Replies

Never mind, I see that the link has been made available on the course page for the first session under the ‘Optional Readings & Media’ heading.
Thanks, I appreciate it!

You raise a profound question indeed, Dennis and from my limited understanding I can only venture a tentative reaction.
Perhaps ‘potential’ and ‘actual’ are not adequate terms to qualify prehension, if you take ANW serious that only actual entities are fully real, as you state. What actual occasions ingress are ‘stubborn matters of fact’ and not actual entities.
Potentiality only enters with the creativity of eternal objects. If I understand that correctly, the traditional opposition of potential and actual is moot in philosophy of organism.
But that does not address your issues with selection and the lack of direct experience.

Thanks for adding to my confusion, Chris! 😉 My post was certainly not meant as a premature critique of the course. And your reply does give me plenty of food for thought.
As you can tell, I’m groping in the dark and using questions as a form of echolocation. Just to add another sonar beep:
I understand your point that the phases of concrescence are logical and not temporal. Therefore, the question of how long a drop of experience lasts does not make any sense. Just as little as asking Henri Bergson what the length of his durée is.
For echolocation to work, I probably need to shut up now and start listening. But I’d love to continue this exchange when I have a better understanding of how ANW views time.

Thanks for that wonderful quote, Bill!
My worry was that ‘interbeing’ could suggest that there are independent beings who relate. Your linking back the term to ‘togetherness’, emptiness understood as codependent arising, resolves this concern.