurring at the
same time by another moment.
Larger (later) beings include
smaller (earlier) beings,
(and will do so forever).
Two Intersecting Personal Series
Two Series, M and N
M's Future
Boundaries of
M and N's
experience
and influence.
N's Future
m
n (present
N's Past
x
•
moment of N)
y
•
M's Past
For
M, xyand
y occur
simultaneously.
x occurs
first––
For M,
x and
occur
simultaneously.
ForFor
N, xN,occurs
first.
x
and
y
are
contemporaries.
x and y are contemporaries.
Disagreement as to the order of occurrences is
possible, but only when the occurrences being compared are causally independent of each other. If one
being contains another as part of itself, every point of
view in the universe must see the one included as
happening before the one that includes it.
To illustrate, take two light flashes, x and y, a
few million miles apart. If a person M equal-distant
from x and y sees them at the same time, then
someone N closer to x will see x first, and someone
closer to y will see y first. What does it mean to say
the lights were flashed at the same time? Relativity
physics says that question is meaningless apart a
from a reference to a particular series in the world
which organizes the transmitted signals.
Despite the truths of relativity physics, is there,
perhaps, some way to refer to a cosmic unity, a
cosmic present? Transmissions between
noncontiguous individuals within the universe require
the transmission be mediated by others. Every
experience (every creating pre sent) takes a
perspective on the rest of the universe. Perspective is
failure to include most of the things that have just
happened. An actuality in the world must take a
perspective on the world. It can only experience as
simultaneous those beings that have been created
contiguous to it or have been transmitted to it by
others as it begins.
Most acts do not spread over, that is, include all,
or even very much, of what has just happened in the
universe. What has just happened somewhere cannot
yet have been transmitted anywhere. A being that has
just come to be exists immediately and without
transmission (that is, without mediation) within the
successive moments contiguous to it which must
spread over and include it. Transmitted beings are
experienced from the point of view of the process
that receives the transmission as carried to it by
87
others. A moment, or series of moments (like a person), experiences a transmitted being from a perspective within the universe.
Perspective arises from experiencing part
of the universe from within the Whole.
But there is the logical possibility one creative
act, or series of acts, takes no perspective at all on the
universe. The possibility of cosmic experience
contiguous with all the beings just created will be
examined in later chapters (especially Chapter 24).
But when that possibility is examined, we must be
very careful not to confuse one moment (even a
cosmically inclusive one) that lives and dies in the
present, with a personal series of such moments.
Perhaps there is a series that doesn’t have a first or
last member, even if the notion of one moment that
lasts forever adding new changes is not meaningful.
Each moment of a series begins its creating using
the opportunities and limitations provided by the
beings of the environment with which that moment
begins. The moment ends with a new being. The new
being contains the old beings within the novelty
created by the present moment itself. What defines a
series is the common past, the core, that each member
of the series inherits. Each series is unique because
no two series can have exactly the same beings in
their growing core.
Yet, the defining uniqueness of a series is not
always quite so straightforward. A series of beings
can be found in two or more series because a series of
beings, a single past, can be inherited by two or more
presents. This is the converse of a present
simultaneously inheriting many beings or pasts.
inheritance of the same being. (See illustrations under
Nexüs at the end of this chapter.)
Once one appreciates that process, not be ing, is
the stuff of reality, finding a being in more than one
place (process) at the same time will not seem so
strange. Being is a conditioning of becoming or
process. One being can condition more than one
process simultaneously.
A being does not have to be in just one place
(one process) at a time, but each process is a unique
once-in-a-universe occurrence. What it makes can be
inherited by many creatings and must always be
inherited by at least one, or else what is in existence,
would no longer be. That some-thing becomes nothing is nonsense. Something (a being or process)
cannot even become something different from what it
is. The only “something” that can change is a series,
that is, one moment can become and be different
from previous beings in the same series.
By now the reader may have become very
impatient with the demands of logic. After all,
experience shows us things changing much of the
time: Objects like chairs do change their places, and
people do change their minds. Whitehead has an
explanation for the tendency to assume things move,
rather than realize that what is really happening is the
creation of something new each moment.
The human mind is, first of all, designed for
surviving. We need to know when danger is present,
food is available, and how to satisfy other concerns
for survival. We must group things together that are
similar so we are not overwhelmed with detail. The
brain is an au tomatic stereotyper. Generally we have
no reason to distinguish one atomic event or even one
cellular event from another. So those the characteristic that dominates a group (as Anaxagoras would
say) is experienced rather than the many, somewhat
unique, individuals.
Space and Time
(1)
a
(2)
b
Coordination:
Space
a
b
Succession:
Time
Each of the two presents must contain some
beings the other does not, and must be using its
creativity in a somewhat different way, but they
could both have a core past in common. What was
one series, one person, can branch into two or more.
The phenomenon of multiple persons in psychology
and the ability of something to be in two or more
places at once in physics are examples of multiple
A spatial or temporal group
may not be a concrete reality
[in addition to the concreteness
of its members].
A green book cover is called “one” cover. The
book is called “one” book. But the cover is not one
thing. It is a very complex society of atomic
processes. To believe a society is really one thing
rather than one group is to commit what Whitehead
calls the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. We do
not assume all the people of the United States are one
thing, even though the image of Uncle Sam is used to
stand for all, and so no fallacy is committed.
Assuming something is concretely one when it is
really an abstraction or collection is a fallacy either
(1) when many in a spatial group are taken to be
one concrete whole or
88
(2) when many in a temporal group (series) are
taken to be one thing. The chair at any one moment is
a contemporaneous (spatial) group, but the chair as it
survives through time is also composed of a large
number of series. Since the many series which
comprise the chair inherit each others’ pasts and stay
together even when “moved,” we mistakenly assume
a common stuff, a single matter, exists that supports
the changing qualities of the chair over time and
throughout space.
Two Meanings of “One”
ONE moment of a series (concrete sense),
versus
ONE series of moments (abstract sense)
and/or group of moments.
But the support for the qualities of the chair
resides in the many momentary processes. Successive
processes in the series of a group are very much like
previous ones because they inherit the same beings,
so a complex society of many spatial and temporal
things may continue to exist and hang together.
Ordinary, macroscopic objects are not single things.
Their unity is in social cooperation––not in numerical
singularity––even though we often preconsciously
eliminate much of the insignificant diversity of the
society and experience it consciously as one quality.
The question remains: Is the whole universe one
or many? In Whitehead’s categories: Are the many
beings created by the many processes of the cosmos
(at each moment) all within one unifying process
which is one cosmic moment in a series of allinclusive, unifying processes?
Chapter Summary
Whitehead accepts both Parmenides’ belief that being must be changeless and Heraclitus’ assertion that
coming-to-be is the meaning of full reality. He does not seek fire or anything else to be the common stuff
that fluxes. Each flux is unique; its own “stuff,” even though they are all alike in abstract ways, such as, being creative. Whitehead also accepts some Buddhists’ belief that reality is composed of many units, but units
which are temporally thick or finite, not “infinitesimally quick” as some Buddhists say, and not just spatial
units that are temporally infinite like Democritean atoms. Each unit is a creation of a new being around the
results of previous creatings. Beings come to be and remain forever as they are in new comings-to-be.
Suggested Reading: Leclerc; Hartshorne, PSG, WP; Whitehead.
***************************************************************************************
Alfred North Whitehead
1861-1947
Photo from The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead,
Paul Schilpp, ed., 1941.
89
90
Nexüs
Actual Entities
(Numbers in brackets are Categoreal Conditions. See Appendix 3.)
91
92
The Spatial-Temporal Continuum
For more advanced contemplators
POGO16
And before the “REAL big bang”
16 Reprint permission applied for.
93
Chapter 14
Summary of the Problem of Change
L
“Time went by
And the boy grew older.”
Shel Silverstein, The Giving Tree.
ife makes a death that “lives” (is) in other
lives forever. This insight has been part of
culture and religion as far back as Neolithic
time, 10,000 years ago, and likely ten times that
long. But an idea is generally vague at first, and
with time various ways of interpreting it are
discovered. A death that lives again may have first
been likened to the way animals die in order to
give us life when we use them for food, or the way
we become leaves of grass, to use Walt Whitman’s
phase.
We live after death in the affects we have in
others. If we identify with a group, a tribe, we are
born again in each one born into the clan. The
blood ties were thought to be literal. The menstrual
blood, the stuff of life, flowed in all of those who
had the same mother or mother ancestor. Today we
speak of genetic similarity. When one died, the
blood was returned to the Great Mother to be used
again.
As the clan ties were weakened and paternity
became recognized and substituted for maternal
creation, there was more concern for what
happened to each individual. The “living again”
took the form of personal rebirth. So long as maternal concepts dominated society’s worldview,
rebirth was seen as happening over and over as
one’s life went through the five stages: birth, puberty (menarche), maturity (reproduction), sage
(post reproductive––menopause), and death that set
up the female trinity of life: maiden, mother and
crone. Death was going back into the Great
Mother’s womb to be reborn. The grim reaper was
also the birth-giver.
But as patriarchs gained social power, men felt
less need to copy females and their life stages (like
the genital blood-letting males still are subjected to
in the circumcision rite at puberty in some
cultures), and became motivated to find
alternatives to female categories. The cyclical pattern of dying in order to live again gave way to a
view of death that offered new life forever, apart
from Mater. One never had to be born again. Being
born of woman was even seen as the worst possible
event a person must endure. It is the original sin of
existence, according to St. Augustine, who has
been influential since the Fourth Century. In patriarchal cultures, the new life one acquires after
death is with the father, not the mother, and it lasts
forever.
Patriarchal ethics is based in a concern to
please the father, to be worthy enough in his eyes
to be allowed the never-ending life in his kingdom.
Patriarchal ethics is also deeply concerned with
womb control in order to assure a male’s creation
will not be thwarted, to assure his “blood line” (seed)
will be the only creation nurtured by his helpmate.
The disgust of the female, probably arising from
male jealously of her creative monopoly, produced a
theory of afterlife rather than a theory of new life.
One’s life after death, however, could never be removed from the female metaphors of rebirth, but the
patriarchal salvation scheme was very definite on one
point: the afterlife is not a coming back to life within
the physical earth mother and her kin; it is a better,
glorified life with a better glorified body that is not
ever again subject to the cycles of female created life.
Never again will one be born, as St. Augustine
coarsely says, between piss and shit. Our new
spiritual kin are in a separate kin-gdom.
This theory of physical life, death, and new
spiritual life (which we have seen as early as the
Pythagoreans) finally concludes that the physical
body is not essential nor even natural for man. It was
thought to be a prison locking up the real man, the
soul. The soul was alive before birth. To be born of
woman was to tie up a soul in matter (that is, mater,
mother stuff). To die was to be born into real life
with father, or simply to get back to the natural state
of the soul: pure, unadulterated, unrecycled.
A price must be paid for acquiring this union
(reunion) with the father. Only the worthy are given
the happiness of this state (stasis). The unworthy are
punished: Punishment is not a return to the world
where a second chance might bring about its
cessation, as Plato said. Punishment now is
everlasting.
The depreciation of women went so far as to
deny they even had this essence of real life, the soul,
even though the word for “soul” in most languages is
feminine, the Greek, psyche, for example. The ultimate men’s club would not admit women.
The one-sidedness of matriarchal religious/philosophical schemes that assigned creative
power to the female as well as social status, had been
turned around. There still was blood shed, but it was
from death and wounds, not from life-giving
menstrual cycles, yet it was glorified just the same.
War and conflict was part of life and afterlife. Gods
fought gods and goddesses and men imitated them as
holy duties in endless holy wars whose virulence is
still rampant.
Society set up stringent ins and outs, the blessed
and the damned. Even the universe was no longer a
94
Chapter 14: Change
unity as the duality of heaven and hell grew ever
more mutually exclusive. Reality was no longer
seen as one unity embraced within the one body
of the Goddess.
–––––––––––o–––––––––––
The ancient truth that life creates death that
lives again is true for Whitehead and Hartshorne
also, but with a reinterpretation that a better
understanding of change allows. The duration of
the moment varies with the kind of species, lasting
about a twentieth of a second for people. A
moment of life creates something, a being. The
being is the result of the life. The death of the
momentary life is its being. Death is the “loss”
(completion) of a life since the creating that was
the moment of life is over and can never live again
without self-contradiction. The momentary life is
not killed; it is satisfied. Life would be meaningless
without a result, the problem we saw with
Heraclitus’ pure flux.
After death, the being, “lives” again in the next
moment of life. A moment of life begins with the
accomplishments of previous lives. A life takes
these doings, these beings, into itself and uses them
to make a new result containing them. So every
being is alive in one important sense: It has effects
or conse quences for other lives. It is enjoyed or
suffered by others’ lives, forever.
Only by being dead can a life change or affect
other lives. A moment of creative life, during its
creating, does not change other moments of life.
They are, as a physicist would say, contemporaries;
they are mutually independent, causally unrelated.
Only a moment’s death can be a cause. Only a
death can make a difference in another.
Each death is reborn, resurrected in other lives.
If one wants to call a moment of life a ”soul,” then
a soul dies by becoming a body, a being. Soul, or
creative process, is not capable of being
experienced as an object. It is always a subject with
beings as its objects. The soul dies by becoming an
object for other momentary souls. So, if beings are
thought of as bodies, that is, physical, then rebirth
happens by resouling bodies rather than reincarnating, that is, re-embodying, souls.
Reality is unavoidably dipolar. Each moment of reality is a creating subject experiencing
objects. Objects cannot exist except in subjects
and subjects cannot exist without experiencing
objects. But subjects and objects are not on equal
footing: Subjects or processes are the inclusive pole.
Objects are in subjects; never vice versa.
The older, more naive, formulations of reality
said there were subjects (souls, lives and comings-tobe) and there are objects (matter and changeless
beings). Each was thought to be able to exist apart
from the other. This is dualism, not dipolarity. The
old attempts to overcome dualism were expressions
of monism. Heraclitus says reality consists only of
life or subjectivity, there are no real objects or
stability. Parmenides says the opposite: Reality is
only an object that is dead, changeless, lifeless.
Democritus basically agrees with Parmenides,
though he tries to get life back into reality as locomotion. But locomotion cannot explain coming-to-be.
Process must make something new, a new death or
result. Locomotion cannot introduce anything new.
Dead realities can never do anything new. Life can
make a death, but even life cannot re-make or alter a
death. A death is changeless and incorruptible.
Every death will, however, partially determine
how future lives will be lived since every death must
be included in some life.
A Life must include others’ deaths,
but a death cannot contain life.
In terms of the categories of change: A whole in
its creative coming-to-be can contain changeless
parts, but a static whole (a being) cannot contain
parts that are coming to be.
The following chart summarizes most of the
attempted relationships of being and becoming. The
major distinction among these theories hinges on the
difference between,
(1) a single concrete actuality defined as a unit
that is the same unit throughout changes, a unit
supposedly capable of surviving differences, and
(2) a concrete actuality that lasts for only one
moment as fully concrete—a unit that can only do
one (complex) thing.
This distinction is that between a theory of enduring substance and that of momentary substance.
95
Chapter 14: Change
1. Being Only––Parmenides; perhaps most of Eastern pantheism and mysticism.
Since being is being, propositions asserting distinctions in reality must be
attributing something to reality other than being, like red or happy.
Change is seen as meaningless since (1) being can only change into being
which is no change, or (2) the being must be what it is and then not be
what it is after the so-called change. The same being must be A and notA, a logical self-contradiction. Anything but Being is called
“appearance.” But is appearance real? How does it come into being ? How
can we, as appearances, know reality is not like any of our experiences?
Reality as one absolute can have no real relationships to anything, including our attempt to know it.
2. Becoming Only––Heraclitus; perhaps Henri Bergson and modern wave physics.
This position denies anything remains or endures for two or more
moments of time. Yet time is meaningless apart from succession, and
succession implies something new exists to compare to the old. With the
past gone before, or as, the present comes into being, reality is only the
present. With no possibility of comparison, change is meaningless. Only
by surreptitiously assuming a changeless memory does this seem at all
reasonable. What is the stuff that is changing? Fire, matter, energy, space,
soul?
3. Beings That Alter Internal State Enduring Substances––Common sense; Milesians,
Pythagorean’s soul, and some aspect of most philosophical positions.
Alteration of A to B
This common position maintains a thing that can have different states
or attributes internally and yet remain the same thing. The most
common type of reality thought to be alterable is mind or soul. If so, a
mind must be what it is and then be other than it was (or is?) when the
new state of mind comes into being, since a mind is a whole with its
thoughts or experiences as parts or it is nothing. Parmenides’ position
is an adequate rebuttal of all positions that hold that any kind of being
can alter. A being, as a concrete state of affairs, is what it is because of
all its aspects; it cannot change some of its characteristics and still be
the same being. Every whole is what it is because its parts are what
they are. Parmenides also claimed that a whole cannot have distinct
parts within it, even if they were unalterable. This cannot be true,
unless a theory of reality makes sense without any external relations,
something that’s never been successful.
96
Chapter 14: Change
4. Beings That Alter Position: Enduring Substances––Democritus; Newton; Common sense;
much of science, and many philosophical positions.
Concrete beings that only change position, and not internal state, are usually called “material substances.”
Democritean or classical atomism has been very influential in Western science. Each atom is like the
Parmenidean One with no internal distinctions or qualitative attributes. They are in a Void which also has no
distinctions within it. Atoms can only have quantita tive variations of shape and size, and they can do nothing
but move and rearrange. They have never been created, nor can they be destroyed. They have always been in
motion, and change of direction results from external and “random” collisions with others. Change means
“rearrangement” of the internally changeless beings within the one void or space.
Can nothingness be the unity of the many? Can one say the atoms are in the Void if they have no affect in
or on it when they rearrange? Take three atoms in a line: Change supposedly occurs when they are moved to a
triangle. But the first arrangement is gone before (as) the second comes into being , so there is no chance for
comparison of successive differences (see A).
Perhaps memorycan be the solution: Mind, if anything, must also be
atoms. If “the mind” is represented by a row of atoms (see B), then
rearrangement of some of the row could be what happens in experience,
A.
like the three atoms in the line C. Then when the new triangular
arrangement happens, “the mind” could also rearrange some of is atoms,
though not the same ones that record the previous experience or else the
past arrangement would be gone again (see D). Yet even with both
B.
patterns in existence (in being), there is still no reality they are in that
can compare them to each other.
The so-called mind not
is one atom, “it” is an aggregate. The
experience of a group requires something that is not a group; it requires a
C.
singular whole with the group as parts.
There is also no way to know temporal order. Both arrangements are
on equal logical footing. They seem to have occurred at the same time;
they seem to be contemporaries. Democritus' metaphysics does not allow
one to know contrast, much less sequence, without violating the ultimate
D.
assertion he makes that reality consists only of atoms “in” the void.
5. Beings As Changeless Ideals and the Fully Real and
Becoming As Comings and Goings of Beings and Not Fully Real––Plato
Plato can be read as an attempt to come to grips with Parmenides. Changeless Beings are the fully real; but
only concepts are exempt from change; therefore, they are the really real. The world of thought or mind is the
only way to experience reality, namely, the changeless. The body with its emotions and sense experience only
hinders achieving the truth of reality. Change is the replacement of one Being, Form, or Idea, by another in
the world’s spatial manifold. Matter can never accept the Idea ideally, that is, perfectly, since mater is
intrinsically imperfect, so sense experience is always imperfect.
Plato also has souls in his world view. They are the movers that are self-moved. Since the whole world
moves, he even posits a World Soul . The relation of the manifold of matter, the World Soul, and the Realm of
Ideal Beings is not clearly worked out. Different traditions emphasized various aspects of his thought; yet
common themes are: other-worldliness, disembodied souls, and deprecation of the value of the world as
opposed to the value of a changeless heaven to contemplate––with God (Plato’s Form of the Good) as a
Being changeless in all ways. Plato is close to the Buddhists’ position below.
97
Chapter 14: Change
6. Series of Changeless Beings: Some Ancient Buddhists.
Reality consists of experiences. Not only is this a denial that
reality consists of dead stuff or altering substance, but also the
denial there is even a living substance that has the experiences. A
person is just the series of experiences; each one is what it is, as
Parmenides would say. It does not alter. It occurs and disappears(?)
as another occurs. They are externally related. Death of a person is
the failure to have another experience in the series. The denial of
persistent substance through change is important to some
Buddhists’ idea of salvation, namely, escape from suffering, which
the nearly endless reincarnations of Hinduism does not allow.
Perhaps, when all is said, some Buddhists, like Hindus, still hold
positions similar to Parmenides’: Brahman or Nirvana is the
wholeness of reality, and is the only really real. In this ultimate
The direction arrow is assumed but is
reality here can be no suffering since there are no contrasts to set
not allowed in reality if there is only
up conflicts. There can be no joy either.
one being at a time, so the actual past
does not survive into the present.
In a series of moments where the former moment is gone as the
present occurs, no comparison is possible. In Parmenides’ Being or Hindu’s Brahman there, too, is no way for
the present to logically indicate temporal direction. Temporal direction must make sense without arrowheads
or other conventions. Simultaneous and contemporaneous complexity defines space, not time. Time is successive or accumulative complexity that results from the past becoming a part in the present. Given B, B must be
partly what it is because of A that occurred before B, but not vice versa.
7. Series of Becomings with Each Coming To Be Growing Around and Sustaining
Previous Beings As Parts: Whitehead.
Whitehead says ultimate reality is both being and becoming, though not on equal footing. He agrees with
Parmenides that being cannot contain becoming or change, but becoming can have beings as parts of its
moment. A whole must remain self-identical. Wholes for Whitehead are units of process, becomings, or flux
as Heraclitus says, but they do come to be during some finite temporal duration. The being that becomes is
then changeless forever. Being is everlasting once created, but not eternal as are Democritean atoms or souls
in some theories of reincarnation; all beings (which are always the results of process wholes) have come to be
except the metaphysical characteristics (common factors) of all beings. Being survives by being included in,
or used as, the raw material for, new units of creative becoming. Beings necessarily condition future comingsto-be, not by doing anything new themselves, but simply by being the stepping stones or stumbling blocks
they are for present and future creatings.
98
Chapter 14: Change
***********************************************************************************
Chapter Summary
Process Philosophy Inversion
The boy grew older,
So time went by.
99
PART IV
Historical Influences
on Theistic Beliefs
Ascendancy of Patriarchal Concepts
–––––
Mithraism: One Hellenistic Origin
of Medieval Patriarchal Philosophy
–––––
Essenes: Another Hellenistic Origin
100
Chapter 15
Ascendancy of Patriarchal Concepts
“Wives submit yourselves to your...husbands....” Paul of Tarsus.
“Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil.”
Church Father Tertullian, ca. 200 CE.
“Every woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the thought that she is a woman.”
St. Clement of Alexandria, ca. 200 CE.
“Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary [Magdalene] leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.’ Jesus said: ‘I
myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you
males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’” Gospel of Thomas,
Second Century, quoted from Filoramo, 117.
“I happen to believe in traditional American values.” Cincinnati judge Albert Mestemaker, ordering a man to
marry the girlfriend he was convicted of punching in the mouth. Newsweek, 7/24/95.
“She’s wearing a ring that makes her the property of this U.S. male.”
Lyrics from ‘50s song, U.S. Male, a pun on U.S. Mail. Emphasis added.
********************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
The increasing prominence of male-centered metaphors to explain reality and control society.
–Approaches–
(1) Asceticism and male separatism were used to remove males from the female “threat.”
(2) Sperm theory of creation is substituted for the menstrual-blood theory.
(3) Male heroes are worshipped for their sacrifices and sufferings and ability to free men from the
world of mater.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Male sacrifice becomes questioned.
Cons:
(1) Substitution of one gender for the other to explain reality is not a rational approach, since gender is
not a metaphysical characteristic.
(2) Greater emphasis on “ins and outs” becomes a rationalization to justify imposing the truth on the
“outs,” enslaving and eliminating them, in the name of God’s will.
*********************************************************************************
101
Chapter 15: Patriarchy
T
he female metaphors first purporting to
explain reality have never been fully discounted, though, they have often been
usurped by men and given a new slant. Most
people still live in male-gender-based societies.
However, the ideals of democracies, especially the
attempt to separate patriarchal religious bureaucracies from political structures, has allowed
much more opportunity for the prepatriarchal
worldview (or its modern counterpart) to have a
hearing. Much is now being written about Goddess
civilizations and morals. Much of it sees The
Patriarchy as an unmitigated evil: Wars,
overpopulation, loss of reverence for life and the
environmental disasters, slavery, sexism, an antipleasure, life-denying ethic, and so on.
Much in these judgments is likely true, but
much is likely half-true and sentimental. Men lived
for tens of thousands of years within a matrifocal
framework. Why did this philosophical system
begin to break down around 4000 BCE? Why did
men find a need to subordinate, or withdraw from,
the Female? This need is not yet satiated despite
the large number of women tortured and burned at
the stake during the European witch craze. Even
today women are killed and mutilated (hundreds of
millions of women and children have been forced
to undergo unnecessary clitoridectomies, infibulations hysterectomies and episiotomies). Many
women in our own armed services find their fellow
male comrades as dangerous as any enemy.
Yet, despite what many apologists for the
Goddess-worshipping, matrifocal societies say,
men were discriminated against in her societies.
Perhaps they did not even realize that they were, or
they had compensating activities that gave their
lives meaning. But the female reproductive system
was the ultimate metaphor of explanation and
meaning, and men did not have it. Many tried to
become as much like females as possible. This
often meant cutting off all their genitals in order to
become a priest/ess. They offered their most valued
body parts to please the Goddess. They wore women’s style clothing as priests still do today.
As hunting became more superfluous with the
success of animal domestication and agriculture,
purpose for men must have waned even further.
After all, this was a period in history where the reproductive function of males was not clear. Sexual
activity and its relationship to reproduction was
vague. Likely women first figured it out. Their
telling men may have been their biggest mistake.
Men were taken as consorts by women as desire dictated, a relationship often temporary.
Women owned the land, ran the governments. A
queen who was thought to be an incarnation of the
Goddess (just as kings would also come to claim
they are divine) could take a consort, a king, until
she tired of him. One way to get rid of him was to
have his rival competition kill him off. In fact, a
pretender to the office of king often had to prove his
worthiness to be with the queen by his ability to
vanquish the present king. He sometimes had to prove
his sexual virility with an erection at the sight of the
queen while she bathed.
However, the king’s death at the hand of his “son”
(any male the Goddess begets is a son, since the king is
seen as her mate and, therefore, father), was ritualized
into a necessary and inevitable outcome. The son in
turn is killed by his son who is really his father now
reborn as a son, in the cyclical manner of one season
giving way to another.
Blood, the stuff of life and reality in the Goddess
tradition, is still important in the transition to more
male-centered worldviews. But males did not bleed, nor
flow, naturally. They had to be mutilated or killed to
bleed. Their bleeding was taken to be a pleasing thing
to the Goddess who took blood as an offering, a returning of part of what she had given.
One way men could fit into the female blood rituals
was by their death. A king was allowed the blessings of
the Goddess by way of her earthly stand-in (the
queen/priestess), but he had to give up his life as a
sacrifice.
Many men must have longed for the opportunity
for the love-death, the death-kiss. To become king was
to gain power, privilege, but also death. His death
symbolized the annual cycles of grain that grow and die
in order to grow once more again. Unless the seed
“die,” new life is impossible. The king’s blood and
flesh were scattered over the fields to insure fertility,
just as a woman’s blood must flow for her to be fertile.
The sacred soter (sower/savior),
king must die.
The king also (by the blessings he received) became divine, and in the old view, one becomes what
one eats; we are what we eat, as the saying goes. So the
body of the sacrificed king was often eaten and his
blood drunk to insure one would become immortal like
the divinities.
Eventually, a substitute king, called a “sacred
king,” developed who had for a time all the privileges
of the real king. This sacred king was then sacrificed
and was assured immediate immortality. He died not
only for the king, but for everyone. Without the bloodletting people be lieved their divinity would not be
pleased and their crops would not grow.
Human sacrifice as a form of worship was
common. The practice was eventually changed to
substituting animals and even grain, though giving up
animal (and even human sacrifice) was resisted by
some. The story of Cain and Abel points out that Cain’s
vegetarian offerings were not so pleasing to Yahweh as
Abel’s meat sacrifice.
The variations on male human sacrifice are many
and unpleasant: From flaying of the sacrifice (so as to
use his skin in symbolic rebirth dramas) and impaling
102
on spears, to the variations on genital mutilations
ranging from ripping out the testicles (that are were
considered the external intestines) to circumcision.
It is hard to say how much of this pain was matriarchally inspired and how much was the result of the
transition philosophies to patriarchy. We know, of
course, that many forms of blood-letting and
genital mutilation still persist in patriarchy. Some
female forms, particularly, seem clearly invented
within the worldview of patriarchy.
The point of the previous paragraphs (with the
confusing sons of the Goddess who grow up to be
her mate/lover, who die and are dismembered like
ground grain and are reborn from the same
Goddess’ womb/tomb) is to suggest men may have
had some reasons to turn on woman or to turn
away from women. Many men must have felt
relatively meaningless in societies dominated by
female metaphors of meaning.
Even the enjoyment of sex was infused with
fear. The vagina has been referred to as a vagina
dentata, a vagina with teeth. This may have been a
reference to the womb/tomb that eats the dead like
a vulture to prepare one for the rebirth, but the fear
of being consumed in sexual consummation was,
and probably still is, real to many. Intercourse was
referred to as the woman engulfing the man, not
the man penetrating the woman, as is common
today. The sex act was a consuming when it was
consummated.
The fear of women and the jealousy of her
creative power and socio-religious standing is
certainly one reason for the reaction to matriarchy.
When the new theory of sperm creation was
discovered, there was a further movement from the
son/lover of the Goddess to a Father/Creator which
eventually led to the complete denial of the
Goddess/Mother in many quarters, except as
embodied in evil forces in the world or trivialized
into fairy tales.
Asceticism, a philosophy of denying one’s
enjoyment of life, especially sexual enjoyment as
way of dealing with the female threat, seems to
have begun with Buddhism about 500 BCE . It
spread to the Mideast in Zoroastrianism with its
dualism and warring angelology.
It then may have influenced a Hebrew sect called
the Essenes (see Chapter 17), who were very influential
at the time Christianity was founded. Another religion
that appealed to a divine hero, a son of God, and one
even more misogynous than Christianity, was
Mithraism which started a century before we hear of the
ascetic, Saul/Paul of Tarsus, in the very city in which
Mithraism began. Even this religion with its emphasis
on a male hero, who saved men to be with a father god,
nevertheless initiated its members by “washing” them
in blood, or marking their chests with crosses of blood,
from the death of a sacrificial bull.
Perhaps men’s fear of women had another
dimension. The people in the Steppes of Russia just
north of the Black and Caspian seas, known as the
Kurgans, developed hardened copper weapons and
domesticated the horse. They also invented iron. They
became raiders of European and Mediterranean
Goddess-oriented civilizations from 4300 to 1500 BCE.
The ancient Greeks called the aggressive people from
this region who had even conquered north Africa, Amazons, “moon-women.” The Greeks also had legends of
the centaur, a feared horse/human.
Much myth abounds about Amazons, including a
island where they lived and killed off all the men. The
moon-sickle, the scythe, was a Scythian (Kurgan)
weapon or tool also used to cut off male genitals in
ritual mutilations.
Two things seem clear,
(1) human sacrifice and genital mutilation were
practiced in societies dominated by matriarchal ethics,
and
(2) aggressive war, at least in Eurasia, began in a
society still controlled by women and female metaphors
of purpose.
The mobility provided by the horse and their
superior weapons gave them the opportunity to impose
themselves on others, and they did. Males may have
been a major force in the warring activities, but with the
information now known, men cannot simply be blamed
for the disruption of the so-called peaceful Goddess
civilization.
Chapter Conclusion
Much of the history of the rise of patriarchy is still speculative, but only one who has not tried to find the
information can assume the way societies are now structured has always been, or that our way is the natural
or God-given way. Our way may be “God-given,” but only in the sense that “god” as opposed to “goddess”
reflects male-dominated societies and the biased philosophies that developed to justify this dominance. Of
course, prepatriarchal worldviews were undoubtedly just as biased towards the veneration of female
creative and nurturing abilities which, likewise, philosophy justified. We are just becoming aware of the
negative consequences of demonizing this earlier view. But the one-sidedness of any gender-based
philosophy will always generate bad metaphysics and be ethically disastrous.
103
Suggested Reading: Walker, Encyclopedia; Tannahill, Sex in History, Barker-Benfield; Ritter; the videos:
“The Burning Times” and “Boxing Helena;” Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy; Mallory.
***************************************************************
Caduceus
The serpent was an ancient symbol associated with physical and spiritual health before Biblical
writers gave it a negative image. It is a symbol found in ancient India, and North America as well as the
Near East. The double-sexed, two-headed serpent of the caduceus was also associated with the
hermaphrodite, Hermes, whose staff (topped with the winged solar disc) reputedly had enough healing
power to raise the dead (Walker). Compare the staff (perhaps another symbol of the celestial pole) and
the winding serpent to the serpent-wound Gorgon that symbolized the universe with its seven heavens
(Chapter 16). Also recall the paragraph on the “snake” (Chapter 4).
104
Spiritus Gladius
Relief of a sword/cross on the pulpit of Trinity Lutheran Church,
Enderlin, ND. Spiritus Gladius means “Sword of Spirit,” that is, true
eternal life, which depicts well the patriarchal ethic of dying
courageously to obtain the real life supposedly found in death. The
sword also symbolizes division and separation compared to the
cauldron/womb which symbolizes creation of life and inclusiveness.
105
Chapter 16
Mithraism:
One Hellenistic Origin
“If we understand salvation to be a divinely bestowed promise of safety in the deepest sense, both
during life and after death, then the god...of Mithraic iconography was well suited to perform the role
of savior.” David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology & Salvation in the
Ancient World, 125.
“I am not alone; the Father is with me.” Tombstone engraving for Edna Drennen
St. Mary’s Cemetery, Bismarck, ND.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
(1) How God/dess is related to the universe.
(2) Why the divine father/son relationship usurps the mother/child relationship.
–Approaches–
(1) God/dess is outside the universe (outside the celestial sphere):
(a) And apart from the universe (the conventional view of heaven).
(b) And includes the universe as a part of his/er reality (the realm of Glory or the hypercosmic sun
that shines through holes in the celestial sphere as stars).
(2) The mother who gives birth to the male child is no longer divine. The creator of the child is the
father whose unsolicited impregnation takes on mater (flesh) that must be cast off to enter heaven,
the realm of pure spirit, which is apart from the world.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) Insofar as ancients thought of the divine realm as encompassing the cosmic sphere, the possibility
exists of having a logical wholeness or unity of the universe.
(2) The incarnation of the divine in his/er child expresses the truth that divinity cannot be pure spirit
any more than any actual moment of creativity can. The really real is a dipolar moment of life
(spirit) bringing into actuality new being that contains old beings (matter). This truth is lost on
those who bemoan our entrapment in matter.
Cons:
(1) A God that is apart from the rest of the universe cannot logically be the greatest conceivable reality.
(2) The loss of the divine dimension of the Cosmic Female and her creation leaves women with no
divine model in whose image they are created.
(3) The hatred and disgust of mater has distorted philosophical insight and promotes the evils of
misogyny.
******************************************************************************
T
arsus, the capital of the province of Cilicia in
southeastern Asia Minor, the reputed
hometown of the biblical Saul/Paul, was the
location of a major Stoic university during the First
Century BCE . Paul was probably instrumental in
helping reformulate the hard-line ritualism and messianism of the Essene Zealots (see the next Chapter)
and their theocratic, nationalistic politics into an
other-worldly kingdom inclusive of Gentiles that
106
Chapter 16: Mithraism
could survive the Roman Empire’s political
dominance and cultural imperialism.
A century before Saul was born, the Stoics at
Tarsus reformulated their beliefs to account for the
shifting of the heavens, known today as the
precession of the equinox, and developed a religion
whose son-of-god, Perseus/Mithras, born of a mortal
woman Danae, did not himself die, like Jesus, but
killed the feminine, symbolized by the Gorgons and
Taurus the Bull, to make souls safe on their
treacherous journey to the outer heavens as far away
from Mother Earth as possible.
The story of the rise of European Mithraism, as
opposed to Persian Mithraism, is a great detective
story with many subplots. Though Mithraism
outdrew Christianity until the Fourth Century, it
eventually succumbed to the even more militant and
uncompromising Essenic temperament of the early
Christians during the final days of the Roman
Empire.
Philosophically, Mithraism is interesting because
its blatantly anti-female standpoint so obviously
stands in the way of achieving a more meaningful
concept of divinity as the greatest conceivable reality.
It is also a good example of how science, especially
astronomy, affects philosophy and religion. The sky
is like a huge stained-glass window in nature’s
cathedral, telling its drama in the changing patterns of
the stars and planets.
Of further note is the Mithraic concern for blood.
Bathing in bovine blood, killed to imitate
Mithras/Perseus’ victory over the forces of the world
that hold us captive, was a central Mithraic ritual.
Producing, sacrificing and immersing in blood was,
also, a central theme in prepatriarchal goddess
worship forms.
Another patriarchal culture whose gods where
very thirsty for blood was the Maya in Central
America during the First Millennium CE. They also
saw the sky as the divine book of knowledge and
home of the gods and goddesses whose hunger could
only be satisfied with quantities of blood from genital
and other forms of blood-letting sacrifices (see
Freidel, Maya Cosmos). Dissatisfied gods are
dangerous, but satisfied gods will help us get into
their otherworld.
Many of the Stoics, philosophers of Greece and
Rome during the first centuries BCE and C E , were
pantheists, believing, as the Stoic Chrysippus said,
that “The kosmos is a living being, rational, with
soul-life and mind.” All the heavenly bodies and
cosmic forces were personified as divine beings. All
things in the universe were seen to be linked together
in cosmic sympatheia. This cosmic interconnection
fostered a belief that an all-pervading fate determined
all events.
Stoics also thought the cosmos went through
cyclical ages or epochs of thousands of years. At the
end of each, the world would be destroyed by a
conflagration and then restored as before. This was a
common doctrine in the ancient world; for example,
Heraclitus said the cycle was 10,800 years.
Hipparchus, who discovered the precession of the
equinoxes on the island of Rhodes around 100 BCE ,
said it would be 36,000 years before the sun crosses
the celestial equator in the same constellation again.
The precession period is actually 25,920 years.
The god Perseus, who came to be called Mithras,
the mythic quest hero of European Mithraism, was
the patron god and founder of the town of Tarsus
which took its name from Perseus’ swift tarsos, foot.
Perseus was said to be born of Danae, impregnated
by the philanderer Zeus who came down the
“chimney” of her underground prison into her lap as
a golden stream (that is, sunlight, and/or fertilizing
urine).
Gorgon/Medusa
Lion-headed god/dess (Gorgon) symbolic of the universe. The snake divides it into seven parts: the seven
planetary spheres. S/he often stands on a globe with
an X across it, holding the keys to the gates in the
heavenly spheres and a staff representing the celestial
pole and all the power one has who controls it.
CIMRM 312. Ulansey, OMM, 33
The king, Acrisius, had Danae, his only daughter, put in the cave rather than kill her after a priestess
at Delphi told the king that Danae would bear a son
who would kill him. Danae with her son Perseus
were placed in a chest and put out to sea to drown.
107
Zeus, however, took pity on them and had a
fisherman rescue them who then taught Perseus the
humble fisherman’s trade.
Beautiful Danae then acquired a human lover,
Polydectes, who did not want her son, Perseus, and
sought his death. Perseus at their wedding had no
gift, being a poor fisherman, so he decided he would
fetch Medusa’s head, a feat many had tried, but no
one had yet been able to accomplish. Thus begins the
typical heroic quest so basic to patriarchal ethics.
Medusa was one of the three Gorgon s who stood for
the Goddess’ trinity already demonized into winged
figures with monstrous heads who turned anyone to
stone who looked on them.
Polydectes gladly thought this quest would
surely be his step-son’s death. With the gods’ help,
however, Perseus brought Medusa’s head back and
turned the king to stone. Perseus used a hookedbladed dagger and a polished shield given to him by
the gods so he need not look at the Gorgon, Medusa.
When he killed her, the winged horse, Pegasus,
emerged and carried him away from the scene of the
crime.
Perseus/Mithras is usually depicted wearing a
Phrygian hat that makes its wearer invisible, a Santa
Claus type hat made of felt with the tip bent over.
Perseus is also a constellation in the Milky Way right
above Taurus in the polar region and can be at zenith
(directly overhead). Perseus’ close connection with
the axis of the universe is stated by an ancient author:
“Perseus is the winged axis which pierces both poles
through the center of the earth and rotates the
cosmos.” (Ulansey, OMM, 94).
The Stoics apparently opted for having the
celestial sphere shift since the Pole was the
foundation upon which the whole universe hung. It
held the universe together; for it to move was
unthinkable. But nothing in the heavens moved, in
their astrological mind-set, without a god, a lord, to
move it. Since the movement of the “fixed” stars
required more power than any of the lords who
controlled the spheres below the sphere of the fixed
stars, and since each lord was under the control of the
lord above him, this new god must be, as they said,
the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings. This Lord
could demand one’s worship, total worship and
submission.
Precession
Greek Coin with Caps
Coin from Sparta with felt caps of Dioscuroi (Santa
Claus type caps?) with stars. Ulansey, OMM, 113.
News that the fixed stars are not fixed must first
have been received by the Stoic astrologers as
shocking, but they eventually came to see this
knowledge as a new divine revelation reinforcing
several important ideas they already held. Only two
ways exist to explain the precession: Either the
celestial pole is wobbling, or the fixed stars, in their
rotation around the earth each day, do not come back
to the same spot but move a bit more than one
complete revolution.
Modern interpretation of the reason for the precession
of the equinoxes: As the North Pole rotates around the
Pole of the Ecliptic during 25920 years, the two
equinox points on the ecliptic move along the equator.
Fix, 23.
Their present age was the Age of Aries (sheep).
This meant the place where the sun crosses from one
side of the celestial equator to the other at the spring
equinox was in the constellation of Aries. But
according to Hipparchus’ discovery, the spring
equinox would have been in Taurus a couple
108
thousand years earlier. The bull had been sacrificed
on the cosmic cross to bring in the present new age.
For millennia in the Near Eastern mythologies,
the bull, Taurus, had been said to have been killed by
the lion, Leo, because as Leo came to dominate the
zenith, Taurus, 90 degrees away, slipped behind the
western horizon to his “death.” Also, the Bull is said
to die (on the cross) as the sun’s equinoctial crossing
precessed out of Taurus and into Aries, symbolized
the dawning of a new age.
In the sky, directly above Taurus, is the
constellation Perseus in the same relative position as
the lion in artwork depicting the lion/bull conflict.
Perseus, the son of Zeus, by a mortal (virgin ) woman
was the natural symbol to kill the bull. He was
Tarsus’ city god. He was probably portrayed, locally,
in star maps large enough to have his knee on Taurus
near the Pleiades.
Perseus already had a reputation for killing, since
he did away with the Gorgon, Medusa, symbol of the
earlier Goddess tradition, and did so by looking away
from her as he killed her so her reputed ugliness
would not kill him. This is why almost all authentic
depictions of the tauroctony (the bull-killing scene)
show Perseus/Mithras looking out and away from the
bull.
Other depictions in the tauroctony include a
scorpion, for Scorpio, the place of the fall equinox; a
raven, Corvus; a snake, Hydra; a dog, Canis Minor.
All these constellations lie on or between the
equinoctial points along the ecliptic, the apparent
yearly path of the sun through the sky, and below the
celestial equator, that is, below Perseus. Only the
cup, Crater, is missing. Perhaps this was to keep all
the symbols as animals to help conceal their meaning
from outsiders.
Winged Feet, Lion and Bull
Coin from Tarsus showing Perseus with his hooked
weapon and winged feet, and the Lion killing the Bull.
Ulansey, OMM, 44.
Leo at this time was also the location of another
major solar event, the summer solstice. The cup may
also have been used to symbolize Aquarius, water,
location of the winter solstice. Mithras was said to be
born at the winter solstice (that is, at Christmas-time)
that marks the dominance of darkness, a darkness that
gradually gives way to the ever-increasing light of
day until the summer solstice marks the height of
light and the gradual return to darkness.
The tauroctony is usually framed by two
torchbearers, one, Cautes, with the torch pointing up,
symbolizing the spring equinox, the other,
Cautopates, with torch pointing down symbolizing
the fall equinox. Their crossed legs symbolize the
celestial cross where the sun crosses the celestial
equator. Perseus’ dagger enters the bull in the
shoulder, the spot in the sky where the Pleiades form
a small oval. New wheat, symbol of spring and
rebirth, grows from the dagger’s wound. Wheat also
replaces the hair at the tip of the bull’s tail.
In Mithraic artwork Medusa’s decapitated head,
now much like a lion’s head,17 is often given a body,
one encircled six times by a snake to form seven
body regions (on which the symbols of the seven
known planets are placed) signifying the seven
cosmic spheres. S/he often holds a key to open the
celestial gates while standing on a sphere upon which
a cross is drawn. This cross is that formed by the
celestial equator and the ecliptic, the main outline of
the heavens as Plato says in the Timaeus. This lionheaded god/dess stands for the whole cosmos, for the
whole organizing cosmic machinery and power that
man is caught in and from which he is seeking an escape.
The lion-headed god/dess is Perseus’ worthy
opponent. He conquers this god/dess and assumes
his/er powers. In the astrologer’s worldview, and
especially in the Stoic’s doctrine of sympatheia,
activity in the heavens controls our destiny here. This
vast power Perseus as the son of the Lord of Lords, if
not that Lord himself, is able to control. Anyone with
a special connection to this deity is in a very advantageous position when it comes to making sure
s/he makes it through the treacherous journey from
earth to heaven.
Perseus, in star map terms, is in the right place to
help man, since he is in the Milky Way, the way to
heaven (also the way a latter day sky traveler comes
to town according to the 1930’s song, “Santa Claus Is
Comin’ To Town”). He is also the “Lord of
Genesis,” 18 which means he controls the comings
and goings of souls into and out of bodies.
The movement from the Stoics’ intellectualastrological formulation of the precession of the
equinox to a practicing religion outside of intellectual
circles seems to have taken place within the circle of
17Perhaps because even the Bull-slaying Leo is now
controlled by the extra-cosmic power of Mithras and his
father.
18Other names for this function is “Psychopomp,” a sender
of souls, and “Lord of the Flies,” since flies were
considered carriers of souls leaving dead bodies.
109
Cilician pirates who hobnobbed with intellectuals and
politicians and were given respectability when they
were persuaded by Mithridates IV to become part of
the Persian navy to fight the Romans. They would be
quick to adopt a belief,
(1) that was based on familiar stars and made
navigation more accurate,
(2) that addressed their vanity by telling them
they were important and part of the “in” group
sharing a secret few others had, and
(3) that was begun under the political rule of the
king, Mithridates IV, who claimed to trace his
family’s ancestry to Perseus, and who considered the
pirates a valuable social force rather than a band of
outlaws. To call their religious hero “Mithras” rather
than “Perseus” in honor of their king would be a natural move. It would also help preserve the secret
knowledge.
Tauroctony
Tauroctony scene showing a tree with leaves, an upraised torch and a bull’s head indicating the spring equinox; and a
tree with fruit, a lowered torch and a scorpion indicating the fall equinox, as do the two figures with crossed legs and
torches. Other animals are other constellations between the ecliptic and the equator and the equinox points. CIMRM
335. Ulansey, OMM, 65.
Mithras was worshipped in underground
sanctuaries, like the place the maiden Danae birthed
him after her impregnation by Zeus. These caves
probably symbolized the cosmos below the celestial
sphere as cathedral domes and arches still do. Mithras
is often portrayed emerging from a rock or cave and
even from an egg (the cosmos). Upon that rock
Mithraism was founded. If the cave from which
110
Mithras emerges is the universe, then Mithras is
being portrayed as emerging beyond the visible
universe.
Mithras/Perseus is called the kosmokrator (ruler
of the cosmos), a title often given to the sun. There
are images of the sun, Apollo (Helios), kneeling
before Mithras, who demands homage from the
visible sun of the universe. This explains why
Mithras is associated with the major solar events:
equinoxes and solstices. But Mithras was also called
the “sol invictus,” the “unconquered sun.” There are
two “suns.” The unconquered or hypercosmic sun
(the sun beyond the cosmos) is the intelligible light of
truth and goodness, an idea traceable to
Zoroastrianism and Platonism. It came to be seen to
be as the power controlling the precession of the
equinoxes (Ulansey, MHS).
The idea that God is beyond the universe, not in
it, or that God is beyond the heavens, not in heaven,
is a very important step towards Hartshorne’s
panentheistic position in which the cosmos (and
heaven) is in God/dess. Most people still define God
as residing in some part of the universe, like heaven
(or the north pole?), or they place God apart from the
universe, or they identify God with the
universe––namely, pantheism (and some confusedly
assert several of these together).
Big Dipper as Shoulder
Mithras holding the Bull’s shoulder (Big Dipper)
symbol of power over the whole universe as Helios,
symbol of power within the visible universe, accepts
his secondary position. CIMRM 1430. Ulansey,
OMM, 104.
By taking a supracosmic view of the cosmos,
that is, looking at it from the outside, the cosmos
looks like an egg. From this cosmic egg, often
entwined with a snake (like the lion-headed
god/dess), Phanes, the Orphic god, also emerged.
When one looks at the cosmos from this divine,
supracosmic point of view an explanation can be
given for a very puzzling aspect of the tauroctony:
Perseus/Mithras and the Bull are always facing the
opposite way from the orientation they have when
one looks up at the constellations from the earth. But
looked at from the outside, the stellar figures would
be oriented as they are in Mithric religious artwork.
Mithras would then be looking away from the kill, as
did Perseus while killing Medusa, and into the eternal
realm of light and truth occupied by his Father, the
“unconquered sun” (Ulansey, MHS).
Mithraism, which ended up with Roman soldiers
bathing in the blood of sacrificed bulls, dominated
the religious scene in the later period of the Roman
Empire until Christianity and a more symbolic
bathing in the blood of the lamb became more popular.
Paul (of Tarsus) a hundred years after Mithraism
began and in a somewhat different tradition,
expressed the belief of cosmic salvation with a
cosmic savior:
Our homeland is in the heaven, from where we also
expect a savior…who will transform our humble
bodies so as to resemble his glorious body, by means
of the power which he has to subdue the entire
universe” (Phil. 3:20-21) “When we were children, we
were enslaved to the elemental forces of the cosmos,
but when the fullness of time came God sent his son…
in order to free [us]. (Gal. 4:3-5)
This secret knowledge (gnosis) was guarded and
given only to those who proved themselves worthy in
the initiation process. Paul later would declare no one
is worthy (of heaven), so the Son of God, himself,
must die in our place to placate the Lord of Lords so
he will let us into heaven. This Son, whom later
Christians will claim to be born of a virgin (though
Paul and others at the time never claim this), is
symbolized as a lamb (the zodiacal species symbol of
their present astrological age) and as a shepherd (who
brings peace to all creation as did Orpheus), and was
sacrificed like Taurus to bring in another New Age, a
new heaven and a new earth. Paul’s world could
contain no heroes but the Messiah who, he declared,
was embodied in Jesus now (back?) in heaven with
his Father, the Lord of All, fixing things so we can
also get into heaven even though we don’t deserve it.
111
Chapter Summary
We must interpret new information in terms of old. The precession of the equinox could only be
understood as the outer, star-studded sphere of the universe being moved by the greatest force conceivable.
And in an age where social order was highly hierarchical, goodness could only be seen as obedience to the
powers above. The improvement of one’s lot, something unlikely to happen in this life, might happen in the
next life, but only if one knew the Power who controlled life and dispensed rewards. For those in the Near
East (and elsewhere) during a millennium before and after the time of Christ and Mithras, this greatest
power was usually thought to be a male power. Those in the world are too unworthy for this power to deal
directly with them. Only someone who could offer a worthy gift could gain access. For a patriarchal
potentate the most valued thing is his son who really is the patriarch himself incarnate who would carry on
his likeness and values.
Both Mithraism and Christianity find the worthy intermediary in God’s son. Both say the reason their
hero is concerned with us is his blood-relatedness, his (half) humanity, passed on by the less worthy female
side of his parents. Christianity, following the ancient tradition of sacrificing the sacred king, says Christ’s
shed blood and death satisfies God’s demand that our short-comings be paid for. Mithras’ father (and other
divine relatives) helped him because he was a blood-relative, and they appreciated his ridding the world of
the vestiges of matriarchy.
Of special note is the ambiguity of God “being in heaven” or out of this world. It could mean God/dess is
outside the world by including it, or it could mean God is outside and apart from the world. The latter won
out because the thought of having a pure spirit contaminated by mater was unthinkable, despite the saying,
quoted by Paul, Acts 17:28, stating that “we live and move and have our being” in God.
Suggested Reading: Ulansey; Clark, Selections from Hellenistic Philosophy; Oates, The Stoic and
Epicurean Philosophers.
**********************************************************************
112
Dante's Version of the Cosmos
Dante’s depiction of the Ancient World’s Ptolemaic view of the cosmos with heaven
apart from mater and hell within, as the womb of mater. Sketch from Dante's
The Divine Comedy, ca. 1300 CE.
Sky Map ca. 3000 BCE
Some constellations and celestial events important for understanding the Tauroctony.
113
114
Chapter 17
Essenes, Sons of Zadok
Another Hellenistic Origin
“We are the [true] spiritual heirs of our founding fathers.”
Spokesman for the American Christian Patriot movement, 1995.
“All sentences of death are to be carried out by the Gentile authorities.”
Dead Sea Scrolls, Zadokite Doc. ix, 1.
“No one is to lie with a woman in the city of the sanctuary, thereby defiling
the city of the sanctuary with his impurity.” Zadokite Doc. xii, 2.
******************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) Effects of conceiving of the universe and society hierarchically.
(2) Purpose of suffering and sacrifice.
–Approaches–
(1) One is closer to God who is ritually clean and obedient to God and his chosen.
(2) Entrance to the kingdom either requires cleanliness and obedience or a compensation paid by a
worthy stand-in. Earthly or other-worldly suffering is punishment for failing to be obedient.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Divinity is seen as the final judge of value.
Cons:
(1) God is seen as a threat to be placated with sacrifices and obedience, not a loving reality to love.
(2) The universe can’t be one unity since it has eternal camps contending with, and external to, each
other.
(3) Suffering is thought to be deliberately imposed by God.
************************************************************************************
E
ver since the discovery of religious documents
at Nag Hammadi in Egypt (1945), and
especially since the discovery of the scrolls in
caves along the Dead Sea (1940s) written two
millennia ago, speculation on the origin of
Christianity and its influential concepts has
accelerated. No consensus has yet been reached, and
emotions surrounding the search for the history
behind the mythologizing and moralizing run high.
Few scholars doubt that a Jewish faction, known
as Essenes (likely a Greek translation of an Arabic
term meaning “pious”) is somehow influential at the
birth of Christianity. One author (see Ellegard),
whose thesis runs counter to our cultural mindset,
makes a strong case for seeing Christianity as an
evolution within the Diaspora Essene Church of God.
In his thesis, some members, including Saul/Paul,
during the first decades of the Common Era claimed
to receive heavenly revelations from their founding
hero, the Teacher of Righteousness, who was likely
martyred during the Second Century BCE . These
visions were taken as evidence that the Teacher had
overcome death. The Pauline good news was that
their hero, now risen, can also grant immortality to
those who believe in his power.
Nowhere does Paul, nor any of the of the authors
of Biblical and extra-Biblical documents written
during the middle of the First Century CE , discuss the
115
Chapter 17: Essenes
earthly life of Jesus. If Jesus lived in the Second
Century BCE , they would not know such details.
Their interest lay in the spiritual Jesus, believed to be
the Messiah/Christ whom the Essenes had long
awaited. Whereas Paul’s Messiah (incorporating
much of Gnosticism) hailed a heavenly kingdom, the
Essene community, generally, awaited a political and
military leader to re-establish the glory of King
David and the bene, Zadokite lineage of the Temple
priesthood.
Not until Gnosticism threatened to dominate
Christian theology at the beginning of the Second
Century CE, did Ireaneas, Bishop of Antioch, lay the
groundwork for the earthly Life of Jesus—the model
followed by the popular Lives of the Saints in years
to follow. Christian Gnosticism claimed the human
side of Jesus was not real; that Jesus had existed
since the beginning of time, came down to earth in
human form and returned to heaven. He wasn’t really
human, and didn’t really die.
circumcised at puberty, probably because it was a
common practice for Egyptians. This act, along with
Abraham’s own circumcision, seems to have been a
bone of contention between Sarah and Abraham
perhaps because Sarah would have seen it as one
more patriarchal influence (see Teubal, 39) and a
move away from the religion of their homeland.20
Qumran
E
ssene” was only one of several terms
describing the Jewish sect that maintained
strong ties to older Jewish ritual law yet
adopted some beliefs from the Persians and Greeks.
Though some maintained a retreat community in the
“wilderness” at Qumran along the Dead Sea, by the
beginning of the First Century C E they were also
well-represented among the many Jews dispersed
throughout the Gentile world. The Essenes, like all
Jews, claimed decent from Abraham (immigrants
from Babylon) and from Moses (immigrants from
Egypt).
Another Jewish source, Levites, the ruling
priestly class of Israel, may be from a subgroup of
Indo-Europeans who moved down from the mountainous region in northwestern Asia Minor in the
second millennium BCE bringing with them their
militant, pastoral and patriarchal lifestyle to be
imposed on the more agricultural and Goddessworshipping people of the coastal plains in the
Palestine region.
Abraham, probably a cognate with India’s
“Brahman,” means “Father Brahm,” the legendary
founder of the patriarchal lineage of the Hebrew
Semitic tradition. Sarah and Abraham and their tribe
moved into the Canaanite region from the Babylonian
area. At least one researcher thinks Sarah was a
priestess and Abraham her consort. They came from
a culture where women were heads of households
and circumcision was not performed. Three
generations of women went back to their previous
homeland to find suitable husbands, perhaps because
the men in Canaan were too patriarchally inclined for
Sarah, her daughter-in-law and grand-daughter.
Abraham’s first son, Ishmael, born of the
Egyptian Hagar who was Sarah’s surrogate, 19 was
19Priestesses, and Sarah may have been one according to
Teubal, were not expected to have children. If they did
become pregnant during the sacred marriage ritual, the
Photo: David Harris, from Shanks, Illustration 1.
Qumran (upper left) overlooking the Dead Sea.
Scrolls were found in caves just right of center.
Abraham’s covenant with Elohim (God) was
tested again when another son, Isaac, was born (this
time "miraculously" to Sarah) who was expected to
be sacrificed. God told Abraham he did not need to
kill Isaac as a sacri fice because he had demonstrated
his obedience; he could worship instead by
sacrificing an animal. This may signal the beginning
of the break from human (male?) sacrifice and the
substitution of animals. However, since Abraham had
adopted the artificial genital blood-letting of ritual
circumcision 21 at puberty (that echoes the natural
life-giving blood of menstruation which begins
flowing at female puberty), Sarah may have feared
losing Isaac to the new patriarchal covenant signed
with male genital blood.
Circumcision was practiced in northeastern
Africa for several thousand years BCE and by many
child was considered God’s son and often sacrificed. See
Sarah the Priestess.
20Some outspoken Jewish women today have said the
helplessness they feel at the brit milah (circumcision rite) to
protect their children is another means to control women.
21Until the Second Century CE , when, some say, Jewish
boys had most of their prepuce amputated to discourage
them from passing as gentiles, circumcision was likely only
the removal of the frenar band or even a pricking or slicing
of the skin to draw blood as it was for the Maya, except, of
course, where the term means “castration,” a practice Jews
apparently did not adopt because they believed God wanted
them to respect and keep the body whole.
116
Chapter 17: Essenes
Semitic peoples elsewhere (see the ancient relief
pictured at the end of this chapter, Ancient Egyptian
Circumcision). Joshua says those who had been
raised in the wilderness after leaving Egypt had not
been circumcised (Joshua 5:2-5). Moses (an Egyptian
name) is called a bloody bridegroom by his
nonEgyptian, Midianite wife, probably because he
had her son circumcised, a ritual common in Africa
but foreign to her.
Yahweh’s lineage, represented by those born
within the anointed Levitical pedigree, were called
“sons of god.” The Essenes used a solar/lunar
calendar with 52 seven-day weeks in which the
Jewish holy days occurred at somewhat different
times from those established by the older lunar
calendar. They were much concerned with hierarchy
and its order of privilege, theirs having sixteen levels
of social order with women on the bottom four along
with new intact gentile recruits. Lack of purity was
mainly tied to sexual activity and failure to follow
ritual behavior.22
––––––––––––o–––––––––––
Much of what we know about the beliefs and
social structure of the earliest Christians can be found
in Essene society, especially so in the more liberal
Essenes found throughout the Roman Empire:
1
2
They were called “the saints,” “the brethren,”
“the elect,” “they that believe,” “they that are in
the Messiah,” “they that are of the Lord,” “the
Sons of Light,” “the disciples,” “the poor,” “they that
are of the Way,” “Hebraists” and “Nazarenes.”
They practiced ritual eating. They had meals in
which bread and wine (for the higher ranks)
were used to represent the invisible presence of
the Messiah. The ritual banquet meal was also
expected to be held by God’s emissary when he
returned to gather up the saved. Jesus’ followers
discussed who would be seated where in line with
their belief in hierarchical order.
3
They were baptists. They had ritual bathing,
though reportedly not in the nude. Baptism was
“for repentance unto remission of sins” and “to
fulfill all righteousness.” Baptism and ritual meals
may have been a way to compensate for their
exclusion from the Temple cult rituals which
included, for example, the offering of burnt flesh, a
practice some say the Essenes despised. 23 Essenes
apparently downplayed the cult of animal sacrifice
when they split around 200 BCE with the mainstream
Sadducees and Pharisees who dominated the main22In a recent publication of some Dead Sea scroll
fragments is a record of a man who was censured because
“he loved his bodily emissions” (Eisenman and Wise, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered).
23This is disputed by Eisenman and Wise in light of some
Dead Sea fragments they have translated that discuss burnt
offerings.
stream worshipping practices in the Jerusalem
Temple. The early Christians also usually deprecated
the Temple priest and were sure it was God’s wrath
that destroyed the Temple (with Roman help) in 70
CE.24
4
The Essene life-style was very ascetic. A high
ideal was celibacy. Also, most abstained from
alcohol, except for its ritual use. If one wanted
to marry, one could, but
he shall not approach a woman to have sexual relations with her, unless he has reached his maturity of
twenty years, so as [to be able] to know good and evil.
(Rule of the Congregation, QSa: 10.)
Women are not discussed.
All marriages were unclean but could be purified
with the right rituals. The Nazirite vow of celibacy
which all holy ones took (that is, priests and warriors
preparing for war) seems to have been extended to
others in the congregation, perhaps, as a reaction
against the corrupt (from their view) Hellenized
priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple.
James, (said to be a brother of Jesus after 100
CE ), was a Nazirite. Of the three nets Belial (Satan)
uses to entangle and snare mankind––“fornication,”
riches and pollution of the sanctuary––it is sex that
was the most deadly sin. The Jewish historian
Josephus (37-95 CE ) who lived with the Essenes for
three years wrote:
They reject pleasure as an evil and esteem continence
and the conquest over our passions to be a virtue.
They neglect wedlock, but choose out others persons’
children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning;
and esteem them to be of their children, and form
them according to their own manners. (Potter 105)
This puritanism was not typical of Rabbinial
Judaism, though it was a strong element in the early
Christian church.
5
They used an older form of the Pentateuch or
Torah, fragments of which have been found in
the Qumran Caves. They believed they had the
true Law and were rightfully those chosen by
Yahweh (Jehovah) to be the priests and kings of the
less worthy Jews (like “Christian” vs. “true Christian”).
6
They maintained that they came from an older
priestly lineage direct from Aaron (Moses’
brother and leader of the first Yahweh Levitical
priests in Palestine) and from the bene Zadok (the
first High Priest of Solomon’s Jerusalem Temple
24Again passages from the Dead Sea fragments Eisenman
and Wise translated indicate that the Qumran people were
not against temple worship as such, but against those who
controlled and corrupted, in their minds, the worship there,
namely the “evil Zadokites.” God would bring in the new
age with a new Jerusalem and temples staffed with “bene
Zadokites,”those holding their beliefs.
117
Chapter 17: Essenes
who, supposedly, was never born nor died––Heb.
7:3) to Onias (the High Priest deposed by Antiochus
Epiphanes (175-164 BCE ) when he opposed Antiochus’ desecration of the Temple and his Hellenistic
influences. Essenes opposed the instituted Jerusalem
priesthood which was not in the bene Zadokite
lineage but was composed of “evil” Zadokites who
they believed were desecrating the Temple.
7
The Essenes believed, as did most Jews, that
Yahweh had chosen them for a special mission
in the world. From them and their lineage of
bene Zadokites, Yahweh would choose the priests for
the New Jerusalem. The existing Temple priests, the
evil Zadokites, would perish when the New
Jerusalem was established by Yahweh's messiah.
They believed that Yahweh had made an
everlasting covenant with them: He would be their
protecting God, but he must be their only God, and
they must do what the Covenant (Law) requires. But
they were also people of a New Covenant (a New
Testament), originally outlined by Jeremiah, that
(a) rested on a reaffirmation of their contract
with Yahweh and his forgiveness and mercy (if one is
contrite), and
(b) promised a New Age ushered in by Yahweh’s
chosen. For the Essenes it was also a call for
reaffirmation of the original lineage and their expectation for a messiah as a Teacher of Righteousness,
Yahweh’s Suffering Servant and politico-military
leader. For Jewish believers in the Way it meant
continuing to live by the Law. Pauline converts, however, were allowed to ignore much of the Law
(especially circumcision) in favor of faith in the
Messiah’s redemptive self-sacrifice as Yahweh/God’s final act of mercy.
8
Some Essenes maintained some of the tenets of
Gnosticism, believing they had special
knowledge of the divine plan for salvation,
namely, a divine, cosmic and heavenly Redeemer
who will come to earth to give men this saving
knowledge. More establishment Jews saw the Essene
belief in a divine and heavenly Redeemer as a threat
to the Jewish doctrine of monotheism.
9
They had messianic hopes: They expected the
coming of a Messiah, the Anointed One who
would re-establish King David's kingdom and
glory. Yahweh would send his Anointed to end the
existing world order and start a new one. The Essenes
were highly eschatological: When the final days
come, evil will be overcome and burned up in a great
conflagration. This has ties with Stoicism and other
beliefs of that time and is a theme still popular in
Christianity.
Essenes accepted the prophets’ pronouncements
that salvation will come only when Yahweh’s Chosen
return to righteousness. God cannot (will not?) save
those who do not heed His call to righteousness
(faithfulness and obedience). This meant they had to
be loving to those of the in-group, but they ought to
hate the “evil ones” of the out-group, eliminating
them when possible, fol lowing Yahweh’s (the Godof-wrath’s) example when his will is not obeyed.
The faithful will be redeemed by God because of
their “faith in the Teacher of Righteousness, the true
Doctor of the Law”––a doctrine of salvation found in
the Dead Sea scroll fragments translated by Eisenman
and Wise––foreshadowing the Pauline doctrine of
justification by faith, however, most Palestinian
Essenes followed James in maintaining faith without
works (following the ritual laws) was dead.
10
The Essene community developed a martyr complex. Their group was seen as the
Suffering Servant of Yahweh (Isaiah 53)
who was to bear witness to Yahweh’s plan (as
prophet), atone for men’s waywardness (as priest)
and judge the deeds of men in the kingdom to come
(as king).
A holy house of Israel, a most holy institution of
Aaron, . . . to make atonement for the earth, and to
decree the condemnation of wickedness that there may
be no more perversity. (Dead Sea Scrolls, IQS, 8:10)
By the first millennium, the various versions of
the Anointed One (or Messiah) which included:
(a) the one called the Teacher of Righteousness,
(b) the one in the lineage of Moses and the
prophets
(c) the one in the priestly lineage of Aaron,
Zadok and Onias,
(d) the one in the lineage of David and the
anointed kings of Israel and Judas, (and perhaps others),
at times seem to merge into the one Suffering Servant
who through his sufferings, and perhaps his death,
will bring in the New World Order. This person was
to be Prophet, Priest and King in one.
11
The Essenes were fatalistic like the Stoics.
The main events in history were believed
predestined according to God’s plan. But
many of them were militant Zealots, sicarii, who
worked as hard as any Calvinistic predestinationist to
help God’s preordained plan come out as they wanted
it to.
12
Their thought was apocalyptic. They
believed they had special secret knowledge (gnosis) revealed only to those to
whom Yahweh has entrusted it. This gnosis had to be
kept from infidels.
Chapter 17: Essenes
Differences between the Essene and the Second Century Jesus Ethic.
1. Essenes were very hierarchically ordered and concerned with behavior
appropriate in a hierarchical society.
In the Second Century CE synoptic lives of Jesus, Jesus says
(also a Greek Cynic aphorism) that the greatest is the servant of
all and not above menial tasks (like washing feet).
2. Essenes believed in separation from
the polluted, the “sinners.”
Jesus is said to have been a friend of “sinners,” for example,
tax gatherers and women (perhaps to emphasize his humanity
during the Christian fight with Gnosticism).
3. Essenes defined “goodness” as
serving God.
Jesus said goodness was loving God (though “love” might have
meant "obey").
4. Essenes valued asceticism.
Jesus is portrayed as drinking wine and enjoying relationships
with women.
5. Essenes were strict about keeping the
Sabbath.
Jesus (or those speaking for him) said the Sabbath was made
for man, not man for the Sabbath.
6. Essenes were preoccupied with ritual
and prayer.
7. Essenes strived to give an eye for an
eye (justice) and assumed God behaved
likewise.
Jesus is claimed to have said, “Do not make long prayers,
asking God for foolish things. He knows what is good for you
better than you do, and needs no prompting to keep him interested. When you pray, try to understand what God wants
from you; it is much more important than what you want from
God.” (Matt. 6)
Jesus said (after a Cynic saying), “Return good for evil; love
your enemies. God sends his rain on the evil and on the good
alike; be equally impartial. Be perfect as your heavenly Father
is perfect” (Luke 5). Love God with your whole being and your
neighbor as yourself, a quote from Deuteronomy.
13
They believed war was always inevitable;
but not just “against flesh and blood but
against principalities, against the powers,
against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the
spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places”
(Eph. 6:12).
14
They were dualistic, seeing the world
fundamentally in opposing terms, Light
and Dark, Good and Evil between which
there is always war. The people of “God’s lot” are in
a struggle with the “Sons of Belial” that will end
when the cosmic Sons of Light win the ultimate
battle over the “Sons of Darkness.”
15
16
The Essenes looked for a divine
appearance. They expected Yahweh or his
Messiah to appear visibly and in glory.
The Essenes believed in a bodily resurrection. They seem to have some expectations of rising from the dead that
went beyond the Jewish belief in an underworld,
Sheol. This was likely a bodily or wholistic
resurrection, though the resurrection of the soul only
does seem to be assumed at times, a popular
Hellenistic Gnostic theme where the soul is trapped
in the body.
17
They believed in heaven or in celestial
salvation. Heaven, or the way to heaven,
was thought to be to the north. Their dead
at Qumran were buried aligned in an unusual northsouth orientation with their feet to the north, probably
so they could see God or the Messiah in his glory as
he came to get them from the celestial north pole.
The north celestial pole was thought to be the
gateway to heaven.
18
The Essenes believed in the millennium.
Many thought the end will come after a
thousand years of peace, when their
calendar supposedly ended at the year 4900 CE.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––o––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
118
119
Chapter 17: Essenes
Jesus and the Essenes
Q
uotations from Second Enoch. The moral
tone found in Biblical sayings attributed to
Jesus can also be found in Second Enoch
written between 1 and 50 C E , one of the many
scriptural writings known as the Pseudepigrapha
composed from just before to just after the time of
Jesus and not found in the Biblical canon. Since this
document is not generally available, the following
selections are provided:25
“Now then, my children, dwell in patience and
peace...and every blow...and every evil word ....endure
them; and although you may be able to repay with
interest, do not retaliate upon your neighbor, since it is
the Lord Who recompenses...,” or “When you might
have vengeance, do not repay, either your neighbor or
your enemy.” (50:2-4)
“I saw the key-holders and guardians of the gates
of hell standing....” “I saw the keepers of the keys of
hell, standing near the very high gates....” 42:1 Cf.
Rev. 1:18; 9:1.
“Man was made in the image of God : To load
with shame the face of man is to load with shame that
of the Lord. He who gets angry with a man, without
having been wronged, will reap the great anger of the
Lord. He who spits in the face of a man will reap
disgrace at the great judgment of the Lord.” 44:1-30
Cf. Matt. 5:22.
“I [God] said: You [Adam] are earth, and you
will go into that same earth from which I took you. I
shall not annihilate you, but I shall be able to take you
again at the time of My second coming” 32:1 Here
God’s appearance is of God himself, not of his
emissary, a point made by several authors of Jewish
pseudepigrapha who were trying to counter the
Essenic and Nazarene (Christian) belief that God
sends someone in his place. This is one reason Second
Enoch is somewhat different from other Essenic
writings.
An angel guides Enoch to the “northern side” of
the same third heaven in which Paradise is located,
and there shows him “a very terrible place” where “all
is agony and torment, darkness and mist, “ where
“there is no light save a dim fire which keeps flaring
up. A fiery stream moves close by...yet cold and ice
are there; and in the dungeons angels bearing rude and
sharp instruments torture without mercy.” 10:1-3 Cf.
Matt. 25.
After Enoch records what he has seen in the
seven heavens and what the Lord has told him, he is
sent back to earth to deliver the books to his children
“and they to their children, parents to parents,
generation by generation.” 33:9 “Then, in the later
history of that race, will come to light the books
written by your hand and by your father’s, when the
angel-guardians of the earth will show them to men of
faith,...and the books will be praised thereafter more
than at first.” 35:2,3 And they were discovered
nineteen hundred years later.
“Blessed is the man who fears the name of the
Lord and serves before his face faithfully and
regulates his donations by life’s gifts to him: he shall
live his life through to the full before he dies.” 42:6
25 From Charles Potter’s out-of-print translation,
Did Jesus Write This Book.
“Blessed is he who recognizes the works of the
Lord and glorifies Him, knowing the Craftsman by
His handiwork” 42:14
“Blessed is he who glorifies all the works of the
Lord” 52:5 Woe to him who despises one of the
Lord’s creatures” 52:6
“Blessed is he who preserves the institutions of
the old-time fathers” 52:9 “Woe to him who nullifies
the statutes and destroys the landmarks of his
ancestors” 52: 10
“Blessed is he who goes out to seek peace and
leads others to peace.” 52:11 “Woe to him who
discourages the preparers of peace.” 52:12
“This place [Paradise], Enoch, is prepared for the
righteous who...give bread to the hungry, cover with
their own robe the naked, lift up the fallen, help the
wronged, and walk blameless in the sight of the Lord.”
9:1
“Is it that the Lord has need of offering of bread
or candles or sheep or cattle? (These are nothing: He
desires a pure heart.) But with these He tests the heart
of man.” 45:3
“Explain my books to all who ask, that they may
be for you a heritage of peace.” 54:1
“At the end of seven thousand years,...a
millennium of rest and peace, when years will end....”
33:1-2
“The Lord summoned all the wild and domestic
animals of the earth and all the living birds, and
brought them before our father Adam...for complete
submission and obedience to man. For the Lord
created man to be the steward of all his possessions.
Therefore there will be no judgment of every living
soul, but of man alone. For in the Great Age there will
be one place, one fold, one pasture, for all the souls of
animals. For the case will not be closed for one animal
soul...until the Judgment. But all animal souls will
accuse man at the Judgment if poorly fed” 52:2-3
“Whoever feeds poorly the soul of animals is unfair to
his own soul.... Whoever does harm to an animal in
secret, that is a bad custom: it is a defilement of his
own soul.” 59:1,5
“I [God] contrived to make man of a nature
which was at the same time material and spiritual, of
both death and life, and although resembling in
appearance any other creation . . . , yet he alone knows
speech. And on the earth I set him like a second angel,
noble, great, and glorious. I established him as King of
the Earth, having the Kingdom by My Wisdom….I
gave him his free will, and I showed him the two
roads, the Road of Light and the Road of Darkness,
and I said to him: This one is good and that one is
evil....” 30:10
“He who commits a murder kills his own soul,
and there is no healing for him forever. He who drives
a man into a net will be caught in it himself, and he
who drives a man into court will not escape his own
judgment in Eternity.” 60:2-4
Blessed is he on whose lips are both truth and
gentleness. 42:13
“Now then, my children,....abstain from any
prejudice against any living soul which the Lord has
created. That which a man asks from the Lord for his
own soul, let him pray that He do it likewise for every
living soul.” 61.
In the second heaven Enoch encounters condemned angels dismally weeping who ask him to pray
for them. “Who am I, a mere mortal, to intercede for
angels!...And who, indeed, is going to pray for me?”
7:5
120
Chapter 17: Essenes
J
esus. It is hard to say anything about Jesus and
Christianity without raising many emotions. We
live in an age when we will be learning much
more about the historical Jesus and the near Middle
East region from 200 BCE to 200 CE .
As the First Millennium CE began, the ancient
Biblical world was dominated by Roman power,
Hellenistic culture and the Herodian family.
Rabbinical Judaism was developing as a moderate
religious influence and controlled Jerusalem temple
worship. These establishment Jews were despised by
the Essene Zealot resistance that continued to fight
foreign military power and cultural influences. Their
resistance occasionally flared up into overt armed
revolt. The half-Jewish, half-Gentile (or Arab)
Herodian family hegemony who were ruling as
Roman puppets, symbolized for the insurrectionists
all that was evil.
If Jesus lived in the first decades of the first
millennium, he was likely raised as an Essene,
perhaps even spending time at Qumran to prepare for
a life dedicated to Yahweh (and resistance to foreign
influences) as did his reputed cousin John the Baptist.
"Simon the Zealot" and James, said to be brothers of
Jesus (though this is likely meant in the sense of their
being of the same Brotherhood), also took the
Nazirite vows of dedication and celibacy common to
both priests and warriors. Nazareth did not exist at
the time of his birth (see Theiring), a confusion
arising because of the Nazirite name.
If Jesus were active in the first half of the First
Century CE , he must have been seen as a leader in the
movement to win Jewish political freedom, since
crucifixion was the Roman method of executing
insurrectionists, whereas stoning to death was the
punishment meted out to blasphemers. Ananus, an
establishment High Priest, was stoned to death in an
uprising by the Zealots with Arab help in 66 C E ,
likely in response to Ananus' having had James, an
Essene High Priest, stoned to death in 62 CE by the
establishment Jews. The Essene Zealots considered
Ananus and the Establishment Jews to be traitors and
appeasers because they were "seekers after smooth
things," that is, they sought to get along with the
foreign occupiers.
Eisenman in James the Brother of Jesus believes
one of the Righteous Teachers (a follower in the
tradition of the original Teacher of Rightousness)
mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls is James, and the
Wicked Priest, Ananus. Eisenman outlines the infighting between the establishment Jews and the
Essenes, especially the sicarii, the right-wing
militants who carried concealed daggers (sicae). This
fighting became so fierce that Herod Agrippa II
called in Roman troupes to suppress it, 70 CE, which
eventually led to the Temple destruction by Titus.
Into this religious and political turmoil arrives
Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul. If Paul was from
Tarsus, he was raised in the city that saw the
development of European Mitharism discussed in the
previous chapter. In any case, he was a Diaspora Jew
and probably a Roman citizen, one related to the
Herodians with close ties to those in Caesar's
household.
Paul's message began with much the Essenes
accepted but took a turn they eventually despised
when he lobbied for a heavenly Messiah and
Kingdom rather than the re-establishment of the
Davidic political regime. Paul's Kingdom would also
include Gentiles. To the fundamentalist writers of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Paul became the "Spouter of Lies"
because Gentiles were the worst source of ritual
pollution and must be excluded at all costs. For the
conservative Palestinian Essenes, only if non-Jews
converted to Judaism and became circumcised, could
they be accepted into their society, and even then
only as second-class members. In addition, Paul was
preaching a blood-and-body-of-Christ communion,
common in Greek mystery religions, including
Mithraism, which the Essenes considered
blasphemous.
Paul who had never met Jesus, and never
discusses his earthly life, was in a battle with James
and Cephas/Peter, who were leaders of the resistance.
Much in Paul's writings aims at establishing his
authority because of his late arrival to the movement.
He claims to have been a Nazirite from the womb, to
have had a direct divine revelation (Gal.1) and to
have "worked harder than any" (1 Cor. 15:10).
That Paul was on fairly even footing with others
who venerated the Teacher of Righteousness,
indicates that Jesus likely lived some time before the
First Century CE. If he had died only a decade before
Paul’s vision of the risen Christ, Paul would have had
an impossible time establishing his authority in the
face of those who lived with Jesus.
With Paul, the concept of Jesus as the "Christ,"
the supernatural savior, begins. Paul supports his
rather Gnostic claim using the Dead Sea Scroll
writers' favorite technique: exegesis of scriptural
texts as illustrating present times and themes.
Through all the suffering the Jews sustained at
the hands of foreign invaders for centuries, they had
come to believe their suffering was both God’s
punishment for not being faithful enough and a
means of purification to prepare them for a divine
mission. This mission would be lead by a messiah,
God's chosen. They saw themselves as paying the
price for man’s disobedience to Yahweh, a price that
must be paid to be accepted into his Kingdom.
But Paul not only saw Jesus as the Suffering
Servant and Messiah, a personification of the
Suffering Remnant and keeper of true Judaism; Paul
also sees God’s Servant and Son as having overcome
death, a sign that we can all conquer death. Paul
interprets Hosea 6, "He has torn [hurt us], that He
may heal us; He has stricken [us], and He will bind
us up. After two days He will revive us; on the third
day He will raise us up, that we may live before
Him…" in the singular, rather than the plural "us"
claiming this is a prophecy of Jesus' death and
resurrection.
121
Chapter 17: Essenes
Paul claims Jesus' resurrection is factual proof
that he was from another world, a spiritual world,
much more important than the world James and his
"circumcision party" (Gal. 2) were fighting to
establish. It was also proof that a similar immortality
was possible for us if we are worthy.
But at the heart of Paul's message is the belief
that no one can earn his way into heaven. Only an
“act” of faith that maintains Jesus was the scapegoat
who suffered and died for us, can make one worthy.
Not everyone is saved; only those who believe can
enter the Kingdom. The Jamesian/Essene belief in
good works became for Paul a mental exercise for the
believer––the real “work” having been done by
Jesus’ suffering.
Paul is particularly wrought over circumcision
since it hinders building the Church in the nonJewish areas of Asia Minor where he spent most of
his time. Paul goes so far as to say that "every man
who receives circumcision…[is] severed from
Christ….I have confidence in the Lord you will take
no other view than mine….I wish those who unsettle
you [James and his ‘circumcision party’] would
mutilate themselves!" Gal. 5.
Paul never refers to, or uses, the concept of a
virgin birth as proof of Jesus' divine origin, a
common practice in the ancient world first applied to
Jesus in the Second Century CE . Paul establishes
Jesus as the risen Messiah by quoting Jewish
Scripture.
So the question remains: What is known about
Jesus independent of Paul's mission? History is, as
the saying goes, written by the winners, and Paul's
doctrines have definitely survived as the dominate
Christian religion, as has Rabbinical Judaism,
because neither went head to head with Roman
political goals: They gave to Caesar the things that
were Casesar's, as the Essenes never would.
The Essene Zealots continued to harass Rome
until the Second Messianic Jewish Revolt, 132-136,
when Bar Kochba, Son of the Star (see Num 24:17
for the Star Prophecy), again without the support of
the Rabbis, was defeated. We do know that the Arab
regions to the East (that were not dominated by
Rome) were at times in league with the Essenes; also
the Queen of Sheba from Adiabene (now in Irag)
gave them aid during some tough times. Cephas/Peter
is said to have done mission work with groups to the
East.
Given that Muhammand (ca. 570-632 CE ) in
founding Islam reached back to Abraham, perhaps it
is not too far-fetched to see the energy of the Essenes
residing in Muslim Arabs yet today. If so, the threeway internecine battle between Rabbinical Jews,
other-worldly Pauline messianists (Christians) and
this-worldly Essenic messianists (Islamic Arabs) still
plagues the world today, with the United States
playing Rome's role as the world's police, and seen
by the Arabs as infidels who gave up the true, bene,
tradition from Abraham and the belief in a kingdom
on earth.
Since Jesus did not leave any writings (nor have
we any contemporaries’ writings about his life), we
cannot know how much the theologized Jesus, as
portrayed by Paul and later Gospel writers, is like the
historical person. The fact that he is said to be
executed for sedition rather than blasphemy, means
the gentle person he is often portrayed as, is either a
heavy theological overlay (likely influenced by
Orphic, Cynic and Mithric beliefs—see Orpheus,
page 200), or the Romans were completely
hoodwinked, or, what is more likely, Jesus was a
figure who lived in an earlier time.
–––––––––o––––––––––
A
s the Essene/Christian movement gained
political power in the following centuries,
true believers inherited much of the earth.
The unbelievers must suffer forever their rejection of
God’s Son. Because God has made clear the truth and
shown the way, believers have the right and
obligation to spread the truth to others. God’s ends
justify any means (see Mack, A Myth of Innocence),
including destroying the evil ones along with their
goods and lifestyles in holy wars.
The apocalypses of the preChristian era were
given new life. Christians were operating on a cosmic
stage with the help of Christ and his angels against
Satan and his legions, human and superhuman. The
eschatology of the imminent End and Judgment gave
way to the End at some indeterminate future time.
But judgment and those eternal “in” and “out”
groups, heaven and hell, that war with each other
until the end of time, remained and still remain. The
power of hating the “evil” forces, was seductive and
was justified as a way of loving God. The concept of
God’s Anointed had not only become God’s Son but
had become God Himself, indistinguishable from the
Father; and the Father’s role was seen again to be
Lord and Master.
The God (once seen as a baby in humble
surroundings, symbolizing love and accessibility)
died of infanticide under the success of the sword,
especially so after Emperor Constantine’s Milan
Edict formally recognized Christianity in 313 CE as
the state religion.
Love is defined as obedience. We “love” our
enemies by forcing them to be saved (or, as Islam
says, to submit). God loves, but only those who first
love (obey) God.
But loving a fearsome God is not only hard; it is
impossible. Is it any wonder the few Christian images
of tenderness are held so dearly, if not overly sentimentally: The lovable baby, the mother and child.
B
etter Good News. Perhaps, all is not yet lost
to the power and the glory. Perhaps fantasies
of holy wars and everlasting rewards and pun-
122
Chapter 17: Essenes
ishments will give way to another motivation: Love
of God/dess. But this cannot happen so long as
divinity is conceived as fearsome. Our examination
of the meaning of “Unsurpassable” will clarify that
fear is an illogical response to an adequate theism.
To anticipate the conclusions to come: None are
rejected from God/dess’ love. For the Unsurpassable
there are no “outs.” All are in. Our salvation does not
consist in being rewarded, but in being loved forever.
The knowledge one is unconditionally loved is all the
reward one could have. Being unconditionally loved
gives everlasting meaning to our life even if we do
not know it, and when it is understood, it gives us the
peace that surpasses understanding. Our failure to
love God/dess as we should, is not complete failure
to love the Unsurpassable (which is impossible), and
it is definitely not God/dess’ failure in any degree to
love us.
Yet our failures are suffered, if not by us, by
others and always by God/dess. Each of us, caught in
another’s evil or a tragedy, is a suffering servant of
God/dess. And each one who initiates an evil is
putting hell in others, and always in God/dess. The
notion that the suffering Messiah was divine is the
logically correct insight that God/dess suffers more
than any reality. God/dess suffers with us. God/dess
suffers our suffering when we are suf fering, and
suffers our sufferings after we have fortunately lost
(forgot) our sufferings. In this way even our sufferings are meaningful, are saved, not just our joys.
Everything of everyone is saved, but not everyone enriches the divine eternal life equally. Some are
“resurrected” in God/dess tragically, others by their
deliberately destructive or evil acts. But all are
resurrected or reborn in God/dess’ memory, not some
in God (heaven) and some in hell.
This message could not be well-formulated in
ages dominated by political and religious hierarchies
wherein obedience is the meaning of “goodness,”
where respect is as close as one could come to loving
God and where mercy is as close as God could come
to loving us. The message of love could not be
formulated until God/dess was clearly seen to include
“heaven” (and all of reality), rather than be
(localized) in heaven.
Time has come to stop the irrational worship of a
monopoly of power and glory. As the following
chapters try to clarify, only a cosmic lover is
rationally and unqualifiedly lovable. Reality is a
realm of shared power where powers are used more
or less lovingly. Only God/dess can and does use
power in unsurpassably loving ways.
If feminism’s influence on theology can avoid
the temptation to institute the power of glory over the
power of nurturing , there may yet come a new age
when the intrinsic logic of love is valued over that of
the myopic expediency of power. The logic of heaven
is found in what it means to use power lovingly, not
in what it means to use power.
Mankind has long felt that incomprehensible and
capricious power is not the ultimate order of things.
Perhaps, we say, God deals justly with us. But, on
second thought, we hope God is not just, for then we
would all suffer since we can never live up to our
side of the contract. God is not just, we conclude;
God is merciful, giving us more than we deserve, but
only if we are thankful or love God for his mercy.
God will love us if only we love him. This probably
should read: God will have mercy on us only if we
obey him.
The message of life and love that flickers
throughout history is one of a loving God/dess, not a
just, nor even a merciful divinity. God/dess, in loving
the world, is enjoying and suffering the joys and sorrows of the world, a world experienced not at a
distance, but a world closer than a mother is to her
unborn child, a child who begins living and moving
and having his/er very existence within her and
whose arms encircle the suckling infant taking his/er
life from hers.
This is the unqualifiedly Good News, news that
has some very strong reasoning to back it up:
God/dess so loves the world, that s/he saves it all, and
not by choice, but necessarily.
Chapter Summary
One might easily see the demand for sacrifice as a patriarchal form of subordination. So much blood is
shed in these societies. But though the gender may have changed, the deeper motivation of blood-letting,
flesh-eating and dismemberment likely lie in prepatriarchal beliefs: We owe our life to the Goddess’ body
and blood, and we should feel obligated to return to her some of our bounty in thanks, and if not in thanks,
then in petition that our bad times will get better. Religions in some way or other incorporate this thought
as well as interpreting or reflecting what was known of astronomy at the time, like the waxing and waning
of the sun and moon and the precession of the equinoxes.
Discovering that one’s religion is not unique in much of its motivation and interpretation of reality, and
particularly that some of the philosophical assumptions one has used to explain reality are questionable, can
be painful. However, if excitement and creativity are valued, rather than obedience and security, these new
insights give one a chance to work out more enriching concepts and new depths for ritual.
Seeing ourselves as The Chosen, is a dangerous myth (see Mack, Myth of Innocence) . The motivation for
good behavior should not stem from fear of being left out, but from love of him/er who must include and
love us all. The Essenes’ pain of being rejected from their earthly temple, found solace in a future kingdom
Chapter 17: Essenes
of glory where enemies would be excluded. When ultimate reality (metaphysics) is seen as divisive, logic is
being violated.
Suggested Reading: Fox, The Unauthorized Version; Filoramo; Mack, A Myth of Innocence and The Lost
Gospel; Thiering, Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Shanks, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls;
Guignebert, Jesus; Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, and
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians; Ellegard, Alvar. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ.
***************************************************************************************
Nicene Creed26
We believe in one God, the father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and
unseen. We believe in one lord, Jesus Christ , the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God
from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power
of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was
crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in
accordance with the scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He
will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in
the Holy Spirit, the lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and
the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. We believe in the one holy
catholic and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Apostles’ Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only son,
Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead. He
ascended into heaven , sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to
judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of
saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Because The Messiah is often heard in our culture, and because it embodies much of the Essenic/Christian
theology that harks back to the sacred kings from the Goddess worshipping cultures, to blood and sacrifice and
God’s conditional love and power, and on to the Pauline/Augustinian theory of the Fall and Redemption, I am
providing the text:
The Text from The Messiah
The Glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.
Thus saith the Lord, the Lord of Hosts: Yet once a little while, and I will shake the and the earth, the seas and the dry
land and all nations. The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple....
But who may abide the day of His coming: and who shall stand when He appeareth: For He is like a refiner’s fire.
He shall purify the sons of Levi that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. For unto us a Son is
given and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his Name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The
mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth good will towards men.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Behold, thy king cometh unto thee.
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd....Come unto Him, all ye that labor, come unto Him, ye that are heavy laden, and
He will give you rest....Take His yoke upon you, and learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall
find rest, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. His yoke is easy, His burden is light.
Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world.
26A confession formulated and decreed by the First Council of Nicaea, 325 CE, to separate “true” belief from other
Christian beliefs which then became known as heresies. Many of these heresies were forms of Gnosticism. The Creed was
expanded at the Council of Chalcedon, 451 CE to the form now in use except for one clause added by a church council, 589
CE.
123
Chapter 17: Essenes
His was despised and rejected a man of sorrows and acquainted with Grief. He gave His back to the smiters and His
cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: He hid not His face from shame and spitting.
Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. And with His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the
iniquity of us all.
All they that see Him, laugh Him to scorn; they shoot out their lips and shake their heads saying: 'He trusted in God, let
him deliver him, if he delight in him, let him deliver him.'
Thy rebuke hath broken His heart; He is full of heaviness. He looked for some to have pity on Him, but there was no
man, neither found He any to comfort him. Behold and see if there be any sorrow like unto His sorrow.
But Thou didst not leave His soul in hell, nor didst Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption.
Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. Who is the
King of glory? The Lord of Hosts, He is the Kind of Glory.
Let all the angels of God worship Him.
The Lord gave the word: great was the company of the preachers. How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace, and bare glad tidings of good things. Their sound has gone out into the all the lands and their
words unto the ends of the world.
Why do the nations so furiously rage together? And why do the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth rise
up and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord against His anointed. Let us break their bonds asunder and
cast away their yokes from us.
He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn; the Lord shall have them in derision. Thou shalt break them with a
rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Hallelujah! for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. The kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of our Lord and
of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever King of Kings for ever and Lord of Lords.
I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this
body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. For now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep.
Since by man came death, [so] by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive.
Behold...we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be chang’d in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
The trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, for
this mortal must put on immortality.
Death is swallow'd up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin,
and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory thro' our Lord Jesus Christ.
If God be for us, who can be against us? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is at the right hand of God
who makes intercession for us.
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His blood, to receive power, and riches, and
wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honour, glory and pow'r be unto Him that
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever, glory unto the Lamb. Amen.
124
Chapter 17: Essenes
Ancient Egyptian Circumcision
This carving at the Wellcome Institute Library, London, found in the Sakkara Cemetery, Memphis, Egypt,
dating to about 2500 BCE., depicts a circumcision ritual; one of the individuals requires restraining which would
have been considered a sign of weakness, a failure to be a man.
For more information on how genital cutting and philosophical worldviews are related see the history section of
the website: BoysToo.com < http://www.boystoo.com/history1.htm>
125
126
PART V
Ethics and
Psychological
Influences
Logic of Value Judgments
–––––
Two Faiths:
Authoritarian versus Democratic Ethics
–––––
Gods and Goblins: Our Wounded Child:
Psychological Influences on Theistic Concepts
127
Chapter 18
Logic of Value Judgments
“To base all actions simply on living for God is ridiculous––nobody can do that without
thinking a little about himself.” Student 1990. “Living for God is ridiculous.” Student, 1995.
“DID THEY DIE F OR NOTHING?” Bismarck Tribune Headline responding to
‘60’s Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, who in his 1995 book, In Retrospect:
The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, said we had no business in Vietnam.
“If only I had known [my work would lead to the atomic bomb], I would have become
a watchmaker.” Albert Einstein, who (ironically) believed in determinism, 1955.
“…I have learned my lesson well: You can’t please everyone, so you gotta please yourself.”
1950’s Song Garden Party, Rickie Nelson.
******************************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) Definition of “value,” “meaning” and “being saved.”
(2) Where differences can be made that last.
(3) Logical requirements for a value judgment.
(4) Proposal for an ultimate standard of value.
–Approaches–
(1) Being “saved,” having “value” or being “meaningful” means making a difference in wholes, and
doing so in some wholes forever.
(2) Differences can be made in:
(a) Myself,
(b) Others, and/or
(c) God/dess.
(2) Value judgments require a premise that defines the meaning (standard) of “value” and a factual
situation being evaluated by the standard.
(3) Loving a loving God/dess (conceived as including all reality) is the ultimate (positive) purpose or
value.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
God/dess (conceived as all-inclusive) is the only logical possibility to evaluate and retain all values
forever.
Cons:
(1) Egoism, saving one’s own past, isn’t a logical possibility if Whitehead’s analysis of a person as a
series of momentary egos is correct.
(2) Humanism, others saving us, can only be a theory of partial retention; and a theory of saving that
can’t be everlasting.
******************************************************************************
M
eaning of Meaning. Among the “big
questions” philosophers are known for
asking is, What is the meaning of life? This
completely general question is not the same as the
more restrictive one, What should I do with my life?
We are always searching for the purpose or reason
for doing what we do. But particular purposes and
meanings have meaning only as examples of what it
128
Chapter 18: Value
means in general to be meaningful. Is there a most
general meaning? Is there a meaning so basic or
general no other meaning can be conceived to be
more fundamental?
Understanding what it means to be meaningful,
requires understanding the characteristics all
meanings exhibit. This may sound as if one is
looking for what makes meaningful things different
from those that are not meaningful. But what if
meaning is a necessary characteristic? What if
everything must be meaningful? If so, then any
attempt to refer to something as having no meaning
would be self-contradictory.
If meaningfulness is necessary, then the meaning
of “meaning” is not something decided nor created,
not even by divinity. Discovering the basic meaning
of life, would be discovering how reality has always
been and must always be. Of course, the positivistic
or relativistic response is that there is nothing about
reality and the meaning of life that does not have an
alternative, but then, as we have seen (Chapter 3),
having alternatives does not have an alternative, so
this position is self-contradictory.
Anything common to two, much less all conceivable acts, is an abstraction. So ultimate purpose
must be completely abstract, which is another way of
saying it is necessary. Necessities have never been
created, and can never be changed.
Further, we all know, more or less clearly, what
we do is only meaningful if we change something;
we are meaningful only if we make a difference. If
what we do gets undone, if we rake up leaves and the
wind blows them around again, we say what we did
had no purpose; it was meaningless. So making a
difference somehow to something is necessary as one
condition for being meaningful.
One must make a lasting difference
to be meaningful
We do A to affect B, and B to affect C, and so
on. We easily conclude the purpose for which
everything is done is the last thing done. Most people
envision a final end to reality (just as most try to
conceive a first moment of reality), as the most
logical way to explain what the purpose of everything
is.
But we have seen in studying the meaning of
“change” that everything done or created by a
process of coming-to-be must contribute to some
superseding process(es) or other forever, so the
attempt to conceive of a last thing done that sums up
the differences (meanings) of everything, is highly
problematic.
We also saw how change is always an evolutionary process of growth around what has been
done before. Nothing can change the past, so one
cannot be meaningful by making a difference to the
past despite the many fantasies of time travel.
The definition of “meaning” is abstract, but
all meanings (differences) are concrete.
All differences are made within a present
coming-to-be. The new creations of the present,
which contain all or part of the past, “change” future
comings-to-be by requiring them to conform to what
was created in earlier processes. So the question of
meaning is two-sided, concerned with:
(1) What “value” means, that is, what the
abstract meaning or characteristic is that everything
exhibits, and
(2) Where value is placed, that is, where the
differences are made.
”Value” refers to the difference something
makes. Everything not only makes a difference; each
and everything must make differences. Being
meaningful is not a contingent characteristic of
reality. Everything must make a difference
somewhere and forever. That everything makes a
difference is a changeless and ultimate characteristic
of reality. This is the general meaning of having a
value, whether the value or difference made be
positive or negative.
The actual differences made cannot be necessary
or unavoidable, at least in detail. All things done are
contingent. Ethics is meaningless if one must do what
one does. But it is necessary that everything that
happens makes a differences somewhere or other.
The difference between positive and negative
value has usually been attempted in two ways:
(1) By an appeal to direct experience, or
(2) By an appeal to an authority, usually God or
backed up by God. In both cases, however, the end
result is not all that different. Positive value is always
said to be pleasant, enrich ing and productive of
further pleasantness. Philosophers differ, however,
when it comes to asserting whose experience is to be
enriched.
The contribution or difference made must last or
what was meaningful, no longer is. Since to say
something was meaningful, but no longer is, is selfcontradictory, logic forces us to conclude differences
must be made forever. If all contrasts of differences
have always been as they are, and will always be as
they are (or if Reality contains no contrasts), then
nothing changes––and we can make no changes––so
life is meaningless. This result always follows from a
block view of reality like Parmenides’.
But also notice, if the meaning of all we do were
to reside in a last thing done, and the last thing done
does nothing, makes no difference to anything, then
the last thing done is meaningless. Contributing to
something that is meaningless is not to be meaningful.
The following chart points out some of the
general characteristics of value which really are
aesthetic cannons.
129
Chapter 18: Value
Dimensions of Value
Value : the difference parts make in wholes that include them. Wholes are not static but are creative
unifications of diversity that are (1) experiencing or valuating the variety presented to them. Each whole creates
only one result. The value of this created result lies in (2) how it influences other wholes which include its
created result as a part.
Enrichment: positive value. Enrichment refers to feelings in an experience. Every experience is a feeling of
the past and an anticipation of how the past will affect the future. Each moment is new or different as a unifying
whole, but also somewhat old or the same, because the parts being unified and added to are not created by the
present moment. They existed before, and are, therefore, more or less old.
Unity and Diversity: requirements for enrichment. Contrasts must be strong and mutually reinforcing. A
unity must arise from mutually reinforced diversity; not from homogeneity. The opposite of enriched
experience is an experience that is either (1) trivial (feelings lacking depth or variety), or (2) painfully chaotic
(strong, but clashing, feelings), or (3) boring (feelings of trivial variety and too much repetition contrasted with
possible, but unfulfilled enrichments).
Depth: strength, more of the same, that is, spatial/temporal repetition of some characteristic. Many similar
things experienced simultaneously by means of the same characteristic results in the strength of spatial size. A
characteristic repeated or maintained sequentially (maintenance is repetition since nothing lasts unless it is
repeated in a new present moment) results in the strength of temporal endurance. When anticipations are nearly
always fulfilled, enrichment is diminished due to boredom.
Variety: new spatial/temporal characteristics. When one experiences many different items simultaneously,
spatial variety is established. When each new moment experiences little of what was experienced before,
temporal variety is achieved. When anticipations are seldom fulfilled, enrichment is diminished due to chaos.
Rhythm: the middle ground to enrichment. It allows strength through repetition, interspersed with novelty to
avoid boredom. Rhythm allows novelty, but not the chaos of too much novelty.
Examples of characteristics that can be varied: Size, Line, Shape, Texture, Light Value, Color Hue, Color
Saturation, Pitch, Volume, Timbre, Smells, Tastes, Direction, Point of View, Focus, Speed, Symmetry, Weight,
Symbolism, Representationalism, Abstractness, and Gender.
Where might differences be made? Three places
come to mind: Me, Others and Divinity. These three
give rise to three labels used to describe ethical
systems:
(1) Egoism,
(2) Humanism (and more broadly, Environmentalism), and some form of
(3) Theism.
Though contributions may be made to more than
one of these locations at the same time, one can still
try to specify which location is the final purpose for
the differences made. In religious language, this
comes down to where, and how, one is “saved.”
If the ultimate place of meaning is in oneself,
then one must justify what one does in light of the
long-term results to oneself. This does not imply that
Egoism must in practice be a selfish ethic. Being kind
to others or doing what God supposedly wants, may
be the best for one’s own enrichment, if not now,
then in some future state of affairs. The logical question this theory must address is whether or not
contributing to one’s self is even a possibility. And if
so, for how long?
We do seem to die, and if, when we are dead, we
can no longer retain the differences we made to
ourselves, Egoism, as a theory of ultimate meaning,
would be questionable.
130
Chapter 18: Value
Differences can be made to/in:
(1) Oneself
(2) Others
(3) Divinity (if meaningful).
Finding one’s salvation or meaning in the larger
social context has become a common attempted
solution to Egoism’s failure. In a theory of social
salvation, our life is still meaningful when we die
because others continue to be affected by what we
did. But there are still some serious problems having
others be the meaning of our life:
(1) No one seems to be changed by what I really
am: All the feelings and thoughts I have are not at all,
or only partially, transmitted to others.
(2) What does get into others seems to be so
watered down and forgotten, I would eventually
become meaningless.
(3) The group, whether it be humans or the larger
natural environment, will eventually die or disappear
as it is. No group or particular form of the world is
forever. Social salvation always depends on some
kind of ark to get meaning passed on through times
of group disaster.
God, in the mind of many, is a reality that cannot
be affected or changed by us. God is often thought to
be changeless. If God cannot be affected by us, he
cannot be the measure of the meaning of our lives.
Most people who think about this problem come
back to the individual ego as the only place where all
the intimacy of one’s being resides. In order to satisfy
the logic of meaning, the ego cannot die.
The ego, namely, that “stuff” which is supposedly the same “stuff” from moment to moment
and continues to be even after we physically die, is
usually called a “soul.” The soul is supposedly a
person, the same person from moment to moment. It
is affected by the experiences one has during life and
is able to retain those values despite death of the
body.
But is this a rational or meaningful idea? If the
analysis of change has been right, then the substantial
creative moment, the “soul” of the moment, ceases
when its coming-to-be has come to be. All egos are
momentary, according to the Sautrantika Buddhists
and Whitehead.
Even though these Buddhists seem to deny one
moment contributes to another as Whitehead affirms,
still they would agree with Whitehead that a moment
cannot contribute to itself. The present ego, according
to Whitehead, can only be affected by the past, that
is, the accomplishments of previous “souls.” The
Buddhists seem to say there is no real cause at all affecting the present.
Egoism, in the Whiteheadian theory, can only be
defined as concern to further the interest of one
personal (lineal) society, as opposed to considering
the values of other societies. A person is really a
lineal society, each member inheriting its dominant
influence from its immediate predecessor in the
series.
Egoism has the additional logical problem of
forgetfulness. Much of the value of the past seems to
be lost. We forget much of what we ourselves have
done. Many believe it is still around in some
unconscious form. But the reality of our past as we
experienced it does not seem to be saved.
And, further, for egoism to succeed as an ethic,
one must believe what no experience has established:
We do not die. The belief in everlasting life is a
rational argument that Plato and many others have
put forward. I think the rea sons advanced for
everlasting life are correct: Life is meaningless if the
differences one makes do not last forever.
I am not convinced, however, that one’s ego (as
a “soul” or a never-ending series of “souls”) can be
the place which stores those differences forever, even
though we each store our life in part as long as we
exist. But an ego that is the same stuff or whole from
moment to moment and yet is different because of its
internal changes from moment to moment, is the
attempt to conceive of a self-contraction, as
Parmenides correctly noted.
The problems can be resolved if divinity (the
divine series) is capable of change, if divinity can and
must retain forever all the differences anything
makes. This would not satisfy the egoist who enjoys
thinking s/he has the divine attribute of everlasting
life, but it would solve the logical problems raised by
the meaning of meaning.
Whether or not a cosmically inclusive and neverending life (series of creations) makes sense will be
discussed further in Chapters 21-23.
The following quotation from a student clearly
states what many believe:
A Student’s Defense of Egoism
Why can’t egoism be justified: To me, life is not a
team sport. People must base their actions on how
it will affect them in the future. To base all actions simply on living for God is ridiculous––nobody can do that without thinking a little about
himself. For example, if you love God all your
life and end up going to hell anyway, wouldn’t
you think you were cheated out of Heaven––after
all, that is egoism. I believe everyone, deep down,
is egoistic. (1990)
Chapter 18: Value
Value Flow Chart
131
132
Chapter 18: Value
V
alue Judgments. The logical requirements
for making a judgment about the value of an
actual or possible situation are those of a
syllogism. 27
One of the syllogism’s premises must be a
principle of value which cannot be derived or
substantiated by factual evidence. It must be
established by reason (some say by authority).
The other premise must be a statement of fact, a
statement of how things actually are. The deduced
conclusion asserts that the fact does or does not
exhibit the value.
All facts are evaluated within the context of a
whole that contains them. A fact in isolation from the
evaluating context can never be known to be good or
bad, ugly or beautiful.
Both concrete fact and abstract meaning of
“value” are required for an evaluation.
The abstract definition of “value” in itself says
nothing about the actual world. Only when both are
present can a judgment be made: Only when one
knows what it means in general to be good or bad,
and one also knows the facts of a particular situation,
can one assert the particular situation exhibits good
or bad value.
We seldom, if ever, make actual judgments using
the ultimate value principle as a premise, but the
justification and evaluation of any value less than ultimate is in terms of its ability to fulfill the ultimate
purpose.
Ultimate purpose cannot be found in a final state
of affairs. It is a characteristic exhibited by all states
of affairs. It is a logical “end” (a necessity), not a
temporal end. One proposal for the ultimate value is
to unqualifiedly love God/dess. Depending on what
this means, it can be seen as an egocentric or
theocentric ethical foundation (see the following
chart).
If we love God/dess, that is, obey God/dess,
because we want to avoid punishment or gain
pleasure for ourselves while we are alive or after
“death,” we are still functioning with an egocentric
ethic. But perhaps it is possible to love God/dess by
trying to make life enriching for his/er cosmic life.
When we really love someone, we either do
things for them they think will be enriching for
themselves or that we think will be enriching for
them. Deity, if meaningful, cannot be mistaken about
what is enriching, though we, not knowing all there is
to know, may be mistaken about what we should do
to enrich the loved one.
We may also have grounds for knowing
God/dess is an unsurpassable lover, and not just a
reality to be loved (as was Aristotle’s Unmoved
27A syllogism is an argument using two premises to reach
a conclusion. See entry in Glossary.
Mover, the great Unloving Beloved). If so, then we
know God/dess can never threaten us, punish us or
cause us mental or physical pain. Every pain or
pleasure we feel, God/dess would feel, as an
omniscient, all-loving reality must. To love all is not
something God/dess could choose or s/he would not
necessarily be omniscient or all-loving. More on
theistic attributes in following chapters.
At the core of philosophical problems is our
inability to know for sure that we know. This is
certainly the case when it comes to knowing what the
meaning of “value” is and whether one is making
correct judgments. Even the meaning of “knowledge”
depends on what one assumes the universe is like,
that is, what is metaphysically true.
The assumptions argued for here are those
generally called “process metaphysic,” and more
specifically those inspired by Whitehead and
Hartshorne. Some metaphysical insights must be
knowable since the attempted anti-metaphysical
statement that we can always be wrong is selfcontradictory.
Reason tells us that we must make a difference,
that is, have value. Experience shows whether it was
a pleasant or unpleasant value, that is, h o w the
difference is made. A whole that has inadequate
understanding of the meaning of value or incomplete
factual information may make a judgment of value
that is good for it now, but only a Whole that
unmistakably knows what good value means (that is,
what enriches the Whole) and has all the facts (as
only the cosmic Whole can), can say that what s/he
takes to be valuable or good, is unqualifiedly good.
Good for the all-inclusive Whole is good. Good
for a whole less than all-inclusive can be bad if it is
not also good for that which measures all value.
Fortunately, most often what is good for a part of the
Whole is also good (for the Whole).
Value is determined by the difference a part
makes in a whole. The value one has is the difference one makes in the present all-inclusive, but
one’s value must also last or continue to make a
difference in the presents of future moments or
one is valueless or meaningless.
All wholes (values)
are contingent selections.
But all concrete values, even those of the allinclusive Wholes’, are simultaneously incompatible
with other possible concrete values, that is, every
value excludes other possible values at the same time.
Time is the way by which simultaneously
incompatible values can be actualized, that is,
successively. Possible values are endless, as is time.
133
Chapter 18: Value
Love God/dess Unconditionally
How?
By obeying God/dess
Why?
To please God/dess.
How?
versus
versus
Why?
To avoid punishment
and gain rewards for
myself everlastingly.
versus
To enrich God/dess.
To increase joy and
minimize suffering for
the One everlasting life.
How?
versus
Where?
In myself and others
as they affect my welfare.
Why?
Why?
How?
By following old patterns
––not risking something new.
By enjoying God/dess and
God/dess enjoying us.
By creating new positive
feelings––risking failure
to make new joys.
Where?
versus
Why?
In God/dess (and neighbors and
myself as felt by God/dess as part of
his/er own reality).
Why?
Concern for myself now
and how I will be in my
life (in heaven or hell) forever.
versus
Concern for God/dess now
and how I and others will be
in God/dess’ life forever.
Egocentric
ethic.
versus
Theocentric
ethic.
Ultimately, the parts of each all-inclusive
Whole, as well as the Whole itself, must make a
difference to a new Whole with a new value
judgment that includes the values of the old Wholes
plus all newly created values inherited from others.
So ideally, value is always a judgment (or
evaluation) of what one has done for the present allinclusive Whole simultaneously compared to,
(1) the complete history of the universe, and
(2) the anticipations of how one might affect the
future. Even though only the Whole which is
experiencing all the actual contrasts as unified is
capable of evaluating the concrete world without
error, still there are some universal characteristics
which both the all-inclusive Whole and all restrictive
wholes must exhibit (see the chart above, Dimensions
of Value).
These necessities have never been created, but
have always been, as have all necessities. They are
not contingent, but define a characteristic always
exhibited by the primordial and everlasting Series of
all-inclusive, unsurpassable, concrete Wholes.
Since all wholes, small and great, exhibit the
same principle of value (namely, what it means to be
a “whole”), the meaning of “good” (which is the
most value possible for the all-inclusive Whole) is
also exhibited by all less than all-inclusive wholes
and so is knowable by all wholes, or is at least is not
intrinsically unknowable.
Since each all-inclusive Whole of the cosmic
series must include our experience, we must be able
know something of the concrete content of value as
well as the abstract meaning of value. Since the
meaning of “good” is knowable, and since some of
the facts are knowable, making well-founded
judgments of good and bad about actual or possible
situations is possible.
134
Chapter 18: Value
But for us who are not all-inclusive, error is also
possible in respect to both the ultimate meaning of
“value” and to the facts. So a measure of humility
and openness to others along with the willingness to
teach the best one knows is the only practical way to
assure maximizing positive value.
Chapter Summary
Moral judgments require knowledge of what “value” means and knowledge of the situation being
evaluated. Facts cannot define “value,” and the meaning of “value” points to no particular facts. Only
experience can discover the facts, and only conceptual analysis (some might say revelation) can disclose
the universal meaning of “value.”
To be meaningful one must make a factual difference. One must condition future facts so as to partly
determine their outcomes. To remain meaningful, what one does must always be conditioning some
creation or other. Egoism maintains I will always be influenced by my acts, so my death cannot be real.
Altruism or environmentalism maintains others in the world will always be changed by my actions and
thoughts. It is questionable any individual or society has the flexibility to survive forever having new
experiences, or even the ability to be influenced by the full reality that one is.
Hartshorne agrees that our actions affect ourselves and others as long as we exist, but they also affect the
all-inclusive reality, a reality that is infinitely flexible and cannot die. Living for God/dess is seldom a
sacrifice of one’s self, since one can only give to a lover something to love if one’s self is enriched.
Sacrifice of oneself is only justified when such a loss gives to others and the Whole more potential for
enrichment than the loss of oneself.
Enrichment requires diversity, but also depth or strength that comes from repetition. To live a good life,
one must attempt to avoid both extremes of chaos and trivialization.
Suggested Reading: Hartshorne, The Philosophy and Psychology of Sensation and Creative Synthesis &
Philosophic Method; Plato, Euthyphro; Voskuil, “Ethical Meaning’s Theistic Implications,” and “The Logic of
Death;” Navia; Frankl (but notice that he confuses the general meaning of “value,” which can be ultimate, with
specific goals, that can never be ultimate).
Orphic Cross
A Third Century CE rock seal with an image of Orpheus/Bacchus. This cross is
likely a preChristian symbol . Christianity adopted the cross as a symbol in the
Sixth Century CE . according to Walker, WEMS. Fix, 223.
135
Chapter 19
Two Faiths
Authoritarian versus Democratic Ethic
“Hence arises that principle on which we have all along insisted, that there is nothing more wholesome
in the Catholic Church than using authority before argument….We are required to despise all sensible
things, and to love God alone.” On the Morals of the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine.
“The utilitarian standard…is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of
happiness altogether,…[that is,] the collective interests of mankind,…the interest of the whole.” The
Ethics of Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill.
“‘Morality of outlook is inseparably conjoined with generality of outlook. The antithesis between the
general good and the individual interest can be abolished only when the individual is such that its
interest is the general good, thus exemplifying the loss of the minor intensities in order to find them
again with finer composition in a wider sweep of interest.” Process and Reality. “[T]he major
advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur.”
Symbolism, Alfred North Whitehead.
*********************************************************************
Focus>>•
–Issues–
(1) Comparing the logical insights and failings of authoritarian and democratic ethical systems in both
their social and theistic dimensions.
(2) How to act given our ignorance of the complete circumstances in which we find ourselves and our
inadequate grasp of the ultimate meaning of value.
–Approaches–
(1) Authoritarian (autocratic): One point of view weighs the worth of all others in light of its own
interest.
(2) Democratic (utilitarian): Everyone’s interest is valued insofar as it increases the group’s total
happiness.
(3) Hartshorne/Whitehead: Each interest is valued for itself and its contribution to a Whole which
includes every interest as part of its interest.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) The authoritarian view is right insofar as it recognizes the need for one standard and one
whole to weigh the merits of everyone.
(2) The democratic view is right insofar as it recognizes the need for everyone to have his/er own
worth that is justified only insofar as it contributes positively to a totality of value
(happiness).
(3) Hartshorne’s view combines the best of both by positing a whole that contains what is being
evaluated as parts of itself. Each part has its own worth, yet its merit (relative to others) is
determined by how it contributes to the whole it, and everything else, is in.
Cons:
(1) The authoritarian evaluator is apart from those being evaluated. There is no way for such a judge to
know for sure exactly what is being evaluated, so the judgment may not be appropriate.
(2) The utilitarian’s totality of value (the greatest happiness) resides nowhere. No member of a group can
grasp all the members of the group, and so no one has all the information required to evaluate the
relative merits of the members of the group, so no one actually has the greatest happiness. An
136
Chapter 19: Two Faiths
abstract collection of happinesses is not the same as a concrete, happy whole that contains the
collection of happinesses as parts of its one happiness.
*************************************************************************
D
ivine commission. Recall from the
previous chapter that a value judgment
requires both knowledge of a general
principle of value and knowledge of the facts being
weighed by the principle. Ideally, the principle will
be applicable to any possible fact and, thereby, be
metaphysically true. This would place the basis for
ethical judgments beyond relativism even though
its application to particular situations could still be
uncertain. Insofar as either the principle or the facts
are not known, the evaluation is in doubt.
Yet life does not wait for us to be absolutely
certain about what it means to be good or bad, nor
does it allow us to marshal all the facts before we
must act. It is disconcerting, if not agonizing, not to
be sure we are doing the right thing, so we seek
ways to be reassured we know what is right.
If one feels his/er knowledge is inadequate,
s/he may find assurance by accepting what an
authority says is valuable. Often one’s acceptance
of an authority is based on fear the authority will
make one suffer if s/he does not agree. A parent
may respond to a child who asks why s/he should
act in a certain way by threatening, “Because I told
you so.” In some theistic contexts this comes down
to saying something is good or bad because God
told us so: Believe it, and do it or go to hell.
In this authoritarian approach, only the
autocrat knows what the meaning of good and bad
is, because the meaning is dependent or contingent
on the will of the autocrat and is knowable only if
he decides to disclose or reveal it.
A special “in” group usually claims God has
revealed true knowledge to them, and further that
they have been commissioned by him to dispense
and guard its truth. They often claim the exclusive
right to tell others what to do or believe and to
protect those who do believe from those who don’t;
even by the use of force if necessary.
The meaning of “value” in this case is not an
unavoidable necessity of reality because it is not
unconditionally rational. It is nonrational (if not
irrational) because it is decided by the authority
and could have been decided otherwise
H
umanism. On the other hand, the essence
of the democratic approach lies in the
belief that the meaning of “value” is
accessible to all. It may not be easy to discover, but
it is discoverable because the principle is a
necessity exhibited by all possible actualities.
Necessities (unlike nonrational statements) are
never created but have always been and always
will be exhibited by every actuality. They are,
therefore, available to be discovered by anyone
with sufficient insight.
The ancient Greeks argued over who to include in
their democracy (polis), just as we do today. They
assumed some groups knew more or better than others
and had more right to be among those deciding what all
should do. But since not all the members of any group
will agree all the time, the members of a democracy
must agree to compromise when they disagree. But the
Greeks assumed any compromise must be somewhat
wrong and, therefore, not as good a decision as the right
decision would be if one could know what it is.
Therefore, Socrates, and especially Plato, argued
against establishing a democratic social order. They
maintained only those who know for sure should rule.
The common people (hoi poloi) are a flock to be lead
by a shepherd king who must also be a philosopher
since, of course, only philosophers can know the truth.
Utilitarianism appeals to everyone’s immediate
experience of enrichment or suffering to determine
what is good or bad, rather than to some special
knowledge held by a privileged individual or autocratic
group. Whether the positive or negative value which the
individual experiences is unqualifiedly good, however,
depends on its relationships with all the other
experiences of the group’s members. What is defined as
unqualifiedly “good” is “the greatest amount of
happiness altogether,” not just any one individual’s
happiness.
But where is this totality of happiness? It does not
reside in any member of the group, nor can it reside in
an abstract collective since abstractions have no
feelings. Only concrete unities have feelings. Neither is
an abstract collective anything to which one can
contribute to a difference.
The greatest happiness, in other words, must be an
actual experience of happiness, not an abstract
mathematical sum. It must be a whole, not a collective.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the famous utilitarian
quoted above at the beginning of this chapter, is
confused on this point since he uses the terms “whole”
and “collection” interchangeably.
K
nowledge required for judgment. So in
practice, we either believe a special individual
or small group (a priesthood) has a divine
commission (a unique relationship to the divinely based
meaning of value), or we believe reason can find the
principle upon which we make value judgments. But to
make correct judgments also requires knowledge of
what the facts are. How is it possible to obtain this
information?
Knowing the actual concrete facts is only possible
if:
(1) the facts are tran smitted or carried by other
people, cells, chemicals, and so on, to the whole
supposedly knowing the facts. But what one takes to be
the facts (known by way of transmission) may not be
the case because:
a. the transmission of the facts to the one
who is making the judgment may be
faulty or
b. the total factual situation may not be
transmitted, or
(2) the facts are known (included) immediately
as they are within a Whole with no mediated
transmission nor selection. Concrete facts can be
fully known if they are included in such a whole
because:
a. no inference need be made that is
susceptible to error, and
b. an all-inclusive Whole would contain
all the facts and their relationships.
So if cosmic Wholes make sense, one’s value
is always a combination of what one has done for
the present all-inclusive Whole simultaneously
compared to the complete history of the universe,
and to anticipations of how one might affect the
future.
All wholes exhibit the same principle of value,
namely, what it means to be a “whole,” that is, to
feel the positive and negative aesthetic worth of its
parts and to anticipate a new goal to be achieved
which will contribute to superseding wholes
forever.
But for us who are a series of wholes, but not
all-inclusive Wholes, error is also possible in
respect to both the principle and the facts. Thus a
large measure of humility and openness to others,
along with the willingness to teach the best one
knows, is the only way to assure maximizing
positive value in an actual social context.
The agony of being human and having to live
with uncertainty because we are not all-knowing, is
what every “faith” tries to soothe––be this a faith in
the ultimacy of science and its methodology, or the
faith that one’s religion has cut the knot of radical
fallibility and given one indubitable truths by way of
revelation.
These faiths are often held to be so true and
important one is justified removing other’s
opportunities for alternatives since all other thoughts
would only be falsehoods. Even killing those in error
has been rationalized to prevent the cancerous spread of
heresies. Convert or die: Better dead than a heathen
infidel. Better dead than red. Better dead than….
The following outline makes more succinct how
these two contending views of social and cosmic order
differ. Life is always a mix of these two faiths. Only
when they conflict do we discover which is more
important to us or what is lacking in one. These can be
times of hard moral introspection.
A democracy has principles common to all
members of the group. The group enlarges as moral
sensitivity increases as Whitehead noted above in the
opening quote to this chapter, so “common” means
“applying to all” as a common denominator, rather than
“vulgar” or “not of the privileged,” the meaning used in
an autocratic environment to label the lower or “out”
class.
The other faith is called “autocratic” from the
Greek meaning “self-empowered” or “authoritarian.”
Not everyone is self-directed. Only the one who
controls, directs or informs everyone else is so
empowered. No one has any power but that received
from the authority. The autocrat’s decisions are not up
for review nor require any justification by any standard
outside his own will.
Religions still debate whether we even have the
power (the free will) to decide to accept or reject God’s
authority or grace.
Most of us are sympathetic to the democratic ideals
because our political system tries to embody many of
them. Yet most religious traditions are deeply indebted
to the autocratic ideal. However, both have logical
problems.
Two Faiths
Autocratic Assumptions:
The Kingdom
Democratic Assumptions:
The Polis
1. One could exist alone.
1. Life is unavoidably social.
2. The universe makes sense, but only those with
special or revealed knowledge know what it is.
The order of the universe (or society) stems from
the autocrat’s will, not from any intrinsic rational
necessity.
2. The universe can make sense; it is not
intrinsically unknowable.
137
138
3. Discussion in an open forum is a waste of time at
best. It is the wrong approach to deciding issues
because common folk are not capable of deciding
what is best for them: They cannot understand the
special knowledge. Discussion of authority’s
pronouncements implies one doubts the
authority’s correctness.
3. Agreement is possible through discussion in an
open forum.
4. Cliquish, divisive (“ins” versus “outs,”
heaven/hell, rich/poor). The “ins,” the special or
autocratic group, are better than common folk
who can do nothing to deserve to be part of the in
or “saved” group. The commoners can get in only:
(a) if they are considered a curiosity by the
privileged
4. Accepting of others.
(b) if they agree to do and to believe
everything the authoritative, that is, the better,
group says, or
(c) if one of the ins is magnanimous enough to
fix it for those wanting to get in by giving them
special access. Who one knows, not what one
knows or does, is what counts.
5. There is always agreement with the authority.
Those who would disagree are wrong and not
tolerated.
5. When agreement cannot be attained, all agree to
disagree until further discussion.
6. One must act as the authority or his
representatives say.
6. One accepts the majority decision when action
must be taken.
7. Only by being indoctrinated with the autocrat’s
designs and following his will can one improve.
7. Belief that ignorance can be overcome, that
people can become better informed and better
themselves.
8. Education is not important. Tolerant only of the
“true” or right decision made by the autocrat.
Education is indoctrination.
8. Everyone must be educated to help insure better
decisions.
9. Justified in restricting others to avoid their going
counter to the will of the authority.
9. Willing to live with a bad decision freely made
until it can be changed rather than restrict others’
freedom to decide.
10. The autocrat always knows best. Common folk
are means to the autocrat’s ends.
10. No one special group is able to decide what is
best for others all the time.
11. The authority has the true knowledge. One must
not accept nor entertain other positions.
11. Accepting another’s opinion must be freely done
and capable of being rejected.
12. Laws are what the authority wants everyone else
to do. They can only be changed by his say so.
12. Laws are guidelines for action when the forum is
not in session. They can be improved or ignored
only by the group’s consent.
13. Betrayal: Questioning the authority.
13. Betrayal: Acting to subvert the general will.
14. Ultimate betrayal: Insubordination.
14. Ultimate betrayal: Refusing to take
responsibility; giving up one’s freedom of choice
to another.
15. Motto: Trust me.
15. Motto: Come let us reason together.
16. Injunction: Be pure (Be exclusive).
16. Injunction: Enjoy (Be inclusive).
17. Problem: One (unity/whole) cannot weigh
values that are not parts of oneself.
17. Problem: An aggregate cannot weigh values nor
maintain them.
These problems can be resolved if there exists
a universal Unity that includes (evaluates) all others
as parts. This reality must be a real whole (or a
series of Wholes), not an aggregate, and the whole
cannot exist apart from the parts. Since a Whole
that includes all else as parts must be or include the
universe itself, this position is some form of theism.
A serious logical problem, however, resides in
conceiving of the universe as just one whole
throughout temporal changes, that is, over time. A
whole is just what it is. One whole cannot have or
contain different parts from the ones it does, in fact,
contain. So what happens to the universal Unity
when new things happen, when new parts come
into existence? The present whole cannot be the
same whole that existed a moment before if it now
contains different or additional parts from the
previous whole.
At each moment the Cosmic Unity contains all
else as parts. But when new things occur, a new Whole
must also occur. This new Whole must not only contain
the new parts, but also the previous cosmic unity as one
of the parts in its new, all-inclusive unity.
In this view, though each of us acts to enrich his/er
own experience, we also ought to act in light of others’
enrichments and how all acts affect the Whole, since
affecting the Whole is unavoidable. Our ultimate value
can only reside in the only place where everlasting
differences can be made. This location must also be
able to weigh everything simultaneously that presently
exists as well as be able store it forever, otherwise what
has been, would no longer be, presenting a serious
logical contradiction. This location is a series of
Wholes, where each is all-inclusive, and where each
contributes to the next. Each moment of the series must
be a whole summing up all that has previously
happened, and the series must never have a last
moment.
G
Summaries of Some Approaches to Social Ethics
reek City States: (First Millennium BC).
They nurtured (now and then) democracy,
that is, the faith that justice and well-being
will be found by those who discuss issues in an open
forum, namely, voting on what to do, which laws to
establish and who will be in charge of carrying them
out until the voters decide otherwise. This was a
revolution against the belief that a privileged class of
people had access to revealed or cult knowledge or
had better genes. It was a revolt against rule by a
priesthood (theocracy) or by a secular king and his
court or by anyone with a monopoly of power. It may
have been a position not uncommon during the
prepatriarchal period.
These democratic societies were very restrictive,
however, in their membership, excluding many
classes of men, all women and slaves––much as did
the original, “democratic” political system in the
United States.
S
ocrates: (Died 399 BC ). Socrates believed
knowledge is virtue: To know the right is to do
it.
The difficulty of really knowing what the good or just
is spawned:
(a) Skeptics who dogmatically “know” one
cannot know what is right, or anything else,
(b) Tyrants who say it is as right as anything
else for us to do as they say, and
(c) Platonists who believe only a few can know
what is good and right, and they are the ones
who do.
Platonists were ultra-rationalists who believed
only concepts that don’t change or have never been
created are the only true ones, that is, necessary truth
is the only truth. Skeptics and relativists agreed with
this definition, but assumed no one could obtain such
knowledge.
P
lato: (Died 347 BC). Plato believed only those
who are fully knowledgeable should rule. All
souls have been imprinted with eternal
knowledge of the Good and True, but only the
philosopher knows what it is. The common man is
ignorant, confused by the influence of the body and
can only see the truth hidden in the soul as if
obscured by a dirty glass (mirror).
The knowledge or revelation every soul has in
heaven before becoming entrapped in the confusions
of the body, is rediscovered by the philosopher. This
special knowledge gives him the right to rule. Since
knowledge supposedly makes one virtuous, he will
presumably rule justly.
In practice the ideal society for Plato is a
monarchy guided by the philosopher. This good
shepherd will tend his flock with care. In exchange
the flock will blindly follow without question since
for them to do the right is to fulfill their work-station
139
140
in life as defined by the enlightened one who knows
what it is.
Plato’s view of reality is very dualistic:
(1) Cosmically there is
(a) a “heavenly” world of true reality where
nothing changes (which is the natural
home of the soul), versus
(b) the changing physical world of opinion
and ignorance that commoners think is
real.
(1) Politically there is
(a) a shepherd who has special knowledge
and so has the divine right to rule,
versus
(b) the flock who must have faith that the
shepherd is right. Even to question the
shepherd/king is to jeopardize his good
will.
(3) Ethically personal virtue comes from
(a) virtuous contemplation of the eternal
realities (definitions) by the hoi oligoi
(the privileged), versus
(b) fulfilling work duties (defined by those
with special knowledge) for the hoi
poloi. (the commoners).
God is not a clear idea for Plato. The Form of the
Good, that is, the form of organization of all the other
Forms or Patterns, is the highest reality. Plato does
speak of a Demiurge, the world’s soul, that uses the
Forms (I-deas) to create and move the world.
Soul is central to Plato’s concept of salvation. It
is what has the knowledge that sets us free from the
body to go back to heaven (a heaven of Forms) where
it came from. If the soul is simple (as Plato at times
argues), salvation is its release from the body; if it is
compound (tripartite, as Plato also argues), salvation
is the harmonization of its three parts: the vegetative,
the animal and the rational.
Motivation for ethical concern comes from our
ability to make a difference to ourselves by releasing
the soul from the body. We cannot make a difference
to the Form of the Good or anything eternal since
they are changeless. It is doubtful we can even make
a difference to our soul since it has all knowledge
from eternity, and if it is simple, it is completely
unalterable. So the only difference we make is in the
clarity of knowledge we recover from the soulintellect that is confused on earth by one’s bodily
emotions.
If one has sufficient knowledge (attainable only
by denying the body’s impulses), our soul will not be
punished for its ignorance by being sent to hell for a
while before being put back into another body. It may
go to heaven for a while, but from there too it will
eventually fall again and be trapped in another
earthly body. Are we responsible for our ignorance
and do we have the power to change it? If not, what
is the motivation for ethical concern?
Definitions that do not change are mistakenly
seen by Plato to be the concretely real things. They
are the things not seen, because they are objects of
thoughts, but he assumes they are more real than the
things seen because he assumes what is changeless is
more real than what changes.
A
ristotle: (Died 322 BC). Aristotle backs away
from the Socratic/Platonic view that
(theoretical) knowledge is virtue. Knowledge
is necessary, but not sufficient for virtue. He says
there are two kinds of knowledge: theoretical and
practical. Practical knowledge is imprecise but
sufficient to guide behavior according to the Golden
Mean: the middle-of-the-road, nothing-to-excess
model for good behavior.
Good character, the desire to be just or good,
comes from the intrinsic social nature of man, from
his interaction with good role models and a desire to
be rational, that is, to fulfill our unique capacity or
potentiality which for a man (but not for a woman) is
to be rational.
Ultimate motivation for being good is love of
“God.” It is God (pure form or pure actuality) that
has from eternity the fulfillment of each species’
form including the form that is uniquely man,
namely, rationality. God does not contain nor know
any detailed actions. Each primary substance (that is,
a particular example of a species) ought to become
fully what it is capable of being. Man ought be
become fully rational since this is assumed to be what
is uniquely human. Aristotle is not presenting an
egoistic ethic because each of us is essentially a
social creature, so fulfilling our rational end can only
be done in a social context that requires that one
consider more than his own narrow (irrational)
interests.
Soul, defined as the essence of what one is and
as something that maintains its own separate
existence apart from rationality in general, is not an
obvious belief for Aristotle.
God is changeless since change means fulfilling
a potentiality not yet fulfilled: God is pure Form or
Pure Actuality with no potentiality. God changes the
world by being the object everything else desires to
be like. To be good is to be God-like, to love God,
not for a reward later but to live as enriching and
pleasant life possible in this world.
Definitions (the forms of actualities) are parts of
full concrete wholes, what Aristotle calls “primary
substances” which also have potentiality (that is,
matter). God is the exception; God is all form and no
potentiality.
Salvation or living the good life is enhanced by
emotional involvement in life’s experiences, especial
those that have an insightful resolution of a conflict.
Identification with a surrogate hero in a dramatic
presentation can also help us to live the good life, by
way of the aesthetic catharsis (cleansing renewal) we
receive.
R
oman Empire’s Climate: (200 BC-400 AD).
The period during which Rome controlled
much of the Mediterranean world was
dominated by:
(a) Worship of power rather than worship of
goodness and truth;
(b) Concern with salvation and otherworldliness,
rather than man and reason;
(c) Cults, each claiming special knowledge, but
from revelation, not from a rational or
empirical process. Most were quite antiintellectual;
(d) Many religious movements, such as:
Mystery cults; Dying and rising saviors.
These were survivals, with masculine
modifications, of the rituals underlying
the cyclical female-centered worldviews
of earlier times;
Judaism: Zealots, Pharisees, Sadducees,
Essenes, God-fearers, Jesus people,
mysticism, apocalyptic pseudepigrapha, Gnosticim;
Christianity: Jesus people, Pauline and
Marken synthesis, patristics, Augustine, western literalism vs. eastern
symbolism;
Zoroastrianism (Manicheanism), Gnosticism, Mithraism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Cynicism, Skepticism, NeoPlatonism (Plotinus), astrology.
A
ugustine: (354-430 A D ). He considered
himself privy to special knowledge first as a
Manichean and then as a Christian. Virtue is
faith in Christian authorities who speak God’s truth,
though he did try to find reasons to support belief.
The unseen or immaterial realm of heaven is
what we ought to desire and contemplate. However,
we naturally desire things of the world, so the soul is
naturally evil and must be saved from these evil
desires. Ascetic denial of fleshly desires is one’s only
hope of being saved.
Salvation is from the temptations of the flesh and
also from the uncertainties that come from being
human.
A fallen soul cannot save itself. Only special
knowledge of God’s plan can save us if we also beg
God to forgive us and have faith in the authorities
who tell us that God will accept Christ’s suffering as
payment for our wrongs. When God saves us, we will
no longer feel uncertain about what life has in store
for us, and we will be rewarded in heaven (for
following the good shepherd like a good flock) with
everlasting joy, even if this life does not give us such
joy justly. If we refuse to believe God’s plan to
redeem us (or perhaps even if we have not had the
chance to hear it) we will be punished forever after
“death” for our insubordination or lack of special
knowledge (faith).
Our soul is saved to have new experiences
forever. In one’s soul are kept or saved all the
experiences that one has had. One makes a difference
to his soul forever (there was debate over whether
women had souls). We do what we do to ensure
getting our soul to heaven. We love God and others
now to gain rewards later. This is an egocentric ethic.
Love of God (faith in God) pleases God. We are
rewarded with God’s love in return (heaven) rather
than God’s wrath (hell).
Salvation is not just for the privileged class but
for anyone who declares his faithfulness, that is,
capitulates his own will and power and accepts the
authority.
U
tilitarians: (ca. 1800-1850). Virtue is action
that furthers pleasure (Bentham). Virtue is
action that furthers refined, rather than base,
pleasures (Mill).
The utilitarian ethic is a worldly and anti-ascetic
ethic (though heavenly pleasures could also be
motivations).
No special knowledge or revelation is needed to
understand what has positive value, since everyone
knows what is pleasurable. And reason, which is
available to everyone, can determine how to evaluate
whose pleasure is ultimately good.
Our experiences are meaningful since they have
an affect in ourselves and others. If we cease to exist,
and if all those we have affected cease, we would no
longer be meaningful since nothing of us would go
on forever making a difference.
In the utilitarian ethic, the more pleasure
generated, the better. Yet what does “more” mean.
Should a little pleasure be experienced by many or
much pleasure be experienced by a few? Is one
justified in acquiring much pleasure at the expense of
some pleasure for many others?
Should we give one man pleasure or many pigs?
Or many piggish men? How can one distinguish
higher or better pleasures from lower or worse
pleasures? Who do we ask to decide which are higher
pleasures? Mill says we can appeal to one who knows
both. One (a whole) who can directly compare both
can directly experience the relative merits of two
pleasures. But no human person has enough intimate
information about others to experience the relative
differences of the different amounts, kinds and
distributions of their pleasures. One never
experiences just what another does.
This humanistic approach to value found its way
into the United States’ anti-authoritarian
Constitution. However, the actual social structure of
the United States’ military, corporations, religious
groups, racial and even family relations, still embody
much of the autocratic structure that Socrates longed
for and for which Plato tried to give a metaphysical
justification.
141
142
P
rocess Theistic Aesthetic: (Best formulated
since 1930). All value is judged (evaluated) by
its relation to all others at each moment. Value
is intrinsically social.
A “soul” is a moment of creation. A soul does
not last more than a moment. It actualizes some
potentiality of the moment and dies with its
accomplishment. What it creates as it dies is a value
to be given to other moments to experience, either in
the same or some other series of creations or both.
Our gaining knowledge of the meaning of
“good” and other ultimate, abstract value concepts is
possible, though not always easy to achieve. Our
knowing all facts, all concrete creations relevant to a
value judgment, is impossible. However, all facts are
known by a cosmically inclusive reality, as is the
meaning of “value,” so a true measure of everyone’s
value exists which we may dimly grasp.
Love of God/dess is the ultimate motivation, not
so we will be rewarded later, but for its intrinsic
value to oneself, others and God/dess now, and to
God/dess and others later. We make a difference to
others at each moment and always to the present and
future cosmic unities. The differences (changes)
made in the divine cosmic Series are forever, so we
are always meaningful. Many others (and always the
most recent Cosmic Whole) make a difference in us
at each moment. God/dess is more than the world but
not apart from the world. The world’s pleasures are
pleasures for God/dess; our pains are pains for
God/dess. Restraint of others to prevent aesthetic
degradation is justified; punishment or revenge that
causes more pain is not.
The definition of “value” (positive or negative) is
“contributing something to others.” Definitions,
including the definition of “good and bad,” are
aspects of concrete wholes. All definitions are
abstract. Some definitions are completely abstract,
that is, necessary, because they are aspects which all
possible concrete wholes must have.
So all values, all differences made, must be in
concrete wholes. Yet no whole can be the final
storehouse of all values, since there are endless
possible states of value that can be created. So even
the present all-inclusive Whole must become a part
(one value amongst others, though the greatest) in the
next, new all-inclusive Whole.
Chapter Summary
History is filled with socio-political systems that claim to be the only true or necessary social order. But
even if the meaning of value is necessarily what it is, still how to fulfill it in personal and social contexts is not a
fixed necessity.
The autocratic view of social order is right to insist that the value, each member of a society or the cosmos
has, can only be determined by a single, all-knowing individual. Yet the utilitarians are right to insist that each
member of society has its own value. But they fail to appreciate that the relative value of the members of a
group to each other cannot be determined apart from a whole that has the values of all the members. A whole
cannot evaluate the group unless the members of the group are parts of the whole.
Two questions should not be confused: (1) What does it mean to be good or bad? and (2) How are one’s
acts known to be good or bad? The previous chapter concluded that the meaning of value is to make an
everlasting difference, and that the meaning of positive value is to create the greatest amount of joy possible.
A theistic authoritarian says this means making God happy by obeying him, regardless of the suffering
created in the world to do so, probably because the pain in the world is assumed to be blocked from God, or
because the pain is compensated for by the everlasting joy we will receive later in heaven as a reward for our
obedience.
The utilitarian says value is only found in creatures. Hartshorne finds value in both creatures and God/dess
since the world is included in God/dess’ experience.
Suggested Reading: Navia; Hartshorne, Beyond Humanism; “Nairn, Hartshorne and Utilitarianism.”
143
Chapter 20
Gods and Goblins
Our Wounded Child
Psychological Influences on Theistic Concepts
“If you love it, set it free. If it doesn’t return, hunt it down and kill it.”
Bumper Sticker on a 4x4 pickup.
“Violence is an expression of intimacy.” Mobster Santo Trafficante.
“Others who hate you don’t win unless you hate them and then you destroy yourself.”
Richard Nixon, as he was forced to resign his presidency after the Watergate scandal.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
The affect of childhood neuroses on a rational worldview.
–Approaches–
(1) Capricious environment produces fearful and withdrawn people.
(2) Rule-bound environment produces fearful and obedient people.
(3) Harsh and occasionally merciful environment produces fearful and manipulative people.
(4) Threatening environment controlled by a heroic friend produces fearful and thankful people who
feel some relief but retain internal conflict.
(5) Loving environment produces loving people.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Only love is unqualifiedly healthy and rational.
Con:
The first four environments are crazy-making situations to be avoided as much as possible.
******************************************************************************
S
ometime in the womb each of us (as a unity of
experience that integrates large numbers of
brain cells), begins to feel our surroundings.
Physiology dictates the primary elements of our
surroundings are those very brain cells being
integrated. The first faint unified feelings are not
likely remembered. A personal series of experiences
(that includes the memory of previous unities of
experience as an element in the present unity of
experience) may take some time to become
established. Eventually, however, memory becomes
consistent. Experience can then compare the new
environmental sensory inputs presented by the brain
cells with previous, re membered experiences.
“Familiar experience” becomes meaningful, and so
does the possibility of “unfamiliar.”
Feeling the unities of past feelings is our true
birth as a person. We feel the feelings of those
momentary lives of our past series within our present
moments of life. If our brain cells are feeling
pleasantly, they will contribute this feeling to our
whole; if they are suffering, so will we (the present
whole) suffer in part.
Not only must we accept, and be affected by,
those in our immediate environment, but we find
ourselves more or less affecting our environment,
even though the awareness that we can control our
environment arises at a somewhat later stage. We
desire to experience others who are not feeling pain
144
Chapter 20: Wounded Child
and those who are not too unfamiliar. Our comfort
zone requires we are,
(1) living where others are comfortable so we
don’t feel their discomfort as physical pain, and
(2) living where those others are not presenting
experiences to us with so much novelty they shock us
and cause us mental pain or trauma.
We are first alive and experiencing unconsciously in the womb and then pushed, unwombed,
into the world, neither of which we ask for. The intraand extra-womb world is a given we each must
contend with.
We react to it emotionally and try to make sense
of it with whatever conceptual power we have. We
all live in an emotionally crazy-mak ing world that
can only contribute to our devising irrational theories.
Most theories have rational problems even under the
best of conditions. Insanity or irrationality in some
degree or other is our lot.
We have no choice but to be both feeling and
theorizing creatures. Thinking gives us a chance to
overcome our emotional inconsistencies by
understanding the structure of the world as it really
is. As adults we can only hope we are now reflective
enough to find saner theories to help direct saner
emotional reactions to the world, so we are not fully
at the mercy of our neuroses. The healing of the sickand-wounded child upon which our adulthood is built
can be furthered, if not fully brought about, by
reflecting on what theories we hold, the reasons we
hold them and what may be irrational about them.
Then, when we feel again our wounds, we will have
the power to drain the poison, stitch ourselves back
together and live with the scars.
What follows attempts to show
(1) how we have reacted emotionally to our
environment in four unhealthy ways, reactions that
are “normal” given our inadequate nurturing, but
reactions that are irrational nevertheless, if the
metaphysic expounded in this book is true,
(2) how we hypothesize the nature of our
immediate surroundings to account for these
emotions,
(3) how we often project the theory into
cosmological (and religious) dimensions and,
(4) how these four theories exhibit irrationalities
in light of
(5) a more adequate (theistic) cosmology.
1. An Unpredictable, Unpleasant World
Nothing I want or do makes any difference.
Environment: Unfamiliar, unpredictable and painful.
Examples: Extreme bump or sudden loud noise while in the womb. Birth without familiar voices,
temperature, and so on. Childhood neglect and abuse interspersed with nurturing. Pleas and hopes that have
no effect on treatment received. Sudden transitions. Trauma.
Reaction: Fear, panic, screaming and, finally, various degrees of withdrawal, really degrees of death that
range from an inability to concentrate or contribute, to catatonia and split person.
Rationale: (not necessarily conscious): No one seems to care for me. I make no difference: I’m meaningless.
If no one cares for me, it is either because (1) I am not worthy of anyone’s concern or (2) the world imposes
no obligation to be caring. My participation in the world must be minimized to avoid pain.
Projection: The universe exhibits no intrinsic order. If there is such an order, it is not an order that cares for
me, therefore, I have no obligation to care for the world, in fact, attachment will often cause pain, so
disinterestedness is a virtue (Buddhists’ ethic).
Holes in Theory: We are forced to accept our environment without knowing or feeling that the acceptance
is reciprocated. The desire to continue to live, which requires us to continue to accept much of our
environment, is countered by the desire to stop living to avoid the pain. Our desire to stop re-living the
painful experiences presented by the environment evokes hate, namely, the desire not to experience what one
has already unwillingly experienced. A theory of hate or withdrawal drives the neurotic conflict until we
desire the stilling peace of our own death.
145
2. A Just World
When I do my chores, everything is OK.
Environment: Orderly but conditional. Nurturing is earned by obedient behavior.
Examples: We believe every aspect of behavior is guided by a rule to measure its appropriateness or value.
We become fashion-conscious, outwardly directed to make sure we do not stand out. Rule-directed behavior
leads to conformity.
Reaction: Tell me what the rules are. One will not easily try anything new.
Rationale: I am worthy only if I earn it by obeying the rules.
Projection: The universe is controlled by a rule-giver and judge. Everything is good or bad depending on
whether it follows the judge’s expectations. The world is a testing ground for obedience , not a place of
excitement, creativity nor love.
Holes in Theory: One who is comfortable following rules seldom asks whether a rule is good or bad. A
world-in-creation cannot be interpreted within all the old categories. Yet, no one can always follow all the
rules, so our positive self-image that comes when we are in control of our destiny, is turned against us when
we find we can’t fulfill our duty. This causes us either to react and become dissocial, denying we are dutybound, or to adopt the next position.
3. A Merciful World
Please don’t spank me.
Environment: Harsh but forgiving, at least occasionally for those who beg. We give up our own desires in
order to fulfill another’s desire as a way to avoid suffering. We have been convinced we are bad (that is, we
don’t do what we are told or what the rules require) and deserve the pain as punishment (contrary to Number
1 where pain was not believed to be related to our behavior). We are often ostracized from our in-group or
family because of our failings.
Examples: Father spanking us when we didn’t do what he asked. Little sister begging to be let into a clubhouse clique. Begging to go to school even though we haven’t finished our asparagus. Asking for a second
chance to do the work so we can go to the movie.
Reaction: Manipulation of those in control, that is, “loving” the world so the world will us love back, but
eventually feeling our destiny is out of our control. Our value depends on the whim of the one holding
power.
Rationale: The world will respond favorably to me if I know what strings to pull. Perhaps if I plead hard
enough someone will pity me. The world knows that I am, but only cares how I am if I plead, sacrifice,
grovel and try to please.
Projection: The universe thinks more of me than others because I am part of a favored in-group which makes
me more lovable. Those of the in-group will be valued (perhaps, forever); others will suffer and be lost. We
give thanks to a merciful God for saving us when he could have decided to cast us out. The more we pray,
petition and stay pure, the more God is likely to have mercy on us.
Holes in Theory: We each feel we (or our group) is special. The energy spent to continually convince
ourselves we are better or special (probably to compensate for the capitulation of our own creative
excitements) keeps us from living a full life. We can’t know for sure our sacrifice is a good thing or a waste
that is fulfilling another’s evil desires. God is not defined as “loving” but as “magnanimous.” Love is not a
necessary part of God since God could decide not to love us. Our destiny is up to another’s caprice, so we
must always fear that we will not be loved or saved.
146
4. A Heroic World
Big brother will help.
Environment: My interests are being threatened (1) by others outside my group or (2) by a dominant
member of my group. Big brother will step forward and (1) beat-up those picking on me if Mom and Dad are
absent or (2) ask Mom/Dad not to punish me if s/he is the one who is angry with me, or even take his/er
abuse for me.
Examples: One’s parents protect the family from outsiders. Big brother stands in for a sibling in face of
threats from either (1) others outside the family or (2) punishment from the parent him/herself.
Reaction: Relief that I don’t have to always fend for myself. Intense internal conflict that my group’s
champion who is protecting me from external threats can become my worst threat. My caretaker can become
my undertaker, psychologically, and perhaps physically.
Rationale: The in-group will take care of its own. If my parent is threatening me, I must not be worthy of
his/er protection or “love; “perhaps another, a blood relation, loves me enough to help me.
Projection: There is a cosmic hero who will save me, be my champion, in face of (1) evil forces or (2) God’s
desire to punish me. This superhero is often a blood (or half-blood) relative; he is half human which prompts
his concern, yet also a divine relative so divine concern and power is available to help us.
Holes in Theory: What if my parent (God) sent the bullies (or disease) to punish me? The primary caregiver is often the primary source of fear, which is a bottomless pit of internal conflict (insanity). Can God be
all-loving and, supposedly lovable, and punish us or even send us to hell forever? Our major neurosis stems
from our not knowing whether one’s parent (or whomever we must depend on) is someone who is our
common threat, or our primary protector.
5. An Unconditionally Loving World
They love me whatever I do.
Environment: Consistent nurturing, loving, providing adventure with security without pain. Challenge
without undo risk.
Examples: Touching, hearing, seeing are neither painful nor threatening.
Reaction: Joy, love: mutual acceptance, trust and desire to further others’ enrichment. No fear.
Rationale: What I do is unique, exciting and makes a difference. Not concerned to acquire rewards in another
life to make up for deficiencies now. There are no deficiencies now as long as what I do continues to be
meaningful, valued or make a difference. What I do will continue to make a difference since the world loves
what I do and will nurture it.
Projection: God/dess accepts me no matter what I do, but since I love him/er, I want to affect him/er
positively by enjoying life and helping others to do likewise, so God/dess’ accepting love of the world will
be enjoyable not painful.
Holes in Theory: None obvious. A theory of all-inclusive love is only applicable in the “projected” or
cosmological dimension. A creature by definition cannot love all. With a theory of intrinsically shared power
(which Hartshorne and Whitehead see as the only logical possibility), how an all-loving God/dess and
creaturely suffering co-exist, can be understood.
************************************************************************************
147
Anguish over Inadequate Philosophy
“I don’t understand God. If he is supposed to be all-loving, all-wonderful, why does he allow ‘bad things to
happen to good people’? Last night a relative met with a violent end. How can this kind man, whom practically
everyone likes or loves, deserve to meet such a fate: I’ve heard all of the excuses––when it’s your time, it’s your
time; God needed a new angel; he’s better off now, etc., but this is what caused me to loose faith in God in the
first place––the seemingly needless deaths of people, especially young people. I have come to believe that if
there is a God, he is not all good; he must have some evil in him. My beliefs may be wrong, but I haven’t found
anyone to change them.” Student, 1994.
************************************************************************************
Summary of Wounded Child’s Gods
Environment is
God/dess is
Relation to God/dess
Personal Action is
Capricious
Willful, Powerful
Fear
Withdrawal
Orderly,
but conditional
Just
Fear and Hate
Obey or pay
Harsh and
occasionally
forgiving
Merciful
Fear and begging
Manipulation
Threatening
from without
and from within
Father: Just
Half-Son:
Merciful and heroic
Fear, belief
and thankfulness
Relief
but internal
conflict
Loving and nurturing
All-loving
Mutual love
and enrichment
Feeling meaningful
and joyful
148
Chapter Summary
Freud and others may be wrong to say all notions about divine reality are projections of psychological
conditions, but we must recognize the great influence such experiences have had on how we think of
God/dess. Even if it be true that our socialization has been the reason we think of God/dess at all, that
would still not be sufficient to determine whether such a concept has any logical basis.
Humanity has always seen nature as something to enjoy and fear. The unpredictable threats of nature are
often thought to be directed at us on purpose. We see ourselves as the objects of rewards and punishments,
so we fear stepping on God/dess’ toes. Yet, a rational view of cosmic unity and control should dispel the
notion the cosmos is out to get us or test us, or that our suffering is to be welcomed as a virtue.
Suggested Reading: McFague; Bible; Koran; Popol Vuh, also done as a PBS video special.
******************************************************************************
SAFE SECTS
Please Practice
SAFE
SECTS
Religion, Science, Advertising,
the Medical and Legal Systems
Have Proved Conclusively:
Accepting Beliefs on Faith Alone
Can Be Hazardous
to Your Well-Being
149
PART VI
Rational Basis for a
Theistic Worldview
Uni and the Unsurpassable:
Five Concepts of God/dess and Morality
–––––
The Ontological or Modal Argument:
Necessity or Nonsense
–––––
Theistic Attributes: Ultimate and Supreme
Problem: How God/dess and the World Interact
150
Chapter 21
Uni and the Unsurpassable
Five Concepts of God/dess and Morality
“O Wakan-Tanka, be merciful to me!
I am doing this that my people may live!”
Sun Dance chant (sung during participant’s willingly sustained torture)
as recorded by Black Elk, The Sacred Pipe.
“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with
punishment....” 1 John 4:18 “Love is patient and kind...Love bears all things.” 1 Cor. 13.
“[O]ur God is gracious to all who seek him, but his power and his wrath are against all who forsake him.”
Ezra 10:14. “The wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient.” Col. 3:6.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
(1) Characterizations of God/dess’ personality.
(2) Some possible relationships of God/dess and the world.
–Approaches–
(1) Divine Personality:
(a) Willful, capricious.
(b) Just.
(c) Merciful.
(d) Just in part and Merciful in part.
(e) All-loving.
(2) Relationship of God/dess to the world.
(a) God/desses are in the world: Animism.
(b) God/dess is the same as the world: Pantheism.
(c) God/dess is apart from the world: Classical Theism.
(d) God/dess includes the world: Panentheism.
(e) God/dess is good versus another, similar power that is bad: Theistic Dualism.
–Evaluation–
Pros:
(1) Only a concept of an all-loving deity is rational and healthful.
(2) Only panentheism allows cosmic unity and change to make rational sense. At least, the usual
criticisms of “God” do not affect panentheism as Hartshorne conceives it.
Cons:
(1)The prevalence of those who maintain the first four beliefs of God/dess’ personality says more
about how we are raised, than about the logic of cosmic unity.
(2) Guilt and fear often accompany even the attempt to rethink what “God” means.
******************************************************************
e as a species have always been aware of
the supernatural power because the idea that events
forces around us that shape our lives
happened blindly without a purpose or end was not a
whether or not we want them to and in
consideration for humanity’s early consciousness.
ways we may or may not desire. If we understand the
The supernatural powers were seen to be related
forces, we call them natural; if not, supernatural. The
to each other in two ways, reflecting how we relate to
gods and goddesses were thought to be the sources of
each other:
W
Chapter 20: Five Concepts
(1) loosely with each power affecting others
somewhat and not answering to a higher or more
inclusive power, though each power has more control
over some parts of the world than others, or
(2) hierarchically, where each power is more or
less controlled by a higher power.
The first approach left vague,
(a) why the power did what it did, and
(b) how it fit into a larger scheme of understanding. Even if all the powers were thought to be in
some democratically ordered, cosmic society with its
own particular set of laws, how the laws were
established is vague.
The hierarchical structure saw the source of law
in the will of the more powerful (wise?) gods. The
logic of the hierarchical position eventually led to a
concept of a God to whom all other gods in the
universe were subjected (see Chapter 16, Mithraism).
A further step consolidated all power to be in one
reality, in one God controlling all of us. Few have
taken this step, for better or worse. Divine powers,
for good and evil, like devils, angels and gnomes,
populate the worldviews most people hold.
Eventually, the thought occurred that God is not
just the power over all in the universe, rather divinity
is the unity of the universe, either as identical to the
world (pantheism), or as including but being more
than the universe (panentheism). This view may have
been close to one of the ways the Goddess was
conceived in prepatriarchal times. A final insight is to
see the ultimate “laws” or meanings of the universe
as necessary or eternal, never created by the will of
any agent, not even God/dess.
Parallel with how we conceive of the powers that
be, run beliefs about how we are to relate to the
powers, and how this relationship may allow us to
join their supernatural society (usually after we are
dead). Consider the progression of the five positions
below. The first three are illustrated with passages
from the Koran. Most can find Judaeo-Christian
similarities. The masculine gender is used for divinity
in the first four to conform to its historical and dominant use in these categories.
Five Concepts of God/dess:
From Fear to Love, from Will to Essence
I.
The Power(s): WILLFUL, whimsical, fickle, mischievous or capricious.
Our attitude: Fear, since no matter what we do we may suffer the caprice of the gods. This is the first step
toward finding a rationale for reality, here understood as the acts of conscious agents even if they are unseen
and unpredictable.
Our actions: Placating, begging, prostrating, and groveling.
Problem: What is the meaning of life? God exhibits no necessities.
Examples: “Allah doeth what He will” II: 253 “He it is who fashioned you in the wombs as pleaseth Him.”
III: 6 “They [i.e. people] shall not enter them (the sanctuaries of Allah) except in fear.” II: 114 “When He
decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.” II: 117
II. The Power: JUST, abides by a covenant (contract, constitution) which even if not mutually written, still
allows us to know what is expected and what to do (supposedly) to avoid suffering. First step towards a
rational or lawful view of reality.
Our attitudes: Fear God when one is bad, and hate the bad.
Our action: Paying the price, meeting the terms––no begging. We earn the kingdom by obeying; We can
decide to accept the consequences of not paying.
Problem: Theodicy: Why do we suffer when we are not bad?
Examples: “Those who believe and do good works: such are the rightful owners of the Garden” II:2. “O
Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfill your (part of the) covenant,
and I shall fulfill My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me” II:36. “Every soul will be paid in full that which
it hath earned” II: 281. “Hell [for the sinner] will settle his ac count.” II: For our shortcomings we “must pay
a ransom of fasting or almsgiving or offering.... Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is severe
in punishment” I:196. “Those who buy the life of the world at the price of the Hereafter, their punishment
will not be lightened” II:86.
151
152
III. The
Power: MERCIFUL and forgiving, (always) giving more than one deserves.
Our attitudes: Belief and fear modified with hope that we will get more than we deserve since we always fall
short of fulfilling our side of the contract. We must have fallen short, because suffering is seen as God
punishing us, and we all suffer.
Our actions: Begging, prostrating, groveling, placating, self-deprecating to make ourselves pitiful so God will
take pity on us. Obeying God’s commands and believing what God is supposed to have said as a way
proving our love for God so God will return our love or at least be merciful and allow us in. We “love” in
order to be loved (rewarded).
Problems: How can we know God will show mercy? Why is God merciful? Is all suffering punishment?
Examples: “Ask forgiveness of Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful” II: 199. “Allah chooseth for His
mercy whom he will” I:105. “Allah is the protecting friend of those who believe” II: 257. “Allah loveth
those who turn unto Him [obey Him], and loveth those who have a care for [moral] cleanness” I:222.
IV. The Powers: The Father, King or Lord of Lords is JUST and changeless; his son (half divine and half
human) is MERCIFUL or magnanimous (or loving of his mother’s kind) and pays the price to the Father
for our shortcomings so we can be part of the in-group. Death (on a cross, at the crossroads) of the old age
brings in the new age.
Our attitudes: Belief that the divine family will let us in if we are thankful for its magnanimity, yet fear that
we are not thankful enough to get in.
Our actions: Prove our belief by our faithfulness and lack of doubt. Keep ourselves pure so we will be
acceptable to the in-group.
Problems: Polytheism: How are the divinities related? Father or Son can decide not to let us in anyway. Once
in, can we be kicked out, like Satan? Belief may not be strong enough.
Examples: Pauline Christ: “Christ died for our sins [on the cross?]. . . was buried; . . . was raised on the third
day . . . and appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Jewish Son of Man. Mithraic Mithras
(Perseus).
V. The Power: ALL-LOVING, never punishing, use of power everywhere at all times, that enjoys and
suffers all necessarily. Essential, not willful love.
Our attitude: Love of God/dess, returning love for love, no ground for fear only desire to enrich God/dess.
Worship of goodness, not power.
Our actions: Loving God/dess, not because we seek a reward or fear punishment, but because we desire to
enrich God/dess. Enriching the world as the means to enrich God/dess. Spreading the good news of love as
one means of enriching the world.
Problem: None(?) Some think (a) without reward and punishment there is no reason to do one thing rather
than another, (b) someone must be to blame for every suffering since “tragedy” is not real to them and (c)
God/dess exhibits only changeless necessities and not the contingencies of ever-new creative and loving
responses. These beliefs, though common, are not persuasive.
Examples: None. Can only be one.
The meaning of the attributes of God/dess are
formed within these five contexts also. For example,
the idea of God/dess as “all-knowing” is understood
(in the first four examples) to mean we can never get
away with disobedience towards God/dess because
s/he always knows when we’ve been good or bad, so
153
we’d better watch out. One must be careful, however, not to commit the Genetic Fallacy: assuming
the origin of an idea is its logical meaning.
The various ways deity has been thought to be
related to the world, if at all, can be partly depicted in
graphic form:
Cosmology and God/dess
A.
B.
C.
God(s)
God
is
World
Pre-speculative
Animism
Pantheism or
Emanationism
World
D.
God
World(s)
Classical
Theism/Deism
Pre-speculative Animism: Nature is alive,
usually in the sense of being moved, or animated, by
invisible souls or spirits, that may or may not be
friendly. The more powerful of these are gods,
usually related to each other in ways reflecting
human societies. Gods and goddesses are in the world
as part of the natural processes of the world, not
outside nor containing the world. Little thought is
given to what makes the world one, or whether the
gods are necessary or contingent.
Pantheism: The universe and God/dess are the
same. It has always been in existence. Change, if
anything, is alteration of the one reality; ultimately
change is unreal. Reality is unified because there is
only one real thing; diversity is not fully real, but
explanations of how appearance and Reality are
related are not satisfactorily handled. The One
necessarily exists, so this position must make sense
of a necessary actuality, a necessarily existing
concrete. Since very good arguments can be found
that all concrete wholes must be contingent,
establishing a necessary concrete is likely impossible.
Classical Theism: God has always been, but at
some time created the world, so the world is not
necessary for reality, though God is necessary and is
numerically one whole through time. God is usually
thought to be out of time, that is, changeless, since
anything God could change into, God already is. All
possibilities for “future” changes are already fulfilled
making it questionable what “future” means.
Deism is the belief that God set the world in
motion according to natural laws after creating it and
does not interfere with its changes. The unity of the
universe is space, not God. God does not contain any
spatiality or the world, since the world is changing
and contingent and God’s whole is supposedly
necessary. How God can be all-knowing without
containing the reality God knows, is questionable, as
E.
God/dess
World
Panentheism
F.
God God
World
only
Positivism,
Atheism?
World
Theistic
Dualism
is how time and changes (futurity) can be real if God
does not change, or how God can know what “future”
means if everything is already done.
Panentheism: God/dess has always been, as has
the world in some form or other. God/dess is the
unity of the world, and the world is what God/dess
experiences and helps create. Each requires each
other. God/dess is necessary, that is, the unique series
of all-inclusive cosmic unities is necessary. The
world is necessary also, but only in some way or
other. No particular state of the world is necessary.
Every state of affairs is contingent, but some state of
the cosmos or other must always be occurring.
Everything created by the universe is in God/dess,
whose most recent creation is also in every part of the
universe. Cosmic unities are concrete but momentary,
giving way to a new unity that includes the old.
God/dess is necessarily related to all, is necessarily a
part of all and is the unity of all; God/dess is not apart
from all.
Positivism, Atheism : Atheism denies God
exists. Positivism is more subtle, neither asserting nor
denying anything about God since they treat “God”
as a meaningless expression. The world is often assumed to have always existed in some way.
Theistic Dualism: Close to classical theism but
with two supernatural powers in contention, usually a
good power and an evil power. The world is a stage
where the power of the gods is tested, for instance,
which god has the ability to persuade more people to
worship him. Sometimes the two gods came from a
common source, at other times one was created by
the other and reacted to his subservient position, so
evil becomes defined as insubordination. Sex is
dangerous, often leading to insubordination because,
as George Orwell portrayed in 1984, it empowers
people to risk enjoyment and love over obedience.
154
Chapter Summary
Not only does our personal and social history affect how we conceive divinity, but our concept of
God/dess affects how we feel, act and interpret the meaning of life. Living in a country founded on
religious freedom, does not mean all religious beliefs and rituals are equally true or valuable. It only means
we have agreed not to kill and torture, nor even harass, those who do not believe as we do. Uni, one name
for the Goddess whose womb is filled with the universe, inspires actions that are different from Yahweh,
the Lord of Hosts, who sees the world as a battleground for testing the worthy.
Theism is not illogical, though many formulations of theism are. Religious rituals express much that is
nonrational (recall that “nonrational” is not the same as “irrational”), but may also make irrational
utterances. To declare God is beyond knowing is to know more than one can know. To say God is apart
from the world, is to require an explanation of how they are related. God/dess must be unique but the
uniqueness cannot be a “complete difference” or uniqueness of the categories used to understand God/dess.
If there were such a “complete difference” between divine and worldly things, we could not know there
was, and such a theistic reality would be “completely” irrelevant to us, that is, meaningless.
The uniqueness of theism is in the categorical application of the same categories or concepts that underlie
all possible explanations: God/dess exhibits metaphysical categories without any qualification. S/he is what
the categories mean. For example, God/dess is not beyond knowledge or beyond our ability to know
anything about him/er, rather s/he has complete, or unsurpassable knowledge, whereas we are deficient in
knowledge. Or again, s/he loves; we love some things, to some degree.
Suggested Reading: McFaye; Bible; Koran; Popol Vuh, also done as a PBS video special; Hartshorne and
Reese, PSG; Whitehead, Religion in the Making.
155
Chapter 22
The Ontological or Modal Argument
Necessity or Nonsense
“I can think of a perfect island.” Gaunilo in response to Anselm.
“Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb?” Groucho Marx to quiz show losers.
“By cause of itself, I understand that whose essence involves existence;
or that whose nature cannot be conceived unless existing.” Spinoza, Ethic.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
Determining whether “unsurpassability” makes sense. More specifically, determining whether one aspect
of unsurpassability makes sense, namely, “necessary existence.”
–Approaches–
To make sense of “unsurpassability,” consider the following:
(1) “Contingently existing versus necessarily existing,” is not the same as “existing versus not
existing.”
(2) Knowing that something exists does not imply knowing how it exists; it only implies knowing that
it exists in some way or other.
(3) All actual wholes that exist are concrete and contingent, and all necessities are abstract (that is,
aspects of wholes).
(4) That which exists necessarily is a series of wholes, not one whole. No whole is necessary. What is
necessary is that the series must always have some whole or other at each moment.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Avoids the positivists’ criticism that “God/dess” is meaningless because all beings, or wholes, are
contingent. This criticism is correctly leveled only at theists who say God/dess is one necessary whole.
It misses the mark for theists who say God/dess is a necessary series of contingent wholes.
Con:
Requires one to think explicitly in modal terms; something most are not used to doing since all other issues
are contingent, even though this is not explicitly recognized nor taught.
******************************************************************************
F
ew philosophical arguments have been debated
pro and con for so long by so many. Even
though the modern relativistic mentality has
dismissed the Argument, in part from having grown
weary of the search for nec essary truth altogether, the
Argument has been around for at least a thousand
years and maybe twice that long. Most authors say
that the Argument tries to establish that God
necessarily exists. It is usually called the Ontological
Argument for the Existence of God. Onto means
“being,” so philosophers see the Argument trying to
establish the existence of God from the nature of
God’s being. God’s being is defined as “necessary
being,” so God must exist. One might remember
Parmenides who said Being must be (exist) since
nonbeing (and even change of being) is nonsense.
The positivist counters by saying all being is
contingent, anything that actually is or does, is as it is
because of conditions or decisions that did not have
to be made as they were. The positivists are right. All
acts are contingent. Does this imply all existing
realities must be contingent?
To answer this question, we must examine the
ambiguity in the use of the term “being.” After
discussing “change” in earlier chapters, it should be
clear the term “being” has been used in different
156
Chapter 22: Modal Argument
ways. I have suggested Parmenides is right when he
says “being” is changeless reality, but he is wrong
when he says being has always been. A being, as
concrete actuality , is the result of a creative act. It has
come into being, which is contrary to Parmenides’
belief that Being must be eternal and necessary.
All acts are contingent.
Anselm uses the term “being” to refer both to,
(1) the unavoidable characteristics (abstract-ions)
that define what “God” means, and
(2) God’s actual (concrete) reality. Since God is
necessary, and since what is necessary must be as it
is, it follows God cannot change. Historically, this
has meant God’s concrete actuality must be
changeless, since
(a) the definition of “God” and
(b) God’s existence have not been distinguished
from
(c) the way God concretely exists.
Many agree, including positivists, existentialists
and process metaphysicians, that every concrete
reality (whole) is contingent (since all concrete being
is the result, in part, from free decisions).
The positivists then conclude no thing (being)
must exist, nothing is necessary. But a process
metaphysician can respond that “thing” can refer
(1) to each concrete moment itself, or
(2) to a series of beings (or concrete moments).
This distinction, learned when we examined the
problem of change, must be kept in mind as we
examine the Ontological or Modal Argument.
Anselm, a monk who died in 1109 CE , for mulated the Ontological Argument. Actually, he
formulated two different arguments. One argument,
the weak, invalid argument, tried to establish that
actual existence is better or greater than mere
conceptual existence, that is, an existing thing is
greater than an idea of the thing, therefore, the
greatest conceivable reality must exist in addition to
the idea one has of that reality.
This argument is stated in Proslogium, Chapter
II, where he says,
Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be
conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the
very being, than which nothing greater can be
conceived, is one, than which a greater can be
conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence,
there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which
nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in
the understanding and in reality. (Emphasis added.)
The above argument is a bad28 argument. It assumes the idea of unsurpassability can make sense in
28I use this pejorative term, rather than the more neutral
terms “weak” or “invalid,” since many often think this is
the understanding alone, that is, it assumes that the
idea in the understanding is contingent, since whether
or not it is of anything existing must be argued for.
This invalid argument tries to move from a reality
implicitly conceived as not necessarily existing, to
that reality necessarily existing. This is never a valid
logical procedure.
But he has another formulation in Chapter III
(the quotation is separated into paragraphs to make it
easier to examine. Emphasis added).
[1] And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be
conceived not to exist.
[2]
For, it is possible to
conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not
to exist;
[3]
this is greater than one which
can be can be conceived not to exist. Hence if that,
than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be
conceived not to exist, it is not that than which nothing
greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable
contradiction.
[4]
There is, then, so truly a being than which
nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it
cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being
thou art, O Lord, our God....Why, then, has the fool
said in his heart, there is no God (Psalms xiv. I), since
it is so evident to a rational mind, that thou dost exist
in the highest degree of all: Why, except that he is dull
and a fool?
Anselm is not arguing in this paragraph that
existence is greater than nonexistence (that an
actuality is greater than the idea of that actuality). He
is here pointing out that necessity surpasses
contingency. Even if two realities both existed, the
one that exists in such a way that it must exist will
surpass the one that exists in such a way that it might
not exist.
An idea cannot be of the greatest reality possible,
the Unsurpassable reality, unless the idea is a
noncontingent idea. An idea defining a necessarily
existing reality (if successful) will be about a reality
that necessarily surpasses all realities existing
contingently.
The Anselmian Principle
Necessity Surpasses Contingency,
or
The Unsurpassable Cannot Exist Contingently
since a necessarily existing reality surpasses a
contingently existing one (if meaningful).
An idea defining a necessarily existing reality
cannot be a contingent idea, that is, an idea that has a
one of two valid arguments, or even fail to move on to the
second argument (a failure of many philosophers also).
157
logical alternative. If all ideas must have logical
alternatives, then we can never have an idea of
Unsurpassability (of course, by now one should
notice that the statement that all ideas have
alternatives, is an idea that does not have and
alternative).
Positivists (as pointed out in Chapter 3), not only
believe all beings are contingent, but all concepts or
propositions are contingent, necessarily contingent.
But the logical self-contradiction of a proposition
stating, “It’s necessary that all meaningful
propositions are not necessary,” suggests some
propositions are necessary or metaphysical. Only
metaphysical propositions which have no meaningful
alternatives can make sense of “unsurpassability,” if
any can.
If there is a concept of “unsurpassability,” it
must be a necessary concept, that is, one with no
logical alternative. The question is not whether or not
God/dess (which here means “that than which
nothing greater can be conceived” or “the
Unsurpassable”) exists, but whether or not
“God/dess” makes sense. If “God/dess” is non sense,
then asking whether nonsense exists is meaningless.
Careful positivists never deny God/dess exists. For
them to deny God/dess exists, would logically imply
they know what God/dess means. One would be
foolish, as Anselm says, asking whether or not
something exists that must exist.
Anselm clearly points out in Chapter III of the
Proslogium (though not in Chapter II) that the real
question is not whether God exists, but whether or
not we know what “God” means. As a medieval
monk, he naturally assumed he knew what he was
talking about when he referred to “God,” so Anselm
did not analyze carefully enough whether “That Than
Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived” makes
sense.
Anselm’s Questionable
Assumption
“It is possible to conceive of [a necessarily
existing reality or] that than which nothing
greater can be conceived.”
The second sentence of Chapter III says: “And it
is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be
conceived not to exist;” but is it? One must not take
this for granted. It must be demonstrated, and the
positivists have given good reasons for doubting one
can have a meaningful concept of a “necessarily
existing being.”
A
bstract-Concrete Dilemma: Amongst the
many problems that must be faced and
answered in a attempt to achieve a concept of
a necessarily existing reality, is the nature of
necessity itself. Necessity is something that is as it is
and could not be any other way. It has no alternative,
and is, therefore, changeless. Yet anything that
concretely exists, exists as a moment of creation (as
was seen in the previous discussions of change), that
is, everything created, is contingent.
If one accepts the strong argument that all
actuality is contingent, since it results from creative
activity, and if one fails to distinguish existence from
actuality, then all existence must be contingent, as the
positivists maintain. On the other hand, if one
maintains that something’s existence is necessary,
and if one still does not distinguish existence and
actuality, then its actuality must be necessary, as
Anselm and many theists have historically said.
The attempt to conceive of a “necessary being”
that is, a “necessary actuality” fails. Insofar as being
is the result of a creative coming-to-be, all being is
contingent. The attempt to refer to a “necessary
being,” that is, a “necessary actuality,” is just another
example of a self-contradiction, like many we have
run into.
The truth about this matter is that all necessities
are abstract, and abstractions do not act. They are
changeless. They are not actualities; they are
unavoidable characteristics of actualities. That
necessity must be abstract can be understood when
we remember that all abstrac tions, not just necessary
ones, are characteristics of actualities. Abstractions
are characteristics that are or could be found in more
than one act or whole. Anything found in more than
one whole, as an aspect of wholes, is not a whole itself.
This truth is the direct denial of the influential
Platonic tradition that says (the Oneness of) each
changeless Idea is not only one thing, but is also a
whole that is fully real, not just an abstraction.
Abstractions are merely aspects of the fully real.29
For Plato the changing world that exhibits the
characteristics in Many ways is deficient in reality.
The changing world is a shadow or flickering
refection of the full reality of the One Idea.
Only wholes are concrete, and ideas or concepts
are not wholes. “Motherhood” has never had labor
pains. “Happiness” is not happy; and the definition of
“God/dess” is not God/dess.
Necessities are abstract.
Necessities are completely abstract.
29Whitehead calls these Ideas, “eternal objects” that
ingress into the processes of creating actual entities.
Hartshorne, to my mind, makes more sense when he says
only metaphysical ideas (objects) are eternal. Metaphysical
objects are, always have been and will be descriptive of
every moment of actuality. All other abstractions have been
created at some time as a unique, specific feeling. They
become abstract (in more than one place at a time) as their
characteristics are inherited by, and passed on to, other acts
of creativity.
158
Necessities are abstractions not only capable of
being found in many wholes, but must be found in all
wholes. They are found,
(1) in all actual wholes, and would be found
(2) in any whole that could have happened and
did not, and will be found
(3) in every whole that comes to be. They are the
universal common denominators of all possible acts.
So necessity is not only abstract; it is completely
abstract. It is a universal factor, applicable to, or
exhibited by, all possible facts (wholes).
So what? someone might ask. Even if we can
have this universal knowledge, how can this
knowledge of necessities give any knowledge about
contingent actualities? How can general abstract
knowledge about a necessarily existing reality, be
informative about its concrete existence? How can
conceptual necessities say anything about actual,
concrete existence which, it seems, is always a
particular, contingent actuality that doesn’t have to be
as it is?
Aren’t we simply committing the basic error
logicians call the Fallacy of Existential Import:
Assuming because we have an idea of a kind of thing,
that there must be an existing example of the class?
Just because we can talk about unicorns and even
how they necessarily have one horn (by definition),
still it is not necessary there be any unicorns.
Hartshorne establishes how one can validly move
from knowledge of the abstract to knowledge of
necessarily having some concrete or other, while
avoiding the Fallacy of Existential Import. In one of
his more important insights, he points out there are
three terms that need to be analyzed in clarifying the
Modal Argument: essence, existence and actuality,
not just essence and existence.
(1) Essence: What we are trying to talk about or
define, namely, “Unsurpassability,” which
includes as part of its definition, necessary
existence.
(2) Existence: That a reality is actual in some
contingent way or other. There are two
kinds of existences:
a. Contingent or surpassable existences that
may or may not have some contingent
actuality or other.
b. Necessary or unsurpassable existence that
must have some contingent actuality or
other.
(3) Actuality: How the (contingent) acts are
done. Specific acts could have been done
otherwise, both for surpassable existences
and the Unsurpassable existence.
But if the Unsurpassable makes sense, it is not
possible there be no acts at all. The members of the
class (that is, members of the series of acts) are
contingent, but the class must be necessary, which
means the class must always, necessarily, have some
contingent members. The class will always be
exhibited in what is concrete. This Series must
always be doing something or other, must always
have a concrete fulfillment.
If Anselm and Hartshorne are right, then when
we know what we are talking about (if we have
successfully defined a necessarily existing reality),
we know that it must exist. The WHAT and the
THAT are the same. To see why this is the case, take
a closer look at what “existence” means. Someone
exists when s/he is doing something, that is, acting or
creating, which for Whitehead, we recall, is the
meaning of a “whole.” Parts do not act, only wholes
do, though they contain parts.
Even though all realities exist by acting, only the
Unsurpassable actor must act. Our existence is
contingent, not because we do contingent things, but
because we do contingent things contingently. It is
not necessary that we act at all.
What distinguishes unsurpassable existence
(which means at least necessary existence) from
ordinary existences is not that the particular acts of
the Unsurpassable are necessary (no actuality is
necessary, as the positivists also point out).
Better Conceptual Tools
–Three Is Better Than Two–
Essence: What kind of existence is being
defined.
Existence: That the defined kind of
existence is actual in some way or other.
Actuality: How the existence exists at some
particular moment.
What distinguishes the Unsurpassable is that s/he
must act in some contingent way or other. It is
necessary the Unsurpassable act contingently, but it
is contingent that we (and everything else) act
contingently. We do not have to exist, but something
or other must exist. “Complete nothingness” is mere
nonsense. There is no alternative to something.
We started out trying to define “that than which
nothing greater can be conceived.” To do so we
needed to know what it means to “exist necessarily,”
which we now see means “necessarily always doing
something contingent.” What is done could have
been done differently, but it is impossible that
“nothing is”––a nonsense expression. The remainder
of the Argument consists in trying to determine
whether other possible attributes of Unsurpassability
make sense and whether all the required attributes are
coherent together. This is taken up in the next
chapter.
Anselm, however, did formulate the Argument in
an invalid form. The usual responses to Anselm, even
in the most recent textbooks, criticize him on the
weak Argument correctly but fail to appreciate the
strong Argument. The following paragraph is from
such a book:
159
“The ontological argument . . . attempts to deduce the
existence of God from the concept of God. . . . Anselm
assumed that to exist in the understanding and in
reality is greater than to exist in the understanding
alone.”
Another author says the Argument’s
“genius is its demonstration that the sentence, ‘God
does not exist,’ is a self-contradictory sentence.”
This is true, but not for the reasons given, since this
author also thinks Anselm believes “it is obviously
more perfect to be than not to be,” that is,
nonexistence, rather than contingency, is assumed to
be the defect by this author also.
But Anselm in his strong argument in
Proslogium III is not first assuming a concept of That
Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived and
then deducing from this concept that it must exist. If
one supposedly has a concept of Unsurpassability
without knowing that it must exist, then one’s socalled concept of a necessarily existing reality is
really a concept of a contingently existing reality.
There is no way to logically move from the
concept of a reality that may or may not exist to
knowing it does in fact exist. Only direct experience
can so inform us of what is actual. But a necessarily
existing reality cannot be conceived without knowing
that it has always been and will always be. There is
no deduction, only clarification. We are either
confused when we use the word “God/dess” or
“Unsurpassable” since it can refer to nothing
meaningful, as a positivist maintains, or we discover
that the reality must exist, that the “possibility” of its
nonexistence is meaningless.
People spend much time and effort trying to
prove that God/dess does, or does not exist. When the
debate cannot marshal enough facts to prove either
side, some conclude they cannot know whether or not
God/dess exists. They become agnostics.
These three positions, Empirical Theism,
Atheism and Agnosticism are all illogical if God/dess
must at least mean the “Unsurpassable,” which at
least means, “a necessarily existing reality.” All three
assume they can know what “God/dess” means,
before or without, knowing that s/he exists. This is
why Anselm is right to say only a fool, that is, someone who is confused, will deny God exists, since who
but a fool would say, “Something that must exist,
does not exist” or even “might not exist”?
How Surpassable and Unsurpassable
Are Alike and Different
Surpassable
Unsurpassable
Contingent
Existences:
Necessary
Existence:
Existence:
evidence
required
evidence
required
What
same
That
How
evidence
required
160
Gaunilo, a fellow monk of Anselm, tried to play
the fool and give a counter-example. He said he
could conceive of a perfect (complete) island, but the
island didn’t have to exist. Gaunilo did not
understand that examples of “perfection,” in the
unqualified sense Anselm was using the term, are not
possible.
An island, by definition, can be surpassed since it
must be set off by something from something else.
That which would contain both the island and that
from which the island is set off would logically
surpass the island, or the mainland.
Contingently creating contingently.
versus
Necessarily creating contingently.
Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s challenge. Gaunilo
did not reply. Did he get the point a thousand years
before Hartshorne clarified it, or did he conclude
Anselm is beyond help, so why waste more time
communicating with him?
Before going on to examine other attributes of the
Unsurpassable (since necessary existence is only one
of many), the following summaries of the valid (or
modal) and invalid (or nonmodal) forms of the
Argument might help get an overview of the first
attribute of That Than Which Nothing Greater Can
Be Conceived.
“Perfection (Unsurpassability)” must include, as
part of its meaning the attribute of “noncontingency.”
There really is no inference, only clarification. In
every other case, neither existence nor nonexistence
can be inferred from the concept alone. In all other
cases we need to know not only what we are talking
about, but also whether it does in fact exist: Factual
knowledge is always open to doubt as Plato noted.
Gaunilo’s “perfect island” can only mean “perfect of
its kind;” it cannot mean “Unqualifiedly Perfect” or
“Complete.”
NonModal, INVALID, Form of the Ontological Argument
The invalid or non-modal form of the Ontological Argument attempts to use “existence” or
“nonexistence” as a predicate or attribute of Unsurpassability. It tries to argue from the “conceivability of
Perfection or Unsurpassability” to “Perfection conceived as existent.” This argument assumes that (simple)
nonexistence is an imperfection, therefore Perfection exists; or again, it is better (more perfect) to exist than
not to exist, therefore Perfection exists. It assumes that Perfection is conceptually meaningful without
simultaneously knowing it must exist. Since (supposedly) it is possible that Perfection does not exist, (the
critic aptly replies) that more than concepts are required to know that Perfection (as for anything else) does
in fact exist. This approach implicitly argues, invalidly, from the mode of contingency to the mode of
necessity, that is, from possible to necessary existence.
1. Conceivable (possible) and existing (Proslogium II / Empirical Theism)
or 2. Conceivable (possible) but not existing (Atheism)
or 3. Conceivable (possible) but perhaps not existing (Gaunilo /Agnosticism)
There is no way to validly move from
“conceivable” to ‘“existing” without questionable
assumptions. God/dess (if s/he means at least a reality
that is unsurpassable) is not meaningful as a reality
that exists but could possibly not exist. Contingent
All
All Factual
Factual
Oppositions
Oppositions
A (The?) Perfect or Complete Being (Individual?) is (supposedly) either:
premises can only establish contingent conclusions.
The Argument must use necessary premises, that is,
metaphysical propositions. Since all necessary
propositions are on equal footing, there is no
deduction from one to another, only clarification.
161
Modal Form of the Ontological Argument
I
1. Conceivable, but only as necessarily existing (i.e., possible
or meaningful only if necessary––Proslogium III and Replies),
or 2. Not conceivable, i.e., impossible (Positivism. Anselm ignored
this).
No examples nor counter-examples: only one possible case, if any.
One begs the question to collapse No. 1 into No. 2 or vise versa
as both Anselm and the positivists do.
Opposition
Conceptual
Conceptual
The Perfect or Complete Being (or Unsurpassable Individual) is One that is either:
Factual Oppositions
1. Conceivable (i.e., might be possible) and does,
in fact, exist because of these facts: miracles...
2. Conceivable but does not, in fact, exist because
of these facts: evil, can't see him...
3. Conceivable and perhaps exists (factually
determinable, but as yet undetermined.
Possible
An imperfect or incomplete (surpassable) being (individual) is one that is either:
Actual
Actual
Contingent Mode:
Possible Beings or Individuals
NonContingent Mode:
Necessary or
Impossible Individual
The valid, or modal form of the Ontological Argument uses “noncontingent (existence)” or “contingent
(existence)” as possible predicates or attributes of the Unsurpassable. It then argues that Perfection or
Unsurpassability is “conceivable only as existentially noncontingent,” that is, as something so great it
cannot be conceived not to exist. Unsurpassability can only be conceived as necessarily existing. The
possibility of nonexistence is the imperfection, therefore Perfection cannot not exist; or again, it is better
(more perfect) to be noncontingently existing than contingently existing, therefore Perfection exists
necessarily (if meaningful).
Since it is impossible that Perfection could possibly not exist, either Perfection necessarily exists, or (as
the critic who gets the point of the Anselmian Principle, namely, that Perfection Cannot Exist
Contingently, might yet reply) “perfection” is nonsense, as the positivists assert. The modal form of the
Argument argues that noncontingent existence (necessary existence) surpasses contingent existence (if
meaningful), and then argues that noncontingent or necessary existence (“Perfection” or
“Unsurpassability”) is meaningful.
Examples: (a) Any particular actuality or possible actuality which is finite and
fragmentary like unicorns, islands or people, or (b) any actual or possible state
(Being) of the Unsurpassable Individual which is finite and surpassable but
nonfragmentary, that is, Whole.
f (and note well the “if”), if the concept of the
Perfect (Unsurpassable) Being (Individual) is
conceivable, that is, not an inconsistent and/or an
incoherent idea, the individual does not still require
additional proof to show its possible existence
actually exists since it is impossible that its existence
is merely possible (so much for Agnosticism). It is
also not meaningful that,
(a) the Unsurpassable exists and might not have
existed or
(b) might cease to exist, or
(c) does not exist and might come to exist (so
much for Empirical Theism and Atheism).
T
he Whole and The Infinite. Before proceeding to examine other possible attributes of
the Unsurpassable, carefully distinguish the
following terms:
(1) Finite, as fragment,
(2) Finite, as whole and
(3) Infinite.
162
F
F
inite Part: Fragment: A fragment is part of
the present Whole. Fragments are bounded by
potentiality and other actualities, that is, there
are other actualities that are not part of a fragmentary
whole.
inite (Actual) Whole: All that is actual. An
actual whole is finite but not bounded by other
actualities. It is only “bounded” by potentiality.
Every actuality is finite in this sense: Whatever it is,
there is always something else it could have been,
and something else the future will add to it. The
greatest present whole can have nothing actualized
outside it, and all potentiality (which is really all past
beings, see Chapters 23 and 24) also reside within the
present Whole. If Whitehead’s analysis of change is
right, every whole, even the greatest present Whole
(though Hartshorne makes this clearer), becomes a
part of another whole at the next moment.
The “Greatest Conceivable Being” is a nonsense
expression if it means the “greatest conceivable
whole.” Possibilities for wholes are endless, that is,
infinite, so no one whole can logically sum up all
possible wholes as actual parts.
I
nfinite:
(a) All that has been and is, that is, all actuality
(which may be argued is infinite into the past,
even though each moment has a beginning and is a
finite selection), and
(b) all that could be and could have been, that is,
all potentiality (which is always an abstract aspect of
actuality).
Infinity means “unbounded.” It is meaningful to
be unbound in one way or many ways, but to be
unbound in all ways is meaningless. Trying to
conceive of infinity as something unbounded in all
ways is the attempt to try to conceive of reality as
pure potentiality (like Anaxi mander’s Boundless
Stuff) which is meaningless.
All potentiality exists only as characteristics of
actuality. Only actuality has potentiality. Only
actuality that has come to be can present possibilities
for other acts. Possibility cannot exist by itself. “Pure
potentiality” is a nonsense expression, and so is “pure
actuality,” despite Aristotle’s (and many others’)
attempt to say this is God. All actualities contain the
potential to be included in future possibilities forever.
“None Greater” Means:
One Series of Wholes,
not One Whole
So if we try to mean by Anselm’s “none greater
can be conceived” that we can conceive of an actual
whole (or being) such that no other actuality could
conceivably be greater, we are bound to fail, since
even if there is a supreme or greatest whole at each
moment, there will always be greater wholes in the
future. Values (possible actualities) cannot be
exhausted. There is no perfection that could be the
perfection or completion of all possible states of
value simultaneously. Every actual value is a creation
of a specific act fulfilling one of the boundless realm
of possible acts.
But, perhaps, we can conceive of the Unsurpassable as a series of wholes. The Buddhists and
Whitehead conclude this must be the case for
something that exists for more than one mo ment, and
Hartshorne clearly asserts this is the way to conceive
of the necessary existence of the Unsurpassable.
Process, or the successive creation of new states of
value (building on past states), is the only way to
fulfill the greatest conceivable value.
The question of conceivability then be comes,
Can we conceive an individual (that is, a series) such
that no other individual (series) could conceivably be
greater? (Hartshorne, PSG, 105.)
Any individual
(1) exhibits abstract characteristics that define
the individual (personality traits),
(2) includes all or part of the concrete results of
previous acts in its series and
(3) may continue to have future acts.
The Unsurpassable Individual would be unique
by being required to
(a) exhibit eternal, that is, necessary, personality
traits,
(b) include all previous actualities and
(c) include all future acts as they occur.
The following chapter examines some traits this
individual must have and those s/he could not have.
*************************************************************************************
Discussion of the Modal Theistic Argument
(A Letter to a Colleague Whose Textbook Discussing Theistic Issues
Ignored Hartshorne’s Evaluation of the Ontological Argument)
F
rom a pedagogical point of view the argument can be thought of as having two emphases:
(1) to learn a bit about modal logic and
(2) to do what one can to make sense of
“Unsurpassability” (“that than which nothing greater
can be conceived”).
163
I think one main task of philosophy is to
clarify which propositions have no logical alternatives. If one begins by assuming all meaningful
propositions have logical alternatives, then the
alternative that there are propositions with no
alternatives never even gets examined. Plato’s and
the determinists’ belief that only necessary
propositions, that is, those with no alternative,
make sense (or can be true) is likely wrong also.
So the main point of modal logic, and the point
which all students being introduced to philosophy
need to learn, in my view, is that meaningfulness is
unavoidably modal, that is, the attempt to say all
(meaningful) propositions are contingently true or
all (meaningful) propositions are necessarily true
will always be self-contradictory. The position that
does seem to make sense is: “Some propositions
are contingently true and some are necessarily true,
and this is one that is necessarily true.”
I understand Anselm to be saying in his clearer
moments that any discussion of Unsurpassability
must,
(1) recognize the unavoidable modal structure
of meaning and
(2) recognize that the Unsurpassable cannot be
meaningfully conceived as contingent, that is, as
something that may or may not exist. “That than
which nothing greater can be conceived
(ttwngcbc)” can only be conceived as necessary (if
at all), and anything that is necessary has no
alternative to its existence.
One does not first conceive of Perfection or
Unsurpassability and then try to conceive of
Perfection as something that must exist “out there”
in addition to the idea in one’s head. This is what
history has taken him to say, and he does seem to
say this in some places (see Proslogium II), but this
is not what he is saying in the first paragraph of
Proslogium III.
Anselm, however, did not prove what he
assumes to be true, namely, that Unsurpassability
makes sense and, therefore, Unsurpassability must
exist. He says “it is possible to conceive of that
than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This
may be true, but it is certainly not obvious and
certainly not true as he thought is was.
His so-called concept of “Unsurpassability”
was vague or self-contradictory. Unsurpassability
as a changeless realm containing all that is and
could be as eternally done is nonsense. Given his
attempt to conceive of God as ttwngcbc, he should
have concluded “God” is meaningless, as the
positivists do. Again, he should not have concluded
God does not exist, because this would assume he
knew what “God” meant, but he should have
concluded “God” has no meaningful content (like
“round squares”), if he were to be consistent with
his modal logic.
Trying to make sense of ttwngcbc is not easy.
It is the whole philosophical problem. One main
part of the problem comes from the realization that
necessity must be changeless and abstract, and yet
actuality must be created and contingent. Insofar as one
is referring to God/dess’ necessity, one is referring to
God/dess as an abstraction or mere concept. And when
one refers to God’s actual existence, one is referring to
something necessarily contingent since no actuality can
be necessary as it is; a ”necessary act,” despite the
determinists, is a self-contradiction.
In order to handle this abstract-concrete dilemma,
Hartshorne points out that the attempted clarification of
the concept of “unsurpassability” requires three
distinctions, not the usual two of “ essence” (or
definition) and “existence” (that the definition is
actualized). We need to add “actuality” (how the actuality is actual). The argument may have a chance,
then, to establish that part of God/dess’ definition
(essence) is a necessarily existing reality, and to
establish this without having to maintain that the way
God/dess acts is necessary, since at each moment there
are endless co-equally good ways to exist. It is only
necessary that s/he act in some (contingent) way or
other in order to exist.
So God/dess is both necessary and contingent:
Necessary in definition (and therefore, existence) and
contingent in concrete content (the particular way of
existing). The divinity worthy of Anselm’s worship
must, as he clearly understands, be necessary and not
just a possibility, but God/dess must also be much more
than a pale description. God/dess is the full majesty of
the unimaginable, contingently created content of the
universe which includes the changeless aspects that
define him/er.
Contrary to what many believe, the contingent or
concrete moments can contain the abstract necessities
so long as it is not contingent there always be some
contingent (and supreme) actuality or other to contain
or exhibit them. It is this all-inclusive, never-beginning,
never-ending noncontingent series of contingent acts
that always exhibits the necessary essences in an unsurpassable way. It is this Anselm might better have
claimed to be the reality that was his God/dess.
God/dess (or anything that survives through time)
cannot be conceived as one Being. Unsurpassability is
an individual, composed (as all individuals are) of a
series of beings, or better, a series of creations of
beings. A Whiteheadian process metaphysician would
say the series is a series of comings-to-be (rather than a
series of beings as some Buddhists suggested). The
present moment includes, as parts, the beings that
previous members of the series brought to be plus new
input from others.
No doubt most students will not be able to follow
the second step of the argument to its end, since this
means coming to a satisfactory answer to all the
philosophical problems. But this is why the theistic
issue is so important: It forces all the other issues
(including those in value theory) to be clarified. Not the
least of these is the clarification of what philosophy is:
164
The one discipline trying to discover what the
necessary or unavoidable propositions are.
They must be discovered, not created, because
no reality, not even God/dess, could have made
them up (since they are unconditionally necessary).
They have always had to be. We either explicitly or
covertly teach students there is always a
meaningful alternative to every position or belief (the
positivists’ position) or there are some beliefs or truths
that are unavoidable, that is, necessary (the metaphysical position). This bit of modal logic is being taught,
and I think explicitly teaching it is better than avoiding
the subject.
Chapter Summary
Something that must exist, must exist. The real question is not: Does something that must exist, exist?
The real question is: Does “something that must exist” make sense?
Suggested Reading: Hartshorne, Natural Theology, Anselm’s Discovery, (Hartshorne discusses criticisms
of his position), Logic of Perfection, The Divine Relativity, Philosophers Speak of God.
*******************************************************************************
Knowing What Cannot Be Known
“The unsurpassable can mean many things to many different people. Anselm tried to define it [by
saying] the unsurpassable is a necessity because it surpasses contingency, but the unsurpassable cannot
exist because everything [moment, or series?] is contingent....Although the human mind is a wondrous
thing, if it could figure out what the unsurpassable is, it would become the unsurpassable.... Relatively
speaking, when trying to conceive of the unsurpassable, the human mind is too pea-brained to conceive
of such a grand notion....The meaning, if any, of the Unsurpassable is meaningless. If humans could
find the meaning, what use would it be to us. The meaning of the unsurpassable is useless even if it
were to be found. The knowledge of the meaning of the unsurpassable would ultimately be
useless....there is no meaning for the unsurpassable.” Student.
*********************************************************************
165
Chapter 23: Theistic Attributes
Star of David
Female Pubic
Triangle
+
Male
Inversion
=
Union
The hexagram is from India (Kali and Shiva in perpetual sexual union). It reached Judaism through medieval
cabalists speaking of the union between God and his spouse (Shekina). It also meant the union of water (female)
and fire (male) and so the fertilization of the primordial Deep by lightning, the “fire from heaven.” The hexagram
was also a Maya symbol of the sun’s rays, and became officially Jewish only about a century ago, according to
Walker (WDMS, 69, 306 and 340).
166
Chapter 23
Theistic Attributes
“For in much wisdom is much grief,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” Eccl. 1:18.
“Cleanliness is next to godliness.” Cultural aphorism.
“What sort of things do you remember best,” Alice ventured to ask.
“Oh, things that happened the week after next,” the Queen replied.
Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, The Mock Turtle’s Story.
“The divine attributes are abstract types of social relationship,
of which the divine acts are concrete instances or relations.”
Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity, 156.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
Determining whether “unsurpassability” makes sense, by examining several other suggestions for
necessary characteristics of unsurpassability:
(1) Unsurpassable as supreme and/or ultimate.
(2) All-powerful (omnipotent) and all-good.
(3) All-knowing (omniscient).
–Approaches–
(1) “Supremacy” refers to a concrete whole that surpasses all other wholes at that time. Only the next
moment of the unsurpassable series can surpass it. “Ultimacy” refers to abstract characteristics of
the unsurpassable series that is always changelessly unsurpassable, even by itself.
(2) To be “all-powerful” means to use some (appropriate) power everywhere at all times. “Complete
power” anywhere at any time is meaningless.
(3) To be “all-knowing” means to know all there is to know. Knowledge of actual situations is
supreme. The content of knowledge will be surpassed the next moment when there is more to
know, but only by the Unsurpassable him/erself. The series is changelessly (ultimately) always allknowing.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Distinguishing the supremacy of a Whole from the ultimacy of the series, allows a concept of God/dess
that can create and change with no defect.
Con:
Conceiving of how the moments of the unsurpassable series are in step with world’s surpassable acts,
is not obvious (see Chapter 24).
******************************************************************************
A
theistic attribute is a characteristic that must
be part of the Unsurpassable’s definition. It
is, as we might say, a personality trait, but in
this case, an unavoidable trait of the all-inclusive
person. Any attribute that makes sense in an
unsurpassable way is necessarily part of the
definition of the Unsurpassable.
Because a meaningful clarification of change
requires a distinction between the individual as a
series of creative wholes and each present whole
itself, a distinction must be made between,
(1) attributes applying to the series, that is, to all
Wholes generally, and
167
(2) attributes applying only to the most recent or
present Whole which sums up the series at that
moment.
Those attributes describing the series are
unsurpassable in the ultimate degree. These attributes
are true of the Unsurpassable regardless of time.
They are true without reference to any particular
Whole or moment of time.
The other attributes are unsurpassable in the
supreme degree. These attributes refer to concrete
actuality, to actual Wholes. They refer to the present
state of affairs now unsurpassed (a state of affairs no
reality could have conceivably surpassed), though
God/dess could have equaled it. The next Whole in
the unsurpassable series not only will, but must,
surpass all past Wholes since the new Whole must
include the old Whole now as a part.
The Unsurpassable’s creations are supreme since
even the Unsurpassable could not do better (though
s/he could have done equally well). Even though
nothing can surpass the Unsurpassable, s/he, not only
can, but must surpass what s/he has concretely done
in previous moments.Attributes may have both an
ultimate and a supreme formulation. Take
“knowledge,” for example. The Unsurpassable is
always, ultimately, all-knowing, but the content of
knowledge can only be supreme. So, a theistic attribute must be meaningful either in an ultimate or a
supreme sense, and may exhibit both.
Ultimate and Supreme
An ultimate attribute is one
no reality can surpass, not even God/dess
––––––––––––––
A supreme attribute is one no reality can
surpass except another act of God/dess.
The following list contains a few proposals for
attributes that have had some historical in terest. They
overlap, since understanding one of them requires
understanding others. The right-hand column gives
the three logical quantifications of the attribute:
None, Some and All and how they relate (if they do)
to Unsurpassable and surpassable realities, and
whether they make sense in any way.
Some Proposals for Theistic Attributes
1. Mode of Existence
(First Step of the
Ontological Argument,
see Chapter 22)
• logically impossible (not conceivable)
• logically contingent (may or may not exist,
if conceivable--creatures)
• logically necessary (must exist, if conceivable–
God/dess)
2. Life span
(temporal extent; time is
experience of succession, of
other moments within, or part of,
one’s present moment)
• none (never exists at all)
• some time
a. beginning and ending (all moments begin and end)
b. beginning but no end (everlasting)
(creatures’ acts as retained in the Unsurpassable’s
memory)
• all time (primordial, no beginning; and
everlasting, no end) (God/dess)
3. Form of Endurance
• one actuality (minimum maintenance: events in
“empty” space)
• a series of actualities with a first and last member
(creatures)
• one Series with no first member nor last member
(God/dess)
168
4. Spatial Extent
(simultaneous inclusiveness;
experience of the external
relatedness of others)
• none (not conceivable)
• some (finite, meaning: fragment)
• all (finite Whole––God/dess as concrete)
5. Relations (to)
• some (creatures)
• all (that were and are and will be related to all that
come to be––God/dess)
6. Feeling (caused by)
• all (God/dess)
7. Knowledge (of)
(or consciousness of, or
feeling of, alternatives)
• all
a. all possibilities as actual (impossible; would deny
possibilities are real)
b. all actualities that are actual and possibilities as
possible (God/dess as omniscient)
8. Freedom (power in oneself)
• some
a. less than most conceivable (creatures)
b. most conceivable (God/dess)
• all
a. only or complete power (not conceivable)
b. most conceivable (God/dess)
9. Power (in others)
(influence; to flow into
or cause)
• some power in some (creatures)
• some power in all (God/dess as omnipotent)
• all in all, or complete power in another (not
conceivable)
10. Goodness
(appropriate use of power)
• none (not conceivable––nothing can be all bad)
• all, or only good
a. good because the power does it (power worship).
b. done because it is good (God/dess)
169
11. Evil
(deliberate destruction of
future, good possibilities)
• none (unreflective creatures)
• some (possible for reflective creatures)
• all or complete (not conceivable––to do evil requires
doing some good or loving something)
12. Suffering (resulting from
evil or tragedy)
• all
a. only (not conceivable)
b. most (God/dess) Unsurpassable suffering is logically
supreme because God/dess experiences all the creatures’ sufferings plus the suffering arising from
commiseration with their sufferings.
“Tragedy” (non-deliberate loss of
future good possibilities:
bad luck)
13. Happiness
• all
a. only (not conceivable)
b. most (God/dess’ happiness is logically supreme because
God/dess experiences all the creatures’ happiness plus
the happiness arising from the enjoyment of their
happinesses.
14. Loved (embracing as is)
• all (God/dess)
15. Love (desire to enrich)
• all––as would enrich the Whole (God/dess)
16. Hate (desire not to love)
• none (God/dess)
• all (not conceivable; one must love something in
order to exist; nonexistence does not hate)
17. Subject (coming-to-be)
of others
• some (all creatings are subjects of some others)
• all (God/dess is experiencing every actuality
and possibility)
18. Object (being)
in others
• some (creatures are objects for some others as objects)
• all (God/dess’ creations are experienced by every
actuality and experiences the results of all actualities.)
170
U
nsurpassable Mode of Existence (1). Necessity surpasses contingency, therefore, if
the “Unsurpassable” makes sense, s/he can
only do so as something necessary. This at tribute was
discussed in detail in Chapter 22.
U
nsurpassable Life Span (2). In the strictest
sense, life is the making-of-a-being, and death
is the end of the making-of-a-being; it is what
is made. Life is the present whole, and death refers to
the beings that have been created by other moments
of life that are now in, or parts of, the present life. So
a “life span” in this technical sense refers to how long
a moment takes to finish a creation, what Whitehead
calls a “duration.”
However, more commonly “life span” refers to a
number of momentary lives or moments that are
arranged as a lineal series. Each moment begins with
many beings and ends in one new being that includes
the many it started with. Each series of moments has
a first moment and a last moment, each series, that is,
except the Unsurpassable who can have no first nor
last moment, if the “Unsurpassable” makes sense.
Most people have a hard time trying to conceive
of “begininglessness.” Yet, trying to conceive of an
absolute beginning is even more dif ficult, and for
good reason: “Nothingness,” from which the absolute
beginning of something must come, is not a
meaningful expression, as we have seen several
times.
Nearly all religious and scientific myths refer to
a beginning. But a close examination of them finds a
reference to a reality that existed before the creation
of the beginning or to a formless state of something
existing prior to the creation that forms or orders it.
Having something appear out of “nothing”
(nonsense) is not part of the general human intuition.
Even when the theological God of classical theism
supposedly creates the universe out of nothing, he is
creating something from something else, namely,
himself.
If the idea of an unsurpassable life span makes
sense, it must be a life span with no first moment nor
last moment, otherwise one could conceive of the
possibility of a life (series) that began a moment
before or will last a moment longer. So even though
each moment must have a beginning and an end,
there can be no first moment and no last moment.
Time is the experience of one actualized being
existing inside another, that is, of succession.
U
nsurpassable Form of Endurance (3). Since
much of this book has focused on what it
means for something to exist over time, little
more need be said here. The attempted concept of
one act lasting over time (throughout changes), much
less over all time, is not conceivable. To exist for
more than a moment is to be a characteristic inherited
by a series of moments. An unsurpassable series must
be a series that exhibits supremacy in the way each of
the moment’s acts and ultimacy in the way the series
exists.
U
nsurpassable Spatial Extent (4). As with
any attribute, an attempt to understand what
an attribute means in an unsurpassable way,
requires one to have some idea of what the attribute
means in a surpassable or ordinary way. Space has a
long history of nonsense formulations, starting with
Democritus and those who think as he did, up to the
present:
(1) Space is said to be a Void or Nothingness.
Parmenides has correctly pointed out that all
attempted references to “nothingness” are
meaningless.
(2) Space is said to be singular: There is only one
space. Einstein, for example, argues there can only be
one space (spatial-temporal continuum), and before
him the cosmic aether was the monistic, ubiquitous
stuff of space.
(3) Space is referred to as a different kind of being from the many material beings that are “in” the
one space.
The Michelson-Morley speed-of-light experiments showed empirically that space cannot be
identified with one, all-pervasive aether, adding
factual evidence to the logical nonsense of monistic
space. If space is numerically one over time, then we
are trying to conceive of a reality that can be what it
is and alter internally since the one space is modified
by changes of density, position of objects within it,
and so forth.
Again Parmenides seems to be right: A being, by
whatever name, is just what it is. It cannot be what it
is and alter (change) without self-contradiction.
Diversity can be experienced successively or
simultaneously. Space is the experience of more than
one being simultaneously within a moment of
creativity. Space is an abstract characteristic of
wholes; not a whole itself. Wholes, that is, acts or
comings-to-be, are not in space. Space is in acts.
Space is an aspect of creative wholes.
Reality is not in space.
Space is in reality. Spatiality is abstract.
Only wholes are actual containers.
Surpassable acts are fragments that do not
include all the diversity created by previous,
contemporaneous acts. A surpassable individual is a
series of acts located within the total diversity. It can
be said to be “in space.”
However, a series of acts wherein each act
includes all there is, that is, all other beings in each of
its acts, cannot be said to be in space or to be located
in space.
Reality is at each moment the supreme action of
the Unsurpassable who is a never-beginning, never-
171
ending series of such supreme acts. All spatiality is in
the Unsurpassable.
All locations are in the Unsurpassable. There is
no distance between what we do and the
Unsurpassable. There is no time nor transmission of
us or anything (as beings) to the Unsurpassable, so
s/he takes no perspective on the world.
Space is expanding in the sense that there are
always more beings added to the infinite total each
moment. Each moment of creating, whether
Unsurpassable or surpassable, steps off from the edge
of space, reaches beyond relationships already
created and makes a new determination (being) that
adds to all previous spatiality.
Ordinary creating steps off from some others,
from some space, and by necessarily excluding from
its experience some previous creations, has a
perspective on the world. This selection establishes a
partiality, a point of view, which the Unsurpassable
does not take on the world.
If the Unsurpassable did not include all others’
accomplishments as causes in his/er present moment
of creating, something would be actual and not part
of God/dess’ process of creation, so his/er process
would not be “that than which nothing greater can be
conceived.”
Even though every creaturely moment can only
include what some others have just done, one of the
others every moment must include as a cause in
itself, whether a moment in God/dess’ series or the
world, is what the last moment of God/dess just
created.
See the next chapter for a through discussion of
what each moment inherits as it begins its process of
creation.
U
nsurpassable Relationships (5). To exist is
to evolve out of, or better, grow around, what
two or more30 moments have already done.
So someone can only exist as related to others
included in oneself. We are only related to some
others. An unsurpassable relater would have to be
related to all creations created. We, on the other
hand, can be mutually causally independent of others,
that is, others we don’t include and who don’t include
us, what physicists call “contemporaries” (see diagram, Two Intersecting Personal Series, Chapter 13,
and Relations in the Glossary).
But what the Unsurpassable creates cannot be
contemporary to anything already accomplished by
others. This would imply something would exist that
is not part of the Unsurpassable’s all-inclusive,
present Whole. A larger whole that did include all
accomplishments could be conceived.
This all-inclusive Whole would then be “that
than which nothing greater can be conceived” at this
m o m e n t . It would be the supreme Whole. As
30At least two are required to provide the necessary
novelty for the initiation of a new moment. See Voskuil,
“Hartshorne, God and Metaphysics” and Chapter 24.
comings-to-be, however, not beings that have already
come to be, all wholes are contemporaries of all
others then in process and so are not parts of, nor
causally effective in, another.31
To Be Is To Be
Related To Something
To exist is to be related to others
around which we grow.
Others in the future will be related to us
by growing around us.
___________
Surpassable realities include
some others for some time.
The Unsurpassable includes
all others always.
All spatial/temporal relationships are either
internal or external. But for something to be “in”
another logically implies the other reality is outside
the one that is in it. All relationships cannot be
external. Even Democritus, who tried to maintain all
relations are external, said all beings are internal to
the Void.
All mutually external relationships of two or
more beings must be in a reality (a process) including
the external relationships of others who are contemporaries with each other.32 On the other hand, all
relationships cannot be internal or we end up trying
to conceive of the Parmenidean Being which could
have no diversity since nothing is outside anything
else to set up the contrasts we know as space and
time.
U
nsurpassable Feeling (6). Feeling is the most
fundamental way moments are related to each
other. What one moment does is included in
other superseding moments. Inclusion is not just
passive acceptance. No thing can be included or
experienced without feeling the feelings that the
included being is. A being is how a previous moment
ended up feeling. That feeling causes the present
feeler to feel more or less the way the previous feeler
felt (depending on the present moment’s level of
freedom and inclusiveness).
A complex moment includes many previous
feelings. The characteristics created by previous
moments (comings-to-be) are inherited by one or
more moments. Feelings need not be conscious. Even
the most trivial events going on in “space” or within
atoms, feel, though they cannot be said to know.
Feelings of others are causes in those who feel them.
31The argument, that only moments in their processes of
coming to be can be contemporaries, is expanded in
Chapter 24.
32Comings-to-be, units of process, however, do exist as
contemporaries without existing within another.
172
The Unsurpassable feeler feels every feeling that
has ever been created; that is, the Unsurpassable is
caused by every being that has ever been brought into
being and every non-divine feeler feels the
Unsurpassable’s feelings. Each moment of the
Unsurpassable is a supreme feeling, leaving no
feeling out that exists. It will be surpassed, but only
by the next supreme feeling in the Unsurpassable’s
series.
U
nsurpassable Knowledge (7). Knowledge is
not only feeling what is the case, but also
feeling alternatives to what is the case.
Unsurpassable knowledge must know all there is to
know. What is there to know? Process, or coming-tobe, is not yet. Reality that is not yet being, is not
something to know. But all the past is done; it is
being. So an omniscient or unsurpassable knower
must know all the past. Again, the present process is
not yet a thing to know, and neither is the future.
This is not to say the future has no reality. It
exists, so far as it does, as potentiality. And all
potentiality for future actuality exists in present
actuality. Possibilities for future acts are not yet acts.
Possibilities are never fully specified possibilities.
Whitehead seems to speak as if potential acts are
specific possibilities which he calls “eternal objects”
(see footnote, 25, Chapter 22, p. 160). Hartshorne,
however, points out that specifying is what creativity
really does. A fully specified potential is a self-contradiction. Once something is fully specified it is
determinate; it is an act done, that is, a being in the
past.
Possibility is generic and continuous. Between
any two possible acts an infinity of somewhat
different possible acts could be specified. Actuality is
atomic or quantified. Every act is finitely different
from every other actuality, and from every possible
actuality. The present is a continuum of creating. The
result of a present moment of creating must result in
a finite difference from its inception: a quantum leap.
The future, however, is not completely unknowable. We know much about the future because
we know the past and present must be included in the
future which will cause the future to conform to the
acts already done. The further one projects into the
future, the less one can know, however, since the
accumulated freedoms of the moments up to that
increasingly distant time can range over an everwidening volume of potentiality.
Possibility is generic and continuous.
Actuality is atomic and quantified.
Recent mathematical theory called “chaos
theory” recognizes the accumulated effect of small
differences. As usually stated in chaos theory, these
small differences (which have a large and somewhat
unknowable effect on the outcome) are differences in
the initial conditions of the event. However, a better
understanding of change will see each moment as a
new beginning adding its own somewhat unknown
effect (its own initial condition) to the event’s outcome.
Acts already done set limits to what can be done.
They also provide opportunities for action. We know
something of the future’s limits and opportunities.
Unsurpassable knowledge knows all there is to know.
However, if one proposes that omniscience knows
the future in the same determinate, specific way the
past exists, then there is no logical way to separate
knowledge of the past from knowledge of the future.
God/dess would not know the difference between
past and future. They would be the same. So the
proposal that the past and future are known in the
same way by omniscience, implies either,
(1) omniscience must be ignorant of the difference between past and future, or
(2) the difference between past and future is not
real.
To know the future as already settled
logically implies either:
(1) ignorance of the difference between
what is and what is not done, or
(2) the unreality of change.
Again, either one thing happens after another,
that is, successively (the meaning of “time”), or not.
If succession is real, then the Unsurpassable
(supposedly knowing the details of the future as
already settled) would not know succession, and
would be ignorant. If succession is not real, then we
are in error to think change is real, as Parmenides and
many Eastern thinkers assert.
Rather than saying the attempted concept of
“omniscience” is self-contradictory , as Hartshorne
seems to say (OOTM), I would suggest the term
means, “knowing all there is to know,” but knowing
what there is to know requires a metaphysic to
explain what reality is like.
The process metaphysic, argued for here, takes
creativity as fundamentally real. A creation adds new
actuality to reality. Even though the kinds of things
that can be created may be knowable, exactly what
will be created is not knowable. To know a specific
before it has been specified is to know something as
done before it is done, that is, to be ignorant of the
difference between the settled determinations of the
past and the generic quality or openness of the future.
S
upreme Freedom (8). If determinism or ultrarationalism is an illogical theory of realty, as
argued here, then nothing exists unless it is a
process exercising some amount of freedom. Even
the smallest and most determined events studied by
physics cannot be known in detail before they occur.
W. Heisenberg’s formulation of the Indeterminacy
173
Principle (1926) makes clear that physical science
cannot be formulated with a deterministic metaphysic. What we are able to know scientifically is
always statistical. We can know how large groups of
somewhat free moments of reality will generally
behave, but never exactly how any one will exactly
behave.
Freedom
Life can be created or destroyed, but
freedom is not given
nor can it be taken away.
To exist at all is to be somewhat free.
So what might “unsurpassable freedom” mean?
Can it mean a reality that has all the freedom, or a
reality that is “completely free” compared to the rest
of us who are only partly free? “Complete freedom”
would be an act that does not have to consider
anything already done. An act done with “complete
freedom” would create out of “pure potentiality.”
Nothing actual would condition or cause the act.
An actor who had all the freedom would imply,
of course, the rest of us could have none. Either expression, “completely free” or “completely
determined,” is nonsense. So, is “unsurpassable freedom” nonsense?
“Unsurpassable freedom” means more freedom
than anyone else has, and more freedom than anyone
else could possibly have. Since freedom depends on
opportunities, and opportunities are presented with
the beings one includes in one’s creative acting, it
follows that only a reality including all beings, all
actualized creations, could possibly have access to
the greatest range of possibility for new acts.
The one who is caused (that is, conditioned) by
all others is the one who is most free. Subatomic
events are strongly influenced by only a few others
and are the least free of all. Since only one reality can
include all others, only one reality can create within
the widest range of possibilities, and so this reality is
unsurpassable in its exercise of freedom. S/he
exercises supreme freedom at each moment.
The usual hyperbole in religious discourse about
God/dess being the only creator (exerciser of
freedom), is self-contradictory if taken literally.
Freedom is the power one has in the present moment
to affect the outcome of the moment in a range of
ways. But one must start with something. Starting
with nothing is nonsense. The something started with
determines a range of possible outcomes. The Unsurpassable has the greatest conceivable range, not a
“completely unspecified range,” which is a
meaningless expression.
U
nsurpassable Power (9). Freedom or creativity is self-power, power to shape the
outcome of the moment within a range of
possibilities. But we can also speak of a power that
controls others. The power one can have in others can
either be the power of,
(1) force,
(2) obligation, or
(3) charm (love).
If one wanted another to do something, say
something simple like move to the other side of
room, there are three ways to control the person’s
action. The person could be
(1) physically forced to move, that is, dragged,
(2) s/he could feel obligated to move, fearing the
consequences if s/he did not move, or
(3) s/he could move because s/he loves to do
what you want him/er to do or enjoys the experiences
provided at the other end of the room. When looked
at closely, the first two kinds of power depend on the
last one. One must be charmed to initiate force or
obligations. In the military it is called “morale.”
When the desire to fight is gone, all the weapons of
force are useless.
“Unsurpassable power,” in theological circles
known as “omnipotence,” means what? For many the
attempted definition implies “having all the power.”
But this is likely a meaningless expression.
Something only exists if it exercises some power,
both the power of partial self-creation and the power
to partially affect others. If one reality were to have
all the power, there would be no others to have power
in. It would also mean nothing could influence (flow
into or cause) the reality that had no power, so the socalled omnipotent power would be powerless.
Love makes the world go ‘round.
Give half o’ one to Aristotle.
Propositions expressing the exercise of power
have two placeholders where logical quantifiers
occur. The following sentences exhaust all the
combinations (ignoring the uninteresting case of
“none”):
(1) Having all power in all.
(2) Having some power in all.
(3) Having all power in some.
(4) Having some power in some.
The first seems self-contradictory as noted above: A
monopoly of power, a reality with only one actor
acting, is the attempt to conceive of reality as one
thing.
The problems Parmenides’ position has, should
make one suspect that reality must be essentially
social. To say “omnipotence” means “having all
power in all” implies the second “all” is referring to
nothing (and so is meaningless), since to be one of
174
the “all” requires one to be something, or better, to do
something, that is, exercise some power.
So, to paraphrase number one above: The allpowerful exercises all the power, complete control, in
all others who must have some power. Since all and
some are logical contradictories, the sentence is not a
meaningful proposition. The same reasoning applies
to number three. Complete control of even one other
means that the other does not exist to control.
The fourth proposition expresses surpassable
power. We are always exercising some control in
others as long as our series of acts continues. Even a
actuality not found as part of our own series still
affects other events in the field around us that
eventually will affect us. It is also swept up into the
all-inclusive series and is then a cause in all
superseding others of that series forever (see Chapter
24). A moment is able to be an influence in others
only because it has had the power to create itself
anew.
“Omnipotence” means
“exercising an appropriate
amount of power everywhere at all times.”
The second proposition, “having some power in
all,” can meaningfully express Unsurpassable power,
a power that affects in some way everything else.
Some power or influence of the Unsurpassable is
found absolutely everywhere at all times. Those who
think it is a defect not to exercise all power (whatever
that could mean) are valuing power above goodness.
"Goodness" means “the appropriate use of power.”
More power is not always better. Too much
control of others reduces their opportunities for
enrichment. Somewhere between negligence and
suffocating domination is the appropriate use of
power. Parents, teachers, friends and lovers with
good intentions are always trying to find the right
amount of control or influence. Those who are
successful are good.
U
nsurpassable Goodness (10). Many
youngsters learn the invocation: God is good;
God is great. What could it mean to be the
greatest conceivable goodness? To paraphrase Plato
(Socrates) in his Euthyphro, is God good because
God is great (powerful), or is God great
(unsurpassable) because God is good?
(1) Are God’s acts good because God does them,
or
(2) does God do what God does because they are
good things to do?
The first formulation is clearly power worship,
equivalent to the parent who responds to a child
asking why s/he should do something with, “Because
I said so.”
Might makes right,
versus
Right dictates might.
If the Unsurpassable does things because they
are good, the meaning of “good” has never been
created; it must have always been since the
Unsurpassable has always been. This is why the definition of what it means to be fundamentally valuable
can only be expressed with necessary propositions.
For now, say the meaning of positive value, that
is, goodness, means “enriched experience,” or
experience that satisfies the basic aesthetic cannon of
unified diversity (see Chapter 18). Valuable experience has depth by way of repetition of spatial
(contemporaneous) and temporal (successive)
characteristics, and breadth by way of novelty, all
working together to reinforce each other. But whose
experience is to be enriched? There are three
possible approaches:
(1) The one with the power (as is the case in an
authoritarian ethic),
(2) The collective (as a utilitarian or democratically structured ethic proposes) or, if the
Unsurpassable makes sense,
(3) the wholeness of each moment of the
Unsurpassable series.
Only the Unsurpassable can evaluate all, and
only the everlastingness of the Unsurpassable series
can forever contain the differences (values) made.
Only if one’s differences are kept just as they are, can
one’s meaning (differences made) always be just
what they are as they logically must be.
“Unsurpassably good” means “always creating in
only good ways.” The Unsurpassable does things
within an unsurpassable range of possibilities. Any
act of the Unsurpassable could be otherwise than as it
is, but it would have to be as good as any other
possible act at that moment.
Every level of value has co-equals. “the best” or
“the worst” are meaningless expressions, unless they
refer to a range or class of co-equal values.
Since being good enhances the experience of the
Whole (and probably of most parts of the Whole),
reality does not disintegrate or become impossible
from good influence.
B
adness: Evil and Tragedy (11). We cannot
pick and chose the attributes we would like
the Unsurpassable to have. If negative value
can have an unsurpassable meaning, it must also be
part of the attempted definition. But all the attempts
to define “unsurpassable negativeness,” seem to fail
because they are self-contradictory. Why is this the
case, and how does negative value relate to
unsurpassability?
Negative value comes from a loss, but the only
things that can be lost are future possibilities, since
the past is saved changelessly forever as it is. Of
175
course, only the loss of negative possibilities is bad.
No one mourns the loss of an auto accident they
might have had coming home.
Tragedy
Accidental loss of possible future good.
No one is to blame.
Losses, however, can come about in two different ways: accidentally and deliberately. Accidental
loss is best called “tragedy.” No one is to blame. Bad
luck is possible in a world that must be populated
with somewhat free individuals. Even with the best of
intentions and with as much knowledge as one could
possibly have, free acts can and do conflict to bring
about losses.
When no one is obviously to blame for the loss,
those, who don’t understand that the world can only
exist with creative freedom, “blame” God. The loss
becomes, even in legal papers, an “Act of God.”
People assume God did it or could have prevented it
and so is to blame/praise for it. But unsurpassable
power, used in unsurpassably good ways, cannot
completely control others nor prevent all possible
conflict.
Yes, it would be possible for unsurpassable
power to exercise power in ways other than the way
s/he did exercise power; and, yes, the world could be
different. The specific “Act of God” referred to
would not have happened. But other possible
conflicts would necessarily be part of this
hypothetical world, and also necessarily part of any
possible world.
All negative value must be part of a larger whole,
a whole that exists because it has man aged to
integrate its influences into a unity with some
positive value in spite of the negative.
Evil
Deliberate prevention
of future positive value.
To say there is a whole, is to say the negative
value, though causing a whole to be less rich than
would have been possible, has not destroyed the
whole––and all wholes must have some positive
value. God/dess does not cause negative value. S/he
suffers the loss it brings to the larger context of
positive value.
Deliberate loss of future positive value is called
“evil.” Can we conceive of “unsurpassable evil”? No
evil can be so great one could not conceive of having
more evil. Since negative value is only negative as it
disrupts the amount of positive value of a whole,
there must always be some positive value left to
disturb.
The attempt to conceive of a situation where
there is no positive value, is the same as trying to
conceive of “nothing,” which, we have seen, is
meaningless. This means an evil cannot be created
without doing some good, so a reality doing only evil
is nonsense. During a summer working on a German
farm I asked why Germans put up with Hitler. They
said things like, “Hitler built the Autobahn (freeway
system)”, a positive value in their mind.
At any particular moment there may be an evil
that is the greatest evil for that moment, but it could
conceivably be (or have been) surpassed, not just during some future moment, but in the present moment.
Since evil does not have a supreme or ultimate
degree, it cannot be an attribute of the Unsurpassable.
Evil personified as the Devil cannot mean a reality
that only does evil, whatever misguided comfort the
idea may give those who cannot face the tragedy of
the world or our own desire to do bad things.
S
upreme Suffering (12). Suffering is the
feeling a moment endures as it inherits loss of
value felt by others directly (physical pain) or
of conflict with one’s own desires (mental pain).
Whether the loss comes from tragedy or evil, it is still
suffered. But the sufferer is not made evil because an
evil-doer causes him/er suffer.
An unsurpassable sufferer would suffer all the
sufferings there are. The pain could not kill nor stop
the whole from coming to be. If it did, there would be
no suffering because the sufferer would be dead. The
Whole, we need also to realize, has all the joys there
are to experience, and these must always outweigh
the pains or the pains would not be in existence since
the whole they are in, the whole that keeps them in
existence, would have died and felt nothing.
God/dess suffers all sufferings.
To suffer is not to be evil.
Deliberately causing suffering is to be evil
Unsurpassable suffering makes sense as supreme
suffering only. No actual suffering can be so great
that more suffering cannot be conceived. But the
present moment of the Unsurpassable does have all
the suffering there is. Only in the next moment is it
conceivable for the suffering to be greater.
Suffering is something no one wants to bear. We
often try to handle it by denying our suffering is bad.
We may say to ourselves: If only we knew more, we
would see it as a good (as God supposedly does).
This view of the world makes people neurotic.
We often respond to suffering by making others
suffer, especially those who we think caused our
suffering, as a way to get even. But the
Unsurpassable endures all suffering, whether from
evil or tragedy, without wishing to pass it on to
others, that is, without revenge. Returning suffering,
176
deliberately, is evil, and doing so out of ignorance is
tragic. Neither evil nor ignorance are capable of
being attributes of the Unsurpassable. Yet once
creations exist, the most anyone can do is to lessen
their influence on future actions––eliminating them
from having any affect, is impossible.
S
upreme Happiness (13). Happiness also, just
like suffering, can be unsurpassably conceived,
but only as supreme. “Ultimate happiness” is
nonsense.
No happiness can ever exhaust all possible
happinesses. However, the Unsurpassable is
changelessly the reality that enjoys every change,
including all happinesses. This is an ultimate expression, because its meaning does not depend on any
particular moment.
God/dess necessarily enjoys all enjoyments.
So the Unsurpassable is both the greatest
conceivable sufferer and enjoyer. Life is always a
mixture. One possible meaning of the Christian
christology is that God suffers, not just some things,
but everything there is to suffer. But, even so, life
triumphs over tragedy and evil, and all value is stored
forever in “heaven” (the Unsurpassable).
“Hell” cannot be a place apart from the Unsurpassable, and “heaven” cannot be a place the
Unsurpassable is in or it would surpass the so-called
unsurpassable. God/dess must include as part of
his/er reality all there is, or s/he would be surpassable
by something that could. That which is in something
is surpassed (in some way or other) by that which
contains it.
U
nsurpassable Love–Embracing As Is (14).
Love is two-sided, reflecting the dipolar
nature of every creating whole. Love takes
the beings others have created and makes them parts
of one’s self. Each process must begin with what
others have done, so each moment must love
something or other to exist at all. We love or embrace
some things. An unsurpassable love must embrace all
that there is, the very meaning of “uni-verse.”
The poem Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 13 expresses
much of this aspect of love:
Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous nor
boastful; it is not arrogant nor rude. love does not
insist on its own way; it is not irritable nor resentful; it
does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all
things, endures all things.
Love never dies; [everything else will cease], but
when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
Rather than “pass away,” the imperfect is
contained in the fullness of the perfect, complete life
of the Unsurpassable. And though love “bears” and
“endures,” it also hopes and works for the joys of the
loved ones.
Love is also balanced between concern for
oneself and others. Too much self-sacrifice or selfeffacing will only generate resentment in the long run
which is definitely not a pleasant feeling to give to
any loved one. Loving others as oneself, not instead
of oneself, is still a good rule for us. It really comes
down to the same thing as loving the Unsurpassable.
We are always loving some others in some way,
namely, those we embrace as we begin each moment
of our series. But we are always loving or embracing
the Unsurpassable as an unavoidable influence in our
creativity. We include the Unsurpassable (as each
process of creating begins) and become part of the
Unsurpassable (in the results each moment creates).
In between the influences at the inception of a
moment and its determinant result, we are somewhat
free.
Love embraces––Love desires.
We may need to grow up and put away childish
ways of loving, but the Unsurpassable lover is always
fully aware. We see as if looking in a cloudy mirror
(as Paul quotes Plato, 1 Cor. 13:12), but insofar as we
understand the meaning of “unsurpassability,” we see
face to face.
U
nsurpassable Love–Desire To Enrich (15).
Embracing (Whitehead’s term is
“prehending”) can never be a passive
reception of another. We feel what we include, not
only what it is, but for what it can be. Someone who
is good, desires to return what has been loved back
into the world beyond their present moment with
more positive value added than was received. The
momentary lover’s desire is to further the enrichment
of future lovers, be they moments in one’s own
series, others’ series or God/dess’ series.
The Unsurpassable lover desires to further the
value of those in the world as they are experienced
and evaluated together within the unsurpassed Whole
of each moment. God/dess’ desire for the welfare of
others cannot be surpassed. It is always as good as
any other desire s/he could have at that moment.
177
Interaction of God/dess and the World
All actualities must include or embrace the being
that God/dess has created and given to the world to
experience. We all must love God/dess (and be loved
by him/er) whether or not we know it. Knowing it,
and knowing what it means to be alive and be
enjoyed by God/dess forever, gives one the additional
enrichment Hartshorne calls “worship.” This
knowledge, and the emotions it carries, is the
meaning of living a sane life, of being “saved.”
178
Chapter 23: Attributes
H
ate (16). In order to hate something or some
one, one must first know (take in) what one is
hating. So, in order to hate something, one
must have first embraced it, that is, loved it to some
degree. Hate has two sides:
(1) Hate is the desire not to love what one has
loved, and what one is still loving in some way. Hate
is loving (desiring) to get rid of, desiring to stop some
desire. The Unsurpassable cannot desire to exclude
anything. The Unsurpassable cannot desire to be
something other than what s/he must be, namely, allinclusive. If even one thing could be excluded from
the Unsurpassable, s/he would not be that than which
nothing greater can be conceived. Something could
conceivably exist that would include both the
excluder and the excluded.
The logical opposite of love is not hate. It is
indifference, and the Unsurpassable cannot be
indifferent to anything. Hate, ultimately, is a neurotic,
self-destructive emotion, a sick form of love.
Hate regrets former loves.
Hate loves others to suffer.
(2) Hate is also a desire for revenge, an attempt
to balance out the pain one feels because one is not
able to be indifferent to the one hated. This supposed
balancing out is called “justice.” In reality, that is,
within the Unsurpassable’s experience, every pain is
added to every other. One pain does not cancel out
another. The notion of “balance” or getting even is
myopic confusion.
Furthermore, if the Unsurpassable were to desire
another be in pain because the other is causing pain
for him/er, the unsurpassable would be desiring to
cause pain to him/erself, since every pain anywhere
must be felt by the Unsurpassable.
No hate can desire to dismiss everything since
one can never stop loving, in some degree, those who
make it possible to hate in the first place, namely,
one’s own brain cells. So “unsurpassable hate” is not
meaningful, and cannot, therefore, be an attribute of
the Unsurpassable.
As difficult as it is for us to suffer without
striking out to hurt others, the real heroes among us
are those who are strong enough to suffer, whether
from tragedy or evil, without desiring to cause others
to suffer.
S
upreme Subjects–Comings-To-Be (17). A
(momentary) subject feels something others
have done and a range of possibilities that it
might become. All subjects are momentary as some
Buddhists and Whitehead point out. The
Unsurpassable, as a lasting reality, is the unsurpassable series of Subjects, not one subject that
changes.
Each moment of the series exhibits the
characteristics of being a subject in a supreme way.
Each supreme Subject contains all the beings
(objects) that all other previous subjects have made,
including the all the supreme Objects created by
previous Subjects in the unsurpassable series. Since
each supreme Subject contains everything there is, it
contains the ways that objects are related to each
other, both externally (spatially) and internally
(sequentially, that is, temporally).
The supreme Subject necessarily compares every
object to all the others. All comparison is evaluation,
that is, feeling a certain way along various continua
of possible ways to feel, such as some degree of
pleasantness, intensity, nearness, urgency, and so
forth (see Hartshorne’s Five Dimensions, Chapter 3).
Subjects must include objects;
never vice versa.
Objects can only be found in subjects.
Besides containing all completed actualities,
each supreme Subject contains or exhibits all the
metaphysical “objects,” that is, universal characteristics of all actual and possible acts. 33 In this way
the potentiality for all future acts and the meaning of
possibilities not yet fulfilled is also contained in each
present supreme Subject.
But every subject is dipolar. It not only contains
actual and potential objects, it creates a new complex
object. Each subject is fundamentally a coming-to-be
containing beings previously come to be. Even
though no moment of reality can exist without each
pole of this contrast of being/becoming, the two poles
are not on equal footing. If they were, they would
exhibit a dualism with no fundamental unity. Beings
(objects) are always part of, or within, some subject.
As soon as a subject has satisfied its process, the
being (the determination that is the end result of the
process) is already in some other coming(s)-to-be.
S
upreme Objects–Beings (18). The simplest
object would be a small quantity of one quality
felt by a subject. The particular quality an
object has (as felt by a present subject), was
determined to be as it is by previous subjects. But
subjects feel more than one quality at a time and
create objects for others to feel that contain complex
relationships of qualities.
The Unsurpassable is a supreme Subject at each
moment that creates the supreme Object of the
moment. Each divine Subject contains all the objects
of the past. The being (object) created by each
moment of the unsurpassable series is an object for
33In an attenuated sense, all potentiality is in every subject,
a rewriting of Anaxagoras’ idea that every thing is in
everything. An argument can be made that every actuality
will be in every future actuality, since all are in the
Unsurpassable and every actuality includes the
Unsurpassable’s actuality. See Chapter 24.
179
every subject from then on, including the next
creative process of the unsurpassable series.
Objects only exist within subjects, never floating
around, as Democritus said, in a subjectiveless void.
Objects cannot get into other objects already made.
To do so would change the past. But objects are parts
of subjects, and subjects come to be, that is, they
make new determinate reality around the objects that
are actualized already. So in this way beings that
come to be (objects) can be found in, or surrounded
by, other objects.
makes sense. But if it fails to make sense, it will fail
for reasons quite different from those usually given. I
think it makes more sense than any other
metaphysical proposal and more sense than all
attempts to deny metaphysical knowledge.
But clarity is always a matter of degree. The next
chapter explores some problems with the process
metaphysic, especially how the unsurpassable series
can relate to the world’s series and be omniscient.
The Unsurpassable
surpasses him/erself
unsurpassably.
S
ummary and Problem. Perhaps this review of
proposals for meaningful attributes has not
settled the question Anselm so quickly dis
missed, namely, whether “That Than Which Nothing
Greater Can Be Conceived” is an expression that
Chapter Summary
If every concept had an opposite, then the concept that all concepts have an opposite must also be
meaningful. This nonsense was examined in Chapter 3. The Unsurpassable exhibits all concepts that have
meaning in an unsurpassable way.
Not all concepts admit of an unsurpassable degree. Evil, the deliberate destruction of value, can’t be
ultimate since the absence of any value is “nothingness” which is nonsense. Evil can’t be supreme, either,
because no matter how evil one is, one could conceivably have been more destructive at that moment.
“Supreme” means the characteristic under consideration can be surpassed, but only by a later moment,
and only by a later moment of the unsurpassable series. The present unsurpassed moment exhibits the
characteristic fully at that moment. More happiness may be created than now exists, but not even the
Unsurpassable can have more happiness at this moment since no more exists.
Whether or not “necessarily existing” makes sense depends on whether all the concepts that have an
unsurpassable meaning are also all meaningful together. This is the coherence of the various aspects of the
concept. Clarity on this, as on any subject, will always be partial, but even to say this with meaning requires
we know what “nonpartial” or “completeness” means. The proposal here is that “complete clarity” is how
the Unsurpassable knows.
Suggested Reading: Hartshorne, Natural Theology, Anselm’s Discovery (Discusses criticisms of
Hartshorne’s position), Logic of Perfection, The Divine Relativity, Philosophers Speak of God. Griffin.
****************************************************************
Haiku Two
The utterable
Flows glibly––The Other is
Lisped in mute stutters.
Duane Voskuil 1966
180
Chapter 24
Problem
How God/dess and the World Interact
“No two actualities can be torn apart: each is all in all...the perfected actuality passes back into the temporal
world, and qualifies this world so that each temporal actuality includes it as an immediate fact of relevant
experience....What is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven, and the reality in heaven
passes back into the world.” Whitehead, PR, Part V.
“The ’ontological principle’....is the principle that everything is positively somewhere
in actuality, and in potency everywhere.” Whitehead, PR, Part II. Emphases added.
“...Indetermination, rendered determinate in the real concrescence,
is the meaning of ‘potentiality.’ It is a conditioned indetermination,
and is therefore called a ‘real potentiality.’” Whitehead, PR, Part I.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
(1) How the moments of the unsurpassable series of cosmic creatings interact with the countless
moments of the world.
(2) The relation of relativity physics and the physical conservation laws to metaphysics.
–Approaches–
(1) Every moment of God/dess’ series must begin before any actual entity in the world ends, that is,
each actual entity’s temporal duration in the divine series must be as short as, or shorter than, any
other actual entity’s duration, and
(2) Each moment of God/dess’ series must begin by inheriting all the beings created up to that
moment (including God/dess’ own past and every worldly creation), and
(3) Each nondivine actual entity, as it begins, must inherit all that God/dess has done, and all of what
some others have just done (that is, it must begin with all of every being contiguous to its
initiation–which is a unique set for every actual entity sets up its unique perspective and goal.
(4) Physical relativity theory and conservation laws are compatible with process metaphysic if they
are not taken to be metaphysically general themselves.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
(1) Requiring the temporal durations of God/dess’ actual entities to be as short as, or shorter than, any
other, and requiring every actual entity to inherit all of each it does inherit, assures every being
will be saved, and ultimately forever in the all-inclusive series of God/dess.
(2) Physical relativity theory and conservation laws need not be metaphysically general, and the
restricted truth they contain is interpretable within the process metaphysic.
Con:
Some may not be convinced the arguments given are more than ad hoc suggestions to save the system.
******************************************************************************
O
ne major problem of concern to process
philosophers who take theism seriously is the
way the unsurpassable series of all-inclusive
creative moments is able to embrace all beings
created by all the world’s processes without loss, and
how every actual entity can be influenced by the
Unsurpassable’s creations.
Beings can only be experienced or embraced by
the Unsurpassable (as with any actual entity) after
they have come to be. The process-of-creating-abeing is not an object for another to experience. Yet
181
Chapter 24: Problem
the countless number of sur passable processes of the
world may, it seems, begin and end at different times.
So, how long can a processing moment of the
Unsurpassable series endure if God/dess must gather
up all the beings others create as they are created?
“Instantaneous” process is meaningless, so divine
processes must have some temporal extension.
However, they can’t be so long other moments come
to be between the Unsurpassable’s determinations, or
the Unsurpassable would not contain or know all the
beings created.
How the moments of the Unsurpassable series
and the world interact is related to another problem:
How can omniscience and the Category of Transmutation (which eliminates detail from experience), be
reconciled? I’m convinced Transmutation can’t be a
metaphysical category since the Unsurpassable can’t
exhibit it (see Appendix 3; Chapter 13, the Complex
Actual Entity diagram; and Voskuil, Whitehead’s
Metaphysical Aesthetic).
Some readers may want to skip the following
technical discussion and go on to the next chapter.
P
reliminaries to a Proposed Answer. The best
answer I have to the interaction problem considers the following:
(1) A being, once made, cannot sit around by
itself waiting to be included in a process. Being is
simultaneously the terminal result of a process and
the initial conditioning of subsequent processes.
Every being must continue to condition some
processes or other forever. If beings could exist on
their own, process philosophy would flounder on the
incoherency of Dualism (see Glossary). Even if the
problems of dualism were avoidable, there would still
be something in existence unknown to God/dess until
the next cosmic moment intercepted it, so omniscience would fail.
Objects, that is, beings, can only get into a
process as the process begins. Once a process is
underway conditioned by its causal base of being,
only its own creative freedom shapes the final
outcome of the whole.
A being, as it comes into being as the satisfaction
of a process, must be immediately in another process.
If it isn’t, a being has lapsed into “nonbeing” (or
being and process are two independent, dualistic
realities), which is nonsense.
(2) The Unsurpassable is a series of Wholes. All
attempts to say the Unsurpassable is only one whole
that changes by the addition of new acts as they are
created by the world, fail, even though Whitehead
seems to say God/dess is one such actual entity. Such
an approach would violate,
(a) his system which only allows a moment
to be affected at its inception by others’ creations,
(b) how an actual entity affects another,
namely, by reaching a determinate satisfaction
that is then an object for others. Once a process
has come to be, it is an object and ceases to exist
as a processing whole.
(c) the meaning of a “whole.” A whole is a
reality that can’t alter without self-contradiction.
The reasoning for this, was extensively presented
in the earlier chapters on change.
Allowing God/dess to be an exception to the
metaphysical system, as has been the style in
theology and philosophy for millennia, is not acceptable. God/dess’ uniqueness lies not in violating the
metaphysic, but in being its only possible, unqualified exemplification.
(3) There must be a finite duration between the
beginning and end of God/dess’ moments. The
Unsurpassable can’t be,
(a) a series of moments occurring
“infinitesimally fast” as some Buddhists would
have us believe, nor
(b) one actual entity that never began and
continues on forever like a Heraclitian flux.
Still, each duration of an actual entity in the
unsurpassable series must be as short as any other in
order to assure every being is included before it is
lost at the hands of occasions that cannot inherit all
the past, nor retain all the past they inherit.
S
olving the Interaction Problem. In addition to
the principles of a process metaphysic above,
the following concepts must be carefully
considered:
(1) Each actual entity of the unsurpassable series
must begin just as the previous one of the series ends.
The end of one must be the beginning of another to
maintain omniscience of the Unsurpassable’s own
past. The demarcation of one process from the other
Whitehead calls the “subject/superject:” The
satisfaction of one is the instantaneous initiation of
the next moment of the divine series.
(2) Every actual entity (coming-to-be) must start
with what previous entities have accomplished (that
is, their being). Starting from “nothing” is nonsense,
and starting merely from the determination made by
one previous actual entity is equally impossible since
with no novelty, there can be no new actuality. Why
this is the case is explained further on below.
(a) Each actual entity of the divine series
must start with all the beings just created,
including all the being just created by the
previous member of the divine series itself.
(b) Each actual entity of the world must start
with some of the beings just created, including
all the being just created by the previous member
of the divine series.34
34The diagram in Chapter 23, Interaction of God/dess
and the World, shows each fragmentary actual occasion
including only some of the most recent being created by
God/dess. I have come to believe that including only part of
a being is not possible because every being is a continuum
of potentiality.
182
Chapter 24: Problem
(3) Every actual entity must end with all that it
accomplished remaining in existence as potency for
others. No process can end without another accepting
hasevery
actual
the gift of being it So,
created.
entity must end with the beginning of some moment
of the unsurpassable series
(4) Having an all-inclusive Whole start at the end
of each randomly occurring act (an act that may end
with no way of predicting when, and an act probably
out of step with countless others in the world),
stretches credulity to the limit. This is so for the
following reasons:
(5) Potentiality is never pure nor absolute but
always a function of what beings are inherited, and
there never was a time when “nothing” existed to be
inherited. So all potentiality is “real potentiality”
which is the range of possible outcomes for a
particular moment. Every actual entity must begin
with some predetermination of its potency. An actual
entity’s range is determined by which beings are
contiguously inherited by the moment in addition to
its inheritance of God/dess’ creation.
(6) No actual entity can exist without a subjective aim, the feeling of real potentiality for its outcome. But since potentiality is continuous, 35 all
potentiality must have some degree of relevance.
Potentiality is one, not a multiplicity.
Looking at the diagrams, Interaction of God/dess
and the World, (Chapter 23) and the one below,
Cosmically Mediated Influence, notice that a moment
of creating steps off from a creation of a cosmic
Whole, not just from a previous moment of one’s
own series, nor even from what one has done and
from what others in one’s contiguous world have
done. So every subjective aim, every actual entity’s
feeling of real potentiality, whether of a moment of
God/dess or one in the world, will have a feeling of
potentiality that will include,
(a) all the potentiality presented by the
cosmic unity of being created by the previous
moment of divinity, and
(b) the potentiality presented by other actual
entities that are spatio-temporally prior and
contiguous to it.
Since every satisfied actual entity is contiguous to the next moment of the unsurpassable
series,
((1)) God/dess has a subjective aim
conditioned by all the beings that exist, and
so has the widest possible range of real
possibility, which also means s/he has no
perspective on reality, whereas
((2)) all other actual entities can only be
contiguous to some of the determinations
(beings) just made by previous moments of
the world. Their range of real potentiality is
restricted, which means they must have a
perspective on reality.
(7) Every actual entity must begin with a unique
combination of being. Doing (“redoing”) exactly
what one actuality has done before, or doing exactly
what another is doing, is meaningless.
(8) Every actual entity is influenced by (contains
the results of) others.
(a) Every actual entity in the unsurpassable
series is influenced by the results of,
((1)) all others from the infinite past as
mediated by the most recent divine
accomplishment (all of these now mediated
were at one time directly embraced by
God/dess just as they reached their satisfied
determinations), and by
((2)) all others directly that have just
reached their satisfied determinations that
were contemporaries of the previous divine
moment.
(b) Every actual entity (except those in the
unsurpassable series)
((1)) is influenced by the results of all
others from the infinite past as mediated by the
divine accomplishment (most of these were
never immediately embraced), but only by
((2)) is influenced by the results of some
others directly (without mediation) that have just
reached their satisfied determination, namely,
those spatio-temporally prior and contiguous to
the new moment.
Actual entities in the world must end
with the exact beginning
of some moment or other
of the unsurpassable series.
This proposal, that all actual entities in the world
must begin (whenever they do) with the last accomplishment of the unsurpassable series, and end
exactly in step with the beginning of some moment or
other of the divine series, assures omniscience and no
loss of being.
Diagramming every actual entity as including all of
God/dess, can be very confusing, however. A attempt is
otentiality and Death. A further point,
made below in the diagram, Cosmically Mediated
process, once started,
Influence. Though every actual entity includes all of what
(1) must continue until it reaches a new state of
God/dess has done, only that which is also created by
completion with the creation of a new being, or
contiguous fragmentary moments has much impact on the
(2) die with no accomplishment.
present.
P
35Not a multiplicity of specifics, “eternal objects,” as
Whitehead often seems to say.
183
Chapter 24: Problem
Whitehead seems to deny that death of a process
is possible without the moment creating a new being
once it starts. If he’s right, then the permanent death
of a series would only occur because no new moment
in the series could start, rather than dying because its
last moment was unable to make a result once it had
begun.
Temporary death of a series occurs
(a) when a moment of a creature’s series
fails to begin contiguously with the end of
the previous moment of the series, but
(b) when a moment does eventually occur that inherits the results of previous members of the series. The lapse could be microseconds or years.
The proposal that a whole, a coming-to-be, can
fail to come to be or reach even a minimal satisfaction of the potentiality it began with, may be a
questionable hypothesis. At issue is whether one can
refer to potentiality for a new accomplishment as a
real potential, a real sub jective aim, if it could fail to
accomplish anything. If it must fail, the moment had
no potentiality for fulfillment.
Even if a process can have the possibility of
failure within its range of real potentiality, this could
only be possible with a couple qualifications:
((1)) The Unsurpassable, could not have
the possibility of failure in his/er range: The
unsurpassable series is necessary.
The other qualification is that
((2)) all creatures could not fail to come
to be: Some world or other is necessary.
D
iscussion of the Proposal. Every moment,
including those of the cosmic series, must
begin by including everything the last cosmic
moment just accomplished. Every actual entity must
end in step36 with the cosmic series at some (not
necessarily all) of the series’ subject/superject
36Being “in step” here does not mean the actual entities
have to be occurring at the same rate, only that the
unsurpassable series is occurring at least as fast as any
others, and that all other series be in step either as
subharmonics (beginning with one and ending with some
other moment of the divine series) if the creaturely
moments are temporally contiguous. If moments of a series
in the world are not successively contiguous, (or if a
moment is not a member of series), they still must end as
some cosmic moment begins (regardless of when the
processes begin).
Science News, 2/21/98, Vol. 153, No. 8, contains an
interesting article by Bruce Bower, “All Fired Up:
Perception May Dance to the Beat of Collective Neuronal
Rhythms.” Evidence is accumulating that “widely scattered
neural clusters build a foundation for perceptual binding by
synchronizing their electric discharges....rhythmic electric
output among far-flung neurons lies at the heart of visual
perception and perhaps other aspects of thought...and my
act...as an information gate in the brain....” Such empirical
evidence cannot establish metaphysical truth, but it may be
an interesting illustration of a basic truth: Coordination of a
complex environment requires the elements of the complex
be presented simultaneously. Also see Llinás, 30.
transitions in order to be included without loss in the
cosmic series.
However, every actual entity must also be
grounded differently from every other: Each must
begin with a somewhat unique physical base of
being, which establishes its unique subjective aim, its
feeling of real potentiality. Every aim will be unique
even though every process must include the same
cosmic result.
The uniqueness of the unsurpassable series is not
its ability to experience all the divine past (while
others only experience some). Such a proposal would
ignore two necessities:
(1) Being is a determination which a present
moment creates, but is immediately potency for all
future creatings; and since potentiality is continuous,
any moment that supposedly experiences part of a
being must in reality contain (be influenced by) the
whole being.
(2) The Unsurpassable’s experience of the
infinite history of reality (as contained in the last
moment of his/er series) is not sufficient to be
grounds for a new divine moment: The novelty necessary to establish a new and unique subjective aim
would not exist.
Experiencing again exactly what was previously
experienced is meaningless. To experience what was
done, exactly as it was done, is possible, but only if it
is experienced along with something new so the
whole experience of the actual entity, as it repeats the
past, is unique. As Hartshorne points out, a whole
that combines old and new is new.
The uniqueness of the divine case, has to do with
his/er ability to experience all the contemporaneous
multitude of surpassable creations that have just
come to be rather than merely some which is the lot
of all others.
Though every actual entity must begin by
completely embracing all of the last moment of the
divine series, only one actual entity can extend over
and embrace the complete multiplicity of creations
the world has just brought into being, namely, an
actual entity in the unsurpassable series.
Every other actuality can only include or extend
over some of that multiplicity, namely, those that are
contiguous to it. Those embraced must always be,
(1) fewer than all (to logically distinguish it from
a moment of the unsurpassable series); and
(2) a somewhat different selection from any
other actual entity (to distinguish it from that entity);
however,
(3) it may include many in its selection that others have also included. The possibility of communication and the solidarity of the universe we
experience, result from these intersecting inclusions.
Even though we all must inherit the complete
cosmic creation, each nondivine moment is unique by
having a perspective, a perspective that provides the
variety necessary for cosmic experience. The world’s
novel contribution is necessary, for without the
184
Chapter 24: Problem
world’s new creations, as noted above, there would
be no novelty to initiate the next moment for
God/dess. With only the perfect memory of the previous cosmic Whole’s result, a new coming-to-be
could not begin.
Though everyone in the world must inherit the
same beings of the one and only cosmic series,
God/dess need only inherit some world or other. Any
world, or state of the world will do, so long as all that
has happened is inherited.
Every moment must not only begin by embracing all of the last cosmic creation, it must also
end by contributing all it has done to actual entities
occurring after it. Though some actual entities in the
world can inherit some (perhaps all—see footnote 33,
page 181) of what another has done for some time,
only the unsurpassable is logically able to embrace
all that has been done, and continue to do so forever.
So, every actual entity must end as some moment of
the divine series begins.
All moments that end with the beginning of a
cosmic moment will be taken into the new divine
moment (including the result of the previous cosmic
Whole). This fulfills the requirement of omniscience
and assures that all creations are saved, even when
the world fails to maintain them.
We can only begin to exist by ingesting
all the divine and some neighbors.
–––––––––o–––––––––
What we become can only remain
in existence forever by way of
the divine’s complete ingestion of us.
B
eing’s Availability. What if omniscience
were nonsense, so actual entities need not end
in step with some divine moment?
The many beings created by the welter of processes
in a person’s immediate environment are not likely to
reach their satisfactions at the same instant. So where
could their beings reside before another includes
them?
Some moment or moments in the environment
could retain the beings (or some of them) until
experienced by a moment that overlaps and embraces
that region, so most of the beings of the region would
be available even if the many processes do not end
just as overlapping and superseding moments begin.
This would be possible because the being another has in its process is still available for inclusion
in other processes (even though process itself is not
an object for another to experience). Just because an
actual entity, m, includes the results of others, that is,
their beings, does not preclude those beings from
being accessible as another actual occasion, n, begins
contiguous to beings contained in m at any stage in
the process of m.
However, if a being is not carried forward, either
(1) because no process begins that includes the
being, or
(2) because a process eliminates what it inherited
as it proceeds, or
(3) because the process including the being dies
before carrying it forward long enough for it to be
inherited by another, there would be a major problem
with the metaphysical system, since once a being
exists, it, or any part of it, cannot become nonbeing.
Having some processes in the world inheriting
some others’ results and only for awhile, does not
satisfy the necessary requirement that being remain
forever just as it is. The nonsense of “being becoming
nonbeing” is avoided if an all-inclusive experiencer
makes sense.
Even though each moment of the cosmic series
must begin immediately upon the satisfaction of its
predecessor, there is no logical necessity for actual
entities in the world to be so tightly related.
Actual entities in the world can begin at any
point, since all of what has been done is retained by
each all-inclusive process of the Unsurpassable, so all
beings are constantly available for other actual
entities to inherit since they all are in the last creation
of the unsurpassable series.
And even though each moment of the divine
series must begin immediately upon the completion
of the previous one, a surpassable series may have
gaps, since the beings (that are eventually inherited
by the next moment of a creature’s series) have at
least been retained by God/dess making them
available for others.
Chapter 24: Problem
Synchronization
All’s Well That Ends Well
Temporary death of a surpassable series is
logically possible. A body is one’s immediate
environment. It supports the possibility of the series
by retaining an order sufficient for another moment
of the series to occur. Lapses between moments of a
creature’s series may be common, but each moment
of the unsurpassable series must be contiguous to the
next.
Logically, there is no necessity for a process to
begin at any set instant relative to the divine rhythm,
nor must it begin exactly at the instant other
processes in the world end. The logical requirements
for a theistic process metaphysic are satisfied so long
as the end of every process, worldly and divine, is instantaneously inherited by the next moment of the
unsurpassable series: Every satisfaction of every
subject must always be a “superject” (in Whitehead’s
vocabulary) in God/dess.
An actual entity (other than one of God/dess) can
begin at any point (by extending over and inheriting
the beings contiguous to it, always including the last
unsurpassed creation) because,
(1) it is not possible for a surpassable
process to inherit all that the beings that were created
contemporaneously with the last divine process, (2)
some of the beings created by others in the world will
be saved by moments in the world, and
(3) what is retained by others is available to be
inherited at any point in their process durations (as is
also the case with the divinely created and retained
being).
Again, the only logical constraint required by
this metaphysic, is that no actual entity can end until
some moment of the Unsurpassable begins, which
assures the moment’s creation is, and will be fully
forever, what it is.
Here is a good example of how philosophical
problems are focused by consideration of the cosmic
or unsurpassable dimension. If the reader has made it
this far, s/he will see that philosophy is not a set of
facts or rules, but is an ongoing process of
clarification of the basic notions to which we appeal
to make sense of our existence.
185
Chapter 24: Problem
Cosmically Mediated Influence
Action at a Distance
186
187
Chapter 24: Problem
M
ultiplicities and Perspective. At each
transition from subjectivity to objectivity,
measured by the rhythm of the cosmic series, a complex multiplicity of beings form the
physical base for all the processes that will come to
be the next moment. At this transition there are three
possible situations (see the diagram above,
Cosmically Mediated Influence):
(1) Subgroups of the multiplicity of beings
(including the last cosmic being) exist too unorganized to allow any process with limited creative ability to use their potentiality to make a new being.
More inclusive and more creative processes may
include these subgroups, and they are always part of
the next all-inclusive process of the unsurpassable
series.
(2) Another all-inclusive process of the unsurpassable series prehends all the beings of the
multiplicity without loss. It contains no “negative
prehensions,” in Whitehead’s language. It is
contiguous to (extends over) all that has come to be.
(3) Each less-than-all-inclusive process takes a
unique perspective on the universe by embracing
subgroups that must include,
(a) all of the cosmic unification of the
previous multiplicity, but only
(b) some of the results just created by the
world, that is, those contiguous to it.
Every actual entity is affected by all the be ing
included in the cosmic creation. All of the cosmic
creation is part of the actual world initiating every
process since the cosmic result is a Whole, indivisible
and unavoidable by its omnipresence.
Every actual entity (other than one in the unsurpassable series) is completely u naffected b y
creations that are contained for the first time in the
present cosmically inclusive process (since they have
not yet been given back to the world as parts of a
cosmically created satisfaction/being for all to feel),
unless they are directly embraced. But an actual
entity can only be directly affected by some of the
world’s beings, namely, those in the environment
contiguous to it, which sets up its “perspective.”
Perspective is a function of,
(1) which beings are contiguous to a new
moment, that is, those directly embraced, and
(2) which part of the cosmic potentiality is
enhanced as most relevant at each moment for each
actual occasion’s subjective aim, that is, which aspects of the whole volume of potentiality are “real”
for that moment.
Embracing only some of the beings others have
created (except for the Unsurpassable) enhances
some aspects of the total realm of potentiality and
changes potentiality-in-general into the real and
unique potentiality found in each subjective aim.
Perspective may be further enhanced by the
moment’s own creative process, by the simplification
of Transmutation, for example.
For processes that are not all-inclusive, and in
light of the proposal that such processes may fail to
come to a satisfaction:
(1) Some actual entities may have a range of
possible outcomes which will include the possibility
of failing to make anything new. They may bite off
more than they can chew, as the saying goes.
(2) Some (including, especially, every moment
of God/dess) will have a range of possible outcomes
which excludes the possibility of failing to make
anything new, though some of these will be less
enriched than possible,
(a) because of unfortunate circumstances
(which God/dess also must always inherit and
suffer) or
(b) because of deliberate misuse of freedom
(possible only for creatures).
P
hysics and Metaphysics. Relativity physics
claims
(1) there is no privileged standpoint in the
universe ordering temporal succession, and
(2) there is no such thing as action at a distance,
that is, effects from one place to another faster than
physical transmissions in the world occur, which is
likely the speed of electromagnetic transmissions in
space.
But, the cosmically inclusive God/dess does not
have a standpoint in the universe. All other actual entities do have such a standpoint in the universe and
must, therefore, have objects transmitted to them.
Different transmission times require each moment to
see causally independent events temporally ordered
in different ways, as pointed out above in Chapter 24.
All actual entities that are in process are contemporaries and causally independent of each other
and of the Unsurpassable. They exist neither in the
past nor future of each other.
The results of an actual entity, say m, in an Mseries that is contemporary to another, say n, cannot
be transmitted instantaneously to another process in,
say, series N which is spatially distant from it, that is,
not contiguous to it. However, m-satisfied is
contiguous with the next moment of the all-inclusive
series, and so is instantaneously (immediately) in that
process as it begins its process.
Only after that contiguous moment of God /dess
has reached a satisfaction and is available as a
superject for inclusion in all new actual entities, can
the result of m be causally effective in some member
of the N-series. This does violate the usual
interpretation of relativity physics (by saying the
effect of m in the N-series is nearly instantaneous 37),
37Griffin (see Bibliographical entry), if I read him right,
says, incorrectly, that there is instantaneous transmission
from one creature to another. I think he is right, however, to
say there is a cosmic, nonperspectival experience of all that
exists that sets up a cosmic past and future not incompatible
with the observations of physics; it is only incompatible
with a physical theory inappropriately pushed to
metaphysical generality.
188
Chapter 24: Problem
but as long as the effect of m in the N-series is slight,
physics has no way of ruling it out.
As a matter of fact, there are physical experiments that seem to indicate action at a distance
quicker than electromagnetic actual occasions in the
world can transmit them. One known as Bell’s
Theorem is especially intriguing. Twin, “entwined”
particles, emitted from an atom must maintain
opposite spins or polarizations. One seems to react to
the other’s spin determination faster than electromagnetic transmission can occur.
An apparatus can trap one of the particles by
forcing which spin it will exhibit, and the other will
then have the opposite spin, even though the
detectors are separated far enough that
electromagnetic transmissions from the first detector
cannot reach the second detector before the second
particle’s spin is determined.
What happens in the brain/mind of a human
experience is another example of a whole that is
simultaneously influenced by it parts, and then
influences its parts, simultaneously, the next moment.
One part of the brain stimulates an actual entity of the
inclusive personal series which at the next moment is
a simultaneous cause in each subordinate member of
the collective brain.
Though I remain rather skeptical of those
claiming remote viewing and other reported psychic
communications, nothing obvious in this metaphysic
can rule it out so long as detailed experience of the
future (future to God /dess’ present) or new
communications from the dead are not claimed to be
possible.
Another dogma of physical science that can’t be
a metaphysical truth is the absoluteness of the
conservation laws. Even though in the world of
experimental physics, the rise of new events seems to
require the destruction of the old, metaphysical necessity requires the old still be in existence––some in
our memory for a while, and all of it in the divine
series of experiences forever. Perhaps the
conservation laws express the total amount of
creative energy available at each moment. When a
actual entity reaches a satisfaction, its process of
creating ceases. Perhaps its satisfaction requires
another to begin.
Entropy, the theory that the universe is running
down to a state of equilibrium, can’t be a final truth
either. It ignores the constant creative building and
storing of the past, a constant increase of order and
determination out of the generic indeterminacy of potentiality.
I hope this technical discussion of some aspects
of the process metaphysic will alert the reader to
some unfinished avenues of thought waiting to be explored by those who have been captivated by the
Adventure of Ideas.
Chapter Summary
The end of each moment of the Unsurpassable is immediately the beginning of another. All of the
cosmically inclusive satisfaction (created Whole) of a moment of the divine series is part of the beginning
of all others that begin to exist after that creation. The endings or satisfactions of some perspectival
processes or other are at the beginning of some new processes in the world. All processes end at the
beginning of some cosmic moment or other.
All processes must end with some moment or other of the unsurpassable series because (1) only God/dess
can clearly and fully retain all the being created at that moment, and (2) only s/he can retain it forever.
All processes must begin with some cosmic creation since the determination of the Unsurpassable’s
creation is everywhere. It provides the total realm of potentiality, since potentiality is continuous. Some of
this total realm is enhanced for a moment of process by the efforts of others prior and contiguous to it. This
enhancement becomes the real range, its subjective aim, of possible outcomes for that moment.
Suggested Reading: Voskuil, “Hartshorne, God and Metaphysics,” and “Discussion.”
**************************************************************************************
189
Chapter 24: Problem
Ankh
Key of Life
Egyptian word for:
= Life
From Rossini, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, No. 109.
The Ankh’s Derivation
The t j e t , a sacred, red
Egyptian amulet representing the vulva of Isis, the
blood of life:
or from a Libyan and
Phoenician symbol for the
Goddess:
flow
The symbol has also been modified:
This symbol, still used for
Venus and female gender,
is derived from the ankh:
The Labarum, a modified
ankh, was a favorite symbol
for Mithraism (see Chapter
16):
Though Rossini gives the origin of the phonetic ankh hieroglyphic as a sandal strap, Walker’s sources (WDSSO)
suggest other origins: The ankh was also called the Key of the Nile, standing for the union of Isis and Osiris that initiated the annual Nile flood. It symbolized the key to knowledge about the afterlife, and was the original key “held”
(or spoken) by the gatekeepers of the celestial mansions, or of the underworld held by Persephone. The lower part,
like a tau cross, was associated with male gender and the upper oval with female.
190
PART VII
Epilogue:
Beyond Philosophy
Ritual: Where Thought Meets Action
–––––
Now What?
191
Chapter 25
Ritual
Where Thought Meets Action
“A ritual is a patterned, repetitive, and symbolic enactment of a cultural belief or value; its primary
purpose is transformation....Ritual is a powerful didactic and socializing tool....Ritual works by sending
messages to those who perform and those who receive or observe it.” Robbie Davis-Floyd, Birth as an
American Rite of Passage. 8-9.
******************************************************************************
Focus >>•
–Issues–
Relationship of what one thinks to how one acts.
–Approaches–
(1) Habits and feelings will dictate actions whenever deliberate determination is weak or missing.
(2) The most powerful rituals are often unconscious, and are, therefore, the most difficult to change.
–Evaluation–
Pro:
Ritual behavior is conservative and can mitigate behavior misguided by irrational theory and false
information.
Con:
Ritual behavior is conservative and will perpetuate negative behavior despite attempts to change it
guided by rational theory and accurate information.
******************************************************************************
F
inding those aspects of reality common to all
actual and possible situations, gives one the
most general outline for rational thought and
action, but such universally general characteristics of
reality do not in themselves provide the details for
daily activity. Between the general patterns, (which
all activity must follow) and the moment to moment
creations (which are always partially unique) lie the
recurring patterns of life. These patterns are often so
ingrained and habitual they seem to be metaphysical.
Sometimes they are consciously followed, if not
devised.
Not surprisingly, when assumptions about the
structure and meaning of life are examined and new
information is discovered, there is often a need to
rethink one’s ritual behavior. Rituals emotionally
reinforce behavior patterns that exist before
intellectualizing begins, and emotionally reinforce
intellectual beliefs we already have. Since life is the
flow of feeling, if there is a change in the conditions
that generate or reinforce feelings, one feels
differently.
But we also have feelings about the thoughts we
have. These feelings may be out of step with the
feelings generated by the rituals one participates in.
One may learn that eating differently from the way
one does would be healthier, and change the ritual of
one’s eating habits. Or one may learn the ritual of
hanging stockings by the fireplace for Santa to fill is
out of step with the way gifts are really dispensed.
Both cases require giving up an old, comfortable
pattern. A feeling of loss is inevitable.
Either
(1) new patterns must be found to compensate
for the loss, or
(2) the old patterns will be maintained despite the
new evidence, since giving up rituals altogether isn’t
possible.
The pain of the loss and the failure to find new
patterns often makes holding on to inadequate rituals
the easiest path to take. Yet, this approach can extol a
heavy price. My first philosophy teacher was known
for saying: “The first generation Christians felt saved
by their religion. The second generation Christians
(and those since) worked hard at saving their
religion.” Consider one of the Christian Church
father’s, Tertullian’s, desperate apologetic for
Christianity: “It is believable, because it is absurd; it
is certain, because it is impossible” (ca. 200 CE ).
192
Chapter 25: Ritual
However, old ritual patterns are never
completely inadequate, so it’s easy to ignore or miss
where they may be wrong or inappropriate. And no
ritual can exhaust the many equally appropriate ways
to express metaphysical truth, even though there
certainly are many ways, also, that are inappropriate.
There are two dimensions to differences:
(1) those that are found along the good-bad
dimension, and
(2) those that lie on the same level of value.
Relativism and tolerance are appropriate for differences on the same level. And since we are all
fallible, we must be very careful about intolerance
even of those whose differences that seem to be
negative.
Two Kinds of Differences
Differences
Differences
Good
Bad
The ritual of formal education often provides for
two semesters of instruction which end close to
Christmas and Easter, two rituals of importance for
many people in our culture. Though a particular
religion may interpret the importance of these and
other times of year in different ways, one can see a
basic theme upon which they are built.
Whatever else the Christmas season means to
people of the northern latitudes, they cannot escape
the loss of light and increase of cold as winter sets in.
The winter solstice marks the time when the loss of
light is reversed and a new year is born. With it
comes renewed hope that “dead” plants and missing
animals will return. Without the renewal of warmth
and light, we would all die.
Rituals emphasizing that hope are nearly
universal. Candles, songs, greenery and meals
abound; and sexual symbols celebrating the source of
life are found everywhere––in red berries, harking to
the life-blood of the female, to white berries
reminding us of the male seed that grows into new
life when sown.
In spring, when the day’s length has once again
caught up with the night’s, time comes for the hope
of life’s rebirth to be actualized. 38 The profusion of
life-forms, and especially those very prolific forms,
like rabbits, are celebrated as symbols of abundant
life. Eggs, an ancient symbol of the universe and
source of life, fill our baskets of plenty.
The ancient belief that renewal of life only will
come if we pay a price, lies at the basis for offerings
and sacrifices. Some may even give their life,
willingly or not, to assure the continued abundance.
Patriarchy seems to look for a hero whose quest
makes sure the world stays on track so we will be
secure.
Our whole life is filled with ritual: Life is a
ritual. What is often missing is the sense of the sacred
in the rituals. Our society has split the sacred from
the secular, and for practical political purposes this
compromise may be the best possible for us now.
But when the feeling of holiness, wholeness, is
missing from our daily activities, we have lost the
sense of the sacred that gives us the emotional basis
for acting in good ways. We also lose the sense of
our fragmentariness: our being part of a larger whole.
We then fail to know or feel the truth that we do
ingest the divine, and that divinity, the fullness of
reality, also ingests us, taking in all we do and think.
I grew up in a family where daily prayers and
scripture readings were rituals seldom missed. But
the rituals I feel more deeply yet today are those I
never considered to be anything special: Picking
endless quarts of strawberries with Mom and making
shortcake for dessert for weeks; walking through a
large field of peas, eating some, pulling some thistles
and perhaps discussing with Dad what he liked and
regretted about his life; or smelling the freshly turned
soil as I sat on our little Ferguson tractor surrounded
by a small patch of light in the middle of a large field
late at night; or looking at the moon on a sweltering
summer’s night or a crisp winter’s night and sensing,
vaguely that it tied me into the larger scheme of
things.
One can feel the passage of time in falling
leaves, an empty sea shell or a wrinkled face. And
one can feel the renewal of life in the first plants to
push the ground away in spring, the first geese
hooking northward or the baby a mother pushes from
her womb.
These are sacred feelings. Without them we are
not tied into the Whole; we live with out purpose and
insight, without worship: the conscious feeling of our
fragmentariness.
These feelings are not just superficial sentiments,
but are as soundly and logically based as any can be.
Logic is but the bones of life, yet without it,
misplaced sentiments and rituals can turn into tragic
or evil results.
38The date for Easter brings together both male and female
traditions by being celebrated on the first Sun-day after the
first full-moonday after the solar equinox.
193
Chapter 25: Ritual
A Flow-er
A small, crystalline, three-dimensional Omega with
red flowings from its opening, hung as a symbol on
the ever-green (undying) tree during the season when
the sun’s power is at its weakest and when the Mother
of God is remembered for giving birth to her (God’s)
son. Also hung are globes and lights symbolic of the
hope for the renewed power of the sun (son) to
overtake the darkness at Easter (equinox) bringing a
rebirth of life from death.
Chapter Summary
Changing ideas is not enough. We must find patterns of behavior that reinforce and exhibit our beliefs.
Changing our rituals, which work on our feelings in unconscious ways, is much harder than changing our
ideas. Rituals define who we are, what small and large social groups we grew up in or adopted. Rituals can
further enrichment, but, likewise, they can hinder it.
Suggested Reading: Walker, WEMS; Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddess. Ferguson, Signs and
Symbols in Christian Art.
**************************************************************************
194
Chapter 26
Now What?
The awesome indistinctness of lines not yet lived
Nor drawn before they breathe
Drowns the day’s shallow roots
And withers the entwined lines of hollow vines.
Duane Voskuil, 1969.
“Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.”
Ophelia, Hamlet, Act IV.
E
ver since First Woman was brought face to
face with dangers of her cyclical bleeding by
Creator Coyote (one of her predators), blood
and gender have been basic themes in human
worldviews. Ever since Coyote was persuaded by
his brother to create different languages so peoples
would go to war so men could gain the glories and
spoils of war, blood-letting has escalated, from the
thousands of Maya and Aztec human sacrifices to
the genocidal sacrifices of millions on all
continents in the name of purity and truth.
God/desses demand sacrifice. The predator gods
and goddesses that devoured the life-giving blood
and flesh of those very women who gave us life,
were envisioned as both creators and destroyers.
Destruction was believed necessary as a prelude to
new life. The old and the new were not compatible.
The new destroyed the old. Each animal of the
Zodiac must die for the next age to occur. The son
must kill his father who is reborn to be sacrificed
by his son.
But the metaphysical truth is not that simple. If
truth does not lie with Parmenides’ wish to stop the
cycling (so the reality of the “past” is not lost
because change is not real), it also does not lie with
those who claim beings can alter their internal state
or external relationships, since this too fails to
makes sense of the past. The present cannot change
nor alter anything of the past. Reality, from the
grand view, is, necessarily, creative addition.
Cycles that bring nothing new each time around are
meaningless, just as a linear “concept” of change is
meaningless that would leave behind, and not
recycle, the past into the present forever.
Understanding how we have come to interpret
the world as we have and finding more rational
ways of doing it, is not an idle past-time. We live
in a very dangerous world. Many are taking their
lives as they kill others to further what they believe
is God's will: beliefs based on frightful
metaphysics. We still love the excitement and
glory and spoils of war. We still draw blood from
millions of helpless male and female children’s
reproductive organs in the name of purity and
order. We race away from our past behavior, but it still
looms ominous in the clouds polluting our brains and
the life-fluids dripping from our wounded bodies.
Reality is necessarily creative addition.
We need a rational view: We must love and
embrace the past and the world we live in and helped
create. The cosmic womb we live in will not expel us
with its rebirth contractions into another kingdom.
Never-never land is never. Life is not meaningless, but
life cannot be rationally lived trying to fulfill goals that
are irrational without neurotic pain and denial.
Philosophy can be the most dangerous and painful
adventure one sets out on. Yet, it offers a hope the pain
can be endured while enjoying the anticipation of a
better understanding of Reality.
Perhaps Brother Coyote was wrong. Perhaps
differences bring exciting variety to feel, not
justification for insensitivity. But only a view of cosmic
sensitivity and all-inclusiveness will empower us all to
risk the adventure beyond our cocoon and make a lie of
Robert Frost’s observation that “good fences make
good neighbors.”
This book has put a high value on logic, especially
metaphysical logic or propositions that have no
meaningful denial. Students are often upset with logic.
Some women claim it is male logic. Others just claim
reality (God/dess) is beyond logic. Of course, full reality is always “beyond” logic. Reality is always more
than the logic it exhibits since logic can only describe
what reality is like in general ways, and metaphysical
logic can only describe what reality is like in its most
general or universal and, therefore, unavoidable
aspects.
In my more poetic moods when the con creteness of
reality sweeps over me, I too express the paleness of
logic’s ability to capture the feelings that compose the
fullness of actuality (see Haiku Two, Chapter 25, p.
197).
Finally, let me end on a hopeful note. The world
seems less willing to tolerate repressive political and
social orders than it has for several thousand years. The
195
Chapter 26: Now What?
philosophical underpinnings of dominating
hierarchies and all its forms of inequality like
sexism, racism , nationalism, that is, the elect or
chosen of whatever type, though still strong, are
weakening, requiring those who hold such beliefs
to become more defensive and desperate.
People cannot change, or they change slowly,
without having an awareness of possible ways to
change. Philosophy tries to find the broadest
dimensions of all changes. It also has the responsibility
to make clear the logical consequences of choices
made. It must encourage novel proposals, but it must
not allow poetic license to speak for the rigorous test of
intrinsic rationality.
Chapter (Book) Summary
Now is the time to start reading philosophy:
The only way to read philosophy is to reread it.
*********************************************************************************
Alpha and Omega
Photo by author.
Altar Ark from which, some believe, comes the body of the soter, savior/sower, which when eaten puts
one in communion with the divine. Note the alpha and omega symbols and a form of the labarum
(Christ-monogram), once a symbol of Bacchus and Mithras derived from the Egyptian ankh, that is, a
male cross with a female oval above the crossbar representing (everlasting) life coming from the union
of the sexes (see Walker WEMS, 522). “Eucharist,” meaning “communion,” comes from Charis, a
goddess of sexual love whose lunar blood was ritually drunk and bathed in.
196
PART VIII
Supplemental
Material
Appendix 1: Guide
to Some Classical Problems
–––––
Appendix 2: Historical Guide
to Some Positions of the Patriarchal Period
–––––
Appendix 3: Whitehead's Categorical Scheme:
The Metaphysical Logic of change
–––––
Glossary
–––––
Selected Bibliography
–––––
Index
197
Chapter 26: Now What?
Appendix 1
Guide to Some Classical Problems
1. Problem of Self-Definition , or Relation of a Definition of Philosophy to the Philosophy Offering the
Definition. (Can one define what philosophy is?)
2. Problem of the Solidarity of the Universe, or Relation of the One and the Many, or Relation of
Whole and Parts. (In what sense, if any, is the world a one of many? The metaphysical issue. How can the
many in an experience be one experience? An epistemological issue. How and why is the Whole, if it is,
more than the sum of its parts? The value issue.)
3. Problem of Change, or Relation of Being and Becoming and Perishing. (How can something change
and still be that which changed? Which is more real, being or becoming? What is the past? Memory? How
does time differ from duration?)
Problem of Metaphysical Dipolarity, or Relation of Subject-Object to Appearance-Reality, or
4.
Relation of Mind and Matter. (What is a subject? Object? Appearance? Reality? Is an object always
appearance?)
5. Problem of Knowledge, or Relation of Knower and Known. (How can I know something and leave the
thing known as it is? Problem for classical realism. How is what I know related to what you know? Problem
for solipsistic idealism).
6. Problem of God/dess, or Relation of God/dess and the World. (How is God/dess one with and/or different from the world? Concerns for metaphysics. How can God/dess, if defined as necessary knowledge,
know the contingent world? What can one know about God/dess? Concerns for epistemology. Is God/dess
purely abstract? Purely actual? Immutable? Omniscient? Conceivable at all?)
7. Problem of Value, or Relation of Values to Each Other. (What are ethical values? Aesthetic values?
How are they brought about? Related? Can all values be simultaneously realized? What is tragedy? Evil?
Can survival of a person or species be its own justification? Is that which survives always best? Use of
ritual?)
8.
Problem of Modality, or Relation of Conceptual Opposites to Each Other. (What is the relation of
freedom and determinism, of contingency and necessity? Active-passive, cause-effect, good-evil perfectimperfect, actuality-potentiality, love-hate, finite-infinite versus fragment-whole. Are all concepts
meaningful in the ultimate or supreme degree?)
9. Problem of Relations, or Relation of Relations to Their Terms. (What is a relation? Are all relations
internal or external to their terms? Both? Neither?)
10. Problem of Science and Methodology, or Relation of Science, Logic, and Philosophy. (How are
scientific and philosophic methods similar? Different? What is logic? Permanent objects? Other topics:
particles versus waves, causa tion, probability, quantum, wave, relativity, congruence, straight line, laws, “c,”
contemporaries, energy, flux, change, duration, particles, entanglement.)
11.
Problem of Philosophical Efficacy, or Relation of Philosophy as Theoretical Knowledge to
Practical Affairs. (Can or should philosophy affect the way one worships, votes, raises a family or enjoys
recreation, and so on?)
12. Problem of Problems, or Relation of Problems to Each Other. (How does an answer to one problem
affect the answers to other problems?)
198
Appendix 2
Historical Guide
to Some Positions of the Patriarchal Period
The following historical outline of some noteworthy individuals and schools of Western thought will help
one locate the source of many intellectual assumptions and trace the way they have affected other positions.
Most fundamental issues in Eastern thought have a Western corollary.
I. Pre- and non-Greek. (9000? BCE to 400 BCE). Egyptian and other preGreek influences on the Greek and
Western intellectual history are becoming increasingly evident: soul; immortal personal salvation; sophisticated
mathematics; the changeless as real; dying and rising savior. Ideas are often expressed in myths or linguistic
puns (perhaps deliberately to make them less accessible to the uninitiated). The rise of patriarchal Buddhism,
contemporaneously with the ancient Greeks, developed the idea of personal identity as residing in a series of
moments, rather than a single substance that alters. This influence is just being felt in the West, especially since
Whitehead.
II. Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophy (600 BCE to 350 BCE ). Being versus becoming; thought versus sense
experience; monism versus pluralism; objective versus subjective qualities; mathematical relations versus
classification as key to understanding; eternal versus relative truth in ethics and politics.
Cosmological period: What is the nature of the stuff of reality.
Milesians (600-500 BCE). What is permanent in change? Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes.
Pythagoreans (b. 530 BCE). numerical patterns; numerical atomism; star stuff: reincarnation.
Heraclitus (Flourished ca. 500 BCE ). Process more real than being; inspiration for relativism.
Parmenides (65 years old ca. 450 BCE) and Zeno (b. 489 BCE ). Changelessness is real; the
changing is appearance; how to define “appearance.”
Democritus (b. 486 BCE ) and Anaxagoras (b. ca. 500 BCE): Atomists: Change is rearrangement
of changeless beings.
Ethical Period: What is the purpose and nature of man? Sophists: ethical relativism. Protagoras, Gorgias, Thrasymachus, Callicles, Antiphon.
Socrates (470-399 BCE ). Ethical absolutism.
III. Plato (427-347 BCE ) and Aristotle (348-321 BCE). Cosmological and ethical synthesis.
Plato: Matter/mind dualism; really real is changeless; soul as mediator and answer to
change.
Aristotle: Really real as primary substance, that is, formed matter; or reality is potentiality becoming actual; God is the exception as pure form or pure actuality.
IV. Late Ethical and Religious Greek Philosophy (300 BCE -CE). Salvation as the goal, namely, peace.
security or happiness.
Epicureanism: Epicurus (432-270 BCE) and Lucretius (wrote De Rerum Natura, 54 BCE):
Avoidance of pain. Atomism. Primordial, but limited freedom allowed in the basic units of reality.
Stoicism: Indifference to worldly vicissitudes; major influence on Christianity.
Skepticism: Absolute relativism.
V. Semitic Inheritance
Hebrew: Legalistic morality: priests; individualistic moral concern and dilemma: Job versus prophets.
Jesus and Essenes (200 BCE- 100 CE ). Messianic; interim ethic.
VI. Hellenistic and Roman (200 BCE -400 CE )
Alexandrian and Roman Christian Disputes: (150-250. Jesus becomes the Christ, the mediator
between a transcendent God and insignificant mankind. Gnostic formulations.
Plotinus (204-269). Neo-Platonism, emanationism, ultra-transcendent God, salvation as elimination of
personal identity and mystical union with the One.
Augustine (354-430). Patristic, Manichean and Platonic synthesis; major source of Christian doctrine,
especially Protestantism.
VII. Scholastic Synthesis: Christianized Neo-Platonism and Arabian Aristotelianism.
199
Appendix 2
Anselm (1035-1109). Platonist; formulated the Ontological or Modal Argument, a major clarification of
the nature of philosophy and an adequate definition of “God.”
Aquinas (ca. 1206-1280). Aristotelian; a major influence on present Roman Catholic doctrine.
Late Scholastics: Relation of reason and faith in arriving at truth.
VIII. Descartes (1596-1650). Rebirth of Greek mechanism (though not atomism) and denial of explanation by
genus; extreme dualist (or rather 3 kinds of substance: mind, matter and God); subjectivism as basis for
certainty: cogito ego sum, I think, therefore I am (compare Augustine’s “Even though I doubt that I am, I
am”): major turning point in philosophical analysis. Retention of changing substance as basis of reality.
IGalileo1
X.
5 (6 4 - 1 6 4 2 ) and Newton
(1642-1727).
and time.
Rebirth
of
Democritean
atomism,
space with
X. Continental Rationalism: Some conclusions of Cartesianism.
Spinoza (1632-16770. Numerical monism as logical consequence of Aristotle’s primary substances (as
reformulated by Descartes).
Leibniz (1646-1716). Numerical pluralistic conclusion of substance philosophy, but monism in kind, that
is, all substances are mental; spiritual atomism; transcendent God; no interaction between substances;
relative space (a concept yet to be learned).
XI. British Empiricism: Substance philosophy’s conclusions of Cartesian subjectivisim.
Locke (1632-1704). Dualist; perceptive as well as physical atomism. Subjective emphasis.
Berkeley (1685-1753). Numerical pluralist, though one kind of substance, that is, mental; subjective
idealist.
Hume (1711-1776). Bankrupt Berkeleanism: theoretical skepticism; practical faith as basis of
reconstruction; synthetic a posteriori (factual statements) versus analytic a priori (conditional logical)
statements.
XII. Kant (1724-1804). A rational and empirical synthesis; another tour de force of substance philosophy;
concerned with the synthetic a priori or necessarily true statements about facts. Necessity is exhibited by
nature of substance, that is, mind or that which experiences nature, the ding an sich.
XIII. Post-Kantian or Absolute Idealism: Only one Mind.
Hegel (1770-1831). Dialectical idealism (basis for Marxist inversion)
Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Pessimist; all is Will.
Bradley (1846-1924. Relationships are paradoxical in the world of appearances, but somehow resolved
in the Absolute; compare to Parmenides and many Eastern absolute monisms.
XIV. 20th Century: Reaction to intellectualistic idealism, yet with many carry-overs.
Logical Empiricism or Positivism: No necessary truths: logical truth may be “necessary” but only by
definition which can be changed; and all factual truths are contingent. So-called statements of
necessity are neither true nor false––they are nonsense, thus all talk of “God” as necessary is
meaningless or emotive only.
Existentialism: Irrational or non-rational and positivistic; freedom to create one’s reality is main theme;
Kierkegaard: Either/or emotional reaction Hegel’s both/and systematizing.
Nietzsche: reaction to transcendent God ; slave-master morality.
Sartre: atheistic
Tillich: theistic?
XV. Whitehead (1861-1947) and Hartshorne (1897-2000). Contemporary reconstruction; reality is a plenum
of quantum creators of beings that are used by superseding spatial-temporally finite quanta to create
additional beings; one necessity is that quanta must create; panentheistic; absolute space of Democritus,
Newton and Einstein is meaningless; mind creates matter for other minds; dipolar, but not dualistic.
*****************************************************************************************
absolut
200
Appendix 2
Orpheus
One of the Olympian gods, Orpheus, an ancient combination of a shepherd and pied piper,
could charm all nature’s creatures with his beautiful lyre. Before the cross became an
important Christian symbol, Orpheus calming the animals was used to portray Christ as does
this image from the Christian catacombs. Fix, 227.
201
Appendix 3
Whitehead's Categorical Scheme
The Metaphysical Logic of Change.
(The following is a list of the Categories Whitehead gives in Part II of Process and Reality that purport to be descriptive
of the most general aspects of actual entities, the most fundamental moments of reality.)
A. Category of the Ultimate: The Many Become One and Are Increased by One: Actual Entity as “Primary
Substance.”
B. Categoreal Obligations: Most General Descriptions of All Becomings.
(1) Subjective Unity: The Many (beings) in all incomplete stages of process, though not fully
integrated, are compatible for such determination.
(2) Objective Identity: All things in process or coming-to-be, do one and only one thing in the
outcome. This is one of the unavoidables of all logics, which is required to make rational sense of
experience: x equals x; each thing is just itself.
(3) Objective Diversity: Each thing in process must do its thing: Unity cannot destroy the diversity of
that unified: x does not equal y.
(4) Conceptual Valuation: Each physical feeling (that is, aspect of the given actual world or data or
cause) in an actual entity gives rise to a conceptual (“mental”) feeling that is not neutral: Denial of
mere perception without an evaluation of the “given” for what it means for the moment; good-bad,
beautiful-ugly, and so on, though seldom with any reflectiveness.
5) Conceptual Reversion: Creative process can generate somewhat new feelings; conceptually only.
(6) Transmutation: The Many, when diversified mainly by position but qualitatively similar, can
come to be felt only by their similarities, with their “insignificant” qualitative differences
suppressed or lost. (This Category raises some real problems with Omniscience and probably
should not be of metaphysical generality. See Voskuil, “Whitehead's Metaphysical Aesthetic,”
Chapter VI.) Not understanding this aspect of human experience gives rise to the Fallacy of
Misplaced Concreteness that plagues all theories tied too closely to what is obvious in visual
experience, a type of experience highly abstracted from the nature of the physical causes of the
experience.
(7) Subjective Harmony: Valuations are made in context with all others in the process as parts of one
Subjective Aim: The denial of this gives rise to the Aesthetic Fallacy: What a Part is, is not fully
determined apart from the Whole of which it is a Part.
(8) Subjective Intensity: Final Causation or the Subjective Aim is relevant to the immediate
circumstances (physical feelings) and the relevant future: What one (whether an actual entity or an
individual) can and should come-to-be is relevant to what one is and has been.
(9) Freedom and Determination: Every act (actual entity) is caused to be as it is by its given physical
and conceptual prehensions, but these parts in the experience never exhaust the self-determination
required to bring about the final and settled result. Conceptual feeling (the Subjective Aim),
though given, can be embodied in an indefinite number of ways even though they must all be
relevant to the given circumstances.
C. Categories of Existence: Descriptions of the Kinds of Ultimate Realities.
(1) Actual Entities: Final Realities: Res Verae.
(2) Prehensions: Concrete Facts of Relatedness: Denial of Leibniz' windowless monads.
(3) Nexüs: Public Matters of Fact. Any way Actual Entities are related: next to, or within, each other.
(4) Subjective Forms: Private Matters of Fact. How one feels other realities.
(5) Eternal Objects: Pure Potentials for the Specific Determination of Fact: Forms of Definiteness.
(Hartshorne more accurately says “pure potentiality” has no
definiteness and is meaningless. Metaphysics tries to find those aspects of definiteness that have
always been exemplified by every creator, that is, every actual entity.)
(6) Propositions: Matters of Fact in Potential Determination: Impure Potentials for the Specific
Determination of Matters of Fact: or Theories. Anticipation of a kind of outcome given some
specific initial situation.
(7) Multiplicities: Pure Disjunctions of Diverse Entities. (All multiplicities that are objects that are in
some actual entity or other.)
(8) Contrasts: Modes of Synthesis of Entities in one Prehension.
D. Categories of Explanation: The Most General Vocabulary Descriptive of Reality.
(1) Actual Entities (Actual Occasions).
202
Appendix 3
(2) Actualization of Potentiality: Meaning of Process.
(3) Complex Ways of Being Together Also Come to Be (Nexüs).
(4) Principle of Relativity: Every Being, Created or Eternal, is a Potential for Every Becoming.
(5) The Actual World, the Past or Causes of each moment is irreducibly unique: Each moment is a
once-in-a-universe.
(6) Conditioned or Real Potentiality versus Pure Potentiality: Circumstances bring to each moment the
range of possibility for that moment (or as Whitehead might say: Circumstances bring to each
moment the number of eternal objects relevant to that moment.)
(7) Eternal Objects are describable only in terms of how they are felt by a particular actual entity, that
is, how they Ingress. (Whitehead's most questionable thesis is this Theory of Potentiality as a
multiplicity which has an indefinite (infinite) number of possible ways to be determinative of
actual processes, which yet are only known in each case by the one way they are “substantiated.”
(8) Internal and External explanations of an actual entity: Its Concrescence and its Objectification.
(9) Principle of Process: How an actual entity comes to be, is what it is: The final stage of
Concrescence is two-edged: Satisfaction/Objectification. Denial of any Representational Theory of
Knowledge or Pre-established Harmony.
(10) Analysis of Concrescence into its most concrete aspects discloses its Prehensions. Such analysis is
called Genetic Division.
(11) Three aspects of a Prehension: (a) Subject or prehender, (b) Datum prehended, and (c) Subjective
Form, or how the subject feels the datum. The subject's aim is a complex subjective form of all the
prehensions descriptive of the moment's possible outcomes.
(12) Positive Prehensions are Feelings and Negative Prehensions are lack of feeling due to the
perspective on the given actual world.
(13) Many kinds of Feelings: Emotions, valuations, purposes, adversions, consciousness, etc.
(14) Nexüs: Many objectifications felt by one actual entity. The Many may be contemporaries of each
other, or form a series going back in time, or (and this is nearly always the case) be a mix of both.
(15) A Proposition is the potential for Many to be together in One. The Many is (are) the Subject of the
proposition; the potential Oneness is the predicate of the proposition. Whitehead calls the
predicate a complex eternal object.
(16) Unity is unique and complex: Denial of the Parmenidean type of homogeneous unity and of the
materialistic (atomistic) type of unity that is really a multiplicity since it is capable of dissolution
and recombining with nothing lost nor gained: A Whole is greater than its unique Parts; Parts
must be parts of some Whole or other.
(17) All data have a felt unity: All contrasts are felt differences in the unity of the feeler.
(18) Ontological Principle: or Principle of Efficient and Final Causation: All explanation is found in
the actual world (givens) of an actual entity or in the Subjective Aim (that is, felt goal) of the
actual entity.
(19) Actual entities (units of process) and eternal objects (pure potentiality) are ultimate; all other
realities are derivative. Reality is irreducibly dipolar. [Actual entities include eternal objects and
so are more basic, that is, potentiality is an aspect of actuality. Hartshorne says only the
metaphysical dimensions of potentiality are primordial.]
(20) To Function, or to have Meaning, is to contribute a determination to an actual entity, that is, either
a quality of definiteness or position; one is not found without the other.
(21) Actual process has significance for itself: Each moment feels (is determined by) its givens and its
aim, and yet what it becomes is not exhausted by its efficient and final causes as initially given.
(22) Self-creation or process is the bringing into coherence or integration an initial indetermination;
with the Satisfaction of this Aim, the actual entity as substance ceases and is an attribute or cause
in one or more superseding processes.
(23) Self-functioning is the reality of an actual entity: it is its Immediacy: it is the Subject, and not an
aspect of a subject (that has more than one self-determination or change).
(24) Objectification is the reality of the subject as completed, as a being. It is all there is; and it will be
forever. Being (except for pure potentiality, that is, metaphysical generalities) is not eternal
(primordial), but it is changelessly what it is forever, that is, everlasting once it is.
(25) The Satisfaction is fully determinate relative to, (a) the actual world it began with, (b) its character
for the next moments of creative process, and (c) how much of the total universe it included
positively as feeling or rejected from positive feeling.
(26) Each element in the process has only one (though often complex) function in the final satisfaction.
(27) Process gives rise, between its initiation and satisfaction, to prehensions of more complex
contrasts than it began with which will also contribute to the final determination it becomes.
203
Appendix 3
E. Topics of Emphasis: Actual Entity as Subject and Superject:
(1) Concrescence: Substance as a Creative Spatio-Temporal Quantum: A look from inside.
(a) Proposition Coming-to-Be: Dipolar.
(b) Caused by Past: Necessary Conditions or Causes of the Actual Entity.
(c) Contiguous to Some, and Contemporary with All Other Processes.
(2) Objectification: Being as Potentiality and Necessarily Conditioning Some Processes Forever: A
look from outside.
204
Glossary
Absolute: A reality that supposedly has no relations to anything. Sometimes the term refers to something that
has, but does not require, relationships to anything else. Often, as with Parmenides’ Being, it refers to
the one and only thing that can exist, therefore, relations to others are meaningless since nothing else
can possibly exist to set up a relationship. Anything else that seems to exist, is dismissed as appearance, usually with little attempt to explain how the Absolute gives rise to that which is not really
real, or explain what the relationship is between the real absolute and the not-so-real appearances.
As the modifier, “absolutely,” it can refer to any metaphysical statement. All metaphysical propositions
are related to, or exhibited by, absolutely everything. The Unsurpassable is necessarily (absolutely)
related to all, which is the logical contrary of the first meaning of “absolute,” namely, something
unrelated to all.
Abstract(ion): A characteristic (or part) of a whole, or a common aspect of wholes. Something found in more
than one whole. Parts can be of two types:
(1) parts that at some time in the past were (created by) wholes, and
(2) aspects of all possible wholes that could never have been the result of a whole at any time.
Members of the first type are facts that have become factors in other facts. They are the memories we
carry for a while and the Unsurpassable carries forever. Members of the second type are metaphysical.
They are the common denominators of all possible memories or facts. The principle, “a whole creates
novelty,” is not something that ever was a whole. It partially defines what every “whole” must do. A
metaphysical proposition is not only abstract, it is completely abstract, being exhibited by actual
wholes and would have been exhibited by any other whole that could have become actual, and will be
exhibited by any whole (of the endless possible wholes) that do become actual.
Abstract-Concrete Dilemma: All wholes, as wholes, are contingent. Since nothing is concretely real except
wholes which are contingent, where can the necessities exist, if anywhere? How is a necessary reality
possible if all necessities must exist as aspects of contingent wholes?
Necessities are necessarily abstract. Since a necessity is a common aspect of all possible concretes, a
necessity cannot be identified as one of the concretes. As with all abstractions, necessities mu st be
aspects of wholes. It is possible for wholes (that must be contingent in some ways) to contain
necessities, because necessities are only some of a whole’s characteristics. A whole is contingent if
only one thing in it is contingent. Since one contingent aspect in a whole is sufficient to make a whole
contingent, a whole is not necessarily as it is as a whole because it is exhibits some necessities.
One necessary aspect exhibited by all wholes is the truth that, “All wholes are necessarily contingent in
concrete content.” Necessities can only be necessary if they must be part of some whole or other (not
just might be part of some whole or other), so if no whole had to exist, necessities could not be assured
of having a concrete place to reside. This implies that some whole or other must exist at all times,
even though no whole that does exist has to be just as it is.
Because necessities are common factors of all possible wholes, as long as some contingent whole or
other must occur, the necessities must be exhibited as part of reality. Only if it were conceivable no
whole at all “occur,” would necessities fail to exist. But since “nothingness” is nonsense, some reality
(some concrete whole) or other must occur. It is not contingent that some contingent whole or other
occurs. A contingent creation of some kind at all times is necessary, so necessities will always be
displayed by some contingent whole or other.
Actual Entity: Whitehead’s term for a moment of reality, a coming-to-be, a whole that includes others’ results
(beings) as parts of its makeup, or as conditioning its process.
Actuality, How Something Exists: The fullness of reality. A whole. An act or doing, a moment of creativity.
Whitehead says all acts are temporally finite, perhaps, just fractions of a second for a human person.
No moment of actuality ever changes: It comes to be and is forever what it is.
205
Glossary
In the Ontological Argument, Hartshorne points out that a person’s acts are not logically the same as
the person’s existence. How one exists can vary and the individual will still exist, as long as there is
some how or other. This distinction between a series (of moments) which may or may not be
contingent and each moment of the series which must be contingent, allows the possibility of
discussing the difference between a necessarily existing reality and a contingently existing reality,
while at the same time agreeing with those who correctly insist that all hows, all moments of existence,
could have been different. A necessarily existing reality will be a reality necessarily acting in some
contingent way or other.
Agnosticism: The suspension of judgment as to whether or not God/dess exists. Implicit in this suspension of
judgment is the statement: “I know what ‘God/dess’ means.” This statement, Anselm correctly points
out, cannot be understood and at the same time say God/dess might not ex ist without being a fool,
since “God/dess” means in part “necessarily existing reality.” Only a fool will say “I know what
‘something that must exist’ means, but I do not know whether or not it exists.”
Altruism: Actions done to help others without (expectation of) reward.
Atomism (pluralism): Originally (with reference to Democritus), the theory that reality is composed of many
absolutes, many internally changeless, homogeneous and qualitativeless beings. The only relationships
they supposedly can have are external, namely, to bang into each other and move around in the Void.
The only internal relationships in this attempted metaphysic are the way the atoms are supposedly “in”
the nonbeing called the Void. Yet, in what sense the atoms are in the Void is not clear since the
rearrangement of the atoms do not seem to change the (non)reality they are in. A whole, which must
have parts, cannot still be the same whole when “it” supposedly acquires new parts, loses parts or has
its parts rearranged.
Since a change in an atom’s position is supposedly continuous and forced from without, at no time is
anything in reality able to act with its own power and exhibit self-determination. Freedom is
meaningless, if this theory makes sense. A metaphysic of only external relations can never explain the
asymmetry of sequence (time), nor can it ever explain how it is possible to compare two or more atoms
to establish the meaning of an “arrangement.” If “arrangement” does not make sense, then neither can
“rearrangement.” In addition, Democritus must still explain how movement is possible given Zeno’s
critique of “infinitesimals.” Democritus must also explain what possible meaning “the Void,” or
“nothingness,” can have.
Modern atomism, particleism, is still one of two dominant theories in physical science. The other is the
belief in Energy, or the One stuff of reality that takes on many forms as specific things come to be and
disappear, the modern version of the Milesians’ theories.
Apocalypse: Theories, supposedly revelations, of the nature and purpose of the cosmos. Usually concerned the
nature of life after death, the warring factions of gods and supernatural powers and how people will be
treated by them.
Appearance and Reality: The traditional attempt to put things into two camps, real things (sometimes, the
“really real” things) and apparent things, fails to explain the reality of the appearance. Yet, not
everything is as it seems to be, so philosophy must explain why not. There have been those who try to
explain the relationship by denying one or the other: Either Reality is just what appears, or Reality
can’t be discovered since we can only have appearances. Whitehead says appearance arises in the
experiential mode called Presentational Immediacy. Appearance is a kind of simplification of the more
basic, and error-free (but unconscious) mode of Causal Efficacy, but the simplification is useful
because it brings the possibility of awareness not possible in the causal mode, because that form of
experience makes no conscious comparisons. The simplification is, of course, just what it is, but when
one assumes the complex causal mode is just like the simplified presented mode, one is in error. The
presentation is a symbol that can be true of what it symbolizes, but it is always only true of an aspect of
that symbolized. Abstractions need not be false unless one assumes the abstraction is fully like the
concrete.
Atheism: The belief that God/dess does not exist. Implicit in this denial is the statement: “I know what
‘God/dess’ means.” Anselm correctly points out that one cannot know what God/dess means and deny
206
Glossary
his/er existence without being a fool, since “God/dess” means in part “necessarily existing reality,” and
only a fool will say “There is something that must exist, but it does not exist.”
BCE: Before the Common Era. Replaces “BC” which means, “Before Christ.”
Being: One of the first words philosophers used to characterize anything that existed. A being is something that
is. The assumption this theory makes is that reality means “what is.” Only Heraclitus tried to stop this
assumption in its early phases. Because equating “being” with “reality” cannot explain reality, the
word took on several meanings which still confuse us today, namely:
(1) Something that lasts over time, like a human being or atom (soul or matter), a mistake
according to Whitehead and the Buddhists.
(2) Something that is past, and so is (in being), (though many theorists say the past is gone and
doesn’t exist, so it no longer is).
(3) Something that is abstract like “motherhood.” Since we can talk about and define abstractions,
some philosophers like Plato think they are beings (perhaps the only real beings) that exist
and exist apart from physical things.
(4) Something that has always been what it is, and must remain as it is; the way reality is according to Parmenides.
Perhaps the word should be thrown out. The attempt here is to use it with as much of its Greek root
meanings a possible. A “being” is something that is. Things not yet done, are not yet beings. Since the
past is done, the past is being(s). Also, in agreement with Parmenides, a being is what it is, and will
always be what it is. Beings cannot be what they are and alter. Every being is changeless and not
capable of being destroyed. But contrary to Parmenides, all beings have been created; they have come
to be. The only things that are, always have been and always will be as they are, are metaphysical
abstractions or characteristics of all possible beings, not some stuff. The common denominator of all
possible beings, perhaps should not be called a “being” in order to avoid confusion, since as the term is
used here, every being has been created at some time.
The coming-to-be of being is more fundamental than being. This is the most basic tenant of process
philosophy. Also, contrary to Parmenides, being is felt; it is quality, not just an amount of some neutral
stuff.
Being is usually referred to as one of three concepts: Being, becoming and nonbeing. The history of
philosophy is mostly the ill-fated attempt to explain becoming or change in terms of being, or in terms
of being and nonbeing. To a process philosopher, nonbeing is nonsense, and being is contained in, and
the result of, a coming-to-be, or creativity. More specifically, being results from finite units of comingto-be, rather than the becoming and rebecoming of the same material or mental whole, as many
philosophical positions maintain.
Cause and Effect: A cause can be:
(1) The conditions or environment around which a whole creates a new result: The necessities for
something to be partly as it is. Determinists (ultra-rationalists) believe causes force the
outcome, that is, the effect, to be exactly as it is.
(2) The power of the moment to do (become) one of an indefinite number of possible things within
the range of possibility set by the causes.
A cause in the second sense is an active, partially free, agent. A cause in the first sense is passive, but
the creative agent (in the second sense) must conform to causes in the first sense because they are
there. The moment would not be the moment it is without the causal base from which it arose. Causes
in the first sense condition, but do not do the doing for the moment which creates (causation in the
second sense) the effect for others. Every effect occurs within a range of possibility given by the past
which conditions the self-causation of the present.
Causes have been classified since Aristotle in several ways, including: Efficient Cause, the agent
bringing about the change; Final Cause, the end or reason for the change; Material Cause, the stuff
used in the change; and Formal Cause, the pattern followed in a physical or mental change.
CE: Common Era. Replaces A.D., Anno Domini, “In the year of our Lord.”
207
Glossary
Circumcision: Literally, “to cut around.” The surgical amputation of the male prepuce causing the internal
organ, the glans penis to be permanently exposed, causing desensitization, a sense of exposure and
vulnerability, and many other physical problems including, some authorities estimate, about 200 deaths
a year in the U.S. The mutilation removes about 15 square inches of highly sensitive adult tissue.
Originally a puberty rite (as it still is in some societies), probably as an imitation of female
menstruation, it became an infant rite and a tribal mark for some about 1000 BCE. In the anti-sexual,
anti-pleasure world of Victorian English-speaking countries, circumcision was promoted as a rite of
the medical priesthood mostly carried out in their hospital temples where childbirth had become
commonplace and treated like a physical disease. Given our skeptical attitude towards traditional
mythological explanations, the rite had to be justified on grounds compatible with our secular values,
namely, health. Yet, no medical reason can be given to justify the negative effects of circumcision
despite a century of attempts to do so. The operation is a violation of an individual’s right to determine
for himself whether he wants to live life without a fully intact body.
Female genital mutilations are also common, but probably became so only after the rise of patriarchy
as a means to control women’s sexuality and to help assure they will be virgins at marriage. North
Dakota became the first state to specifically outlaw this practice in 1995 after legislators were
informed, among other things, that a young Dakota girl (now grown) had her clitoris cut out by a local
physician to stop her from masturbating. It didn’t. Federal law to prohibit such female mutilations also
became active in April 1997. These laws are being challenged in federal court on Constitutional
grounds of unequal protection for males.
The relevance of these kinds of physical maimings to philosophy is not always easy for some to see.
Two or three of the chapters of this book and the essay “From Genetic Cosmology to Genital
Cosmetics: Origin Theories of the Righting Rites of Male Circumcision,” (Voskuil, 1994), show how a
female-based cosmology in which a woman’s body fluids, blood and milk, are the stuff of creation and
its continual maintenance, left men out of the philosophical loop, so they tried to become more like
women by causing genital bleeding, or even more so by removing their external genitals altogether. As
patriarchy took over the socio-religious scene, the reason men mutilated themselves and their sons
changed, (1) to a sign of their obedience to, and trust in, the social hierarchy (including God), or (2) to
a way to stop desiring women. The effect these genital blood-lettings have on one’s view of reality has
hardly been studied, but even a quick look at the vocabulary used to describe reality and the words
used in rituals of passage in our society, will reveal a deep debt to blood and genitals. Much can be
learned in studying the relationship between cosmology and cosmetics, between genesis and genitals,
between the kingdom and kin (blood relative), etc.
If one wants to discover the power of ritual to bend and mold intelligent minds, ask professionals in
law, education, welfare, medicine, and so on, why this sexual child abuse is tolerated. Even those who
say it should stop, usually pass the buck, saying it’s someone else’s job to stop it, exhibiting what
might be called the Little Red Hen Syndrome.
Further information can be found online at: http://www.BoysToo.com
Classical Theism: The belief that God is apart from the world he created. God is conscious, all-knowing
(somehow including the details of the future) and changeless, since God is already “perfect,” any
change can only be for the worse. God is often said to be located someplace, namely, in heaven, from
which those who have not obeyed God will be excluded.
Coherence: The interdependence of propositions in a system. The meaning of any proposition at the most basic
level is unclear without the others. If the fundamental propositions do not require each other, and are
arbitrarily put together, the system is incoherent. One example of incoherence is Dualism (see below),
the belief reality is both mind and matter, capable of existence independent of each other.
Concept: An abstraction; a characteristic of some, or of all, actual or possible moments of creation. Usually
used to refer to an abstraction one is conscious of. If the characteristic is exhibited by some things, it is
a contingent concept; if exhibited by all possible things, it is a necessary concept.
Concrete: The opposite of abstract. The fully real, a whole. Every metaphysic makes a claim about this most
fully real. For Democritus it is the atoms; for Berkeley it is mind; for a dualist it is both matter and
mind. Whitehead says the most inclusive reality is not some kind of altering or moving being. He says
208
Glossary
it is process, the creating, the coming-to-be of a being that is fully concrete. He calls this moment of
reality an “actual entity.”
Abstractions are only found as parts (or aspects) of the concrete, not apart from it.
Concrete Universal: Something that is numerically one and is concretely everywhere at all times as a stuff, not
just as an abstract concept or aspect of concrete things. Examples are: Heraclitus’ logos, Democritus’
void, the physicist’s Nineteenth Century aether, contemporary notion of space-time and a pantheistic
God.
Conservation Laws: First formulated by Democritus. The Conservation of Matter meant atoms could not be
created nor destroyed (or even altered). The Conservation of Energy meant the total amount of motion
of atoms is constant. Einstein brought the two together in the famous E = mc2 formula. From the
process philosophy point of view, reality is always increasing in content, though this may not be
empirically verifiable since the final storehouse of all creations is in the cosmic unifications of the
Unsurpassable series.
Contemporaries: Two (or more) events that are causally independent of each other so neither is a condition or
cause of the other. A contemporary can have no knowledge of another, but the created results of two or
more contemporaries can be simultaneously inherited and, thereby, be causes in, and known by, a
present moment that extends over them both. See Relativity.
Contiguous: External to, but right next to, something. In process philosophy, when one process is contiguous to
another successively, the processes as comings-to-be are external to each other. However, the
nonextended boundary (or being) that is between the two is simultaneously the result which the first
moment creates and a datum which the successor inherits. In this way, even though a whole (as
process) is not in other wholes, still all the reality created by a whole is in other wholes, and forever,
since the result of every whole also flows into (conditions) wholes of the divine series which never
ends, never rejects and never forgets anything once it is inherited.
Contingent: Capable of alternatives. If a statement is true, it could have been false, and vise versa. If something
exists, it might not continue to exist. If it doesn’t exist, it is possible that it might have. “Possible” here
does not mean “likely” or “possible given the world as it is.” It is a logical possibility, which means,
the possibility of being otherwise is not logically self-contradictory. The logical opposite
(contradictory) of “contingent” is “noncontingent” which includes both necessity and impossibility
(nonsense).
Contraries versus Contradictories: The “contrary” of All of something is None of it. This is the strongest
quantitative opposition possible. Logicians call the weakest opposition possible to All (or to None) a
“contradictory.” One less than All or one more than None contradicts All or None. “Some” is usually
used to mean “one more than None,” or “one less than All,” but “Some” may also mean “at least one,
possibly All.” See Quantification.
Cosmology: Study of the cosmos, the universe, in its largest dimensions: origin, final end (if any) and the types
of objects developed. Draws on astronomy, physics and most other sciences. Because cosmology
examines the most general characteristics of the universe, it sits on the border between metaphysic and
science, that is, between characteristics exhibited because they are unavoidable and those exhibited in
our cosmic epoch but could be absent in another epoch. Some form of a Theory of General Relativity
and a Theory of Evolution are likely metaphysical.
Crone (Hag): The third stage of a woman’s life, coming after maiden and mother and before her death and
reabsorption into the cosmic tomb/womb. In this menopausal stage the woman was thought to retain
her wise menstrual blood becoming even wiser and more venerable. Grannies (and witches) in our
society are what is left of the crone who was the storehouse of domestic, medical and religious
knowledge and who also kept her eye on things as the judge of social behavior. In patriarchy her eye
becomes “the evil eye.”
Cross, Cauldron: The cross has many origins and many symbolic uses. The walking cross stood for the
cyclical nature of reality. The four directions form a cross. The celestial pole in the Ptolemaic
cosmology is crossed by the celestial equator, and the equator is crossed by the ecliptic. Plato speaks in
the Timaeus of these crosses as laying the foundations of the cosmos. The cross was also a “tree” upon
209
Glossary
which many sacred kings were sacrificed to placate goddesses or be initiated into the mysteries of the
Goddess’ cosmology. The Norse god Odin is such an example, who upon his death hung on the tree for
three times three days, then descended into the underworld to learn women’s secrets of the runes,
which he shared with men when he returned.
The shape of many crosses is also like that of daggers or swords, symbolic of cutting and dividing. For
an example, see the photograph of the sword/cross pulpit relief at the end of Chapter 15, page 104.
This blood-letting tool, symbolic of patriarchal saviors like Christ and Mithras who shed blood
traumatically, stands in contrast to the cauldron, symbolic of the matriarchal goddess-worshipping
cultures. The cauldron is inclusive, it mixes all things together. As a womb symbol, it generates and
gives birth to new life. Even today the cauldron is a common item on lawns and gardens, usually
bursting forth with flowers. A flower is a flow-er, that is, a menstruant, a source of life-blood. Since
men are not natural flow-ers, instruments of pricking and cutting must be used to cause a flow (see
Circumcision).
Death: Once the distinction is made between the life of the moment, a whole, and the life of a se ries of wholes,
two different meanings of “death” can be distinguished:
(1) death of the moment, and
(2) death of a series.
Every moment of life must die. Without death nothing is accomplished, no change has occurred
(despite Heraclitus’ attempt) and no value has been created. Every moment is a moment of life, of
enjoyment of what others have done (that is, of their being or matter) and the anticipation of an
accomplishment to come (that is, the present’s potentiality). But the accomplishment can only occur
with the exhaustion of the life that brought about the result. This death is not a negative thing; it is the
only way reality can fulfill further enrichment.
The death of the moment is enjoyed by superseding lives, that is, those who include the previous
moments of a series. Insofar as there is retention or saving of the past in the present, there is no loss,
and no regret that moments have died. But when memory is faulty or the series (the person) dies, one
wonders where the reality of the experiences of the personal series exist. Death seems to be loss.
Death raises the question of meaning. If death is the end of differences one makes, then death means
one has become meaningless. We spend our life trying to find ways to make lasting differences, that is,
be meaningful. Of special concern is how we can be meaningful after we are dead. We write books,
raise children, make objects, and so on, hoping all these will continue to make differences when we are
gone.
Even though we partly or completely lose our past due to bad memory or death, Hartshorne proposes
our past is not lost because each moment that dies also contributes its novel creation completely to the
cosmic series that has no last moment.
Deduction: The process of making explicit what is logically implied in a statement (a premise) or a group of
statements together. If one can deduce two propositions that are contradictory, the premise(s) are
expressing nothing meaningful. Some logicians like to say contradictory premises allow one to deduce
anything, due to the way the logical operation of “material implication” (a relationship between
propositions in symbolic logic) is defined, but here self-contradictory “statements” are taken to be a
failure to be statements at all. They are sentences without logical content. One should make a list of
such utterances: “Completely different,” “round square,” “greatest conceivable number,” “continuous
motion,” and so on. The positivists would also add all metaphysical propositions to this list, including
all statements about the Unsurpassable.
Deism: A theory about God who is little more than the originator of the world, a world created with a set of
causal laws God made but does not tinker with. The world goes on without divine interaction, so God
is apart from (absent from) the world (unless there is a miraculous intervention).
Determinism A metaphysical position that maintains reality contains no room for freedom, creativity or
spontaneity. Every happening can be fully explained in terms of the circumstances from which it arose.
Causes add up to a sufficient explanation of the effect. Two major forms of determinism are:
(1) materialism (atomism), the basic faith during the rise of modern science, and
210
Glossary
(2) one form of theism, wherein
(a) God does all doings and
(b) God must do the best thing, and
(c) there is only one best thing to do at each moment.
A determinist is an ultra-rationalist, one who believes reality exhibits only necessary relationships, not
just some rational or necessary relationships.
Dipolarity: A theory that each concrete moment has two aspects,
(1) determinations settled by the past (that is, objects in the present subject), and
(2) feeling of possibility to be fulfilled (that is, the processing subject which includes the objects
and the possibilities they provide).
Another way to express this is: Every moment is both subject and object, but the problem of dualism
(see below) is avoided by maintaining that one pole of the dipolarity is inclusive of the other. Subjects
include objects, never vice versa, and neither can exist alone without the other.
Dualism: A metaphysical theory maintaining two fundamentally different kinds of reality exist, usually matter,
and mind. The persistence of this division probably indicates an important truth (see Dipolarity), but
the usual formulations are philosophically dissatisfying since there seems no way to explain one reality
in terms of the other or to explain why there are two realities at all and what their relationship is.
Whitehead’s theory is that each moment, or actual entity, is dipolar, exhibiting physicality and
mentality. The “matter” of the moment is the past that is done and dead but causing the present
moment to be like the past because the present actuality had to include it. The “mind” of the moment is
the feeling of possible ways the moment can achieve a somewhat novel outcome. The mentality, or
creativity of the moment, makes or evolves a result that is passed on to the next moment as new
“matter,” new being.
“Dualism” may also refer to the existence of two divine realities: one all-good, the other all-bad.
“Completely evil” is likely a meaningless expression, since nothing can exist without some positive
value.
Egoism: Belief that the welfare of one’s self is the ultimate justification for judging the rightness of behavior.
Egoism is often disguised as altruism, as for example, when one is urged to be kind to one’s neighbor,
but to do so in order to win rewards now or in some future life.
Empirical: Having to do with experience. Since every experience could have been somewhat different from the
way it is, every experience is, as a whole, a contingent fact. But not everything about a fact is
contingent. To be “empirical” means “capable of being experienced.”
The positivist will say all aspects of experience are capable of being absent in some particular case.
However, the metaphysician claims some (not all, unless determinism makes sense) aspects of all
experiences are unavoidable and occur as characteristics of any possible experience. These are
empirical aspects, but not factual aspects, since “factual” means occurring as it does, yet possible it
could have occurred another way.
Empiricism: The belief that experience, not reasoning, is the way to achieve truth. Truth about factual matters
can only be determined by experience, but there are many truths about reality that cannot be arrived at
by sense experience. These are truths about the meaning of “fact,” the meaning of “meaning,” the
meaning of “truth,” and so on. Only reasoning can determine what these truths are, which is what
Rationalism is about. But a rationalist who thinks all truth is rational, denies the contingent character of
facts. Such a rationalist is an ultra-rationalist, a determinist.
Environmentalism: Belief that the welfare of the environment should guide one’s behavior. Like altruism,
concern for the environment raises logical issues, like deciding what part of the environment one
should be concerned with. Can one act for a group? Or is the environment not a group, but a whole?
Whitehead points out that morality of outlook is tied to generality of outlook. Hartshorne makes the
point that the environment at each moment is in itself a collection, and that the collector of the
collection, the whole of which the group is a part, is the present moment of the Unsurpassable.
211
Glossary
Epistemology: The study of how we come to know anything. The examination of the basis for the possibility of
knowledge (see Chapter 12).
Eschatology: Theories of the final days. Based on the belief the world will come to an end. Usually combined
with theories of how we will be rewarded or punished in a supernatural existence.
Essence, What Something Means: The definition of something. What something must be like to be that kind
of thing. In the Ontological Argument, essence refers to the definition of the Unsurpassable,
minimally, that the Unsurpassable is a necessarily existing reality (if meaningful). Anselm points out
that in the unique case of the Unsurpassable, part of the definition or essence of what we are referring
to, is identical to his/er existence, so if we know what we are talking about (essence) we know that
s/he must exist.
The history of philosophy is full of those mistaken, like Plato, who think the essence of something is its
full or concrete reality rather than abstract characteristics of concrete wholeness.
Essenes One of several Jewish sects during the Second Century BCE through First Century BCE . They
considered themselves to be the true heirs of the Zadokite priestly tradition and the only remnant of the
true religion. They probably established the site at Qumran and were involved in writing and/or storing
the documents known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many of their beliefs and organizational structures were
similar to those of another group that arose in the First Century that eventually were called
“Christians.” So similar are they that an argument can be made that those of the Way were first
Essenes, though the first Christians were Jews, likely Essenic Jews, who accepted Paul’s interpretation
of the Messiah that eventually set brother against brother.
Eternal: Having no beginning nor end: both primordial and everlasting. Never-changing, that is, necessary.
Some try to say “eternal” means “being out of, or unrelated to, anything temporal or changing “(see
Absolute), but nothing exists apart from process.
Everlasting: The ability of something to remain in existence once begun. Different from “eternal” which means
“never beginning, nor ending.”
Evolution, Theory of: Another way to talk about change, originally biological change. A philosophically
general form of the theory says everything comes from something else (in part). All changes contain
something of the past, but also, necessarily, something new; without novelty no change has occurred.
Often the Theory of Evolution is used to deny creativity, especially of a divine sort, but every change
requires creative addition and every creating is influenced by divinity.
Existence, That An Essence Has A How: To exist is to do something, to act or be actual in some way or other.
Existence is an abstraction from acts, something Hartshorne finally made clear. One can exist given
many different kinds of acts, so one’s existence is exhibited by one’s acts; it is not identical to them. In
order to exist necessarily, it is necessary that a person act in some way, but it is not necessary just how
one acts (contingently).
Even though all acts are necessarily contingent in the way they occur (since each is a creative process),
it still does not follow that all existences are contingent. If there is a concept of a reality that is acting
(in contingent ways), but must act in some way or other, then, part of what this reality is, namely, its
essence, is that it must act, and anyone who must act, must exist.
Knowing that Unsurpassability must exist, is not the same as having knowledge of how this reality
acts. Logically, one cannot move from a general statement to knowledge of a specific case without
committing the Fallacy of Existential Import. Knowing that such a reality must exist is only to know
that this reality must act in some way or other at all times, that is, to exist necessarily. We, however,
exist contingently, as everything else does, not because we do contingent things, but because it’s
contingent (not necessary) that we do any contingent things at all. We can fail to do anything: We die,
and we could have failed to be born.
Existentialism: Philosophical position, or attitude, asserting existence precedes essence: What we are is not
predesigned nor predefined. We are free to create what we become as we live.
212
Glossary
Fact: An actual occurrence, a creating whole and its result. Often used to refer to a group of wholes or related
facts, that is, an event. Every fact is as it is, but could have logically been different since its occurrence
is contingent on circumstances and decisions.
Factual (Empirical) Theism: The belief that God must exist because of the particular way the world exists,
that is, facts supposedly prove God’s existence. Implicit in this position is the statement: “I can know
what ‘God’ means without knowing whether or not God exists (until the facts prove it).” This position,
like atheism and agnosticism, defines “God” as a “contingently existing reality,” and then tries to
prove God necessarily exists. This can’t be done.
Fallacy: An invalid argument. Failure to make sure the chain of reasoning from assumptions to conclusion is
faultless. In a valid argument the conclusion is unavoidable given the premises. The conclusion can be
wrong, even in a valid argument, but only if something is wrong with the premises. The conclusion
follows necessarily from the premises in a valid argument. A fallacious argument fails to demonstrate
this necessity.
Fallacy of Existential Import: Assuming a class is not empty without a definite assertion that the class does
have at least one member. In traditional (Aristotelian) logic the following argument is valid because
every class was assumed to have members, but in modern logic all universal classes are assumed to be
empty unless another proposition asserts it has at least one member.
(1) All mermaids have tails.
(2) All creatures with tails run.
(3) Therefore, some mermaids run.
Those with Tails
Mermaids
Runners
The conclusion assumes there must be at least one mermaid, one creature with a tail and one runner.
However, the diagram only tells one what does not exist, or what something would be like if it were to
exist; it says nothing about what does exist. The areas that are not crossed out may also be empty.
The Ontological Argument is often accused of committing this fallacy because it argues from the
definition of “The Unsurpassable” as a reality that belongs to the class of realities that must exist, to
God/dess’ actual existence. However, “existence” in this case is just as abstract as the definition of
what “The Unsurpassable” means. Part of the definition of “The Unsurpassable” is a reality that must
exist; not in this or that way, but in any way whatsoever. No particular form of existence is asserted by
the argument, only that there must be some particular form (actualization) or other. Since “some or
other” is a universal proposition, no fallacy of asserting a specific particular is committed.
Only someone who can establish it makes sense to say “nothing at all could exist,” can say Hartshorne
commits this fallacy in the following argument.
(1) The Unsurpassable is a reality that must exist (or s/he would be surpassable).
(2) To exist is to be actual (to act) in some way or other.
(3) Therefore, the Unsurpassable is a reality that must be actual (in some way or other).
213
Glossary
Admittedly, the definition of the “Unsurpassable” is a unique case (referring to a class with one
member), since all other definitions are of realities that may or may not exist. In these contingent cases
knowing what something is, cannot establish that anything actually exists that fits the definition.
Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: The false assumption either:
(1) that a spatial region like a book is a single whole rather than a group of wholes, or
(2) that something that lasts over time, like a person or a physical particle, is one whole rather than
a series of wholes (or many series of wholes, like a book or one’s brain).
Forms: See Idea.
Gnosticism: Knowledge. Compare “agnosticism,” not having knowledge. A term referring to religious groups
during ancient Greek and Roman times who claimed to have secret knowledge of the nature of the
universe and the way to achieve salvation. Many of their beliefs seem to carry forward into patriarchy
concepts from the goddess traditions, though they exhibit the usual patriarchal way to salvation with a
male savior. Christ was viewed as being with the Father from the beginning, but became embodied in
human form to show us the way. Humans (males, anyway––see quotations heading Chapter 15) were
seen as naturally divine. They contained the heavenly spark of life, but this life-force or soul had
become dispersed into disgusting mater and needed to be gathered up and purified to release it back
into the divine realm.
God/dess A term with many different meanings. See Pantheism, Classical Theism, Deism, Panentheism,
Dualism. Here the term is used as a synonym for the Unsurpassable. Anything not logically required as
part of the definition (essence) of the Unsurpassable should not be assumed to part of his/er definition.
Personal and gendered pronouns are used to refer to this reality because “it” in English usually refers
to objects, and objects are always surpassable by subjects, since objects can only exist as parts of
subjects that include them. Unfortunately, English does not have a nongendered, personal pronoun or
noun to refer to cosmic unity as a cosmic Subject.
Hypothesis: A theory. An empirical hypothesis must be able to be proved wrong by some possible facts. If it
has been tested and not disproved, it is said to be corroborated, giving some ground for believing it
may be correct. A correct metaphysical hypothesis cannot be proved wrong by any facts since it is a
common denominator of all possible facts. A proposal for the metaphysic, however, can be disproved
if not all facts exhibit the proposal, or if a proposal exhibits internal conflict. Often, when this happens,
a metaphysician will deny the facts are real (a procedure scientists and others have also been known to
use).
Hylozoism: The belief that matter is alive, that matter moves itself, though not necessarily towards any
conscious end. The belief that nature is alive or animate. In some form or other, this was the general
belief of the Goddess philosophies. As carried over into the more patriarchal traditions, like the
Milesians, the element of consciousness or direction of purpose of the one or more life forces in
Nature, is dropped in favor of blind, unconscious activity that has no freedom. Eventually, the idea that
Mother Nature, mater, was anything active at all, was dropped, and matter was seen as dead.
We are still exercised by the question of the origin of life, how dead matter can give rise to life.
Whitehead and Hartshorne propose a theory that all existence is alive, though few things are conscious,
but theirs is a theory wherein each life dies and leaves forever the result of its moment of life as a
being (matter) for other lives to enjoy or suffer. Reality also contains chains or series of lives where
each present moment of the series is privileged relative to past members of the series because it is in a
position to inherit the series past. Only one series, that of the Unsurpassable, has never had a first
moment of life and will not have a last one, and is able to inherit all the past of everyone.
Idea: Dea is the feminine form of deo, God. “Idea” was originally, “I-dea,” or “Goddess in me.” This
expression refers to the in-sight one can have about how things in experience are alike (a generality on
experience, a concept) and, probably, the excitement one can have obtaining such an insight. Plato’s
use of “Idea” emphasizes the changelessness of a general idea, and for Plato and many others,
changelessness was a hallmark of divinity. This is a half-truth. God/dess must always exhibit eternal
personality characteristics, but the way these characteristics are expressed can be fulfilled in an infinity
of new ways. It is fulfilled in a new way every moment since the content of the divine’s experience is
ever-changing; ever being added to without loss. The definition of the “Unsurpassable” is changeless,
214
Glossary
so it must be expressed with metaphysical propositions, but the concrete content of the divine life is
ever new (though always containing all that has been).
Idealism: A theory proposing the basic units of reality are mental, that things are ideas in a mind. Idealism
strives to overcome the incoherence of Dualism by denying “matter” makes sense. Idealists may assert
there are many minds as did Bishop Berkeley or only one mind, the cosmically inclusive mind, of
which we are all parts (“modes”). In either pluralistic or monistic Idealism, the basic units of reality are
usually conceived as wholes that remain, contradictorily, self-identical throughout successive
alterations, except for those who like Parmenides’ say reality is changeless.
Infinitesimal: An “infinitely small” amount. Likely a meaningless expression. Whitehead says all attempted
references to “infinitesimals” refer to finites so small no one is interested in their size. The attempt to
conceive of an infinitesimal occurred as an effort to solve the problem of the irrational number (the
irrational ratio), that is, a relationship of two quantities that could not be expressed as a ratio of one
whole number to another. The Pythagoreans knew no such ratio could exist between the sides and the
diagonal of a square unless the unit was so small it had no length, and yet it had to have some length or
it would be worthless for measuring anything. The unit would to have some size and no size. This
SomeNone is a logical contradiction.
Logic: Specifically, deductive logic. The study of necessary relationships. Conditional logic studies what
necessarily is the case given certain conditions. Metaphysical logic studies what necessarily is the case
given any possible condition. Sometimes “logic” is used to refer to the process of arriving at empirical
generalizations, as in inductive logic.
Modal logic makes explicit the unavoidable modal aspect every statement has, namely, to be
(1) Contingent: A statement that is true or false depending on certain conditions, or
(2) Noncontingent: A statement that is either (a) necessarily true in all circumstances or (b)
necessarily false in all possible circumstances, that is, is nonsense.
Many logicians still think the second kind is only noncontingently necessary by definition, therefore,
they see them as also dependent on the arbitrariness of definitions. The metaphysician says there are
statements describing some aspects of reality that must be the way reality is, and are that way
independent of any particular kind of definition. They are discovered, not defined. Whitehead’s
Catagoreal Obligations (see Appendix 3) express some proposals for unavoidable characteristics all
logics must exhibit.
Logos: Greek for “word.” Creation was thought possible by the utterance of a word. By a deity speaking the
word of something, that is, naming something, the word would become flesh, that is, actualized. Since
male deities did not have wombs, this was a popular theory for creation by male deities. Cloning is
likely a modern counterpart. Hermes in ancient Greek mythology was said to be the logos spermatikos,
the seminal Word that came from the mouth (meatus?) of Zeus.
Goddesses had originally brought things into existence with their word “Om,” which was the original
logos, the supreme word, and an invocation to the Goddess’ pregnant womb. “Om” was Alpha, Å, the
letter of creation, and also Omega, or “great Om,” the last letter of the alphabet, Ω, a womb pictograph.
Eventually logos came to designate discourse, logical order and rationality. Heraclitus’ use of the term
seems to refer to logos as both
(1) the source and resolution of particular changing things, and
(2) the pattern or ratio that describes the changes things go through.
So the logos was seen both as the stuff (embodiment) of reality and the logic (necessary patterns) reality exhibits, and was often personified as a deity like Hermes or Christ, who originated with God’s
Word that became incarnate in the world, and who was the source of insight and salvation since he was
Reason, that is, Truth and Reality, itself.
Luck: The unintentional result of the confluence of actions by somewhat free agents. If we believe there is a
single agent for everything that happens, and if we cannot find someone to praise or blame for some
happening, we will often attribute the result to a supernatural good or evil power: Good luck is called
“God’s grace” and bad luck is called “the Devil’s doing;” yet, there are times when bad things are
called “acts of God,” perhaps as punishment. If luck is not a factor in existence, and particularly if
215
Glossary
God/dess is thought to control, or be able to control, everything, eventually Job’s question will arise,
“Why me?” when bad things happen.
Meaningful: We can speak of (1) propositions or (2) life as being meaningful:
(1) A proposition is meaningful when something (a symbol) is like something else (the
symbolized). Meaning in this case is a function of symbolic reference. The meaning of
proposition can also be a function of logical consistency. If an attempted symbolic reference
is self-contradictory, the attempted reference is impossible, meaningless.
(2) Life is meaningful only if two conditions can be fulfilled:
(a) that what one does make a difference, and
(b) that the difference last (be saved) forever. Most of our concern about salvation (being
saved), comes down to finding ways these conditions can be fulfilled.
“Egoism” is the belief
(1) we must maintain our own experiences, since no one else seems to do so, and
(2) we must live forever or the meaning of our experiences will disappear.
Various forms of tribal, social and environment ethics come down to saying others will save us.
Hartshorne’s theism says we make a difference, whether or not we want to, to ourselves and others, but
also always to the Unsurpassable; and when we and all others die or forget, the all-inclusive, neverforgetful and never-ending memory of the divine life will always remember us, be affected by us, and,
therefore, give us the logical basis for being meaningful forever.
Metaphysic(s) The word was first applied to an untitled work by Aristotle about First Principles. It was bound
together with, and after, a book called the Physics. “Meta” means “after” or “beyond.” In popular
usage metaphysics is often believed to deal with a world beyond our present world, a world not
capable of being experienced with our ordinary senses. The only sense in which metaphysics is beyond
this world is in its ability to apply to any conceivable situation in addition to those that have happened:
those that could have happened and didn’t and all the possibilities that can yet happen. In this sense
metaphysic transcends the present.
Metaphysics is the attempt to find the broadest, the most basic, the unavoidable characteristics every
moment of reality must exhibit, not because someone is forcing reality to be as it is, but because the
possibility of occurring without exhibiting these universal characteristics is meaningless. Metaphysical
understanding sets the context of meaning for everything else. No idea or experience can be
understood apart from a context of interpretation, and the metaphysic is the most general context.
Only one metaphysic is logically possible, but the plural, "metaphysics," is used because many
attempts to find the metaphysic have been suggested. Some philosophers even claim no metaphysic is
possible (see Positivism). Every attempt to deny universal knowledge, however, requires one to assume s/he has some such knowledge.
To a metaphysician, metaphysics is the heart of philosophy. Analytic philosophers emphasize
clarifying the meanings of concepts, rather than building comprehensive metaphysical systems. Yet, a
metaphysician will reply that clarity and analysis cannot proceed without conceptual tools, and these
tools ultimately are the assumptions or beliefs of a metaphysic.
Mind/Soul: (See also Soul) Usually thought to be a reality, a stuff or substance, that can experience diversity
and still remain the same mind. Often thought to exist inside bodies, though usually capable of
surviving on its own apart from bodies or matter. Mind is a good example of the attempt to explain
change by allowing a single entity to alter internally by having new thoughts and memories without
losing its identity. Parmenides’ challenge to this notion is sound.
Monism: The belief that reality is composed of
(1) one thing or
(2) one kind of thing.
The first is the Milesians’ and Parmenides’ position which also underlies much of Eastern philosophy
and religion. The Milesian approach, echoed by the modern use of the term “energy,” believes the One
(numerically) can somehow give rise to many changing things and still be one. Parmenides says a one
can only be the one it is; change is meaningless.
216
Glossary
The second approach allows many things in the universe, but they are all alike in the kind of stuff they
are. Democritus says the many are all internally alike, namely, like Parmenides’ being, that is, dead
and changeless. Berkeley and Leibniz say there are many minds, and that matter, as a stuff independent
of minds, is meaningless since matter is just ideas in minds.
Monism is attractive, since in some sense the uni-verse must be one. The oneness of reality can partly
reside in the uni-versality of metaphysical principles. Concrete unity, in process philosophy, is only
momentary: Each cosmic moment can gather everything up into a Whole, but the novelties created the
next moment (by everything that exists) must be gathered up again. The temporal unity of reality
resides in the inheritance of past unities by the present one, not in claiming the past is the same stuff as
the present, yet somehow different from the past because “it” has altered.
Myth: A symbolic way of expressing a basic truth. Often the symbol is taken to be the reality itself. Though
myths give us a handle on understanding reality, they usually fail to capture reality at its most basic
level. Contending formulations give rise to much conflict since the meaning of our lives is directly tied
to the symbols we use to explain our lives.
Nonrational: Created relationships. Necessary relationships are rational. Most of life, however, consists of
relationships that need not be as they are. These are not irrational relationships (namely, the failure to
be a relationship at all), but simply nonrational, or created relationships.
Necessity: A term that has two meanings:
(1) Conditional necessity; for example: Given that one has a circle, its perimeter is necessarily
related to its diameter by the ratio pi, !.
(2) Unconditional necessity; for examples:
(a) Given anything at all (and something or other must exist since “nothingness” is nonsense),
creativity is necessarily occurring, or
(b) the result of each moment of the unsurpassable series will contain more diversity than the
moment before. Metaphysic is the systematic discovery and clarification (not invention)
of unconditional necessities.
Noncontingent: Usually means “unconditionally necessary.” However, one should realize that nonsense, or
logical self-contradictions, are also noncontingent since what they attempt to describe is not possible in
any way. So the strict contradictory of “contingent” is “noncontingency,” not “necessity.” “Necessity”
and “Nonsense” are logical contraries.
After Anselm had correctly clarified that the concept “unsurpassability” cannot be meaningfully unless
it is described as noncontingent, he failed to make clear how Unsurpassability is noncontingently
necessary, rather than noncontingently nonsense as positivists claim. Hartshorne has dedicated his long
life to doing what Anselm didn’t, and probably couldn’t do given the conceptual world he lived in,
namely, making sense of “That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived.”
Nonsense: Logically impossible. Necessarily not contingent, and necessarily not necessary. A selfcontradiction. The failure to express either a contingent or necessary proposition.
Nothingness: The attempt to refer to the absence of every thing. Parmenides is undoubtedly right here: All
attempted references to nothing (or nonbeing, in his words), are impossible, that is, self-contradictory.
All meaningful negative terms like “not” and “nothing” are relative. They refer to something, but
something that is different from what one is presently interested in. The logical preface “non” is used
to refer to all that is not included in the present class of interest. A necessary idea is one that cannot be
excluded from any class that describes a concrete moment of existence. It says something about every
concrete thing. A contingent idea is one that refers to some (actual or possible), but not all.
Object: See Subject.
Omnipotence: Literally, “all-powerful.” A major failure of theology has been the assumption one reality can
have all the power, leaving none to anything else. But to exist is to do something, that is, exercise some
self-power, and theories that claim only One reality exists are highly problematic. Power is a dyadic
relationship, requiring
217
Glossary
(1) one who exercises the power and
(2) one who receives the affect of the action.
Exercising “complete power” anywhere is impossible, a failure to make sense because the exerciser of
all the power has no place to exercise any power at all. “Omnipotence” can mean “having appropriate
power everywhere.” Universality of power is possible when referring to where power is exercised, that
is, in others. The amount of power, however, must be characterized by always being appropriate or
good, not the logical nonsense of always doing others’ doings for them. More power is not always
better, as power worshippers naively assume.
Ontological Argument: Often characterized as the attempt to establish: “God must exist because God’s being
(onto) is necessary being.” Somewhat naively put, this attempt tries to say the greatest reality one can
think up must also exist (in addition to the idea) or the reality would not be great. In this illogical
approach, existence is assumed to be a factor in greatness, that is, to exist (in addition to the concept) is
assumed to be greater than the concept alone of something existing. But the Argument’s real strength
lies elsewhere, since it’s probably not possible to prove existence must always be greater than
nonexistence.
The real insight of the Argument, so seldom seen even by philosophers, is the modal status of the
attempted concept of “Unsurpassability.” Necessity surpasses contingency, so a necessarily existing
reality surpasses a contingently existing one, even if the contingently existing one also exists. This is
true, however, only if “necessarily existing reality” is meaningful, not mere nonsense. Anselm was
correct to insist that That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be Conceived must be noncontingent, but
he did not establish that a “noncontingent reality” made sense and, therefore, was necessary rather than
being noncontingent as nonsense.
A necessary being, or act, or state of affairs, is likely nonsense as the positivists (and Hartshorne also)
insist. Since Anselm seems to think the Unsurpassable refers to a necessary state of affairs (a necessary
Being), he must show how this makes sense. Since he probably can’t do so, he might have done better
to conclude the notion of “unsurpassability” is meaningless rather than identity it with his God.
Orphism: A Greek mystery religion begun in the middle of the first millennium BCE. It maintained men had
souls that longed to be freed from their earth-bound bodies. Denial of life’s pleasures could help free it,
an idea that influenced many Greek philosophers, including Pythagoras and Plato. Its emphasis on
individual salvation was a threat to the more bureaucratic priesthoods. Orpheus, the ancient world’s
pied piper, was at times said to be the son of a Muse because his music was so seductive. He was
ritually sacrificed and descended into the underworld controlled by women to discover the secrets of
the mysteries so he could return and share them with men, as did the Norse deity, Odin. Orphism was a
major rival of Christianity, which absorbed much of its doctrine by identifying Christ with Orpheus.
According to Walker (WEMS, 747) “Fourth-century Christian art showed Christ in the guise of
Orpheus, wearing a Phrygian cap [as did Mithras], playing the lyre, a sacrificial lamb under his foot.”
See pictures of Orpheus end of Chapter 18, page 134, and Appendix 2.
Panpsychism: The belief that reality consists only of mental realities; that “dead matter” is meaningless.
Process philosophy accepts a form of panpsychism: Anywhere there is anything there is at least a
minimal amount of creativity, subjectivity and feeling. Consciousness is not necessary for a psyche
(mind). Hartshorne prefers the term “psychicalism. ”
Pantheism: All is God/dess. Theistic position identifying God/dess with the world, or vise versa. Usually this
results in the diversity of the world being dismissed as superficial, and the belief that change is either
impossible or fully determined. “The beginning and the end are the same,” as T. S. Eliot says in “Four
Quartets,” echoing the Eastern philosophies (see Voskuil, “Some Philosophical Ideas in T. S. Eliot’s
‘Four Quartets’”).
Panentheism: All is in God/dess. The divine is the unity of the universe. God/dess is not apart from the
universe, but is more than the universe. The present moment of the divine’s creativity is outside the
universe as it has just previously come to be. The universe is inside and, therefore, less than, the
present moment of the divine that includes it.
Parthenogenesis: The ability of a female to reproduce without being fertilized by a male.
218
Glossary
Particular/Universal: A particular is opposed to “universal.” For those who believe in enduring substances that
alter over time, a particular is a unique, individual thing that can be found in only one place at a time
but can exist as the same thing at many times and places successively. For the some Buddhists, a
particular is the present, instantaneous moment, found only at one place and only at one time. For
Whitehead, the creating moment is also a once-in-a-universe creation, the process of the present
moment is a particular, but its created result will be found in many places and times. For Democritus,
atoms were the particular things; for Plato or Pythagoras and many since, souls are particular or single
realities.
A “universal” is a general characteristic that can be found in more than one place and at different
times. All the qualities one can identify are universals, that is, abstractions. Some universals are
(1) somewhat general, like Redness, Happiness or Tree. Others are
(2) fully general, truly universal, because they are necessarily found in every place and at all
times. These universals are metaphysical characteristics.
Whitehead’s theory of creative moments puts a new slant on the old division of particular and
universal. Each moment of creative activity is a particular, but the result of that moment is found in
other moments; it can even be found in several other future moments at the same time. This means that
the coming-to-be of a being is a particular, but the being that comes to be is a “universal” characteristic
(a general) that qualifies others’ creativity, since it is transmitted from moment to moment around the
universe. So Whitehead’s philosophy is unique in that particulars become universals, whereas in most
other philosophies (known as substance-attribute philosophies), a particular remains a particular while
the universals that qualify it are exchanged, a theory that is self-contradictory, as Parmenides points
out.
Since universals are changeless, and since particulars supposedly change in the substance-philosophy
theory by altering their attributes, and since change was thought to be a defect because change brought
loss, the changeless universals were identified with the really real by Plato and many since. Eventually
they were seen as the changeless content of God’s reality, as first stated by Aristotle in his description
of the Unmoved Mover.
Patriarchal: Cultures or belief systems that venerate maleness and deprecate females and female metaphors
used as fundamental explanations. Opposed to matriarchal or matrifocal. The movement to overthrow
the dominance of female-based cultures symbolized by the Goddess, began around four thousand BCE.
Much of the older tradition is just below the surface in patriarchal cultures where it constantly
threatens the established assumptions. Patriarchy is not as such a recognized religion, but it is a
common factor in nearly all world religions, so much so that many refuse to recognize any other form
of religion. The American Indian’s religion, in which the Great Mother is a major element, was called
devil worship (Spirit Lake becomes Devil’s Lake, for example) and exterminated. Only recently has
Wicca been legally recognized as a religion in the United States. The United States’ concern for
freedom of religion only extends to those religions it is comfortable with, which in the past has been (if
not still for many) some forms of Judaeo-Christianity.
Patriarchy has been defined as veneration of warrior cults led by sky gods. The generation of life from
the earth’s dirt and the natural issue of body fluids to create and nourish life are denigrated while at the
same time lauding the hero who conquers or kills Mother Nature and traumatically spills her blood in
his battles (see Perseus/Mithras, Chapter 16, who slays the Gorgon, Medusa, symbol of the natural
cosmos).
Person: In the process metaphysic, “person” is a term referring to a series of creations where each superseding
creation includes the previous one’s results. Something that can change and still remain the same is a
person or individual. What is the same is the series. It is the same series as long as the same past is
retained in each present. What is different is the result of each new present moment of the series.
Philosophy: Love of wisdom. Here used nearly synonymously with metaphysics.
Plenum: To be filled. The belief reality has no “nothingness,” which is a well-founded belief since
“nothingness” is impossible to conceive. Anaxagoras says beings, “seeds,” fill reality. Democritus says
there is a nothingness, the Void, in which his somethings, atoms, bang around. Whitehead says reality
is filled, but with moments of creating, comings-to-be, not with being(s).
219
Glossary
Positivism (Relativism): Most generally, the position that metaphysics is not meaningful knowledge. The
belief that all meaningful propositions and situations are contingent, or have a meaningful alternative,
even though the alternative need not actually exist. Every true statement could possibly (logically)
have been false, and every false statement could have possibly been true, even if, in our present world,
it is not a factual possibility (likelihood). As generally used here, the term, “positivist” refers to any
anti-metaphysician, that is, anyone who believes all statements of “unconditional necessity” are
meaningless.
Potentiality: The openness of the future to become something new. Whitehead calls potentialities, “eternal
objects”, and talks about a potential as if it were a specific, or a complex of specifics. Creativity
“ingresses” the specific possibility and makes it actual. Hartshorne refers to potentiality as a generic
characteristic only specified to some degree by past actualities. Creativity is the process of making a
specific within the continuum of a generic characteristic.
“Pure potentiality” is a meaningless expression. “Complete openness” is not possible since all
potentiality resides in the opportunities presented to the present moment by previous actualities.
Likewise “pure actuality” is meaningless since every actualization provides a range of possibilities
capable of new specifications forever. Potentialities are on a continuum, and all continua are capable of
endless divisions or specifications.
Potentiality is not another kind of reality from actuality: It arises from the completion of an act (or acts)
as it influences the outcome of the present moment of creating. To be actual is to be in process of
accomplishment, and what is specifically accomplished is something never before done. But the doing
is done within the range afforded by the standpoint, the actualized world of beings, with which the
moment begins.
Actuality, or coming-to-be, is dipolar. It contains some things already actualized, that is, beings, and
projects a generic range of possible doings, that is, potentiality. The “real potentiality” of the moment
(which is the range of potentiality capable of being realized in some way) is established by just those
beings which are included that had just come to be. All possibilities can never be fulfilled, so there can
never be a time when there is nothing more to do, and since “nothingness” is meaningless, there can
never be a time when “nothing” is being done.
Precession of the Equinox: The progressive change of where the sun crosses the celestial equator on the two
equinox days, the beginning of spring and fall when day and night are of equal length. The earth
wobbles like a top causing the plane of the earth’s equator projected out to the sky to change relative to
the orbit of the sun, the ecliptic. This wobble takes 25920 years to complete. Astrologers have divided
this into twelve units of 2160 years each, and each associated with an animal, therefore, the Zodiac
(from zoo). When the sun crosses the equator in the constellation named for that animal, we are said to
be in that Age. The ancient Greek and Romans were in the Age of Aries, the Ram. The previous Age
was that of Taurus, the Bull, who was said to have “died” to bring in the Age of the Ram. The New
Age to come for the ancients was Pisces, the Fish, and the Ram had to die to bring in that Age which
we are still in. In 200 years the next new Age of Aquarius will begin. Much is made of these Zodiac
symbols, and the constellations generally, to help create religio-philosophical interpretations of the
world (see Chapter 16, Mithraism, for example, or Freidel, Maya Cosmos).
Primary Qualities: Characteristics which physical objects supposedly have in themselves apart from any
interaction with minds. These are usually said to be, by John Locke, for example, nearly the same
characteristics Democritean atoms had: size, shape and texture, motion, number, solidity. Secondary
qualities, such as color, sound, smells, etc., supposedly arose in the mind in contact with the physical
things. Still others talk about tertiary qualities, which are emotional reactions to the secondary
qualities, like pleasure or fear.
Process philosophy stands this arrangement on its head. We first feel and react to the world. Then we
give definition to the feelings by forming classes of feelings, that is, qualities; and finally we see that
kinds of feelings are somewhat quantifiable and external to each other, that is, the characteristics of
objects in abstraction from their qualities.
Primordial: Having no beginning.
220
Glossary
Principle of Sufficient Reason: As first articulated by Leibniz, it is the belief there must be a reason sufficient
to explain every occurrence. This reason, when sufficient, is said to exclude any free choice. But three
kinds of reasons can be given:
(1) causes or conditions that others have created that the present must contend with (efficient
causes),
(2) the attractiveness of the future for the present (final causes), and
(3) the freedom of the present to somewhat shape the outcome of the present moment after it has
begun.
The determinist believes past conditions (or the attractiveness of the future) fully conditions the present
to be what it must be. Determinists believe an outcome is only sufficiently explained if the present
must do what it does. Science tends to looks for physical causes that force the present to be what it is
because of past conditions. Leibniz and others allow minds that supposedly have choices, but one’s
final cause is so much more persuasive than others that one’s “choice” is determined. Leibniz, for
example, says God must choose to create the best possible world, and since there is only “one best,”
God is determined to choose what he does. Leibniz erred not by saying God/dess must choose
supremely, but by assuming “one best” makes sense. There are always co-equally good values to
choose amongst (see Chapter 23, Unsurpassable Goodness).
Those who maintain the third position say the present is more than the conditions of the past, and
though they need not deny causes of the first kind, they assert such causes are never sufficient to
explain the details of the event’s outcome. Process philosophy’s position is that causal conditions are
necessary, but never sufficient to explain what happens. This position gains some support even in
physical science from Heisenberg’s Principle of Indeterminacy, where, given all there is to know about
what goes into a quantum event, the exact outcome is not fully knowable.
Probability: The likelihood of one kind of thing occurring compared to another. For some things to have a
statistical probability, it is logically impossible that everything be statistically based. In order for one
side of a die to have a one in six chance to occur, there must be no chance the die will evaporate. All
statistical conditions occur within broader contexts of constancy. The widest bounds, and the
completely constant conditions of reality, are the metaphysical aspects. Mathematical chaos theory
might say these are the universal “attractors.”
Proposition (Statement): A sentence that makes sense. More generally, an idea or expression conveying
information or evoking an actual or possible feeling, for example, a gesture is a proposition. In
Whitehead’s philosophy, every actual entity is a proposition. The moment’s causal base is its collective
subject, and its unity is the predicate (the moment’s goal) which expresses the unity of process during
its actualization, an act that will fulfill the predicate in some way or other within the bounds of
possibility named by the predicate which, in Whitehead’s vocabulary, is called the Subjective Aim.
Quantification: In logic, the recognition that every proposition, whether or not explicitly stated, refers to All,
Some or None of it subject. All and None are universal quantifiers. Some is the particular, or
restrictive, quantifier. Both All are None are contradicted by Some since Some means “at least one less
than all (perhaps, none) or one more than none (perhaps, all)”. All and None are the limiting cases of
Some, so if None is true, then Some (at least one) and All must be false. If All is true, then None and
Some (at least one less than all) must be false. The contradictory of a universally quantified
proposition asserts the least one needs to know to prove the universal proposition is false, namely
Some (one less than All or one more than None). The contrary of a proposition states the most one can
know, the limiting case, which is the other universal extreme, All or None.
Quantum Physics: The theory stating every change in physical reality comes in an indivisible, finite amount, a
certain quantity, a quantum. An event can be analyzed into smaller units of happening, but not ad
infinitum. There is a smallest happening for each kind of event, and this unit is not capable of being
analyzed into smaller units. Even given complete knowledge of the situation that precedes or goes into
this smallest unit, no one can know exactly how it will conclude a quantum moment later. This “all or
none” thesis was first stated by the atomists, but only for spatial extension. Einstein later rediscovered
the quantum principle while trying to explain how a warm body radiated its energy. He found radiation
was not continuously lost or absorbed, but was radiated or absorbed in finite packets. As a determinist,
he was never comfortable with the indeterminacy Heisenberg showed was implied in his discovery.
221
Glossary
Physics at the quantum level has all but given up on particle theory. Reality (including all of space) is
seen as a plenum of quantum occurrences called a “field” in which the results of happenings in one
place of the field are transmitted throughout the field by intervening members of the field. Large-scale,
observable, matter appears where a constant field pattern is maintained analogously to a standing
wave.
Rationalism: The belief that reason, not sense experience, is the way to knowledge. The search for necessary
relationships. Every philosophy is based on some rational, that is, necessary, assumptions, about the
way the world is and must be. The ultra-rationalist believes only necessary relationships are real or
true; happenstance, or contingency, is appearance or maya, and unreal.
Since sense experience cannot discover necessities, the empiricist denies they are real. Yet, the
empiricist cannot define what “sense experience” means without appeal to the generalities afforded by
reason.
Reason: The process of comparing abstractions and discovering their unavoidable relationships. More broadly
defined, it refers to the process of discovering relationships among experiences and ideas one has.
Reason is often opposed to sense experience, though only a radical empiricist will dismiss reason. The
ultra-rationalists, or the other hand, will dismiss the experience of change and free choice as not (fully)
real, even though they must still act as if they are real.
Reductionism The belief that a whole can be analyzed into the parts it contains without loss. The so-called
container is just the “parts.” This belief continues to be perpetuated because we tend to confuse a
whole with an aggregate or collection, whether in physics, sociology or cosmology. The contrary
belief, that what is really a collection is treated as a single whole, Whitehead calls the Fallacy of
Misplaced Concreteness (see Glossary entry).
Relations, Internal/External: Two acts can be related to each other by being outside of each other, that is,
mutually externally related, or by one being internal to the other. A close inspection of relationships
will show that one who maintains all relationships are external could never know this, since nothing
could be in one’s knowledge. The relationship of M existing inside of another N necessitates there be
something outside M (“outside” in the sense of being around the one contained). Any theory of reality
that tries to deny either internal or external relationships is bound to fail.
In the Whiteheadian process metaphysic, many new, mutually externally related creations
(contemporaries) are taken into a moment of actuality, so they are inside the moment including them.
All processes are external to other units of process since a process cannot be a part in another process.
A subject (which is a process) cannot be in another subject as a subject, as Aristotle pointed out, but
the result of a subject (its “satisfaction” which is the subject completed and objectified), can be in other
subjects. The analogous statement in a substance-attribute metaphysic is: A substance cannot be in
another substance––which leads substance philosophies into solipsism (see Glossary entry) because
traditional substances are not momentary and so are not open to the created results of other subjects. If
the Unsurpassable makes sense, all beings made by anyone at anytime are in the next cosmically
inclusive process.
In discussions of internal and external relations that ignore the language of parts and wholes,
something B is said to be internally related to another A when B is affected by A. A is not affected by
B, so A is said to be externally related to B. It is impossible, in Whitehead's analysis, that B can affect
A for this would be saying the present can alter the past.
This use of “internal/external” is the opposite that used to describe parts and wholes. Parts are in a
whole that contains them, and so the whole is outside the parts (though not a part from the parts). A
whole is conditioned by its parts because it is, in part, what it is because of its parts; but its parts are
not affected by the whole they are in.
This dual use of internal and external to describe relationships can be confusing, but this book uses the
language of part (as internal or inside) and whole (as external but partially determined by its parts),
unless otherwise noted. Also see Contemporaries.
Relativism: See Positivism.
222
Glossary
Relativity, the Special and General Theory of: The Special Theory explains why the temporal ordering of
events and the spatial sizes they appear to have, depends on one’s location and motion. When two or
more events are casually independent, that is, when neither event is in the causal past of the other, they
are contemporaries. The temporal order in which contemporaries are experienced to occur by some
future moment that includes them both depends on the location within the universe of the one experiencing them. However, when events are causally related, every point of view must experience the
cause as occurring before the effect.
One’s constant motion (for Special Relativity) relative to another determines how one experiences the
other’s temporal extension and spatial size. The faster one moves relative to another the smaller they
appear in the direction of motion and the slower their clocks seem to run, although the effect is not
noticeable until speeds approaching that of light.
General Relativity considers the affects of the change of rate of motion (acceleration and deceleration)
and gravity (the affect of which is the same as acceleration). These forces seem to act on an individual
to slow down the temporal extensions of its moments, that is, to extend the time taken for a moment to
reach a result (to reach a satisfaction, in Whitehead’s vocabulary). Whereas Special Relativity explains
that the perceived differences in timing and size as due to spatio-temporal perspective, General
Relativity describes a real affect in the constitution of the moments of an individual’s moments of
creating.
Gravity is the expression in our cosmic epoch (perhaps in all possible epochs) of the attraction of one
thing for another. The stronger the force acting on an individual, that is, the more others’ creations
there are for an individual’s moments to embrace and integrate, the more effort it takes to bring the
integrating moment to completion, so time slows down. Similarly with any form of acceleration: More
effort is required to alter the path of an individual’s endurance than to continue as before. To alter
(“revert,” Whitehead’s term for novelty) the initial path of continuing on as one has in the past takes
effort which slows down a series of creative processes and the time measured by the differences they
create.
Causal interaction (transmission) in the world is necessarily finite; it seems to be limited to the speed
of light in our epoch. Since transmission within the world must be carried out by moments that occupy
a finite space and require some finite temporal extension to occur, transmission cannot be instantaneous, even if some form of transmission is discovered that occurs faster than light.
However, if the Unsurpassable makes sense, there must be a unique and cosmic division between past
and future. The only contemporaries from this cosmic view would those creating themselves
simultaneously with a present moment of the Unsurpassable. This means that influence between distant
parts of the world would occur very rapidly, similarly to the way a localized pain is experienced by
someone but the pain’s effect in the person is quickly feed back to all the cells that are influenced by
that person. Some physicists deny there is any such cosmic effect on everything, but if it is sufficiently
subtle (and there are good reasons to say it must be––see Chapter 24), there is no way or reason to rule
it out.
The philosophically general form of the theory of relativity says that nothing can exist in isolation from
everything else. An “absolute” (as having no relationships to anything) is meaningless. To exist is
necessarily to exist in relationship to something(s). The metaphysical statement of relativity can also
be seen as a statement of the Theory of Evolution since every thing must be related to the past from
which it evolves, around which it grows.
Every fully real (whole) thing is at least related by being somewhat like everything else. Every whole
exhibits the universal or metaphysical characteristics. Expressions like “completely different” are
literally meaningless.
However, is there something concrete (not just abstract metaphysical principles) necessarily related to
everything? This is the search for the concrete unity of the universe. Since a concrete whole, even a
cosmic unity, can only unify what has been done, it is not possible for a whole to unify new things
done without being what it is and also not being what it is, as Parmenides pointed out. Hartshorne
proposes that the something (God/dess) related to everything is a series of unities; each one of which
unifies all there presently is (in being), including the previous unity of all there was.
223
Glossary
Religion: Rituals designed to evoke emotions and put into action what one believes or assumes is true about the
ultimate nature of reality, including beliefs about how the universe is structured and what one’s
purpose is for existing and dying.
Representational Theory of Knowledge: Belief that the knower has a copy of the things known. In most
forms of this theory, it is impossible to check out whether the copy is indeed a copy or likeness of the
original. In which case, calling it a “copy” is a shot in the dark, impossible to verify. Therefore, some
philosophers, like Berkeley, deny there is any such thing as the original, and others, like Whitehead,
say the original is also part of the knower, though usually in a way that is not easily accessible by
consciousness. The copy is supposedly transmitted from the original (at a distance from the knower) to
the knower, so there is also always the possibility that the transmission is faulty.
Revelation: Insight into the nature of reality. Often said to come from God/dess or one of the divine family, the
Muses or angels. Divine revelations, by their nature, are not open to rational inspection. Those in
power often try to have accepted without question what they claim to be truths by calling them divine
revelations. Threats of eternal punishment for disbelief are common sanctions. Doubters have also
been killed or tortured by those in power, often by the millions in holy wars (see Mack, A Myth of
Innocence).
Skepticism: Belief that sure knowledge is not possible. Most skeptics seem to be very dogmatic about their
skepticism. They are sure no one can be sure about anything.
Secondary Qualities: See Primary Qualities.
Self-Contradiction: Trying to assert something and the logical contradictory of the assertion at the same time.
Often self-contradictions are not explicit. One task of philosophical analysis is to make explicit,
implicit contradictions, for example, “All statements have an alternative,” is a statement that implicitly
implies the statement, “Some statements have no alternative,” as the alternative to the first statement.
Since All and Some are logical contradictories, they both cannot be true, and, therefore, the first
statement contains, or implies, its own contradiction.
If one starts with the second statement, “Some, but not all, statements have no alternative,” implicit in
it is, “Some statements do have an alternative.” But these two are logically compatible. This is
Whitehead’s and Hartshorne’s position. The determinist would have us believe the contrary of “All
statements have an alternative,” is necessarily true, namely, “No statements have an alternative,” or
“All true statements are necessarily true” which is the denial of any real novelty.
Solipsism: The belief that only the self and its internal ideas can be known, since there is no way to get in
contact with or know anything else besides oneself. If the self is believed to be a substance, a soul, that
alters and needs nothing else to sustain its existence, solipsism seems unavoidable, like the windowless
monads in Leibniz’ cosmology. Whitehead attacks the assumptions underlying the seeming possibility
of a solipsistic self. Each moment of an enduring person for Whitehead is a new reality that exists only
because it depends on, and grows around, the results of others. To exist is to necessarily be in relationships to others.
Soul: Creative energy, life force. Often thought to be a stuff that alters and yet remains the same stuff despite its
successive changes. This theory develops as an attempt to answer Alice’s problem (see quote heading
Chapter 8): Is Alice still Alice after she changes and no longer is just what she was?
Whitehead says “soul” or self-creativity is an essential part of all acts, all wholes, but the soul of an
actual entity comes to be and dies with its accomplishment which it offers to other souls to enjoy.
“Soul” is coming-to-be. Being is what has been brought into being by a soul: To be is to be dead.
Without death nothing is accomplished, which is the problem with Heraclitus’ system. To be dead is
not to be gone, a mistake too many make. To be dead is to be a changeless part of others’ lives.
The final question is: Is there a series of momentary lives (souls) in which our accomplishments will be
forever enjoyed (or suffered)? Hartshorne makes a strong case for there being only one series of
momentary lives always capable of having a new life, with each new life including all others’ deaths,
namely, the Unsurpassable’s primordial and everlasting series.
224
Glossary
Space/Time: Originally, space was thought to be either the absence of all things, or a thing different from other
things (objects). Things were in this space. Space has often been given characteristics, such as the
Nineteenth Century’s aether, and the Twentieth Century’s space with variable geometry. But common
to most theories has been the unity of space. Space has been thought to be numerically one. Everyone
from Democritus to Einstein have concluded the real unity of the uni-verse, is the one container of all,
namely, space.
As space is either thought to be a part of Mother Nature, (the physical universe) or her container, those
whose religious agenda was to remove oneself from the clutches of mater, sought a refuge in a realm
beyond space.
Whitehead and Hartshorne, emphasize that moments of process are the only wholes or “containers”
reality can have. They invert our understanding of space: Space is not a thing containing things, it is an
abstract characteristic found in processes, the characteristic of including others’ creations
simultaneously. Space is the experience of the results of others as they are external to each other,
though, of course, internal to the one experiencing them. Space is the experience of others
coördinately. Time is the experience of others’ completions successively, that is, as nested within
another.
Neither spatiality nor temporality can be experienced alone: At least one moment of time is required to
experience others coördinately, and the inclusion of others always includes diversity simultaneously
experienced, because experiencing only the results of one previous other is impossible (see rationale
for this in Chapter 24).
Stoicism: A religio-philosophical system with strong deterministic beliefs. Stoics saw the cosmos as fully
interconnected, where events at one place effect everything else. Since we have little or no say in what
happens to us, their moral advice was to be indifferent to pleasure and pain. The expression, “He took
it philosophically,” still harks back to when Stoicism was a major philosophical position.
Many Stoic beliefs influenced Christianity; even the prayer of the Twelve-Step programs comes from
the Stoics. Many Stoics were astrologers, believing the locations of heavenly objects had an effect on
their lives. They believed in a series of cosmic epochs. At the end of each everything will be consumed
in fire before the cosmos is recreated. Stoics at their school in Tarsus were probably instrumental in
translating Hipparchus’ discovery of the precession of the equinoxes into a mythology that underlay
the religion of western Mithraism.
Subject, Object: A subject must include objects to be a subject. An object must be in a subject to be an object.
Objects cannot include subjects. An object is a dead subject. An object is being; a subject is a comingto-be. There are not two kinds of reality. Only subjects are fully real; objects are necessarily parts or
characteristics of subjects.
Substance: In substance-attribute metaphysics, substance is the basic stuff of reality. This stuff can be material,
or mental, but the common (and contradictory) theme is its supposed ability to alter by changing its
attributes while still remaining the same substance.
In linguistic terms, the substance is the subject, the attributes the predicates. Whether language
developed the subject-predicate structure because of philosophical assumptions or vice versa, the
subject-predicate structure of language makes it difficult to think of reality in other ways. This
structure helps perpetuate the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
Parmenides’ criticism of a stuff that remains self-identical despite alterations should be carefully
studied. The process philosophy criticism of substance philosophy is similar to that of some Buddhists:
Each moment is its own substance. A “substance” is just the coming-to-be it is. It cannot be, or come
to be, in more than one way, though it could occur somewhat differently from the way it does. It is a
unique once-in-the-universe act.
Supreme: See Ultimate.
Syllogism: A form of deductive reasoning where two premises support a conclusion. Of the 256 syllogistic
forms, only some are valid. Moral reasoning can be put into valid syllogistic forms known as AAA or
225
Glossary
AII: One premise stating the meaning of value, the other an actual or possible situation. The conclusion
is a judgment of the value of the situation, arrived at by applying the value premise to a type of factual
situation, for example,
A
A
A
(1) All lying is bad (the class of liars that are not bad is empty).
(2) All Thespians are liars (the class of Thespians that are not liars is empty).
(3) Therefore, All Thespians are bad.
Bad
Liars
Thespians
Just knowing that all Thespians are liars, does not in itself tell us that Thespians are good or bad.
Likewise, knowing that lying is bad, does not in itself tell us that there is anyone who lies or is bad
even if we assume the class of Thespians is not empty. See Fallacy of Existential Import. However, if
we know Jim is a Thespian, we know he is also bad.
A
I
I
(1) All lying is bad.
(2) Plato is a liar.
(3) Therefore, Plato is bad.
Bad
Liars
Plato
One task of ethics is to determine whether there is a value premise that is applicable under all possible
circumstances, that is, an ultimate value.
Symbol: Something that stands for something else. Often a symbol stands for a very complex set of ideas and
feelings which are, or nearly, impossible to articulate. An attack on the symbol is taken to be an attack
on the whole complex. One task of philosophy is to clarify what symbols stand for and to search for
more adequate symbols to express the most general thoughts and feelings.
226
Glossary
Trinity: Divinity was first conceived as multiple, the Goddess trinity, a projection of women’s biological life:
pre-menarchal maidenhood, menstrual motherhood, and postmenopausal hag or wise crone. The trinity
is also a corrective brake on the Parmenidean kind of monism often attributed to divinity. Reality is
intrinsically social, even at the divine level, or perhaps one should say, especially so at the divine’s allinclusive level of reality. The divine family of Mother and Child is still a strong emotional image in the
age of patriarchy, though the emphasis is often on the maleness of the child and servitude of the
mother to the father.
Ultimate and Supreme: Two ways attributes of the Unsurpassable can be formulated. An ultimate attribute
(characteristic) is one describing the unsurpassable series. It states a quality the series has that is
impossible to change or surpass by any reality, including the Unsurpassable him/erself. The
Unsurpassable is always all-knowing, all-inclusive, influencing everyone, and so on.
A supreme attribute is one that describes the present moment of the Unsurpassable series. It describes
a condition that is unsurpassable by any reality except the Unsurpassable. To be unsurpassable,
divinity need only be unsurpassable by another. Self-surpassing need not be excluded and cannot be
excluded if change is meaningful.
The Unsurpassable is supreme in the content of knowledge, the amount of happiness or sadness, the
number of others influenced and included, and so forth, but as the universe creates new content to
know, new individuals to influence and include, new feelings of joy or sadness, and so on, a new
moment of the Unsurpassable must include, feel and influence them all. Only by surpassing the
previous all-inclusive, all-feeling, all-influencing moment, can the Unsurpassable remain
unsurpassable by any conceivable other.
Ultra-Rationalist: One who believes all relationships are necessarily as they are. Most thinkers accept the
relationship of pi or √2, the square root of 2 (the ratio of the length of the diagonal to the sides of a unit
square), to be necessary (conditionally necessary) relationships. But the ultra-rationalist says the relationship of the color of a square to its shape is also necessary, as is the hair-do one is wearing, and
everything else. All has to be as it is. This is a faith based on a belief all events are determined, a faith
not even physical science maintains with much enthusiasm today, because Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy
Principle seems well-founded (see Quantum Physics). A whole is always somewhat self-creative and is
not reducible, as the reductionist thesis asserts, to the parts (causes) that it contains. 2+2 = (is identical
to) 4 is only true at a high level of abstraction.
Universals: See Particular.
Unsurpassable: See Ultimate. A short way to state Anselm ’s That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be
Conceived. One must be careful to distinguish “unsurpassed” from “unsurpassable,” and
“unsurpassable even by self” from “unsurpassable by another.” The Unsurpassable’s aspects that
cannot be surpassed even by him/erself, are the eternal, changeless aspects of his/er personality. Those
ways in which the Unsurpassable can surpass him/erself, express how the Unsurpassable changes. The
way the Unsurpassable changes is unsurpassable even by him/erself. The Unsurpassable surpasses
him/erself unsurpassably in concrete content each moment.
Hartshorne in a typed letter with handwritten corrections, 5/22/97, wrote, “There is, if I may say so,
one difference between your philosophy and mine. I emphasize positive concepts, you negative ones,
e.g., Unsurpassable. My basic concept is the worship-worthiness of God as universally sympathizing
with the creatures.” Since the list of positive ultimate and supreme attributes is long, and since it is
misleading if many are not asserted together, I have chosen this shorthand. The reader should be
advised, however, that Hartshorne is right. A negative by itself is not a definition. He did add, as if to
say his criticism should be put in context, as a response to this book, “You are indeed a brilliantly
original and resourceful person. I regret that you are, as it seems, no longer teaching philosophy
classes.”
Utilitarianism: An ethical theory, the basis of democratic assumptions, that states the ultimate justification for
action is its tendency to further the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number. Sometimes J.
S. Mill (1806-1873) says we ought to act to further the well-being of the whole, but what is the whole?
A collection is not a whole, a confusion that plagues Mill’s theory (see quote on page 143). Hartshorne
correctly points out that a collection treated as a unity is an abstraction, and one cannot act so as to
227
Glossary
further the happiness of an abstraction. All value resides in wholes. How is one to determine which of
the many wholes in society one ought to further?
Utilitarianism is opposed to an autocratic, authoritarian ethic that bases goodness on obedience to an
authority, as in “He is a good child; he always does what he’s told.” An autocratic ethic often has a
whole that is to be pleased, but the whole is usually apart from those being judged, as in classical
theism’s God , therefore, the judgment is logically in question because, if God does not contain what is
known, then as in a Representational (Transmittal) Theory of Knowledge, the original is either not
accessible or may be only partly transmitted.
Whole: The fullness of reality, the concrete. Wholeness is process or creativity, not being. The unity of reality
over time (through changes) cannot be one whole. It must be a series of wholes, each one containing
the results of the former.
All wholes, as wholes, are contingent. Since nothing exists except wholes (and their parts), and since
wholes are contingent, how is a necessary reality possible and where are the necessities of reality, if
anywhere? See Abstract-Concrete Dilemma.
Zeno’s Paradox: Discloses the absurdity of assuming actual changes occur continuously. He points out that an
arrow supposedly shot into the air does not move where it is, and cannot move where it isn’t, so
motion is meaningless. For anyone who believes reality is composed of beings that exist continuously,
there is no resolution to this paradox. He also tells the story of the tortoise and the hare, where the hare
can never catch up to the tortoise that is supposedly moving continuously.
All picturesque analogies aside, can a being B move from point X to point Y which is a finite distance
from X? Since a finite continuum of distance can be divided in half, B must go half way to Y first.
Then half way to half way, and so on, forever, since a finite amount can always be divided again. So
the first movement of B towards Y must be a finite amount. An “infinitesimal amount” Zeno correctly
points out is either no amount or some finite amount. Since he as sumes one cannot move a finite
amount, because being exists contiguously and a finite amount would be a quantum leap, he concludes
motion (change) is meaningless.
The answer to Zeno’s Paradox is: Change does require a quantum leap, a finite difference between the
new and the old. The leap is only a leap, however, insofar as one only looks at being: the being at the
beginning and the new, different being at the end of the finite spatial-temporal change. In between the
two observable beings is the fundamental reality of coming-to-be, the making of the new, finitely
different being. Becoming is not observable because it is not an object. Only objects can be in and
observed by subjects. Subjects cannot be observed. Subjects are observers and feelers of objects
(beings) and feelers or anticipators of possible future accomplishments to be objectified for future
subjects. So the making of a new being is a continuum, but an unobservable continuum, of effort: The
observable result is a finite spatio-temporal difference from the moment’s beginning.
228
Selected Bibliography
Creation Myths and Gender-Role Stories and Legends
Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton, 1972 (1949).
Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism, Blackwell, 1990. Shows the extreme sexism of the centuries
around the beginning of the Common Age.
Fix, Wm. R. Star Maps, Octopus, London, 1979.
Gardner, John and John Maier, trans., Gilgamesh, Vintage, 1984.
Graves, Robert. The White Goddess: A historical grammar of poetic myth, Beacon, 1948, Amended and
enlarged 1966..
Hadingham, Evan. Early Man and the Cosmos, Walker, 1984.
Erdoes, Richard and Alfonso Ortiz, eds.. American Indian Myths and Legends, Pantheon, 1984.
Dennis Tedlock, trans.. Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the
Glories of Gods and Kings, Touchtone,1985.
Walder, James R.. Lakota Myth, Elaine Jahner, ed., Nebraska, 1983.
Wolkstein, Diane and Samuel Noah Kramer. Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from
Sumer, Harper & Row, 1983.
Contemporary Accounts of Male/Female Relationships
Bly, Robert. Iron John, Addison-Wesley, 1990. Still a patrist point of view: must cut male off from the
mother/feminine.
Barker-Benfield, G. S.. The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes Towards Women and Sexuality in
Nineteenth Century America, (out of print and very depressing reading).
Bryk, Felix. Sex & Circumcision: A Study of Phallic Worship and Mutilation in Men and Women, Random
House, 1967. Out of print but packed with information.
Daly, Mary. Gyn/ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, Beacon, 1978.
Faludi, Susan. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Crown, 1991.
Sam, Keen. Fire in the Belly: On Being a Man, Bantam, 1991. Disappointing.
Johnson, Miriam M.. Strong Mothers, Weak Wives: The Search for Gender Equality, University of California,
1988.
Noble, Vicki. Shakti Woman: Feeling Our Fire, Healing Our World: The New Female Shamanism, HarperSan
Francisco, 1991. Confuses, as most shamanism does, wholes which are alive with groups (collections)
which are not except as each member is.
Ritter, Thomas J. MD. Say No to Circumcision! Hourglass, 1992.
Romberg, Rosemary. Circumcision, The Painful Dilemma, Bergin & Garvey, Massachusetts, 1985.
Spretnak, Charlene, ed.. The Politics of Women’s Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual Power within the
Feminist Movement, Doubleday, 1982.
Walker, Barbara G.. The Crone: Woman of Age, Wisdom, and Power, Harper & Row, 1985.
Philosophy and Religion
Brown, James and Reeves, eds. Process Philosophy and Christian Thought,Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. In four
sections: Philosophy and Theology; God; Christ; and Man and Society. Contributors: George Allan,
Delwin Brown, Don Browing, John Cobb, Malcolm Diamond, Lewis Ford, David Griffin, Charles
Hartshorne, Ralph James, Jr., Bernard Loomer, Victor Lowe, Bernard Meland, Schubert Ogden, Thomas
Ogletree, Gene Reeves, Donald Sherburne, Walter Stokes and Daniel Williams.
CIMRM: Vermaseren, Maarten, Corpus Inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithracae. 2 vols. The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1956, 1960.
Cobb, John B, Jr. and Gamwell, Franklin, eds.. Existence and Actuality: Conversations with Charles
Hartshorne, Chicago, 1985. Essays by Eugene Peters, Schubert Ogden, R.M. Martin, William Alston,
John Smith, Paul Weiss, Manley Thompson, John Cobb, Jr., and George Wolf with responses by
Hartshorne who often seems stiltedly kind to authors who miss some important points or misunderstand
him.
Cobb, John B. Jr. and Griffen, David. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition, Westminster, 1976. Some
merit; a few serious errors, viz: they say, “God is responsible for evil; . . .” confuse evil and tragedy; and
want Whitehead to say that never-ending new experiences after ‘death’ is possible. Best feature: A lengthy
“Guide to The Literature” with historical and biographical data in an appendix.
Copleston, Frederick S.J.. A History of Philosophy, Vols. 1-8, Doubleday (Image), finished 1965. Very good
though lengthy history.
229
Bibliography
Cox, Collett Disputed Dharmas: Early Buddhist Theories on Existence (Tokyo: The International Institute for
Buddhist Studies, 1995)
Das Datta, Rama. “Self and Causality in Hume and the Sautrantika,” University Microfilm International, Ann
Arbor, MI, 1984.
Dombrowski, Daniel A., Analytic Theism, Hartshorne, and the Concept of God, SUNY, 1996.
Eisenman, Robert H. and Michael Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and
Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for Over 35 Years. Element Books Ltd., 1992. Reprinted by
Barnes and Noble, 1994.
Eisenman, Robert. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians. Elements Books, 1996.
______________. James the Brother of Jesus, The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Penguin Books, 1997.
Freeman, Kathleen. Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A complete translation of the Fragments in Diels,
“Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,” Harvard, 1970.
Freidel, David, with Linda Schele and Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years of the Shaman’s Path,
William Morrow, New York, 1993.
Gaster, Theodor H. The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation, Doubleday, 1956.
Griffin, David. “Hartshorne, God and Relativity Physics, ”Process Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2.
Gross, Rita M. Buddhism After Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism,
Suny, 1993.
Guignebert, Charles. Jesus, 560p., University Books, trans. from French by S. H. Hooke, 1956. First published
about 1930. Still insightful and readable.
Hartshorne, Charles:
AD––Anselm’s Discovery: A Re-examination of the Ontological Argument for God’s Existence, Open
Court, 1965,. His major statement on this commonly misunderstood issue.
AW––Aquinas to Whitehead: Seven Centuries of Metaphysics of Religion, Marquette, 1976. The Aquinas
Lecture, 1976.
BH––Beyond Humanism: Essays in the Philosophy of Nature, 1937; reprinted Peter Smith, 1975.
Excellent examination of the weakness of many forms of humanism.
CAP––Creativity in American Philosophy, Paragon, 1984.
DR––The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God, Yale, 1948. Discussion of how universal
relativity or unlimited flexibility, rather than changeless self-sufficiency, is the divine attribute.
IOGT––Insights & Oversights of Great Thinkers: An evaluation of Western Philosophy, SUNY, 1983.
Comments on the history of philosophy.
LP––The Logic of Perfection, Open Court, 1962. Essays on many subjects: ontological argument, organic
structure of reality, meaning of ‘causation,’ eschatology, symbolic and literal theistic language, and
definition of ‘metaphysics’.
MVG––Man’s Vision of God, 1941, Archon Books.1964. Ideas developed that are full-blown in
Philosopher’s Speak of God.
MSNE––“Metaphysical Statements as Nonrestrictive and Existential,” The Review of Metaphysics, Sept.
1958, XII. No. 1.
NT––A Natural Theology for Our Time, Open Court, 1967. Readable introduction. Gets into the subject
through the concept of “worship.”
OOTM––Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes, SUNY, 1983. Finally decides to give up trying
to convince people that “omnipotence” means “having appropriate power everywhere” and simply deny
that it makes sense. A tactical change only.
PPS––The Philosophy and Psychology of Sensation, 1934, Kennikat, 1968. His theory of potentiality
developed, a major difference from Whitehead’s ‘eternal objects’ and probably equally important in the
history of thought as his clarification of the issues around the Ontological Argument.
WP––Whitehead’s Philosophy: Selected Essays, 1935-1970, University of Nebraska, 1972. Some of the
best material written on Whitehead by anyone.
Hartshorne, Charles and Peden, Creighton. Whitehead’s View of Reality, Pilgrim, 1981.
PSG––Hartshorne, Charles and Reese, William. Philosophers Speak of God, 1953, Midway, 1976.
Comprehensive collection of primary sources from ancient to modern, from Eastern and Western thought,
with comments. An excellent Introduction to theistic discourse that presents a system to classify theistic
doctrines.
Hershel Shanks, ed.. Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Random House, 1992. Essays on the relationship of
the Scrolls to the Essenes and other forms of Judaism.
Hiriyanna, M. Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Allen & Unwin, 1932, 1964,
Koller, John M. and Patricia Koller. A Sourcebook in Asian Philosophy, MacMillian, 1991.
230
Bibliography
Leclerc, Ivor. Whitehead’s Metaphysics, Allen and Unwin, 1958. Old copyright but still the best nonHartshornean secondary source on Whitehead I’m aware of.
Lee, Jung. The Theology of Change: A Christian Concept of God in a Eastern Perspective, Orbis, 1979.
Mistakenly sees Whitehead and Hartshorne as thinking of God in monopolar terms. Says the I Ching
maintains change (God) is the ultimate reality beyond descriptive terms, but goes on the say many things,
for example, it is beyond being a subject or object. Says change produces creativity rather than creations
making change meaningful. “Change itself is changeless,” not just in the abstract, but as the concrete
reality. Caught in the necessary-as-abstract and the concrete-as-contingent dilemma. The book is another
example, this time in the Eastern tradition, of the inconsistencies of the negative theology and an enduring
substance-based ontology.
Loisy, Alfred. The Birth of the Christian Religion and The Origins of the New Testament, English trans. L. P.
Jacks, University Books, 1962. French edition: 1936. Loisy and Guignebert stand at the beginning of the
attempt to discover what can be known historically about Christianity rather than remythologize it.
Lucretius. The Nature of the Universe, Penguin, 1951, trans. R.E. Latham.
Mack, Burton. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
____________. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, Fortress Press, 1988, 432p.
McFague, Sally. Models of God, (A discussion of McFague’s ideas in this book on a television special seem to
complement my five-fold division of theistic concepts).
Moyers, Bill. “Spirit and Nature,” PBS video special discussing various models of God/dess.
Nahm, Milton C.. Selections from Early Greek Philosophy, 1934, Appeton-Century-Crofts, 1962.
Nairn, Thomas A. "Hartshorne and Utilitarianism: A Response to Moskop," Process Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3,
Fall 1988. Lewis S. Ford, ed.
Navia, Luis E. & Eugene Kelly, eds. Ethics and the Search for Values, Prometheus, 1980.
Noss, John. Man’s Religions, Macmillan, 1949, revised 1956.
Odin, Steve. Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration versus
Interpenetration. SUNY, 1982. Scholarly discussion of the difference between (1) Buddhism’s
interpenetration based on the belief that the logic of strict symmetry is applicable to all reality so that
everything, past present and future is in everything else and (2) Whitehead’s cumulative penetration where
the logic of symmetry is applicable to the infinite realm of possibility but where asymmetry is the truth in
the relations of actuality, that is, the past is in the present and will be in the future, but the present is not in
the past, nor even less so is the future. Some lessons to be learned here about how to meaningfully
conceive of Omniscience and Omnipotence. Some interesting discussion of Jungian archetypes.
Potter, Charles. Did Jesus Write This Book? (Essay on “The Book of the Secrets of Enoch” or “Second Enoch”),
Universal, 1965. Fawcett, 1967. Despite the popularizing title, this is one place to find this interesting
piece of pseudepigrapha written at the time of Jesus and discovered in Serbia in 1892. Many parallels and
additions to the “blesseds” and “curseds” of the New Testament. Potter discusses this literature in relation
to the Essenes.
Process Studies, Barry L. Whitney, ed., Vol. I, No. I, Spring 1971 to present. The Journal for those interested in
Process Philosophy.
Radhakrishnan, S. Eastern Religions and Western Thought, Oxford, 1939, 1969.
Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, Yale, 1990. Analysis of the
origins and rise of Pauline Christianity. Discusses the relationships between various Jewish groups, Jewish
Christians and gentile Christians. Also insights one how conversion experiences shape religions and vice
versa. Extensive notes and bibliographical material for further research.
Suchocki, Marjorie. God-Christ-Church: A Practical Approach to Process Theology, Crossroads, 1982. First
half a fairly accurate though watered down introduction to Whitehead’s metaphysic as related to Christian
concepts with a short Glossary. Diagrams throughout are not helpful. The remainder on Christology,
Eschatology, Trinity, and so on is not likely to be convincing to either well-versed process thinkers or
traditional Christians
Thiering, Barbara. Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story,
HarperSanFrancisco, New York, l992.
Ulansey, David. OMM, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World,
Oxford, 1989. Essential reading. Finds the origin of Christianity’s major competitor in the discovery of the
precession of the equinoxes around 120 BCE. The religious formulation of this emotional insight that the
universe was not stable was forged by the Stoic university at Tarsus and soon found believers in the
Cilician-based pirates who spread it widely but secretly, not wanting others to have the power their insight
controlled. The mover of the “fixed” stars and power over all lesser powers was called the Lord of Lords.
The celestial Perseus (Mithras), His son by the mortal virgin Danae, “kills” Taurus to bring in the then
new age of Aries. Perseus because of his location in the (Milky) Way to the heavens, and his influence
with his Father, was able to help men who petitioned him to get through the treacherous after-life journey.
Taurus (the Bull) had died on the celestial cross (where the equator and ecliptic cross on the equinox).
231
Bibliography
This crossing which was in Taurus had precessed into Aries (the Ram) who must also “die” to bring in the
future age of Pisces (the Fishes). The implications for Christianity’s version of the Messiah (Christ) are
interesting, but the main philosophical point to evolve from this movement is that the universe is in God,
not God(s) in the universe. This insight and its implications for universal monotheism are still being
worked out. Some of Ulansey’s illustrations are from CIMRM: Vermaseren, Maarten, Corpus
Inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithracae. 2 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1956, 1960.
___________, MHS, “Mithras and the Hypercosmic Sun,” Paper delivered at the Fourth International Congress
of Mithraic Studies in Rome, Sept., 1990.
Voskuil, Duane. “Disassembling the Mantra: Part/Whole Equivocation in the Category of the Ultimate,”
Process Studies, Vol. 29.2, Fall-Winter 2000, Barry L. Whitney, ed.
___________. “Hartshorne, God and Metaphysics: How the Cosmically Inclusive Personal Nexus and the
World Interact,” Process Studies, Vol. 28/3-4, Fall-Winter 1999, Barry L. Whitney, ed.
___________.“Discussion of Palmyre M.F. Oomen’s Recent Essays in Process Studies,” Process Studies, Vol.
28/1-2, Spring-Summer 1999, Barry L. Whitney, ed.
___________.“Ethical Meaning’s Theistic Implications,” Vol. 14, Winter 1975, Dialog: A Journal of Theology,
Robert W. Jenson, ed., Dialog, Inc.
___________. “The Logic of Death,” Vol. 15, Autumn 1976, Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Robert W.
Jenson, ed., Dialog, Inc.
___________. “Grace: God as Not Free Not to Love,” Vol. 17, Winter 1978, Dialog: A Journal of Theology,
Robert W. Jenson, ed., Dialog, Inc. Asserts there is a metaphysical dimension to love that is an aspect of
God’s essence. It does not deny co-equally good ways to love at each moment; so the way God actually
loves does require a creative, free choice.
___________. “Some Philosophical Ideas in T. S. Eliot’s ‘Four Quartets,’” North Dakota Quarterly, Vol. 40,
No. 3, Summer 1972.
___________. “Whitehead’s Metaphysical Aesthetic,” Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1969.
Whitehead, Alfred North:
AI––Adventures of Ideas, 1933, Free Press, 1967. Readable history of ideas (especially the idea of
“Freedom”) with some systematic items he didn’t develop in PR.
AE––Aims of Education, 1929, Free Press, 1967. A series of essays on education and science.
CN––Concept of Nature, 1920, Cambridge. An early work that continues the analysis began in PNK.
PNK––The Principles of Natural Knowledge, 1919). Whitehead develops what he calls “panphysics,” an
analytical point of view between physics and metaphysics. Both this and CN (all his work in some way)
draw heavily on his insights in symbolic logic and mathematical relations.
Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead, written by Lucien Price, Greenwood, 1977. Price’s rendering of
conversations in which ANW took part. Declared to be extremely accurate by ANW himself. “They reveal
the charm and personality of a great man in his less formal moments as he discusses almost anything.”
ESP––Essays in Science and Philosophy, 1968, Greenwood. Whitehead's last essay on his personal life,
some philosophical issues, education and science. Personable as always and frank.
PNK––An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge, 1919; Dover 1982.
FR––The Function of Reason, 1929. Beacon, 1958.
IM––Introduction to Mathematics, Oxford, 1959 rev.
MT––Modes of Thought, 1938. Free Press, 1968. One of his last works and most readable with the
pressure of his difficult systematic works behind him.
NL––Nature and Life, 1934; Greenwood, 1969.
PR––Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology, 1929; Free Press, 1978 corrected ed.. His major work.
Heavy reading. Begins with an excellent statement of what philosophy is trying to do; presents a bare-
bones categoreal scheme and then develops it. Along the way he has some unsurpassed insights into the
history of systematic thought and presents his best effort at his life-long goal of providing foundations (a)
for interpreting the notions of post-relativity physics, and (b) for how the abstract, definitional discipline
of mathematics and logic has anything to say about the contingent, given world of sense experience.
Though Whitehead discusses “God” and has some valuable insights, he is not so clear on this issue as one
would wish, here or in any of his work.
RM––Religion in the Making , 1926, Meridian, 1960. Readable account of the development and purpose of
religion and its relation to rational understanding.
SMW––Science and the Modern World, 1925. Free Press, 1967. Readable history of ideas with some
obscure systematic chapters.
S––Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect, 1927. Fordham, 1985. Short development of some of the
important vocabulary found in PR and a discussion of causation and the meaning of “meaning” as
symbolic reference within an experience.
232
Bibliography
Philosophy of Science
Aczel, Amir D.. Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics, Four Walls, Eight Windows, 2001.
Beckman, Petr. A History of ! (pi). St. Martin’s Press, 1971.
Davies, Paul. The New Physics. Cambridge, 1989.
Einstein, Albert. Relativity: The Special and The General Theory, Crown, 1916.
Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science, Penguin, 1987
Gribbin, John. In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality, Bantam, 1984.
Lederman, Leon with Dick Teresi. The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?
Delta, 1993,
Llinás, Rodolfo Rl, I of the Vortex, From Neurons to Self, MIT Press, 2001
Herbert, Nick. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics, Doubleday, 1985. “An Excursion into Metaphysics
and the Meaning of Reality.”
Peat, F. David. Einstein’s Moon: Bell’s Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality, Contemporary
Books, 1990. Demonstrates once more the bankruptcy of the foundation of physical theory.
_____________. Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything, Contemporary Books, 1988.
Silva, J. Andrade e, & G. Lochak. Quanta, World, 1969.
Prehistorical and Historical Social Structure
Barker-Benfield, G .J.. The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes Toward Women and Sexuality in
Nineteenth-Century America, Harper and Row, New York, 1976.
Davis-Floyd, Robbie. Birth as an American Rite of Passage, University of CA, 1992.
DeMeo, James. Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence
in the Deserts of the Old World, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab, 1998.
_____________.“The Origins and Diffusion of Patrism in Saharasia, c. 4000 BCE : Evidence for a Worldwide,
Climate-Linked Geographical Pattern in Human Behavior,” World Futures, Vol. 30.
_____________. On the Origins and Diffusion of Patrism: The Saharasian Connection, University of Kansas,
1986. Doctoral dissertation. Reprinted in Journal of Orgonomy, issues: 21(2), 22(1), 22(2), 23(2), 24(1).
Eisler, Riane. Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body, HarperSanFrancisco, 1995.
Ellegard, Alvar. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook Press, Woodstock, New York, 1999.
Ferguson, George. Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, Oxford, 1958.
Fox, Robin Lane. The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, Knopf, 1992.
Gallenkamp, Charles. Maya: The Riddle and Rediscovery of a Lost Civilization, Viking, 1959. Third revision,
1985.
Gimbutas, Marija. The Civilization of the God dess, HarperCollins, 1991. Gimbutas is essential reading for
seeing our culture from a prepatriarchal perspective.
_____________. The Language of the Goddess, HarperCollins, 1989.
_____________. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, University of Calif. Press, 1981, reprinted 1992.
Grahn, Judy. Blood, Bread and Roses: How Menstruation Created the World, Beacon, Boston, 1993.
Herm, Gerhard. The Celts: The People Who Came Out of the Darkness, St. Martin’s Press, 1975, 312p.
Excellent analysis of the Celts and their interaction with the Mediterranean powers from 400 BCE . through
the Romanization of Europe and its collapse and its rechristianization by Irish missionaries.
Karlsen, Carol F.. The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England, Vintage, 1987.
Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy, Oxford, 1986.
_____________. The Creation of the Feminist Consciousness, From the Middle Ages to Eighteen-Seventy,
Oxford, 1993
Mallory, J. P.. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, Thames and Hudson,
London, 1989.
McGlone, William R. and Phillip M. Leonard. Ancient Celtic America, Panorama West Books, 1986.
Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Gods and Kings,
Dennis Tedlock, trans., Touchtone, 1985.
Rossini, Stéphane. Egyptian Hieroglyphics: How to Read and Write Them, Dover, 1989.
Sjoo, Monica and Barbara Mor. The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth,
HarperCollins, New York, 1987.
Spretnak, Charlene. Lost Goddesses of Early Greece: A Collection of Pre-Hellenic Myths, Beacon, 1978.
Stone, Merlin. When God Was a Woman, Harvest, 1976.
Tannahill, Reay. Sex in History, Stein and Day, 1980.
Teubal, Savina J.. Sarah the Priestess: The First Matriarch of Genesis, Swallow, Athens, 1984.
233
Bibliography
The Truth Seeker, July/August 1989. Contains the addresses of the First International Symposium on
Circumcision (including female infibulation and clitoridectomy).
Voskuil, Duane. “From Genetic Cosmology to Genital Cosmetics: Origin Theories of the Righting Rites of
Male Circumcision,” presentation at the Third International Symposium on Circumcision, 1994. Published
in Circumcision, A Virtual Journal , 1997.
<http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/CIRCUMCISION/v2n1.html#reprint3> also at
<http://www.boystoo.com/history1.htm > a website concerned with the moral issue of genital integrity.
Walker, Barbara. WDSSO, The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects, HarperCollins, 1988.
____________. WEMS, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, HarperCollins, 1983. The
information in this work is essential for understanding the forces at work in our culture.
Woolger, Jennifer Barker and Roger J. Woolger. The Goddess Within: A Guide to The Eternal Myths That
Shape Women’s Lives, Fawcett Columbine, 1987.
Sexual Biology and Homosapian Evolution
Fagan, Brian M.. The Journey from Eden: The Peopling of Our World, Thames and Hudson, 1990.
Morgan, Elaine. The Descent of Woman, Stein and Day, New York, 1972. Evolution from a woman’s point of
view.
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan. Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality, Summit Books, 1991.
___________. Origins of Sex, Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination, Yale, 1986.
234
Index
A
Aaron, 116
abandon hope, 7
Abel, 40
abortion, 3
Abraham, 40, 114
absolute, 64, 65, 67, 80, 198, 199,
204, 211
absolute beginning, 170
absolute motion, 67
absolute place, 67
absolute space, 67
absolutely nothing, 22
abstract, 59, 82, 157, 163, 204
abstract knowledge, 158
abstract meaning, 128
abstract meaning of value, 134
abstract necessities, 163
abstract-concrete dilemma, 163
abstractions, 26, 77, 157, 158
access, 39
accidentally, 16, 175
act of God, 175
active-passive, 28
actual container, 170
actual entity, 85, 182, 187, 204
actual existence, 156
actual infinitesimal, 64
actual reality, 82
actual whole, 162
Actuality, 64, 156-158, 162, 163,
172
actuality as potentiality, 162
Actuality, How Something Exists,
204
Adam, 41, 119
adequate, 26
adventure, 146, 194
Aegean Sea, 47
aesthetics, 3
aether, 53
Africa, 115
afterlife, 35, 93
Age of Aries, 107
aggressive, 28
Agnosticism, 159, 161, 205
air, 49
Alice, 2, 6, 7, 57, 166, 223
All, 9, 17, 27, 167
all in all, 180
all possible acts, 158
all possible facts, 10
Allah, 151
all-inclusive, 133, 163, 166
all-knowing, 27, 152
all-loving, 146, 147, 152
all-loving, 132
all-powerful, 174
almighty, 123
alpha, 58, 195, 214
Alpha and Omega, 56
alteration, 85
alternative, 8, 163
altruism, 134, 205
Amazons, 42, 102
American Christian Patriot, 114
amniotic fluid, 78
amputation, 42
analytic philosophers, 215
analytic schools, 22
Anaxagoras, 68, 87, 218
Anaximander, 49
Anaximenes, 49, 54, 65
angels, 147, 119, 151, 223
angels, 117, 119, 121
animal sacrifice, 40, 115, 116
animals, 3, 32
animism, 153
ankh, 195
Annie Sprinkle, 35
annual cycles, 101
Anointed One, 117
Anselm, 156-158, 159, 163, 179,
205, 211, 216, 217, 226
anti-metaphysicians, 22
Antiochus Epiphanes, 116
antipleasure, 101
apocalypse, 121, 205
apocalyptic, 117
Apollo, 110
appearance, 50, 95, 153, 204, 205
applicable, 25
arbitrary, 11
Aristotelian, 71
Aristotle, 19, 52, 77, 132,162, 206,
215, 218, 173
arrangement, 72
arrow, 64
art, 31
artifacts, 32
ascetic, 52, 115
asceticism, 102
Asia Minor, 47, 114
assumption, 5, 8, 9, 10
Assyrians, 41
astrologer, 108
astronomy, 106
Atheism, 153, 159, 161, 205
Athena, 58
atomism, 9, 71, 205
atomists, 54
atoms, 71, 73, 81, 171
attribute, 63, 160
Augustine, 80, 93
authoritarian, 174
authority, 12, 132
awareness, 143
axis of the universe, 107
Aztec, 194
B
baboon, 42
Bacchus, 195
bachelors, 23
Bacon, 76
bacteria,, 33
bad, 132
bad luck, 175
baptism, 123
baptists, 116
basic aesthetic, 174
bathing in bovine blood, 106
beautiful, 11, 132
beauty, 53
becoming, 36, 59, 94
beginning, 170
behavior patterns, 191
being, 36, 59, 64, 68, 77, 84, 85,
87, 94, 155, 156, 171, 173, 181,
206
being only, 73
beliefs, 5, 6, 11, 151, 191
believe, 5, 6
believing, 5, 6
Bell’s Theorem, 188
bene Zadokites, 116
Bergson, 84, 95
Berkeley, 70, 80, 207, 216, 223
better person, 13
bicycle, 3
Big Bang, 49
biological evolution, 31
bird, 3, 36
bird song, 3
bird-watching, 3
birth, 93
birthing-creator, 41
Black and Caspian seas, 102
Black Elk, 150
blacks, 3
blessing, 39
blind determinism, 49
blind necessity, 49
bliss, 40
blood, 33-35, 39, 41, 101, 110,
194
blood and flesh, 101
blood line, 93
blood of the lamb, 110
blood rite, 39
blood sacrifice, 40
blood shed, 93
blood ties, 93
blood-letting, 101, 106, 115, 194
235
Index
bodiless, 62
body fluids, 34
body of the Goddess, 94
boredom, 129
born again, 93
born of woman, 93
boundless stuff, 41
Brahman, 62, 97, 114
brain, 188
brain cells, 143
brain-trace, 72
breast, 40, 58
brethren, 115
broken mirrors, 78
Brown, 38
Buddhism, 102
Buddhists, 76, 81, 85, 97, 130,
144, 162, 178, 181, 206, 218
C
Caduceus, 103
Cain, 40
Cain and Abel, 101
Calvinistic, 117
Canaan, 115
Canis Minor, 108
Carroll, 7, 21, 57, 166
Caspian and Black Seas, 42
castration, 52
cat, 2
catechisms, 11
categories, 88
caterpillar, 57
cathedral, 29
cathedral domes, 109
cauldron, 208
causation, 2, 16
cause and effect, 206
causes, 18, 171, 206
Cautes, 108
Cautopates, 108
caves, 109
celestial cross, 108
celestial equator, 108
celestial pole, 107
celestial salvation, 118
celestial sphere, 109
celibacy, 115, 116
centaur, 102
Central America, 106
chair, 11
challenge, 6
change, 2, 94, 195
change, 41, 49, 59, 64, 69, 85, 162
changeless, 9, 58, 62, 128, 163,
157
changeless is better, 50
changeless reality, 156
changeless realm, 77
changelessness, 77
chaos, 68, 134
chaos theory, 172, 220
chaotic, 71, 129
characteristics, 157, 162
charm, 173
chess player, 22
childish, 176
Chinese, 42
choice, 49
chords, 53
Chosen, 117, 195
Christ, 48, 117, 123, 214
Christ, 121, 152, 209, 213
Christian, 40, 115, 176, 211
Christian patriarch, 58
Christianity, 40, 102, 106, 110,
111, 117, 119
Christians, 110, 191
Christmas, 108, 192
christology, 176
Chrysippus, 106
Chrysostum, 42
Cilicia, 105
circle of Cilician pirates, 109
circles, 6, 10
circles, 8
circumcision, 3, 42, 93, 115, 102,
115, 117, 207
circumstances, 17
civilization of the Goddess, 42
clarification, 159, 160
class, 158
Classical, 153
classical theism, 170, 207
cleanliness, 166
clear and distinct, 80
clear, distinct and certain, 28
Clement of Alexandria, 58, 100
Clever Elsa, 57
clitoridectomies, 101
clitoris, 42, 58
coagulate, 33
co-equals, 174
Cogito ergo sum, 80
coherence, 49, 207
coherency, 25
coherent, 158
comet, 52
comfort zone, 144
coming-to-be, 84 94, 157, 178
common denominators, 158, 204
common factor, 8, 78
common past, 87
communion ritual, 35
comparison, 9
comparison, 59, 72, 77, 85, 178
competitively,, 39
complete control, 174
complete determinism, 17, 23
complete freedom, 17, 18, 173
complete nothingness, 158
completely abstract, 128
completely determined, 18
completely different, 22
completely free, 173
conceivable, 160
concept, 11, 160, 207
concepts, 12
conceptual existence, 156
conceptual necessities, 158
concrescence, 180
concrete, 157, 207
concrete actuality, 94, 156
concrete content of value, 133
concrete individual, 65
concrete unity, 63
concrete universal, 58, 59, 65
concrete Wholes, 133
concretely exist, 157
concreteness, 59, 64
conditional necessity, 10
conditionally, 10
conflagration, 106, 117
conscious, 171
conservation laws, 71, 208
Conservation of Energy, 71
Conservation of Matter, 71
consort, 39, 40, 101
Constantine, 121
container, 63
contemporaneously, 185
contemporaries, 94, 96
contemporary, 187
context, 11
contiguous, 76, 81, 87, 187
contingent, 19, 23, 85, 128, 153,
155-157, 158, 160, 163, 208,
214
contingent actualities, 158
contingent idea, 156
contingent in concrete content,
163
contingent premises, 160
contingently existing reality, 159
contingently rational, 9
continuous, 172, 182
continuous change, 64
continuous motion, 73
continuum, 63, 68, 69
continuum of being, 73
continuum of creating, 172
continuum of distance, 73
contradiction, 24, 156
contrast, 96
contribution, 128
cooperation, 39
Copernicus, 52
Copi, 21
Copy Theory of Knowledge, 81
236
Index
core, 87
Corvus, 108
cosmic, 3, 42, 151, 194
cosmic aether, 170
cosmic cross, 108
cosmic egg, 110
cosmic egg, 36
cosmic experience, 87
cosmic hero, 146
cosmic life, 132
cosmic lover, 122
cosmic moment, 184
Cosmic Mother, 49
cosmic reality, 78
cosmic salvation, 110
cosmic savior, 110
cosmic series, 183
cosmic stage, 121
cosmic unity, 41, 86
cosmic unity, 42, 43, 66
cosmic womb, 32
cosmic womb, 32, 194
cosmological, 144
cosmologies, 48
cosmology, 53, 144
cosmos 110
cosmos, 33, 48,, 88, 106, 107, 109,
110
covenant, 116
Coyote, 194
Crater, 108
created, 9, 163
created determination, 18
created reality, 9
creating, 158, 170
creation, 48
creations, 10, 78, 191
creations are supreme, 167
creative, 9
creative addition, 194
creativity, 28, 172
creatures, 2
crescent, 35
crisis of the irrational, 55
critical thinking, 5
crone, 33, 35, 208
crone, 35
cross, 36, 134, 108, 134, 208
cup, 108
curd, 33
cybernetic, 50
cycle, 40
cycles
cycles, 32, 33, 194
cyclical ages, 106
cyclical bleeding, 194
D
dagger, 108
Danae, 106, 109
Dante, 7
David, 117
dea, 78
Dead Sea Scrolls, 114, 117, 119,
211
death, 32, 34, 35, 59, 76, 93, 94,
114, 132, 170, 209
deduction, 159
deductive logic, 10
deism, 153, 209
deity, 132
deliberate loss, 175
deliberately, 175
Delphi, 106
democracies, 101
democratic, 58, 151, 174
Democritus, 71, 81, 85, 170, 171,
179, 205, 207, 208, 216, 218,
224
deo, 78
depth, 129, 174
Descartes, 21, 76, 80
destruction, 194
determinate, 172, 180
determined, 9, 19
determinism, 17, 23, 50, 73, 172
determinist, 9, 17, 163
deterministic atomism, 71
deterministic metaphysic, 173
determinists, 23, 25, 163, 206
Deuteronomy, 41
Devil, 175
Dickinson, 7
die, 87, 130
DIE FOR NOTHING, 127
differences, 59, 72, 194
dilemma, 157
dimensions, 192
dipolar, 94, 176, 178
dipolarity, 81, 94, 210
disciples, 115
discovered, 164
discrete amounts, 64
dispassionate, 75
diversity, 134, 170
divine, 40, 49, 78
divine order to, 11
divine plan, 117
divine power, 17, 151
divinities, 2
divinity, 2, 78, 192
divinity, 2, 11
divisible, 73
dodecahedron, 53
dominant males, 42
Dorothy, 3
Downward Way, 58
dualism, 68, 73, 94, 178, 181, 210
dualistic, 118
duality, 81, 94
duration, 181
dying, 33
E
E = mc2 , 71
Easter, 192, 193
Eastern philosophy, 78
eating, 33, 34
eats, 101
eclipse, 48
ecliptic, 108
efficient, 19
egg, 109
ego, 130
egocentric, 133
Egoism, 42, 129, 130, 210
Egypt, 114, 115
Einstein, 71, 73, 208, 220, 224
Eleatic School, 63
elect, 115, 195
electromagnetic, 187, 188
elements, 49
Eliot, 217
Emanationism, 153
embrace, 82
Embryos, 36
Emory University, 3
empirical, 25, 210
empirical fact, 65
empirical science, 71
Empirical Theism, 159, 161
end of a series, 76
endurance, 167
enduring substance, 68, 94
energy, 71
enjoying, 3
enjoyment, 153
enriching, 152
enrichment, 146, 193
entropy, 188
environment, 143, 144, 184
environmental, 101
Environmentalism, 129, 134, 210
Ephesus, 58
Epicurus, 67
episeotomies, 101
epistemology, 211
epochs, 106
equally well, 167
equinox, 108
equinoxes and solstice, 110
error, 134
eschatological, 117
eschatology, 121, 211
esse is percipi, 80
essence, 155, 158, 163
Essenes, 102, 105, 114
eternal, 162
ethical, 11
ethics, 128
eunuchs, 40
237
Index
Europe, 42
evaluation, 132, 178
Eve, 41
everlasting, 10, 133, 211
everlasting life, 130
evidence, 5, 6
evil, 41, 121, 147, 153, 169, 175,
176, 178, 192
evil Zadokites, 116
evolution, 211, 222
evolutionary, 128
ex nihilo, 41
examination, 5
exception, 8, 9
exchange, 77
existence, 11, 77, 157, 158, 163,
211
existence of God, 155
Existentialism, 211
existentialists, 156
expect, 5
experience, 9, 11, 28, 77, 86, 132,
143, 159
expression, 12
external, 73
external intestines, 102
external relations, 81, 95
external relationships, 28, 171
extra-marital, 41
eye for an eye, 118
F
face to face, 54, 176
fact, 4, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 134, 212
factor, 9, 10
Factual (Empirical) Theism, 212
Factual knowledge, 160
faith, 6, 8, 17, 70, 81, 148, 226
fall equinox, 108
fallacy, 212
Fallacy of Existential Import, 158,
211, 212
Fallacy of Misplaced
Concreteness, 11, 87, 221, 224
fallible, 192
fallopian tubes, 35
false, 22
false teeth, 16
familiar experience, 143
fatalistic, 117
fate, 106
father, 3
Father Brahm, 114
father god, 102
fear, 42, 119, 121, 144, 147, 150,
151
feeler, 81
feeling, 143, 171
feeling (caused by), 168
feeling alternatives, 172
feeling of loss, 191
feelings, 70
eemale, 2, 39
female metaphors, 11, 50, 93, 101,
102
female reproductive system, 101
female trinity, 93
females, 40
feminism, 122
fences, 194
fertility, 101
fetus, 36
fiat, 17
final causes, 19
final context, 11
final end, 128
final interpreter, 11
final state, 132
finite amount, 63, 64
fire, 48, 58
first moment, 128, 170
First Woman, 194
fixed stars, 107
flaying, 101
flesh, 35, 194
flesh and blood, 40
flies, 36
flow of feeling, 191
flow-er, 209
flux, 36, 58, 77
fool, 156, 159
force, 173
forever, 93, 128
forgetfulness, 130
forgotten,, 130
Form of Forms, 77
Form of the Good, 77
Forms, 77, 82, 213
founding fathers, 114
fragment, 161
fragmentariness, 192
free will, 119
freedom, 17, 18, 50, 67, 168, 172,
173, 201, 205, 231
frog, 36
Frost, 194
full reality, 9, 82, 84
future, 65, 128, 133, 172, 178
G
gaining access, 42
gates, 119
Gaunilo, 155, 160
gender
gender, 2, 3, 31-33, 41, 151, 194
genderless, 43
genders, 48
general beliefs, 11
General Theory of Relativity, 65
generic, 172
generic-specific, 28
genes, 39
genetic code, 33
genital blood-letting, 93
genital mutilation, 40, 42, 102
genitals, 40, 101
Gentile, 114
geometric patterns, 16
geometrical, 69, 77
geometrical patterns, 54
geometrical properties, 70
Gimbutas, 31, 32, 35
given, 9
glory, 122, 194
gnosis, 117
gnostic, 35, 53, 114
Gnostic Christians, 117
Gnosticism, 117, 213
goal, 5
goblins, 143
God, 2-4, 8, 11, 16-18, 21, 29-44,
48, 49, 51, 52, 58, 65, 66, 71,
76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 93, 94, 96,
100-102, 105, 107, 108, 110,
111, 114-124, 127-129, 130,
132-134, 143, 145-148, 150157, 159, 160, 162-182, 184,
185, 187-189, 193, 194, 197199, 205, 207-210, 212, 213,
214, 217, 218, 220, 223, 226233
God loves, 42
God/dess, 2, 8, 17, 110, 121, 122,
146, 151, 157, 159, 160, 163,
172, 173, 175, 185, 213
God’s likeness, 11
God’s plan, 117
God’s Son, 121
Goddess, 2, 32-34, 35, 39-41, 58,
71, 101
Goddess cultures, 76
Goddess tradition, 108
Goddess’ blessing, 34
Goddess-worshipping, 101
God-of-wrath, 117
gods, 93, 153
gods and goddesses, 150
God's mind, 51
good, 5, 6, 132, 174, 217, 192
Good News, 121, 122, 152
goodness, 11, 53, 168, 174
Gorgon, 106, 107, 108
Gould, 38
grace, 39
Grahn, 39
Grand Unified Theory, 49
Great Cosmic Female, 32
Great Father, 32
Great Goddess, 32, 48
Great Mother, 32, 93
238
Index
Greatest Conceivable Being, 162
greatest conceivable number, 55
greatest conceivable reality, 156
greatest conceivable whole, 162
greatest present whole, 162
Greeks, 47, 114
Groucho Marx, 155
group, 11
growth, 128
H
hag, 33
Hale-Bopp, 52
happiness, 169
Happy Buddha, 33
Hartshorne, iii, 2, 3, 4, 11, 22, 25,
27, 28, 29, 65, 68, 70, 71, 78,
79, 88, 94, 110, 132, 134, 146,
150, 154, 157, 158, 160, 162,
163, 164, 166, 172, 177, 178,
179, 183, 188, 199, 201, 202,
205, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213,
215, 216, 217, 219, 223, 224,
226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231
hate, 169, 178
hating, 121
have in common, 8
heaven, 94, 110, 111, 121, 122,
123, 130, 176
Heaven’s Gate, 52
heavenly Redeemer, 117
Hebrew, 41, 40, 102, 114
Heisenberg, 172, 220, 221, 226
Helios, 110
hell, 7, 94, 121, 123, 130, 176
Hera, 33
Heraclitian, 181
Heraclitus, 58, 64, 77, 85, 94, 95,
206, 208, 209
hermaphrodite, 58
Hermes, 58, 103, 214
hero, 109
heroes, 110, 178
heroic quest, 107
hierarchical, 111, 117, 195
hierarchical order, 116
hierarchically, 151
hierarchy, 115
High Priest, 116
Hindu, 62, 76
Hinduism, 97
Hindus, 76
Hipparchus, 47, 106, 107, 224
Hippasus, 55
history of philosophy, 27, 68
Hitler, 175
hoi ploi, 58
holiness, 192
holly, 48
holy, 39
Holy Spirit, 123
holy wars, 12, 93, 121, 223
hominoids, 42
homophobia, 42
hooks, 69
hope, 192
hope of life’s rebirth, 192
horse, 102
how, 158
human sacrifice, 40, 102, 194
Humanism, 129
humility, 134
hunt, 143
hunting, 101
Hydra, 108
Hylozoism, 213
hypercosmic sun, 110
hypotenuse, 54
hypothesis, 183, 213
hypothesize, 144
hysterectomies, 101
I
idea, 6, 213
idea, 5, 6, 156, 157
Idealism, 214
Idealist, 70
ideas, 5, 6, 77
I-deas, 82
identity, 2
ignorant, 172
illogical, 159, 172
illusion, 78
immanent, 49
immortal, 62, 101
immortality, 40, 101
impossible, 10, 26
impossible things, 21
impure, 68
impurity, 114
inadequate rituals, 191
inclusion, 171
inclusiveness, 85
incoherence, 73
incoherent, 161
inconsistent, 161
incorruptible, 94
incubates, 41
Indeterminacy Principle, 173, 226
Indeterminate, 49
indeterminateness, 55
India, 42
indifference, 178
individual, 65, 162
individual as a series, 166
indivisible, 187
indivisibles, 69
IndoEuropeans, 42, 49, 58, 114
inequality, 195
Infallible experience, 28
infibulations, 101
infinite, 161, 162, 171
infinitesimal, 55, 73, 214
infinitesimal distance, 63
infinitesimally, 77, 181
infinity, 55
in-group, 145
inheriting, 87
initial conditions, 172
Inquisition, 71
insanity, 144
insight, 6
instant, 68
instantaneously, 185, 187
insubordination, 153
intense-faint, 28
internal, 28
internal alteration of a being, 72
internal relations, 81
intolerance, 192
invalid, 156, 158
iron, 102
irrational, 9, 10, 55, 144
irrationality, 144
Islam, 121
J
James, 116, 120
Jehovah, 116
Jerusalem, 116
Jesus, 48, 110, 116
Jewish, 116
Jewish people, 114
Jewish ritual law, 114
Jews, 117
JFK, 12
Job, 215
John the Baptist, 120
Josephus, 116
Joshua, 115
Judaeo-Christian, 151
judge, 5, 6, 145
judging, 5
judgment, 5, 6, 101, 119, 132, 133
just, 122, 147, 151
justice, 178
justification, 132
justification by faith, 117
K
karmic cycle, 76
Kepler, 1571-1630,, 52
key, 119
kill, 143
kind of creation, 9
king, 40, 101, 117
King of Kings, 107
King of the Earth, 119
king, Acrisius, 106
239
Index
Kingdom of Heaven, 52
kinky, 34
knowable, 22
knower, 65, 81
knowing, 73
knowledge, 2
knowledge, 11, 168, 172
known, 81
Koran, 151
kosmokrator, 110
kosmos, 106
Ku Klux Klan, 3
Kurgans, 102
L
labarum, 195
land, 101
language, 3
last moment, 170
last thing, 128
lasting over time (throughout
changes), 170
Law of Contradiction, 64
Leibniz, 9, 16, 69, 75, 216, 223
Leo, 108
Levites, 114
Levitical, 115
life, 59, 64, 84, 170, 191, 194
life span, 167, 170
limit, 68
limited, 48
lineage of David, 117
lineage of the Levites, 117
lineal society, 130
little green people, 22
little people, fairies, 42
living for God, 127
Locke, 219
locomotion, 85
Logic, 8, 12, 63, 87, 85, 128, 192,
194, 214
logic of love, 122
logical, 4, 9, 25, 130, 132, 157,
172, 185
logical alternative, 157, 163
logical consequences, 195
Logical Contradictories, 17, 174
Logical Contraries, 17
Logical Positivism, 22, 23
logical possibility, 87
logical propositions, 23
logical relationships, 10
logically, 82, 85, 157, 159, 160
logically impossible, 22, 77
logicians, 158
logos, 49, 57, 58, 59, 208, 214
lord, 121, 107
Lord of Flies, 36
Lord of Hosts, 154
Lord of Lords, 107, 110
love, 31, 121, 143, 150, 151, 169,
173, 176, 194
Love of God/dess, 121
loved, 169
love-death, 101
loving God, 122
luck, 214
Lucretius, 67, 71
Luna, 34
lunar calendar, 115
M
M, 78
ma, 33, 78
mad, 2
made in the image of God, 119
magic, 39
magnanimous, 145
maiden, 33, 35, 42
make a difference, 94
make sense, 8, 22
male, 39
male gender, 3
male hero, 102
male logic, 194
male-gendered, 50
mama, 33
mammaries, 33
mandate of Heaven, 42
manifold, 77, 78
many, 69, 84
Marduk, 41
Margulis, 33, 42
maria, 76, 78
marriage, 3, 41
martyr, 117
Mary, 37, 76, 78, 123
masculine, 2
master, 41, 121
masturbation, 41
mater, 49, 55, 78, 96, 111, 213,
224
material, 96
Materialism, 67, 73
math, 33
mathematical time, 67
matriarchal, 2, 42, 93
matriarchs, 40
matriarchy, 102
matrix, 78
matter, 49, 68, 69, 71, 78, 93, 96,
197, 198, 208
maya, 76, 78, 106, 194
McNamara, 127
meaning, 11, 128
meaning of, 128, 174
meaning of concepts, 12
meaning of life, 191
meaning of meaning, 130
meaning of value, 132
meaningful, 8, 146, 215
meaningfulness, 163
meaningless, 8, 128, 173, 130
measurement, 33
mediation, 86
Medieval, 42
Medusa, 107, 110, 218
memory, 59, 72, 77, 81, 95, 96,
121, 143
men, 3
men’s club, 93
menarche, 33
menopause, 33
menstrual blood, 35, 48, 93
menstrual cycle, 33
menstrual cyclical pattern, 40
menstrual fluid, 48
menstrual metaphors, 50
menstrual mind set, 39
menstruation, 33, 39, 41, 115
mental pain, 144, 175
merciful, 145, 147, 150, 152
mercy, 122
merely empirical propositions, 22,
24
merely rational Propositions, 22,
24
Messiah, 110, 115, 117, 121
metaphor, 32
metaphors, 2, 40
metaphysic, 77
metaphysical, 25, 68, 157, 164,
178, 179, 192, 220
metaphysical insights, 132
metaphysical knowledge, 26, 179
metaphysical logic, 194
metaphysical method, 65
metaphysical principle, 49
metaphysical proposals, 4
metaphysical propositions, 25, 160
metaphysical truths, 11, 194
metaphysician, 22, 156
Michelson-Morley, 170
Middle Ages, 40
Mideast, 42
might, 174
Milesians, 41, 47, 58, 65, 95, 205,
213, 215
Miletus, 47, 49
milk, 33, 48
milk of the Father, 58
Milky Way, 107, 108
Mill, 227
millennium, 118, 119
mind, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 50, 67, 68,
69, 76, 80, 87, 96, 188, 197,
199, 215
mind atoms, 72
mirror, 54, 76, 78, 176
mistakes, 6
240
Index
mistletoe, 48
Mitgard, 48
Mithraism, 102, 106, 110
Mithras, 195, 209, 217
Mithridates IV, 109
modal, 23, 155, 156, 158, 161,
162, 163, 199, 214
modal logic, 162, 163, 164, 214
modality, 28
mode of Existence, 167, 170
modern wave physics., 95
moment, 77, 156
moment of creating, 85
moment of creation, 157
moment of life, 85, 94
momentary lives, 143
momentary substance, 94
monad, 75
monism, 50, 68, 94, 215
monistic space, 170
monk, 157
monotheism, 41, 117
moon, 33, 35, 39, 48
moon milk, 41
moon-sickle, 102
moon-women, 102
morale, 173
more than, 82
Moses, 115, 117
Moslem, 43
mother, 3, 33, 35, 42
mother and child, 121
Mother Earth, 106
Mother Nature, 213
Mother of God, 193
mother stuff, 93
Mother-Womb, 41
motion, 71, 73
movie, 77
multiple inheritance, 87
multiple persons, 87
multiplicity, 183, 187
musical pitches, 53
mutations, 33
mutilate, 52
mutilations, 39
mystic, 40
mysticism, 53, 95
myth, 19, 32, 41, 43, 48, 122, 170,
216
mythological, 19
mythologies, 32
N
nationalism, 195
natural order, 11
nature, 33, 71
Nazarenes, 115
Nazareth, 120
Nazirite, 116, 120
Near East, 111
Near Eastern mythologies, 108
necessarily contingent, 157
necessarily existing being, 157
necessarily existing reality, 156,
159
necessarily existing reality, 156,
159
necessary, 5, 8, 9, 10, 19, 22, 23,
25, 64, 153, 158, 163, 203, 216
necessary actuality, 157
necessary being, 155, 157
necessary by definition, 23, 25
necessary essences, 163
necessary existence, 160
necessary if, 10
necessary in definition, 163
necessary premises, 160
necessary principles,, 26
necessary proposition, 24
necessary relationships, 9
necessary scheme, 25
necessary truth, 25
necessary truth, 25, 155
necessities, 11, 17, 18, 128, 133,
157, 158
necessity, 10, 22, 25, 49, 155, 156,
157, 163, 170, 199, 216, 217
negative prehensions, 187
negative value, 128, 174, 175
negative-positive, 28
neighbors, 194
Neolithic, 40, 48, 93
neurotic, 175, 178
neurotic, 194
never-beginning, 163, 170
never-ending, 163, 171
new age, 108, 110, 116
New Covenant, 116
New Testament, 116
New World Order, 117
Newton, 67, 96
nonbeing, 70, 72, 184
noncontingency, 160, 216
None, 9, 167
nongendered or commongendered, 2
non-necessity, 10
nonrational, 9, 10, 216
nonsense, 22, 23, 155, 157, 216
North Africa,, 42
north pole, 110
not necessary, 9
nothing, 10, 16, 27, 63, 72, 158,
173, 175
no-thing, 87
nothingness, 10, 63, 68, 73, 96,
170, 216
novelty, 174
O
obedience, 117, 119, 122, 145
obeying, 152
object, 73, 94, 169
objects, 28, 71, 94, 178
obligation,, 173
Odin, 209
offspring, 41
om, 58, 214
omega, 58, 214
omega, 193, 195
omnipotence, 173, 174, 216
omnipresence, 65
omniscience, 172, 181, 184
omniscient, 132, 172
omphalos, 58
once-in-a-universe, 87
one, 69, 76, 81, 84, 87
one group, 87
one in the many, 58
one series, 77
one whole, 153
Onias, 116, 117
Ontological Argument, 155, 217
or other, 163
orderly, 145
ordinary existences, 158
ordinary objects, 88
orgasm, 39
original, 81
original waters, 78
Orpheus, 110, 134
Orphic, 53, 110
Orphism, 217
owl, 35
P
Paleolithic, 32
panentheism, 48, 151, 153, 217
panentheistic, 110
panpsychism, 217
pantheism, 48, 95, 110, 151, 153,
217
pantheists, 106
paradoxes, 63
parents, 3
Parmenides, 9, 24, 59, 63, 65, 68,
69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 81, 85, 95,
94, 97, 128, 130, 155, 156, 170173, 194, 204, 206, 215, 216,
223, 224
part of the present, 85
parthenogenesis, 33, 218
parthenogenic, 40, 48
particular, 59, 65, 218
parts, 2, 18, 84, 85, 158
past, 32, 59, 77, 85, 86, 128, 130,
172, 179, 172, 174
past circumstances, 18
241
Index
past conditions, 19
paternity, 93
patriarch, 41
patriarchal, 2, 48, 78, 93, 106,
107, 114, 218
patriarchal ethics, 93
patriarchal God, 42
patriarchal gods, 41
patriarchal lineage, 114
patriarchal philosophers, 78
patriarchal religions, 42
patriarchal religious
bureaucracies, 101
patriarchal salvation, 93
patriarchy, 11, 35, 41, 42, 101,
102, 192
patterns, 65, 191
Paul, 100, 105, 110, 176
Paul of Tarsus, 54, 102
Pauline/Augustinian, 123
Pegasus, 107
Pentateuch, 116
Penthouse, 39
perfect (complete) island, 160
perfect island, 155, 160
perfect of its kind, 160
perfection, 161, 162, 163
Perseus, 106, 110, 108
Persian navy, 109
Persians, 114
person, 3, 6, 75, 87, 130, 143, 218
personal identity, 11
personal pronouns, 2
personal series, 143
perspective
perspective, 86, 171, 187
pH, 58
Phanes, 110
Pharisees, 116
philosophers, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 24,
70, 127, 128, 155
philosophical, 2, 3, 5, 6, 65
philosophical adventure, 63
philosophical positions, 24
philosophical problems, 2
philosophical system, 64
philosophies, 2, 40
philosophize, 11
philosophy, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13,,
22, 24, 25, 31, 35, 48, 59, 78,
106, 163, 194, 195, 218
philosophy class, 5
Phrygian, 217
Phrygian hat, 107
physical pain,, 144, 175
physical reality, 54
physical science, 86
physical theory, 17
physicists, 17
physics, 73, 87, 172
pi, !., 8
pigments, 68
Pilate, 123
plagiarism, 6
planetary spheres, 53
Plato, 69, 77, 163, 176, 211, 217
Plato, 54, 77, 78, 82, 130, 157,
160, 174, 206, 208, 213, 218
Platonic, 157
Platonism, 110
pleasure, 3, 40, 132
Pleiades, 108
plenum, 68, 218
pluralism, 68, 205
pluralistic theory, 68
poet, 3
point, 68
point of view, 86, 171
pole, 107
Polydectes, 107
polytheism, 152
pornography, 34
positive value, 174
positivism, 22, 23, 153, 219
positivist, 155, 159
positivistic, 128
positivists, 156, 157, 158, 163,
164, 209, 217
possibilities, 9, 64
possibility, 159, 172
possibility of nonexistence, 161
possible, 9
possible acts, 162
possible actualities, 162
possible fact, 10, 22, 65
potential, 68
potentiality, 28, 68, 162, 172, 178,
182, 219
Potter, 118
power, 16, 108, 122, 168, 173, 174
power of glory, 122
power of nurturing, 122
power of the cosmic female, 35
power of the Goddess, 58
power worship, 174
prayers, 118
precession, 106
precession of the equinoxes, 106,
110, 219
preChristian, 134
predators, 39
predestinationist, 117
predestined, 117
pregnant, 58
prehending, 176
premise, 65, 132
premises, 65
prepatriarchal, 2, 101, 106, 151
prepatriarchy, 3
present, 81, 172
present decisions, 19
present whole, 166, 170
priest, 34, 117
priestess, 39, 40, 101, 106, 114
priesthoods, 42
priests, 101, 116
primal ocean, 48
primary qualities, 219
primordial, 10, 32, 72, 133, 220
principle, 9, 49, 65
Principle of Rarefaction and
Condensation, 49
Principle of Sufficient Reason, ,
49 71, 220
principle of value, 132
Principle of Verification, 22, 23
probability, 220
problem, 2, 6
problem with Heraclitus’ system,
224
process, 5, 36, 41, 58, 84, 87, 94,
162, 172, 184
process ends, 85
process metaphysic, 172
process philosophy, 3, 206
professionals, 3
professor, 3
pronouns, 2
prophet, 117
Prophet, Priest and King, 117
propitiation, 34
proposition, 22, 163, 173, 202,
203, 220
Proslogium, 156
pseudepigrapha, 118
psyche, 93, 217
psychic, 188
psychology, 17, 87
psychopomps, 36
puberty, 93
pubic, 35
pubic triangle, 35
punish, 132
punishes, 42
punishment, 34, 93, 121, 132, 133,
152
pure, 68
pure abstractions, 77
pure flux, 59
pure potentiality, 162, 173
puritanism, 116
purity, 115, 194
purpose, 50
purpose of life, 11
Pythagoras, 53, 217, 218
Pythagorean, 95
Pythagorean Theorem, 54
Pythagorean Tuning, 53
Pythagoreans, 52, 65, 93, 214
242
Index
Q
qualities, 64
quality, 178
quantification, 9, 18, 208, 220
quantified, 73, 172
quantifiers, 17, 64, 173
quantity, 178
quantum leap, 73
quantum physics, 17, 220
quarks, 49
queen, 21 40, 101
questioning, 5
Quinn, 2
Qumran, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120,
211
R
racism, 42, 195
radiation experiments, 12
rape, 39
ratio !., 8
rational, 9, 191, 194
rational aspects, 9
rationalism, 221
rationalist, 78
rationality,8 195
reabsorption, 76
reality, 2, 8, 9, 17, 32, 36, 48, 63,
70, 75, 77, 94, 128, 153, 172,
191, 194, 205
really aesthetic, 128
really real, 84
rearrangement, 69, 73
reason, 9, 10, 132, 221
reasons, 5, 6
rebirth, 32, 75, 76, 93, 194
recycled, 71, 76
reduction, 49
reductionism, 49
re-embodied, trapped again in
mater, 76
refer, 82
refrigerator, 22, 63
regular solids, 54
reincarnation, 32, 76
related, 65
relations, 221, 168
relationships, 73, 171, 178
relativism, 21, 22, 23, 192, 198,
219, 222
relativists, 22
relativity physics, 86
Relativity, the Special and General
Theory of, 222
religio, 36
religion, 2, 31, 93, 106, 108 ,191,
223
religion
religion versus science, 49
religions, 40, 48
religious, 11, 12, 32, 40, 110, 144,
170, 173
religious wars, 55
remember, 72, 166
remembered, 143
Renaissance, 42
repetition, 134
Representational Theory of
Knowledge, 81, 223
reproduction, 32, 40, 101
reproductive organs,194
restricted, 26
resurrected, 94, 121
resurrection, 123
revelation, 223
revenge, 178
reward, 121, 148, 152
Rhodes, 106
right, 5, 6, 174
right triangle, 54
risky, 5
ritual, 34, 40, 115, 154, 191
ritual bathing, 116
ritual eating, 115
ritual mutilations, 102
Road of Darkness, 119
Road of Light, 119
rock, 109
Roman, 110, 116
Roman Empire, 110
Romans, 109
Rule Forty-Two, 7
rules, 23
Russia, 42
S
s/he, 146
Sabbath, 118
sacred, 12, 192
sacred and the profane, 39
sacred king, 40, 101, 111, 123
sacred number, 54
sacrifice, 40, 101, 134
sacrificed, 33, 110
sacrificed bulls, 110
sacrificed king, 101
sacrifices, 34, 106
sacrificial bull, 102
sacrificial male, 40
Sadducees, 116
saints, 42, 115
salvation, 105, 117
same being, 77
same thing, 77
Samyutta-nikaya, 75
saner, 2
Sankara, 62
Santa Claus, 107, 191
Sarah, 114
Satan, 121, 152
Sautrantika Buddhists, 75, 77
savage beasts, 42
saved, 129, 184
saving knowledge, 117
savior, 105, 110
Scandinavian, 48, 83
scars, 144
Schlick, 29
science, 2, 106, 173
scientific, 12, 17, 26
scientific method, 49
Scorpio, 108
Scythian, 102
seal, 134
search for meaning, 22
seasons, 33
Second Coming, 118, 119
Second Enoch, 118
secondary qualities, 223
secret knowledge, 109, 110
secrets of the universe, 12
SECTS, 148
seed, 41, 68
self-contradiction, 10, 22, 25, 29,
63, 81, 84, 94, 157, 163, 170,
172, 223
self-contradictory, 8, 9, 27, 58, 63,
65, 128, 132, 159, 163, 172-174
self-creation, 173
self-mover, 68
self-other, 28
self-power, 173
self-sacrifice, 117, 176
semen, 35, 48
sense experience, 50, 77
sentence, 5, 9, 22
separation, 117
sequence, 73, 96
sequential, 72
series, 75, 85, 86, 87, 97, 133,
143, 162, 167, 170, 171, 181
series of acts, 158, 170
series of beings, 85, 156
series of contingent acts, 163
series of creatings, 85
series of experiences, 97
series of moments, 170
series of subjects,, 178
series of units, 75
serpent, 31, 103
seven heavens, 119
sex, 3, 33, 40, 102, 116, 153
sex cell, 33
sex roles, 34
sexes, 11
sexism, 101, 195
sexual connection, 34
sexual consummation, 102
sexual virility, 101
Shakespeare, 62
243
Index
shaman, 39
shame, 100
shape, 8
Sheol, 118
shepherd, 110
Silbury Hill, 32
Silverstein, 93
Simplicius, 47
Simpson, 38
simultaneity, 86
simultaneous, 188
simultaneous Comparison, 59, 71,
84
simultaneous differences, 81
simultaneously, 82, 85
skeptical, 13
Skepticism, 223
Skeptics, 25
skull, 35
slave, 41
slavery, 101
sleep, 3, 7
smallest conceivable number, 55
snake, 35, 110
social cooperation, 88
social salvation, 130
society, 3
Socrates, 174
soil, 192
sol invictus, 110
solar events, 110
solar/lunar calendar, 115
solipsism, 82 (see Glossary entry),
221
Solomon’s, 116
Some, 9, 17, 27, 167
SomeNones, 64, 214
son, 40, 41, 101, 110, 147, 152,
194
son of God, 102, 110
Son of Man, 117
son-of-god, 106
Sons of Darkness, 118
sons of god, 115
Sons of Light, 115, 118
sons of the Goddess, 102
sorrow, 166
soul, 32, 76, 93, 94, 215
soul, 36, 53, 93, 94, 118, 130, 153
souls of animals, 119
sound sphere, 74
space, 67, 71, 74, 87, 97, 153, 170,
171, 224
Spader, 5
spatial, 174
spatial extent, 168
spatial-temporal continuum, 170
species, 3
specific possibilities, 172
speculative philosophy, 29
sperm, 39, 41, 102
Spinoza, 62, 80, 155
spiral, 6
spirits, 153
spiritual and changeless One, 76
split person, 144
spontaneity, 17
sports, 39
spring, 32
square root, 54
standard, 11
standard of value, 11
standing wave, 58
statement, 8
statement of fact, 132
static whole, 94
steppes of Russia, 102
Stoics, 106, 107, 224
Stoic university, 105
Stoicism, 117, 224
stuff, 65
stuff of reality, 85
subject, 73, 94, 169, 178
subjective, 76
subjective aim, 182, 187
submission, 119
submit, 121
substance, 62, 224
substance/attribute philosophy, 68
substitute king, 101
substratum, 41
succession, 59
successive differences, 59
successive many, 76
successively, 172
suffer, 152, 175, 178
suffered, 3, 94, 121, 143, 175
Suffering Servant, 116, 117, 121
suicide, 52
Sumerian/Babylonian, 41
summer solstice, 108
superject, 185
supernatural, 150
supernatural powers, 150
supremacy, 170
supreme, 162, 167, 226
supreme degree, 167
supreme Object, 178
supreme Subject, 178
supreme suffering, 175
supreme whole, 171
surpass, 160
syllogism, 132, 225
symbol, 32, 82, 134, 192, 215, 226
symbolic truth, 82
symbolism, 35, 82, 129, 232
symbolized, 101, 108, 109
sympatheia, 106, 108
systematic, 5
T
talk, 6
tarsos, 106
tauroctony, 108
Taurus, 106, 107
Teacher of Righteousness, 116,
117
temple, 100, 116
temporal, 174
temporary death, 185
temptations, 52
tertiary qualities, 70
Tertullian, 100, 191
testing, 154
tests, 119
tetrahedron, 54
Thales, 47, 48
Thales
thanksgiving), 34
that, 158
that than which nothing greater
can be conceived, 157, 159,
160, 162, 179
the best, 174
the Chosen, 122
the Unsurpassable, 160
theism, 129
theistic, 144, 153
theistic attribute, 167
theistic concepts, 143
theocentric, 133
theodicy, 151
Theories of Everything, 49
Theory of Knowledge, 80
Theory of Relativity, 86
thing, 65, 156
thinkers, 5, 6
thinking things, 80
third heaven, 119
Tiamat, 41
Timaeus, 108, 208
time, 66, 67, 87, 93, 97, 122, 170,
172, 224, 229
tobacco advertising, 12
tolerant, 3
tomb, 32, 71
Torah, 116
torchbearers, 108
tortoise, 63
torture, 119
tragedy, 152, 175, 178
tragic, 176, 192
transmissions, 86, 181
trauma, 144
tree, 36
tree of life, 35
triangle, 35
trinity, 35, 107, 226
trivialization, 134
Troy, 49
244
Index
true, 6
truth, 6, 9, 22, 24, 210, 214, 232,
233
Tyson, 38
U
UFO, 52
ugly, 132
ultimacy, 170
ultimate
ultimate, 9, 11, 129, 151, 167, 226
ultimate battle, 118
ultimate characteristic, 128
ultimate degree, 167
ultimate generalizations., 25
ultimate happiness, 176
ultimate metaphor, 101
ultimate order, 122
ultimate purpose, 128
ultimate value principle, 132
ultra-rationalism, 23, 172
ultra-rationalist, 9, 58, 210, 221,
226
ultra-rationalistic metaphysician,
22
unavoidable, 8, 23
unavoidable causes, 16
unavoidable commonalties, 9
unavoidable relationships, 9
unbiased, 2
Unbounded, 49, 162
Uncle Sam, 88
unclean, 116
unconditionally necessary, 10, 164
unconditionally rational, 22
unconquered sun, 110
underground sanctuaries, 109
understand, 5, 6
undertaker, 146
underworld, 32, 35
unhealthy, 144
Uni, 36, 48
unicorns, 158
unified diversity (see Chapter 18),
174
unique, 87
uniqueness of a series, 87
units, 75
unity, 41, 53, 48, 63, 72, 94, 129,
201, 202
unity of all reality, 32
unity of experience, 143
universal, 8, 12, 23
universal characteristics, 11, 133,
178
universal comparison, 11
universal fact, 65
universal factor, 17, 158
universal female, 32
universal knowledge, 8, 11, 158
universalities, 9
universally exemplified, 26
universally general characteristics
of reality, 191
universally or ultimately rational,
9
universals, 65
universe, 36, 110, 133
universe, 65, 71, 88, 107, 132, 163
University of Missouri, 3
unknowable, 133
unlimited, 49
Unmoved Mover, 77, 132, 218
unnecessary, 6
unpredictable, 144
unqualifiedly necessary, 23
unspecified range, 173
unsurpassability, 41, 78, 159, 163
unsurpassable, 83, 121, 133, 150,
210, 226
Unsurpassable, 22, 162, 163, 174,
181, 204
unsurpassable evil, 175
unsurpassable existence, 158
unsurpassable existence, 158
unsurpassable freedom, 173
unsurpassable individual, 162
unsurpassable lover, 132
unsurpassable series, 174
unsurpassed, 167
unsurpassed whole, 176
unthinking things, 80
Upward Way, 58
urine, 106
uterus, 35
utilitarian, 174
Utilitarianism, 227
V
vacuum, 68
vagina dentata, 102
valid, 156
validity, 10
valuations, 70
value, 128, 129, 132, 162, 174,
191
value theory, 163
values, 3
variety, 194
Vedanta, 62
velocity, 69
vengeance, 119
Verifiability Principle of Meaning,
23, 24
Vietnam, 3, 31, 127
violated, 59
virgin, 33, 58, 108, 110, 123
virginity, 41
voice, 58
voice umm, 68
void, 70, 72, 73, 170, 171, 179,
void, 72
vortex, 49
vulva, 35, 36
W
Wakan-Tanka, 150
Walker, 58
war, 42, 118, 194
warrior, 116, 218
Washington, 38
wastefulness, 3
water, 48
Watergate, 12
Western philosophy, 47, 50
what, 158
wheat, 108
Whitehead, 2- 4, 7, 11, 21, 22, 25,
28, 29, 54, 55, 59, 65, 71, 82,
84, 85, 87- 89, 94, 97, 127, 130,
132, 146, 154, 157, 158, 162,
170, 172, 176, 178, 180-183,
185, 187, 198, 199, 201, 202,
204- 207, 210, 213, 214, 218224, 228-231
Whiteheadian process, 163
Whitman, 93
whole, 2, 9, 18, 28, 73, 95, 129,
132, 157, 161, 162, 167, 175,
183, 192, 204, 227
whole of things, 32
whole, or a common aspect of
wholes
wholeness, 72
Wholes, 18, 157, 158, 171
wholesome, 39
Wicca, 218
wife, 3
will, 151
willful 151
winter solstice, 108
witch craze, 101
witch-burning craze, 42
witches, 42
wives, 100
Woman, 100, 114
womb, 41, 48, 58, 71, 75, 78, 143,
144, 192
womb control, 41, 93
womb liquid, 32
womb/tomb, 102
womb-liquid, 32
women, 3, 115, 117, 118, 194
Word, 58
World Soul, 96
World Tree, 83
world-views, 5
worship, 2, 122, 163, 177
worthiness, 40
Index
worthy, 93, 110
wrath, 150
Y
Yahweh, 101, 116
Yggdrasil, 48, 83
yoni, 36
Z
Z particles, 51
Zadok, 116, 117
Zeno, 205
Zeno’s paradox, 73, 227
Zeus, 58, 106, 109
Zeus versus the Vortex, 49
Zhurinovski, 38
Zodiac, 194, 219
Zoroastrianism, 102, 110
245
246
Duane Voskuil studied under Charles
Hartshorne at Emory University for a masters
degree in philosophy during 1960-61. He went on
to finish his doctorate at the University of
Missouri, Columbia in 1969 after some time away
from formal studies to start a family and teach
secondary English and German. He has since
taught philosophy for the university of North
Dakota system for 16 years, and Chaired the
Department of Philosophy at the University of
North Dakota, Grand Forks.
_________
After completing a Bachelor of Fine Arts,
1976, he taught visual arts for four years, during
which time he developed the concepts to build
solar-heated, earth-covered residences, and spent
several years as a contractor in Bismarck, North
Dakota, during the ‘80s designing and building
these interesting and environmentally low-impact
homes.
_________
An interest in advanced woodworking
prompted him to build his daughter’s first fullsized violin in 1973. Over the years, this craft has
grown into a full-time business, partly out of
necessity when controversy made teaching
contracts in philosophy scarce. The science and art
of violin acoustics and the theory of sound
potentiality have merged to produce a theory of
violin tuning that is now being tested and
published.
Duane Voskuil, 1991, b. 1938
Social justice, whether for gender equality or
to restrict the arbitrary exercise of power, has
always been a concern for Dr. Voskuil. He wrote
the North Dakota bill which became the first law in
the United States in 1995 to forbid non-consensual
genital mutilation, and has now gone to court to
ask the law be expanded to protect male minors,
since the state law in the form it was eventually
passed, like the recent federal law, only protects
females.
_________
Voskuil was born in South Dakota, raised in
Wisconsin, many years on his mother’s folks’
farmstead near Baldwin. He has 5 children and a
step-son from two marriages. He is presently
working on manuscripts for publication that range
from a ceramic testing lab manual, and a book on
verbals, to poetry and philosophical essays, while
building master violins and lecturing.
247

Change Unsurpassable

Transcription

Similar documents

Kendo - RPI Kendo Club

Journal Innovación Educativa - Revista Innovación Educativa

The Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik, Croatia hosts a large

The First Baptists, The Last Gnostics

Program - PhilEvents

View/Open - Kenyatta University

What if simple living could make our lives better?

Sustainable Philosophy of the Family Farmer

Stanford + Connects 16 x 9 PowerPoint template

THE Reggio Emilia APPROACH - KLA Schools of Palmetto Bay