Replies

Hi Doug,

Yes, I just posted this text regarding Chris’ comments in this forum. A great book, but he has many relevant texts, including most recently:

Chris,

Excellent questions, indeed, and a return to, and expansion of, your question during our live session. You seem to be privileging objectivity over subjectivity in your initial statements, no? For what reason (internal to human experience) is it inappropriate to introduce the subjective on equal terms with the objective? This is indeed what Whitehead is doing, but not perhaps as “an undifferentiated synthesis.” Whitehead does make differentiations within the concresence of an occasion from becoming (subjective) to being (objective) and relatedness (objective immortality).

The “ingredients” of actual occasions are that which is ingredient in them, or what goes into their becoming. What is fundamental is creative becoming, but creative becoming IS the becoming of events. What is ingredient in them is what is provided by (and presupposed) by creative passage: the inheritance of the objective past, the reception (via phases of subjective feeing: prehension), the anticipation of pure and real possibilities (Eternal object)for their becoming. All of these might be seen as “ingredient,” but not in a way that makes actual occasions other than fundamental. It is the relational synthesis of ultimate notions that is summed up in a becoming event.

I’m glad you’ve brought up creativity and value, which we will come to, but I’m not sure I see you point about the buck stopping with finite actuality such that God or eternal objects are not needed. Creativity is internal to all actuality (actual occasions). It is nothing at all but its internal expression through actuality. For Whitehead the buck does stop at actual entities–the upmost expression of which is “God.” What I think you will need to squabble with is the necessity of his “ontological principle” which demands a locus of actuality for all metaphysical presuppositions of achieved actuality: possibility, value, creativity. No single finite actual entity satisfies these presuppositions since it expresses them in its becoming. God is introduced not on emotional grounds (although that is also important to consider, naturally); rather God is introduced on grounds of rationality and coherence of the metaphysical system. As you know, the place of God is controversial among studied process thinkers, but as Whitehead once communicated to A.H. Johnson when asked about the introduction of God in his philosophy, he said: “[God] belongs] and indeed should have been among the categorial notions of PR (although in sense, God was there in the form of an actual entity).

Anyway, great comments and more to come. Also, to your question re. objectivity and subjectivity, see below a text by Bracken you may enjoy on this issue.

Cheers,

Dr. D

Bill, excellent. I’m glad you are enjoying Sheri’s book. I can put you in touch with her if you’re interested. She does great work.

Cheers,

Dr. D

Kathleen, you background is truly ripe for our course! You say that you don’t know how the various disciplines that have influenced you are “are all connected.” One of the purposes of philosophy for Whitehead is to shed light on the harmony of our various disciplines–how it is the fit together. I hope our course can also shed light on this (at least in part).

Welcome!

Dr. D

Zhenbao, it is great to have you class again! You have a fascinating story with a number of intersecting disciplines, figures, and threads. I hope this second go at the course deepens your studies.

Dr. Davis

Charlie, welcome to the course. Your bring a strong background with you, certainly. I look forward to your contributions!

Dr. Davis

Tom, great to have you in class–and a fascinating background you have! Given your previous studies, I think the time has come to crack Process and Reality.

Dr. Davis

Gordon, you bring a strong background of study to this course! Welcome, indeed! Roland Faber was the chair of my dissertation and is a close friend (now living in Austria). Looking forward to your contributions.

Dr. D

Benjamin, fascinating work, indeed! Welcome to the course.

Dr. Davis

Ryan, welcome to the course! You’ve had a fascinating journey, no doubt, and I’m glad that you found a “lifeline” via Homebrewed Christianity. Tripp Fuller is a close friend. I hope our course deepens your understanding of process philosophy and also finds application in your life.

Cheers,

Dr. D

David, welcome! You bring a fascinating confluence of interests to our course. Do you recall who it was that Birch was debating. As you will know, Birch and John Cobb were great collaborators. My personal favorite below.

Best,

Dr. D

Teresa, excellent! Welcome to the course. As you will know CIIS and CPS are close friends, as are Dr. Segall and I. Great work going on there!

Dr. Davis