Replies

Interesting questions, Andrew. I’ve found myself more closely examining my concept of mind and soul with this class – not as an existential crisis but as a way of better focusing on what I understand them to be. Even so, there’s probably more I don’t understand than I do.
Going back to the section in Chapter 5 about the soul being the “cumulative flow of [our] experience,” it seems to me that Whitehead is countering the idea that the soul (or mind or psyche) is somehow “supernatural” and separate from our bodies, experiences, and the world around us. I don’t think this necessarily implies a passive response to flow, or the lack of individual identity. That could also be my insistence that we’re more than an organic form of AI functioning in the universe.
A little later in the chapter, Mesle writes:

“Life is a balance between order and novelty. In that flow of experiences and decisions, a certain persistent personality is shaped.” (p. 49)

That suggests active engagement and decision-making that reflects our personality. I still struggle with this idea when considering that the “flow” of events is more of a constant stream than a trickle and a lot of our responses are likely reflexive rather than deliberative consideration. Maybe that’s where the “balance between order and novelty” comes into play. Through our earlier experiences and subsequent decisions, we develop unique perspectives and responses to event possibilities. It’s why we don’t all merge into the same event flow and decision path (if that’s a term).
I appreciate Dennis’s quote on the meaning of soul as a perspective or viewpoint rather than a substance or a thing. That’s helpful. It’s easier for me to wrestle with the meaning if I consider soul as a viewpoint rather than a supernatural substance.

Whitehead’s view of God may not find traction in the more “traditional” forms of western Christianity, especially the more fundamentalist/conservative segments. However, John Cobb wrote and taught a lot about this view of God in Process Theology circles and there is a growing segment of Christian process theologians who accept it. See Homebrewed Christianity for example. In fact, I know a number of progressive Christians whose views reflect large parts of Whitehead’s view of God. I’ve always been on the edge of the Christian tradition (someone described it as being a boundary pusher) and I’m not trying to defend what is still the dominant Christian view. Instead, if I hadn’t been exposed to John Cobb’s process theology, I probably wouldn’t still be a part of the Christian faith. I’m not alone in this.

This class brings out the challenges in trying to describe complex phenomena. I’m beginning to understand why Whitehead had to develop new meanings for existing words or come up with new words. But that adds to my confusion as I try to switch between the commonly-accepted meaning and Whitehead’s new meaning. I also find myself struggling to find the right words to explain what I’m thinking. The responses here have been helpful for me both in better understanding process thought and in refining what I’m thinking.
Your comments about the physical and mental poles are helpful. In the first illustration – a broader “community” that incorporates non-living rocks or minerals with living organisms – I wonder if one way of thinking about it is that the community of living organisms incorporates the rocks, minerals, and such into the larger community. Maybe the nonliving part don’t maintain a separate identity but “experience” by being enfolded in the larger community. The second illustration involves a community of living organisms – trees (or plants) and fungi joining together in an interconnected network that, together, responds to events (such as pest pressures, nutrient or water needs, weather) in ways that sustain the community without giving up their ability to experience as individuals. I need to think about that more.

Daryl,
Drawing attention to the interconnectedness of all life is a big reason why I’ve been drawn to process thought. I’m hoping to get a better foundation in Whitehead’s thinking.

Thanks, George. Coming into this as a neophyte (or at least someone who is far removed from a more rigorous philosophical study), I appreciate the grouping as a way of considering the implications of Whitehead’s thought.

Thanks for the reading recommendation, Dennis. I hope to further explore the ideas of “living mountains” (I’ve read bits of Nan Shepherd’s book Living Mountains, which inspired the subtitle of this one). What constitutes a “mountain” indeed differs depending on one’s background (geologist, geographer, biologist, ecologist, etc). Ecologists and environmentalists generally take a more holistic perspective that includes the living organisms associated with the rock/landforms, and that has contributed to my expanded notions, similar to yours.
I also interpret Whitehead’s use of “democracies” and “monarchies” as metaphors.

[Nelson Thurman]

Andrew and Dennis,
I have a better understanding of the 20 key ideas of process thought than I do of Whitehead’s categories of existence. However, your discussion inspired me to try to apply my experiences (leading a couple of short courses on climate change for a church group and engaging neighbors about impacts) within the context of nexus and society to see if I can start making sense of it.
The science and data are pretty clear that (a) climate change is happening, (b) humans are responsible, (c) if we keep on the same trajectory as we are now, things will only get worse, and (d) we already know how to address it [see Katharine Hayhoe’s book Saving Us for more]. But it’s not sufficient. Those who are worried or concerned about climate change believe that, unless we do something, we’re going to cause irreparable harm to the world (human and non-human). They see climate change as a threat to society as a whole. There are others who, even when they experience the impacts of climate change, continue to deny it (as Dennis noted). They see the push to address climate change as a threat to society as they know it. Why? According to Hayhoe, the issue isn’t science but political identity, tribalism, and fear.
This is where I think Whitehead’s concepts of Nexus (or Societies) might be helpful, if I understand them correctly (and if not, please set me straight). I’m relying on this brief description in the reading:

“Nexūs and societies reveal how individual occasions of experience participate in larger patterns of becoming…”

We may be in the same general flow of events related to the accumulating impacts of climate change but other experiences separate us when it comes to responding. Katharine Hayhoe suggests finding common interests elsewhere and then tie that interest to climate change. I’ve had conversations with skeptical neighbors on how our gardens are faring and how the heat/humidity is rough on their kids playing soccer. That opened lines of communication that didn’t previously exist. No single event (conversation) may change them, but an accumulation of events could impact the “larger pattern of becoming.”
Back to the concept of nexus and society: On one level, people on different sides of the climate change issue may be part of separate Nexuses (is that a word?). If we stop there, we may not bridge the differences. But people may also exist in more than one nexus at the same time (gardening or kids in school or sports, for example). That may be venturing into quantum probabilities – we exist in more than one nexus and how we respond to events may depend on which nexus we find ourselves. Processing our experiences through overlapping rather than diverging nexuses could lead to a different becoming than would have otherwise occurred.
Does any of that make sense?
Nelson

• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Nelson Thurman.

George, I just read your intro and noticed that. I’m in Springfield, within a stone’s throw of the Beltway and the Mixing Bowl.

Yes, that’s clear, Bob. I probably should have waited until after the orientation call this afternoon/evening before asking. Thanks!