Andrew Davis Ph.D. Presents: The Cosmic Call of Value - Five Propositions

Andrew Davis presented The Cosmic Call of Value: Five Propositions in Steve McIntosh's monthly Zoom group.
In his presentation, he framed his propositions not as declarative statements but as "invitations for attention" or what Alfred North Whitehead refers to as "lures for feeling."
Who are we? Why does anything at all exist? What is it that we should be up to in this universe?
Andrew offered a philosophical reflection on value as a means of approaching an answer (or set of answers) to these questions. He drew upon key voices of influence for whom value is an irreducible feature of the cosmos calling to us at various levels of our being and becoming.
Will we answer? Watch the presentation and join the discussion in the comments.
Andrew M. Davis, Ph.D. is an American process philosopher, theologian, and scholar of cosmological wonder. He is the program director for the Center for Process Studies, where he researches, writes, teaches, and organizes conferences on various aspects of process-relational thought. An advocate of metaphysics and meaning in a hospitable universe, he approaches philosophy as the endeavor to systematically think through what reality must be like because we are a part of it. He is the author, editor, and co-editor of several books, including Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy and, most recently, Metaphysics of Exo-Life: Toward a Constructive Whiteheadian Cosmotheology. Follow his work at www.andrewmdavis.info/
Join Steve McIntosh’s Zoom group to participate in the discussion: developmentalist.org/join-ste...
Learn more at: Developmentalist.org

[@theleastaction]

This is interesting but I wonder if the directionality is justified (aesthetic value -> moral value -> life). Seems like the conclusion that life pursues aesthetic value as a proxy for fitness to then create more life fits the data better. Aesthetic value requires a subject, if there is no subject then there is no possibility of value. The claim that there can be simply objective value, without any particular finite, perspectival subjects to recognize it commits a 'view from nowhere' fallacy (Nagel 1986) which Whitehead & Hartshorne would have rejected.