Putting dispositional essentialism into an organic format

heart-fireDispositional essentialism offers a dynamical view of causal process in which real substances have been ascribed the dispositional properties or propensities to lawfully (though order and orientation) generate new substances in a predictive series of events. Here, substance and disposition (endeavor) are given the same ontological nature and form.

I am in favor of this dynamical approach to understanding a universe that is in profound process.

Under this type of analysis, the fundamental world of first causal principles can be said to consist of a deeper and more fundamental disposition or endeavor. This thinking allows one to speculate that God’s Creative Love can assume that fundamental causal disposition as primal substance. This would create a rational approach to unifying science and theology. (My good friend, physicist Ian J. Thompson, is proposing such a theistic science.)

However, according to scientist/theologian Emanuel Swedenborg, God’s Love is not only the fundamental creative fabric and mover of all reality, it is a living and organic former of coherent structure. This adds a new wrinkle to the theory. In other words, creation—based on Love—by necessity must produce more relational phenomena as it unfolds its various series of events. This cooperative sharing increases unity between all created things (something not predictive of merely dead matter).

These dispositional series are dependent on each other and support each other! That means each unfolding series must rely on more than the inner thrust of its dispositional properties but also on outer inputs (that is why people must eat, breathe and receive sensory data).

Therefore, I predict that the future of scientific thinking will produce an organic model of dispositional essentialism that shows where sharing and subsistence enters into the coordination and subordination of each unfolding series with mathematical precision. This will give us a truly organic view of the laws (and wisdom) ruling the universe.

I have offered a deeper look at this final organic theory in my award-winning book Proving God. Only God’s angels are allowed to say more.

http://www.provinggod.com

Advertisements

About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at http://www.staircasepress.com
This entry was posted in god, love, Reality, religion, science, unity and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Putting dispositional essentialism into an organic format

  1. Yes: you are quite right that a proper account of creation can only be obtained if the underlying dispositions are living rather than dead. And, moreover, that the inputs to developments come both from the prime source (God) and from the ultimate actions (in the physical realm).

    The word ‘disposition’, to me, is a general term to refer to all propensities, desires and loves. All these things, whether living or dead, can be described as composed of substances in the category of ‘dispositions’. Not all dispositions, therefore, are dead. And not all dispositions are living either. But they all contribute to organic things.
    Only organic things exist: nothing mathematical can exist that is not the form of something organic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s