Page History

...

What do I make of such talk of God's being "aware"? What I make of it is that it is to be interpreted as a nonliteral – -- i.e., symbolic, metaphorical, or analogical – -- way of referring to God's being precisely what any concrete, any instance (or sequence of instances) of becoming, necessarily is – -- namely somehow "self-relating, all-integrating," God's way of being such being "unsurpassably," because God's integrating of all is "all-in-all-integrating." Only because this is literally or metaphysically so, can what Hartshorne says nonliterally or philosophically also be so.

...