Table Of Content

MIND, VALUE, AND THE COSMOS ON THE RELATIONAL NATURE OF ULTIMACY A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of Claremont School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Andrew M. Davis May 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Andrew M. Davis This Dissertation completed by Andrew M. Davis has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the Claremont School of Theology in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree Doctor of Philosophy Faculty Committee Roland Faber, Chairperson Philip Clayton Daniel A. Dombrowski Dean of the Faculty Sheryl Kujawa-Holbrook May 2020 ABSTRACT MIND, VALUE, AND THE CSOMOS ON THE RELATIONAL NATURE OF ULTIMACY by Andrew M. Davis This dissertation is an investigation into the nature of ultimacy and explanation, particularly as it relates to the status of, and relationship between, Mind, Value, and the Cosmos. It draws its stimulus from longstanding “axianoetic” convictions as to the ultimate status of Mind and Value in the western tradition of philosophical theology, and chiefly from the influential modern proposals of A.N. Whitehead, Keith Ward, and John Leslie. In light of their promptings, I approach key existential mysteries surrounding: any and all existence (Ch. 1.), necessary divine existence (Ch. 2), the nature of the possible (Ch. 3), and the status of the world as actual (Ch. 4). I do so with fundamentally relational intuitions such that Mind and Value, Possibility and Actuality, God and the World are affirmed as ultimate only in their relationality. More than any other philosopher, Whitehead has stressed nothing short of the relational nature of ultimacy in this way. He has pointed to a way in which ultimate notions, from the finite and contingent to the infinite and necessary, live through each other, such that each mutually offer the other factors essential for their reality. This mode of relationality he calls “mutual immanence;” but it is equally that of mutual transcendence. This relational vision uniquely illuminates some of the most stimulating and challenging questions emerging from serious considerations into the whence and why of God, the World, and their ultimate presuppositions. What finally emerges as “ultimate” is not Mind or Value or the Cosmos, over and against each other, but Mind, Value, and the Cosmos as co-inherent and mutually immanent. It is in consideration of the relational nature of ultimacy in this way, I claim, that one comes to affirm that relationality is what is ultimate. Dedication It is with appreciation, gratitude, and above all, love that I dedicate this dissertation to my father, Reed C. Davis, whose unyielding support and encouragement undergird every word and every page. Should his longstanding concern for the deeper values of life have developed along a slightly different path, I am confident he might have produced something rather similar. Nietzsche thus utters a truism: “What was silent in the father speaks in the son; and I often found in the son the unveiled secret of the father.” Acknowledgments A project such as this has no simple genealogy. It is a result of the convergence of a variety of influences, experiences, conversations, and convictions over many years of wonder and wander. I remain deeply indebted to Roland Faber and Philip Clayton, mentors and friends, both of whom encouraged the sources, directions, and conclusions of this work, albeit, never without the guidance of discussion and debate. I also remain deeply indebted to Alfred North Whitehead, Keith Ward, and John Leslie whose collective work and shared intuitions are inspiration. I thank Keith Ward and John Leslie, in particular, for valuable personal correspondence on different points requiring clarification throughout the evolution of the project. To my family and friends, I offer a debt of gratitude for their encouragement, patience, and love along the way. i CONTENTS Abstract Dedication Acknowledgements Introduction: The Relational Nature of Ultimacy 1 Chapter One: Mysteries of Existence 10 1. Homo Quaerens 11 2. Existence as Question and Problem 13 A. Questions of Existence: Distinctions, Layers, Dimensions 16 1. Distinguishing the Ontological and Cosmological Questions 16 2. The Allure and Impossibility of Nothingness 19 3. The Mystery of Contingency: Order, Intelligibility, Novelty 30 4. Evolution and Beginnings 35 B. Ways of Explaining the Mystery: A Typology of Basic Solutions 40 1. A Blank Is Absurd: There Had to Be Something 42 2. No Explanation Needed: Submission to Brute Fact 43 3. Chance: Wild Assortments of Quantum Probability 47 4. The Ultimacy of Value: Creative Axiological Requirements 49 5. The Necessity of Mind: The Noetic Rootedness of All Reality 52 C. Conclusion: Relationality and Ultimacy 57 Chapter Two: Joining Value and Mind: The Axianoetic Tradition 60 1. The Question of Relationality 61 A. Leslie’s Axiarchic Emphasis: The Creative Supremacy of Value 63 1. The Greek Axiarchic Lineage 64 2. Medieval Expressions 68 3. Modern Voices 70 B. Ward’s Idealistic Emphasis: The Primordiality of Mind 80 1. The Greek Idealistic Lineage 82 ii 2. Medieval Expressions 86 3. Modern Voices 89 C. Whitehead’s Relational Emphasis: Toward the “Mutual Immanence” of Mind and Value 102 1. Mutual Immanence as a Relationship within God 105 2. Value as Reason, Purpose, and Foundation of Divine Mind 108 D. The Unspoken Mutual Immanence of Mind and Value 112 1. John Polkinghorne: Goodness and its Instantiation 112 2. Mark Wynn: Both Mind and Value Have a Claim 114 3. Hugh Rice: Goodness without Mind’s Mediation 115 4. Peter Forest: Combining Value and Mind 117 5. A.C. Ewing: The Mutual Immanence of Mind and Value 119 E. Conclusion: Mutual Immanence and the Axianoetic Tradition 124 Chapter Three: Riddles of the Possible 128 1. Disciplinary Entry Points 130 2. Some Initial Questions 132 A. Human Experience and the Possible 134 1. Existential Hauntings of Possibility 134 2. Value, Mind, and Purpose 135 3. Crossing Evolutionary Rubicons 136 B. Platonic Haunting: The Reality and Problem of the Possible 138 1. Leslie: Kingdoms of Ethically Required Possibility 139 2. Ward: Oceanic Arrays of Platonic Possibilities 143 3. Whitehead: The Temporalization of the Eternal 145 C. Ridding the Possible: Three Modern Attempts and Their Inadequacies 154 1. W. V. Quine: The Problematic “Existence” of Non-Being 154 iii 2. Frederick Ferré: Decentering and Diffusing the Possible 157 3. David Lewis: Possibility, Plentitude, and Ethical Repugnance 161 D. God and the Possible: Actuality, Priority, and the Question of Relationality 168 1. Whitehead: Possibility and “the General Aristotelian Principle” 169 2. Ward: Possibility, Necessity, and the “Platonic-Augustinian Model” 174 3. Leslie’s Challenge and the Question of Relationality 177 E. The Mutual Immanence of the Possible and the Actual in God 181 1. Divine Possibility and Divine Actuality: From Leslie to Ward and Back Again 182 2. Enter Whitehead: The Mutuality of Ultimate Modes of Existence 187 F. Conclusion: In View of the World 191 Chapter Four: The World and Its Actualization 193 1. The Mystery of the World 194 A. Leslie’s Pantheism: Ripples on the Sea of Divine Reality 197 1. Some Challenges: Objects, Finite Minds, Time, Freedom 198 2. The Universe as an Existentially Unified Whole 201 3. Human Consciousness, Existential Unity, and Value 203 B. Ward’s Relational Panentheism: Thought Otherized, Thought Loved 205 1. Otherness, Creativity, and Value 207 2. Love, Necessity, and Kenosis 209 iv