Replies

[Daryl Anderson]

I am just now re-reading the Hosinski book and can’t say enough about it’s satisfying breadth and depth… it is not really as “into the ‘weeds’ (roots)” as I remembered. Very much an overview of the metaphysics (beyond P&R) and also extensively supported by compelling links to human experience. It is absurdly expensive, even as a new paperback, but used copies under $20 are to be found on abebooks.com.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by Daryl Anderson.

Thanks for the appreciations of that piece. I have appreciated the opportunity to share ideas here on the forums and to listen to all of you on zoom. I look forward to visiting with some of you in a future meet-up or class here.
-Daryl

“From my perspective, every action (or inaction) is always already based on the some theoretical/philosophical/metaphysical basis, though simply unanalyzed. Once analyzed and brought into the foreground of conscious awareness, any inconsistencies can be analyzed and reflected upon – and perhaps recognized as contrasts that might be brought into meaningful harmony when viewed through a Whiteheadian metaphysical lens.”

Exactly! Christie. Well said!

When I was a middle-aged guy in Ed School, I heard much scorn for “theory” from younger colleagues. Then I came across Alfie Kohn who wrote “Every teacher has a theory, even those who say they do not.” I realized that those who barked nostrums like “don’t smile until Christmas” (really!), were just manifesting unanalyzed and incoherent personal philosophies.

The era we are living through certainly is giving us many opportunities to seek Whiteheadian Harmonies!

AH. Of course !
A very nice framing Jay.

I will ask the internets to take me to that link.
(There is just so much on Open Horizons!)
Many thanks

Indeed… “Thy know they are fighting a class war”… I have only watched the iron grip of capitalism broaden to the whole planet and tighten more and more in my lifetime. I was pleased to find a book that energizes me to return to that praxis, even to some of that activism, from within my more recent metaphysical life turn.

SO many people are suffering. We feel their cries. Somehow my lifetime political party has lost its connection to the working class of this country and the world. Maybe the anti-capitalist ideal can again be a foundation of a great return… though much has been lost through the neo-liberal and neocon decades. While I endorse the importance of the more “identitarian” focus of the idea of liberation within the democratic party I do not think it aims so directly at the heart of the anti-human beast – that which is so fundamentally un-natural as the capitalist mode of production. Not the mere “production” of tools and trucks – but the broader understanding of production that Pomeroy posits as capturing and distorting the becoming process of all of human life.

Just saying !
d.

[Daryl Anderson]

The cost issue came up in our class too… it seems most of the used book sites only offer the (expensive) hardback. Even Amazon only has the hardback.

The paperback is not cheap but perhaps within reach at $34.95 directly from the publisher, SUNY Press.

Marx and Whitehead paperback from SUNY Press

Every year SUNY Press has a December/January sale when they sent out a 40% off coupon. Sometimes other times in the year. They have a ton of (admittedly academic) Whitehead-adjacent texts from older series they sponsored. I often keep a list of other titles of theirs and await the annual sale/discount code.

I THINK, that if you go to their site for the first time they may offer a one-time discount and that could bring the cost down into the 20’s (plus shipping). In any case I recommend signing in to get on their mailing list to see interesting new stuff and also the splatter of coupon offers.

regards
d.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Daryl Anderson.

Look forward to seeing you there Bill.
d.

Thanks for sharing a bit of biography Dennis. With all that (literal) “grounding” I wonder if your astrological sun sign or ascendant are in Taurus ?!

I do consider “market” economics to be a core element of capitalism. I generally leave off the “free” bit since these always seem to involve the “unilateral power” models of cultural empires imposing themselves by brutally manipulating the components of markets to self-advantage.

I think from what little I know of Marx’s idea that the notion of capitalism inherently containing the seeds of its downfall is seemingly shown to be historically incorrect. I would argue that it is mostly metaphysically limited.

What I appreciated about the Pomeroy book is that it goes a good way to demonstrating that the capitalist mode of “production” in its broadest and most metaphysical form is in a sense “un-natural” – literally acting against the core metaphysical structures of the cosmos. But in dangerous ways it can parasitize the modes of thinking and acting in (human) societies in ways which could bring on cataclysmic disaster – could well end our “cosmic epoch.”

Whitehead always allowed that other epochs lie within the infinitude of the life of the cosmos. Nevertheless, I think we should not allow that. The fractures that capitalism and its generalized mode of production bring to our blue dot in the cosmos can also be the “cracks which let the light come in”, as Leonard Cohen said.

Just yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that said:

“We have two problems… Republicans… and Democrats”

… it proceeded to add a message about third-parties and “ranked-choice voting. Interesting ideas. But it reminded me that although I have my opinions about DJT I have for decades now undergirded my critiques of both parties with a deeper critique of the economic grim reaper that prowls the planet: capitalism.

Since I know you are interested in Whitehead let me say that if you are also interested in anti-capitalism through the lens of Process thought, the book I wrote about here is very provocative indeed.

d.

When I asked an AI this is what I got:

Alfred North Whitehead’s religious beliefs evolved significantly over his lifetime, reflecting his intellectual journey from mathematics and logic to metaphysics and philosophy. Here’s an overview of the key changes in his religious thought:

—

### **Early Life: Agnosticism and Focus on Science**
– In his early years, Whitehead was primarily focused on mathematics and logic, collaborating with Bertrand Russell on *Principia Mathematica*. During this time, he did not express strong religious convictions and was likely agnostic or indifferent to traditional religious questions.
– His early worldview was shaped by the scientific and rationalist ethos of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which often sidelined religious or metaphysical concerns.

—

### **Mid-Life: Transition to Metaphysics**
– As Whitehead’s interests shifted from mathematics to philosophy, he began to explore broader metaphysical questions, including the nature of reality, existence, and the universe.
– During this period, he started to develop a more nuanced view of religion, seeing it as a source of meaning and value, even if he did not yet articulate a specific theological position.

—

### **Later Life: Process Philosophy and a New Concept of God**
– Whitehead’s most significant religious and metaphysical ideas emerged in his later works, particularly in *Process and Reality* (1929) and *Religion in the Making* (1926).
– In these works, he developed his **process philosophy**, which emphasizes the dynamic, evolving nature of reality. Within this framework, he introduced a unique conception of God:
– **God as Dipolar**: Whitehead’s God has two natures:
1. **Primordial Nature**: God is the source of possibilities, order, and creativity in the universe.
2. **Consequent Nature**: God is responsive to and influenced by the world, experiencing and integrating the unfolding of events.
– This view of God is distinct from traditional theism, as Whitehead rejected the idea of an omnipotent, unchanging deity. Instead, his God is deeply involved in the ongoing process of the universe.
– Whitehead saw religion as a way to connect with the deeper values and purposes of existence, though he criticized dogmatic or static religious systems.

—

### **Key Influences on His Religious Thought**
– **Science and Evolution**: Whitehead’s religious ideas were deeply influenced by the scientific understanding of an evolving, interconnected universe.
– **Philosophical Inquiry**: His engagement with metaphysics led him to reconcile religious and philosophical questions in a way that respected both rationality and spirituality.
– **Critique of Traditional Religion**: While he valued religion, Whitehead was critical of rigid dogmas and sought to reinterpret religious concepts in light of modern thought.

—

### **Legacy: Process Theology**
– Whitehead’s ideas about God and the universe have had a lasting impact, particularly in the development of **process theology**, which seeks to reconcile religious faith with a dynamic, evolving understanding of reality.
– His work continues to influence theologians, philosophers, and scientists who are interested in the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science.

—

In summary, Whitehead’s religious beliefs evolved from an early agnosticism to a sophisticated metaphysical and theological perspective that emphasized creativity, process, and the interconnectedness of all things. While he did not adhere to traditional religious doctrines, his later work reflects a deep engagement with spiritual and metaphysical questions.

I agree that our problems are more broadly seeded than the chaotic narcissism of DJT or any “leader”. Hence the need for a deeply-grounding philosophy.

A dear sibling pointed out to me that “my” Democrats brought quite a bit of what we are calling “unilateral power” to their time at the helm: mandates, lockdowns, censorship and criminalization of dissent. My counter-arguments viz greater good, misinformation, etc., felt honestly quite weak. He pointed me to the book “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”, by Desmet, which was thought-provoking.

Thanks much for the thoughtful reply Jay. Griffin’s treatment of the paranormal in his book “Parapsychology, Philosophy and Spirituality “ really opened my eyes to the capaciousness of Whitehead’s metaphysics.

Though the one “supernormal” experience that he rejects, precognition (which I discussed here), remains a deep challenge to the metaphysical scheme.

The main challenge I encounter when considering animism as part of that scheme is the seeming need for a redefinition of the various parts and wholes in Whitehead: from Actual Occasions to Nexus and Societies and Enduring Objects. If one is to consider a mountain spirit or a river as a “becoming/being” then either the concept of “actual occasion” needs to be expanded in ways that do not fit easily into the textual Whitehead or one needs to attribute Whiteheadian characteristics to the more collective entities which he seemed hesitant to fully accept. I know Whiteheadians have tussled with these questions for decades but it is all above my pay grade !

[Daryl Anderson]

With this question of “karma” I guess we are presupposing “reincarnation” and that’s fine with me since I believe there is sound documentation of human experiences of the phenomena and sound metaphysical grounding for it within Whitehead. I’ve thought a bit about reincarnation.

Today, recalling that Whitehead said ” Biology is the study of the larger organisms; whereas physics is the study of the smaller organisms.” I thought to start with the smaller.

It struck me that Whitehead’s description of the process of the becomings of a most primitive actual entity, say an electron, as an “enduring object” is absolutely a description of reincarnation.

A given actual (electronic) occasion arises from God’s initial aim as an occasion with an almost-entirely physical emphasis in its dipolar concrescence. It surveys its actual world and the available eternal objects of potentiality and (99.99999% of the time) chooses to take into itself exclusively its prior, now-perished, manifestation. It perishes as a subjective entity and persists into the tiny bit of spacetime which it has created and throws itself forward as a superject into its next “incarnation”.

A simple birth, a taking in of all that it was in its prior becomings, a vanishingly simple becoming and then a perishing, into another simple birth… a tiny Russian Doll growing through spacetime.

Of course, an electron’s experience is incomprehensibly dissimilar from and limited compared to ours. So, too is its reincarnation.

I see no strong argument against a similar process of a human actual occasion – particularly one such as Whitehead’s “regnant occasion” which may well comprise the soul and which would have an almost-entirely mental or conceptual emphasis in the dipolar process of concrescence.

just throwing that out there !
d

• This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by Daryl Anderson.

Thanks for the reminder to reread Rovelli. He is a very incisive thinker and a fine writer. He seems to have an odd assortment of “no go” zones in his philosophical thinking and I remember being disappointed at his seeming resistance to Whiteheadian ideas. Nevertheless now that I have flown a few hops of my own Whiteheadian journey I should probably revisit “Order of Time”.
D.

A great question which I have asked myself and only now discovered here on the forum. I think that Whitehead’s God is both transcendent and immanent. Though paradoxical I also understand that in Whitehead’s broader scheme (in, which, remember, God is a “derivative notion” and in which God is another, albeit unique, actual entity) all actualities are somehow both mutually immanent and mutually transcendent. Very much a koan – though usually a productive one for me.

In Process and Reality (p 348 “Final Interpretation”) he rolls out these paradoxes thus:

It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that
the World is permanent and God is fluent.
It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the
World is one and God many.
It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual
eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is
immanent in the World.
It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World
transcends God.
It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World
creates God.