Replies

Hi Alexandre, thank you for this great post! You’re absolutely right that holotropic breathwork experiences are definitely mystical/spiritual experiences in the sense James could have envisioned. He also mentions in his writings about the matter about certain other “medicinal” or pharmaceutical methods as well. You’re right, certainly the fact that we have the brain “machinery” like certain receptors etc. that pharmaceutical substances can bind to isn’t the whole story. There is the whole complex background of why they are there in the first place and that is, in my opinion, because the Universe had something to offer that our consciousness could tap in to. The mechanisms are useful for certain reasons as you state, but the transcendent nature of these experiences and their sources are beyond a single human’s brain “machinery.” It is certainly only a small part of the story of what is going on as a so called explanation. The neuroimaging and pointing to neurological correlations or “locations” in the brain which are activated or deactivated etc. only shows that the “machinery” is there to permit the consciousness of such phenomenon and just plain neuroscience, especially from a materialistic point of view does little to help us find the meaning, value, and complex “causes” of these phenomenon and experiences. We must rely on spirituality, the arts, philosophy etc. to highlight the meaning, value, and “explanation” of the reality of these experiences. The mechanisms we find in the brain permitting such phenomenon do help to verify, in my view, that the phenomenon is not just “made up” by someone one day, but obviously took eons of evolution impinged upon us by the reality of greater cosmic activity. This is also opposed to the idea that it is just a “by product” of societal evolution and doesn’t have any real meaning beyond the human either. Evolution doesn’t seem to work that way.

I appreciate your sharing that Enrique and also your heartfelt response as well Greg. I wouldn’t add too much other than that I would like to agree that learning about Whitehead’s philosophy has been both eye opening and validating for me personally and has literally changed my life in some important ways. As Greg mentioned, I also am deeply sympathetic to this intuition as well. Greg, I really enjoyed reading your thread here about bringing Gendlin in to the conversation and exemplifying how Whitehead helps to enhance, or go beyond the first person grounding of experience to incorporate the “bigger” all important “picture” of the complexity of personal becoming related to all else that has become… and will become, I might add. Well said!

This is a great summarizing thread George. Nelson you’re right in that Sheldrake has been an instigator so to speak and is pretty heavy handed. I think Sheldrake is especially sensitive to some of the quite perilous and down right destructive consequences of dogma in science for society and our relationship with Gaia.
There are many great points here, I just wanted to clarify one thing about internal and external relationships for Whitehead. It is definitely true that reality (actual occasions) is internally related in it’s relationship to the past data prehended. However, for Whitehead there is definitely external consistency and causation as well in several ways. One there is the prehension of fields of possibility in the form of prehension of potential for actualization or eternal objects. Second, this would not only include novel possibility for future actualization, but also incorporate the external relationships of the past patterns in nature as well similar to morphic fields. In agreement with Whitehead, for Sheldrake I think, morphogenic resonance would be not only fields of possibility based on the patterns and resonance of the past, but also novel enhancement of the continued patterns of the future based on that past. For Whitehead this would be prehension of the physical poles of the data of the past which also includes the past patterns valued and manifested through the actualization of past relationships of eternal objects (fields/patterns of possibility and external relationships). This would be akin to the morphic resonance of past patterns being incorporated to the becoming of present actual occasions. Importantly, Whitehead gives a mechanism by which those patterns can be enhanced and have novelty introduced through the prehension of novel relationships of eternal objects (akin to morphogenic fields changing with the evolution of actualized reality for Sheldrake, i.e. the laws of nature are limiting, but also more pliable than some eternal external force that somehow has just always been there). For Whitehead, the prehension of the physical and conceptual poles of past reality/patterns etc. along with the fields of possibility for the future is both internal to the becoming actual occasion and external to all the occasions of the future which that actual occasion provides data for. Thus, both internal and external relationships are always maintained in a non-dual causal fashion. This is also because once an actual occasion internalizes the data of the past, this also contains all of the external relationships that previous actual occasion formed in the becoming of itself related to all the incorporated data from the past as well. I hope that is not more confusing, but I wanted to clarify that for Whitehead both internal and external relationships are always at play in the becoming of actual occasions and the formation of the patterns of nature both locally and non-locally similar to morphogenic resonance.

Thank you for this rich post Roni! Griffen’s book you mention is a really good one! Sounds like you’ve really engaged closely with the text. The whole intertwining of Christianity and materialism is a very interesting one and on the surface you wouldn’t think that would be the case. Another VERY excellent treatment and account of just how all that happened which is an amazing piece of scholarship is Charles Taylor’s “A Secular Age.” It is an immense book to say the least, but is probably the most comprehensive account of the argument for the secularization of science and the modern mind, and the advent of materialism taking over as the predominant “way of knowing” in the modern western world. Anyway, I hope there can be a 21st century third tradition. I feel that is one of the messages of the course in general and a message hopefully we can carry out there in our daily lives.

You bring up a good point George how “science” is really the gateway to knowledge and belief formation especially in the “western world” and of the “western mind.” This is not necessarily bad in all ways, and this course also has the permeating thread of the pitfalls of this too. However, it does help in our modern world. I believe Sheldrake goes in to some of the emerging science of morphogenic fields/resonance in at least two of his more recent books The Science Delusion, and The Presence of the Past if I recall. He also discusses extensively the types of experiments which may help to “prove” the theory. I would highly reccomend both. There’s also a really good one called Science and Spiritual Practices he wrote recently. I’m not sure about the theology he discusses there, but my guess based on other of his writings I’ve read, he would likely be open to the idea of divinity in some form for sure. At least for Sheldrake, likely not the classical theism of Christianity though. I’d like to delve more in to that myself.

Thank you for your reflection and your story as well! I too have had some experiences like that and while not necessarily a “burning bush” so to speak, nonetheless life changing/enhancing in very positive ways. I like that book Quantum Change as well. I have not read the whole thing yet, but would still highly recommend is as well. It is sitting on my shelves and I have read excerpts, but it is definitely pertinent to my dissertation work and I’m glad you mentioned it and reminded me of it.

Hi Bill, I really enjoyed reading your post here. I like how you raise the importance of emotion, feeling, and interdependence along with collective felt and experienced aims within the physical pole of prehension. You are right that for each actual occasion and society of interdependent occasions there is the collective emotion embedded within the actualized physical pole as well and that part of physical prehension necessarily involves this as well, not just the conceptual part. Indeed the visceral unconscious, un-reflected upon part of experience in the present moment of becoming. Bringing this up to emphasize, and mentioning the Buddhist component to your reflection as well is very important and poignant.

Thank you for your additional reflections on this thread! Very insightful, that sounds like a wonderful idea for a paper and I for one would enjoy reading it.

Hello Greg and Nelson, thank you for these wonderful stories and reflections. I appreciate how these are great examples of this new/remembering the old view of science and reality can be incorporated still. It is important to teach those coming up doing this kind of work the importance of this skill so it can be honed and further improve our relationship with Gaia and each-other. Thank you both for these contributions, I feel I have nothing earth shattering to add, just wanted to express gratitude for sharing this and your work!

This is an excellent discussion, the things I would probably add I posted to Josh’s other responses in the session 4 discussion. You all are raising very important and nuanced issues that is still being worked out as part of this philosophy and our most conscientious account of reality.

Hi Josh, this is a great question, please see my response to your post about session 4 reflections. In essence, you are right that quantum events or fields of possibility are not particles. Sub atomic particles would be a society of actual occasions, although very simple compared to a society that makes up a crystal, a plant, or indeed a human being. However, actual entities are not particulate either for Whitehead. It is confusing at times and the greater context of his writings must be taken in to account, but some of the definitions are pretty clear in Process and Reality and then further elaborated on in his subsequent books of course. I would just hesitate to refer to either actual entities, or actual occasions as particulate. You are right in comparing the wave/particle duality as an example of how difficult it is for us to wrap our minds around this. Whitehead’s metaphysics help us to try and understand how there is no “simple location” at all levels of reality and that the “duality” is really a false problem which is a result of our own abstractions to account for what we observe in reality.

Hello Josh, I thought I had responded already, but it seems to not have gone through and actually posted, so I am going to write another response and try and capture what I said previously LOL. This can be sort of a response to other posts too. You have made a rich reflection and indeed covered a lot of ground! One thing I might try and clarify is some of the metaphysical definitions Whitehead puts out there about actual entities and actual occasions. Granted it can be confusing and the greater context of all of his books, especially from Science and the Modern World and on through Modes of Thought must be taken in to account regarding this. The definitions are probably most clear in Process and Reality, but further elaborated on in the other books too.
Essentially, actual entities and actual occasions can be used interchangeably except in one important instance. Whitehead’s God is the only actual entity which is not an actual occasion because God is not actualized in temporal reality the same way actual occasions are. God is eternal and actual occasions are finite within actualized in spatio-temporal reality. So, actual entities = God + all actual occasions. The real, finite “things” or drops of experience that make the actualized world of becoming are actual occasions. They are the final facts of reality. The distinction of course raises all sorts of other issues which would be a side discussion, but I would hesitate to equate actual occasions with particles because for Whitehead in the end there is no particulate matter similar to how a Plank length is not a particle, or how quantum fields of possibility are not particulate, but nonetheless very real. For Whitehead (and quantum physics is now also holding this to be true as well) there is no “simple location” as he puts it, or particulars of matter. However, there are finite, independent events of actualized reality that he calls actual occasions. Another way to look at this is from the standpoint of consciousness. Consciousness that we enjoy is not a “thing” you can point to, but is a stream that is permitted by the function of our brains within a spectrum of experience which pervades the entire Universe. There are neurological correlates to consciousness, and of course we know that if those areas are damaged, or suppressed with anesthesia etc. The full consciousness we experience is no longer permitted, but “it” is still not a substance so to speak, or particulate. It is an event. Perhaps this is redundant for you, but I thought I just wanted to clarify especially regarding the use of particles etc. I look forward to more of your contribution to the course! You are raising important issues.

Hello Enrique, thank you for this post. I think you have it exactly right. I like that quote from Process and Reality. That sums up very well how Whitehead’s idea of eternal objects, or pure potential are not Platonic forms at all, quite the opposite. That is the most essential point that duality of any kind is done away with by Whitehead’s philosophy. The Universe is not a collection of objects, but of happening as you put it. A world of non-dual physical and conceptual events.

This is a great thread, and quite thought provoking questions. Instead of responding, if we have time, I am going to try and bring up the overall highlights of this the next time I dialogue with Matt which will be our last session on Nov. 5th. Hopefully we can get to it as I think it brings up a lot of good points.

Thank you all for this great thread. You all make good points about the usefulness of technology as well as the quite dangerous pitfalls. I think Eric brings up something quite pertinent and that is a “meaning crisis.” I think it is absolutely something we can do as philosophers to help emphasize solutions to this. Asking what it is to be human in a cosmological sense and what we can do to promote flourishing, harmony, and the Good is absolutely essential. I think this is an important part of Whitehead’s notion of Beauty. In so doing, truths will distill out in all areas of what we do as humans from the scientific to the ethical. By slowly eliminating things from our educational systems like the humanities we erode our ability to discern our “meaning” within Gaia and the cosmos. This is just one example which is leading to our demise as well as many species on Earth with us. I would hope that remembering the wisdom of those like Goethe despite some of his errors can help mediate a sort of acceptance of other ways of knowing which are equally important with scientific revelations. This is a thoughtful thread!