Replies

Joshua,

In sessions (outside of formal classes) led by Jay McDaniel earlier this year, we arrived at the conclusion that for Whitehead time is created through the becoming of actual occasions. I think this makes sense. Time is not a container waiting to be filled by actual occasions. I also believe that space is not a container waiting to be filled by actual occasions. I think interactions and relationships of actual occasions lead to what we think of as space and time.

Continuing to this about this.

Dennis

Bill,

This was your usual rich response, and I appreciate it.

What I (and likely Whitehead) mean by our inability to experience directly actual occasions relates to their fleeting, nonmaterial existence. In short, we cannot directly experience actual occasions because they are always perishing as soon as they occur resulting in nonmaterial existence. What we experience is their ghostly trails from one moment to the next.

Of course, this brings into play subjective aim, that vector of feeling leading to satisfaction. When does consciousness enter the fray? Probably not at the beginning … Once again, the usage of satisfaction is I think an unusual choice of words. I feel as though I am playing with funny money when I talk about the process of concrescence.

Your comments remind me of a book, “The Ancestral Mind: A Revolutionary, Scientifically Validated Program for Reactivating the Deepest Part of the Mind” authored by Gregg D Jacobs, PhD. On page 42 of the text, he contrasts what he terms the thinking mind with the ancestral mind–the difference is significant. Point is that we are in possession of both mind types. The ancestral mind has helped us survive as a species. However, in modern times we tend to favor the thinking mind and neglect actively using the ancestral mind (at least consciously). The ancestral mind is based in experience while the thinking mind is detached from experience. An interesting exercise would be to assess Jacobs’ thesis from a Whiteheadian process perspective.

Dennis

Hi Chris,

What you wrote was very well expressed. However, it raises a profound question regarding the transition from potentiality to actuality: How does an actual occasion select what it ‘prehends’ (grasps) from the entirety of the determinate past to guide its process of concrescence?

In theory, the entire universe of past actual entities offers an infinity of potential data to be inherited. If every entity had to positively feel (prehend) everything that came before it, the process would be mathematically impossible. This suggests there must be an initial principle of selection or evaluation before concrescence can even begin.

Now, I am aware that an entity’s subjective aim along with negative prehensions are instrumental in what is selected (and not selected) for concrescence purposes (per Whitehead).

I think my problem emanates from the fact that we never directly experience actual occasions; we only perceive the serial chains of actual occasions (societies) that form enduring objects such as rocks or trees. I keep thinking that actual occasions are fictions but based on the ontological principle, Whitehead states that only actual entities are fully real.

Still navigating process philosophy.

Dennis

George,

I have an admission. I think your very short point regarding organisms from a Whitehead perspective has been one of the most important points/questions/issues that has been made for my thinking. With my newly developed understanding of what Whitehead meant by organism, thanks to you, I feel much enriched.

Question: Could Philosophy of Organism be renamed Philosophy of Actual Entity or perhaps Philosophy of Actual Occasion?” Probably wouldn’t mean any more than Philosophy of Organism.

The key, IMO, is as you indicate, an organism is not necessarily of a biological nature. Now, Whitehead’s title has greater meaning for me.

Thank you,

Dennis

George,

I do believe an organism to be an actual entity, constantly perishing and becoming. I think of the Earth (Gaia?) as an organism, constantly perishing and becoming.

I could be wrong; I have been a couple of times previously. 😊

Hello George,

Briefly, do you consider an archetype(s)as an eternal object?

Dennis

Nelson,

I too am auditing this course, and I am thankful that I did. The speakers have been phenomenal. Every once in a while, I do a smart thing, and auditing this course was a smart thing.

Course participants have been outstanding, and I will miss them.

Dennis

Bhavana,

Thanks for your posting. Throughout the course, your comments have been thoughtful and inspiring.

You mention nonhumans. I was fortunate to have taken a course with Jonathan Balcombe, author of many books that can be found on Amazon.com. Jonathan, in a nonreligious way, is adamant about not harming nonhumans. His reasoning is that they (nonhumans) feel pain, and that is displeasing to him. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate empirically that nonhumans feel pain. Okay, I said, from where will we get our protein. Insects, he said. Hmm, I said, don’t they (insects) feel pain? Even if we get our protein from plants, don’t plants feel pain? No easy answer, at least for Jonathan (or me).

Just thinking.

Dennis

[Dennis Coffey]

Leslie,

Interesting that you mention eye-contact. I have always had trouble making eye contact with people. That is my weakness. (One is not supposed to reveal her or his weakness, but, there, I have.) So, looking at someone in the eyes is not part of my toolkit.

I recently spent a year on a beloved mountain (Grandfather). The mountain, inclusive of all that makes up a mountain, meaningfully communicated with me. The mountain is in trouble, that was the non-spoken, non-written communication. I sensed what it was telling me. Even though I am twenty miles away from the mountain, it continues to communicate with me.

I receive communications all the time in my dreams. Last night, Jimmy Carter visited me, quite vibrant wearing overalls. He didn’t speak, but he did smile. What was he trying to tell me? James Hillman says we should not make a final determination of what a dream, especially the images in the dream, represents. I will mull over Jimmy today.

Dennis

• This reply was modified 11 months ago by Dennis Coffey.

George,

I too look forward to Dr. McDaniel’s presentation. Issues surrounding God seem thorny at best. I have gotten to the point where I am almost afraid to address the issue of God in our discussions; it seems to be a hot button issue for some (Dr. McDaniel?).

For the record, I think I belong more in the early camp known as Theravāda Buddhism since its adherents do not require belief in a creator god; instead they tended to focus on inner individual transformations. That is not to say they totally discounted the possibility of the existence of a creator God, but they seemed to focus more on an individual’s own efforts that would lead to enlightenment/salvation (?).

Looking forward.

Dennis

Bhavana,

Thanks for these questions and thoughts. Regarding your first question. I, indeed, was questioning whether there is difference between theophany and hierophany. Here is what I found:

(1) A theophany is a specific type of sacred manifestation in which a god or deity appears or reveals itself to a human being; and
(2) A hierophany is a broader term meaning any manifestation of the sacred, not necessarily a god.

I prefer a hierophany; seems more inclusive.

Regarding your point 2. Hillman credits some of the development of his understanding of the imagination to Corbin. Hillman also gleaned much of his archetypal understandings from Corbin. Imagination is truly important; hopefully it will be used for good, but no promises. Imagination was critical for helping Whitehead derive his metaphysics.

I attended a session this past Friday in which Donald Hoffman presented. One of the assertions that Hoffman made is that our chances of understanding or knowing reality is exactly equal to zero (0). In other words, there will never be a theory of everything. According to Hoffman, evolution has not shaped us to see reality, but to survive. We live navigating a series of adaptive illusions. What? I find this discouraging.

Thanks for your comments/questions.

Dennis

Doug,

Here is a quote from God and the Big Bang, first edition that I like:

“When light flashed forth, time and space began. But the early universe was an undifferentiated blend of energy and matter. How did matter emerge? The mystic writes that the light was concealed. A scientist would say that energy congealed. Matter is frozen energy. No nucleus or atom could form until some energy cooled down sufficiently that it could be bound and bundled into stable particles of matter.” [I cannot give page number since I am looking at the Kindle edition of the book. Also, my own emphases have been added.]

Light is important in Jewish mysticism. Dr. Artson mentions light in some of his readings.

Dennis

Dr. King,

This graphic is powerful. I look forward to this evening’s presentation.

Dennis

Dr. Long,

Thanks for your response. I look forward to your presentation this evening. My deficiency in the fundamentals of Hinduism certainly contributed to my comprehending difficulties of your written contribution.

Clearly, you are a top-notch scholar, and we are fortunate that you will be interacting with us.

Dennis

Monte,

I think these were tree frogs. As I was getting ready to reply to your posting, the frogs started their “singing”–loudly. I stepped out on my porch and made the recording. The singing made me feel so wonderful. I haven’t heard them since I made the recording.

Dennis

P.S. I do find the occasional Yonahlossee salamander (a bright orange creature) in my yard. I treat each with great care. They are a gift.