Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

accident
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 14

Posted 7/9/2001 1:54 PM (GMT -6)

Before I begin, I'd like to thank you, Dr. Boyd, in advance for answering my questions. You come to me highly recommended by Bob Hill (bob@biblicalanswers.com), who has referred to God at War as the best book on theodicy he's ever read. I myself have enjoyed Letters From a Skeptic and God of the Possible, and God at War is among my next reads.

My questions center on Theosynergistic Neuro-Transformation, or TNT. In evaluating my past and present struggles, I believe that this may be profitable for me to look into. (Couldn't hoit!) Is this something that can be practiced alone? If not, how much is the average TNT session? Can sessions be conducted over the phone, or do they have to be in the flesh?

Thanks again, Doc.

paul

Edited by - accident on 07/09/2001 6:55:25 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/9/2001 4:31 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the compliments accident.

About TNT: TNT is a theo-psycho-methodology for bringing thoughts captive to Christ. It is NOT counselling or therapy, in any traditional senses of the terms. It is really a teaching and a tool. And, as some on the discussion board can perhaps testify, IT IS POWERFUL. I know of no tool that comes close to being as effective (or as biblical) as this one in helping people MASTER THEIR THOUGHTS, and therefore THEIR EMOTIONS, and therefore THEIR BEHAVIORS -- for emotions ALWAYS are responses to thoughts, and actions USUALLY are responses to emotions.

It cannot be done in one session over the phone. To be helped you really need to either learn it for yourself (after which TNT CAN be done "on your own") or have some sessions with someone who knows it well and can practice it.

I don't know where you're located, but if you're in the Twin Cities and want to meet with someone who knows TNT, you can either
* call Kevin Callaghan at Woodland Hills Church (651-487-0001) (we are just now in the process of setting up a practical theology clinic which will use TNT as well as other effective techniques) OR
* Al Larsen, the real mind behind the technical side of TNT, at 651-777-3112) (he has a counselling clinic where people practice TNT)

If you are interested in learning TNT more thoroughly for yourself and/or to help others, Al Larsen and I teach a nine month course on it, beginning in September. If your interested in taking this class, call Al (number above).

Hope this helps.
Blessings

Doc

accident
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 14

Posted 7/9/2001 5:00 PM (GMT -6)

(sigh!)

I'm in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Minneapolis scares me. From what I've heard, the city allows short, skinny, androgynous black R&B singers to ride around on motorcycles there.

Just kidding. (Don't want any flak from the short, skinny, androgynous, or black contingent.)

Surely, Doc, there's gotta be another way. (I did call the number, by the way.)

Banana
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 2

Posted 7/9/2001 6:53 PM (GMT -6)

Accident,
I was in the TNT classes and I would highly recommend calling Kevin Callaghan from WHC before signing up for the class or scheduling a counseling session w/ Al Larson.
I believe Kevin is more eclectic and can use more techniques than just TNT. I'm a therapist and haven't found TNT to be that helpful on certain issues. Also, I don't know what, if anything, Kevin charges, but TNT class and therapy w/ Al Larson are very spendy.

Just my opinion,
Banana

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/10/2001 8:50 AM (GMT -6)

A Question for Doc Boyd

Say, Doc. I put this here because I didn't want to start any new thread with this...or...mess up another one. And the title of this one fits. I'm asking for some input, whenever you have time. Check out this paper by Dr. Amos Yong entitled "Personal
Selfhood(?) and Human Experience in Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism"
I wanted to get your thoughts on what Yong is saying, especially with regards to the implications for substantialism (at least within the realm of sentient beings.) In thinking of the idea of the "continually concrescing entity", Yong states in his final footnote:

"The substantialist would undoubtedly query Whitehead at this point on the fact that his "continually concrescing actual entity" sounds very similar to the traditional substance!"

This is, indeed, true. I figure since you are so up on Whitehead and Hartshorne especially, you could give me your thoughts on this paper and some it's implications. Thanks.

Meph

PS: If I don't post for a while, it's just because I'm mad busy. Ask Modes.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

accident
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 14

Posted 7/10/2001 10:11 AM (GMT -6)

Of course, being in Minneapolis, you could probably solve and age-old question for me.

Someone there should approach Morris Day and ask if God is one of the members of his band.

Why?

The answer could once-and-for-all prove that God is inside or outside of Time.

OK, I'll stop.

Seriously, though. . . .

Banana,

Tell me more about Callaghan, if you don't mind. I'm not going to reject any tool out-of-hand. From the testimonies I've read on TNT, it sounds like something I could use.

Banana
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 2

Posted 7/10/2001 1:47 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Accident,
I don't know Kevin personally, but have heard wonderful things about him. He has a master's degree and license in social work and completed another master's degree through the TNT program. He was just hired at Woodland Hills Church a few months ago as the pastor of counseling (or something like that!)
I know a lot about Al Larson. He only does TNT counseling and doesn't combine any other types of therapy. He charges $65 or more per 1 hr counseling session and doesn't accept insurance. The TNT class is about $3000/yr unless he's increased the fees since I took it and the program is not accredited. Also, Al is not licensed as a psychologist or social worker. That's pretty much a thumbnail sketch of what I could tell you.
Another thing I can tell you is that I am a counselor and have been for about 10 yrs. I got my second master's degree through the TNT program. While I believe that it has some useful techniques, it is definitely not the end all, cure all for everyone. I personally know quite a few people that it has not helped. My belief is that the more diverse types of techniques a therapist uses, the higher the chances of helping another person.

Hope this helps.

Banana

Glamdring
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 35

Posted 7/10/2001 4:55 PM (GMT -6)

Hey accident,
I also took the TNT course. Doctor Larson is not liscensed by choice. He has been a practicing psychotherapist for almost 20 years. You know how the HMO's managed to tell Doctor's how to treat patients? Well the insurance for therapy is like that too.
Dr. Larson is a Christian and objects to some of the secular strictures placed on therpists persuant to liscensure. He has placed his focus instead on ministry, and his counseling clinic is a non profit organization dedicated to setting Christians and non Christians free.

TNT is built on the foundation of many therapies. From the Communication model of Rogers, to the language patterns of Chompsky,
and yet it goes beyond them all by including the healing for our spiritual selves.

Peck said that all disease has it's origin in deception. TNT is a powerful tool for bringing truth into the heart, mind, and spirit simultaneously.

be blessed
g

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/10/2001 5:29 PM (GMT -6)

On the TNT discussion: I agree that no single approach is a cure-all. The focus of TNT is quite specific. It is aimed at, and extremely useful for, giving people practical techniques for controlling thoughts and emotions in line with their core desires -- specifically, the desire to be all that God wants them to be. As Glamding mentioned, it is a distillation of Scripture and a number of different therapeutic techniques, especially NLP.

On the issue about the Whiteheadian view of the continuity of actual occasions through the process of concrescence: I don't have time right now to check the article Mephi. But I think I can speak to the issue anyway. The issue of the continuity of an actual occasion over time, despite the rejection of substantialism, is a well known challenge to process metaphysics. I address the issue myself in Trinity and Process.

I don't have time to go into the issue at present, except to say this: I believe the core problem is that Process thought doesn't have an adequate category to mediate between possibility and actuality. (The category of Creativity is supposed to do this, but for various reasons it fails). The issue can be resolved, without appealing to the idea of "substance" (which, after all, is simply a label for "I know not what") by construing the essence of each distinct thing as a disposition. I propose this as the category that mediates between possibility and actuality. There isn't an on-going "thing" (called substance) that endures through time, "beneath" the multitude of changes the "thing" goes through. Rather, the essence of a thing is a VERB which is an ontological abiding disposition to interact with other essences in such and such ways. The essence, in other words, is an ontological real law that possibilities will be actualized in relation to other essences in such and such ways. I call this a "dispositional metaphysics."

The main source of my thinking on this was Jonathan Edwards. I modified his category, however, in that he construed dispositions as meticulously determined by God. Not surprising given a) his Calvinism and b) the dominance of the Newtonian, mechanistic worldview at the time of his writing. I rather argue, with Process thought, that spontaneity (and, higher up, "freedom") is part of the disposition. Hence, the ontological law that stipulates how possibilities will be actualized involves, within the parameters set by the law, undetermined events.

I am this summer studying Charles Peirce, and I'm finding that this was precisely his view. He called this category "Thirdness." Firstness is raw experience. Secondness is reaction. Thirdness is mediation, which gets worked out as HABIT (what I call disposition).

This was, I'm sure, too succinct for most to follow, and I apologize. But it has to do for now.

Someday I want to pick up and develop further this dispositional ontology. But right now my plate is full.

Blessings
Doc

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/10/2001 5:49 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for answering, Doc. I'm reading "Trinity and Process" and I've gotten to Part 2, so I'm tracking with what you're saying about "dispositions". I've got some questions about that, too, to be honest. But take your time. It's taking me time to digest your stuff. It's great thus far. And I feel your pain on the being busy thing.

Peace, Doc,
Meph

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Glamdring
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 35

Posted 7/11/2001 5:44 PM (GMT -6)

Yo Doc,
The name is Glamdring not Glamding.
And from a different post the word is topple not tobble.

luv ya
g

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 7/11/2001 8:17 PM (GMT -6)

Banana writes: "I'm a therapist and haven't found TNT to be that helpful on certain issues."

Doc writes: "I agree that no single approach is a cure-all. The focus of TNT is quite specific. It is aimed at, and extremely useful for, giving people practical techniques for controlling thoughts and emotions in line with their core desires"

I REALLY think that TNT is an EFFECTIVE tool for teaching how to take thoughts captive and in teaching how to master our emotions... BUT there definitely are other helpful techniques out there as well.

I am currently enrolled in the TNT training thus can testify that, after finishing the first year, I am learning how to take my thoughts captive and working through things at a quicker rate than I would have done in the past.

Glamdring wrote: "TNT is built on the foundation of many therapies... it goes beyond them all by including the healing for our spiritual selves."

TNT incorporates God in the middle of the whole process and for this reason I give TNT a THUMBS UP.

The effectiveness of the techniques are somewhat influenced by how people work with certain counselors. Each person has different needs and ways of communicating so Al may be effective for some, Kevin for others...

trosie

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/15/2001 11:05 AM (GMT -6)

Analogy for Explaining the O-D View?

Check this out. I think you'll like this, Doc. This is my analogy about how, to me, your ordinal-dispositional idea works out. I'll use some of Pierce's terminology here, too.

I have a MAJOR project on which I am working. I have a sub-project within the schema of my MAJOR project that I want done and I have a specific person in mind that I want to do it. I assign the deadline, the requirements, the specifications, and things like that. HOWEVER, I give the person relative autonomy to decide HOW they want to do it, while incorporating all of my things above. In other words, I don't micromanage the project. They can choose to do the job well, semi-well, or not at all. Whenever I evaluate the person, I do so on HOW WELL they fulfilled the project.

The MAJOR project = the telos for ALL non-divine realities

The project to be done = the IDEALIZED telos of an individual, the "primordial" DISPOSITION (1st component of Thirdness?)

The specific person = The individual

Deadline, requirements, etc. = God's limiting specification on whom and what the individual will be and NOT be. (Relative determination) (1st component of Firstness or perhaps this forms some of the 1st component of Thirdness?)

Situations that come up along the way of the project = Experience that serves as incoming data (2nd component of Firstness?)

Person's autonomy on project = Individual autonomy in choosing HOW the telos gets realized (Relative autonomy)

The strategies that are solidified DURING the project's progress = HABITS formed in the process of becoming, the conditioned DISPOSITION (2nd component of Thirdness)

What the individual actually does with project = The concretized action of the individual. (Secondness?)

Evaluation = God's Judgment

Now, it's breakdown time. This whole idea assumes that God has a purpose for EVERY person that is ever born. There is a specific reason why each person is born. This purpose was FOREKNOWN by God before we were born (Note: We are not saying ETERNALLY foreknown, just foreknown) Accordingly, God designed certain physical, mental, etc, capacities into a given individual. Assets that would ultimately go towards the telos (calling??) that God has for that person. This provides a source of definition and limitation for said individual. Now, withing this source of definition and boundaryy, the individual has room to become. It has this room to become because of the autonomy that it has in the actual FORMATION of the telos. How it comes about and everything. But how does an individual become an "individual" in the strictest sense? It, first, has EXPERIENCE. The experiences upon which the individual's self-hood is created forms the determinative material from whence decisions can come forth. NOW, we come to the second part of the THIRDNESS aspect. Over time, certain habits form for the individual that further DEFINE the the telos we mentioned earlier. The WAY in which the telos will be performed is more and more definite because of habituation. (Note: 9 to 1 that THIS idea is what Doc has in mind when he talks about "character solidification) From here, the secondness aspect should be easy to see. It is merely the concrete outcome of the Firstness and Thirdness at every temporal moment. At God's judgment, our concretized outcomes will be examined AGAINST our telos, and this will form our judgment. (Remember, faith in God is PART of the telos) God rewards or punishes based on the likeness of one's life to their telos.

What do you think? Does this have it about right? I need to know how much this meshes with your thinking BEFORE I can say what I really want to say. Gimme feedback, Doc! Others, too!!

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 07/15/2001 4:16:16 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/15/2001 12:23 PM (GMT -6)

Well, its a bit convoluted for an analogy, but I like the gist of it. I'm quite unsure, at this point, if you've broken down Pierce's categories to fit into my scheme in a way that he'd be happy with it. But, what the heck, for right now, lets go with it.

You're move.

Greg

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/15/2001 5:54 PM (GMT -6)

Cool. You're accepting the gist. Next move.

Here are some quotes from Trinity and Process:

Page 383, under VI.vii.3.1 "The Concept of Disposition"

In continuity with a large segment of the dynamistic strand of Western philosophy, a strand best exemplified in a theological context by Jonathon Edwards, we have opted to call this reality "disposition." It is, as we have argued, this concept alone which can render causality, becoming, sponteneity, and freedom intelligible. It is the reality of dispositions which constitutes the enduring dynamic essence of "beings," though their actuality is in flux. And it is this reality which functions as their sufficient reason, without whereby necessitating their every action or every detail which characterizes their actuality. The ontological parity of being and becoming ar grounded in the reality of dispositions which mediates between them.

Page 395, under VI.vii.5.3 "The Paradoxical Dispositional Essence of Humanity"

But this element of our disposition implies that we have the ability to paradoxically turn away from our essential God given destiny--the very dynamic drive which constitutes our "soul."

Page 396, same section

Our essential nature is so "lofty," yet our ability--and not our fallen inclination--to freely turn away from it can be so severe. It is precisely the greatness of our "soul"--made in the image of God--which allows us to turn against God, and hence destroy our own "soul" (Prov 8:32)

Moreover, in the section III.ii.3.3.2 "Incorporeality of Dispositions", the argumentation is remarkably similar to the argumentation some would use to justify dualism of immaterial spirit and material body.

So, to sum up, I want to make sure of some things...and this will help things.

1. Are you saying that "dispositions" in action ARE EQUIVALENT to what the Bible calls a "spirit" or "soul"? In other words, would you say that the "disposition" of non-divine realities are equivalent to their "souls" or "spirits"?

2. Does this apply to ALL realities that could be meaningfully called "beings"?

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2K on 07/15/2001 10:55:25 PM

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 7/18/2001 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

Doc says:

quote:
There isn’t an ongoing “thing” (called substance) that endures through time, “beneath” the multitude of changes the “thing” goes through. Rather, the essence of a thing is a VERB…

Here’s a clip from Gerard Manley Hopkins’ poem, “As kingfishers catch fire,” in which he uses the word “self” as a verb (emphasis in original):

Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves—goes itself; myself it speaks and spells
Crying What I do is me; for that I came.

I’m reading From a Broken Web by feminist process thinker, Catherine Keller. After tracing the development of the self through Augustine, Aquinas, David Hume, William James (whose “stream of consciousness” theory informs Whitehead’s view of the soul [or person or personal order] as a society composed of a “stream of occasions,” [cf. MoT p. 223]) and George Herbert Mead, Keller develops a process anthropology via critical appropriation of Whitehead and Mary Daly—who ironically draws on Thomas Aquinas’ Aristotilian nondualistic view of the spirit/body in which “the whole soul is in each part of the body.”

Keller concludes: “we may affirm with Daly ‘one Self, wholly present in that woman’—but at any given moment. That is, preceisely, wholly present. So far so good. But we are also affirming, contra Daly, ‘many Selves in one woman.’ Yet only one self is the moment’s subjective center, holding in itself the others. One self presides at a time. What of the other selves at that time? They are that series of self-moments accumulating as my very soul; and that infinite rippling web of the actual other beings whose selfhood, for good or ill, has become part of my own.”

She says that substantialist view of the self commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness: “The substantialist subject has confused itself with its own objectified pasts. That is, it has identified its present, subjective immediacy with the entire series of past selves now objectified as part of itself.” Drawing on Greek and Babylonian myth, existentialist philosophy (esp. SK and DeBouvier), Freud, and Jung, Keller argues that the separatist, substiantial self is inherently patriarchal. Quite a trip. pia

Edited by - pia†desideria on 07/18/2001 12:37:23 PM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/18/2001 8:08 AM (GMT -6)

Hmmmm...

Well, since you're here, pia...while I'm waiting on Doc's answer...

1) What do YOU think a "spirit" or "soul" is?
2) Do you hold to metaphysical dualism in human beings? Is so, why? If not, why not?
3) Are angels "spirit" beings, meaning that they are entirely comprised of "spirit"?

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/18/2001 8:34 AM (GMT -6)

So, si..I mean, pia, are you saying that:

The many selves become oneself, and and are increased by one's self?

[To rewrite a famous line from P&R]

If you are, I agree.

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 7/18/2001 8:35 AM (GMT -6)

Meph: 1) What do YOU think a "spirit" or "soul" is? 2) Do you hold to metaphysical dualism in human beings? Is so, why? If not, why not?

pia: Still processing. I’ll get back to you on that.

Meph: 3) Are angels "spirit" beings, meaning that they are entirely comprised of "spirit"?

pia: Now that is an interesting question. I think if a substatialist view of the self is discarded (and the metaphysical dualism of spirit/body), then I think calling angels “spirits” would become a misnomer, at least metaphysically. pia

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 7/18/2001 8:43 AM (GMT -6)

Modes: So, si..I mean, pia…

pia:

Modes: are you saying that: The many selves become oneself, and and are increased by one's self?

pia: Maybe.

Modes: If you are, I agree.

pia:

So Modes, how does “the self is a relation that relates itself to itself, but the self is not the relation but the relation relating itself to itself…etc., etc., etc.,” come into this discussion?

pia

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/18/2001 8:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

So Modes, how does “the self is a relation that relates itself to itself, but the self is not the relation but the relation relating itself to itself…etc., etc., etc.,” come into this discussion?

pia

The self is a relation that relates the necessary (having prehended the history) to the possible (having prehended God's offering of initial aim and other potential courses of action), it is not the simple relation of necessity to possibility, but is the positive third which prehends such a relation and relates itself to that relation. In short, it is spirit.

dig?

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 7/18/2001 8:55 AM (GMT -6)

Modes: dig?

pia: yep.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/18/2001 8:58 AM (GMT -6)

Modes,

So then the "disposition" IS the "spirit", yes?

Pia said:

Now that is an interesting question. I think if a substatialist view of the self is discarded (and the metaphysical dualism of spirit/body), then I think calling angels 'spirits' would become a misnomer, at least metaphysically.

That's EXACTLY the point I want to make. Oh, boy!

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 07/18/2001 2:01:04 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/18/2001 9:41 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Meph,

Yes, it could be said that the disposition that is identified with that continuity which we call the "human personhood" is spirit. I haven't fully integrated my understanding of SK's anthropology with that of Whitehead because I agree with the consensus, that Whitehead's is quite weak. This has been known for decades. (In SK it is quite clear. So I go to him for "self" stuff.) In process, everything is an event, AND everything is a relation, each relation prehends each past actual occasion (either positively or negatively) so by default, everything and anything could be called "spirit" in process. The problem in process is whether one could assert BOTH a becoming of conituity (emergent entity) AND a continuity of becoming (entity which guides emergence) without violating the system. (Identity is a problem, Hartshorne brings in memory, and other personal categories, that helps.) Can one have top-down along with bottom-up influence while maintaining and anti-dualism? This doesn't even address the issues of contemporeneity or side-to-side influence! Lots of questions and problems, not so many answers. Sorry. My brain's full right now, gotta flush...

Catch me later...I know where to look for help, I'm just not there right now.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/18/2001 10:36 AM (GMT -6)

Personally, I feel that given Doc and Amos Yong's good critiques of Whitehead's concept of the self, and Doc's thoughts on "dispositions", I don't see how one can escape from 1)PRACTICAL substantialism at least and 2)metaphysical DUALISM within the human being.

This is how I see the term "disposition":

Disposition: A reality that is neither possible nor actual that functions to 1) act as a go between for causality, bringing things from possibility to actuality 2) act as a CONSISTENT, yet dynamic reality that accounts for the emergence and continuity of a "self." It could be referred to as the localization of the creative PROCESS within each individual being that constitutes the "center" of said being.

Having said this, let's move on...

The Issue of Substantialism

In Amos Yong's paper I mentioned earlier here (PLEASE read that if you get a chance. Good stuff!), he mentions Rem Edwards, a neo-Whiteheadian, who had an idea to get around this problem. He basically ended up saying that human beings were ACTUAL entities rather than societies of actual occasions. Quote from the paper:

In contrast, Edwards rejects the Whiteheadian view of personal "discontinuity" formulated on the epochal theory of time as one which "really confronts us with ‘high abstractions.’" Thus, it is only when the human being is understood as a continually concrescing actual entity that we can coherently speak of "human selfhood."

It was here when Yong placed the footnote I mentioned earlier:

"The substantialist would undoubtedly query Whitehead at this point on the fact that his "continually concrescing actual entity" sounds very similar to the traditional substance!"

Let this be said. I think that Doc's postulation of "dispositions" is FAR more explanatory than Edwards' critical analysis and shift from Whitehead. However, the central problem remains. How would the "dynamic reality" of a "disposition" be PRACTICALLY any different than a substantialist idea of the "spirit"? It really wouldn't be, in my opinion. Think about it. You have an ABIDING reality that serves as a nexus for CONTINUITY within all "beings" that is not corporeal. Not only that, but we can definitely say that with the idea of dispositions, there is an UNCHANGING aspect to them as well as a CHANGING aspect. (Check my slightly convoluted analogy as well as Trinity and Process) So on what basis can one really advocate against substantialism with respect to the "spirit of man", especially when we are talking about enduring realities? ONLY if one takes the foolish route of saying that "substances" HAVE to be actualities instead of just enduring REALITIES. Bottom line: The "spirit" IS a substance...a dynamic reality, but a substance nonetheless.

**************************

The Issue of Dualism

Angels have traditionally been interpreted to be SPIRIT beings. Noncorporeal, yet able to have effects in the corporeal sphere. It seemed to me that some of the impact of this "dispositional" thought was to get away from any type of DUALISM in human beings. In other words, the idea of a "spirit" being separate or separable from a whole human being was not seen to be too cool. But if angels are pure "spirit" beings who exhibit rationality, will, (even to the point that they can revolt against God), wouldn't we have to say that "dispositions" MUST be able to house the consciousness? It's prima facie true that consciousness must precede rationality and will, especially SELF-will. This is quite important.

If angels are indeed purely spirit beings, wouldn't this mean that, in some sense, dualism IS true as far as human beings are concerned? It would be in some type of "conditional unity" where our immaterial essences are conditionally linked to our physical nature (which I hold to), but it would be dualism nonetheless. In other words, angels and demons could be said to be NON-EMBODIED "dispositions" while human beings are EMBODIED "dispositions" This makes sense to me...as I think it would any evangelical believer who believes in the concept of a "spirit" or "soul" In order to argue against this, one could argue that consciousness NECESSITATES corporeality, but I think we all know that won't work for anyone but scientific naturalists. Or one could argue that angels really DO have corporeal bodies (matter or energy) by nature, and they are not purely spirit beings. But what about the so-called "spiritual realm" where the "excluded middle" lies that is supposed to be UNDETECTABLE to the senses or empirical observation? Don't angels and demons make up this realm?

All this leads me to think that, even if one posits "dispositions", a DUALISM emerges that cannot be done away with. To get rid of the problem is simple: disbelieve in angelic beings. (Note: I wonder do many process philosophers and theologians who advocate the process idea of self BELIEVE in angelic, "spirit" beings. 9 to 10 they do NOT...and I can honestly see why.)

******************************

Now, my thinking may be way off (and if it is, just show me), but this is why I think that

1) the distinction between the idea of "disposition" in beings and that of a substantive "spirit" in beings may be one without real difference.

2) Metaphysical dualism in human beings is unavoidable.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:48 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual