Joshua Hogins
I have not read that one, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I’ll probably take a look at it.
Hi Roni, this is a great reflection. I think Creativity could be two things here. Your description of creativity as an eternal object is right I think and can thus be a lure of feeling for sure. For Whitehead Creativity is more than an eternal object as well. It is for Whitehead the “Absolute.” On p.21 of Process and Reality he begins to describe creativity and mentions that it “replaces” Aristotle’s notion of the primary substance. Creativity is the most fundamental aspect of the Universe that is actually happening. Eternal Objects, for Whitehead, are the possibilities we and all actual occasions can perceive or prehend to use his term. So, when we imagine an idea that would challenge a belief as you mention we are prehending sets of eternal objects like justice, or the good, and possibilities of the future, along with the actual data of the past which contributes to the overall experience that might expand a worldview. This is creativity and novelty itself. It is just what the Universe does.
I think creativity could also be an eternal object as well in the way that you describe it. You are describing the idea or the form of creativity much in the same what that we might describe the good, or beauty, or truth in general. It is an idea, potential, or possiblity which can be actualized in to reality by the actual occasion imagining the possiblity. This possibility or potential is an eternal object for Whitehead, or a set of relational concepts which can be actualized for definite facts by actual occasions. Eternal objects for Whitehead are a category of existence just like actual occasions. Thus ideas like the good, or justice are actual real possibilities and not just something a single human might just make up one day. They are the product of those eternal objects being ingressed in to reality over eons.
Please see my above response to this whole thread, my reply originally was a reply to Chris D. Again, this is a great thread and thank you for all your contributions. I hope the rest of the class has a chance to read this one (and all of them) as there are some great explanations of Whitehead’s philosophy in here and some great topics for discussion.
This is an excellent summary to the question Chris. Thank you for all the references to Whitehead’s literature as well! This is indeed evidence of some great scholarship and I am glad you have taken the time to explain so much in Whitehead’s philosophy, it is quite helpful! This thread is quite impressive as it gets to the heart of so much in this philosophy as well some very technical aspects of Whitehead’s philosophy and perhaps some gaps as well. His philosophy is very pliable too. I think especially at the end of Modes of Thought Whitehead probably does imply that Nature is Alive at all levels. However, I think he probably wants to preserve some distinctions like between a society of living occasions which may be conscious or not for example. I think he wants to say that while there is panexperientialism at all levels of the Universe, consciousness is a special case which arises that we might not want to attribute to sub-atomic particles, or a collection of gold atoms or something. However, the line is never going to be sharp. It is fractal in nature. I think Chris alludes to this as well in his earlier reply. You all seem to be getting at sort of the similar conclusions and it illustrates how we humans almost have to make abstractions (in a Whiteheadian sense) just to function, but the abstractions are not the fundamental actualities of reality. Great thread you all, I hope the rest of the class reads it.
Hi Keren, I tried to bring this up in the live session directly but we ended up talking about it more indirectly. I hope an answer came out of the discussion when you watch the live lecture, however, I thought I would respond to you in the discussion forum as well.
What Whitehead would make of emergent levels of experience/feeling/consciousness is that there is no sharp line, just as you have said. That is exactly what Whitehead’s discoveries can show us. The fundamental aspects of the Universe function at all levels. So called higher forms of experience like consciousness do not have to emerge out of nothing. It grows out of what the Universe already provides at lower levels so to speak. It is us who in attempt to describe the reality we find ourselves in try to make sharp distinctions between mind and matter etc. Whitehead would call this abstraction. At some level we almost have to do this to function, but the reality of the Universe is that there is no sharp line between biotic and abiotic etc. There is indeed something special as you say about the process of metabolism at higher levels of organization that does not deny interiority and experience to the atoms and sub-atomic particles of which they are composed. That something special is what Whitehead would call a society of actual occasions which have a more unified subjective aim and form which harmonize to unify a subjective aim of the whole organism itself, even a human being, or a galaxy. You are understanding this process philosophy quite well and have highlighted one of the hearts of the matter.
Hi Dennis, I’m glad you brought this up in the discussion at the live session the day before yesterday. I hope that helped! Let me know if you have any more questions or reflections.
Hi George, I like this summary, I think you are getting it right! I’d probably just add a Whitehead jargon term. When you have Germinally up there as a flicker of feeling/creativity etc. I think Whitehead might call that prehension. Prehension is like a feeling of experience for Whitehead that has two parts. There are many types of prehension, but there are two basic parts. One is the “physical” pole which is the actualized data from the past felt by the becoming actual occasion. The second is the conceptual pole which is the feeling, or prehension of the possibilities of the future for that becoming actual occasion. The organism, or unity of experience for Whitehead would then be the satisfaction and concrescence of that actual occasion into reality which immediately perishes to be fixed data for the next occasion in the continuous process.
Hi George, this is very interesting what the AI has to “say” about all of that. I guess I would probably emphasize that the phenomenological and experience is very important. This really gets in to the next 2 sessions a bit early, but I think this exemplifies why, in my opinion, Whitehead’s conception of panexperientialism is important in understanding consciousness. At the level of crystal formation, or the detection of photons in a double slit experiment is somewhat machine like with inputs and outputs without too much in the conceptual pole. However, even “physical” data is “felt out,” experienced, and negatively and positively prehended even at the subatomic level. For example, a photon entangled with another in superposition before detection has to “experience” and feel out the different probabilities and possibilities of its path to collapse of the wave function. AI is probably doing this at some level and is giving outputs based on what humans have put in to the internet for it to determine the possibilities of its answer to the question. Obviously this is very different from consciousness and Whitehead helps us to emphasize experience at all levels of the Universe without consciousness necessarily. The conceptual pole can never be just a simple boolean logic, even at the most fundamental aspects of the Universe. However, we can see how consciousness can grow from this simple seed. Very interesting experiment!
Hello Johannes, I’m glad to see this material is resonating with you so much. Thank you for this great summary of self-agency, and refutation of determinism. I think this is exactly the point that Whitehead is often trying to make. I would just also emphasize, and I think you understand this, that Whitehead likes to make sure we always have it both ways so to speak. There are “stubborn facts” as Whitehead calls them that seem to determine things too like the phenomenon we call gravitation or other so called “laws of physics” etc. It seems we can’t get around that no matter what we try to do. Even if one is religious, Whitehead’s philosophy leaves room to naturalize what seems as though it may be supernatural and outside the laws of physics so to speak. The important part is that, as you argue so well, there is freedom of self determination and autopioesis at the same time. Societies of actual occasions in their self-determination, and also harmonization of subjective forms through prehension of the data of the past etc. form themselves the patterns of nature we call “laws” that seem to be the determinate “stubborn facts.” I think the subtle point you make about determinism is a very good one. At one level, there is not an a-priori set of “laws” that somehow was there before actual occasions. While actual occasions do seem to adhere to certain patterns of nature which make science possible, these patterns were not pre-determined, but are the result of the harmonization of actual occasions flourishing together.
Hi George, you’re right, Whitehead’s conception is really more like a spectrum rather than a clear cut line. His philosophy often does this to “have it both ways” and get rid of duality that haunts so much of philosophy, especially western philosophy. The application of this way of thinking is, of course, important for science and other fields too, because in the end it is very difficult to ultimately, or universally draw clear cut lines like this. That’s a good idea to come out and explicitly say this definition in session one. It has sparked a lot of good discussion, this issue of what is life and what is an organism etc. I think it would be good to be clear on what Whitehead’s stance is though and I’m sure it’ll still spark good discussion! I’ll try and remember that if they invite me to teach this course next year.
Hi Roni, thank you for this reflection that hits on so many important topics. I like how you are advocating essentially that we put this philosophy to work to help solve some of our deepest problems, hospice old ideas that do not work, yet also save what is good about what we already have and the past as well. This is exactly what I feel the ultimate goal of philosophy should be. We, as philosophers and members of society that also do a diversity of other things as vocations as well, have the opportunity to create ideas which can forge this path you mention. We can build upon the tools this philosophy gives us to creatively come up with ways to put an emphasis on value, hospitality, eros, agape, and harmony etc. in to practice in our everyday lives.
Hi Alexandra, I think you are understanding these concepts quite well and I like your application of them in the therapy world. Prehension is definitely a key concept in all of this. The fact that the entire history of other actual occasions, and in fact the entire history of the Universe can be prehended by actual occasions (and nexuses or societies of occasions like a human being) in combination with prehending it’s own possibilities for the future is exactly how we can have both individual agency and freedom as well as an actual connection with the facts of reality as well. We are all internally and externally directly related at the same time. Anyway, I think you are right on track in your summary.
Hi Jeffrey, thanks for this great reflection. I couldn’t agree more and I’m glad you brought in people like McGilchrist and Levin etc. I have really enjoyed how McGilchrist especially in his most recent 2 volume book has really brought Whitehead and process philosophy in explicitly in the final chapters. His work (as well as Levin’s) has reached a very large audience and hopefully this will promote the paradigm shift you mention is just waiting to happen fully. I think we are seeing it play out. The relational concept of truth is very important too that you bring up. This really helps us have a robust definition of truth that invites diversity of ways of knowing without relativism.
Hello Christie, I know many share the terminology difficulty. I am going to make available to the class a book by John Cobb Jr. called The Whitehead Word Book. It helps to explain a lot of Whiteheadian terms and the terms that Whitehead coined himself because our language is deficient in its capacity to have words which encompass the ideas he was trying to get across. I’ll also give a general answer as well. Getting used to this new language requires time, just like learning any new language. You have to commit to the enterprise. I have now spent years reading Whitehead and people exploring his philosophy. New aspects come to light all the time. Many great discoveries are this way as you well know! Just a few comments on some of the words you mention. “Cosmology” refers to an underpinning description, or account of reality. Everything that exists or could come in to existence. This includes more abstract things like ideas, overall patterns or archetypes that seem to help influence or govern things in the Universe. It is a metaphysical framework for trying to understand the conditions and possibilities of this overall. Often, when referring to Whitehead’s “philosophy” and “ontology,” this means his overall philosophy or idea of what he calls “the philosophy of organism.” It is what he tries to explain in detail in his book Process and Reality. Much of his work prior to this book was a maturing of this philosophy. The works after are generally further elaborations and attempts to explain the philosophy without so much jargon (Like his book Modes of Thought for example). His “ontology” is one of relationships, creativity, and experience at all levels of existence and what can possibly exist. It is one that enlivens the entire cosmos as opposed to having it be dead matter that somehow whips up life, experience, feeling and consciousness etc. out of nothing so to speak. The words he uses like prehension, concrescence etc. are “metaphysical place holders” if you will for phenomena that are actually at work within the creative activity of the Universe, but that science and philosophy has poor descriptions of or ignores all together. I hope this helps some and I will make the word book available to the class.
Hi Johannes, thank you for this rich reflection! I personally would agree with you here as a process philosopher and scientist myself, and as an instructor for the course hahaha! I’d say you are right on track. I think one of the things Whitehead is helping us to see is that science does a great deal to help us learn about the Universe because it is this intelligibility of the patterns of relationships of the Universe, and what that creates that makes science possible in the first place. It is easy to see once you “get it” in my opinion. This is where Whitehead helps us get to the real bottom of things so to speak in that there really is no difference between mind and matter. The Universe is a world of experience, feeling, and relationships at all fundamental levels creating the very “physical laws” that science studies. It is an abstraction we have artificially created. Unfortunately there are many ways in which the physicalist and mechanistic view has resulted in destructive patterns of behavior of humans and destruction of the environment we live in. I think your reflections are correct and the next step is to put the philosophy in to practice to help solve some of our problems. You are exactly right, at the base of reality there are only relationships, as you put it “patterns of interaction.” These relationships are vitally important because the Universe, us, societies, our environment etc. depends upon relationships at all levels, including entangled sub-atomic “particles.” Thus we have to value relationships to help solve our problems. So, going beyond just science, our politics, our relationships with other societies etc. have to be based on the “other” as being just as important as ourselves, just like in any good relationship. It is not always easy, but that is the only way out of this great extinction and difficult time we are in currently. I think your views are on track and you have described process philosophy quite well. I would say, when you ask “what presuppositions might you have” is to consider why would someone see things so differently and what are the implications of this. Is it historical? Societal? etc. Whitehead gives us clues as do those such as Bruno Latour and many others. Then we must remind ourselves that these people with differing opinions are also quite intelligent and what common ground can we have to build scientific and societal relationships better so that our problems dissolve easier.