Dennis Coffey
Hello George,
Whitehead emphasized that his metaphysical framework was meant to accommodate all forms of experience—including subjective ones. From what I can tell, you’re working to apply Whitehead’s process model as a way to interpret or explain traditional scientific substance models.
The subject-object dichotomy is a fascinating issue. Aside from my own ongoing struggles with it, I’ve traced its development through Jung’s concept of the participation mystique, into Owen Barfield’s idea of original participation, and then to how these perspectives affect our understanding of the subject-object divide—and ultimately, where this all might be leading us.
That said, I’m still puzzled by something from last week’s session with Jay: the idea that time doesn’t exist, but space does. That really threw me—what exactly does that mean?
One thing I keep returning to as we explore this material is the recognition that both Whitehead and scientists working from a substance-based paradigm are offering narratives to explain reality. It seems to me that you’re trying to bring these narratives into conversation. While Whitehead’s approach does make room for scientific reasoning (up to a point), the more rigid, substance-based scientific frameworks tend to give short shrift to Whitehead’s metaphysical insights.
It’s clear that you’ve thought deeply about these ideas, and I admire your engagement with them.
A few of my thoughts.
Dennis
Hello all,
There is a fantastic book related to our materials that I am recommending.
The title of the book is Quantum Change: When Epiphanies and Sudden Insights Transform Ordinary Lives and is authored by William Miller and Janet C’de Baca.A quantum change per Miller is “A vivid, surprising, benevolent, and enduring personal transformation that occurs suddenly and profoundly affects a person’s beliefs, behavior, and sense of identity.”
These can be mystical or insight-based and often feel inevitable and irreversible to the person experiencing them. The events that cause them are unexpected. So, be ready.
Dennis
George,
I feel fortunate to be in class with you. Thank you for your answers to my questions.
I have had a varied religious background. I was in a Presbyterian orphanage for about five years. Of course, we received religious instruction; very little stuck with me. Next were the various Baptist and Pentacostal churches. I didn’t attend these of my own volition. Needless to say, none of the teachings/beliefs of these churches stuck with me. The most interesting phenomenon that I observed was glossolalia (speaking in tongues) in the Pentacostal churches; I still don’t know what that was about. When my daughter was an adolescent, I attended the local UU congregation with her. When she left for university, I stopped attending UU.
I did attend a Christian college (Berea) where I only had to take two dedicated religious courses–Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament course, I had a 97 average, and the professor gave me a B. I was puzzled by the grade, and I asked the professor about it. His reply to me was that I didn’t understand religion, and he was right.
Whitehead’s process theology is more meaningful to me than any I have come across. I am not quite there, but I may get there.
I wonder if there are religious services that adhere to process theology? Or would such adherence be too bold?
I will read your posting more closely. I think it looks promising.
Once again, thank you.
Dennis
Monte,
A beautiful posting. We need more harmony among the contrasts.
I have attached a couple of files: A recording I made of the first sounds of spring and an animal valuing the beauty of a flower.
Thanks,
Dennis
George and Bhavana,
I have many questions regarding eternal objects beyond do they really exist. Are they really necessary? In “the sky” of Whitehead’s metaphysics perhaps they are necessary.
I am convinced that some eternal objects exist. When students would ask me which graduate school would I recommend for the furtherance of their education, I would flippantly respond that 2+2=4 on the campus of East Tennessee State University is the same as 2+2=4 on Duke’s campus. While that is true, I now think that unbeknownst to me, I could have used more elegant reasoning for my statements. I could have said 2+2=4 is an eternal object (as I understand mathematical expressions to be until they are instantiated). The possibility is available to both ETSU and Duke. And so forth….I can imagine the puzzled looks on the faces of students had I invoked eternal objects as part of my reasonong.
Note: 2+2=4 can be thought of as an eternal object, but once I write the equation on a whiteboard, it is no longer an eternal object but an instantiation of an eternal object.
Finally, I believe that eternal objects should not change since they are timeless. This causes me to believe that eternal objects have always been, even prior to the possible existence of a primordial God. How do we “wrap our heads” around the notion that timeless, spaceless possibilities have always existed?
A lot of questions.
Dennis
Dr. Davis,
I could list the following as to why Whitehead thought God was necessary for his metaphysics:
(1) Solves the problem of order and novelty. Note: I think complexity theory does the same without requiring a concept of God.
(2) Two aspects of God: Primordial and consequent natures of God (which you mention). The first is an ordering principle and the second “keeps the actual unfolding” in order (the way I understand it). Once again, complexity theory could do the same thing.
(3) Serves as the source of possibilities that actual entities can take. Is this really necessary; could not outcomes take place without preordained possibilities?
(4) Whitehead’s God is central to his notion that reality is fundamentally aesthetic; his God is a lure toward higher forms of order, beauty and value. Some may question the efficacy of this lure.
I am sure there are other reasons (some that you have mentioned) for the need of God in Whitehead’s system of metaphysics. I continue to have difficulty justifying the reasons for needing a God in his system of metaphysics–almost seems like cheating to me. Whitehead (and you) certainly sees a need to include dual concepts of God in his metaphysics. Also, just because his metaphysics is coherent and adequate doesn’t make it valid.
Question: I am attempting to avoid “throwing the baby out with the bathwater;” that is, I feel there is much that pulls (lures) me to process philosophy irrespective of concepts of God being included in Whitehead’s version. Is what remains without God worth considering? I think it is.
With all this said, I am not saying there is no God; there may very well be one. I don’t have a problem with describing the continuous becoming of the cosmos, the totality, as a form of God. However, I don’t believe in a primordial God.
I don’t think we will enrich our lives by debating this issue any further, at least I won’t enrich mine. I am glad I am going through this material again.
One final point: If for no other reason, process philosophy has been enormously useful in that it has helped me to dissolve the subject-object divide. This divide has presented a huge hurdle for me.
Thanks,
Dennis
Bill,
Mesle, Robert. (2008). Proces-Relational Philosophy: An Introduction to Alfred North Whitehead.
Sherburne, Donald W. (Fall, 1967). “Whitehead Without God.” The Christian Scholar. 50(3), 251-272.
Sherburne also wrote A Key to Whitehead’s Process and Reality.
Also, check out Jay McDaniel’s site: https://www.openhorizons.org/whitehead-without-god-donald-sherburne.html
Dennis
Dr. Davis,
I thought about what you wrote overnight. While you invoke the fallacy of “misplaced concreteness” when thinkers remove God from the discussion, I think you are committing the same fallacy when you add God to Whitehead’s metaphysics?
I know you probably don’t remember my question of you in last year’s class when I asked if you ever have doubts. To my surprise, you said yes. However, you don’t seem to have any doubts about the necessity of having God in Whitehead’s metaphysics in order for it to “hang together.” I don’t see it that way, but then I am a mere novice “in search,” and I have a ton of doubts.
Thanks for this stimulating conversation.
Dennis
All,
Maybe we need to “chunk” off all of Whitehead’s metaphysics that pertain to a primordial god and call what remains a “skinny Whiteheadian metaphysics” or something else. I know Dr. Davis has argued that this doesn’t work for him, but it might work for me.
I may come around to accepting a primordial god, but I don’t think so.
Anyway, 22/7 = 3.1428…..; the date is 3/14 of the year 2025 (3/14/2025). What does this have to do with the discussion? Absolutely nothing (or does it since everything is connected to something?). But I thought I would add a little humor.
Dennis
George,
I like your response quite well. I “cut my Whiteheadian philosophy teeth” by first reading Dr. Mesle’s book shortly after its publication. Then I placed the book aside and forgot about it. But there was a gnawing in my mind that I should revisit it, and I did. Nothing that I have ever read has had such a calming effect on me as the words Mesle writes on page x:
“Barbara, Mark, and Abbey, Sarah, and Brandon, our new grandson Elliot and all the other people I love are actual. That means they change. As much as I love ideas, they cannot hold a candle to the people I love. I know I can count on those people, but I count on them in the ways one can and must count on all that is actual. My counting on them is all bound up with counting on them to act, grow, change, and–sadly–to perish” [emphasis added].
I was so impressed by this paragraph that I shared it with many others. It means so much.
Dennis
Dr. Davis,
I think one is well-served by studying the several fallacies that Whitehead expressed. Dr. McDaniel expresses these well in “What is Process Thought?: Seven Answers to Seven Questions” on pages 37-47. I periodically review these fallacies when “the urge hits me.” No kidding, McDaniel’s book is quite good in that he gets quickly to the point, especially regarding the fallacies.
Dennis
George,
I am also a believer, but not completely. When Dr. McDaniel asked if I had a thought on a particular passage we were studying in Process and Reality this past Tuesday, I was hesitant to express what I thought. In that section on page 7 of PR, the primordial God is mentioned. I am not ready to accept a primordial God; I am more aligned with the thinking of Dr. Mesle at this point in my thinking. I do like what Shelburne has to say about the non-necessity of God for process philosophy to be meaningful. Perhaps, God is created as reality is created through processes of concrescence; a matter of perspective. Obviously, I am still struggling with the concept of a primordial God. I feel as though Whitehead arrived at a certain point in his thinking to where he had to create a God to complete his magnus opus.
And the adventure continues.
Dennis
George,
I have to chuckle when I recall the dustup between Newton and Leibniz regarding who discovered calculus first. Both men were brilliant. Also, if monads cannot communicate with one another, I think that creates a problem that simply couldn’t be overlooked by Whitehead. I feel more comfortable with Whitehead.
I think I have given monads too much attention. 🙂
Dennis
Hello all,
I want to recommend a new website for monad theory. See https://www.thephilroom.com/blog/2024/01/01/the-theory-of-monads/ In the final section the following is written:
“Criticism of the Theory:
Russell provided a thorough critique of the conventional idea of substance in his book on Leibniz. Russell eventually came to the conclusion that the conventional understanding of substance was empirically deficient and based on a flawed logical theory. Russell’s argument ultimately leads to the conclusion that some key concepts traditionally linked to the metaphysics of substance are useless in metaphysics and must be dropped. This explains why Whitehead will try to develop a system of revisionary metaphysics where the notion of substance as the underlying holder of properties is replaced by the notion of the actual entity as an occasion of experience that is organically related to all other occasions. Whitehead appears to have been persuaded by Russell’s arguments. [emphasis added]
Paula,
An interesting vocational and educational background.
I too have found that process philosophy can be used to explain many situations. Whitehead believed that his speculative scheme is broadly applicable. (PR3). I routinely read that section of Process and Reality where Whitehead discusses the aims of his speculative philosophy; he indicates it is broadly, inclusively applicable.
Dennis Coffey