Page History

...

Hartshorne's move from what we in fact do experience -- a experience—a whole, of which we are but part, an inclusive value including and coordinating all other values, a living [?] universe (cf. 236) -- to —to "God" is clearly too hasty, and so unwarranted, even if one allows that the whole, the inclusive value, the living universe, may indeed by symbolized as "God," i.e., as "an inclusive person, whose impartial inclusiveness is precisely the omniscience and all-appreciativeness of God," and so on. In point of fact, even the characterization of the universe as "living" and of all beings as having life is but a particular symbolization of what we, in fact, experience -- namelyexperience—namely, ourselves as concretes coordinate with others as concretes all included in an inclusive concrete!

That this experience, which we do indeed have, may be symbolized ill in the theistic terms in which Hartshorne chooses to symbolize it in no way warrants his clam claim that "analysis" of our experience "reveals God as its intelligible content" (cf. "Mysticism and Rationalistic Metaphysics": 467, where he says that "we directly experience space as ourselves and other things or creatures coexistent with us. . . . [D]eity as the inclusive, ordering, and definitive unity of coexisting things is the full reality [sic!] of what is directly given as spatiality"). "Analysis" of our experience, properly so-called, reveals inclusive concreteness as its intelligible content, while "God" is yielded as the content of our experience, not by "analysis," but by the very different process of "generalization" (cf., e.g., Hartshorne's statement that "there is some cumulative support, in the history of Western philosophy, for belief in the ultimacy of a sufficiently generalized [sic!] idea of sympathy or love" [Insights and Oversights of Great Thinkers: 377 f.]).

...