“The Voice of the Universe”: Cosmic Immanence in John Elof Boodin’s Process Thought, What It Is and Why It Matters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirstly, although this paper's abstract is well written and its focus well presented, the research design and methods are not clear stated nor at all described.
Second, while the greater part of the paper is well referenced, it is nonetheless filled with general claims that are made without literary support or evidence as it were.
Third, interesting as reading this paper may be, it is not very clear as to what is its intended contribution in the current direction of scholarship.
Please stay clear from using personal and possessive pronouns since they take away the objective nature of your work.
Please rework on your conclusion to reflect your voice than others as it is currently the case. Your conclusion must be short, contain your main conclusion, and not be cited as though a continuation of analysis.
To the extent that the philosophical and theological development of process thought is often correctly attributed to Alfred North Whitehead and its consequent advancement to Charles Hartshorn and John B. Cobb, Jr., the inclusion of John Elon Boodin is perhaps overreaching but a welcomed move. That being said however, it is important to make a clear distinction (which is currently lacking) between how in comparison to the former group's approach, Boodin's metaphysical views were rather informed but focus on the dynamic and interconnected nature of reality.
Author Response
Comment 1: Firstly, although this paper's abstract is well written and its focus well presented, the research design and methods are not clear [clearly?] stated nor at all described.
Response: This is not the kind of paper that has a "research design and method" other than standard academic narrative with references; the common structure of an academic research paper in the humanities. The assumed audience is in areas of theology, philosophy, and students of the same, not bench researchers, clinicians, or scientists. This is not a scientific paper describing a chemical reagent or some physical process like photosynthesis or combustion. The "description" is clearly in the process itself. To try to add what this reviewer wants would add an element of the ploddingly self-conscious--even pedantic--to what should be a free-flowing and most of all engaging narrative.
Comment 2: Second, while the greater part of the paper is well referenced, it is nonetheless filled with general claims that are made without literary support or evidence as it were.
Response: I must admit that this comment is rather astonishing. All I can say here is, I strongly disagree. In fact, every reference matches to a specific point made and a conclusion drawn. Not only is there "literary support" but often multiple supports, and often to the latest literature.
Comment 3: Third, interesting as reading this paper may be, it is not very clear as to what is its intended contribution in the current direction of scholarship.
Response: This is as astonishing as comment 2. The reviewer need only ask and answer, have I shown what cosmic immanence is and why it is important to understand its "intended contribution in the current direction of scholarship." As I have pointed out (lines 714-716), "Most are wedded to process thought because they have come by way of Bergson, Whitehead, and Hartshorne. All well and good as far as it goes. However, it is mere historiographical and circumstantial dogmatism to insist this is the only way." The entire paper suggests that Boodin provides an alternative approach. I can only ask the reviewer to re-read the conclusion.
Comment 4: Please stay clear from using personal and possessive pronouns since they take away the objective nature of your work.
Response: I find it interesting that the reviewer is "not qualified to assess the English in this paper," but proceeds to offer precisely that advice. But OK, I accept the point. I've reduced the pronouns ("he/his") by more than one-third. The personal pronouns "I/me/my" are pretty sparse, only about 19 in all and those are quotes, not my own. Those I must retain; they take nothing from the "objectivity" of the work.
Comment 5: Please rework on your conclusion to reflect your voice than others as it is currently the case. Your conclusion must be short, contain your main conclusion, and not be cited as though a continuation of analysis.
Response: I think this would be fine for a scientific paper, but not for a paper on philosophy/theology. I am unaware of any "must be" dogmas for a conclusion to a theological/philosophical paper. To draft as suggested would have a stylistically stultifying effect on the essay as a whole.
Comment 6: To the extent that the philosophical and theological development of process thought is often correctly attributed to Alfred North Whitehead and its consequent advancement to Charles Hartshorn and John B. Cobb, Jr., the inclusion of John Elon [sic] Boodin is perhaps overreaching but a welcomed move. That being said however, it is important to make a clear distinction (which is currently lacking) between how in comparison to the former group's approach, Boodin's metaphysical views were rather informed but focus on the dynamic and interconnected nature of reality.
Response: Why is it "overreaching"? Boodin's metaphysical views and their focus on the "dynamic and interconnected nature of reality" is the whole point of sections 3 and 5, "Cosmic Immanence and the 'Rainbow Universe'" and "Boodin, Process Thought and Whitehead" relating back to section 2, "Functional Realism." In fact, my entire proposal and thesis as presented in the abstract is systematically presented in the paper throughout. It is also methodically documented point-by-point, but as a flowing narrative not as a formulaic recipe. I don't know what else to say. I believe it stands on its merits as written.
I appreciate the reviewer's time and attention to this paper, even if I do not concur on all points.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is written by one of the very few experts on the field of Boodin research. I recommend its publication, albeit with the proviso of considering some minor points. These points are:
1) CRITICAL POINT: p. 2/lines 73-4: The presentation of critical realism is a bit too simplifying. At least R. W. Sellars would not fit in the author's framework. Sellars argued FOR transcendence and thus refused to speak of unknowable things-in-themselves à la Kant.
2) STYLISTIC POINT: pp. 5-6/lines 246-257: This passage reads somewhat unctuous, at least when compared to common academic style.
3) FORMAL POINT: p. 8/line 405: Replace "Booden" by "Boodin".
4) CONTEXTUAL POINT: p. 13/line 632: It should (at least briefly, in a footnote) clarified who Bracken was.
Author Response
1) CRITICAL POINT: p. 2/lines 73-4: The presentation of critical realism is a bit too simplifying. At least R. W. Sellars would not fit in the author's framework. Sellars argued FOR transcendence and thus refused to speak of unknowable things-in-themselves à la Kant.
Response: The reviewer makes an excellent point for which I am grateful. I have accordingly, reworked lines 75-83 and 88-95 to address this most valid issue raised. Hopefully, this lends more clarity to my discussion. (All line references are to the new, revised manuscript.)
2) STYLISTIC POINT: pp. 5-6/lines 246-257: This passage reads somewhat unctuous, at least when compared to common academic style.
Response: Fair enough. I have shortened and recast this part (see lines 242-249). Hopefully, it's less unctuous now.
3) FORMAL POINT: p. 8/line 405: Replace "Booden" by "Boodin".
Corrected. Thanks!
4) CONTEXTUAL POINT: p. 13/line 632: It should (at least briefly, in a footnote) clarified who Bracken was.
I've added a footnote on Bracken as suggested (see line 580) and note (lines 759-764).
I think this addresses all of the reviewers comments and suggestions. I am appreciative and found them very helpful. Please note: I've added references to an article by Sellars and to Lewis's Mere Christianity.
