Andrew Davis
Friends,
Such a rich discuss here as initially stimulated by Kathleen’s comments. We will of course be divining into some of these theme during our next session, including the “what” and “how” of occasions of experience. Regarding the “union of opposites,” yes Kathleen (!): Whitehead’s is a renewed affirmation of the “coincidence of opposites” belonging to mystical strains of the philosophical and theological tradition.
Charlies, yes, experience and subjectivity is as fundamental as creativity for Whitehead. In fact, we will also find Whitehead saying that creativity is nothing without its embodiment in actual entities, the supreme embodiment of which is God
Bill, great comments regarding immortality which, as we will see, has a very important place in Whitehead. In fact, his final essay is titled “Immortality” and is wonderful. You speak of “perishing into the nothingness,” and yet as Kathleen said above, there is nothing but subjects. So you perish not into nothingness but into the ultimate divine subjectivity (what Whitehead calls the consequent nature) which savors, remembers, and preserves all that you accomplished. More on this later: including subjective immortality where the journey continues…
Thanks, friends.
Dr. D
Dennis,
Yes, you may recall Whitehead’s playful statement to the effect of: When scientists dismiss metaphysics what they really are saying is they don’t like their metaphysics being questioned! The class with Tarnas and Groff must have been excellent. I’ll be presenting alongside Tarnas at our upcoming CPS McGilchrit’s conference. Registration info below:
Tony and Thom, these are important points you both are making. Yes, Whitehead’s influence is certainly at the foundations of systems thinking. In fact, Ervin Laszlo, who was a formative voice in the field, speaks of the revelations he received after reading Process and Reality in his younger years. As for Whitehead’s influence and especially influence on ecological thought, yes. Whitehead’s metaphysical is a ecological metaphysics and had very important influences on a variety of environmental developments in the 70’s. You may know that John Cobb’s book “Is it Too Late: A Theology of Ecology” (which largely launched eco-theology in the 70’s) is based on Whitehead’s philosophy. What is more, Brian Henning has recently told an fascinating history of environmental ethics and philosopy that has Whitehead’s abiding influence. Here are both texts:
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Friends, this is a rich conversation launched by Charlie’s initial question. As mentioned in class, I can’t recall if Whitehead ever offers a formal definition of “experience” as such, yet we will soon come to the point that Thom hit on the head: To experience for Whitehead is to “prehend”–to grasp or feel (what I describe as a “grasping through feeling”) the circumambient influences upon us as subjects of experience. Prehension is a form of emotive feeing liked to the grasping of a “prehensile” tale of a monkey for example. Note the relation between prehension and apprehension or comprehension which are usually related to conscious experiencing. For Whitehead not all experience is conscious. Thus we can drop the “app” and the “com” from these words and still be in a domain of prehensive experiential feeling that is unconscious and preconscious in nature.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Joel, excellent! I’m glad this reminder has served you. Even islands have deeper depths of connection underneath the surface. It was also helpful for me when I was learning Whitehead to see that there is a thematic current of which he and a number of other are a part, such that we can really speak of a “tradition” of process-style thinking.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Kevin and Kathleen,
A rich post from both of you! Yes, getting a grasp on Whitehead’s language is a challenge, but I agree with Kevin that the more you spend time with it, the more you begin to see it as helpful rather than a hindrance. Whitehead critiques the subject-predicate formation of speech and warns us not to translate this to the levels of ontology. Similarly, science and philosophical have been misled by their overemphasis on the objects of sight and the transference of this to the fundamental levels of nature. We will find later that Whitehead uses language as a tool of imaginative wonder and that words must be stretched beyond their normal domains of application. He did not invent “prehension” (think of the prehensile tale of the monkey) which indicates the most fundamental form of experiential feel–what I call “grasping through feeling.” More on this later 🙂
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Olivia,
An wonderful and rich post, both philosophically and theologically. Those statements from Westminster Confession are striking aren’t they? We will find later in our course that Whitehead holds that both God and the world need and depend upon each other. Why indeed should “dependence” or “need” be inadequate concepts for a tradition insisting that “God is love”? We will come to this. As for throwing eggs and oranges, yes, via our votes (at least!).
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Thom,
Excellent insights on both accounts. What Hosinski is pointing to is Whitehead’s famous “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”–that is, the fallacy of mistaking the abstract for the concrete, a picture, for a fluid movie. You are right to make a constructively postmodern connection here. See below an important resource on this matter. As for experience being more fundamental than consciousness, yes, this is very important and we will come to this. Experience is the context in which consciousness evolves. As Whitehead states consciousness “crowns” experience and not the other ways around. Or, consciousness is younger and experience quite older. Kastrup, Goff, and Hoffman are all making important contributions. I’ve particularly enjoyed recent work by Kastrup and Goff. Yet both need more Whitehead in my opinion.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Jamie, welcome, indeed! I spent some great years in San Diego and Claremont, first Point Loma Nazarene University, then, Claremont School of Theology. Glad to have you in class and look forward to your contributions.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Chris,
Welcome to the course! I’m glad you’ve found your way back to philosophy. The need for a high school introduction to process thinking is needed for sure. Perhaps you are the man to do it?
Looking forward to your contributions,
Dr. Davis
John, great to have you in our course! Science and the Modern world was also my first read of Whitehead and I keep returning to it over and over. Cobb’s not the only one to turn 100 next year, this text was also “born” in 1925. I think a celebration is on the horizon.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Joel, welcome to the course! Craft coffee and beer? What’s not to like? I hope this course serves your emerging interests. My first introduction to Whitehead was also through a theological lens. It was formative, but I quickly learned that I needed to grasp the philosophical soil in which it grows.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis
Welcome to the course, M. Jalil.
Your interest in Peirce is absolutely welcome. As you will have read, I include Peirce as an important part of modern process philosophy, and indeed, American philosophy (of which Whitehead too is an important part). I hope the course and its various readings will aid your academic quest.
Cheers,
Dr. Davis