Whitehead's Metaphysical Contributions to Church & Science, Part 3 of 4

 article link

Whitehead's Metaphysical Contributions

to Church & Science

Part 3 of 4: Observations 8-11

Observation 8

In light of observations 6-7 from Part 2 briefly list contemporary scientific philosophies which rival Whitehead's process philosophy....

ChatGPT

Here are some contemporary scientific philosophies that rival Whitehead's process philosophy, each offering distinct frameworks for understanding science and reality:

---

1. Scientific Realism

• Focus: Science seeks to describe the world as it really is, independent of human perception.
• Key Figures: Hilary Putnam, Bas van Fraassen (constructive empiricism challenges this directly).
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Emphasizes static, objective truths rather than relational and dynamic processes.

---

2. Mechanistic Reductionism

• Focus: Complex phenomena can be fully explained by breaking them into their constituent parts and underlying mechanisms.
• Key Figures: Derived from Newton, Descartes; defended in modern biology by figures like Francis Crick.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Opposes relational emergence and prioritizes parts over wholes.

---

3. Emergentism

• Focus: Complex systems exhibit emergent properties that cannot be reduced to the sum of their parts.
• Key Figures: Terrence Deacon, Mark Bedau.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Shares similarities but lacks Whitehead’s metaphysical emphasis on interconnectedness and cosmic becoming.

---

4. Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM)

• Focus: Reality is fundamentally relational; physical properties depend on the interaction between systems.
• Key Figures: Carlo Rovelli.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Similar relational approach but limited to quantum contexts, without a broader metaphysical framework.

---

5. Information-Theoretic Ontology

• Focus: Reality is fundamentally informational rather than material.
• Key Figures: John Wheeler (“It from Bit”), Luciano Floridi.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Focuses on information as primary, rather than dynamic processes and experience.

---

6. Structural Realism

• Focus: The structure of scientific theories reflects the real structure of the world, even if the entities themselves are unknown.
• Key Figures: John Worrall, James Ladyman.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Prioritizes abstract structures over the evolving nature of entities.

---

7. Naturalism (Pragmatic and Scientific)

• Focus: Science is the best method for understanding reality, grounded in empirical observation and human practices.
• Key Figures: W.V.O. Quine, Richard Dawkins (biological naturalism).
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Rejects metaphysical speculation and focuses only on what science can empirically validate.

---

8. Neo-Materialism

• Focus: A revitalized materialist view emphasizing matter’s dynamism and agency.
• Key Figures: Karen Barad (agential realism), Manuel DeLanda.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Material-centric rather than prioritizing relationality and creativity of processes.

---

9. Complexity Theory

• Focus: Studies how complex systems and patterns arise from simple rules and interactions.
• Key Figures: Stuart Kauffman, Geoffrey West.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Focused on systems and emergent behavior, but lacks metaphysical grounding in cosmic relationality.

---

10. Integral Theory

• Focus: Integrates science, spirituality, and psychology into a comprehensive framework for understanding reality.
• Key Figures: Ken Wilber.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Emphasizes hierarchical integration of disciplines rather than metaphysical relationality of all entities.

---

11. Phenomenology of Science

• Focus: Studies science as a human practice embedded in experience and interpretation.
• Key Figures: Edmund Husserl, Maurice Merleau-Ponty.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Prioritizes subjective experience without extending to metaphysical claims about reality.

---

12. Posthumanism and New Materialism

• Focus: Rethinks the role of humans in the universe, emphasizing non-human agency and interconnectedness.
• Key Figures: Rosi Braidotti, Bruno Latour.
• Contrast with Process Philosophy: Often critiques traditional metaphysics, while process philosophy expands metaphysical concepts.

Observation 9 - To the Reader:

Over the years my attraction to Whitehead has been twofold:

• Firstly, in developing a process-based supernatural theology as a Christian 'theology qua theology' on its own in juxtaposition with the church's traditional theology however it leans - whether in neo-Platonic Hellenistic terms, Catholic Scholastic, or Protestant Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed terms, or in neo-orthodox and radical liberal terms.

• And secondly, in recognition that the church continues to struggle to develop a sufficient natural theology which connects God to science more readily as it sways between the influences of a mythical-magical "literalized" faith including faith movements involving religious anti-intellectualism. Perhaps Whitehead may help here in this area as well.

I

Why? In Whitehead I find that both theology and science are more easily wedded together without the traditional existential conflict ripping the church apart as it fights to keep God in both the pews and academia. Whitehead's processual cosmology provides a very roomy and intelligent framework for God and science to play well together.

Thus my blog here at Relevancy22 (circa 2009+) having developed this site to connect theology and science with one another. I wasn't interested in restating biblical or systematic theologies for public contemplation and devotion so much as in developing a newer form of theology which might utilize a newer form of philosophical language and foundation on which the traditional Christian faith might be helped. Eventually I found Whitehead and have been attending to what a processual Christian faith might look like in everyday vernacular and have been attending to this subject ever since.

II

In Whitehead I have found that the church is better helped in forcing it's form of faith back out of more mystical forms of 'naive realism' and back into conversation with the world's many socio-religious cultural conversations. This would include conversations with radical ethics, political division, environmentalism, anthropological evolution, and relevant social conversations such as racial-liberation theology, women's medical-and-cultural rights debate, LGBTQ+ communities, world cooperation forums, and so on.

By utilizing process thought one might reconstruct a sufficient Christian faith irrespective of it's past historical traditional forms. Importantly, it seems that Whitehead's process thought is the rock on which to build a God-ly theology as versus the elliptic sands of modern scientific Enlightenment, or older forms of German Idealism vis-a-vis Karl Barth, or any of the newer forms of Catholic Scholasticism, Calvinistic Evangelic thought, and so forth. All of which have in their teachings glommed onto specific religious adaptations of anti-intellectualism and religious-secularity because of each-and-all's present inadequate theistic and natural theistic doctrinnaires.

III

I would also like to note my own scientific criticism from a few articles back when putting up Dr. Tim Eastman's lecture series exploring how the natural sciences might better connect with cosmo-eco-science and environmentalism when using Whiteheadian thought than it would when using scientific realism. Whitehead's process philosophy gives to both the church and to science a better organic connection to God and creation and to one another. It is why I feel Whitehead's process philosophy seems to be so fundamental to my own exploration of Process-based Theism and Natural Theology. I find it centrally located to the most persistent questions which many, if not all, global religions and cultures, and science itself, are facing today.... Whether economically, politically, socially, psychologically, scientifically, or spiriturally.

IV

And as concerning "spirituality" in Whitehead a process theology can naturally turn to a more-than-justifiable process-based panpsychism thus allowing for the immaterial quantum explorations of the universe's more psychic categories using such non-scientific, psychological and sociological human-interior terminologies as feelings, lure, urgency, freedom, hope, existential conflict, consciousness, and etc.

Observation 10

In Tim Eastman's Logoi framework "quantum physics meets Whitehead" giving to the sciences such as AI and neuroscience a process-based cosmological metaphysic and ontology whcih seems to be more helpful than the mechanical, reductionist clock-work framework used by Newton and Einstein.

To show why plasma-radiation physicist Eastman's process title, "Untying the Gordian Knot" is pertinent I'll leave a 2-day old discussion by Brian Greene of WSF in the comments explaining how Neils Bohr thought any cosmological philosophy was unnecessary (Bohr proposed an assumed nativity in his preference for a science-only-reality).

Please respond...

ChatGPT

Your statement highlights a significant shift in how science can integrate with philosophy, particularly through frameworks like Tim Eastman’s Logoi framework, which draws on Whitehead's process philosophy. This approach challenges the reductionist, mechanistic views associated with Newtonian and Einsteinian paradigms by proposing a relational, dynamic cosmology more fitting for contemporary advancements like quantum physics, AI, and neuroscience.

In this context:

Tim Eastman’s Contribution:

• His book, "Untying the Gordian Knot," explores how process philosophy can resolve metaphysical and ontological tensions in modern science.

• By adopting Whiteheadian relational metaphysics, Eastman provides a framework that incorporates interconnectedness, becoming, and emergent properties, addressing the limitations of static and mechanistic paradigms.

Brian Greene and Neils Bohr:

• Neils Bohr's dismissal of philosophy as unnecessary reflects a common sentiment in 20th-century physics, where empirical results seemed sufficient without deeper metaphysical underpinnings.

• However, as Greene and his guest (likely Sabine Hossenfelder or another physicist) suggest, the increasing complexities of quantum phenomena, neuroscience, and AI demand a cosmological metaphysic and ontology capable of handling probability, emergence, and interrelation—concepts absent from classical physics.

Why the Shift is Pertinent:

• The reductionist view of the universe as a clockwork mechanism breaks down in quantum physics, where uncertainty, superposition, and entanglement defy simple cause-and-effect relationships.

• A process-based metaphysic, like Eastman's Logoi, aligns more naturally with the dynamic, relational nature of quantum phenomena, providing a cosmological lens for exploring not only the universe’s complexities but also the interplay between consciousness and matter.

Relevance for AI and Neuroscience:

• AI and neuroscience grapple with emergent phenomena, such as consciousness, learning, and relationality, which are not reducible to deterministic inputs and outputs.

• A process-oriented cosmology supports the idea of interconnected, adaptive systems evolving over time, enabling a richer understanding of intelligence—both artificial and natural.

Conclusion

This shift reflects the growing recognition (even among empirically-minded scientists like Greene) that science cannot advance in isolation from a robust philosophical grounding.

• Would you like to explore Eastman’s Logoi framework further or unpack its implications for specific fields like AI, neuroscience, or cosmology?

• Would you like to delve deeper into how one of these philosophies compares to Whitehead’s process philosophy in more detail?

Observation 11

Please discuss Whitehead in comparison with today's religious and scientific disconnects between one another...

ChatGPT

Here’s a concise restatement and reflection on your observation:

1. A Need for Better “Natural Theology”

   • You highlight the church’s struggle to reconcile faith and science when relying on inadequate or outdated theological frameworks.
   • In your view, many traditional approaches (e.g., medieval scholasticism, modern Enlightenment, German Idealism, or Calvinistic Evangelicalism) have either minimized science or framed it in ways that stifle open intellectual inquiry.

2. Whitehead’s Processual Cosmology

   • Whitehead’s emphasis on becoming rather than static being creates a flexible yet rich context in which theology and science can co-inform each other without conflict.
   • This cosmology offers a “roomy and intelligent framework” where concepts like God, natural processes, evolution, and human culture can coexist meaningfully.
   • It also combats “naive realism” by insisting on continual, relational interactions—both theological and scientific.

3. Impact on Your Work (Relevancy22 Blog)

   • Since 2009, you’ve been developing what you call a “Christian naturalized theology”—an approach integrating contemporary science (e.g., cosmology, anthropology, cultural studies) and theology.
   • This approach rejects both “magical mysticism” and anti-intellectualism, seeing them as barriers to honest engagement with the modern world.

4. A “Rock” for Theological Construction

   • You liken process thought to a solid foundation (“the rock”) that allows the church to grapple with modern ethical, social, and political questions (e.g., MAGA/Trumpian Christianity, radical ethics, cultural transformations) without losing theological grounding.
   • In contrast, other frameworks (e.g., modern Enlightenment rationalism, German Idealism, Catholic Scholasticism, or Calvinistic Evangelicalism) may function like “sands,” prone to fragmentation or over-rigidity in the face of new scientific and cultural developments.

5. Why This Matters

   • By rooting theology in Whitehead’s process perspective, you see a collaborative, evolving conversation between faith and science—one that honors complexity, emergent understanding, and the continuous re-creation of meaning.
   • Such a stance can revitalize Christian thought, shedding anti-intellectual tendencies and rediscovering a robust “natural theology” that thrives in dialogue rather than in isolation.

Overall, your observation underscores Whitehead’s process philosophy as a bridge that prevents conflict between theological commitments and scientific inquiry, encouraging the church to actively and intelligently engage with modern knowledge and diverse cultural challenges.

Continue to Part 4 of this discussion....

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot: Complete Seminar (Sessions 1-9)

amazon link

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—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, 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, 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, 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.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot: 

Complete Seminar (Sessions 1-9)

article link

Below is an embedded playlist featuring all 9 of the Eastman Seminars that I facilitated for the Science Advisory Committee of the Cobb Institute from June 2021 through February 2022. Tim Eastman, a plasma physicist and philosopher, is the author of Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context (2020). These seminars invited other scholars prominently cited in Eastman’s book for dialogue with the author and the interested public. I’ve recently reviewed Eastman’s book HERE. Those interested in the implications of a rigorous process philosophical interpretation of quantum physics for science, the humanities, and spirituality will benefit from Eastman’s book and reviewing these seminars.

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 1

Cobb Institute  |  1:59:34

Session 1 “Quest” features:

Mikhail Epstein and Judith Jones.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 2

Cobb Institute  |  2:01:54

Session 2 “Relations–Logoi” features:

Randall Auxier, Michael Epperson, and Elias Zafiris.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 3

Cobb Institute  |  2:10:06

Session 3 “Gordian Knot to Logoi Framework” features:

Ruth Kastner and Epperson.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 4

Cobb Institute  |  1:59:42

Session 4 “Causation, Emergence, and Complex Systems” features:

 Alex Gomez-Marin, George Lucas, and Anderson Weekes.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 5

Cobb Institute  |  2:00:51

Session 5 “Information and Semiotics” features:

Epstein and George Strawn.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 6

Cobb Institute  |  2:00:36

Session 6 “Complex Whole” features:

Auxier, Gary Herstein, and Brian Swimme.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 7

Cobb Institute  |  2:05:27

Session 7 “Peirce’s Triads and Whitehead’s Process:

Fundamental Triads and Schemas” features:

Edward Kelly and Farzad Mahootian.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 8

Cobb Institute  |  2:03:08

Session 8 “Contextuality:

From Experience to Meaning” features:

Thandeka, Dan Dombrowski, and Kelly.

---

Tim Eastman Unties the Gordian Knot - Session 9

Cobb Institute  |  2:04:40

Session 9 is a wrap-up and features:

Epperson and myself offering concluding remarks.

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