Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 5/12/2007 9:44:07 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (ONE) : 5/10/2007 7:51:49 PM (GMT-5)

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/contents_lossky_en.html

Then, too, Lossky is one of the very few modern Orthodox writers with a primary interest in the Medieval Latin West. His work on the knowledge of God in Meister Eckhart, which he was completing when he died, remains a standard in the field.

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 5/12/2007 6:31:49 AM (GMT-5)

ONE said...
Thanks, Jeff.

One more...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Porete

Although Porete argues that the Unencumbered or Annihilated Soul is above the Virtues and demands of Holy Church she believes that sin is not possible because, because the Soul is now One with God, sin is simply not available to it as an option:

"This Soul has given everything through the freeness of the nobility by the work of the Trinity, in which Trinity this Soul plants her will so nakedly that she cannot sin if she does not uproot herself. She has nothing to sin with, for without a will no on can sin. Now she is kept from sin if she leaves her will there where she is planted, that is, in the One who has given it to her freely from His goodness. And thus, by His benefience, He wills the return of His beloved nakedly and freely, without a why for her sake, on account of two things: because He wills it, and because He is worthy of it. And before this she had no fertile and restful peace until she was purely stripped of her will." (The Mirror Of Simple Souls. Trans: Ellen Babinsky 1993)

Porete's expression of Free Spirit ideas is highly mystical and predicates the idea of the impossibility of sin on this mystical union with God through Love. This view of the ideas of the Free Spirit suggests that among certain of its members a complete giving over of the individual to a spiritual relationship with God is the goal of the believer. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Spirit#Expression_of_the_Free_Spirit

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 5/12/2007 10:05:34 AM (GMT-5)

Jeff: all of the volitional beings I know are human egos.

Tom: Really? Doesn’t God count as a volitional non-human being (incarnation aside)? Don’t angels count as volitional non-human egos?

I think animals are volitional beings if even not self-conscious egos. Their volition isn’t capable of loving personal relationality maybe, but they do make choices, if even on a lower level. It’s proper to ascribe to them “volition.” Hence, they’re volitional “beings” though not human egos.

Am I being anal? After the past three days in the desert I just endured, maybe I am being ANAL!

Jeff: Second, don't my volitional actions require the law-like behavior of nerves and cells?

Tom: Embodied choice (so far as we know) requires nerves and cells, yes. But such choice isn’t reducible to nerves and cells. Those nerves and cells, we libertarians believe, aren’t the end of what accounts for human choice. They define the embodied context in which the spirit lives and moves, but if libertarian choice doesn’t mean that the behavior of nerves and cells that define a “choice” are themselves finally determined by the human spirit, then what else DOES it mean? (Careful, I’m not promoting Cartesian dualism; “embodied” can just be that continent created structure we name our sense experience on an idealist construal if you want.)

Jeff: But if those nerves and cells are behaving in a law-like manner, why would we think they are volitional at all?

Tom: Because one of the laws under which they behave is that they follow the command of the spiritual self, the YOU that chooses.

Jeff, it sounds like you’re taking “law-like” to equal determining in a causal sense. Why do that? Law-like CAN mean that, but it permits probabilistic outcomes too. The indeterminate collapse of a quantum particle is not absolutely random, it’s probabilistic. But you can’t have the predictable probabilities we know we have without laws. So, God can give us and animals “law-like” behavior and not always get his way.

Jeff: Wouldn't this imply that non-human beings are volitionally behaving exactly as God wishes them to at all times?

Tom: I don’t see why. I mean, it’s plausible that the created animal order has a level of freedom to choose as well, or that its instinctual orientations have been perverted by evil so that though instinctual, the “room” they were endowed with to function as independent of God (a beautiful notion to my mind), takes them in ravenous and unbeautiful paths.

Tom

Ya’ll, I just got back from a three day camel treck with Bedouines (and nine of my students) into the Jordanian desert. We go SO incredibly sick. We spend an entire night in the desert under the starts throwing up beside each other, puking our guts out, and filling our pants with diarrhea and crapping all over desert floor. No modesty at all. It was amazing.

Jeff: But if those nerves and cells are behaving in a law-like manner, why would we think they are volitional at all?

Tom: Because one of the laws under which they behave is that they follow the command of the spiritual self, the YOU that chooses.

Jeff: If they're volitional, they are not under laws in the sense that scientists mean by law. So what I'm asking is HOW does the PROCESS theist explain why those volitional beings are so law-like while we go against God so much, even though He is presumably trying to influence us as much as He has them with so much better success?

Do you see my question? Are those beings that are behaving virtually law-like assumed to be consistently in the will of God by process theists or consistently contra the will of God? How does God influence them? This all seems mysterious to me.

Granted, God and angels are volitional. I was thinking too contra process in my original post. I was tninking about the non-divine beings that God influences. And I didn't assume Hartshorne even believed in angels.

I tend to think that most beings that are causal are intelligent and possibly sentient, but NOT volitional. This would explain the law-like behavior without having to explain why we fail so much more miserably than they do.

Tom: I don’t see why. I mean, it’s plausible that the created animal order has a level of freedom to choose as well, or that its instinctual orientations have been perverted by evil so that though instinctual, the “room” they were endowed with to function as independent of God (a beautiful notion to my mind), takes them in ravenous and unbeautiful paths.

Jeff: Are you saying that the reason wolves are ravenous is because of volitional choices they each make? You don't think it's just natural for a wolf to be a predator?

Also, if wolves can choose against their creator, are they held morally accountable for doing so, as are humans? If not, why not?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 5/13/2007 8:29:08 AM (GMT-5)

Jeff: But if those nerves and cells are behaving in a law-like manner, why would we think they are volitional at all?

Tom: Because one of the laws under which they behave is that they follow the command of the spiritual self, the YOU that chooses.

Jeff: If they're volitional, they are not under laws in the sense that scientists mean by law.

Tom: Says what scientist? Quantum probabilities are as law-like as the word “law” will permit. It’s simply not the case that science admits only causal understandings of “law.”

But to clarify, I’m looking back up at your question: “If nerves and cells behave in a law-like manner, why would we think they are volitional at all?” Process theists don’t think that nerves and cells are volitional. Persons, certainly, are volitional. And embodiment (with its nerves and cells) is the context in which choice is determined.

-------------------------------

Jeff: So what I'm asking is HOW does the PROCESS theist explain why those volitional beings are so law-like…

Tom: Like I said, process folks don’t attribute volition to every actual occasion or even every society of occasions. They wouldn’t agree that nerves and cells are volitional entities “choosing” their behavior. Nor would they agree that the behavior of nerves and cells is exclusively deterministic. Law-like, yes, deterministic, no.

Jeff: …while we go against God so much, even though He is presumably trying to influence us as much as He has them with so much better success?

Tom: Because choice is not determined by the behavior of nerves and cells. Choice is MORE than that.

Jeff: Do you see my question? Are those beings that are behaving virtually law-like assumed to be consistently in the will of God by process theists or consistently contra the will of God?

Tom: No process theist would say that the actual occasions that constitute the natural order are always in the will of God. Consistently? I don’t know. Perhaps on one level (like the manner in which the universe expands and the laws of physics govern things). But when it comes to human choice, choice isn’t determined BY physical laws so far as they determine outcomes. Choice is determined by the relative autonomous and free human persons.

Jeff: How does God influence them? This all seems mysterious to me.

Tom: I don’t know how God influences non-personal occasions. I think process theists would say that one way he influences outcomes is by defining (through the determination of probabilities) the possible “next step” an actual occasion may take. How God then influences an actual occasion to take the most loving option is beyond me. Process folks refer to that as God’s “luring” creation. How he does that is something I don’t think process folk know.

-----------------------------------

Tom: I don’t see why. I mean, it’s plausible that the created animal order has a level of freedom to choose as well, or that its instinctual orientations have been perverted by evil so that though instinctual, the “room” they were endowed with to function as independent of God (a beautiful notion to my mind), takes them in ravenous and unbeautiful paths.

Jeff: Are you saying that the reason wolves are ravenous is because of volitional choices they each make? You don't think it's just natural for a wolf to be a predator?

Tom: POW asked about this too, so let me try to offer something more than a horrible explanation.

I think the non-personal created order was given a measure of freedom to become, to grow into its eschatological telos, right? It’s not worked out volitionally like our telos is achieved; it’s worked out under our working out our own telos. The development of the created order was, by God’s design I’m guessing, implicated in the success or failure of the God-humankind relationship. When we fell, creation fell. When I look around at the created order (ravenous and violent) I don’t get the feeling that it’s what it ought to be and yet I don’t know how to conclude that it’s chosen to become what it is. So I’m left with having to believe that its pain and suffering follow ours by implication of some sort. And then when I read the biblical descriptions of the future created order we hope for (lamb laying down with the lion) I’m encouraged further to conclude that the present violence and death that pervades the created order is not just creation behaving as God designed it to. The created order still have "room" to become this way or that, but it's caught in the train of our misrelating and so is, as we are, hay-wire.

Further than that I dunno.

Tom

Post Edited (MANY) : 5/13/2007 8:49:47 AM (GMT-5)

Jeff: If they're volitional, they are not under laws in the sense that scientists mean by law.

Tom: Says what scientist?

Jeff: All I'm saying, Tom, is that scientists don't attribute the predictable behavior of the non-human, macro-level world to volition. Even when they speak of subatomic behavior, they are careful to distinguish between INDETERMINISM and SELF-DETERMINISM. They typically deny the latter and affirm the former, do they not?

Tom: I think process theists would say that one way he influences outcomes is by defining (through the determination of probabilities) the possible “next step” an actual occasion may take.

Jeff: I thought process theists claim God does not coerce. What is "the determination of probabilities" but a kind of coercion? To determine something that could be otherwise is to coerce, is it not? Here's what dictionary.com says about "coerce:"

co·erce   

1.	to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2.	to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.	to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

Notice that 3. shows coercing as having to do with "control." 1. has the same idea. Thus, determining what could be otherwise seems to be a species of coercion.

Tom: Process folks refer to that as God’s “luring” creation. How he does that is something I don’t think process folk know.

Jeff: I'm at a loss. Because the process theist is saying, I presume, that "luring" is NOT "coercing." How can one lure non-coercively a being that has no volition except by luring a truly volitional being into doing the coercing of the non-volitional being? Is this how they explain it?

Tom: The development of the created order was, by God’s design I’m guessing, implicated in the success or failure of the God-humankind relationship. When we fell, creation fell... The created order still have "room" to become this way or that, but it's caught in the train of our misrelating and so is, as we are, hay-wire.

Jeff: If their fall was implicated in ours, and they are now "caught in the train of our misrelating," I'm not seeing how wolves' supposed freedom had or has anything to do with their ravenous behavior. Consequently, I'm not seeing how we could know they're free at all.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 5/13/2007 10:51:45 AM (GMT-5)