Emerging in Cancun

Well, the conference will soon be coming to a close.  This afternoon I spent some time on the beach again and did some writing and thinking.

I'll give a more detailed report later, but here are some of my favorite new phrases that I will take away with me:

"Pleistocene urges" -- the desires we share with earlier life forms, like the desires for salt, sugar and sex.

"Teleodynamic neural attractors as ontogenetic lanscapes of probability phase space" -- well... obviously.  Duh.

This puts a different spin on the issue of "aesthetic desire," which I use as an organizing category in the Doctrine of God book, but am also trying to link with the "felt" experience of the real presence of Christ in my current project.  Emergence theory seems the best scientific explanatory theory for spelling out the move from pleistocene urges to the human experience of mystical desire for union with the absolute, but we still have to talk theologically about the ultimate origin, condition and goal of all desiring whatsoever... and I think the doctrine of parousia has a role to play here.

So, the next step will be reworking my sections on emergent complexity in the Christology and Science book.

I probably won't post again until I return to Kristiansand, but then I hope to open up a conversation on experiences of delightful terror in reformative theology, so be thinking about stories or reflections you might like to share.

Comments

[Thomas Jay Oord]

LeRon,

I've been thinking about the brief conversation we had in Cancun about the constraints and necessary conditions for love.

First: would you be interested in reading an essay I published in Contemporary Philosophy on the metaphysical necessities of love? I'll send you an electronic copy, if you want to read it. (It appeared in a more accessible form in my little book, Science of Love.)

Second: about a month ago, 60 minutes or some similar American TV show examined generosity in America. They interviewed the wealthiest people (Bill Gates, Buffett (sp?), Ted Turner, others). The analyst asked various folk why they choose to give away money to others. (Stephen Post even appeared at the end of clip.)

In my mind, the most fascinating part of the program was the research done on the giving patterns of various economic classes. It turns out that the poor and the wealthy give a great deal more in terms of percentage income than do the middle classes. I was surprised by this. I figured the wealthy would hourde and the poor would justify not giving to others because they have so little.

I raise this second point, in part, because it would seem that the necessary conditions for human generosity may not involve adequate food, financial stability, political stability, education, etc. For the poor, it seemed like a strong sense of community was the most important factor. For the wealthy, it was a sense of duty to offload abundance.

Just a few thoughts inspired by our Cancun conversation...

Tom

[Daniel Eller]

Hello Professor Oord,

If you will forgive the impertinence of me eavesdropping on your conversation with LeRon, I too am extremely interested in this topic… in fact, I hope to do a majority of my doctoral research in this direction. I am always interested in trying to understand the altruistic “resources” that people tap into in order to overcome the various evolutionary hang-ups that make giving difficult (e.g. tit-for-tat game theories, reciprocal sharing, and other issues pertaining to “energy” loss and gain), which it would seem also interests you (i.e.“I raise this second point, in part, because it would seem that the necessary conditions for human generosity may not involve adequate food, financial stability, political stability, education, etc. For the poor, it seemed like a strong sense of community was the most important factor. For the wealthy, it was a sense of duty to offload abundance”).

Anyway, I also saw that television special and was also very perplexed. Specifically speaking, it was most surprising for me to see how the rich—spearheaded by Buffet and Gates—seemed to come to there conclusions about giving by means of an almost counter-intuitive logic or new economic rationale. I say counter-intuitive only because their whole “world” seems to be based on free-market capitalism, which in most ways favors giving to sources that will give back with interest. So, it was surprising that in there “personal” lives they were giving to groups that have less potential for raising the watermark of currency gains in the world and for them. Furthermore, they did not seem to have any religious resources to motivate them. On the other hand, the lower class, who often identify themselves as “intrinsically” religious, did seem to have other resources—as their “intrinsic” religion would have motivated them to help others who they would have considered “insiders” based upon their socio-economic status.

Consequently, I wonder what your thoughts are in regard to how one might increase the resources for the middle-class, who also have large quantities of intrinsically religious people, but who often see the poor as “other” and, therefore, are less likely to give.

I guess my question for you is this: “Do you think that religion is only a resource for love/generosity when it’s combined with solidarity, or is there some type of new economic “rationality” that transcends religion when it comes to love and generosity?” In either case, what is our “obligation” as Christian teachers… Do we argue for a new economic rationale or do we help the middle class move toward solidarity like Jesus, Mother Teresa, Henri Nouwen, and others seemed to advocate? I guess I’m asking if generosity is generosity without solidarity or is it just a “altruism trick” that allows us to give as long as we get to keep our jet and BMW?

Thanks,
dan

[Daniel Eller]

... I’m sorry, I should have added that I am placing "intrinsic" in quotes because of Daniel Batson's experiments with intrinsically religious people and giving (e.g. “Who is my Neighbor")... I seek to use "intrinsic" as he has.
dan

[LeRon]

Hi Tom,

Yes, please send me that article... I'm definitely interested!

Thanks too for the comments on rich, poor and middle class giving. You have really brought out the issue of motivation. I thought of the widow's mite story... Jesus was not impressed by the amount given by the rich but by the widow's small gift, which was all she had.

I need to think about this some more, but in the dialogue with the sciences usually altruism has to do with putting one's self at risk for the sake of the other. So, on this model, only the widow's gift counts as altruism in the strict sense... what do you think?

LeRon

[Thomas Jay Oord]

Dan,

Thanks for jumping in the conversation. We do seem to share many interests. As I read your comments, I thought of several paragraphs I could write in response. But I think I will limit my comments to two:

1) I assume that God is omnipresent and omni-influencing. So I think all love is inspired by God, even love expressed in nonreligious folk or nonreligious situations (when "religion" is understood in the usual sense). But I think creatures must respond appropriately to God's inspiration if love is to become actual and flourish.

As a Christian, I think Christianity proclaims this message best. I think Jesus reveals it best. But I see similar thoughts in many other religions.

More to the point: I think there are some things that can be done to help folk respond to God's inspiration that are not typically regarded as religious. One of the most important is simply securing friendships with diverse others. Simple things like traveling to other cultures and talking with those whom we meet can help us to empathize with strangers.

2) I do not identify altruism and love. I define altruism (similar to Batson) as action whose primary motive is the good of the other. I define love as acting intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being. There are cases in which altruistic actions are not loving actions, because they fail to affirm the value of the self in the attempt to promote the good of the other. Women who are doormats for men to walk over comprise a good example. (Have you read Sarah Coakley's nice summary essay of this in Polkinghorne's WORKS OF LOVE? She argues this same point in the context of kenosis)

Well, I'd better run to a meeting...

Tom

[Daniel Eller]

Tom,
Thanks for getting back to me... and for forgiving my impertinence, which given the conversation may have been an obligation;)

I have read Coakley's article, and it was helpful. I guess that I will have to further consider the implications for what it means to formally separate love and altruism, as I always saw altruism as love’s end or, at least, its symbolic climax. Part of my struggle or "issue" with Coakley was that she tied altruism in with kenosis, which is problematic for me because it seems to insinuate that something must be emptied in order for something else to be filled (i.e. a limited amount of love energy). But, I wonder how Jesus' act on the cross speaks to this issue. It almost seems as though he were tapped into an unlimited—infinite with a big “I”—source that allowed him to transcend the "doormat" possibility. Perhaps some of the intuitions of emergent theory could help us to overcome this bifurcation. In any case, I have appreciated your work, because, for me, it seems like it should be the greatest concern for any follower of Christ… love that is.

Anyway, I would love to talk further about this issue, especially about that TV program… after watching it, I have begun to do more research in the area of economic theory and altruism—fascinating stuff... an economist friend of mine has turned me onto some very interesting thinkers that have helped me to understand, potentially, some motivating factors for people like Buffet and Gates.

Thanks again,
dan