Dennis Coffey
Andrew,
I finished a doctoral program about this time last year in Environmental Humanities and Ecopsychology. The program emphasizes five guiding principles that are as follows:
Energy: Energy flows within and between living organisms, Earth systems, and throughout the universe, facilitating complex processes of relationship and interdependence.
Diversity: A wide variety of biological, genetic, and behavioral differences exist within and between life systems, including human cultures and perspectives. These differences are essential for creating and maintaining a healthy, living biosphere.
Decay and Renewal/Waste: All life eventually breaks down into its fundamental components, which ecosystems recycle into renewed life. In modern human systems, however, this process tends to be feared or ignored, leading to stagnation, adaptation failures, and waste.
Relationality: All organisms and Earth systems, including the human psyche, are constantly exchanging energies and elements in relational contexts. Survival is not an individual endeavor but the product of countless ongoing collaborative relationships.
Change: Life is a fundamentally dynamic process; nothing remains static or permanent. Everything morphs into new conditions and forms.
Your opening quotation easily comports with the relationality principle. In fact, there is very little space between the principles of the program and Whitehead’s metaphysical scheme. I would have been well served had I been introduced to Whitehead prior to going into the DA program.
Your description makes me take flight back to earlier days when I could lazily watch crows and hawks riding the thermals.
Thanks for this beautiful write-up.
Dennis
Bill,
I have read and listened quite extensively to James Hillman’s materials. His writings were not the easiest to follow. They were often so opaque that he failed to become as popular a writer as he should have been. An excellent book, A Blue Fire, was edited by Thomas Moore. Moore clarified the materials (I think) by laying out in understandable language what Hillman would be saying in the related chapters.
To follow Hillman is a trip. I liked him and I didn’t. He often changed his views, and that challenged me as a reader.
Thanks for the Youtube reference.
Dennis
Randall,
Thanks for your responses.
When I was looking at this cross-section, I thought of Dr. Mesle’s vinyl record example. The cross-section represents history as it occurred in the past–it’s factual. The section itself is constantly in a state of becoming.
As far as there being a beginning, I don’t know. Some would argue yes; some, no. How about an ending? Actual occasions, an example being the becoming of the cross-section, are constantly ending and becoming–they in flux.
I couldn’t touch the cross-section; it was behind glass, and I am glad it was.
Dennis
Bill,
Wow! What a comprehensive answer. The more I think about causal efficacy, the more I search for simplification. I have arrived at my own perspective of causal efficacy which I think is a simplification.
To begin, I cannot experience causal efficacy–true. But I know that the present uses the past to create itself. As I gaze historically, each present moment has constantly, creatively, ephemerally created itself. I think of this process through a recursive lens. Further, this seems to be logical. Professor Strawn invoked the term, axiom, and I think that term is appropriate here. An axiom is self-evidently true and is generally accepted without proof. So, causal efficacy happens, I accept that–that is an axiomatic conclusion.
I accept presentational immediacy, but I am more intrigued by causal efficacy.
So, is it important that I understand that causal efficacy happens? From an intellectual perspective, yes. From a pragmatic, emotional perspective, no.
Thanks for your deep response.
Dennis
P.S. I feel almost guilty spending time on this intellectual endeavor while my home country, the USA, seems to be burning. Hard to focus!
Andrew,
I raised the definition of soul in the after-class session with Dr. Mesle last week. I have struggled with the meaning of soul for a long, long time. The best answer that I found is offered by James Hillman in Revisioning Psychology when he states:
“By soul I mean, first of all, a perspective rather than a substance, a viewpoint toward things rather than a thing itself.” p. xvi.
I don’t discern a conflict with Dr. Mesle’s definition (a viewpoint), and the meaning Hillman attaches to soul. Most definitions that I have seen regarding soul don’t conflict with Dr. Mesle’s definition of soul.
My two cents.
Dennis
Nelson,
Every word that is written in the Living Mountain is meaningful. I have read the book multiple times, and each time I read it, my thinking expands.
On pages 105-106 of her little book, Shepherd emphasizes how she experiences the mountain(s) and yearns to have even more senses to experience even more. Samantha Walton wrote an excellent book (The Living World: Nan Shepherd and Environmental Thought) that was a follow-up to her doctoral work that focused on Shepherd. Shepherd was a fascinating person and shouldn’t be ignored.
Dennis
P.S. Kindle and Audible editions of The Living Mountain will be released soon.
Daryl,
Interesting that you mention Sheldrake and his question regarding whether the sun is conscious. I had the chance to listen to Sheldrake and Bernard Kastrup debate such issues last week. The debate/discussion took place through the Pari Center. Whether the sun is conscious was not debated explicitly, but it was mentioned.
I continue to struggle (as do many others) with the meaning of consciousness. The sun could be conscious or not, but irrespective I am certain it experiences. At least I experience the sun.
Dennis
Nelson,
There is a reading that I highly recommend relating to your first illustration. This reading, authored by Amy Whitehead, “Appalachian animism: Religion, the woods, and the material presence of the mountain” can be found in Space, Place and Religious Landscapes: Living Mountains (Bloomsbury Studies in Material Religion), pp. 147-169. On page 148 Amy states:
“Animism is a generative concept and practice that acknowledges the fluid assemblages that make up mountain people’s beliefs and knowledge, and allows for the potential personhood of plants, animals, trees, and other beings that are not so easily explained. It can also include the mountain itself.” [emphasis added]
Many authors in this wonderful publication advocate for legal personhood of mountains. Now, do mountains experience? I think it depends upon one’s definition of a mountain (there really is no commonly accepted definition of a mountain). I think more holistically of what constitutes a mountain—it consists of rocks, plants, microorganisms, etc. I view a mountain as being alive, and I think it experiences. One thing for sure, a mountain has agency. When I have been out of the mountains for some time and I return, I have been known to weep upon seeing their majesty.
Undoubtedly, Whitehead (Alfred North) would think of a mountain as a society of interrelated entities that are constantly in flux. As far as being a democracy, I don’t know. I must think more about that. In a political sense, no. But in a metaphorical sense, possibly.
My ramblings,
Dennis
George,
I was introduced to Stella and Vensim in a course in my graduate program in futures studies offered by the University of Houston. The course in which we used it was titled “Systems Thinking.” It was taught by Draper L Kauffman, an accomplished leader and author in systems thinking. It was a fun but demanding course. No, no mention was ever made of Whitehead. 🙂
Dennis
Daryl,
Edward S Reed wrote wonderfully, convincingly. Unfortunately, his life ended early because of complications of pneumonia. He died in 1997 when he was forty-three years old. His guiding star was James J Gibson, a leader in the psychology of perception. Reed was an excellent, insightful writer.
Dennis
Andrew,
What you have written indeed emphasizes the interconnectedness of life. If you are not aware of stock and flow diagrams, you might do a Google search for examples of these. Stock and flow diagrams are fairly easy to create, especially with software such as Stella (https://iseesystems.com/store/products/stella-online.aspx) and Vensim (https://vensim.com/). It’s been some time since I used these software products, but interconnections can be pictorially represented using this software.
I appreciated the richness of your posting.
Dennis
George,
Forgive me if I ask a truly silly question. When you use the word, concrete, are you meaning something that has a material existence? My understanding of process philosophy is that nothing has a material existence. Everything is in process, and any existence is ephemeral.
On point three relating to Box. I do believe that Whitehead believed his metaphysical scheme could encompass all of reality (whatever that is). However, I think he believed that his scheme could possibly be supplanted with a better one.
Of course, no metaphysical scheme can be proven. Some aspects of Whiteheadian thought appeal to me while others don’t. I cannot prove anything.
Please forgive my rambling.
I do have one further offering. I asked ChatGPT if actual entities are real and this is the response:
The question of whether actual entities are “real” depends on the philosophical framework you’re considering. In the context of Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, actual entities are the fundamental units of reality—they are the “really real.”
Here are some key points about actual entities in Whitehead’s philosophy to clarify this idea:
Process, Not Substance: Whitehead’s metaphysics is grounded in the notion that reality is made up of processes rather than static substances. Actual entities are not material objects; they are momentary events or processes of becoming.
Relational Reality: Actual entities are deeply relational. Each one arises out of a process called “prehension,” whereby it incorporates aspects of other entities into itself. This means no actual entity is isolated; its existence depends on and contributes to the network of relationships that constitute the universe.
Subjective and Objective Reality: An actual entity has a subjective phase, during which it experiences and integrates the influences of the world, and an objective phase, where it becomes a part of the reality that influences other entities.
Ontological Significance: Actual entities are sometimes equated with “occasions of experience.” Even the smallest building blocks of reality (e.g., quantum events) can be understood in terms of this framework. For Whitehead, they are as real as the larger structures (like trees or galaxies) they compose.
If by “real” you mean something that exists independently of human perception or conception, Whitehead would argue that actual entities are indeed real because they are the basic units out of which the entire process of reality is constructed.
However, interpretations of “reality” vary between philosophical traditions, so what is considered “real” in Whitehead’s metaphysics may not align with other perspectives, such as classical materialism or Cartesian dualism. Would you like to explore this comparison further?
Dennis
Bill,
I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Davis’ course. I enjoyed all my courses in the program.
Dennis
George,
Many, many change from math to computer science. We have a local professor of computer science (Appalachian State), Ray Russell, who also has a popular weather site (www.booneweather.com) upon which all locals depend. Ray was also a state representative from this area at one time.
Boone in the summer is a great place. I think it is a great place year-round.
Dennis
Andrew,
I live in Western North Carolina. In one class last year I mentioned that large numbers of climate refugees were moving to my area to escape. Long story short, in September of last year (2024) we were visited by Hurricane Helene. Massive amounts of both physical and psychological damage occurred. Lesson: There is no escaping climate change.
A stunning outcome of Helene was how many people continue to disbelieve that climate change is real. Many Western North Carolina residents refused help from FEMA because far right media convinced them that FEMA would appropriate their land.
A hopeful outcome was how people helped one another. Appalachian State University fed (without cost) residents who lacked the means to feed themselves. Many of us lost power and Internet for some time. Donations overwhelmed receiving centers. We felt a true connection with one another.
I have never been to Taiwan. My wife took students there several years ago. She didn’t visit the countryside; I am sure based on what you have written that it is beautiful.
Thanks for your posting.
Dennis