Replies

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: https://ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matter-with-things-thinking-with-iain-mcgilchrist/)

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.

Also, since you are reading McGilchrist, here’s a presentation I gave last year on his recent work and process philosphy/theology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ9YxWK4lDE&t=665s

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 presentation above. 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. Davis

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

Dear Douglas,

Welcome to the course! Your background will offer you some keen insight into our material over the next several weeks. Yes, Whitehead clearly was influenced the revolution in physics, but not just physics. He also looked to developmental biology, physiology, and psychology–all of which required a rethinking of our dominate philosophical foundations. He admired Bergson much and also Einstein. He even wrote an alternative to Einstein’s theory of relativity, not objecting to relativity as such, but only to the narrow philosophical shackles Einstein employed. He and Bergson would agree that time is “deep” as opposed to “flat,” an ontological and not merely psychological phenomenon.

You may know that great work has (and is) being done on Whitehead and quantum physics. See below for example:

Looking forward to your contributions,

Dr. Davis

Chris, solid ruminations here. Check out the link below to an article by Victor Lowe, Whitehead’s biographer, which sheds further light on Whitehead’s faith journey. Curious to hear your thoughts:

A. N. W.: A Biographical Perspective

Best,

DR. D

Dennis, thanks for sharing your experience with Grandfather Mountain–a special “thin” place, I’m sure. I would encourage you to read Whitehead’s Religion in the Making which I think will give you additional insight and depth into being “religious.” The theme of solitude has always attracted me in religion and this is emphasized both by Whitehead and William James. One definition of religion as Whitehead understands it: “Religion is the what the individual does with his solitariness.”

Best,

DR.D

Friends, a beautiful set of reflection here. Let me highly recommend to each of your to read carefully Whitehead’s book Religion in the Making. It is short and powerful and will offer various insights with respect to these questions, not only the evolution of religion, but also the nature of religious experience and its metaphysical/cosmological place. A rich text, indeed!

Also, Chris, I couldn’t help but notice parallel’s with Whitehead himself: Son to an Anglican father, 20+ years of agnosticism and perhaps atheism, only to return to the necessity God albeit differently conceived. An “anatheistic” journey of returning to God after God.

Best to all,

DR. D

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781793620057/Whitehead%E2%80%99s-Radically-Temporalist-Metaphysics-Recovering-the-Seriousness-of-Time

Friends, great conversation. Let me recommend a few important resources as to the ultimate realty/significance of Time in process perspective:

Great comments, Zhenbao and Kevin.

Kevin, you communicate an amazing recovery, wow. Regarding near death expereince (NDE’s) see Griffin’s second to last book below written with his own mortality in view. He died a few months later.

Best,

DR. D

Here too is a specific chapter by Roland Faber on the question of Eternal Loss in Whitehead (and Judith Butler). See attached.

Best,

Dr. D

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Here too is a great resource on these themes…largely responding to Suchocki’s work:

Friends, a great discussion unfolding here. It is certainly the case that process theologians debate the nature of Whitehead’s claims regarding “a tenderness which loses nothing that can be saved.” Can all, indeed, be saved? Or, does God too have to “let go” for inability to save? Particularly in the context of eschatology, this discussion has raised its head. See below a few excellent resources that will help:

Kathleen,

Thank you for this great resource! Yes, panentheistic dimensions pervade the tradition and can be found in the unlikeliest of figures, Luther included. Despite the popular cultural image of God “up there” and “out there,” panentheism is thoroughly orthodox in nature (defending on how you frame it). Here’s an older article that may shed some insight:

https://www.academia.edu/31885194/Crossing_the_Religious_Mystical_Bridge_into_God_Panentheism_Pluralism_and_Inter_Experiential_Dialogue

Best,

DR. D