Page History

SCANNED PDF: PART 2

–

19. "Modal all-inclusiveness" (ANTOT: 38) means “all actuality in one individual actuality, and all possibility in one individual potentiality or capacity for actuality" (79). But, then, one need not employ the psychological term "know" as Hartshorne does in arguing that the divine nonexistence is impossible. Clearly, if there is any sense in which God can be said to know, God's knowledge as God's knowledge must be “omniscient,” or "modally-all-inclusive," actually knowing all actual things as actual and all potential things as potential. But, be this as it may, modal all-inclusiveness suffices to exclude the possibility of God's nonexistence, because all- inclusive possibility could not include the possibility of its own nonexistence, and so, if it could not exist, it would not be all-inclusive after all.

...

Ad 35—What does, or could, Hartshorne mean by “super-linguistic consciousness,” except all-inclusive relativity to all that is abstract as well as all that is concrete?  Since any event belonging to the career of the universal individual must be eminently, or transcendently, and, therefore, all-inclusively, relative, any such event must include all things, abstract and concrete, and, therefore, all reality, and so, in that sense, or for that reason, also all truth.