Jonathan Mize

Panentheism is a theism with great potential. Whereas pantheism takes God to be equivalent to the world, panentheism entertains as much while still asserting God’s transcendence of the mere world. There is much beauty in this idea that God is both “in the world” and “above” it. But there is also much subtlety and confusion. Panentheism is notoriously tricky to demarcate from the other theisms, and there is plenty of nuance left to be explored. The core problem of panentheism is this—what exactly does it mean for the world to “include God” and for God to “contain the world?” Numerous answers have been given, but it seems there is still something left to be desired. In this paper, we endeavor to give panentheism a firm and rigorous footing. Utilizing basic category theory, we provide a precise answer to the daunting problem of “world inclusion.” In the process, we also offer a new variety of metaphysical grounding, “morphic grounding.”

Analytical sociology has provided the social sciences with a fresh, new perspective. But there are still many lacunae left to fill within sociological thought. In this paper I will address one of these gaps; I believe that sociology is missing a framework with which to adequately address the intersubjective, intentional nature of micro-social dynamics. I will introduce a rough outline of a formal system of intentionality—as it pertains to the micro-social—that observes the overall methodology and principles of analytical sociology. Moreover, I will couple this system with one consisting of intersubjective belief dynamic. It is hoped that this theoretical design will contribute towards an eventual “bridging of the gap” between the macro and the micro, and that it will provide greater insight into the nature of the micro-social.

The broadening of society—the warm embracing of those who were once excluded—is a beautiful process. Throughout the last half-century society has progressed in ways utterly unfathomable to our not-so-distant ancestors. Yet, the basis on which contemporary societal enrichment now stands—the development and solidification of identity—is not exempt from critique. Within this paper I contend that the conceptual grounding of our contemporary obsession with identity is untenable. It is not the fact that various social “identities” are empowered that is dangerous, rather, it is the polarization between the various identities and the peculiar dynamic that arises that proves problematic. I begin by drawing attention to some problematic conceptions and logical issues within the process of societal-identity dynamic. Additionally, a new conceptual notion, “the gulf of identity” is broached, and I discuss its composition and how it relates to the Rawlsian “veil of ignorance”. To conclude, I broach a possible restructuring of this framework, modifying it in hopes that it better accommodates all groups, discussing the popular issue of “toleration of the intolerant” along the way.