“Eternal Objects are not processes” – Q. brought up in session 14 – a resource

Topic

One of our group (RC?) raised a question about Eternal Objects which I paraphrase: ‘if everything is “process” how are EO’s processes – they seem static’. I have some thoughts (and also many more questions 😉 about “process” and EO’s but here will only refer folks to an article that I worked through once recently (and will reread) which shed some light.

Matt Segall from CIIS just recently released a draft of an article of his entitled : Standing Firm in the Flux: On Whitehead’s Eternal Objects and is available here at his very worthwhile website: https://footnotes2plato.com/2022/08/27/standing-firm-in-the-flux-on-whiteheads-eternal-objects-draft-article/.

Here is how Segall states a question similar to the one raised in our group:

“Given the abstract character of eternal objects, their being “shrouded in generality” as one critic put it[34], it may already be apparent why many commentators have been confused about this category of existence. In a philosophy supposedly emphasizing the pervasiveness of process and creativity—“Creativity is the ultimate behind all forms, inexplicable by forms, and conditioned by its creatures” (PR 20)—why does Whitehead posit entities of such eternal fixity alongside actual occasions as the most important categories of existence in his scheme?”

His whole discussion is dense reading but worthwhile.

Segall also presented the article at the recent online conference from the WHitehead Research Group discussing the new discoveries from their portals into the student lecture notes from ANW’s Harvard years. I posted links to the videos from that conference over in the messenger chat.

Daryl