Replies

I was not aware of Sheldrake or morphic resonance before Matt’s interview (“Rupert Sheldrake on the Influence of A. N. Whitehead”). It seems to me that, while there are aspects of Whitehead’s philosophy of organism in Sheldrake’s morphic resonance hypothesis, there are differences as well. Sheldrake seems more comfortable conveying morphic resonance than process of organism. I appreciate your comparison above.

I also did a little digging to learn more about Sheldrake. As Matt points out in the introduction, Sheldrake is a controversial figure in the “science establishment.” Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. I think Whitehead’s philosophy of organism is also on the controversial side of things. But Sheldrake also strikes me as a bit of an agitator. See, for example, his “10 Dogmas of Science,” from his book Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery and summarized in the Open Horizon essay Liberating Science from the Dogmas ​of Science:

Ten Dogmas of Science
1. Nature is mechanical.
2. Matter is unconscious.
3. Laws of nature are fixed.
4. Total amount of matter and energy are always the same.
5. Nature is purposeless.
6. Biological inheritance is material.
7. Memories are stored as material traces.
8. Mind is in the brain.
9. Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

These are issues that bump up against philosophy of organism as well, as Sheldrake summarizes in the article. Sheldrake ruffled more feathers, with many critics pushing back, saying he is mischaracterizing these as “unquestioned dogmas” and that his own hypothesis of morphic resonance is “pseudoscience” that lacks empirical support. See, for example, 10 dogmas of science dismantled.

While I agree that “mainstream science” needs to broaden its views of what constitutes evidence, I think Sheldrake’s critique is heavy-handed and doesn’t exactly foster constructive dialogue. And it seems to me that Sheldrake has a lot more work to do to provide testable hypotheses and empirical support for morphic resonance.

Of course, I knew very little about philosophy of organism before the beginning of this year and knew nothing of Sheldrake until this past week, so I’m certainly no expert.

Nelson

Thanks for sharing that, Dennis.

I’m moved by Barbara Ehrenreich’s description of her mystical experience, particularly “a furious encounter with a living substance that was coming at me through all things at once, too vast and violent to hold on to, too heartbreakingly beautiful to let go of.”

The link to the Institute of Mystical Experience Research and Education site includes “over 100 well-documented mystical experience cases from a range of individuals – people from a broad spectrum of backgrounds, times, and places.” Sounds like a wealth of experiences that should at least be considered, as Dr. Kelly advocates.

Nelson

George and Roni,

I’ve wrestled with this for about a week now, went down a few virtual paths to more puzzlement, and I’m still not any closer to an aha(!) revelation. Both systems theory and Whitehead’s philosophy of organism reject the reductionist approach for a holistic approach that views the whole as greater than its parts. Both emphasize the interconnection between the components as key. But they approach the “parts” (even what constitutes the parts) and get there in different ways. I’m not convinced they’re describing the same emergence. And that may not make much sense. This (or what follows) is not me-splaining (you’re intelligent folks and don’t need me for that) but me trying to sort out some connection that seems to be hiding from me.

Systems theory infers the existence of emergence while breaking down the artificial “boundaries” of various disciplinary fields, from physical to social sciences. It integrates a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the behavior of the system as a whole, describing the more complex behavior of a system. It only applies to those components that can be described and doesn’t view all of reality as one integrated process. Whitehead’s philosophy of organism does just that, for all of reality, from subatomic particles to the universe (all the way down and all the way up). Emergence is at its foundation, across all actual occasions.

Maybe, if I believe what I just wrote, one difference between systems theory and philosophy of organism is how emergence plays into the process: Systems theory acknowledges emergence as a feature of systems behavior that can be studied, but doesn’t go as far as saying it’s the ultimate nature of reality while philosophy of organism views emergence as the foundation of reality.

But I’m ready to hear where I may be straying.
Nelson

Roni,

I appreciate your reflection here, particularly “Biology teaches us the bush, as it decays, becomes other forms of life, nutrients for creatures in the soil and nutrients that will eventually comprise another “living” plant” and “The apparently dead bush is in process of re-making, re-creating, re-purposing, re-incarnating – perhaps resurrecting.”

I was thinking along those lines during that same discussion and pondering what it means to be creative in Whitehead’s thinking. One thing that came to mind for me is the role that fallen trees play as nurse logs, particularly in old growth forests. We might see a fallen tree and think of it as “dead.” Some might see it as an obstacle that gets in the way of hiking; others may see it as “messy clutter” or future fuel for fires that needs to be cleared out. But they play a vital role in the continuation of the forest – re-making, re-creating, re-incarnating, as you said.

Here’s a short description of nurse logs, along with some photos: Nurse Logs (Ancient Forest Alliance)

Not only do they support the continuation of their own species, but they provide a source of nutrients and shelter that contributes to the continued growth and development of the forest. One could argue that, through this particular event of a tree falling in the woods, creativity continues in new series of actual occasions that grow out of it.

[Nelson Thurman]

Thanks all for a very interesting discussion thread!

My first reaction to Koutroufinis’s paper regarding Whitehead’s interpretation of life was along the lines of “Why couldn’t Whitehead stop at organism? Why did he have to bring in an expanded definition of life to confuse things?” As Dennis noted in an earlier comment in this thread, “There’s no single definition that satisfies all disciplines.” Indeed, a “necessary and sufficient” definition for “life” depends on who does the defining and for what purpose. Biology and medicine focus on observable biological processes such as metabolism, breathing, growth, and reproduction – more of a reductionist or mechanical approach to life. Systems theory and complexity science looks more at interconnected systems and the emergence of complex behaviors (I think that’s in one of Segall’s chapters we read for this session). That comes closer to Whitehead’s way of thinking in some areas but not others. Philosophers, poets and artists, theologians and [insert a discipline or field of study not mentioned yet] each have different purposes for formulating their own necessary and sufficient definitions of life. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that there’s no one working definition of life that satisfies all needs.

My evolving reaction is why should I be surprised that Whitehead would formulate his own concept of life that reflects his process way of thinking, his philosophy of organism? [I’m still wrestling with whether I buy into his expansion of the concept of “life” to include both biotic and nonbiotic entities all the way up and all the way down.] His focus is on a metaphysics that provides a coherent, comprehensive framework to unify our understanding of the universe, so this would fit into that approach.

Finally, I’m reminded (from Chapter 6 of Segall’s book) that Whitehead’s philosophy is not a scientific theory that can be tested in the lab: “Like physics, metaphysics should be undertaken as an experimental practice, only the experiments are to be performed on language itself. ‘The success of the imaginative experiment… is always to be tested by the applicability of its results beyond the restricted locus from which it originated.’” [p. 86]

Looking forward to the continued discussion here and during the session this evening!

Nelson

• This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by Nelson Thurman.

George,

I appreciate your coding analogy for describing concrescences of actual events and for better understanding ANW’s process philosophy. As a someone who occasionally dared to use coding in my scientific endeavors, I’d like to argue that, despite what DeepSeek says, some of those early codes were very creative in the way they’d crash. Turned out what was “creative” was the way I had failed to anticipate what some less-than-well-considered bit of code or routine would misbehave and that, yes, that crash was entirely predictable from my error. Nevertheless, you’ve given me a new way to thinking about ANW’s process thinking – and I can use all the analogies I can get to wrap my mind around his metaphysics.

Nelson

[Nelson Thurman]

Dennis and George,

I did a not-so-deep-dive (more like a surfing across the top) of “archetypal values” as a part of my continuing effort to better understand how Whitehead and other process thinkers prehend the universe (or at least try to describe it). Although there seems to be various applications for the term, it appears to have its roots in Carl Jung and his 12 archetypes (innocent, everyman, hero, caregiver, explorer, rebel, lover, creator, jester, sage, magician, ruler). Jung referred to these as the “collective unconscious” that influence our thoughts and behavior. Jung, as I interpret it – rightly or wrongly – saw these as inherent patterns of behavior that are recognizable across cultures. These are also passed on in the stories, narratives, and myths we tell each other.

Based on that, I can see an argument being made that archetypal values are an eternal object. Maybe someone with a better understanding of Jung’s archetypes or how it might fold into Whitehead’s philosophy of organism can offer a better perspective.

Nelson

• This reply was modified 6 months, 4 weeks ago by Nelson Thurman.

[Nelson Thurman]

One could argue Christianity is both in crisis and in transition. This question is which will prevail. There’s a process theology flavor to the post (I noticed ample reference to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who Andrew Davis mentioned in his class on Whitehead’s philosophy; I also noticed the Center for Process Studies is one of the partners for the Center for Christogenesis, where this post resides).

There’s argument that Christianity has lost touch with its calling and the world around it:

“A Christianity that promises to protect us from the world cannot help us learn to live responsibly within it. A faith that sees nature as merely the stage for human salvation cannot inspire the ecological conversion our planetary crisis demands. A religion that is primarily therapeutic cannot provide the prophetic voice that challenges the systems of domination and exploitation destroying the earth.”

In the same way many of the essays we’ve read for this course talk about the need for wholesale change in thinking/doing, this particular post does the same for Christianity in its closing:

“The path forward requires nothing less than a complete reimagining of Christianity—not as a rescue operation from the world but as conscious participation in the world’s transformation. This evolutionary Christianity will recognize that the Christ event is not a supernatural intervention in natural history but the emergence of a new level of consciousness that reveals the divine nature of reality itself. It will understand salvation not as escape from matter but as the divinization of matter, the awakening of the cosmos to its own sacred nature. Such a Christianity will be simultaneously mystical and prophetic, deeply rooted in the contemplative tradition yet boldly engaged with the ecological and social crises of our time. It will offer not therapeutic comfort but transformative challenge, calling us to become conscious participants in the ongoing creation of a more complex, conscious, and compassionate world.”

As someone who finds himself more on the edges/border of Christianity (often pushing outwards), rather than in the middle of it, I hope more of us in the Christ tradition take this reimagining seriously.

• This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by Nelson Thurman.

I appreciate that you asked the question and shared the insight, George. Maybe there’s some hope for an alternative economy that isn’t based on perpetual monetary growth and debt. As I read through this post a second time, I picked up on something else that has always given me unease: the concept of a zero sum game – what is gained on one side must be lost by the other. That’s another assumption that needs to be questioned (at least in my opinion). In fact, I decided to do just that in a separate post on the forum.

Thanks for sharing that, Monte.

Based on the intro video and information on the website, I see some overlap between the solidarity circles and some of the ecological civilization ideas we’ve been discussing in this class: working toward a more just economy than the exploitative, extractive one we have now; connecting faith to building an alternative economy and society (something more in the Christian faith need to do); active listening and using storytelling as a framework for social change; developing co-ops and social venture efforts (with examples!).

Although I’m not in the clergy, I’m intrigued to learn more. Peace! Nelson

I like your idea here. It strikes me as a shift from commodity/acquisition-based economics to something based on sharing of time/talent/skills/service is a movement toward ecological civilization. There have been efforts in that direction before, such as Peace Corps and the more recent AmeriCorps program (before the current US administration decided to end it). I know a number of young people who joined AmeriCorps after high school and felt their lives were greatly enriched by it. On the other end of the age scale, I volunteered to provide pro-bono work for local communities who were trying to navigate environmental regulations and/or grants (well, until the current US administration chopped grants and environmental regs). Maybe there are still avenues through other non-governmental organizations.

Thanks for sharing, Andrew!

Thanks, Andrew! Your reply led me down a rabbit hole that surfaced (at least for now) at the The Merwin Conservancy which cares for that palm garden on Maui that Merwin and his wife planted. It sounds like a very ecological civilization thing to do!

Oh, and the Merwin Conservancy website includes an extensive library of his Poems.

Roni,
Thanks for the reflection. Those are hard questions to wrestle with! It’s easy to question whether you’re making a difference when you start to realize our interconnections don’t just occur among ourselves and the natural world around us but also with every other aspect of life. I’ve noticed that some of those questions are intended to sow confusion and discouragement. For instance, the Carbon Footprint thing, while intended to provide a perspective on what parts of industry/society have the biggest impact on greenhouse gas production, became an advertising campaign tool used by British Petroleum so you could measure your individual footprint and not theirs. It was a successful deflection for them.

In Katharine Hayhoe’s excellent book Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World, she writes that individual choices alone won’t be enough to address climate change. Change has to happen at a systemic level [which points to your last question] and involves moving away from fossil fuels. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything. She writes:

“When we feel empowered to act, individually and communally, that makes us not only more likely to act, but to support others who do.” (p. 201-202)
“…together, as a community, we can make a difference.” (p. 202)
“…connecting with others imbues us with a stronger sense of collective efficacy and builds a network of like-minded people.” (p. 204)

Our personal choices and actions may not save the world by themselves, but they move us in a direction that more reflects our values, and our actions, in turn, can inspire others to do the same. Or open opportunities for conversation. Changing the system (and I’ll argue that, yet, systems are called to repent) won’t start with those who benefit from that system. That starts from the grassroots and moves upward.

Okay, I’ll step off my soapbox, but I highly recommend Katharine Hayhoe’s book – I’ve used it to lead a couple of discussion groups on climate change and the environment.

Dennis and Bhavana,

First of all, thanks to both of you for sharing your questions and observations. You’ve led me to ponder things I wouldn’t have otherwise considered and I feel deeply enriched as a result. In fact, I’m only auditing this class and probably wouldn’t have been as engaged as I have been without your participation.

Second, a brief response to Dennis’s observation/question:

The “initial aim” is an offering of God’s love for every occasion of experience, and this lures creation toward beauty and justice. What can we say about today’s societal landscape? Has the lure failed massively?

I’ve had similar questions. It seems to me that there’s a large segment of US society that has no use for persuasive lures toward beauty and justice, but have latched onto coercive force in an attempt to impose their wills and sense of order onto the rest of this country. While I see some signs of growing pushback, I wonder how much traction love and persuasion will have to turn things around. Several times Suchocki wrote about the church’s role in being faithful to its mission and proclaiming/promoting things such as “inclusive well-being” and addressing social problems (in Chapter 10). The church has always been imperfect (she even notes it in the book) and not always faithful to its mission, especially promoting “inclusive well-being.” Particularly not today. I wonder how Suchocki would address this if she were writing this book today, rather than in 1982/1989.

Finally, I appreciate Bhavana’s comment: “That Jesus just is…an invitation to engage in a different enchantment.” It strikes me that the community that claims to follow Jesus today could benefit from answering that invitation!

Look forward to seeing you all this evening!