Daniel A. Dombrowski’s Process Mysticism is a philosophically rigorous and historically informed contribution to contemporary philosophy of religion, particularly within the tradition of neoclassical or process theism. The book explores the compatibility between mystical experience – understood as direct or immediate awareness of God – and the metaphysical commitments of process thought. Dombrowski argues that classical theism, with its emphasis on divine immutability, omnipotence, and timelessness, fails to provide a coherent account of mystical experience. In contrast, process theism, especially in its Hartshornian form, offers a more adequate conceptual framework for understanding the experiential claims of mystics.
Dombrowski, arguably the leading interpreter of Charles Hartshorne’s neoclassical philosophy, builds on his earlier work (A History of the Concept of God, Reference Dombrowski2016), applying process metaphysics to the experiential domain of mysticism. The result is a compelling synthesis of metaphysical insight and mystical phenomenology.
The book unfolds over ten chapters, each addressing a key theme at the intersection of mysticism and process thought. Dombrowski begins with a critique of classical theism and a defence of dipolar theism, arguing that the monopolar metaphysics of divine immutability and impassibility fails to accommodate mystical experience. Drawing on Hartshorne’s notion of God as both absolute and relative, he proposes a dipolar model that better reflects both philosophical coherence and experiential depth.
Subsequent chapters develop this framework through panentheistic reflections on divine embodiment and omnipresence, drawing on Plato’s World Soul and Hartshorne’s panentheism to present God as the soul of the cosmos. This view bridges nature mysticism and theistic mysticism, emphasizing divine intimacy with all sentient beings.
Dombrowski then critiques the classical notion of omnipotence, proposing instead a model of ‘ideal power’ that is persuasive rather than coercive. This allows for genuine creaturely freedom and tragic possibility, and is ethically preferable in light of theodicy. His treatment of mystical immediacy and the ontological argument revises classical formulations to support a dynamic conception of God, one whose actuality is contingent and relational.
The book also integrates Whiteheadian metaphysics, particularly the concept of prehension and the aesthetic structure of experience, to deepen the account of mystical awareness. Dombrowski challenges apophatic and ascetic tendencies in mystical traditions, advocating for a balanced view that affirms embodied and aesthetic values. He reinterprets askesis as disciplined engagement rather than withdrawal.
In his discussion of visionary mysticism and neurotheology, Dombrowski offers a deflationary account that acknowledges the neurological basis of mystical experience without reducing its metaphysical significance. He also draws on Bergson’s distinction between closed and open societies to highlight the ethical and communal dimensions of mysticism, arguing that mystical experience fosters moral and spiritual openness.
The aesthetic dimension of mysticism is explored through the Greek concept of aesthesis, framing mystical perception as a form of disciplined feeling. Dombrowski connects this to virtue ethics, particularly the theological virtue of love, proposing a ‘contributionist ethic’ in which individuals find meaning in their impact on the divine life.
Throughout, Dombrowski’s method is dialectical, juxtaposing classical theistic claims with process alternatives. His critique of omnipotence, for example, is both metaphysical and moral. He writes:
The ultimate power is that of sensitivity to others. The worship of divine attractiveness, otherwise known as divine persuasion, is intelligible to us because we are already familiar with the power a human being can have over another through the value the second individual recognizes in the first (Process Mysticism, p. 53).
Dombrowski’s emphasis on relationality, temporality, and aesthetic feeling makes his treatment of mystical experience particularly compelling. His dipolar theism allows for a God who is both subject-for-all-objects and object-for-all-subjects – a being who knows and is known, loves and is loved.
The book’s philosophical depth is matched by its historical breadth. Dombrowski engages with mystics across the Abrahamic traditions, including John of the Cross, while also gesturing towards Vedantic and Buddhist parallels. He notes that his focus on Abrahamic mysticism reflects his scholarly limitations rather than exclusionary commitments. His process framework is presented as a metaphysical schema capable of accommodating diverse mystical traditions.
As someone who works at the intersection of Islamic thought and process philosophy, I particularly appreciated Dombrowski’s mention of modernist Muslim philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal (d.1938), as a Muslim process thinker (p. 5). One area for future exploration – either by Dombrowski or other scholars – is a deeper engagement with Islamic mysticism, especially the thought of Ibn al-ʿArabī. His doctrine of wahdat al-wujūd (the unity of being) and vision of God as both transcendent and immanent could offer a fruitful comparative dialogue with process theism. Dombrowski’s emphasis on panentheism and divine relationality suggests that such an engagement would be philosophically enriching and cross-culturally resonant. This reviewer has recently set up a book series to address this theme in the context of bringing process-relational thought in conversation with the Islamic tradition.
In conclusion, Process Mysticism is a major contribution to philosophy of religion and comparative mysticism. It challenges entrenched assumptions about divine perfection and mystical experience, offering a compelling alternative rooted in process metaphysics. Scholars of mysticism, theology, and metaphysics will find much to engage with in this volume.
