Replies

Hi Roni,
Thank you for your post! This makes me think of the way I personally feel about my understanding of Whitehead, at least for now. Not so much through the more technical language, his usage of an expanded vocabulary (I’m so grateful for John Cobb’s Whitehead Word Book) or any specific ideas. Rather, I understand him on an intuitive level, by connecting his ideas and concepts with my own felt experiences.

So, like you, I don’t think I could explain Whitehead’s philosophy using his terminology. You ask what words could be used to express it. I would venture to say that the words don’t matter so much in trying to describe what can’t be experienced. What needs to be shared is what is beyond the words. Like you did with your stories of Tasha the cat and baby Avery. It did appeal to our common experience and you didn’t have to use fancy vocabulary to make understandable the meaning behind what you were trying to say. Maybe stories are more important than words when trying to explain the unexplainable?

Thank you Dennis, I have to admit that I’m not familiar at all with Goethe outside of what I read from Matt Segall. I do enjoy the quote you offer here and your interpretation of it. I find the example you gave interesting. It is my understanding that the theory of dark matter and dark energy were created not only as a result of the observation of the expansion of the universe and other unexplained gravitational effects but also as a way to make these observed phenomenon fit in within the current paradigm. The theory in that case may come from the observation of gravitational effects but the paradigm within which these observations take place also have an impact on the theory that will be developed.

Hi Bill,
Thank you so much for this post. It seems like a natural continuation to the response you gave to my post from last week about the concept of God.

I come to Whitehead and process philosophy from my own personal experiences in Holotropic Breathwork. So far, process philosophy has been the most useful paradigm I found to explain my experiences in non-ordinary states of consciousness.

The way Whitehead describes mysticism, and speculative philosophy from what I understand from your quote of Matt Segall seems to me in line with the two major features of transcendent experiences as defined by William James, ineffability and a noetic quality.

What is experienced in those transcendent states often comes as a feeling that has the felt quality of knowledge and yet remain almost impossible to explain. On the other hand, others who had similar experiences can sometimes recognize the quality of the experiences when they hear about it.

I often experience Whitehead in a similar way, as an invitation to expand our language and bring in new concepts in a way that that make those experiences understandable. In this sense, I wholeheartedly agree with Matt Segall when he stated in the last video that studying Whitehead is about “learning a new language, which is akin to taking a psychedelic, in that it’s gonna alter your perception.”

Understanding Whitehead is therefore just as useful to me in understanding my own transcendent experiences as my transcendent experiences are useful in understanding Whitehead. Not that transcendent experiences are necessary, but they are taking place in a space where the Newtonian-Cartesian view of the world doesn’t hold all the answers.

So thank you for acknowledging and reminding us that what is emerging is what is most trustworthy.

Hi everyone,
I’m really enjoying this thread. First I appreciate the difficulty in understanding the process of actual occasions and God as happening outside of time (if that language is even appropriate) while simultaneously displaying phases that seem to happen in a specific order. Thank you for your explanation Chris, I found this very helpful. While reading you, it came to my mind that the becoming is also the perishing, rather than the perishing leading to the becoming.

I’m also intrigued by Montgomery’s suggestion. While I understand Whitehead’s ontological need for the concept of God, I’m remain doubtful that giving it a name or a role outside of the phases of concrescence pairs well with Whitehead’s idea of God. To me the idea of God is a way to name the phases that includes the one becoming the many and I’m not convinced that this concept stands on it’s own. While I see the beauty in holding the idea of God as “special”, I find myself unable to understand it as a special actual occasion that should be celebrated in a way that is different from any other actual entities, despite it’s ontological role. While I understand how the whole process of concresence presents an interesting spiritual idea, I’m not sure how this remains the same idea in a religious context (such as the christian worship) without attributing to it ideas and intentions that I do not see Whitehead attributing to it. Maybe some of the more religiously minded could help me bridge that divide?

I hope no one will take this comment as offensive, rather, I am truly trying to come to term with the theological use of Whitehead’s idea of God.
Thank you.

Hi everyone,
I’m also trying to understand this concept of organism so I’m grateful for this thread.

From my understanding, a cell is an organism and a human being composed of that same cell would also be an organism. In that case, is the term “organism” just a term we use to talk about various “level of existence”? Like a cell may be an organism, the liver it may be a part of would be another organism, the body it would be a part of would be another organism, etc… Where do we divide between organism? In that sense, it seems that the word is used mostly in the context of the level or form of existence we wish to talk to and seems quite subjective to the observer. That makes me think that I’m probably quite wrong on this and I’d appreciate any clarification possible.

Thank you,
Alex

Hi everyone,
Unfortunately my schedule didn’t allow me to participate during the live classes but it was a pleasure to watch the recordings and listen to all your comments. Your questions and comments opened me up to a lot of new ideas throughout this course.

Dennis, I had similar questions: “I do have one (actually many) question regarding the readings. The “initial aim” is an offering of God’s love for every occasion of experience, and this lures creation toward beauty and justice. What can we say about today’s societal landscape? Has the lure failed massively?“

This seems like an important question whenever we try to accommodate process ideas within established religions. This idea of process that God lures us toward beauty and justice may not be found in every religion, depending on their specific view of God. So how do we square that? I don’t have an answer, but we can respond or not to that lure and the resulting beauty and justice will be dependent on the past each of us has to work with. Or maybe, the past that is available for each of us to prehend. Thinking that way makes me wonder what my present moment will lead to when it becomes a past to be prehended.

Thank you for these interesting comments. I was also interested in the idea of ibadah as presented by Jared. Coming from a catholic tradition where « faith » was central, I turned away from religion pretty quickly. This is probably why I ended up enjoying philosophy actually, as the intellectual component were more fulfilling for me while spiritual practices outside of religion sustained my spiritual needs. I had no interest in a religion that asked me to have faith in the teachings while not giving me the tools to enjoy the God-human relationship?

This course and the concept of ibadah are another invitation at looking at religious worship practices. I enjoy Leslie’s suggestion that worship may not be right to be a proposition. It feels like a way to develop a personal connection with the Divine and certainly gives me hope in what a nourishing religious practice could be like.

Thank you for sharing your thought and your experience with the Turkish lady. I wholeheartedly agree that religion is so personal and we each relate to our own religion or spiritual practice in our own ways. In this sense, trying to “connect” religions seems like a first step only and while it makes me appreciate Whitehead philosophy for, maybe, being an adequate translator between various faith, I’m left wondering what it means for practitioners of these religions.

Reading of your experience brought back memories where I had a similar experience watching a catholic friend of mine praying. She since joined a religious community and became a nun. Although it now seems obvious, it took me a long time to understand just how personal her relationship with God was. It wasn’t something she could have learnt in books or from others. It was where her own practice had taken her. Thinking of her, I’m wondering how connecting various traditions would actually affect her beliefs or practice. Her own faith probably wouldn’t change much if someone told her that there were similarities or differences between the official tenets of her religion and those of another. I suspect this wouldn’t impact her too much since it wouldn’t change her own personal connection to her faith.

Could there be as much work to do toward religious pluralism between the believers of a certain religion as there is to do between various religions in general?

Hi all,
So I tried to reply earlier but apparently issues with my internet connection made my message disappear so here I’ll try again, hoping that it doesn’t end up showing up both messages.

I really enjoyed watching the first video. Unfortunately I couldn’t be there in person but I enjoyed hearing where everyone was coming from and what their relationship to religion was. It seems like we’ll be in great company during this course.

I grew in Quebec in the aftermath of the quiet revolution. There was still a push back against religion, mostly the catholic church and toward secularism. When I was still a kid, my parents were still involved in the church and it wasn’t rare that they would invite a few of their priest friends over for dinner. I’d always enjoy listening to them. The way they talked about their faith, it was obvious how meaningful it was to them but I wasn’t connecting with it. It just didn’t speak to me the ways it spoke to them. I didn’t feel on an emotional level and I couldn’t reason what the basis of these beliefs were.

When I became old enough, my parents tried to get me involved in the church but I kept feeling disappointed by the disconnection I felt between the rituals and how people would act. I was going through the motion but wasn’t actually “feeling” it. It seemed to me that I wasn’t the only one.

So growing up and as a young adult I kept reading and exploring. The texts on shamanism and Eastern traditions seemed to point to practices that were more about experiencing the spiritual and less about the ritual and faith, but I had no luck finding what I was looking for. I joined a friend to her catholic events (she later became a nun and is still living the religious life), and another friend to her baha’i events. The communities and practices were great, but I still felt that it required more faith than I could muster for something that I didn’t touch experimentally. I tried various forms of meditation and various other practices but I always felt that it didn’t resonate with me as much as I wanted it too. I had the intuition that there was a level of understanding and experience that I was missing to gain a deeper understanding of the religious/spiritual teachings but didn’t seem to find a way to get to it.

Then, about fifteen years ago, I discovered holotropic breathwork. The experiences I had with this method helped me gain a deeper understanding of the religious and spiritual teachings I had explored previously. I could finally connect to it in a way that felt embodied and it opened up a whole new understanding of it all. It wasn’t about finding faith or understanding the teachings anymore, it was about making sense of my own personal experiences. It’s actually what led me to process philosophy and why I’m here.

Hi George and Dr Davis,
I must admit that I am still struggling with the idea of God and the debate surrounding its necessity. While reading and listening to Dr Davis,I do realize that God may be a necessary concept for his philosophy to work. I am however not convinced by the moral values that process theologians (and maybe Whitehead himself?) seem to be imparting to God. I’m wondering if a more neutral repository of event, maybe more akin to the theosophists’idea of the Akashic records as a compendium of all universal events. Now, while I don’t suscribe to this mystical traditions, I think this idea of the Akashic record may be, in some aspects, similar to Whitehead’s idea of God. If you’ll excuse me for using a quote I found on wikipedia, I’d like to share this one:

“…Henry Steel Olcott’s A Buddhist Catechism (1881).[6] Olcott wrote that “Buddha taught two things are eternal, viz, ‘Akasa’ and ‘Nirvana’: everything has come out of Akasa in obedience to a law of motion inherent in it, and, passes away. No thing ever comes out of nothing.”

Would the idea of God be sufficient as a record of universal event, with creativity as a source for movement? As for the idea of God as the source of order, wouldn’t it be possible that past events could create that order by themselves.

I should say it again, I’m struggling with all these new ideas, but I’m having fun.

Hi Paula,
I also enjoyed the passage you mentioned about Evelyn. In some ways,I feel that the part where he states that: “…beauty, moral and aesthetic, is the aim of existence; and that kindness and love, and artistic satisfaction are among its modes of attainment.” Feels to me like this statements sums up much of his philosophy (although I admit this may be simplifying it a bit too much).

Reading the autobiographical notes, I couldn’t help but wonder how much understanding Whitehead’s life could give us keys to understanding his ideas. Everyone that ever tried to make me understand Whitehead’s thoughts, including Dr Mesle and Dr McDaniel in the previous course, always suggested that I start with my own experience. Whitehead also suggest that the metaphysical quest starts with our own experience. Since he developed his philosophy from his own experience, learning about his life and personal experience seems like a good place to start. For example when he talks about the influence of his wife or about losing his son in WW1. I wonder how much more there is to gain as we learn more about his life experience.

Thank you Dr McDaniel for this very interesting article. As I was reading it, I wondered if this could be said of everyone I have ever met. Even my closest friends or family members have a side that I do not know. I may know them much better than I do public figures, but there are still areas of their lives that I don’t know and can’t know. My perception of them is tainted by the experiences we shared, the conversations we had. I have never seen most of my friends in their work environment for example. If I think of the kind of employees they are, I have to make an educated guess. Would this be very different from how I have to picture what imaginal characters are like? Could we say that we are actual entities to ourselves and propositions to others? I would like to understand where you would draw the line.

Thanks again for all the resources you have provided us to better understand process thought.

[Alexandre Pare]

Hi Jay,
Thank you so much for this post. This clarifies many of the questions I still have regarding the material covered. Especially you distinction of Creativity and God.

As I was reading Dr Mesle’s book and listening to the recording of the class, I could understand the need for a creative “God” but I can’t understand the need to give him moral qualities. Your response to George was helpful in differentiating creativity from God and articulate my question. I still have some questions as the the reasons Whitehead had to turn to an idea of God to frame his philosophy.

I understand the consequent nature of God as a response as to what maintains order in the universe. A container to the entirety of the universe that form the basis (or maybe the substance) from which creative possibilities can be formed. In that sense, would it not also be limiting what those creative possibilities can be? This would be a useful concept as to what maintains order in the universe in the face of infinite creative impulses.

The superjective nature of God seems to be about bringing forward the possibilities that remain possible within the possibilities of the consequent nature of God. This seems to be a first point of decision as to what creativity can become.

If I’m not too far off the mark on my understanding of the previous two concepts, I have to wonder why there is a need for the primordial nature of God, which I understand has a guiding principle, a lure toward beauty, truth and goodness as it’s been described, seems to me like an unnecessary addition to his philosophy. What is the need for a moral force? Where would it come from? If creativity is non-moral, wouldn’t it be more consequent with our lived experience that it would come as is, with all possibilities, “good” or “bad” equally available to become?

In asking this I am extremely aware that I may have missed or misunderstood something important. I feel I may be newer to Whitehead’s philosophy than most people here so if you or someone else could clarify this for me I would be deeply grateful as I’d rather correct my misunderstanding sooner than later.

Thank you very much!

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Alexandre Pare.

Hi Darryl,
What an interesting question. Although I’ve been hearing about Whitehead and process thinking for quite a few years now, I only recently started my journey to understand him. In that sense, I’m not sure I can provide you with much depth in answering your question.

Your post however reminded me of a conversation I had a few years ago with those same friends. We were discussing a version of the double-slit experiment that showed retro-causality. One of my friend suggested that the whole experiment should be considered a single event that would be perceived as a sequence of actions but would actually be a single occasion.

I’m not sure how correct his answer was, and I’m still not fully convinced by it but I remember this conversation as one of the moments that convinced me to take a serious look at process thinking. Thank you for taking me back to that moment with your question!

Thank you so much for sharing this wonderful moment, Kaeti!

It makes me wonder how central personal experiences of that kind are to understand Whitehead. While listening to Dr McDaniel’s metaphor of the tree, I started thinking about my own entryway into process thought. It hit me when I read your post.

For context, your story reminded me of an experience I had when I was much younger and living in Peru. I was walking back home and was suddenly overcome by a feeling that I was there, in that moment, because of so much more than simply myself. The feeling was a mix of belonging, connection and alignment. In that moment, I felt so much potential and yet I also knew it wouldn’t last. I had other, similar experiences over the years. Sometimes it would simply be while I was contemplating my backyard (there is a beautiful swamp right behind my house and it is always so full of life), other times it would be during holotropic breathwork sessions (which I have been practicing for 15years). I don’t mean to imply that we had the same experiences, but the eloquent description of your experience reminded me of those moments.

I would suggest that felt experience could be missing from the metaphor of the tree. While the roots suggest an intellectual point of entry, I understand the trunk as a set of values and beliefs derived from the roots and the branches as more informed by the practical applications. I am wondering if we aren’t missing an entryway based on the felt experience of a few exceptional moments. Or maybe I missed something…