Sentences with phrase «things as a unity»

Like Nietzsche, Whitehead sees the unity which underlies all things as a unity of process, that is, as a temporally continuous whole which is self - unfolding, open - ended, and essentially incomplete.

Not exact matches

So that in all things, as in aforesaid, the unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped.»

As the English puritan Richard Baxter says: «In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things love.»

But Whitehead upholds such perplexities by his conviction that recognition of a thing as a composite and also as a unity are required modes of understanding, that these two modes are reciprocal, that they presuppose each other, and that the perspective emphasizing the composite exhibits an outcome and the perspective emphasizing the unity exhibits a causal factor (MT 63).

«All the time not having a clue that they were being whispered against, campaigned against by both Catholics & Anglicans who made it palpably clear that this initiative was detrimental to the «dialogue towards unity» and temporarily compromised their positions as oecumenical ambassadors - that this was a counter-productive «wacked - out» scheme by an ailing Pope who merely needed to be placated until he died - hence delaying tactics, obfuscations, procedurality, red tape and making everything as difficult and administratively untenable as possible; with patronising sympathy and hand - wringing at their lot while sneering, dismissing and chuckling to themselves that the whole thing will eventually come to naught... that the administration will crumble via crises and power politics andpersonality clashes and outright frustration at the situation... and ultimately the Ordinariate will be re-integrated into the Conference system and those not happy about it will crawl back to their friends in the C of E.

Such unity, fleeting though it may be, is a taste of the Christian hope for the time when, as Julian of Norwich put it, all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well.

What I experience as I stand in face of — and in the very depths of — this world which your flesh has assimilated, this world which has become your flesh, my God, is not the absorption of the monist who yearns to be dissolved into the unity of things, nor the emotion felt by the pagan as he lies prostrate before a tangible divinity, nor yet the passive self - abandonment of the quietist tossed hither and thither at the mercy of mystical impulsions.

The complex substance is a unity of being because a «thing» is what God knows it to be -LSB-... T] he Being of God -LSB-...] as Pure Act is the only sufficient reason for the unity and entity of every form of being, and the overall unity... of Nature.»

Since Aristotle and Whitehead are at one in distancing themselves critically from entity understood as substrate, since they both have in mind the existence of a «self» as the decisive characteristic of entity, and since moreover they both turn in the direction of organic unities and not of «things,» it becomes all the more urgent to ask just how the Whiteheadian concept of an «actual entity» is related to the Aristotelian concept of «entity.»

That is most obvious if we pass from artifacts to the sort of thing that has grown and developed as a unity and as a whole.

Teilhard relates this movement towards the planetary unity of civilizations with what he describes as the increasing convergence of men in a consciousness which is super-individual and with the passing years more and more super-national; and he has some specifically Christian things to say about that movement and its meaning.

And if the terrible thing happened (for religious edification should not, like a woman's finery be intended for a splendid moment) that you were buried alive, if, as you awakened in the coffin you seized upon your accustomed consolation, then even in this lonely torment, you would be in unity with all men.

On the unity side, the proposal here is, quite simply, that a theological course of study would be unified if every course in it were deliberately and explicitly designed to address centrally one of the three questions about the Christian thing in and as Christian congregations (What is it?

Any way until now there is no old or new things are as it is but rather divided among it self... but I pray to God they would keep the unity in their hearts, minds and souls for the sake of God and Yemen.

In each dimension it is necessary to envision «Christian witness as a whole» (i.e., the «Christian thing» as some sort of unity).

Hereâ $ ™ s some of the things that grabbed me: important theological / spiritual themes are developed through the story such as good and evil, leadership, courage, love, forgiveness, and unity; good character development; convincing geographical descriptions; it does feel like the same kind of worlds Tolkien, Charles Williams and C. S. Lewis wrote about.

Because both systematic and moral theology are defined by interests in the integral unity of the «Christian thing» and the unity of theological inquiry, neither of them should be thought of as the «middle discipline» (cf. 50 - 51) between historical theology's formulations of what is normatively or faithfully «Christian» and practical theology's application of those formulations to practice.

They teach us that there can be no such thing as community without unity of consciousness, collective action free of individual greed, humility and respect for the other and as much concern for the other person's welfare as for our own.

It is possible, however, that things which appear externally as pluralities could appear internally to themselves as unities, or that a whole region that includes lesser pluralities is itself a unity.

Wilson's notion of the connectedness of things and their ultimate unity, as well as the enormous intellectual challenge of formulating consilience, feeds his «religious hunger.»

It is always tempting to peel off the historical shell and extract the pure and fruitful kernel, but, as with any tradition, that is to do violence to the inner and unbreakable unity in which permanent truth and historical form are combined in myth as in other things.

As the new literature about «theological education» began to grow during the past decade it quickly became clear [l] that for some participants the central issue facing «theological education» is the fragmentation of its course of study and the need to reconceive it so as to recover its unity, whereas for others the central issue is «theological education's» inadequacy to the pluralism of social and cultural locations in which the Christian thing is understood and liveAs the new literature about «theological education» began to grow during the past decade it quickly became clear [l] that for some participants the central issue facing «theological education» is the fragmentation of its course of study and the need to reconceive it so as to recover its unity, whereas for others the central issue is «theological education's» inadequacy to the pluralism of social and cultural locations in which the Christian thing is understood and liveas to recover its unity, whereas for others the central issue is «theological education's» inadequacy to the pluralism of social and cultural locations in which the Christian thing is understood and lived.

Thus, while God does give oneness to the world of actual entities as they are for others, the world of things as they are coming to exist in themselves remains without ontological unity.

Whether it is diversity in gender, sexuality, lifestyle, economics, race, age, ability, or beliefs, these are, when given space, all manifestations of the deep and underlying unity and reconciliation of all things, and are appreciated as such.

For Nietzsche, on the other hand, the essential unity which may be said to underlie all things is not a complete totality which we can grasp through reason (as it is with Hegel), but an open - ended, incomplete process or chaotic flux which finds expression in the contingent, finite, temporal process of growth and decay which are characteristic of nature.

Thus whereas in the first case there is a general failing to give nature, as the realm of finitude, contingency, chance and decay, its due place as a condition of mind as well as a constitutive element in the general scheme of things, in the second case there is an equally important failure to account for the origins of the unity of rational mind in nature.

For as Nietzsche sees it the world as we interpret it is really nothing more than a work of art which we have created through the will to power (which is Nietzsche's way of characterizing the chaotic nature of the unity which underlies all things).

The essential feature of a nexus which qualifies it as an existent thing is then precisely the composite unity brought about through the relational «mutual immanence» of its many constituents.6

We are mistaken if, with the fundamentalists, we deny or ignore the fact of this transfiguration and imagine that things always were as they later seemed; but we are likewise mistaken if, in the manner of modernists, we deny or ignore the value and truth of this transfiguration and thus fail to recognize the unity and transcendent meaning of the whole event and the exalted significance of the earthly life as a part of it.

This substantial unity of man which is not a conjunction of already existing things, but holds variety in unity as the realization and accomplishment of one essence, is not only a defined truth of faith, but is a fundamental presupposition of the Christian understanding of man, his world and the history of his redemption.

Science tries to do the same thing indirectly, by taking a detached view of the world in which man finds himself, to apprehend that world as a unity and thus to make it a tool for the use of man.

Jesus» language seems circular, but as the relationships are untangled one thing becomes clear: the unity of Christ's followers is not incidental to our salvation.

But what has been set forth above, what of double - mindedness might perhaps be spoken of as its deceptive transactions in the «big,» still had a certain semblance of unity, and of inner consistency, in so far as it was one single thing that was betrayed into one - sidedness, yet this one - sidedness, however strange it may seem, was precisely the double - mindedness in that one - sided person.

Accordingly, every thing and event in the universe is a samaya or «coming together, and agreement» of this ontological unity — all things and events are forms of Dainichi — experienced from the perspective of Dainichi, as well as all Buddhas.8

According to Roger Ames (NAT 117), an «aesthetic order» is a paradigm that: (1) proposes plurality as prior to unity and disjunction to conjunction, so that all particulars possess real and unique individuality; (2) focuses on the unique perspective of concrete particulars as the source of emergent harmony and unity in all interrelationships; (3) entails movement away from any universal characteristic to concrete particular detail; (4) apprehends movement and change in the natural order as a processive act of «disclosure» — and hence describable in qualitative language; (5) perceives that nothing is predetermined by preassigned principles, so that creativity is apprehended in the natural order, in contrast to being determined by God or chance; and (6) understands «rightness» to mean the degree to which a thing or event expresses, in its emergence toward novelty as this exists in tension with the unity of nature, an aesthetically pleasing order.

I imagine that there will be some angry voices that start to pop up here before long, and I will probably say things I shouldn't as well... but hopefully we can all learn from (and with) each other in love, so that we move toward unity.

The Whiteheadian concept of «society» unquestionably serves well where, as in a material thing, multiplicity is dominant and no true unity holds sway.

What makes good sense with regard to «things,» namely their conception as a «society» of more fundamental Unities, is thus not called for with regard to the more highly developed forms of life if one does not want to run the risk of missing from the start what is distinctive of living things.

As touched on in our current editorial the transcendent orientation towards higher unities of all physical things is mirrored in the artefacts of man, which are, in as much as these things are «real» things, directly relative to the spiritual minds of meAs touched on in our current editorial the transcendent orientation towards higher unities of all physical things is mirrored in the artefacts of man, which are, in as much as these things are «real» things, directly relative to the spiritual minds of meas much as these things are «real» things, directly relative to the spiritual minds of meas these things are «real» things, directly relative to the spiritual minds of men.

You see, my experience now is just as much one thing as all the previous experience that I remember — all that complexity has produced a new mode, a unity.

In non-living things visible to the naked eye there is no clear distinction between whole and part, and no dynamic unity, as though something like a sequence of experiences were influencing the parts.

It must be emphasized that «religious intuition» as Hall uses the term is a kind of mystical sense of oneness with nature, closely associated with the Taoist ideal of wu - chih or knowledge in accordance with the natures of things, a sense of «human participation in» or «constatic unity» with nature (UP 400).

Theistic imagery can «suggest patterns and unity in the totality of things» by virtue of «an appeal to personal purpose, volitional power, and moral principle as the ultimate explanatory categories».

We can gain new appreciation for the unity of all living things if we recognize that what we know as reason in humanity has its counterpart at a lower level in the animal world.

For as John Paul II expressed it: «This unity of truth, natural and revealed, is embodied in a living and personal way in Christ... He is the eternal Word in whom all things were created, and he is the incarnate Word who in his entire person reveals the Father» [Fides et Ratio, 34].

Whitehead does not yet want to call into question the common sense assumption that the world is an actual unity: «we... endeavor to imagine the world as one connected set of things which underlies all the perceptions of other, unrelinquishable references to the world (such as sense perception»).

Now, here, looking at her, I believe that, while nothing is weaker, still nothing is more powerful, than this woman, this unity of all things, as, again, she screams, bears down, holds her breath.

This of course allows things to have properties that are nonphysical, perhaps, certain physical aggregates with a high degree of systemic unity and organizational complexity, such as biological organisms and computing machines, may exhibit nonphysical properties.

Logos, before it was reduced merely to a «word» conveying facts, or to «reason» in the philosophical sense, or to «principle,» or to the ground of «logic,» referred to being as that power of gathering that brings all things forth into the light of being, holding them together in the unity of the world while also allowing them to shine forth in their separateness.

But because modern efforts at Christian unity are often heavy on symbolism rather than substance (the harder thing to achieve), a meeting between the Patriarch of Moscow and the Pope of Rome was held out as a tantalizing prize for Catholic ecumenists, one that could be used to extract concessions at some necessary moment.