Replies

@Nelson Thurman. You say

God not only encompasses the universe, but goes beyond it. The universe is a part of God but doesn’t completely define God.

Well, that is where I’m confused. God is an actual entity (but not an actual occasion), so God would be in the universe, right? According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world.

It’s hard to put that into a diagram. Mine emphasizes the aspect of God being in the world.

SMW is available as a PDF here:

https://achrafkassioui.com/library/Alfred%20North%20Whitehead%20-%20Science%20and%20the%20Modern%20World.pdf

I’m part way through it. Haven’t got to the cited chapter yet.

See my take on eternal objects here: https://cobb.institute/forums/topic/eternal-objects-what-they-are/

Since they are not in time, it’s not quite correct to say that they have always existed. It’s more correct to say that every time we encounter one, it’s the same as it was before.

Words, and language in general, are socially constructed entities. See my paper “Reassessing Morality” at https://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/ReassessingMorality_v3.html.

Very helpful, thanks.

Good comments. Could someone please post some references for systems theory?

Thanks! Yes, I’m impressed with Hosinski.

Bill Gaynor says

Rather than “continually “perishing” into the past,” it seems to me that these societies of societies of occasions are continually giving themselves (“perishing”) into the present.

Would you say that the past exists only as an element in the present?
Would Whitehead say that?

[Bill Meacham]

Bill Gaynor says to me

I am curious how here in week 2 of our course on Whitehead you seem to be positing machines as a better metaphor for how life unfolds in our body beyond our conscious awareness than experiencing.

I am not suggesting that machine is a better metaphor for how life unfolds than experiencing. I posed the question to get clarification about the justification for the claim that some experience is not conscious.

What evidence do you have in your own experience that leads you to believe that some of your experience is not conscious? Not which metaphor makes more metaphysical sense, but what specific evidence do you find in your own experience?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Bill Meacham.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Bill Meacham.

Nelson Thurman says

I think I have a basic grasp of why Dr. Mesle says God isn’t necessary for process philosophy

And Dennis Coffey kindly provides a citation to a work by Mesle:

Mesle, Robert. (2008). Process-Relational Philosophy: An Introduction to Alfred North Whitehead.

I have just read through Mesle’s book and can find no mention of God being unnecessary for process philosophy. Is it perhaps in another of Mesle’s works? If so, could someone please give us the citation?

[Bill Meacham]

<thumbs up>

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Bill Meacham.

Robert Mason says

There are whole systems in the body (one being the involuntary muscle system that operates without consciousness. … These are all experiences that affect you daily and without consciousness.

I agree. But what leads you to believe that such unconscious systems are experiential? Why not think of them as automatic reactions that involve no experience at all?

Thanks!

Could someone please post full bibliographic citations for Mesle and Sherburne? I am not as familiar with the literature as others are.

[Bill Meacham]

Dennis Coffey speaks of “a primordial god” in Whitehead’s system. Speaking of such an entity is a mistake. In Whitehead’s view God is a single actual entity (but not an actual occasion) with a dipolar nature. God has a primordial aspect and a consequent aspect, but neither exists or takes place without the other. There aren’t two Gods, a primordial one and a consequent one. There is only one God.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Bill Meacham.