Andrew M. Davis - 10 Ideas in Whiteheadian Thought

The Cobb Institute:

"We Put Process Philosophy to Work"

Dr. John B. Cobb, Jr

IDEAS IN PROCESS

10 Whiteheadian Transitions

by the Cobb Institute

Partners in Process, on Tuesday, August 23, 10 am PDT, Andrew Davis will share with John Cobb & Friends Ideas in Process–Ten Whiteheadian Transitions.

Dr. Davis, Program Director of the Center for Process Studies, is sharing a presentation he made for Tom Oord’s ORTCON conference in July.

Andrew M. Davis is a philosopher, theologian, and scholar of world religions. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Theology, an M.A. in Interreligious Studies, and a Ph.D. in Religion and Process Philosophy from Claremont School of Theology (CST).

He is a poet, aphorist, and author or editor of four books including How I Found God in Everyone and Everywhere: An Anthology of Spiritual Memoirs (2018, with Philip Clayton); Propositions in the Making: Experiments in a Whiteheadian Laboratory (2019, with Roland Faber and Michael Halewood); Depths as Yet Unspoken: Whiteheadian Excursions in Mysticism, Multiplicity, and Divinity (2020, with Roland Faber); and Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy (Lexington, Nominated for the International Society of Science and Religion 2022 Book Prize).

For more about Andrew’s work and research interests, visit his website at andrew davis.

* * * * * *

TITLES BY ANDREW M. DAVIS

How I Found God in Everyone and Everywhere: An Anthology of Spiritual Memoirs Sep 18, 2018
by Andrew M. Davis, Philip Clayton, Deepak Chopra, Richard Rohr, Rupert Sheldrake

$8.49

How I Found God in Everyone and Everywhere captures for a general audience the spiritual shift away from a God “up there” and “out there” and towards an immanent divine right here. It’s built around the personal journeys of a close-knit group of prominent contributors. Their spiritual visions of immanence, sometimes called “panentheism,” are serving as a path of spiritual return for a growing number of seekers today. Contributors include Deepak Chopra, Richard Rohr, Rupert Sheldrake, Matthew Fox, and Cynthia Bourgeault.

Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy (Contemporary Whitehead Studies) Oct 14, 2020

by Andrew M. Davis

$38.00

Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy is an investigation into the nature of ultimacy and explanation, particularly as it relates to the status of, and relationship among Mind, Value, and the Cosmos. It draws its stimulus from longstanding “axianoetic” convictions as to the ultimate status of Mind and Value in the western tradition of philosophical theology, and chiefly from the influential modern proposals of A.N. Whitehead, Keith Ward, and John Leslie. What emerges is a relational theory of ultimacy wherein Mind and Value, Possibility and Actuality, God and the World are revealed as “ultimate” only in virtue of their relationality. The ultimacy of relationality—what Whitehead calls “mutual immanence”—uniquely illuminates enduring mysteries surrounding: any and all existence, necessary divine existence, the nature of the possible, and the world as actual. As such, it casts fresh light upon the whence and why of God, the World, and their ultimate presuppositions.

Propositions in the Making: Experiments in a Whiteheadian Laboratory (Contemporary Whitehead Studies) Nov 13, 2019
by Roland Faber, Michael Halewood, Andrew M. Davis, James Burton, Brianne Donaldson, Diego Gil, Susanne Valerie Granzer, Matthew Goulish, Erin Manning, Brian Massumi, Andrew Murphie, Timothy Murphy, AJ Nocek
$90.48

How do we make ourselves a Whiteheadian proposition? This question exposes the multivalent connections between postmodern thought and Whitehead’s philosophy, with particular attention to his understanding of propositions.

Edited by Roland Faber, Michael Halewood, and Andrew M. Davis, Propositions in the Making articulates the newest reaches of Whiteheadian propositions for a postmodern world. It does so by activating interdisciplinary lures of feeling, living, and co-creating the world anew. Rather than a “logical assertion,” Whitehead described a proposition as a “lure for feeling” for a collectivity to come. It cannot be reduced to the verbal content of logical justifications, but rather the feeling content of aesthetic valuations. In creatively expressing these propositions in wide relevance to existential, ethical, educational, theological, aesthetic, technological, and societal concerns, the contributors to this volume enact nothing short of “a Whiteheadian Laboratory.”

Process Cosmology: New Integrations in Science and Philosophy (Palgrave Perspectives on Process Philosophy) Dec 13, 2021
by Andrew M. Davis, Maria-Teresa Teixeira, Wm. Andrew Schwartz
$100.87

This book newly articulates the international and interdisciplinary reach of Whitehead’s organic process cosmology for a variety of topics across science and philosophy, and in dialogue with a variety historical and contemporary voices. Integrating Whitehead’s thought with the insights of Bergson, James, Pierce, Merleau-Ponty, Descola, Fuchs, Hofmann, Grof and many others, contributors from around the world reveal the relevance of process philosophy to physics, cosmology, astrobiology, ecology, metaphysics, aesthetics, psychedelics, and religion. A global collection, this book expresses multivocal possibilities for the development of process cosmology after Whitehead.

Nature in Process: Organic Proposals in Philosophy, Society, and Religion Feb 28, 2022
by Andrew M. Davis, Maria-Teresa Teixeira, Wm. Andrew Schwartz
Paperback
$24.00

More Buying Choices
$23.80 (10 Used & New offers)

Depths as Yet Unspoken: Whiteheadian Excursions in Mysticism, Multiplicity, and Divinity Jul 30, 2020

by Roland Faber, Andrew M Davis
Hardcover - $62.00
More Buying Choices - $50.86 (10 Used & New offers)
Paperback - $34.92

More Buying Choices - $26.69 (19 Used & New offers)

* * * * * *

0:27 / 59:28

Ideas in Process: Ten Whiteheadian Transitions

by Dr. Andrew Davis |  Cobb Institute

September

Sep 6, 2022Presenter: Andrew Davis Recording Date: August 23, 2022 Introduction: 00:00:00 - 00:02:35 Presentation: 00:02:36 - 00:59:28

* * * * * *

COMMENTARY by LISTENERS

From María Guadalupe Llanes to Everyone 01:02 PM
hi Jay. 😊

From Meijun/CPS & IPDC to Everyone 01:04 PM
hi prof. gunna, glad to see you here.

From Thomas Jay Oord to Me (Direct Message) 01:05 PM
Good to "see" you, Russ!

From Russ Slater to Thomas Jay Oord (Direct Message) 01:05 PM
You too Tom!

From Richard Livingston / Cobb Institute to Everyone 01:11 PM
Check out our full vision statement with 14 transformations here: https://cobb.institute/about/

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 01:16 PM

So serious as a young man! Who knew Norm McDonald is such a deep thinker?!

From dennis hargiss to Everyone 01:22 PM

Nietzsche considered such abstract thought and “the emptiest concepts” as “the last smoke of evaporating reality.”

From dennis hargiss to Everyone 01:50 PM

Cf. Gregory of Nyssa’s notion of Epektasis (the doctrine of unceasing evolution in eternal happiness and the unceasing love of God).

From Ronald Hines to Everyone 01:51 PM

We’ll follow your chat comments and “raised hands" to carry forward a conversation in response to Andrew’s presentation.

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:06 PM
Beautiful Andrew!! So compelling!

From Mary Elizabeth Moore to Everyone 02:07 PM
Andrew, that was an exceptional presentation. Thank you!

From Howard Pepper to Everyone 02:07 PM
Great presentation... organization and concepts, etc.

From Douglas Tooley to Everyone 02:07 PM
A waterfall of verbs

From Pates to Everyone 02:07 PM
This was a beautiful presentation! Thank You!

From Ellen Livingston to Everyone 02:07 PM
encouraged

From bruce hanson to Everyone 02:08 PM
You provide a wonderful opening and invitation to a creative life. Many Thanks!

From Al Gephart to Everyone 02:08 PM
Whitehead clarified

From Jeanyne Slettom/Process Century Press to Everyone 02:08 PM
brilliant

From Lupe to Everyone 02:08 PM
great presentation! thank you!

From Eliyas Reddy Kasu to Everyone 02:08 PM
Presentation is Creative and definitely Novelty has burst forth

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:08 PM
Inspiring!

From Betty Hale to Everyone 02:08 PM
beautiful

From marcus ford to Everyone 02:08 PM
Andrew, thank you so much for this stimulating presentation

From Timothy Eastman to Everyone 02:08 PM

A brilliant summary of key process concepts - congratulations! An enhancement of possibility for all!

From Daryl Anderson to Everyone 02:08 PM
eye-opening thoughts on christianty

From Michael Witmer to Everyone 02:08 PM
Advance to decadence in the realm of aging

From dennis hargiss to Everyone 02:08 PM
Inspiring! 💓

From John Fahey / Claremont CA USA to Everyone 02:08 PM
Andrew makes Whitehead accessible

From Rolla Lewis to Everyone 02:08 PM
Great presentation. Fantastic references. Can we have them? Thank you.

From Bill McClellan to Everyone 02:08 PM
Andrew has polished the jewel, the facets shine

From George Strawn to Everyone 02:08 PM
Excellent

From David Stoney to Everyone 02:08 PM
Marvelous coalescence

From Jeff Brockman to Everyone 02:08 PM
Summary

From Zhihe Wang -IPDC to Everyone 02:08 PM
Terrific lecture !

From Richard Saville-Smith to Everyone 02:08 PM
basileau du thou

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:09 PM
With a great future ahead of him!!

From John Pohl to Everyone 02:09 PM
Thank you for the wonderful lecture.

From iPhone to Everyone 02:10 PM

I appreciate the idea of creativity in this context, and find it motivating both philosophically and artistically.

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:11 PM
I'd love to hear more about what the evidence is saying may be true, other than the Big Bang.

From Pates to Everyone 02:12 PM
Is this lecture and power pt going to be available somewhere? Thanks.

From Ronald Hines to Everyone 02:16 PM
Today’s presentation will be accessible in our "meeting recordings” YouTube channel.

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:16 PM
Great! I'll want to let Doug King take a listen in preparation for our class together!

From Al Gephart to Everyone 02:16 PM

On the surface some of the transitions appear to be value-less. Even creativity and possibilities can be understood as outside of value. How do you see value in the becoming of the universe? Ilia Delio speaks of love as the dynamic lure of evolution / becoming. How do you understand value, in particular love, in the flow of the universe

From Richard Livingston / Cobb Institute to Everyone 02:17 PM

Pates, the recordings of our meetings are typically made available here: 

https://cobb.institute/meeting-recordings/

From Mary Elizabeth Moore to Everyone 02:21 PM

Andrew, do you think Whitehead, in Aims of Education, is bifurcating wisdom and knowledge, as in applying (or doing) knowledge, or something more nuanced?

From Richard Saville-Smith to Everyone 02:24 PM

Andrew, How far do you think of the 10 transitions as manifestation of one state of consciousness or experiential journey?

From Jay McDaniel to Everyone 02:24 PM

John Cobb on Whitehead's Theory of Value:

https://www.openhorizons.org/whiteheads-theory-of-value.html

From Mary Elizabeth Moore to Everyone 02:24 PM

Andrew, I also appreciated your nuances in relation to the transitions from, e.g., coercion and passivity. How do you see the nuances as important to public policy and social-ecological activism, e.g., in relation to ecological or racial justice?

From Betty Hale to Everyone 02:24 PM

I call myself a "pancompassionist" : )

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:25 PM

I like that Betty! Maybe from meaninglessness to value?

From bruce hanson to Everyone 02:29 PM

Brilliant work Andrew! I am particularly struck by the role of solitude in organism. Perhaps the fear and responsibility spurs us forward and provides dynamism? I would love to hear more about the roles of seemingly negative phenomena in the life in process.

From Howard Pepper to Everyone 02:31 PM

We need some new, organic and interconnected structures in our governance processes... from local to national (ultimately international)

From Howard Pepper to Everyone 02:37 PM

... continued from above.... structures OF process... that of informed deliberation with the aim of coming to concensus on solving of all kinds of problems. This is done somewhat here and there already. But there is a distinct "movement" toward this called "deliberative democracy". The core elements of it are involved in the vision expressed at:

https://CompassionateCitizens.us

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:37 PM

Peace, Harmony, Beauty

From Al Gephart to Everyone 02:39 PM

I just finished The Book of Joy, about the last coming together to the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Tutu, and facilitated by someone who describes himself as a secular Jew. A non-theist and a theist affirming joy as a fundamental reality / possibility within all human "becomings”.

From David Stoney to Everyone 02:42 PM

I wonder how appropriate it is to meld the God concept to mental capabilities of the most successful hominid species, Homo erectus? I believe that their radically participatory mode of consciousness integrally interconnected them to the creative heart of the universe, but I’m not at all clear that they would have had a notion of a high God, even if God is indeed the aboriginal source of creativity.

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:43 PM

One of the reasons Whitehead thought God was necessary is that he saw God as ordering possibilities for actualization, making possibilities relevant to each particular moment as it arises. If God is not doing that, what is?

From Eliyas Reddy Kasu to Everyone 02:49 PM

possibilities provided by Creativity?

From Howard Pepper to Everyone 02:55 PM

Cheri, on God as "ordering possibilities..." It does seem we need SOME name or title for that aspect of ultimate oneness. without it, we have pantheism, seems to me.

From Daryl Anderson to Everyone 02:57 PM

To tie Sheri's question to Eliyas's observation... is god not the "force" or source of the ordering of possibilities ?

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:57 PM

Exactly Howard. That function is also interested in every moment's highest good, and so is "personal" in that sense.

From Andrew Davis to Everyone 02:58 PM

Friends, I would love to stay in touch with all of you: andrewmdavis.info

From Johnny to Everyone 02:59 PM

In Unificationism also God is fellow sufferer, with the fundamental impulse to give love and the sorrowful frustration of love not received-and=passed-on.

From Sheri D. Kling to Everyone 02:59 PM

Dennis, I LOVE that little guy!!

From Rolla Lewis to Everyone 02:59 PM

Thank you very much. This was lovely.

From Meijun/CPS & IPDC to Everyone 03:01 PM

Here: Everyone is equal in the face of GOD. In China: All things are equal in the face of Dao.

From Jay McDaniel

Six ways to think about God in Whitehead, offered by the Cobb Institute:

https://cobb.institute/educators-toolbox-v2/god-in-process-theology-six-approaches/

From Timothy Eastman to Everyone 03:02 PM

In my work Untying the Gordian Knot (2020), I hypothesize two fundamental logical orders (indeed, metaphysical orders that underly the 'world’) based on the quantum physics distinction of Boolean logic (of actualization) and non-Boolean logic (of potentia, or possible relations). In turn, as I argues (along with semiotics, systems thought, physics, etc.) here is a route to re-thinking these fundamental questions, and tying in with Whitehead's discussion of aesthetics, values and meaning, inter-being, wholism, etc. This philosophic approach can also be used to re-think the difficult God question. Tim Eastman

From dennis hargiss to Everyone 03:02 PM

What a wonderful presentation! So thankful to be a part of this community! Thank you, Andrew, and thank you all! 🙏🏼

From Russ Slater to Everyone 03:03 PM

Thank you Andrew and all in attendance for their thoughtful comments.

New DNA Technology Is Shaking Up The Branches of The Evolutionary Tree

A short comment here.... My Christian heritage was devoid of evolutionary studies. Occasionally I will place biological, geological, and astronomical evolutionary articles into Relevancy22 to help those new to Whiteheadian/Cobb Process Philosophy and Theology understand that it will always accept and embrace academic studies as being current with the best of the sciences rather than shy away from them.

For Process Christians there is every need to incorporate science into Process thought. They each need the other in order to progress further into the areas of their own respective studies... as well as importantly resting together in mutually symbiotic relationships with one another as relevant interdisciplinary studies with one another.

As example, as quantum technology explores artificial intelligence, sentient consciousness, nanotechnology, and the algorithmic processes available to quantum computing, process thought can help open up quantum processing into its own right without any need or reliance upon its past Binary/Boolean/Silicon self-history. Amazingly, such process-based quantum  computer-processing / A.I. studies have been pursued as early as the 1960s (cf. Tim Eastman's, The Gordian Knot series)

Similarly, process thought can provide direction into all areas of scientific inquiry: from cosmo-ecological societies, psychological/sociological speculations, neurobiology, even education and socio-political eco-economies. Process Philosophy/Theology is not only a philosophical/theological study in its own right but applicable into all areas of human study.

R.E. Slater

July 1, 2022

Ernst Haeckel's 'tree of life' sketch | Click to Enlarge

New DNA Technology Is Shaking Up The

Branches of The Evolutionary Tree

article link

by Matthew Wills, The Conversation

June 25, 2022

If you look different to your close relatives, you may have felt separate from your family. As a child, during particularly stormy fall outs you might have even hoped it was a sign that you were adopted.

As our new research shows, appearances can be deceptive when it comes to family. New DNA technology is shaking up the family trees of many plants and animals.

The primates, to which humans belong, were once thought to be close relatives of bats because of some similarities in our skeletons and brains. However, DNA data now places us in a group that includes rodents (rats and mice) and rabbits. Astonishingly, bats turn out to be more closely related to cows, horses, and even rhinoceroses than they are to us.

Scientists in Darwin's time and through most of the 20th century could only work out the branches of the evolutionary tree of life by looking at the structure and appearance of animals and plants. Life forms were grouped according to similarities thought to have evolved together.

About three decades ago, scientists started using DNA data to build "molecular trees". Many of the first trees based on DNA data were at odds with the classical ones.

Sloths and anteaters, armadillos, pangolins (scaly anteaters), and aardvarks were once thought to belong together in a group called edentates ("no teeth"), since they share aspects of their anatomy.

Molecular trees showed that these traits evolved independently in different branches of the mammal tree. It turns out that aardvarks are more closely related to elephants while pangolins are more closely related to cats and dogs.

Coming together

There is another important line of evidence that was familiar to Darwin and his contemporaries. Darwin noted that animals and plants that appeared to share the closest common ancestry were often found close together geographically. The location of species is another strong indicator they are related: species that live near each other are more likely to share a family tree.

For the first time, our recent paper cross-referenced location, DNA data, and appearance for a range of animals and plants. We looked at evolutionary trees based on appearance or on molecules for 48 groups of animals and plants, including bats, dogs, monkeys, lizards, and pine trees.

Evolutionary trees based on DNA data were two-thirds more likely to match with the location of the species compared with traditional evolution maps. In other words, previous trees showed several species were related based on appearance.

Our research showed they were far less likely to live near each other compared to species linked by DNA data.

It may appear that evolution endlessly invents new solutions, almost without limits. But it has fewer tricks up its sleeve than you might think.

Animals can look amazingly alike because they have evolved to do a similar job or live in a similar way. Birds, bats and the extinct pterosaurs have, or had, bony wings for flying, but their ancestors all had front legs for walking on the ground instead.

(Oyston et al., Communication Biology, 2022)

Above: The color wheels and key indicate where members of each order are found geographically. The molecular tree has these colors grouped together better than the morphological tree, indicating closer agreement of the molecules to biogeography.

Similar wing shapes and muscles evolved in different groups because the physics of generating thrust and lift in air are always the same. It is much the same with eyes, which may have evolved 40 times in animals, and with only a few basic "designs".

Our eyes are similar to squid's eyes, with a crystalline lens, iris, retina, and visual pigments. Squid are more closely related to snails, slugs, and clams than us. But many of their mollusk relatives have only the simplest of eyes.

Moles evolved as blind, burrowing creatures at least four times, on different continents, on different branches of the mammal tree. The Australian marsupial pouched moles (more closely related to kangaroos), African golden moles (more closely related to aardvarks), African mole rats (rodents), and the Eurasian and North American talpid moles (beloved of gardeners, and more closely related to hedgehogs than these other "moles") all evolved down a similar path.

Evolution's roots

Until the advent of cheap and efficient gene sequencing technology in the 21st century, appearance was usually all evolutionary biologists had to go on.

While Darwin (1859) showed that all life on Earth is related in a single evolutionary tree, he did little to map out its branches. The anatomist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was one of the first people to draw evolutionary trees that tried to show how major groups of life forms are related.

Haeckel's drawings (shown at the top) made brilliant observations of living things that influenced art and design in the 19th and 20th centuries. His family trees were based almost entirely on how those organisms looked and developed as embryos. Many of his ideas about evolutionary relationships were held until recently.

As it becomes easier and cheaper to obtain and analyze large volumes of molecular data, there will be many more surprises in store.

Matthew Wills, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the Milner Centre for Evolution, University of Bath.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

* * * * * * *

For further reference:

The Tree of Life: Tangled Roots and Sexy Shoots

"Tracing the genetic pathway from the last universal

common ancestor to Homo Sapiens"

https://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/unravel.htm#Anchor-Three-47857

by Chris King

Dec 2009-Feb 2022

Genotype: 1.5.32

click to enlarge

Summary of the "International Open & Relational Theology Online Conference," February 2022

Summary of the "International Open &

Relational Theology Online Conference"

February 19, 2022

SUCCESS!

International Open & Relational Theology Online Conference

February 19, 2022

More than 150 people attended the International Open and Relational Theology Conference (ORTLine22) in February.

Ten authors -- Sharon Baker Putt, John Cobb, Andrew Davis, Bruce Epperly, Catherine Keller, Matthew Korpman, Rory Randall, John Sanders, Matthew Segall, Andrew Williams -- responded to distinguished panelists and conference participants, with conversation topics ranging widely.

Conference attendees will receive at no extra cost the audio and video files from the sessions. They should look for an email from Jonathan Foster with a link to the webpage with ORTLine22 audio and video files.

Schedule of Speakers

~ This was a paid conference and videos can only

be posted if they are present on YouTube ~

9am Eastern
Rory Randall, An Open Theist Renewal Theology: God’s Love, The Spirit’s Power, and Human Freedom

Hosted by Thomas Jay Oord- Panelists: Joshua Reichard, Steve Harper, Chris Baker, Monte Lee Rice

10am Eastern
Sharon Baker Putt, A Nonviolent Theology of Love: Peacefully Confessing the Apostle’s Creed

Hosted by Thomas Jay Oord - Panelists: Brian Felushko, Deanna Young, Travis Keller, Annie DeRolf

11am Eastern

Matthew Korpman, Saying No to God: A Radical Approach to Reading the Bible Faithfully

Hosted by Brian Felushko- Panelists: Eric Seibert, Scott Spencer, Tammy Wiese

Noon Eastern
John Sanders, Embracing Prodigals: Overcoming Authoritative Religion by Embodying Jesus' Nurturing Grace

Hosted by Brian Felushko - Panelists: Mark Umstot, Ryan Lambros Janna Gonwa, Michael Brennan

1pm Eastern
Andrew Davis, Mind, Value, and Cosmos: On the Relational Nature of Ultimacy

Hosted by Jonathan Foster - Panelists: Andre Rabe, Austin Roberts, Sheri Kling, Fidel Arnecillo

2pm Eastern
Catherine Keller, Facing Apocalypse: Climate, Democracy, and Other Last Chances

Hosted by Jonathan Foster - Panelists: Dhawn Martin, Andrew Schwartz, Elaine Padilla, Jea Sophia Oh

3pm Eastern
Matthew Segall, Physics of the World-Soul: Whitehead’s Adventure in Cosmology

Hosted by Jonathan Foster - Panelists: John Pohl, Tim Miller, Michael Epperson, Tim Eastman

4pm Eastern
Bruce Epperly, Walking with Francis of Assisi: From Privilege to Activism

Hosted by Brian Felushko - Panelists: Clemette Haskins, Steve Watson, Tim Reddish, Clarence White

5pm Eastern
John Cobb, Salvation: Jesus’s Mission and Ours

Hosted by Brian Felushko - Panelists: Tripp Fuller, Thomas Hermans-Webster, Donna Bowman, Shaleen Kendrick, Krista E. Hughes

6pm Eastern
Andrew Williams, Boundless Love: A Companion to Clark H. Pinnock’s Theology

Hosted by Thomas Jay Oord - Panelists: Chris Fisher, Shawn Ryan, Linda Mercadante, Sharon Harvey

ADDENDUM

• ORT Shorts (Shorts Thoughts on Open & Relational Theology)

• Catherine Keller (Homebrewed Christianity)

• Chris Fisher (God is Open)

• John Haught (Homebrewed Christianity)

• John Sanders (Homebrewed Christianity)

• Open and Relational Q&A with Thomas Jay Oord and Tripp Fuller (Homebrewed Christianity)

• Open and Relational Theology Throwdown (Homebrewed Christianity)

• Open and Relational Theology Series (Laity Podcast)

• Thomas Jay Oord (A Better Story)

• Thomas Jay Oord (Homebrewed Christianity)

Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 9

The Alexandrian Solution

Untying the Gordian Knot:

Process, Reality, and Context

What an honor it is to hear from the second generation of process theologians and philosophers now in their late 80s and 90s still able to share their journey with us of the third and fourth generations. The Cobb Institute, as well as many other process organizations and websites like Relevancy22, have been dissecting and weaving together their dialogues, discussions, books, journals, and podcasts over the years so that they are not lost to history, and quite open for exploration and discovery by future generations of process Whiteheadians.

Do take advantage of these living souls in their late years. It is with great honor that these several process theologians continue to share their personal journeys into the realms of the biological, quantum and psychological/sociological sciences.

Lastly, thank you to all those in the process community who have been willing to make time and effort to share their separate process insights from their respective disciplines! Each thought, each soul, helps create depth to a very complex philosophy of cosmology.

As introduction to these series, earlier this past summer the Cobb Institute began an 8-part series discussing and distinguishing substantive philosophies and sciences from those of the process variety. Hosted by Matt Segall, John Cobb, and Tim Eastman each explore Eastman's book written in December 2020 on untying the Gordian Knot of physics. Enjoy.

R.E. Slater

October 31, 2021

Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context

 * * * * * * * * *

Amazon Link

Untying the Gordian Knot

Process, Reality, and Context

by Timothy Eastman

In Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context, Timothy E. Eastman proposes a new creative synthesis, the Logoi framework - which is radically inclusive and incorporates both actuality and potentiality - (1) to show how the fundamental notions of process, logic, and relations, woven with triads of input-output-context and quantum logical distinctions, can resolve a baker’s dozen of age-old philosophic problems.

Further, (2) Eastman leverages a century of advances in quantum physics and the Relational Realism interpretation pioneered by Michael Epperson and Elias Zafiris and augmented by the independent research of Ruth Kastner and Hans Primas to resolve long-standing issues in understanding quantum physics. 

Adding to this, (3) Eastman makes use of advances in information and complex systems, semiotics, and process philosophy to show how multiple levels of context, combined with relations—including potential relations—both local and local-global, can provide a grounding for causation, emergence, and physical law. 

Finally, (4) the Logoi framework goes beyond standard ways of knowing—that of context independence (science) and context focus (arts, humanities)—to demonstrate the inevitable role of ultimate context (meaning, spiritual dimension) as part of a transformative ecological vision, which is urgently needed in these times of human and environmental crises.

 * * * * * * * * *

The Gordian Knot is an intractable problem (untying an impossibly tangled knot) solved easily by finding an approach to the problem that renders the perceived constraints of the problem moot ("cutting the Gordian knot"). - Wikipedia

* * * * * * * * *

List of Related References

Index - Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe

Index - Process Sciences: Biology, Physics, Computing

Process Christianity, the History of Computer Languages, and Quantum Computing

• Tim Eastman - Untying The Gordian Knot

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 1

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 2

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 3

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 4

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 5

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 6

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 7

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 8

• Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context - Session 9

* * * * * * * * *

 

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 9

Feb 14, 2022

THE COBB INSTITUTE

In this session Tim Eastman provides some final reflections on the conversation series and some of the main topics, after which Michael Epperson, Mikhail Epstein, Matt Segall offer responses.

00:00:05 - 00:00:47 - Welcome from Matt Segall

00:01:01 - 00:11:39 - Presentation by Tim Eastman

00:11:54 - 00:30:46 - Response by Michael Epperson

00:30:55 - 00:52:09 - Response by Matt Segall

00:52:25 - 00:57:14 - Response from Tim

00:58:07 - 02:04:22 - Open Conversation Tim Eastman's final reflections: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rx_h...

Meeting Chat Text: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r5_z...

Final Reflections, by Tim Eastman

This series is provided by the Cobb Institute. Please consider supporting this program and others like it by giving. https://cobb.institute/donate/

CHAT TEXT

00:30:13 Jude Jones: Has anyone come across a philosophical discussion of overcoming the depersonalized dimensions of Zoom? I actually find it quite congenial to connection, but this is not everyone’s experience.

00:46:41 Kent Bye: Jude Jones: I'd recommend checking out Jeremy Baileson's work on Zoom Fatigue: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/23/four-causes-zoom-fatigue-solutions/

I've also talked about various different qualities of presence in other media like virtual reality that give insights into the affordances of video chat

00:48:43 Jude Jones: Thanks Kent, I’ve actually read that article but not Baileson directly. If you have links for your own thinking I’d love to see them!

00:49:40 Lynn De Jonghe: Lakatos, “Criticism and the growth of science” described the type of evolutionary paradigmatic shift that Epperson just portrayed

00:49:48 MZC Reirin (she/her): Thank you, everyone, to let me be here today! Have been following on YouTube and am very excited about this work in context with my Zen studies.

00:52:27 Kent Bye: Jude: I've been developing an experiential design framework for virtual reality that includes qualities of presence -- active presence, mental & social presence, embodied & environmental presence, and emotional presence. I

00:52:55 Kent Bye: I've been give more lectures than writing, but here's a 20-minute version of that talk. I have some longer versions that I still need to post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05hvNDplNM8

00:58:05 Farzad Mahootian: Sean Carrol’s anti-Bohr ideology approaches fetish leve intensity

00:58:28 Farzad Mahootian: 8level

01:01:50 Jude Jones: Thanks so much Kent!

01:04:21 Douglas Tooley: I’ve lost battery power, hopefully the YouTube will have the citations. Thank you for a wonderful series. Hopefully it will continue in some, or multiple, fashion.

01:06:32 Lynn De Jonghe: Realist philosopher of science Richard Boyd has argued for the reality of theoretical terms.

01:11:30 Lynn De Jonghe: To Time

01:12:24 Thomas Royce: Despite the apparent upsurge in interest in “panspsychism” among those working in consciousness studies (e.g., Koch, Hammeroff, Penrose, and others), as well as, unflinching critiques of the reductionist agenda (e.g., Nagel) and a growing dissatisfaction with the “block universe” interpretation of “time” (e.g., Smolin), clearly, the dominant view of those involved in the scientific community still seems to be that of materialistic reductionism. Assuming you agree that is the case, what do you expect will be the level of acceptance within that community for the logoi framework you're proposing?

01:12:42 Farzad Mahootian: I’d echo & amplify, with Mike Epperson’s pre-Socratic speculation, Matt’s call to rethink Plato.

01:13:02 Kent Bye: I have a question about moving from substance metaphysics to a more process-relational metaphysics

01:13:42 Jude Jones: Plato of the Symposium has the most palpable respect for ‘possibility’ (via eros) that is not extinguished by the obsession with ‘Being’

01:14:31 Jude Jones: I’d love to hear Tim address Thomas Royce’s question!

01:15:19 Jude Jones: Partly because not only mainstream science and philosophy absorbed in reductive thinking, but because the young people we teach are often in the thrall of that as the default, obvious reality

01:18:54 Farzad Mahootian: Mikhail’s potentiation of actualities via aesthetic and intellectual arousal in philosophy, art (humanities in general), is exactly the platonic and more expressly the neoplatonic approach. Also well instantiatied in Islamic philosophers

01:20:18 Mikhail Epstein: A Philosophy of the Possible, English translation. (Brill, 2019)

01:21:29 Matt Segall: I will be reading your book ASAP, Mikhail!

01:21:50 Matt Segall: I was already sold, but then Farzad’s connection above made it even more urgent

01:22:01 Mikhail Epstein: Thank you, Matt, will be happy to talk with later.

01:22:06 Lynn De Jonghe: To Tim, What do you think the next stage m might be like??

01:22:37 Michael Epperson: Hi Mikhail-- Looking forward to reading this book asap!

01:22:58 Mikhail Epstein: Thank you, Michael.
01:24:42 MZC Reirin (she/her): Agree, Thomas!

01:32:11 Gary Herstein: We also have to make it acceptable to critique the gate keepers -- the Stephen Hawkings (who never really died, he "ascended"), the Sean Carrolls, the Laurence Kraus, the Brian Greenes

01:33:00 Farzad Mahootian: Spooky topologies are what VR is made of. VR

01:34:12 Farzad Mahootian: VR’s inventor Jaron Lanier is chuckling about this.

01:34:38 Jude Jones: Are we claiming for the good side, the reprehensible term ‘spooky’? 😄

01:34:56 Matt Segall: There’s a long history of mistaking the newest technology for ontology : )

01:35:06 Gary Herstein: VR is the metaphor du jour.

01:35:25 Farzad Mahootian: @ Jude: the goofy side of spooky

01:37:53 Jude Jones: Russell is the patron saint of legitimate thinking and whitehead is not

01:38:24 Kent Bye: For the record, I'm not a fan of simulation theory myself, but in Reality+, Chalmers makes a series of arguments that changed me mind that there is no way to conclusively prove that we are not living in a simulation -- he addresses various simulation blockers philosophically.
Here's my interview with Chalmers unpacking some of that: https://voicesofvr.com/1043-philosopher-david-chalmers-book-reality-may-change-how-you-see-reality-vr-is-a-genuine-reality-we-cant-prove-were-not-in-a-simulation/

01:39:14 Lynn De Jonghe: Thank. You for this wonderful series!

01:41:28 Kent Bye: Chalmers is still looking for a shortcut when I asked him at the end about Process Philosophy explicitly

01:46:01 Michael Epperson: Hi Kent-- Yeah, I came in hot on that one :) I didn't get the sense that you were advocating the idea, and should have made that clear--that I love the idea of questioning these claims as you're doing. I guess my frustration with the topic is that there are not enough meaningful questions about this topic--i.e., those that incorporate sufficient critical evaluation via physics and mathematics. It's especially annoying because the whole concept of simulation theory is fundamentally grounded in physics and mathematics! It's just cherry picking the parts that encourage the theory (and its popularization and monitization) and ignoring the parts that confute it, and that's super annoying to me!

01:47:04 Jude Jones: Kent that’s unfortunate because I begged him 15 years ago lol

01:48:12 Kent Bye: Jude: He did say that he's been asked by multiple people over the years to read Whitehead, and so he must have been referring to you in that complex of people who have suggested it to him over the years.

01:50:02 MZC Reirin (she/her): Jude, Young people also use psychoactive drugs and meditation that change their perceptions of reality and meaning....

01:52:18 Jude Jones: MZC Reirin yes! In the class I am referencing I am actually going to invite them to read about such things (it’s a course on “Philosophies of Experience”). We’ve also seen major upticks in engagement with things that fall (loosely or precisely) under the label of “magic” (I do not mean that disparagingly, but positively) during the past two years, including among young people

01:52:25 Kent Bye: Michael: Yeah, I'd recommend looking at Chalmers Reality+ to see if 

you have philosophical arguments against simulation theory that he lays out. Chalmers himself gives it a 25% probability. But he argues that perhaps there's a Quantum Computer running the simulation + cellular automata concepts that handle different layers of computational complexity. I started at 0% probability at the start at reading Reality+, and ended at 10-15% -- or at least that I don't have a solution to prove that we're not in a simulation if it's a perfect simulation

What's interesting in Reality+ is that Chalmers uses this line of reasoning to weaken people's minds about the nature of reality away from substance metaphysics, and explores more exotic metaphysical frameworks at the end of the book. So even if you have a personal dislike of simulation theory -- as I do -- there is utility in encouraging more pluralistic approaches to metaphyics

01:53:14 Farzad Mahootian: Islamic philosophy’s Alam al-Mithal, Dune (the book/movie) and a large-scale LSD experiment. Blend

01:53:30 Thandeka Thandeka: Should we bracket the term “object” in the claim abstract conceptual object?

01:54:31 Jude Jones: It would be interesting to confront Chalmers with the point Michael Epperson made about the system-level whole that the algorithms could not be/reproduce…to me this captures that flexible holism, dynamics of possibility, quality of “reality” that it is hard to imagine being produced digitally

01:56:03 Farzad Mahootian: Hear Hear John!

01:58:39 Gary Nelson: Could we get together like this a few times a year to keep the conversation going?

01:58:52 Jude Jones: More than a few times a year!

02:00:10 jonmeyer: Contagious Architecture: Computation, Aesthetics, and Space
by Luciana Parisi is a Whiteheadian-styled exploration of algorithms that is relevant to the VR discussions.

02:00:15 Jude Jones: Here’s a point of entry into Chalmers’ book but there is also Kent’s podcast that I now have in my queue: https://www.vox.com/vox-conversations-podcast/2022/1/12/22868445/vox-conversations-david-chalmers-the-matrix-reality

02:00:58 C Kamion Davison: And the eventual collapse of the deterministic path in the Dune Universe.

02:03:06 MZC Reirin (she/her): YES, Farzad

02:03:11 Kent Bye: I also interviewed Matt on my podcast
https://voicesofvr.com/primer-on-whiteheads-process-philosophy-as-a-paradigm-shift-foundation-for-experiential-design/

02:04:24 Matt Segall: Is this like what Corbin calls “the imaginal”?

02:05:10 Matt Segall: Alam al-Mithal, I mean

02:07:16 Farzad Mahootian: Yes! Corbin’s Imaginal World

02:09:47 Kent Bye: I'd love to chat more with you about all of that Farzad on a Voices of VR podcast episode at some point. That's the first that I've heard those connections to Islamic Philosophy and these more realms of potentiae or imaginal realms. Let me know if you have any references that you think of related to those concepts you were talking about. Regarding the exalted uses of VR, my 1000th episode of the Voices of VR is a 3-hour exploration the range of applications of VR

https://voicesofvr.com/1000-voices-of-vr-retrospective-on-the-ultimate-potential-of-virtual-reality/

02:10:37 Matt Segall: This hermetically sealed mind approach of Russell’s is why, for the analytic approach to panpsychism, the “combination problem” has been thought so intractable, perhaps as “hard” as the hard problem of consciousness.

02:13:07 Jude Jones: Even Sartre was forced to admit in an interview that his philosophy invites metaphysics but that he’d just never taken the time to seriously engage it

02:14:18 Jude Jones: Eternal Objects…the third rail of Whitehead acceptability lol

02:15:03 Jude Jones: “Forms of definiteness” not platonic forms

02:15:24 Farzad Mahootian: To Kent: Yes! Happy to chat more. I’ll upload a couple of things. Matt mentioned Henry Corbin’s brief article on alam al-mithal which he translated as the mundus imaginalis (I’ll find a clean copy and attach it here).

02:16:01 Gary Herstein: They are "eternal" because temporal considerations are not relevant to them.

02:16:07 Jude Jones: There’s a possible pattern that seems to need to pre-exist process (formally) but not “in being”

02:17:14 MZC Reirin (she/her): Many Mahayana Buddhist schools have interesting ways to talk about mind and reality, which actually fit very well with this conversation.

02:17:19 Gary Nelson: Archetypes. Pauli suggested archetypes of matter. Jung proposes archetypes in psyche

02:18:22 C Kamion Davison: The 4 worlds of Kabbalah attempts to address this.

02:19:26 Timothy Eastman: Thanks to Matt for great leadership!!

02:19:38 C Kamion Davison: Thank you for this series!

02:19:52 Thomas Royce: Thank you all.

02:19:59 Jude Jones: THANK YOU for a wonderful set of months! Thanks Tim for such an amazing book!

02:20:02 Gary Nelson: Thank you for great experiences

02:20:04 Farzad Mahootian: Thank you Matt and Cobb institute! Thank you everyone. 

loveley

02:20:07 Tara-Marie Linne: Thank you Tim and everyone!!! A fantastic series-learned so much!

02:20:07 Kent Bye: Thanks everyone