"Chance, as it is called, is where the angels - the Whiteheadian God's 'initial aims' - can slip into the quantum foam at the spaceless base of spacetime to dance the world to better becomings." This is where poetic language connects the idea with embodied awareness. This is where Stuart Kauffman's adjacent possibles meet Whitehead's eternal objects outside spacetime. It is evidence of a participatory universe where creator and creature need one another.
Separate comment for this, as it's a separate topic from my other one: 'The primary unit of evolution is not the gene, nor the individual organism, nor the species, but the whole organism-environment field.' That clicked for me as well! I'm assuming you're familiar with the ideas of Sara Imari Walker. If not, she is a scientist (I think she uses the term astro-biologist) who studies biology from a perspective where an organism is a planetary-scale phenomenon. My summary may be a brutal oversimplification ; I'll admit I have not yet made time to read her papers, but her exposition of her ideas as an interview guest on technical podcasts is great.
I've started reading through the series (or rather listening to the audio version), and want to drop into the comments to take you up on your 'crowd sourcing criticism' mentioned in the first post. Part V, which feels like the longest yet, offers a lot to take in, and I needed to return and read through much of it multiple times.
I was completely unaware of Whitehead's process philosophy until I discovered your expositions of it. It's a perspective that resonates deeply with me, but I am quick to admit that I am still trying to 'process' it holistically. (Incidentally my academic background is mathematical logic; Whitehead's name was always just the second author of a foundational text no one really reads anymore, and to discover his other philosophical contributions has been enjoyable.) That's all a longwinded way of saying I am likely among the ideal audience for an essay like this, BUT – it feels too swept up in its own rhetoric at points, even 'polemic,' to use a term you applied to your own writing in the first post of the series.
I'll trust your editorial judgement to prune material down as deadlines for manuscript readiness approach. In the event it be of assistance, I'll quote from part IV of the series (a sentence I loved): 'The metaphor gains its rhetorical force by suppressing the “as if” and presenting a selective structural comparison as though it were an identity.' Much of what strikes me as polemical in part V is essentially metaphor being elevated to identification. (I sense the risk of sounding pedantic by pointing to specific passages and will refrain, but feel welcome to push me.) On the other hand, there are parts that should definitely be preserved at all costs in the final draft, eg, 'the image of the human being as microcosmos, a little world that mirrors and gathers the great one.' That theme – the essence – is beautiful, particularly as it is reprised toward the end in, 'organisms are not closed off from their environs, but miniaturizations of it, cosmic rhythm cycled and recycled, folded in upon itself, recapitulating universal becoming." Gorgeous! And of course the final (or final two) paragraphs should survive intact purely for the density of metaphoric beauty.
Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, Uexkull; are really becoming important. It could be that the unexpected side-effect of the rise of AI could be the realisation of a deeper understanding of life and Nature that has been overdue.
"Chance, as it is called, is where the angels - the Whiteheadian God's 'initial aims' - can slip into the quantum foam at the spaceless base of spacetime to dance the world to better becomings." This is where poetic language connects the idea with embodied awareness. This is where Stuart Kauffman's adjacent possibles meet Whitehead's eternal objects outside spacetime. It is evidence of a participatory universe where creator and creature need one another.
You manage the dual feat of making Whitehead accessible and writing absolutely gorgeous prose at the same time.
Separate comment for this, as it's a separate topic from my other one: 'The primary unit of evolution is not the gene, nor the individual organism, nor the species, but the whole organism-environment field.' That clicked for me as well! I'm assuming you're familiar with the ideas of Sara Imari Walker. If not, she is a scientist (I think she uses the term astro-biologist) who studies biology from a perspective where an organism is a planetary-scale phenomenon. My summary may be a brutal oversimplification ; I'll admit I have not yet made time to read her papers, but her exposition of her ideas as an interview guest on technical podcasts is great.
I've started reading through the series (or rather listening to the audio version), and want to drop into the comments to take you up on your 'crowd sourcing criticism' mentioned in the first post. Part V, which feels like the longest yet, offers a lot to take in, and I needed to return and read through much of it multiple times.
I was completely unaware of Whitehead's process philosophy until I discovered your expositions of it. It's a perspective that resonates deeply with me, but I am quick to admit that I am still trying to 'process' it holistically. (Incidentally my academic background is mathematical logic; Whitehead's name was always just the second author of a foundational text no one really reads anymore, and to discover his other philosophical contributions has been enjoyable.) That's all a longwinded way of saying I am likely among the ideal audience for an essay like this, BUT – it feels too swept up in its own rhetoric at points, even 'polemic,' to use a term you applied to your own writing in the first post of the series.
I'll trust your editorial judgement to prune material down as deadlines for manuscript readiness approach. In the event it be of assistance, I'll quote from part IV of the series (a sentence I loved): 'The metaphor gains its rhetorical force by suppressing the “as if” and presenting a selective structural comparison as though it were an identity.' Much of what strikes me as polemical in part V is essentially metaphor being elevated to identification. (I sense the risk of sounding pedantic by pointing to specific passages and will refrain, but feel welcome to push me.) On the other hand, there are parts that should definitely be preserved at all costs in the final draft, eg, 'the image of the human being as microcosmos, a little world that mirrors and gathers the great one.' That theme – the essence – is beautiful, particularly as it is reprised toward the end in, 'organisms are not closed off from their environs, but miniaturizations of it, cosmic rhythm cycled and recycled, folded in upon itself, recapitulating universal becoming." Gorgeous! And of course the final (or final two) paragraphs should survive intact purely for the density of metaphoric beauty.
Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, Uexkull; are really becoming important. It could be that the unexpected side-effect of the rise of AI could be the realisation of a deeper understanding of life and Nature that has been overdue.
Breathtaking!
so appreciate the nuanced, generous, & beautiful process lens (ever unfolding) on LLMs 🙏
Beautiful. I say again, keep on keeping on.