Mike’s comments on session 7: definitions, systematics, dialectic vs. analytic

Topic

I sympathize with Mike’s concerns about Whitehead’s fluid use of terminology and the elusive search for structure in the philosophical framework of P&R. (I, too, had heard about the addition of a new category of prehension later in the book without an update on ANW’s part of the earlier reference to two sorts of prehensions.) Mike’s comments that as a computer programmer he (and generally those within the field) would define their variables first resonated since I have a similar background. I share the frustration at the seeming lack of a systematic presentation in P&R. In an odd way the opening sections of the book (such as the magnificent “Categoreal Scheme”) can lead one to expect a very systematic follow-on approach. A few thoughts:

When I was a programmer I would generally try to start a piece of code with DEFs and mode typing of the variables to be used. But I would also dynamically encounter new requirements as the code grew and frequently go back to the top to add DEFs. Structurally, in the end, the program had a nice, neat introductory section with all the needed variables. But the process of it’s creation was very dynamic and fluid.

This reminds me to appreciate Kazi’s helpful distinction between an “analytic” and a “dialectic” approach to laying out ideas. ANW does, indeed, seem to take the latter approach. It is also quite stimulating to consider the notion that an organic philosophy ought to be presented with some attempt at an “organic” structuring of the presentation.

Interesting that the HTML (hypertext markup language) which we are all vaguely aware of underlying our internet experiences was originally designed as a way of implementing the immense tangle that ideas linked to one another might entail. Nowadays we tend to think of “a link” taking us to “more detail” or “more specifics” but in fact the mode of the link could be anything.

I do find now that I often read my physical copy of P&R in parallel with an epub-version. I can use the latter for more effective searches for things like other occurrences of a term or idea. The physical book with the extensive but still inadequate index would be vastly more challenging – but more accessible – if links such as HTML allows, were embedded. And imagine if Whitehead’s full opus were so linked… we could jump to the first use of “prehension” in (I am told) “Science and the Modern World”. That would be a wild ride!

I am a former middle-school math teacher and spent some years teaching 5th graders in a K-6 program that was described to as a “spiral curriculum”. The notion was that children as young as first grade could (and should) indeed be exposed to ideas from geometry, statistics and similar seeming “advanced” fields of math rather than just teaching basic operations in the early grades (e.g. addition in first grade, subtraction later then eventually multiplication and division and fractions by 6th grade). The grounding idea was that if done properly this would expose children to the full breadth and holistic richness of mathematics. Of course “done properly” meant finding meaningful ways to extract important ideas of subfields like geometry or statistics which were appropriate to the capabilities of a 6 or 10 year old (I taught the latter, mainly). This was a subtle business but the program and text were well-constructed. It drove the parents crazy, though – especially those who were relatively privileged and educated. To them “statistics” meant terminology (mean, median, mode, standard deviation…) and related high-level concepts. A typical assignment might tickle at the notion that groups of data (such as the numbers of siblings of each class-member) might have “shape” and this could be illustrated in fun and illuminating ways. But the children would often return the next day confused by well-meaning attempts by adults at home to discuss “modes” and “averages”.

Sometimes we bring too much to the attempt to understand a bare concept. I sense that this underlies my struggle with many elements of P&R.

Whitehead’s spiral, as I see it, was a rich and lifelong process of public and university lectures and articles which often only later became collected into the distinct books (with “simple locations”;-) which we now consider. [The recent project exploring his Harvard lectures (via student notes!) is very revealing as to his mode of exploration.] So now here I am: I have “skipped” “Whitehead on Religion” and “Whitehead on Science” to try to understand “Whitehead on Metaphysics”… when I am really seeking the “Peace” he described so eloquently in “Adventures of Ideas”. Ah well. This sort of thing teaches patience.

regards
Daryl