There is a deep resonance here between Buddhist process thought and the Christian mystical tradition, particularly in the rejection of fixed “thingness” and the embrace of reality as relational, unfolding, alive. Where Segall speaks of the “consequent nature of God”, the fellow sufferer who understands, Christianity dares to go further: the divine not only suffers with the world, but in it, through the Incarnation. Christ does not remain a metaphysical lure toward beauty. He bleeds, weeps, dies, and rises, folding all of time into a single act of love.
Incarnational mysticism insists that God is not merely the background of being but its beating heart… immanent in matter, yet never reduced to it. In this way, Whitehead’s vision and the Dharma share a kinship with the Christian claim, that all becoming is drawn not toward abstraction, but toward communion. And perhaps, as pilgrims with different tongues, we are all trying to name the same fire.
Grounded in the everchanging experience ( born of perspectivism and constructivism ) of being on the path of life.
Admirable precision by Matthew David Segall explaining the possible ongoing 'reorientation of agency' in process-relational philosophy to create shared value by interdependent co-origination.
Nitpicky comment: I've come to distinguish between existence and reality. I think existence is in process, but reality has both processual and nonprocessual dimensions. Eternal objects, for instance, are real and never change, but they aren't existents. Do you like that distinction?
The ambiguity is off the charts, Matt. I think you’re over extending your ideas, which could be framed with more humility - but I guess because you think you know better than the God of the Bible, pride is to be expected.
At 47:20 in the video you give an account of how Process Philosophy proposes that there are no things out there, only "nexuses of processes", but you don't explain the logical steps taken to reduce reality to just processe. How does Whitehead get from cleats-on-the-shins reality to only processes existing?
From the surface level of Process Philosophy that I've been exposed to from various sources it appears that Whitehead made the same unsupportable leap in logic that Idealism does, that we can't prove the existence of a material substance so it must not exist or is an emergent property of consciousness. Materialism makes the same unsupportable leap, that because we can't measure consciousness it can't exist or is an emergent property of matter.
I'm have little interest in wading through Whiteheadian language to find where his leap occurs, could you show how Process Philosophy reduces reality to just process?
Physics has made it clear that there is no such thing as "nature at an instant." Even a photon takes a certain duration to fully manifest as itself. Matter defined as a mutely persisting substance that remains identical through every instant of its life history is not a concept supported by contemporary physics. So, in part, Whitehead's process ontology is just his attempt to keep up with 20th century physics. But he also sought to make his philosophy compatible with concrete experience, where similarly, there are no frozen instants but only events and occasions passing into one another.
To be clear, my philosophical position not materialist, or idealist, or really any of the other philosophical concepts that have been considered over time. It's something of an amalgamation of all of them, or at least the observations that prompted them.
That said, I still don't see where you have explained how Whitehead got from material substance to only process, except that you attribute the fact that matter is not static or fixed as being a reason to dismiss the existence of matter. How is this a true statement?
There is a deep resonance here between Buddhist process thought and the Christian mystical tradition, particularly in the rejection of fixed “thingness” and the embrace of reality as relational, unfolding, alive. Where Segall speaks of the “consequent nature of God”, the fellow sufferer who understands, Christianity dares to go further: the divine not only suffers with the world, but in it, through the Incarnation. Christ does not remain a metaphysical lure toward beauty. He bleeds, weeps, dies, and rises, folding all of time into a single act of love.
Incarnational mysticism insists that God is not merely the background of being but its beating heart… immanent in matter, yet never reduced to it. In this way, Whitehead’s vision and the Dharma share a kinship with the Christian claim, that all becoming is drawn not toward abstraction, but toward communion. And perhaps, as pilgrims with different tongues, we are all trying to name the same fire.
Beautifully put.
Grounded in the everchanging experience ( born of perspectivism and constructivism ) of being on the path of life.
Admirable precision by Matthew David Segall explaining the possible ongoing 'reorientation of agency' in process-relational philosophy to create shared value by interdependent co-origination.
That was lovely. Thank you Matt 🙏🏽❤️
Nitpicky comment: I've come to distinguish between existence and reality. I think existence is in process, but reality has both processual and nonprocessual dimensions. Eternal objects, for instance, are real and never change, but they aren't existents. Do you like that distinction?
Yes, it does and I agree! I just went with the title the Buddhist Centre chose 🙂
Something needs to Be before it can become, but once it is a state of becoming it cannot just be again.
The ambiguity is off the charts, Matt. I think you’re over extending your ideas, which could be framed with more humility - but I guess because you think you know better than the God of the Bible, pride is to be expected.
At 47:20 in the video you give an account of how Process Philosophy proposes that there are no things out there, only "nexuses of processes", but you don't explain the logical steps taken to reduce reality to just processe. How does Whitehead get from cleats-on-the-shins reality to only processes existing?
From the surface level of Process Philosophy that I've been exposed to from various sources it appears that Whitehead made the same unsupportable leap in logic that Idealism does, that we can't prove the existence of a material substance so it must not exist or is an emergent property of consciousness. Materialism makes the same unsupportable leap, that because we can't measure consciousness it can't exist or is an emergent property of matter.
I'm have little interest in wading through Whiteheadian language to find where his leap occurs, could you show how Process Philosophy reduces reality to just process?
Physics has made it clear that there is no such thing as "nature at an instant." Even a photon takes a certain duration to fully manifest as itself. Matter defined as a mutely persisting substance that remains identical through every instant of its life history is not a concept supported by contemporary physics. So, in part, Whitehead's process ontology is just his attempt to keep up with 20th century physics. But he also sought to make his philosophy compatible with concrete experience, where similarly, there are no frozen instants but only events and occasions passing into one another.
To be clear, my philosophical position not materialist, or idealist, or really any of the other philosophical concepts that have been considered over time. It's something of an amalgamation of all of them, or at least the observations that prompted them.
That said, I still don't see where you have explained how Whitehead got from material substance to only process, except that you attribute the fact that matter is not static or fixed as being a reason to dismiss the existence of matter. How is this a true statement?