Metamodern Spirituality | 'Prehension': Is Experience Fundamental? (w/ Matt Segall)

[@S.G.Wallner]

@19:00 "Time is what binds our experience." -MS. In all the thinking I've done, I also think Time is fundamental. I'm a proponent of Bergson, (and wish Matt would share more of his thoughts on Bergson). I think Time is the force that drives process. It may also sit at the base of what supports experiences, relations and casualty, which I believe could be something like "tension." Wonderful conversation! Inspiring and intriguing. Looking forward to more.

[@deepblack67]

The title "Process and Reality" answers your quandary surrounding Metaphysical language and constancy -- PROCESS. I would also recommend always maintaining a complete Grammar and Topology even as it changes. Process and Novelty mean that Metaphysics itself evolves.

[@davidorth7217]

Thank you for this riveting discussion. An observation and a question: As an artist/craftsman I am particularly excited that Whitehead noticed this massive, vague, preverbal, and especially pre-conscious aspect to prehension - the inheritance grounding feeling each moment. So hard to talk about obviously, but we try. When Brendan asked Matt for examples of unconscious prehension, I immediately thought of process psychologist Eugene Gendlin’s “felt sense” and "implicit intricacy" - his words for the (initially) unconscious physical pole of concrescence which is irreducibly physical AND meaningful (for Gendlin, within a therapeutic, problematized context usually). His work in this area can be extrapolated broadly to illuminate other contexts like art, music, religious experience, more grounded theory, etc and deals broadly with uncovering and leveraging this vague source. When people ask me where my “art comes from,” Gendlin’s language has given me a way of answering, vague as it remains. But most importantly he taught how to access the implicit and bring it forward into the conscious, mental pole. During the iterative, reflexive process (he confusingly calls “focusing”) one can witness the vague and shifting boundary between the unconscious, mostly physical/interior prehension of a situation and the mental/emotional reactions that are slightly more obvious and more operative, often in unhelpful, repeating ways. Gendlin’s point is that there is a ton of work that can be done to unpack and describe this inheritance which is both physical and meaningful. It is obvious to me that art (and massively more) comes out of this place. My question for anyone: Gendlin’s interaction with the broader process philosophy community is hard to see or even sort out. As a psychologist he made up his own language and unique ways of working in this vague space. He very rarely mentioned Whitehead or anyone else as far as I can tell. So my question, who else in the PP community might have given detailed attention to this area of preconscious prehension? To me as an artist, it seems like a massively important area, but so far I haven’t seen anyone wrestle with it like Gendlin did. Acknowledge it yes, but not much investigation that I know about. Can anyone suggest other process authors that I have missed? Did Suzanne Langer give any attention to this? Others? Where? Thanks!

[@Footnotes2Plato]

This implicit pre-conscious domain is where by turning our attention to it we can cultivate what after R. Steiner I call etheric imagination. It is difficult at first (since it is so participatory) to distinction in this ether what is our own construction and what is really there, hence the need for cultivation to sensitize us to the difference.

[@deepblack67]

And a note on Bergson, there is a book out of Hungary which I can't recall, but the author points out that while Bergson lost the argument in the popular and academic culture through their not understanding him, and that he was actually stating a more Relativistic position than Einstein. His position was that each individual experienced duration from their own state, all experience of time being determined by the process happening in matter. Space having duration so your relationship to space changes with the process and would be relativistic.

[@S.G.Wallner]

Brendan, you are so obviously a genuine, deep, and creative thinker. Be careful in placing so much weight on the necessity of "information processing." There is a lack of consensus and clarity within information theory. We don't really know what information is or isn't. It has not been clearly categorized if it comes in multiple forms. Without being able to consistently identify information or where it exists in natural systems, assuming that information is processed is a major leap. Computational metaphors are sticky. There are some very compelling positions in opposition of the dogmatic applications of information theory. Would you like to know more, or do you already know more?

[@Tameromnium]

I know I would! 😊

[@S.G.Wallner]

@@Tameromnium It's very interesting to ponder isn't it? What is information exactly? Any thoughts? I'm interested in how the concept gets used at the intersection of colloquial language and the language of cognitive/computer science. The metaphysical assumptions can drastically change or frame theories of information. What do you want to know more about?

[@deepblack67]

I would recommend the two of you talking about Metaphysics as the way to clear up the disagreements between Science and Religion. The onus has been on religion, but science has shown itself liable to its own fundamentalism, its own blindness, and incapable of honestly dealing with peoples spiritual experiences. With the real crisis in cosmology and the Standard Model, following on the crisis in Religion, and people skepticism I really think it's time for people to square their Metaphysical positions. Is time a dimension matters, are there higher planes or higher dimensions matter, is the universe harmonic and musical opens a lot of things, other positions close avenues off. If your paradigm can not, or will not, deal properly with consciousness, Mind, UFOs, UAP, NDEs, or something as banal as placebo effect then I don't understand why you would even have a seat at the table. You can not just dismiss these subjects, or insist you can explain it away, prove it. There should be a Metaphysics Graph/Questionnaire.

[@ezreality]

Good podcast... Consciousness is knowledge... Thank you...

[@danstevens1024]

As Matt points out in the video, Whitehead’s term prehension bridges the internal and external, the experiential and causal, the mental and physical, the most complex, higher order actual occasions and the most simple actual occasions. Approaching Whitehead’s thought through a panpsychism lense can be very troublesome. It seems to me that it would be less confusing to people who struggle with letting go of a “consciousness as substance” orientation to use language that appropriately addresses this spectrum. The word “experience” invokes the idea of conscious perception in the form of presentational immediacy, which implies a very high level of complexity and is fine to use in referring to complex, higher order actual occasions. However, understandably, this stand-alone term is quite difficult for people to project “all the way down”. An expression that emphasizes the causal, physical pole needs to be unapologetically used when describing the most simple actual occasions e.g. the atoms Brendan uses as an example. At this level of complexity the expression I would suggest is “experience as being affected“, which is Whitehead’s idea of causal efficacy. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the verb affect: “to produce an effect upon someone or something; to act on and cause a change in someone or something.” So when speaking of atoms and possible electron exchanges, an atom is affected by and in turn affects other atoms in its environment. That is their “experience” at their level of complexity, the most simple of physical actual occasions. It should be noted that, at the other end of the spectrum, experience as “being affected” is also relevant to the unique categories of higher order, human experience such as imagination, dreams, etc. It also points to Whitehead’s principle of relativity and the interconnected nature of the universe.

[@davidorth7217]

I love this word "grok" that Matt uses. I'm speculating that he's referring to that moment when a prehension becomes conscious. The process psychologist Eugene Gendlin called it "Focusing." What does Matt mean by grok?

[@jeffbarney3584]

Suspending belief of what the vegetal is in evolutionary terms of mindedness perhaps it is helpful to consider that we human beings incorporate the vegetal and the mineral and animal for that matter and we cognize through a body that is so constituted. Is it possible that we have an epistemological intimacy as an an ontological continuity with the plant world? Is it possible that what Plato was experiencing in this regard was form coming into being and that Aristotle saw the continuity as the vegetal soul and through the vegetal soul? And that both were in continuity with the traditions in the mystery schools peopled by initiates like Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Pherecydes etc.... Is it possible that this is what we wrongly deride as mysticism but is actually participatory knowledge before a subject object divide that also points to the operational how of a meta move in epistemology - an epistemological revolution out of the modern dualistic inherency?

[@kerycktotebag8164]

Chain of prehension: Sensation, immediacy, perception, calculation, salience, conception, proposition, affectivity, valuation, directionality, intentionality, decision, recursivity, causal awareness (sentience), ordinary consciousness, sapient consciousness (conscious illumination of more and more preconscious prehension)...????

[@jeffbarney3584]

Matt I am curious to know how much do you think that Schickler achieved on this issue of uniting the subject object divide by locating this grappling at its most comprehensive source. It seems to me one would do well to do what he did (with him or independently) and tap in to that spring. That is at the Kantian divide resulting in his transcendental idealism on one hand and metaphysical realism (thing in itself) on the other. We see Fichte trying to resolve this with an absolute I or the I as absolute and via Schickler really appreciating how much he achieved (I as phenomenal reality to be perceived) and where he failed (recognition of thinking as self determining and as self-determining). Also with Schickler deeply and rigorously honoring Hegel we see where Hegel failed to apply his dialectic just at the point where he may have succeeded. He all but ignored sensibility as mediating into the apparent dichotomy. Of course much more can be said but it seems to me this is the conundrum of modernity right at the place where it can be overcome. All three from different angles underdetermine the self. Fichte by not seeing how thinking is the generator of itself and the self, Hegel by ignoring the very vessel that for phenomenal experience that gives soul (sensibility) its proper existential role via a multiplicity of sensorial apertures and Kant who neglects the existential I that thinks and thus underdetermining what the thinking I is. It seems to me as an opening shot (helping and with help from Steiner), Schickler establishes an epistemology that is an ontology and superseding Husserl and Brentano, a phenomenology with such a sound and reliable epistemological foundation such that a dimension of reality where human beings are participants in creation of both the arena and the agency becomes not only apparent but fundamental to becoming fully human. I just don't think its possible to determine the significance and potential of a self aware unity with the rest of existence without growing a comprehension what human beings are. I don't see how that is possible with narrative presumptions of ontology and a secondary effort to establish an epistemology that fits the narrative. I agree models are important but when unrecognized as such they foreclose on the imaginal process that is in seed form in the mental picture. An intuitional collapse into ideology on one hand or narcissism on the other arises at this point in the epistemological operation. We lose touch with the thinking observation that led to the discovery and the concept dies without a germination into its potential metamorphic form. Its possible in a free deed to use the dead concepts as compost for the rose to come to full flower. All of them left us plenty of compostable material. Perhaps a living epistemological process rather than a presumptive or prescriptive one is both helpful in the knowledge drama and symbolic consilience with all of the dimensions of reality? Seems clear to me we won't know the bridge until we build it in relation to ourselves - connecting our own subject object divide.

[@Footnotes2Plato]

Schickler's reading of the odyssey of the self in modern philosophy is unmatched. I don't know that I'd sell Fichte and Hegel short like that, though. Fichte was well aware of the autopoietic character of thinking, and Hegel certainly did not ignore sensibility (he begins the 'Phenomenology of Spirit' with sense-certainty). Kant, too, posited the transcendental unity of apperception or "I think" that must accompany all of human experience. This remains a "posit" in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," rather than an intellectual intuition. But in his account of practical reason, there is a kind of intuition of freedom at play. All that's just to say we as well as Schickler and even Steiner stand on the shoulders of giants. Without the guiding lights of these thinkers (and of course, Schelling, the Schlegels, Caroline, Goethe, Novalis, and others need to be thrown into the mix, as well), anthroposophy would not be what it is today. But we must go further, and the direction to stretch, I think, is toward etheric imagination, the cultivation of a new organ of perception that reconfigures the sense-bound intellect's alienated perspective so as to experientially reconnect the thinking mind with the interior formative forces of nature.

[@jeffbarney3584]

@@Footnotes2Plato It is not my intention to sell the three of them short. The point of emphasis is that they (and others you mentioned) are collectively the most comprehensive source for resolving the issue at hand. Fichte truly prefigured Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in saving the I/self/soul. He may have given credence to the autopoetic nature of thinking he also did not locate it and its epistemological function as the given that is not given and so left room for inverse notions of the unconscious. Because it is clear where he fell short one can as I mentioned of Schickler, have deep appreciation for what he achieved. One can see why he was a strong influence on Schelling. As far as Hegel - in haste I used the wrong wording. It is a crucial contention of Schickler's that Hegel was so close and right at the tipping point of spirit and matter (somewhat due to his chemism/mechanism view of origin) he did not apply his dialectic method to the spirit matter divide. I say crucial because in my opinion this then is the crucis; the world soul of Plato that allows for the human trifecta of self. In this case then the self is in the spirit and in the physiology and IN the dialectical tension as self determined. This is my understanding how close Hegel was and where he underdetermined (not ignored) the mediating participatory factor. I love that Schickler uses the term underdetermined. In light of all of this and of course the more that you mention, it was a relatively short putt for Steiner to close the gap and offer a truly meta approach in many disciplines. As Far as Kant goes I didn't even establish an asking price. I merely pointed to the resultant dual dualisms he left us with to solve: a transcendent world of souls and the very subject object divide that has left us with a truncated ontology and an underdetermined self in relation to the given and the transcendental realities. We should be grateful that the intellectual complex of modernism can be laid bare at such powerful sources and fighters for the human condition. I would say following Witzenmann that the Kantian, Hegelian, Fichtean and Goethean intentionality is a powerful collective force allowing for a metamorphosis that could supplant the inherent cartesian worldview currently inherent without intention and without foundation (actuality).

[@Footnotes2Plato]

@@jeffbarney3584 I hear ya. In some sense Kant tightened the noose, but in another sense he made it clear that further progress in knowing demanded initiation, aka, confronting the threshold of death. So much more to say on this but probably this is not the place : )

[@eqapo]

I'm still having trouble seeing prehension as anything besides a category mistake... I would've thought that the line of argument for subjectivizing things we typically consider "dead objects" to map to something like Michael Levin's account of border/primitive cognitition. That, or unpacking whitehead's Mereological views of "the universe as a cell dividing" such that any such thing you point to as a "dead thing" is mereologically "part of" some larger containing agency (im inforned by robinson's podcast w/ achilles varzi)

[@FilipinaVegana]

No. monism: the view in metaphysics that reality (that is, Ultimate Reality) is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system; the doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being; any system of thought that seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and spiritual worlds from a single principle, specifically, the metaphysical doctrine that there is but one substance, either mind (idealism) or matter (materialism), or a substance that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial ground of both. Cf. “dualism”. To put it simply, whilst materialists/physicalists/naturalists believe that the ground of being is some kind of tangible form of matter (or a field of some sort), and idealists/theists/panpsychists consider some kind of mind(s) or consciousness(es) to be most fundamental, MONISTS understand that Ultimate Reality is simultaneously both the Subject and any possible object, and thus one, undivided whole (even though it may seem that objects are, in fact, divisible from a certain standpoint). The descriptive term favoured in the metaphysical framework proposed in this Holy Scripture is “Brahman”, a Sanskrit word meaning “expansion”, although similes such as “Sacchidānanda” (Eternal-Conscious-Peace), “The Tao” and “The Monad” are also satisfactory. Perhaps the oldest extant metaphysical system, Advaita Vedānta, originating in ancient Bhārata (India), which is the thesis promulgated in this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is a decompositional dual-aspect monist schema, in which the mental and the physical are two (epistemic) aspects of an underlying (ontic) reality that itself is neither mental nor physical, but rather, psychophysically neutral. On such a view, the decomposition creates mutually-exclusive mental (subjective) and physical (objective) domains, both of which are necessary for a comprehensive metaphysical worldview. The mere fact that it is possible for Awareness to be conscious of Itself, implies that, by nature, Ultimate Reality is con-substantially BOTH subjective and objective, since it would not be possible for a subject to perceive itself unless the subject was also a self-reflective object. Therefore, it seems that the necessary-contingent dichotomy often discussed by philosophers in regards to ontology, is superfluous to the concept of monism, because on this view, BOTH the subjective and the objective realities are essentially one, necessary ontological Being(ness). In other words, because you are, fundamentally, Brahman, you are a necessary being and not contingent on any external force. This concept has been termed "necessitarianism" by contemporary philosophers, in contradistinction to contingentarianism - the view that at least some thing could have been different otherwise - and is intimately tied to the notions of causality and determinism in Chapters 08 and 11. Advaita Vedānta (that is, dual-aspect Monism) is the only metaphysical scheme that has complete explanatory power. Hypothetically, and somewhat tangentially, one might question thus: “If it is accurate to state that both the Subject of all subjects and all possible objects are equally ‘Brahman’ (that is, Ultimate Truth), then surely that implies that a rock is equally valuable as a human being?”. That is correct purely on the Absolute platform. Here, in the transactional world of relativity, there is no such thing as equality, except within the conceptual sphere (such as in mathematics), as already demonstrated in more than a couple of places in this Holiest of Holy Books, “F.I.S.H”, especially in the chapter regarding the spiteful, pernicious ideology of feminism (Chapter 26). Cf. “advaita”, “dualism”, “Brahman/Parabrahman”, “Saguna Brahman”, “Nirguna Brahman”, “subject”, and “object”.

[@FilipinaVegana]

37:20 consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years is consciousness of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri). sentience: the capacity to experience feelings or sensations, as distinguished from perceptions and cognition. The word was first coined by philosophers in the 1630’s for the concept of an ability to feel, derived from Latin “sentientem” (a feeling), in order to distinguish it from the ability to think/reason. Therefore, sentience ought not be confused with consciousness, though the two are closely related. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. In animal life, there are up to five sensory organs which can detect external stimulants or percepts. ADDITIONALLY, many forms of metazoans have acquired a degree of consciousness, in which a subject-object polarity is established. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too” upon being confronted with vegan ideology, they may be correct (at least in a rather diffuse sense of the term “feelings”), so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely without sentience, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. If Homo sapiens were naturally omnivores or carnivores, then no sane person would promote veganism. In summary, all forms of organic life are, by definition, sentient, yet TRUE consciousness is found in those animal species that have a certain level of intelligence (that is, as a general rule, vertebrates, though there are a couple of notable exceptions to this general rule). Cf. “conscious".

[@ritazammit]

Any phenomenon arises simultaneously there is no difference

[@ar4203]

I am confused of youre idea of an emergentist account of conscioussness when you have previously expressed what appears the spirtual knowledge of awareness. Awareness is BEING, it is aware if ITSELF by BEING itself. The universe is BEING. "Objects" are mental constructs that we apply onto a whole of being, and perhaps thet are relational or process phenomena that dont really exist in themselves the way we experience or imagine them to at all, but either way there is just being knowing itself and these divisions are categories we impose. Yes we are localizations of awareness but it is not human beings who have awareness, only awareness itself is aware. we arent isolated isalnds but one whole looking at itself from different points of view. What does that mean about what a rock knows or experiences if anything I have no idea other than BEING must & most certainly applies to all the things we see... emergentism is an idea that thinks matter is fundammetal and conscioussness somehow emerges from it, which is silly to entertain when you know the nature of self & reality through the fundamental ground of Being, pure awareness/being/will itself. I dont have all the answers but this I cannot doubt & I am fine to keep it in the realm of "spiritual" in regular or scientific discussions because its obviousky not observable except through direct experience. But I certainly wont take scientists who are unaware of their true nature & scoff at ideas about conscioussness not emerging from matter to effect me personally & make me question what I know to be the Truth, they can think it is silly & stupid & naive but it is the only thing we can truly know. Experience is simply awareness Knowing itself by being itself & that the universe as an expression of Gods Being. Knowing and Being are One.