Replies

Yes, Matt, please send a copy to me as well, I’ll move it to the top of the pile. 🙂
thomas.royce@aol.com

Hi Pichard,
I first encountered Whitehead in 1978 when I commenced my bachelor’s degree in Bible and Theology. At the time “process” was almost a dirty word in the little college I was in. Much talk about process theology especially at the University of Chicago where one of my professors was working on a dissertation for his phd. Fast forward to early nineties I was engaged in independent research in physics trying to firm up my understanding of quantum physics. In late’92 I had an epiphanic experience that radically changed my understanding of a wide range of phenomena. I struggled for several years trying to explain my experience, but could find little that was relevant to my understanding.
Robert Pirsig (author of Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) had just published a new work Lila in which he referenced Whitehead. My curiosity was piqued and I ordered several of his books. I started with PR, but as I said I was hopelessly lost by the time I was 100 pages in. So I started with Concept of Nature, Science and the Modern World, and Adventures of Ideas. I still found myself a bit confused, but was beginning to get a feeling that I was on the right track.
It wasn’t until I picked up Function of Reason and read the Introductory Summary that I realized that I had found my connection to philosophy.
The rest is history as they say. I’ve been working on process philosophy ever since reading many of Whitehead’s works as well as Cobb, Griffin, Hartshorne, and many Process Studies articles all contributing to my understanding of Whitehead and process.

You are correct, Gordon. Supply-side economics has been a disaster for our country. By the time we were into the Afghan/Iraq wars neo-liberalism, with its notion that wealthy people would invest their new tax-breaks in such a way that everyone would benefit, had become canon, and mainstream thinking. The trope that Social Security and Medicare are the drivers of the increasing deficit spending ignores the reality that the wealthy have disconnected from the rest of the population. “I’ve got mine, and I want to keep it,” ignoring the systems and infrastructure that have made their wealth possible.

Thank you, Charles. Your insights are always right on. The opposition of human civilization to nature is fallacious in the least. Humanity is part of nature, and the goal of taming, or overcoming nature is silly at best. I like your use of the term *pseudospiritual* but it clearly refers to more than just those you have described. The idea that we should celebrate or anticipate *Armageddon* is noxious to society.

Hi, Gordon, good to see you here with us one more time. 🙂

RE: 2a Whitehead writes: “…that the explanation of this active attack on the environment is a three-fold urge: (i) to live, (ii) to live well, (iii) to live better. In fact the art of life is first to be alive, secondly to be alive in a satisfactory way, and thirdly to acquire an increase in satisfaction.” Function of Reason p8.
Sounds a bit like a gloss of Maslow’s hierarchy to me, but I think he was on to something. Whitehead’s concept of appetition is always a striving toward *that which is not yet.*

Taking the abstraction to be an actual entity, thus reifying it.

Good to have you here, Nicholas. Your depth of learning, and eloquent communication skills will be an excellent addition to the group.
Thomas

So happy to see you here, Rolla. Your sense of humor and upbeat manner give me good feelings.
Thomas

Hi, Tim, I’m so pleased to see you and Carolyn joining this group. I so thoroughly enjoyed participating in your discussion group on UTGK that I feel a personal connection with you both, eventhough we’ve only ever met in online fora. Happy you’re here.
Thomas

I’m happy to “see” you as well, Rolla. I always enjoy your perspective on things. Can’t wait to get into it again.

Thanks, Nicholas, I’m glad you are joining us in our adventures here.

Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Davis.

Whitehead’s not an easy nut to crack, Betty, but he seems to slowly sink in the more you steep yourself in his works. I’m really glad you’re on this journey. It’s always reassuring to see someone you already know (in the Zoom universe anyway).

Eloquently loquacious my friend. 🙂
As an aside, I believe the Egyptians had the first monotheistic God, Aten.
I believe he lasted only as long as Akhen-aten was on the throne, but it was definitely monotheistic. This was, obviously, pre-exodus, so not influenced by the Abrahamic religions.