torsdag 25 juni 2009

Whitehead and Zoroastrianism

Dear Dino

Husserl was a giant already by 1915 and had an enormous influence on American thought. Phenomenology was not a European phenomenon only in any way. Especially not among philosophers proper.
And a proper phenomenology is what Whitehead is lacking. There are qualitiative differences between our experiences as we all know when judging them afterwards. There is an enormous difference between seeing a proper spring in the middle of the desert and just seeing a hallucination of a spring in the desert. Often the difference between life and death. Great philosophy is not avoiding difficult issues but rather confronting them head on.
But I like Whitehead and would happy to refer to him as a VERY Zoroastrian thinker. I was just pointing out the possible faults in his thinking, in hindsight. That's all. A recommended read indeed!
- Dölj citerad text -


2009/6/25 Special Kain

Dear Alexander,

Heidegger wasn't big in the United States at the time. "Process and Reality" was first published in 1929, so he couldn't take Heidegger or Husserl into consideration when finalizing his process metaphysics. This combining is now up to us!
His views on reality somehow were a response to René Descartes and the mind-body dualism as the reigning paradigm. And he didn't believe that we'd be living inside our minds only - where do you get this impression from?
We're used to draw a distinction between the physical world and our fleeting thoughts and ideas, mistaking this man-made distinction for something ontological and stressing one aspect's superiority (materialism/physicalism vs. idealism/spiritualism). So he tried to avoid such reductionisms.
Could you please elaborate on your combining Whitehead with Heidegger and Lacan?

Ushta, Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Do, 25.6.2009:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Panentheism and process philosophy
Datum: Donnerstag, 25. Juni 2009, 22:16

I disagree in that Whitehead takes the distinction of "realness" for granted without making a proper phenomenological analysis first. What does he mean with "real"? No answer. Why would different forms of "realness" even be compared? No answer. It would have helped if Whitehead would have been immersed in Husserl and Heidegger beforehand. Then his "naivety" regarding "realness" could have been avoided. My point is that there is a qualitative difference between different degrees of realness: Such as reality vs The Real in Lacanian psychoanalysis and cores vs margins of paradigms in paradigm theory. We do not live within mind alone, we live within a constant interaction of mind and surrounding world.

2009/6/25 Special Kain

Dear Alexander,

In what way do you disagree with Whitehead's definition of "realness"? What's your counterproposal?

Ushta, Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Do, 25.6.2009:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Panentheism and process philosophy
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Donnerstag, 25. Juni 2009, 12:07

Whitehead is an extremely fascinatiing philosopher, probably the most fascinating mind to come from American philosophy, one of my personal favorites. Although I should add that I do disagree with his definition of "realness" and I also prefer pantheism to panentheism. But I would definitely agree that Whitehead is a Zoroastrian philosopher. Very much so. Zarathushtra was the first proper process philosopher, Heraclitus was the Greek Zarathushtra, et cetera.

2009/6/23 Special Kain

Dear friends,

Zarathushtra was the first in a row of process philosophers, such as Heraclitus, Laozi, Gottfried Leibniz, Baruch Spinoza, Henri Bergson, G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles S. Peirce and his pragmatist contemporaries, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Alfred North Whitehead, David Hume and Gilles Deleuze. Process philosophy is especially linked with Alfred North Whitehead, whose panentheism seems to be exactly the same as Zoroastrian panentheism (if one favours the panentheist approach).

Here are some of Whitehead's metaphysical claims:
1) The laws of nature have evolved over time and keep evolving.
2) The world is a tangle of interrelated events. Such actual events are the "things" that everything is made of. The same pertains to seemingly solid objects: they're just a bundle of events repeating.
3) Dreams, hopes, fantasies are just as real as chairs, trees, rocks or washing machines. To believe that such solid-as-a-rock entities were more real than our ideas, dreams and desires is wrong. Seemingly solid objects and fleeting ideas are equally real.
4) Everything is striving to live more intensively. To live intensively is the highest value. It is what gives VALUE and MEANING to one's existence. It's about increasing the intensity, complexity and strength of one's experience. This is key in Whiteheadian self-creation.
5) All things are gatherings of events. Seemingly solid objects are nothing but repetitions of the same events (for repetition see Deleuze). Such repetitions create societies, for example. Human societies are nothing but events repeating.
6) The universe is creative. We all are creative. We're constantly creating ourselves and the world we live in, as much as the world is constantly creating itself and us. The guiding principle of all existence is creativity.
7) God is in a constant state of becoming. Even God is a "creature" of universal creativity, co-creating this world with us.
8) What's important about education is giving yourself intellectual style. His approach towards self-creation is purely aesthetic!
9) Thus, Whitehead's approach is holistic and monist.

For further infotainment, please visit:

http://www.iep. whitehed. htm
http://www.iep. processp. htm
http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/ whitehead/
http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/ process-philosop hy/

Dino // sticking to a pantheist understanding of process philosophy

3 kommentarer:

Knuje sa...

But do you prefer pandeism to pantheism?

liebera sa...

What are scientists Children of the knowledge Primal seed of cosmical machine Schemes and terms from sky laboratories Investigation‘s brought by Creator‘s wit
Physical aspect and lace of metaphysic
Supreme touch urges to create
Science wit knows sense of moving
But Divine can’t be proved by theme

Dear Alex, here is a trifle example my creation and tribute to VACUUM. I’m an author of great amount of poems that are close to your ideas, especially to NETOCRACY. And I want you to be acquainted with them. Please, give me your i-mail, where I can send you in privacy (not for all other net users) I’m real fabric of different ideas and thoughts. It’s very important for me!!! I’m very responsive person! Send your answer on ‘”.
I’ll be waiting for your news!

liebera sa...

ARMY OF LOVERS’ CLONES are as French résistance. French communist Michael romances with positive lad from positive French Gestapo. Local stripper Sarah is busy worker. Female Polizei is in jealousy. Unhonest Owner of Milk Factory is only one negative person. There is no blood and horrors in the story that is the result of mobilistic philosophy. Do you want Whole Clip script, Alex? And what about the Romanovs and The communists who live in complete peace or BWO, VACCUUM and ARMY OF LOVERS members as heroes of fancy tales?

PS there may be some silliness in my first commentary. I was shy that time. It’s my explanation…