 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > For Violin... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2005 3:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Meph: The dispositional reality of sentient beings are like their "ultimate DNA" as it were. Everything that they tend to be or become, both spiritually and physically, is guided by this reality. Because this is the case, it makes more sense, to me, to locate the influence going FROM the dispositional reality TO the Imago Dei...rather than the other way around.
VFG: But again, you're simply asserting a "dispositional reality" and adding all sorts of descriptions to it.
(From what I see...)
You're saying:
Dispositional reality/"ultimate DNA"/"thirdness"/part-you-think-is-really-cool-in-Doc's-dissertation-that-I-haven't-read ---> Imago Dei
(that is, out of the "dispositional reality" comes the Imago Dei)
But then (My original question... and I'm going to keep asking you this until either you or I give up or we all find a satisfactory answer (hopefully the satisfactory answer will happen first))
Out of what does the dispositional reality come?
Simply saying that God put it there doesn't answer the question. You've got to ground it in something upon which most Christians would agree. (I'm not saying I'm "most Christians", but let's start from somewhere that most Christians would agree). Otherwise it's "begging the question". (According to Alan, who of course knows oodles more about this b.t.q. stuff that I, our arguments beg the question when parties don't agree on the starting premises.)
Violin. My sister in God. It's going to be VERY, VERY important for you to read some of Doc's dissertation at this point, ok? My WHOLE FRAMEWORK theologically and cosmologically comes from dialogue with Greg's reconstructed process metaphysic...including the "dispositional reality."
I really...REALLY...think that if you would just skim through the book and find the sections on dispositions, it would be helpful. It will answer the questions that you have about what a disposition is, where it comes from, and why it's a necessary part of the system. Actually, let me point the section out to you...
Part 1: Six Foundational A Priori Truths of Hartshorne's System
Chap. 3: A Critical Evaluation of the Six Foundational A Priori Truths of Hartshorne's System
Subsection ii.3 : THE CATEGORY OF DISPOSITIONS
Pages 105-121
Vi, it is absolutely, positively CRUCIAL that you read this. This is NOT a wild goose chase, ok? It would just be a lot easier this way. Trust me.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/21/2005 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, ok  Alan brought it home yesterday (Monday) and I briefly browsed through it. But I'm a verrrrrrrryyyyyy sllllloooooooowwwwwwww reader...especially if it's the type of book from which my mind goes off on beaucoup tangents.
So after you get back (I saw on the other thread where Tom said something about that), we'll hack this out. 
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/21/2005 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/21/2005 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Let me say this too. A problem that I keep running into in explaining my universalism is that SO MUCH of it is grounded on a decent understanding of the process metaphysic and how it works out. To the extent Christians DON'T understand it, they would have a REALLY hard time seeing where I "came up" with the idea of this wierd programming called a "disposition"
And it usually takes too darn LONG to explain! I almost feel like I have to explain something about process...THEN "dispositions" (because they are so important to my view)...THEN LFW...THEN the metaphysics of love...THEN my conceptions.
It friggin SUCKS!!!!
I can kinda relate. Yesterday I had lunch with an old friend of mine from college, actually my old roommate and one of my groomsmen. He's been on staff with Campus Crusade now for 13 years, just to give you an idea of where he's coming from. We talked for about three hours, and I used up more words during that time than I normally do in a week. My voice was literally hoarse afterward.
I started by describing the landscape that's before me at this point in my journey. I started by describing the center of my view: God IS love. Then I described what I think this entails: just as God can't sin, so also God can't NOT love. If God can't not love, then it follows that can't NOT love even those in hell. That started a long discussion about the nature of hell... that God would be eternally frustrated to see those he loves eternally suffering. If God's not willing to endure this eternal frustration, then we have two options: annihilationism or universalism.
Anyway, it was a cordial conversation and he respected my views even though of course it was too much for him to swallow at once. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2005 8:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphases mine)
I can kinda relate. Yesterday I had lunch with an old friend of mine from college, actually my old roommate and one of my groomsmen. He's been on staff with Campus Crusade now for 13 years, just to give you an idea of where he's coming from. We talked for about three hours, and I used up more words during that time than I normally do in a week. My voice was literally hoarse afterward.
I started by describing the landscape that's before me at this point in my journey. I started by describing the center of my view: God IS love. Then I described what I think this entails: just as God can't sin, so also God can't NOT love. If God can't not love, then it follows that can't NOT love even those in hell. That started a long discussion about the nature of hell... that God would be eternally frustrated to see those he loves eternally suffering. If God's not willing to endure this eternal frustration, then we have two options: annihilationism or universalism.
Anyway, it was a cordial conversation and he respected my views even though of course it was too much for him to swallow at once.
Whew! I'm glad I'm not alone. It's rough sometimes, man.
And the bad thing is that many people are nice and really WANT to understand your viewpoint...but they don't have enough points of reference to do so. So, sometimes, your points (that you have deliberated until the cows came home) may seem like bald assertions to them with no basis. This has happened to me MANY times. And you think...
Ok. Is this REALLY worth the time and energy it's going to take to bring this person to even seeing SOME of why I believe what I believe?
Especially if at the end, you hear..."Hmmm...that's all interesting. But it ain't in the Bible. That's "man's philosophy", not biblical truth! So I don't see what use it all is."
ARRRRRGHHH!!!!
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/21/2005 11:01 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Vi-
3:52 AM? Come on girl! Go to bed.
Tom Hey it was only 1:52AM our time. (Although we didn't get to sleep until about 3:00AM partly because I decided to get started right away on the dissertation.)
But what about Meph? I think he was posting around the 3:00AM mark your time! 
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/7/2006 3:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | I've read and re-read the section on dispositions, and now I think I understand what was meant here (and there).
Basically, a "disposition" is this: the tendency to move toward something, or move in a specific direction, or to behave in a certain way.
Without this disposition in place, what gets us from stagnation to moving toward x, where x may mean making a choice, moving from mere possibility to actuality, etc.? In using a boat analogy, this disposition is basically the propellors to get the boat moving.
In Process Theology, everyone posesses a tendency (viz., disposition) to move toward order and beauty (though this isn't mentioned in the dissertation, at least in the parts that I read).
---------------
However, to note, Doc stated on p. 111 (section I.ii.3.3.1) “[Dispositions] are … the necessary and sufficient grounds for all causation.” He doesn't defend this claim, and it's not obvious that this is true. All causation?
Additionally, even if this tweaking aids and is consistent with Process Theology, positing that everyone posesses the disposition toward beauty or aesthetic satisfaction does not seem to account for a person's choice to be stagnant or a person's choice toward sin. How could a person repress or ignore this fundamental disposition? See Meph's post on 12/19/2005 -8:05AM: "And just like the stomach hungers for food, this aspect of the dispositional reality hungers for God...and that hunger shows up in various ways. That hunger can also be repressed, ignored, and explained away."
--------------
So now I see where the "dispositional hardwiring" comes from: the Process metaphysic. It's something that's posited under the umbrella of Process Theism.
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives."Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/7/2006 2:51:46 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/7/2006 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | Jeff: For every time we justify, for the sake of our own self-esteem, an act or thought which is ACTUALLY wrong, we have necessarily diminished the possibility of seeing OTHER truths LOGICALLY RELATED to that very obligation that was denied.
VFG: Yeah, I see what you mean. Just thinking about this sentence that you wrote, and thinking about "self-esteem", perhaps this may be one thing that Process Theologians would bring up to counter my statement (that you posted): that one's self-esteem may be (though perhaps mistakenly) construed as path toward aesthetic satisfaction which if one were to consider stagnation or a sinful act as a means to increase their self-esteem, this would be consistent with the disposition (viz., tendency or aim toward aesthetic satisfaction) that Doc posited in his dissertation.
But, you bring up another pertinent point: about self-discipline. Sometimes people will suffer because of self-discipline. One reply I can think of that Process folk may have would be this: perhaps people may decide to endure suffering in anticipation or hope of something that will bring them even closer to aesthetic satisfaction than the original thing they are currently resisting. Hmmm... something for me to think about a bit more.
But there is one other thing that I'd like to bring up... where Doc wrote, “[Dispositions] are … the necessary and sufficient grounds for all causation.” I would also beg to differ with the claim that dispositions are necessary grounds... sure, they could be a sufficient condition, but by claiming "necessary", this would mean that in every situation which requires the fuel for causation, does a disposition need to be in place? Well, here's another idea I have that would be sufficient grounds for causation without the need of a "disposition" to be in place:
What if God were the actual mover? I'm not saying God would be the one who makes the decision for us between x and y. But suppose we are in a point of stagnation, and something outside of ourselves is necessary for moving us from possibilities to actualities. Why can't God Himself be the one who moves us to make a decision?
Again, it's not clear why a disposition per se is necessary. Meph, if you're reading this, any ideas? Perhaps you can ask Doc why he thought, while writing his dissertation, that a disposition was a necessary condition for causation (as opposed to God Himself being a necessary condition for causation in Process thought... God is the "lure" to all entities in this paradigm, right?).
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/8/2006 11:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
But there is one other thing that I'd like to bring up... where Doc wrote, “[Dispositions] are … the necessary and sufficient grounds for all causation.” I would also beg to differ with the claim that dispositions are necessary grounds... sure, they could be a sufficient condition, but by claiming "necessary", this would mean that in every situation which requires the fuel for causation, does a disposition need to be in place? Well, here's another idea I have that would be sufficient grounds for causation without the need of a "disposition" to be in place:
What if God were the actual mover? I'm not saying God would be the one who makes the decision for us between x and y. But suppose we are in a point of stagnation, and something outside of ourselves is necessary for moving us from possibilities to actualities. Why can't God Himself be the one who moves us to make a decision?
Again, it's not clear why a disposition per se is necessary.
I think you are misunderstanding what is being said. Doc is just saying that, in everything that works according to causality, there MUST be some mediating reality that moves from possibility to actuality. It is NECESSARY. This has to be postulated in order for the metaphysic to be more complete. Dispositions fit this bill.
If we were not to postulate dispositional reality and to say that God Godself actively mediates creaturely possibility to actuality at all points in time would effectively REMOVE all autonomy from Creation. And this whole idea, for a number of reasons, goes against the core ideas of process theology.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/9/2006 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hey Meph,
Thanks for responding! I was starting to think that I had upset you to the point that you didn't want to discuss this anymore. If that ever is the case, please just let me know and we'll just agree to disagree! 
Meph: Doc is just saying that, in everything that works according to causality, there MUST be some mediating reality that moves from possibility to actuality. It is NECESSARY. This has to be postulated in order for the metaphysic to be more complete.
VFG: Oh, I definitely agree. I think Doc makes a good case that SOMETHING must be in place to mediate reality from possibility to actuality; i.e. it is NECESSARY that SOMETHING be in place. And yes, I agree that dispositions DOES fit the bill... but just because a dispositions fits the bill does not mean that dispositions themselves are necessary.
If something is "necessary", then that means that that something must be in place in every circumstance posited and NOTHING else can fit the bill.
But what I'm saying is, why can't God Himself fit the bill, instead of the type of disposition he posits?
When you wrote "And this whole idea, for a number of reasons, goes against the core ideas of process theology", are you saying that God Himself can't fit the bill because it goes against the core ideas of process theology? If this is what you mean, then OK, I'd accept that. So then process theology says that God can't "get the ball moving" as it were?
The rest that I posted here, I'll move to the other Dispositions thread...
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives."Post Edited (Violin for God) : 1/9/2006 3:15:51 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:53 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|