Replies

@Mark.. did somethng fail to paste.. iye notice ye end abrubtly at the word ‘warn’….thy final senste sentence being ‘He underscores the importance of philosophical openness and warn. ?

ps @At Wood.. a love of editing appears to be
thy wont and ways.. of confounding mye..

@A t Wooodling would
email wodens Day was sent
and iye be wondrous where she wentling
if thy thought bye to reply
but wonder should iye happen by
a wing ed missive may abide
in some strange folder
wqiting theee
and thy body-self a few days older
tyme of course happens rarely
but folk round here seem somwewhat barely

willing a thing and a matter at hand
and process and processurialing too bland
for contemplation other than toothbrush
and mye teeth well scoured whilst life may call us
but usling and weling bye wordlings long banned
and so iye thump back onto ‘dry’ land
with a lack of grace and silent gesture
toward thy inbox where iye await there.

what’s a ‘closing HTML tag’ please (and what’s HTML)?
How does ‘list item’ differ from ordered or bulletted list?
does ‘img’ open an opportunity to upload an image and if so, can it upload an image from a website, or does that have to happen by inserting a link (and therefore not directly inserting an image ).
tthanks!

tahnkyy or even thankthee!

ps.. a single cell? and iye intrigued and not immune to rabbit holes.. iye icarus like go downem or up into balloons and sky hight and plop as ye say,,, to ‘how on earth can i pay the next bill’. (or afford a new toothbrush.. ).. yikes

iye, too, feel ‘at home in’ this conversation.. and .. iye wish to allow for some borrowing of toothbrushes.. not least because old toothbrushes have much to offer in the way of cleaning the corners of windows and hard to reach places.. how little ‘redundancy’ occures .. life seems to have no interest in ‘redundancy.. and nor may wonderous wanderings…
Lessons taught to us in our (most unfortunate) schoolings and Headucationing (Don Miguel Ruiz calls this ‘the domestication process) teaches us a ‘divide and rule’ formulation that tends like Descartian dystopia to mislead .. such that even ‘comparing toothbrush rides’ becomes one of division, (and this naming and dividing ‘convenience’ of course friendling Whitehead has much to saye and iye glad of it).. an idea of some sorrt of Hierarchy sloshes about unseeen… and so far from the strandes of thy toothbrush representing and illuminating myne.. and then agaain.. where and how may beh toothbrushes meet? Not at their ends but in the hands holding them.. and before hands, come bodies and before bodies comes earht and before earth come water and before … and so a mistake perhaps to look atthe ends and the forms and even so called ‘outcomes’.. but who lives inside your toothbrushes .. who dwells thereirn ?

ramble…ramble into wilderland and dare to scare …. what wey once thought safe and under our (ahem) ‘Human’ ( control..)

wow thankye Mark.. how marvellous! – did ye enjoy summarising in this waye?

and how to undo somethng? I clicked ‘reply’ but can’t see a means of saying oops i don’t want to reply after all…

ah.. so the kind of ‘sensing’that is not reliant on the (five named but i’ll include all the other ‘physical’ ones in this, ie proprioception, balance, temperature detection and all sorts of others)… but the kind that doesn’t seem to need ‘differentiated sensory organs’ for capturing any occasion of experience…that’s not being named as ‘sensing’ ? In other words, he’s employing highly specifical lingo and i’m employing common or garden terms for the same happening. And at the same time, his is specific but referrring to the ‘whole lot’ (as ye say, including “as much to the causal transmission linking one electromagnetic wave to the next”. in other words, his term invokes all the orders of magnitude some of which wye maye otherwise overlook?

Iye have another question, if iye now understand how ‘sensing’ is being employed in this context, but i’d add that mammals of which humans are one sort, can sense quite easily electromagnetic fields and heart-fields, etc and so our body-selves- are not unaware nor limited to the commonly named ‘sense organs’ of course. Indiginous trackers employ a great many other ‘senses’ that wye in Urban and so called ‘civilisation’ tend to beat out of each other.

Oops, sorry iye rambled .. here’s the other question.

Would Whitehead say that it’s possible to be ‘affected by (any) occasion of experience without prehending that occasion of experience?

(Iye was also interested to read of his ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ prehensions.. where the latter expression refers to a ‘blocking’ of what iye understand to be ‘further interaction’ ie receptivity, such that events no longer influence each other. ) have iye understood that please ?

iye just found this.. about Sundays and a Zoom group. How long do ye meet for please? (just worked out that’s midnight for mye). Do ye discuss more than the current course ?

thanks Mark. I had not assumed any ‘background’ lingo thus mye context not aligned with thyne of course .. But iye reluctant to invoke Buddhism as the context for considering thye further statements about ‘thought’ !

Here’s what on another strand of thoughtlings iye wondering ..ye suggest “Therefore I believe that being capable of putting names to these processes is of great importance, as this is the only way we can become sensitive to these processes. For example, we cannot see capitalism, we cannot see historical social injustices, we would not have these sensitivities without the intellectuals who found the terminology.”

Iye seee ye confessing/sharing a belief, thus, iye reluctant to share a different view… (becuse ye do not declare a ‘fact’ (- as if there are any anyway). However, iye suggest it’s entirely possible to ‘prehend’ or sense and be sensitive to ‘these processes’ without names, language and linguistics let alone ‘grammar’. Iye do not think ‘putting names to these processes’ is necessary nor the ‘only way’ to become sensitive to ‘these processes’. Iye suggest wye can ‘feel’ and sense capitalism without any such language and wye can ‘see’ (it) bye experiencing it sans language and terminology. However, terminology and labels can do more .. it can both limit what is sensed and prehended, and it can ‘nail it down’. It can also ‘make it abstract’ such that wye beginn not to prehend it at all but to wander about in one pole and lose experiencing (lose sensitivity to experiencing, by ‘lose’ iye mean find means of diversion) thus creating a ‘divided’ self as per many such as Descartes and others plunged into…

(ps my apologies if mye posts are way beneath the ‘levels’ of thye intention and thought.. as is clear, iye flounderinga bout in the foamy brine and mye wings fell off when iye tried to reach some heady heights of academiaismings or rarefied atmospheres….!)

i’ve wondered and searched for any recordings of Whitehead speaking.. as he dyed in 1947 there maybe some, but either iye zoned out because of being confronted with one single picture throughout, or iye found none yet.
Can anyone point mye to some recordings and better still some film? Iye desire some ’embodied’ prehension of this man to sense his ways and thinking so to speak..

can someone explain why the word ‘sensing’ does not equate to ‘prehension’? is it some pre-sumption about the nature of sensing and some idea of by what means ‘sensing’ maybe happening within happenings / ‘events’ and so forth or am iye off piste here… ?

hello Mark. you write:
“Page 109 “the very essence of an entity is to arise, age, and perish” seems too essentialist. The process of life is the struggle against this against all odds.

Whitehead seems to hold on to a linear notion of causality i.e. time moves in one direction and is irreversible. This seems to ignore the implications of a universal nexus whereby time would be “complex” i.e. cyclical and while it is not reversible it is not linear. One way to think of this would see all time unfolding all the time. European culture is exceptional in adopting a linear notion of time – more likely exceptionally wrong.”

Firstly, iye wonder how ye come to this conclusion : “The process of life is the struggle against this against all odds.”. Iye do not experience life as being this ‘struggle’ (though iye experience myne as troubled enough to be so – however, the experiences of a ‘constructed’ system that has ‘struggle’ embedded in it seem to be expressed in mye (personal) life which of course is relational primarily to that very system or so iye suggest (not wanting to fall foul of the content of this course but as is apparent, not being able to glide sweetly through the philosophical undergirdings of Whiteheadian prehension 🙂 !

Secondly, would ye be willing to explain how thy twain paragraphs be linked, please?

Would ye explain how ye are linking these two statement-paragraphs ? are ye linking an apparently ‘linear’ sequence of ‘arise, age (sic) and perish’ (taking that as sequential, which iye did not assume to be so) but taking that as a sequence, to then draw a linear or sequential relationship to time, and an ‘explanation’ of linearity in time herself?

Looking forward to your thought…

ahe Thomas (maye iye call thee just thomas ? )
iye wish to hear more about thy picture not Vincent (ah Vincent) of course but t’ogher one….maye ye feel willing to saye more or show mye where iye may follow?