Whitehead and religion in the making w/ Matt Segall- Voices with Vervaeke

[@word-pictures]

Such a wonderful conversation. Thanks for putting this together. I wrote my senior thesis on Whitehead's metaphysics about 25 years ago so I kept having a mixture of delight and PTSD at the memory of having to parse my way through Process and Reality. For me, Whitehead was one of the few philosophers who offered an intelligible path to bridge the gap between the Analytic and Continental frameworks, science and faith, mathematics and art, etc- a path firmly grounded in the tools of modern science yet humbly tapered by an understanding that those tools will never fully capture the depth and breadth of our creative, dynamic universe.

[@langwaters9653]

Word.

[@Mystery_G]

Absolutely fantastic dialogue! My sincere gratitude to you both for your engagement with evolving a re-awareness of and attempt to envision a modern understanding of communing with It.

[@thepixelatedpilgrim3283]

Insightful work as always. Deeply refreshing to engage with.

[@ideacastilluminate]

I'm so relieved to hear someone like John Vervaeke say that Process and Reality is a tough read. I'm a mere Dilettante and only made it 28 pages in so far. Matt Segall ala 'Thou Art That' has helped me out quite a bit in understanding Whitehead's ontology. Here's to a trialogue with Even Thompson! He's a very helpful person as well.

[@wcropp1]

Don’t get discouraged. I’ve read my fair share of philosophy books, classics, translations, etc., and “Process and Reality” is a tough nut to crack. The fact that it was written in English is little comfort due to the sheer quantity of new terminology. It is a bit like reading “Being and Time” but somehow simultaneously more straightforward and harder to wrap your head around. I believe a large amount of it is due to the fact that it is process philosophy, and I know my brain doesn’t find it the most intuitive way to think. That’s what makes it fun, though, and doesn’t mean it isn’t correct.

[@ideacastilluminate]

@@wcropp1 I appreciate your comment. I've found Whitehead's writing similar to Sri Aurobindo regarding terminology. As you mentioned there are specific terminology (or semantic propriety, that is the archaic sense of propriety) unique to both authors that needs to be apprehended. Thanks for the supportive comment! I will continue to labor on!

[@wcropp1]

@@ideacastilluminate Sure thing bud. I haven't read any Aurobindo--will have to check that one out. I will think of you when my head hurts from trying to make sense of what I'm reading!

[@ideacastilluminate]

@@wcropp1 I'm currently reading "A Greater Psychology", a collection of Aurobindo's writings that reveals his metaphysics pretty well. It leans towards the mystical but it's interesting just the same. Take care and here's to there being aspirin on hand!

[@alisaruddell3484]

“We’re an expression of the very order that we’re trying to understand.” Beautifully said... the dilemma of “objective science” in a nutshell. Thank you both for this dialogue, it’s very rich.

[@word-pictures]

Yes! Couldn't agree more ❤️

[@jonathanadamson]

Fantastic. Looking forward to further discussions!

[@PrafulGagrani]

In my opinion the new 'ontology' might already exist in the modern day science, although it's not the common mode of thought yet. Modern science, by basing everything in a bayesian probability framework does two things at once: 1. Roots reasoning in probability - which is the right framework to think about desires because it generalizes negation. When causes are put in a probabilistic framework, dynamics which are more probable are the one that happen and what is more probable is controlled by the parameters of the model. 2. Roots changes in information. Self organization is inherent to entities if we see them as information processing and updating bayesian networks. Category theory generalizes mathematics to an inter-relational network of signifiers, albeit empty in themselves, can be given a correspondence to the relational network found in a phenomena found in nature. The effectiveness of myth and mythology as a reasoning process is also, in my opinion, because the stories in the myth capture relations that we find ourselves in. Similarly, mathematics and science does the same, but in a much more precise way.

[@tonym6566]

John you brought Jordan Hall to my attention and now another great mind added to the list. Seems like the start of a great new series of diálogos

[@palomaIreland]

Thank you, I so enjoyed this conversation, it felt like a lovely dawn...and I found words you spoke to each other at the end very touching .

[@julesjgreig]

Thanks John and Matt. I was glad to see you get together and found the discussion very edifying. Thanks again 👍🏽

[@CrystallineWyvern]

Excellent discussion; some notes: Jordan Hall suggested that materialism leaves no room for creativity, for dynamic ontology and novelty Cosmology is always speculative - endo cosmology Need an ontology from phenomenology, whoch was Heidegger's project If the model of mind of Descartes is wrong and needs changing, implies the same for model of rationality and reality, since those followed his mind model Constraints as implied but should be explocated as a return of Aristotle's formal cause. Alyssia Yuraro was the one who argued actuality has been conflated with reality Descartes left out formal cause because he didn't want to claim to know God's mind; but we could use the math he gave us • Aspirational adaptivity as rationality properly understood; which implies the need for reverence as a virtue (which puts one in in a state of humble awe affording of adaptivity and aspiration both); this requires a metaphysics which will call it forth. That which evokes reverence is thus essential; theology is essential for rationality Like Whitehead says we have to assume nature is intelligible for science to get off the ground already • Intelligibility is the metaphysical equivalent of RR •• For Whitehead Creativity is the ultimate principle, his God, which is a creature of creativity. Whitehead is a neoplatonist but not an emanationist Eriugena sees creation as the category that supersedes and grounds emanation and emergence / return WH part of the participatory mystical esoteric lineage, that of Bruno, Schelling, Eriugena Whitehead is giving us a dynamic neoplatonism, the latter of which being the spiritual cultural-cognitive grammar of the west Actual ocassions + eternal objects (actuality + potentiality / form); growing together is concrescence Outside of actual occasions there is nothing. Forms don't actually exist until they ingress in the context of an occasion of experience Hylomorphism is back eh •• Western theology tended to imagine God as pure act, actuality, no potential passivility; this was the fundamental mistake of Aristotle's theology I think. God is part of an evolving process, the One of neoplatonism and eriugena's God It is the space within the cup that makes it useful • We need equal reverence for actuality and potentiality as grounds of realness Late Nietzsche says there's not no meaning but rather two much (perspectivism) and we are overwhelmed with triviality now (combinatorial explosion, JBP) • Forms (eternal objects) as affordances perhaps? • Solution of Nietzsche as emptiness; he didn't go far enough Emptiness is trans-perspectival and thus gives a shared ground and space from which all perspectives / meanings can be properly evaluated • We are involved in the enqctment of God / the divine now; that's the solution. Ancient peoples felt they needed to participate in rituals or the world would end. It was participatory • One of the most important tasks of philosophy in the mordern world is to secularize the function of God • Cognition is deeply analogous and emergent from evolution. • brain circuit reuse hypothesis (evolution does not waste); exaptation should be an added 5th E to 4ecogsci ^ I think this ties to my powerful connection to Pokemon as my religio(n); the synaptic pruning of the brain generalized the symbols within Pokemon more than probably another other singly integrated cosmology / worldview Religious evolution is not a mountain with many paths (perennialism) but an ocean with many shores Kant favored immanent teleology and self-organizing systems

[@Mart-Bro]

Wonderful conversation. Especially enjoyed that bit about us having God-responsibility at the end there

[@leedufour]

Thanks Matt and John.

[@johnvervaeke]

Thanks Lee

[@2bsirius]

Great to see Matt in a just recorded video. I was afraid he and his family might have gotten into difficulty as a result of the fires in his area of California. Also, of course, it was a deep pleasure to follow the intriguing ideas posted here. *Again, thanks for posting this!*

[@johnbuckner2828]

"nature has value"👍 "we are an expression of the very Order we are trying to understand"👍 "without that faith in the rationality of nature, science can never get off the ground" this is why I find the Transcendental Argument for God (an ideal Observer or omniscient Mind) hard to dismiss; ít seems the Logos must be Real; even though we use different forms of logic and mathematics which can adapt to a world that appears in flux, it seems they are sub languages which must be grounded in some kind of real objective Universal in order to use numbers to make truth claims; though I do consider myself a panexperientialist... maybe that makes me a pluralist instead of a dualist.🤔 "the neoplatonic tradition is the spiritual augmentative grammar of the West" + Whitehead = "dynamic neoplatonism" ❤️ "what is the ground from which the perspectives emerge?" I think JP was right, a real hierarchy of value exists, and it isn't subjective fiction. Matt has a way of turning the world into a canvas and handing us all paint brushes.... great talk you guys, you should get together again soon for another round. 🍻

[@TheGerogero]

An ocean with many shores... There's an image.

[@KarimaCynthiaClayton]

Both science and theology have a limited view of reality. Actuality, which we mistakenly consider to be reality, lacks the greater picture of possibility, novelty, and creativity outside the boxes we've created to define life. We may never understand, but can still live with reverence toward and relevance realization with the "dynamic intelligibility," the One Infinite Source of all substance. A First Cause does exist as dynamic intelligibility or Logoic Mind, for something cannot come from nothing.

[@ErnestoEduardoDobarganes]

We are missing a... COMMON REFERENTIONALITY.

[@socraticsceptic8047]

...Being is a Form though

[@socraticsceptic8047]

... and Plato shows (in Parmenides) that you can consider forms other than Being in relation to themselves and other forms, not just in relation to Being

[@Jacob011]

Less soy, more nuts.