More, please. Excellent discussion and clarification of several terms. Perhaps a further discussion of the implications of adopting the panpsychic philosophy, envisioning how society might change with this shift, would inspire and enlighten.
_Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at various frequencies._ Tam Hunt qz.com/1490276/the-science-of-vibes-shows-how-everything-is-connected/
As always, Jeffrey, brilliant interview and discussion! New Thinking Allowed would make the likes of William James proud, in your gestalt pluralistic approach to issues in philosophy, spirituality, and cutting- edge science, that's always "radically empirical," and never "dogmatic." (Kant's "critical" happy medium between the "dogmatic" pitfalls of metaphysics and its "skeptical" empirical counterparts, comes to mind as well.) I would however like to bring up a point of clarification regarding Christian de Quincey's take on A. N. Whitehead (ANW) which l generally agree with in the main. ( I say this because I work in the area of Whiteheadian process philosophy, philosophy of physics, and philosophy of religion.) I'll offer my points in passing without getting into a morass over haggling about Whiteheadian hermeneutics. 1) It's actually up for debate if ANW is panpsychist. (I fully realize, however, that the term "consciousness" in ordinary usage generally has both vague denotation, and ambiguous connotation.) There are however some ANW scholars who classify his philosophy as "pan proto psychist," or "panexperientialist," which is a weaker ontological position then pan psychism. (For more information see George Lucas's contribution in Process and Analysis: Whitehead, Hartshorne, and the Analytic Tradition. George Shields, ed., SUNY Press, 2003. Also, see the brilliant contributions by Anderson Weeks and Michel Weber, in Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind, ed. Weeks & Weber, SUNY Press, 2009.) 2. Indeed, panpsychism appears to be making somewhat of a comeback in contemporary philosophy (see Philip Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, OUP, 2018). A distinct advantage of the weaker category of ANW's panexperientialism (alluded to in item 1.) is that it may successfully circumvent pan psychism's own version of the "hard problem," i.e., the problem of composition. (Christian de Quincey alluded to it when he made that rough-and-ready distinction between "wholes" versus "heaps"). 3. My last point here is not just based on Whitehead per se, but on issues raised in contemporary philosophy of physics. Some "eliminativists" would argue that terms like "substance" and "mind" are atavistic, and perhaps should be replaced with notions related to the physical properties of "locality" versus "non-locality." I bring it up because Christian de Quincey equivocates ANW's "physical pole" with "embodiment," which presupposes some notion of locality. I think this forces us to take a closer look at some of ANW's eight fundamental ontological categories--i.e., subjective forms, prehensions (what Christian de Quincey mentioned in passing), nexus, eternal objects, propositions, actual entities, and multiplicities. This would suggest an examination of the finer distinctions between 'experience' versus 'consciousness' vis-a'-vis 'locality' versus 'non-locality,' in ANW's central notion of the "phases of concrescence" (again alluded to in de Quincey's point about the temporal relation between matter and mind). I say this in passing because some of ANW's 8 fundamental ontological categories presuppose locality (viz., actual entities, subjective forms,...) and others do not (propositions, eternal objects,...). In physics terms, consciousness is an admixture or maybe even a "superposition" among some of these eight fundamental categories in ways that the weaker ontological category of "experience" is not, depending on your interpretation of Whitehead. 4. And that last speculative point l made in 3, btw, about "locality" versus "non-locality," and how this distinction may map on to terms like "subjective/objective," "physical/mental" in their conventional meanings (and how ANW's eight fundamental ontological categories might disambiguate those notions) is, I believe, best exemplified in Buddhism's ontology of the five skandas (or aggregates) which supposedly exhaust "personhood." At least four of those aggregates (samjna, vedana, samskara, vijnana) are associated with ANW's "mental pole." However, not all of those aggregates presuppose non-locality: samjna (subjective consciousness) and samskara (conceptual and memory consciousness) suggest some kind embodiment, and hence some flavor of locality. I just bring it up in passing because those distinctions (local, non-local) may add some degree of generality to Christian DeQuincy's overly restrictive suggestion (IMO) that panpsychism presupposes locality, in his claim that all consciousness is embodied. There are many Asian scholars who see Buddhism as panpsychist, but when it comes to skandas like vijnana (pure consciousness, i.e. the Buddha-nature) this suggests some notion of non-locality or at least consciousness without a subjective ego. The Whiteheadian metaphysics of pan experientialism according to Whitehead's eight ontological categories can easily accommodate for these nuances in Buddhism, in ways that I believe Christian de Quincy's points would not. (He'd have to conclude that Buddhist metaphysics resembles more the animism of indigenous religions, which he may be comfortable doing anyway, but my claim here is that there are other ways to carve up the pie, when taking a closer look at ANW! 🙂)
I practice mahayana Buddhism and I am a fun of Whitehead (and Deleuze)...what book I could read that expands your argument? Can we say Buddhism and Whitehead are more panentheist?And this explain the tension between locality and non-locality? Can a non-local "field" also have conscience without being necessarily embodied? What if it is a field like the buddhist potential vacuum (Ku) to engender energy, matter and conscience? This is also something reminds me the theory of Lazlo's akashic field and the holographic memory of the vacuum. Sorry if I put too much stuff in this post but if you could just suggest me a book that connects Whitehead to Mahayana buddhism would be great! Thanks.
@@follonica1 Thank you for your question! I think the most commonly cited source is Buddhism and Whitehead's Process Philosophy, by Anil Kumar Sarkar, (SE Asian Publishers, 1991). Joanna Macy in some of her earlier work examined process theology as a framework to guide her hermeneutic of Sunyata, though she later moved more into systems theory. I don't specialize in Buddhist scholarship per se, as my primary area of research (l mentioned in my lengthy comment above that I focus mostly on philosophy of physics, though l teach some courses in Asian religion) though a Google scholar search does reveal quite a few interesting articles in the area of Buddhist metaphysis (l assume mostly Mahayana, since Theravada is profoundly anti-metaphysical) and Whiteheadean process philosophy, as l imagined there would be. I hope that helps! All the best, -William
Nope, because the feeling in Whitehead is an obscure pre-subjective prehension that makes the subjectivity emerge in a superjective event. In my opinion is more similar to an immanent erotic force that con-creates also matter and conscience. Everything that exists as phenomenon (actualized event). For me is similar to feel a profound vis naturae that activates concrete prehensions that are multiplicities feeling their being prehended and prehending in something before they are aware of it. In a way it is like the strange attractor of chaos and when you enter a basin of attraction you start obscurely feeling the coming of an event before you are aware of it. This opens to the idea of intuitive telepathy as anticipation of a direction, but also faith. Many animals for example have this feeling much more developed. For example dogs that feels earthquakes coming before by a feeling of anxiety. Or large flocks of birds that must migrate and try and try again and at a certain threshold of intensity the event of flying away takes place simultaneously as if they feel the right instant of their departure as an obscure calling from inside and outside (a discontinuity in a continuum that is part of a super-continuum always already eventing). Artists also have this kind of feeling (sensation) when they accomplish an artwork: that an eternal object (the event) is coming to be actualized in their artwork and the artist is also called to this happening. They are eternal because there is a continuous affection between what disappears and appears in a super-continuum.
We simply cannot detect all components of the physical universe. Why do we create a "spiritual realm?" God, the angels and you when you die are real and part of an undetectable aspect of this material world. We are not detecting all the causes.✌
The Quran says all "things" are entities with a conscience. (22:18) "Do you not realize that to GOD prostrates everyone in the heavens and the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and the animals, and many people? " ✌
@27:46... Christian... "but at some feeling level, nature is feeling that, and will respond..."
words of wisdom...
Thx... great chat...
More, please. Excellent discussion and clarification of several terms. Perhaps a further discussion of the implications of adopting the panpsychic philosophy, envisioning how society might change with this shift, would inspire and enlighten.
Thank you both. The interview is superb and very informative.
So interesting and informative! Great guy
Feels like this could be made into a cosmopolitanism
In the true sense.
Interesting discussion. Fortunately or unfortunately, I haven't had any rocks, mountains or plants talking to me.
_Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at various frequencies._
Tam Hunt qz.com/1490276/the-science-of-vibes-shows-how-everything-is-connected/
@@humanelectromagneticpsych7960 Oh, definitely, that's science, just haven't talking yet.
As always, Jeffrey, brilliant interview and discussion! New Thinking Allowed would make the likes of William James proud, in your gestalt pluralistic approach to issues in philosophy, spirituality, and cutting- edge science, that's always "radically empirical," and never "dogmatic." (Kant's "critical" happy medium between the "dogmatic" pitfalls of metaphysics and its "skeptical" empirical counterparts, comes to mind as well.)
I would however like to bring up a point of clarification regarding Christian de Quincey's take on A. N. Whitehead (ANW) which l generally agree with in the main. ( I say this because I work in the area of Whiteheadian process philosophy, philosophy of physics, and philosophy of religion.) I'll offer my points in passing without getting into a morass over haggling about Whiteheadian hermeneutics.
1) It's actually up for debate if ANW is panpsychist. (I fully realize, however, that the term "consciousness" in ordinary usage generally has both vague denotation, and ambiguous connotation.) There are however some ANW scholars who classify his philosophy as "pan proto psychist," or "panexperientialist," which is a weaker ontological position then pan psychism. (For more information see George Lucas's contribution in Process and Analysis: Whitehead, Hartshorne, and the Analytic Tradition. George Shields, ed., SUNY Press, 2003. Also, see the brilliant contributions by Anderson Weeks and Michel Weber, in Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind, ed. Weeks & Weber, SUNY Press, 2009.)
2. Indeed, panpsychism appears to be making somewhat of a comeback in contemporary philosophy (see Philip Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, OUP, 2018). A distinct advantage of the weaker category of ANW's panexperientialism (alluded to in item 1.) is that it may successfully circumvent pan psychism's own version of the "hard problem," i.e., the problem of composition. (Christian de Quincey alluded to it when he made that rough-and-ready distinction between "wholes" versus "heaps").
3. My last point here is not just based on Whitehead per se, but on issues raised in contemporary philosophy of physics. Some "eliminativists" would argue that terms like "substance" and "mind" are atavistic, and perhaps should be replaced with notions related to the physical properties of "locality" versus "non-locality." I bring it up because Christian de Quincey equivocates ANW's "physical pole" with "embodiment," which presupposes some notion of locality. I think this forces us to take a closer look at some of ANW's eight fundamental ontological categories--i.e., subjective forms, prehensions (what Christian de Quincey mentioned in passing), nexus, eternal objects, propositions, actual entities, and multiplicities.
This would suggest an examination of the finer distinctions between 'experience' versus 'consciousness' vis-a'-vis 'locality' versus 'non-locality,' in ANW's central notion of the "phases of concrescence" (again alluded to in de Quincey's point about the temporal relation between matter and mind). I say this in passing because some of ANW's 8 fundamental ontological categories presuppose locality (viz., actual entities, subjective forms,...) and others do not (propositions, eternal objects,...). In physics terms, consciousness is an admixture or maybe even a "superposition" among some of these eight fundamental categories in ways that the weaker ontological category of "experience" is not, depending on your interpretation of Whitehead.
4. And that last speculative point l made in 3, btw, about "locality" versus "non-locality," and how this distinction may map on to terms like "subjective/objective," "physical/mental" in their conventional meanings (and how ANW's eight fundamental ontological categories might disambiguate those notions) is, I believe, best exemplified in Buddhism's ontology of the five skandas (or aggregates) which supposedly exhaust "personhood." At least four of those aggregates (samjna, vedana, samskara, vijnana) are associated with ANW's "mental pole." However, not all of those aggregates presuppose non-locality: samjna (subjective consciousness) and samskara (conceptual and memory consciousness) suggest some kind embodiment, and hence some flavor of locality.
I just bring it up in passing because those distinctions (local, non-local) may add some degree of generality to Christian DeQuincy's overly restrictive suggestion (IMO) that panpsychism presupposes locality, in his claim that all consciousness is embodied. There are many Asian scholars who see Buddhism as panpsychist, but when it comes to skandas like vijnana (pure consciousness, i.e. the Buddha-nature) this suggests some notion of non-locality or at least consciousness without a subjective ego. The Whiteheadian metaphysics of pan experientialism according to Whitehead's eight ontological categories can easily accommodate for these nuances in Buddhism, in ways that I believe Christian de Quincy's points would not. (He'd have to conclude that Buddhist metaphysics resembles more the animism of indigenous religions, which he may be comfortable doing anyway, but my claim here is that there are other ways to carve up the pie, when taking a closer look at ANW! 🙂)
I practice mahayana Buddhism and I am a fun of Whitehead (and Deleuze)...what book I could read that expands your argument? Can we say Buddhism and Whitehead are more panentheist?And this explain the tension between locality and non-locality? Can a non-local "field" also have conscience without being necessarily embodied? What if it is a field like the buddhist potential vacuum (Ku) to engender energy, matter and conscience? This is also something reminds me the theory of Lazlo's akashic field and the holographic memory of the vacuum. Sorry if I put too much stuff in this post but if you could just suggest me a book that connects Whitehead to Mahayana buddhism would be great! Thanks.
@@follonica1 Thank you for your question! I think the most commonly cited source is Buddhism and Whitehead's Process Philosophy, by Anil Kumar Sarkar, (SE Asian Publishers, 1991).
Joanna Macy in some of her earlier work examined process theology as a framework to guide her hermeneutic of Sunyata, though she later moved more into systems theory.
I don't specialize in Buddhist scholarship per se, as my primary area of research (l mentioned in my lengthy comment above that I focus mostly on philosophy of physics, though l teach some courses in Asian religion) though a Google scholar search does reveal quite a few interesting articles in the area of Buddhist metaphysis (l assume mostly Mahayana, since Theravada is profoundly anti-metaphysical) and Whiteheadean process philosophy, as l imagined there would be.
I hope that helps! All the best, -William
@@dr.williamkallfelz8540 Thanks.
Great conversation, more of Christian please. thank you 👍
Nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature. - schelling
Instead of telepathy feeling) , it should be called empathy which more adequately explains feeling.
Nope, because the feeling in Whitehead is an obscure pre-subjective prehension that makes the subjectivity emerge in a superjective event. In my opinion is more similar to an immanent erotic force that con-creates also matter and conscience. Everything that exists as phenomenon (actualized event). For me is similar to feel a profound vis naturae that activates concrete prehensions that are multiplicities feeling their being prehended and prehending in something before they are aware of it. In a way it is like the strange attractor of chaos and when you enter a basin of attraction you start obscurely feeling the coming of an event before you are aware of it. This opens to the idea of intuitive telepathy as anticipation of a direction, but also faith. Many animals for example have this feeling much more developed. For example dogs that feels earthquakes coming before by a feeling of anxiety. Or large flocks of birds that must migrate and try and try again and at a certain threshold of intensity the event of flying away takes place simultaneously as if they feel the right instant of their departure as an obscure calling from inside and outside (a discontinuity in a continuum that is part of a super-continuum always already eventing). Artists also have this kind of feeling (sensation) when they accomplish an artwork: that an eternal object (the event) is coming to be actualized in their artwork and the artist is also called to this happening. They are eternal because there is a continuous affection between what disappears and appears in a super-continuum.
We simply cannot detect all components of the physical universe. Why do we create a "spiritual realm?" God, the angels and you when you die are real and part of an undetectable aspect of this material world. We are not detecting all the causes.✌
Delightful 🐱
Christian beard is half shaved 😣
The Quran says all "things" are entities with a conscience. (22:18) "Do you not realize that to GOD prostrates everyone in the heavens and the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and the animals, and many people? " ✌