Rick Scott
This resonates for me, I also *feel* deeply and even ecstatically the experience of reading, thinking, contemplating. I pause often and let the feeling sink in.
Science seeks empirical truth, metaphysics seeks ontological truth.
And never the twain shall meet?
I tend toward separating theory from practice.
The theory is like a set of perfect Platonic Forms; the practice is … messy!
Though this feels good (and natural), it prevents me from living the teachings.
You have got 280 feet of water to live for!
I’m familiar with the Whiteheadian concepts of dominant occasion, regnant occasion, enduring object, personally ordered society, all of which address how “the many become the one” (how the totality of my occasions become ME). But are they truly satisfying philosophically?
Leslie: There is something about Dr. McDaniel’s voice and content that feels deeply congruent with Process thought.
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I have often thought that Jay’s voice is pleasant and soothing to listen to. It invites you in, offers you clarity and refuge. It is confident in what it says, but not dogmatic.
Jennifer: Isn’t this arising and perishing true of everything at all times?
Jay: These things – eternal objects, pure potentialities – can be embodied in different contexts, but are not themselves temporal. … Might they be ‘evolving,’ too? He thinks not, but he might be wrong.
If he’s wrong, eventually someone will ‘fix’ what’s broken. After all, unless he took his philosophy to be an eternal object, he’d be the first to admit that it too will evolve. Right? 🙂
Thomas: I am a Nemophilist. My spiritual practice is called Shinrin Yoku.
Two new terms for me, thanks! So you’re a bit of a nature mystic? There’s a rich long tradition there, right? All those yummy 18th-19th century nature poets. 🙂
Charles, thanks. 🙂
It seems strange to me that an eternal object — a key element of a philosophy grounded in ubiquitous change — is itself unchanging. It’s almost as if Buddhism asserted everything was empty, except for emptiness, which would (as you know) pretty much ruin the viability of the emptiness teaching!
I’m not trying to criticize process philosophy, I’m in no position to do that, rather to understand it.
Thanks!
Rick
Aha, good. I brought in Gestalt theory for more or less the same reason: the notion that the whole is different from (not reducible to) the sum of its parts.
Charles and Kent, thank for your replies. 🙂
I feel my question about actual occasion irreducibility is answered here:
Charles: My understanding of an actual entity is that it isn’t really a simplex, something composed of a single part and irreducible for that reason. Rather, I think that it would be better to describe actual occasions as indivisible, atomic (in the the word’s original sense of “indivisible”). They’re indivisibly integrated and unified units of complexity. There’s complexity in an actual occasion, but it’s concresced into a unity that can’t be taken apart and with a character of its own.
What I get from this: An actual entity/occasion is not irreducible in the sense of being monolithic (sans parts), it is indivisible in the sense of being a kind of Gestalt that cannot be unraveled into something ‘less than’ itself.
Close?
Definitely! Judging from the breadth of your responses here, you clearly have a deep felt-understanding for process thought. If I might ask, would you say you ‘live’ your worldview, let it guide your everyday thoughts and actions?
Charles, thanks. 🙂
The short version of the explanation of Whitehead’s repudiation of subject-predicate thinking is that it involves the perspective that process precedes being.
Eric, hi. I am a composer. Could you recommend some composers/works that embody process thought, either explicitly (as in applying Whitehead’s ideas to music) or implicitly (exemplifying the essence of process thought)? Thanks!
Who knows, maybe even the core laws of the universe and truths of mathematics evolve over time?