Replies

We may be, Christian! I’ve seen quite a few discussions from scientists around panpsychism lately. Whitehead would have preferred the term panexperientialism I’m sure, as he wouldn’t say that everything is “conscious.” But if we talk about internality or subjectivity, he would definitely agree with that.

Hi Ted,
That’s a great question. Yes, Hillman was pretty much the key figure in that conference. I sadly have not read much Hillman other than what he contributed to The Archetypal Process. I am aware of his idea of polytheistic “gods” in the psyche, and I know he differed from Jung. I don’t believe he addresses that topic in Archetypal Process, but I’ll take another look.

I’m not sure I would find Hillman’s differences with Jung regarding the Self to be compelling enough to allow his thought to supplant Jung’s for me. And that may be because I’m still a theist and possibly biased in that regard. But I’m happy to discuss further!

That’s a great question Christian. I don’t think I can add much to it, but maybe one of the other more math-inclined folks can chime in!

I love this conversation and the comments that you have both made! Kenneth, I’m not sure I can add a whole lot to your thoughts on purusha and atman, though I will say that Jung did draw from the idea of atman in his articulation of the archetypal Self.
We will be talking more about this idea of individuation and contribution later in the class when we talk about value. I’m looking forward to that.

Yes, Ted, great observations!

Thank you Thomas. Yes, that is why I like Whitehead and Jung, because they talk about things in a “one world” sense where there is not a “supernatural” God or world.
I find a panentheistic view to be the most satisfactory. In pantheism, God and world are identical and God doesn’t extend beyond the embodied world. In panentheism, the world is seen as existing in and being contained by God, but God also transcends or exceeds the embodied world.
I think of this in the sense that studies in nonlocality seem to show the existence of mind outside of, or not limited to, the body.

Thank you so much David! I’m so glad to hear that you felt the content to be understandable as presented. The Scientific American article is found here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/. Enjoy!

Ted, I’m sorry to say that my understanding of advanced math is limited, and so I’m not sure I can add anything to your great comment!

Interesting questions Doug! If I’m reading you correctly, it seems like your point about numbers and geometry being related to the physical world aligns with Whitehead’s view that we must, in some way, be perceiving these things unconsciously and physically, rather than just mentally. In the book I mentioned by Robin Robertson on archetypes, he gives some rather compelling examples of how numerical archetypes are even understood by some animals, to a certain point. He points to a study with crows that showed they have an understanding of 1, 2, 3, 4, and “many”. They were not able to differentiate between, say, 5 and 6, but they could “count” up to about 4.

Yes, Doug! Science is crucial for what it does really well. But it certainly has little or nothing to say about things like love, justice, ethics, etc., or even consciousness (at least not yet). I think you’ll enjoy our discussion about perception tonight!

Hello Thomas,
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I completely welcome your skepticism, and am eager to hear your thoughts as we go along. I find the idea of “secular, but not atheistic” to be fascinating, and would like to hear more. So glad you are with us.
Sheri

Hello Ted,
I’m so sorry to hear about the situation with your son, and I know this must be painful for you. I can feel compassion for those who reject evolution because of the way it is often presented – showing a world without meaning, purpose, or soul. I reject that world, and I know that this perspective has meaning for you as well. Sadly, there are those who have gone the route of “intelligent design,” but in doing so most don’t appreciate what this means in terms of their ideas of God – that we must, then, acknowledge that the capacity for evil seems to have been designed in to the system, or is at least a part that cannot be removed. I do think that it is more meaningful to see the world as one in which God uses evolution to create, and that it is a world that co-creates itself. Thank you for your participation in the class and for sharing your thoughts here.

That’s great Ted! Thanks so much for your comments. See you Tuesday!