Greatly appreciate Part VII. Been able to follow you well with each segment. Number VI was a little difficult not knowing Ruyer. This one helped a lot to clear up some of my confusion, if at a higher level, about his role in the series. By the way I find a few concrete actionable differences with a Teihardian devoted friend, traceable back to our clear disagreement about metaphysical final closure. Meaning I both intuitively and reasonably come to the open-ended, more humble philosophical position (Whitehead and Pierce), regarding the hypothetical and always revisable categories, the experience corrected fallibility of even the best Metaphysics.
I am surely biased in this, and am comfortable with uncertainty, unpredictability, mystery, the Cloud of Unknowing - a senior citizen calm which appears to be socio-politically rare these days (actually on both sides of the pseudo dualistic moralistically projected bi-lateral PAC supported system). Few I know locally involved in politics have a calm convivial countenance (struggling with real existential and other anxieties), so tending toward premature closure, fragile certitudes, sometimes self-righteously rage projected ideology - rather than in spite of his brilliance, the finally unpredictable, uncontrollable wide open mystery with the humility of Whitehead. What would any "God" or Ultimate be if humanly controllable, even as we participate in co-creation? AI of course appears to be oxymoronically a "controllable God" that is sold as larger, faster "consciousness." As delusional as the commonly held utopian belief in the larger than life "natural law" of totally unfettered and laissez faire abstracted from social well being "free hand of supply and demand." Which of course what seems to be ("follow the money"), the current drive behind quickly installed AI owned by the very few.
Back to metaphysics which are finally closed vs open-ended. The dangers of being rationally astute, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, inclusive or increasingly exclusive at any given time, as I sometimes experienced in graduate school and in my now retired practice, were various levels of hyper-rational self-justying reactive judgmentalism,condescending developmental labeling of others, even with some an arrogance toward those less logically or rationally proficient. Hyper-rationalism unfettered from aesthetic and embodied felt experience, is as dangerous in my experience as simple-minded greed (Bob Marley "Some people are so poor all they have it money"), egocentric, and power hungry "leaders." Whenever you describe Hegel, I always feel not his arrogance, but a kind of spiritually well intended reification of intellect, rational truth being the salvific closured end, with the concomitant loss of more wholistic senses of "satisfaction," however finally unfinished.
I especially find it helpful when you bring the triad of metaphysicians down so to speak, with actual common symbolic metaphors, examples. Like the "loom" mechanistically analagous to "computer processing/AI"). This triadic comparison between Hegel, Whitehead, and Ruyer is especially helpful both in relation to the purpose of this series (AI is not and never will be conscious, however useful it might be perceived as a tool) - and in understanding their positions on crucial ontological, epistemological, and even participatory grounds considering AI. Though I realize words like "grounds," "fundamental," "foundations," "essential," even "core," are now academic deconstructionist cancel culture swear words no matter how used. Thanks again for sharing all of these parts of your larger book chapter with us who are life long learners outside of formal academia... As always, Matt...Best and warm regards... John B.
As a musician all this reminds me of the difference between composition and improvisation. I love improvisation, but it has a bad reputation for being ‘difficult’ and ‘avant guard’ for listeners. To be sure, musicians tend to be playing for one another to some extent in that improv is not entertainment (though it CAN be entertaining!) Yet improv need not be dissonant and atonal: it can be whatever it ‘wants’ to be in the moment. The ideas of how everything came to be has traditionally been conceived as God’s ‘composition’, which in Hegel perhaps means God’s ‘self-composition’ in and through human development of consciousness through history. But what if ‘God’ were also an improviser continually exploring relational possibilities as they arise? This seems to me to allow for the “Lila’ (the play of manifestation of Brahman in Hindu thought) as well as the continual manifestations of the Tao in Chinese: perhaps both are closer to Whitehead’s inspiration than most western philosophy allows for?
Thanks for that! It brings up so much of what I’ve been exploring. I’m thinking of Uexkull’s “melody that sings itself”, and of the wonderful term “Galumping” mentioned in Stephen Nachmanovitch’s lovely book “Free Play, Improvisation in Life and Art” which refers to animals throwing themselves about for the sheer joy of it. Of Merleau-Ponty’s insistence on expression and ‘style’ of animal behaviours; of Donald Winnicott’s studies in children’s play and manifestation of meaning in ‘the potential space’ and his statement, (perhaps following Schelling: “It’s a shame if we are only sane.” It’s all coming together in a new vision of a truly creative Universe: very exciting! (I only wish our politics was as progressive and visionary.)
I continue to be amazed at your dedication to convey the ends of what you see.
Matt,
Greatly appreciate Part VII. Been able to follow you well with each segment. Number VI was a little difficult not knowing Ruyer. This one helped a lot to clear up some of my confusion, if at a higher level, about his role in the series. By the way I find a few concrete actionable differences with a Teihardian devoted friend, traceable back to our clear disagreement about metaphysical final closure. Meaning I both intuitively and reasonably come to the open-ended, more humble philosophical position (Whitehead and Pierce), regarding the hypothetical and always revisable categories, the experience corrected fallibility of even the best Metaphysics.
I am surely biased in this, and am comfortable with uncertainty, unpredictability, mystery, the Cloud of Unknowing - a senior citizen calm which appears to be socio-politically rare these days (actually on both sides of the pseudo dualistic moralistically projected bi-lateral PAC supported system). Few I know locally involved in politics have a calm convivial countenance (struggling with real existential and other anxieties), so tending toward premature closure, fragile certitudes, sometimes self-righteously rage projected ideology - rather than in spite of his brilliance, the finally unpredictable, uncontrollable wide open mystery with the humility of Whitehead. What would any "God" or Ultimate be if humanly controllable, even as we participate in co-creation? AI of course appears to be oxymoronically a "controllable God" that is sold as larger, faster "consciousness." As delusional as the commonly held utopian belief in the larger than life "natural law" of totally unfettered and laissez faire abstracted from social well being "free hand of supply and demand." Which of course what seems to be ("follow the money"), the current drive behind quickly installed AI owned by the very few.
Back to metaphysics which are finally closed vs open-ended. The dangers of being rationally astute, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, inclusive or increasingly exclusive at any given time, as I sometimes experienced in graduate school and in my now retired practice, were various levels of hyper-rational self-justying reactive judgmentalism,condescending developmental labeling of others, even with some an arrogance toward those less logically or rationally proficient. Hyper-rationalism unfettered from aesthetic and embodied felt experience, is as dangerous in my experience as simple-minded greed (Bob Marley "Some people are so poor all they have it money"), egocentric, and power hungry "leaders." Whenever you describe Hegel, I always feel not his arrogance, but a kind of spiritually well intended reification of intellect, rational truth being the salvific closured end, with the concomitant loss of more wholistic senses of "satisfaction," however finally unfinished.
I especially find it helpful when you bring the triad of metaphysicians down so to speak, with actual common symbolic metaphors, examples. Like the "loom" mechanistically analagous to "computer processing/AI"). This triadic comparison between Hegel, Whitehead, and Ruyer is especially helpful both in relation to the purpose of this series (AI is not and never will be conscious, however useful it might be perceived as a tool) - and in understanding their positions on crucial ontological, epistemological, and even participatory grounds considering AI. Though I realize words like "grounds," "fundamental," "foundations," "essential," even "core," are now academic deconstructionist cancel culture swear words no matter how used. Thanks again for sharing all of these parts of your larger book chapter with us who are life long learners outside of formal academia... As always, Matt...Best and warm regards... John B.
"Whitehead keeps Creativity, the ultimate activity, distinct from God, its primordial creature."
At this point I was reminded of william blake, the book of urizen in particular. As if this distinction you mention was what blake intuited.
As a musician all this reminds me of the difference between composition and improvisation. I love improvisation, but it has a bad reputation for being ‘difficult’ and ‘avant guard’ for listeners. To be sure, musicians tend to be playing for one another to some extent in that improv is not entertainment (though it CAN be entertaining!) Yet improv need not be dissonant and atonal: it can be whatever it ‘wants’ to be in the moment. The ideas of how everything came to be has traditionally been conceived as God’s ‘composition’, which in Hegel perhaps means God’s ‘self-composition’ in and through human development of consciousness through history. But what if ‘God’ were also an improviser continually exploring relational possibilities as they arise? This seems to me to allow for the “Lila’ (the play of manifestation of Brahman in Hindu thought) as well as the continual manifestations of the Tao in Chinese: perhaps both are closer to Whitehead’s inspiration than most western philosophy allows for?
Yes, great connection! https://youtu.be/YztE_Nztq0c?si=UfUCd0TJRs0RJAHR
Thanks for that! It brings up so much of what I’ve been exploring. I’m thinking of Uexkull’s “melody that sings itself”, and of the wonderful term “Galumping” mentioned in Stephen Nachmanovitch’s lovely book “Free Play, Improvisation in Life and Art” which refers to animals throwing themselves about for the sheer joy of it. Of Merleau-Ponty’s insistence on expression and ‘style’ of animal behaviours; of Donald Winnicott’s studies in children’s play and manifestation of meaning in ‘the potential space’ and his statement, (perhaps following Schelling: “It’s a shame if we are only sane.” It’s all coming together in a new vision of a truly creative Universe: very exciting! (I only wish our politics was as progressive and visionary.)
This series is what need right now!