Andrew Davis
Bill, thanks for this stimulating resource. I enjoy Vernon’s work and this is my first time coming across Gjermundsen. Nice too to see the influence of Keller’s great work. In short, all kinds and/or distinctions of time for Whitehead–relevant as they may be–are based in a concept of deep time, a metaphysical time that is fundamentally real and based in the flux of actual occasions of experience. One way to put is that time is a ultimate reality in Whitehead’s universe, primordial time. We will come to this, well,…in time 🙂
As for process connections to Eastern Orthodox theology, there are some important points of contact to be sure, panentheism being an important one. Panentheism, however, is also a diverse umbrella as we will see later in our course.
Cheers,
Dr. D
Friends, a rich discussion indeed! We will be jumping into different aspects of eternal objects in our next session and different distinctions that can be made. It is a complex discussion and I hope the portion in my book aids in understanding. As an additional resource, see my colleague Matt Segall’s great article here:
Standing Firm in the Flux: On Whitehead’s Eternal Objects (draft article)
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Friends, a great discussion here stimulated originally by Thom’s rich post. These analogies are definitely fruitful in a therapeutic setting. I attach below a resource you all may find appealing by David E. Roy. Here too is a link to a Cobb article on the aspects of this discussion:
DR. D
Jeremy, beautifully put! You may recall my mention of what Whitehead calls “the fallacy of the perfect dictionary”–these trust in the adequacy of current language to express what is experienced. You are right that words for Whitehead “are played with, stretched, turned over, and expanded, almost like little universes of meaning themselves.” The ordinary meanings of words are stretched to apply at levels above and below us that are quite adventurous, but always challenging, to be sure.
Cheers,
Dr. D
Evan, great post here! I will definitely check out Chimp Empire which sounds fascinating.
You say: “…the rate at which humans destroy one another, animals, plants, rocks, minerals, etc. has never been approached the scale of any other earthly activity other than perhaps the earth’s creation over four and a half billion years ago.” True, but what’s the point here? The rise of higher experience, creativity, and freedom in evolution brings with it a concomitant rise of possible values and disvalues which seems to be a stubborn metaphysical fact! The trauma we cause earth is unmatched in the animal kingdom, certainly, yet so to (arguably) is the beauty, both “moral and aesthetic” (as Whitehead puts it), which is actual and possible for us. What is more, the tension we feel between the two is also unmatched (I would suspect) in the animal kingdom.
Whitehead knows full well that “life is robbery” from bottom to top and it is in light of this fact that a moral sense evolves into being at high levels like our own. As Rabbi Kushner once said, “The difference between human and animals is that we have the ability to say no to instinct upon moral grounds.” In a sense we feel a call beyond our animality, but so often we descend lower than them in our treatment of the earth.
Cheers,
Dr. D
Charlie et al., great questions and comments.
We simplify Whitehead’s elaborate consideration of the prehensive phases a becoming actual occasion in terms of inheritance, reception, and anticipation, certainly. Charlie, you say you see how these phases work at the level of humans, but struggle to apply this to the level of AO. I fully agree! This is the imaginative leap.
During the inheritance phase the becoming occasion is inheriting all that is accomplished (objectively immortal) in the past world (even a split second ago). It would not quite be right to say that energy is what is input, since AO themselves are internal to energetic activity (but in a sense you might say this). Rather, influence might be the better word.
During reception, it is the active agency of the occasion to negatively or positively prehend (include or exclude) the data given in the formation of itself.
Anticipation is guided by what Whitehead calls the “subjective aim” of the occasion–that is, the aim of accomplishment belonging to the occasion. This is an aim for what is possible for its, so it also included eternal objects, yes. Language of Input and Output has recently been used by Tim Eastman in his great book: Untying the Gordian Knot which you may find helpful.
As for sharing these metaphysical depths with the church, the best way to do so remain outstanding! Jeremy, indicates a way of doing so with scripture, tradition, reason perhaps which is creative! Kathleen, remember at the level of human beings (and other higher animals) there is dominant mental occasion of experience (the mind) which receives from the entire body of occasions and decides.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Also, an attached article by David E. Roy drawing insight from McGilchrist, but also (according to McGilchrist) misunderstanding his approach to the LH. It was also written before The Matter With Things. Nevertheless, a good indication of multiple intersecting threads between Whitehead, McGilchrist, neuroscience etc. Curious to hear your thoughts.
Dr. D
Here too is a presentation I recently gave on his work at the 50th Anniversary of the Center for Process Studies:
I hope you join our conference with McGilchrist in March:
Bill, a fantastic and rich post here, integrating multiple insights. You are right to bring McGilchrist and Whitehead (among others) into dialogue (And I hope you will join our upcoming event with McGilchrist too. I’ll past link in another thread.
I’m glad too that my text clarified the mental pole as the feeling-access to what’s possible for a becoming occasion of experience. You will recall too from our session that we feel with our body both physically and mentally. Whitehead is certainly not indicating a disembodied sense of mental functioning. Mental prehensions are always done in light of what is mediated via the body, we might say.
As for how we might “map” Whitehead’s dipolarity upon the ways of attending belonging to each hemisphere is a good question. In part, I indicate this question in my recent presentation (pasted below). Whitehead does distinguish two kind of perception that show striking similarities to the hemisphere functions as described by McGilchrist. Perception in the modes of “presentational immediacy” corresponds more to the limitations of LH ways of attending and preception in the mode of “causal efficacy” much more to the RH. Are these modes of perception deeper than (and the reason for) brain lateralization? It’s a good question!
Cheers,
Dr. DavisDennis, good. Did our session add any clarity on this question for you?
Dr. D
See also Griffin’s much larger project of some years ago (But still relevant):
Olivia, great commentary and questions.
I fully agree that western medical visions suffer from a certain mechanistic ethos that bifurcates the human being in different ways. The holism of which you speak is very important and certainly supported by Whitehead. I was recently listening to podcast conversation (I forget now which one) wherein it was argued that medical doctors be required to take courses in philosophy as a prerequisite to their practice. Good idea in my opinion.
To your other questions:
1. “dipolar” or “bipolar” are synonymous in nature: process thinkers use both to point to the physical and mental poles and their functions in the becoming of each event. We will later see that God too for Whitehead is “dipolar.” I prefer “dipolar” myself.
2. Great question: Yes, there is a sense in which never quite arrive; rather we are arriving in every moment. There is a sense in which we never are actualized, yes; rather, we are actualizing in every moment. In other words, there is no arrival or actualization that finally stops the process; rather, the process is our arriving and actualizing which is infinite in the universe. Process thinker have argued differently for life after death in the context of Whitehead’s metaphysics. Whitehead himself was open on this question and one can certainly construct a notion of the after life based upon infinite process between God and the World, one that continues into postmortem adventures hitherto unimagined. We are all “objectivity immortal” certainly, in the sense that we remain an influence on the universe after our death, but the real question is whether we can and do remain subjects and not just objects in our immortality. We need bot theory and data for the latter.
Here’s one recent resource by Griffin (in fact, written with his own morality in view–he died a few months after writing):
There are a variety of other Bracken texts you might explore depending upon your interests…much to read!
Dr. Davis