Replies

Thanks for the resources, and feedback. I’ve heard of Epperson and have a few texts in my queue already. Grateful to add the Eastman text, too. See you on Wednesday!

Jace

Here’s a second poem…

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Hi, friends. Thank you for your responses, for the connection. I appreciate the Dialogues of ANW reference, and look forward to exploring the musical metaphor later in this course.

Ken, I don’t recall, can’t locate the Hardy quote. By emphasizing repetition in your sharing, I imagine you may have shared this quote in the last course? My apologies for not recalling if you did previously share. In any case, I love the quote!

I agree that experience requires “time” and I am also concerned by how “time” is defined, understood. While, as Dr. Davis noted in his above response, “measurable time manifests as the becoming of the durational flow of actual occasions,” it is not a category of existence, a fact of the universe. Temporal metrics are abstractions from direct felt experience, and assuming their actuality can lead to default endorsement of the fallacies of misplaced concreteness and simple location.

Ken, I like your insight regarding near-death experiences and simulated intensities. There certainly is (by common sense anyway) time-space/space-time, which also seems to be felt differently, variously, depending on the intensity of the presentational immediacy of experiential finitude.

In terms of “more, better,” by intensification, the scope of experience can certainly amplify beyond normative, ego conditioning though that isn’t necessarily better — in fact, one can experience an amplified state and actually participate in life to one’s own detriment (e.g., Bipolar Awakening). With respect to “faster,” the default of Newtonian Absolute True Mathematical Linear Time seems to be emerging here. This is often articulated in psychedelic-assisted therapy as “6 years worth of psychotherapy in 6 hours.” This default seems to reflect conditioning as opposed to a f/actuality of the universe that there is a thing called measurable time:

“…the formation of a general idea—such as the idea of the Order of Nature—and the grasp of its importance, and the observation of its exemplification in a variety of occasions are by no means the necessary consequences of the truth of the idea in question. Familiar things happen, and mankind does not bother about them. It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious” (Whitehead, SMW, 1925, p.4).

By my experience, focusing on measurable time does not well enough support the actualization of novelty in the healing of trauma — feeling through the depths of the pain (including the felt sense of perishing) is what facilitates catharsis, rebirth, etc.

Thank you, again, friends!

Hi, John.

Thanks so much for your interest and for initiating connection — I’ve enjoyed experiencing this discussion forum with you over the last several weeks.

In the first sentence of the quote, I understand Whitehead to be reiterating caution against the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in that the universe is the synthesizing of superjective and subjective aims — not the obviously familiar substance as argued by the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm. Whitehead thus seems to be articulating the final cause of his philosophy of organism, specifically alluding to a harmony of harmonies is the purpose of life, creativity. By this intended lure of harmony, Peace could be considered the final cause, which is not necessarily pleasurable or passive, but rather integrative of the whole, both euphonious as well as cacophonous, as selection syncretizes determinism occasioned by the past (the mode of causal efficacy) with the immediate present experience by which subjective forms shape initial into subjective aims and by which the most harmonious can be freely selected via a process of concrescence thus allowing for continuity.

In terms of the second quote, I’ve been reflecting on actual entities simultaneously being/becoming both superjective as well as subjective experiencers. As Jay noted in class, Whitehead barely wrote about the Superjective Nature of God. That which was said and the limited discourse both actually say a great deal to me.

If no subject experiences twice, then one can feasibly conclude that all subjects experience once — there is one experience of being, which is felt as pulsations of becoming, drops of experience akin to momentary felt vacillations of contrast (i.e., energetic pulsations of constriction/expansion) of varying duration as opposed to a linear sequence of perishing and becoming, becoming and perishing. The latter explanation resounds with the anachronisms of Newtonian linearity and uniformity — the fallacy of simple location — and of Cartesian substance — the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Such reduction suggests a dualism between becoming and perishing as if they are categorically distinct and separate phenomena to be experienced, processed.

By the last sentence in the quote, I experience Whitehead as denoting the final cause of Peace is a harmonizing of entropy inevitably occasioned by a universal lure to create, a universal lure of creativity. That is to say, the efficient cause of the universe is creativity. The universe is obliged to create itself in that, according to Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, the Consequent Nature of God is a felt sense of universal oneness not the subject-predicate substance entities centrally posited by the anachronistic scientific paradigm as composing the universe.

While God is not actual, God is atemporal as well as everlasting — no beginning, no end. As such, actual occasions could not have not occurred — God requires actuality. Like God, actuality is thus also atemporal and everlasting. That said, the manner of and perhaps the form of experience changes by the actual universe’s moment, which, too, evinces a process of becoming/perishing and which can arguably support the notion of multiverses, or in the terms of William James, a pluralistic universe. Moreover, if actual occasions can subjectively experience superjectivity and we know that the experience of being alive is not confined to nor is a product of matter, it can easily be argued that, while the actuality of universal and personal existence is entropic, the experience of existing (i.e., mental pole of existence) is negentropic, orderly, synergistic, harmonizing through which even subjective finitude is inclusive to felt everlasting — i.e., proverbially stated, consciousness precedes and transcends material reality.

By this analysis, “consciousness” is also considered atemporal and everlasting. While my subjective experience will end (i.e., the physical pole of existence is entropic), it remains objectively immortal (i.e., the mental pole is negentropic) and experientially accessible by future actual occasions. Moreover, this implies that as subjectivity yields, a widening field is arguably experienced beyond physical death (it certainly is experienced beyond what is colloquially referred to as transient “ego death” during exceptional, mystical states). Default endorsement of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness typically evokes criticism of such considerations as pejoratively metaphysical and unknowable. Yet, by Whitehead’s scientifically and mathematical analysis, a philosophy of science emerges that also has religiospiritual implications which transcend and can amplify ideology.

As noted above, this frame has also helped me consider becoming/perishing as qualities, rhythms of one experience, of one harmony rather than as linearly and phenomenologically distinct moments. As I’ll be writing about in my springboard project, this “everything is now” frame is more resonant with a process ethos, and by my study integral to validly understanding Whitehead.

While I agree with you, John, that the multiplicity of actual occasions inevitably must create such a rich, thick cross-fertilizing field of becoming, I find that it is only beyond understanding when the mode is confined to the intellect. When the understanding also includes nonverbal modes, one can more readily approach a precise and valid articulation of the ineffable.

Thanks again, John, for evoking such rich discussion, sharing. I hope to connect with you more throughout this certificate program, and perhaps beyond as well.

Warmly,
Jace

Thank you, Thomas, for adding more precision to my language, articulation — very helpful. I sincerely appreciate the communal learning occasioned by this course!

Jay, could you clarify your comments a bit regarding choice/choosing. I’m grappling with integrating those comments with the following quote I noted from the course material (I can’t recall if it were a video, PPT, lecture, etc.): “The act of decision is the heart of actuality.”

Thank you, friends, for your comments.

John, I appreciate your attention to the quality of experience at the time of conception. As posted in various discussion forum threads, I’m wary of the un/non/conscious distinction — a funny thing to say for a licensed psychologist! I am inclined to recognize that, as conception, there is an experience on the level of causal efficacy which amplifies by successive moments of becoming, eventually occasioning an awareness of experience in late gestation which can be experientially akin to pure potentiality, the ideal/initial aim of universal communitas/Oneness (according to transpersonal psychology, e.g., Stanislav Grof). This actual occasion is still accessible in biographical, postnatal life, yet in light of conditioned values of competitive individualism and fallacies occasioned by the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm, defaulting to a skin encapsulated ego prevails amongst many who are only willing to experience themselves as one as opposed to the potential of momentarily becoming One.

Thank you for continuing this thread. I appreciate the notion of a synthetic self, emphasizing the ongoing process of becoming, positing self as an activity, a function as opposed to a substance. I also appreciate the sharing around concrescence.

I wonder if the process by which the many become one and are increased by one could be understood as simultaneous, an inherent contrast of each drop of experience. That is to say, could concrescence be understood as creating/perishing as one activity? It seems to me that concretizing an ideal/initial aim as a potential/subjective aim could be an emerging actuality as well as an objectively immortal actual occasion when one considers the interconnectedness of becoming.

I also wonder if Enlightenment is a moment-by-moment event as opposed to a permanent state? Perhaps Enlightenment is located in the perpetual activity/process of becoming as opposed to an illusory sustained state of being.

Thanks, again, for continuing this thread.

Hi, Kevin and Jay.

Thank you for your comments, for invoking further considerations and learning for me.

And, Kevin, thank you for sharing your personal experience and how it relates to your present endeavors in supporting others as well as in exploring this course. I’m grateful for your sharing.

I agree that the self is not precisely identical to the brain, and am wary of confusing the map with the territory when we talk about things stored in the brain as well as the implicit connotation that there is an unconscious when differentiating between what is and is not accessible in the activity of becoming aware. To me, this can be a hop, skip, and jump to the fallacies I named above.

In any case, there’s more reflection and learning for me on this topic (which will likely contribute toward, inform my springboard project), and for that perpetual process, I’m also grateful.

Warmly,
Jace

Hi, Thomas and Jay.

Thanks for your comments. I sincerely appreciate the dialogue, the communal processing!

By my last sentence, I was attempting to articulate that a drop of Peace, a moment of peace can be felt, experienced as eternal which is not necessarily everlasting nor predetermined in that the consequent nature of said drops/images occur by a paradoxical intending themselves into existence by a perishing of the immediacy of the preceding moment.

I look forward to Saturday’s class — thanks, again!

Warmly,
Jace

Indeed I do, Jay. By my personal and professional experience, pleasure and pain are equally valuable experiences — avoiding, devaluing the felt sense of dissonance/fragmentation in favor of consonance/reconciliation only serves to amplify the former. What we resist persists, as Carl Jung once noted. While one can certainly experience subjective discontinuity, as William James noted in “A Pluralistic Universe,” it is a quality of the whole not evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for your feedback. I’m thoroughly enjoying this course.

Peace,
Jace

Thank you for the resource, Jay!

Thank you, Jason. I, too, experienced the importance of tending speculation and history as integral conditions for establishing a coherent, logical, applicable, and adequate description of the fundamental nature of reality, of existence/existing. I’m reminded of RG Collingwood arguing the same in The Idea of Nature (1945), particularly toward the end of the text while exploring Whitehead’s philosophy of organism. By my own experience, the qualities of transformation, change are felt both progressively as well as regressively — speculative creativity requires a succession as opposed to an abandonment of ostensibly obvious expressions of wisdom. Thanks, again!

I appreciate the sharing regarding self. I experience this community as passionately insightful and theoretically informed – a personally familiar foundation conducive for learning. I’m grateful for and inspired to create, write, and contribute – to endeavor an offering, an application of Whiteheadian Process Thought on self.

By my current understanding of Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, and with particular attention to not wanting to fall prey to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness – i.e., endorsing abstractions such as “self” and “consciousness” as actualities, espousing the notion that there is a thing that is experiencing my life and it’s called a self and it has a consciousness that actually extends when amplified – perhaps self can be understood as an activity of iteratively defining the experience of experiencing finite expansiveness and temporality. The material cause of self is thus experience, a function, process as postulated by Whitehead and William James before him (e.g., “Does Consciousness Exist?” and “A World of Pure Experience,” 1904). The formal cause of self is agency – the action of creating an intended felt experience of being alive: the lure of Beauty (Whitehead, Process and Reality, 1929). Past events and future potentialities, including perinatal, biographical, and transpersonal occasions are experientially accessible by amplifying the intensity of the present moment (e.g., Grof, Holotropic Breathwork: A New Approach to Self-Exploration and Therapy), which “holds within itself the complete sum of existence, backwards and forwards, that whole amplitude of time, which is eternity” (Whitehead, The Aims of Education, 1929). The efficient cause of self, by which accessibility and amplification occur, is the affirmation of subjective finitude. This cause is synonymous with the function known as attitude, often colloquially referred to as an openness/closedness dialectic. When its quality of expansiveness is experienced intensely, this attitude can evince a felt sense of universal prehensive interconnecting: a direct experience of Whiteheadian metaphysics as implicitly described in mystical as well as psychedelic accounts. The final cause of self is Peace (e.g., Whitehead, Adventures in Ideas, 1933).

Thank you for receiving and for inspiring my offering. I’m excited for the course we will create together.