 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/24/2009 9:28 AM (GMT -6) |   | | In Greg's dissertation he writes (agreeing with Hartshorne), "...to experience is to experience some minimal aesthetic value." And he quotes Hartshorne (approvingly) who says, "Absolute aesthetic failure simply means no experience at all," and then Greg continues "Each atomistic expeience which constitutes concrete reality must, by definition, enjoy some intensity of 'aesthetic satisfaction'. Hartshorne summaries, "An actual fact is a fact of aesthetic experience."
So the question is, What about Satan? He's a concrete being/reality. And he is/has an experience. He's an experiencer.
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/24/2009 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | In other words, the Spirit of God is the necessary ground of ALL intersubjectivity...divine and non-divine.
Basically, Satan and all other created beings with the capacity for self-reference and self-transcence NEEDS the Holy Spirit's empowerment to 1) be a self-idolater (relating to oneself wrongly before God) and 2) communicate that despair to God via DEFIANCE. (I will be like the Most High...)
Right?
NO creaturely subject can "solidify" in negation enough to PRECLUDE all subjectivity and intersubjectivity, given to them AS LOVING FREE GIFT by the Holy Spirit. Even in Satan and the Problem of Evil, Greg ends up saying that Satan ends up in some "seperate reality" in endless trivialization of Satan's interpersonal being. That there's no "shared context" in which Satan can interact with any other creatures. Interesting as that is, he NEVER says that Satan loses the ability to self-reference and openly defy God. And guess who EMPOWERS Satan to do that. That's right. God's Spirit.
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 10/24/2009 5:23:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 10/24/2009 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Right. And since God is the ground of all and every existent, conscious or inanimate, every rebellion against God uses God's resources to maintain that rebellion. Not, I think, in the sense that God owns everything...I think that God gifts us with self-ownership...but what we own (and therefore have free will disposition thereof) is either held in existence by God moment by moment, or at the very least was initially ontically situated by God and still relies on the self-existence of God for it's existence. So that, there is no place to stand forever in rebellion against God, not even hell (whatever that may be). Our very selves stand on the Self of God. And so, hell, to be remediate and redemptive, must be a place where resources for maintaining rebellion are stripped away layer after layer until a person sees their groundedness in God, sees it existentially, cannot escape the conclusion that true rebellion against God is impossible...not because they do not have free will...but because their very selves that are in rebellion are so grounded in God that without God it would mean total dissolution of self. And the only self that can even resist God is a self that is grown fat with wrong conceptions...because there is NO, NO, NO reason to be in rebellion against God...and so potentially, as God's resources are slowly withdrawn, there is some dissolution of self...back to an earlier state of self...even if back to a very early state of self...til a person is "reborn" before God, and swaddled by God in love and so grows into a true expression of selfhood...that is not warped by inflicted evils, nor by self evil.
Or something like that. 
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/27/2009 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | I ask because I don't think I'd seek to ground the impossibility of an irrevocable creaturely solidification into evil in any kind of intersubjectivity per se. I'd ground it in the a priori nature of creaturely existence as dispositional, period. We can disagree a bit about insubjectivity but still agree on what grounds eventual UR.
Greg says, "Thus we may say that what all beings, experiential or non-experiential, have in common is not that they are experiential centers, but that they are essentially dispositions towards an actualization which is defined by a generally determinate aesthetic role to play in relation to other actualizations."
So, Satan is a disposition towards an actualization which is defined by a generally determinate aesthetic role to play in relation to other actualizations. And later Greg defines TWO such roles (one for experiential beings receptive to enjoying aesthetic value] and one for non-experiential beings contributive to the enjoyment of aesthetic value by experiential beings]). A priori, all beings, Satan included, are a disposition towards EITHER contributing to the beauty enjoyed by virtue of being perceived (contributing to a perspective on beauty) by experiential beings OR, in the case of experiential beings, both contributing to the beauty enjoyed by virtue of being perceived and perceiving and enjoying beauty.
Greg introduces the notion of disposition as the true a priori regarding what exists, regarding autonomy, and regarding that wherein beauty is perceived/achieved (p. 119). Nothing exists which is not a dispositional orientation, an "aesthetic aim." This can (theoretically) be mis-exercised or disposed of freely in rejection of its true purpose (so hell is, theoretically, potentially infinite). But it cannot be exercised into oblivion which is what ultimate irrevocable solidification supposedly is. That would result in an existing entity which failed to instantiate the a priori dispositional aesthetic aim.
I'd say God can't NOT stand within the scope of becoming for any created thing (by virtue of God's sustaining presence and the logoi of created things being essentially dispositions towards some concrete actualization of aesthetic satisfaction. On some level, unperceived to even him, even Satan is (as you once told me is the case with all rational misrelation) attempting to satisfy some legitimate dispositional appetite.
Hmmm.
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 10/27/2009 10:32:56 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2009 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I ask because I don't think I'd seek to ground the impossibility of an irrevocable creaturely solidification into evil in any kind of intersubjectivity per se. I'd ground it in the a priori nature of creaturely existence as dispositional, period. We can disagree a bit about insubjectivity but still agree on what grounds eventual UR.
Sounds good to me.
********************************************
Tom:
I'd say God can't NOT stand within the scope of becoming for any created thing (by virtue of God's sustaining presence and the logoi of created things being essentially dispositions towards some concrete actualization of aesthetic satisfaction. On some level, unperceived to even him, even Satan is attempting to satisfy some legitimate dispositional appetite.
Let's say that Satan has the capacity to enjoy beauty...and that this is a dispositional "order" from God for all sentient creaturely beings. The appreciation/interpretation of beauty assumes an "experienced interiority" (DeQuincey) on the part of the experiencer. Even if Satan tries to enjoy beauty while negatively prehending God's priority in his own self-referencing, it must be stated that he would not be able to do so UNLESS there was some type of interior experience within Satan that he believes he can "privatize" against God. In other words, Satan wants to experience beauty, but not in terms as God as central referent of beauty. He wants to experience the beauty of HIMSELF more than the beauty of God.
The "experienced interiority" of Satan is IMPOSSIBLE without the "objective interiority" (Torrence) of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't abolish the uniqueness of Satan's subjective perspective constitutive of his own experience. The Holy Spirit EMPOWERS and grounds Satan's own sense of interiority...because the Spirit constantly creates the dispositional "field of relationships" that give Satan's sense of self meaning.
And I would say that the Holy Spirit does this for ALL "beauty-enjoying" dispositional creatures, meaning that the Holy Spirit (a Creator Spirit) is the necessary ground for all intersubjectivity among all dispositional subjects, including Satan.
Make sense?
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 10/27/2009 11:31:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2009 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
But he wants to experience some form of beauty, it's THAT insatiable/undeniable 'appetite' that I'm talking about.
I feel ya. Makes sense. Actually we could say that even "fallen" subjectivity (particularly in personal becoming and expression) is IRREDUCIBLY AESTHETIC in nature...and give a reason why.
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 10/27/2009 11:59:35 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2009 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | I've been trying to tell Greg that for the last 5 years, dawg. You KNOW this!
It was his Greg's diss. that converted me to open theism in the FIRST PLACE.
Hahahahahaaaaa!
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 10/27/2009 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | An apropos quote from Evelyn Waugh,
“Almost all crime is due to the repressed desire for aesthetic expression.” | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/27/2009 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Chiming in here, where I can hardly keep up!
It seems that no matter how one tries to avoid aesthetic expression, the very nature of trying to do so is to prove that one is already at some form of that expression. Merely trying to dive deeper into non-aesthetic expression and into its contrast is to admit, once again, that one is at some place of aesthetic expression. It's an endless and futile attempt to avoid this. I mean, when can a disposition reach that place where it can finally say, "There, I've completely abandoned and removed myself from all aesthetic expression"? I don't this one can ever reach this place.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 10/27/2009 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
It's from his novel "Decline and Fall"
Social and religious themes are in most of his writings. And he can be so penetratingly hilarious...
I've read three of his novels and none disappointed. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/28/2009 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: But it cannot be exercised into oblivion which is what ultimate irrevocable solidification supposedly is. That would result in an existing entity which failed to instantiate the a priori dispositional aesthetic aim.
Zach: If a existing entity fails to maintain the requirements fo beinging an existing entity, then that entity WOULD no longer exist. Rather than saying entities cannot stop being entities (which is a claim I don't see this argument supporting), we could say that as soon as an entity stops meeting the definition of an entity, it stops being (or existing as) an entity.
Or in other words, as soon as Satan loses the potential for real aesthetic fulfillment, he ceases to exist. I don't see how we can jump to saying he cannot fail to meet the requirements for existence. It's just that IF he does, THEN he ceases to be. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/28/2009 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | The question, Zach, is by what mechanism an existing being comes to eradicate an a priori feature of its existence from its very nature, and so expires. Does it make sense to say that a nature has the capacity to dispose itself outside the limits of those a priori features of its own existence? I say no. It cannot be within the power of a ‘nature’ to function/exercise capacities which are definitionally incompatible with itself.
Let’s call the ‘disposition for aesthetic satisfaction’ DAS. And let’s assume that DAS is a (metaphysical) a priori feature of all sentient beings. Under what conditions could such beings cease to exist? Let’s call ISE the ‘irrevocable solidification unto evil’, that point of no return at which one solidifies one’s self in evil so ultimately that all possibility of aesthetic satisfaction is eradicated from its nature. Given the a priori nature of DAS, there’s no way ISE is possible. But let’s offer up options for discussion anyhow.
Under what conditions could sentient beings cease to exist under the constraints of DAS?
1. God could positively annihilate creatures because he wants to.
2. Creatures could annihilate themselves because they want to in non-ISE fashion (a straight-up free-will choice for non-existence).
3. Creatures could self-dispose per ISE and thus annihilate themselves; once they freely deliver themselves beyond the purview of DAS they’d fade into non-existence.
I can’t think of any other possibilities off hand. (1) is out of the question for me because given DAS and divine omnibenevolence, it becomes impossible. God would not annihilate any redeemable being, and DAS grounds the irreducible redeemability of all beings. (3) is out of the question because it denies DAS and is self-contradictory. That leaves (2), which of course we know you, Zach, believe. I don’t share your belief in such a possibility. An irrevocable choice for non-existence would constitute an irrational choice for an irredeemable state of affairs (non-existence) and (a) I don’t think God is obligated to honor such choices assuming it lays within the dispositional powers of a creature’s nature to execute its own annihilation, and (b) I don’t think it’s meaningful to say it lies within the a priori features of a creature to negate other a priori features of its existence. I’m happy to offer this much of an explanation, but I won’t carry on extended discussions with you over it.
But given all that, at least we DO agree that SO LONG AS creatures exist they are redeemable, for if I’ve understood you, you’ve agreed that DAS is an a priori feature of ‘existing’ sentient creatures. That’s good. So we agree that beings that exist always have within the scope of their possibilities for future becoming the possibility of a redeemed life with God. That’s good.
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 10/28/2009 4:26:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/28/2009 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: On the assumption that the potential for aesthetic fulfillment is an a priori feature of experiential entities, describe for me ‘how’ you think Satan (or any created, sentient being) would lose this a priori feature of existence. What chain of events (or single event) would result in the loss of this feature?
Z: God decides to remove the feature. That would do it. My only point was that your argument does not support the idea that entities cannot have features changed. It only argues for a particular definition of entities. To get to the conclusion that entities are unchangeable (by God or chance or by self-will or any other means) is going to take a much more robust argument.
T: The question, Zach, is by what mechanism an existing being comes to eradicate an a priori feature of its existence from its very nature, and so expires.
Z: I'm not arguing it one way or another. It's just that your argument doesn't support what you claim it does.
T: Does it make sense to say that a nature has the capacity to dispose itself...
Z: Nor am I arguing this changing is the result of self-willing. I'm just saying you haven't shown that all entities are unchangeable in this feature.
For example, I can provide a definition of a sphere. Then I can point to an example of a sphere. "If this object were to lose the properties of a sphere, then it would cease to be a sphere; therefore, its properties cannot change." This is clearly bad logic. You do something analogous. "If this entity were to lose the properties of an entity, then it would cease to be an entity; therefore, its properties cannot change." The conclusion comes out of left field.
T: It cannot be within the power of a ‘nature’ to function/exercise capacities which are definitionally incompatible with itself.
Z: That's probably the point of contention right there. Where did you get nature from? You moved from definition to nature. Nature is a considerably more loaded term. To define an entity as that which possesses DAS is different from saying DAS is the nature of entities. Nature suggests a lot of what you end up concluding - it adds that sense of determination and unchangeableness - things that are absent from the simple definition.Post Edited (Sahid) : 10/28/2009 4:02:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 168 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:37 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 |
|
|