I am a gardener, botanist, ecologist … landscape designing, dog training, cat loving, duck housing, horse whispering process philosophizing poet. I play the piano & harmonium (well), recorder, guitar, ukulele, (not so well) and bang on bongos whenever I get the chance.
Thank you for that. But my question was, and I should have been more specific, what other philosophies do you include? As far as I can tell none of them are sufficient to describe reality on their own.
I'm not sure what you are asking for. The book I am working on has 224 pages of bibliograpy, from object-oriented philosophy, Actor-network Theory, anthropology, and esoteric Dzogchen texts. I am even incorporating Hawkings last theory, Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw's new book on black holes, Nick Lane's book Transformer, and a book about the science of chirality; also -- glimpsing at my desk right now, I see Faber and Fackenthal's Theopoetic Folds, and lots of texts on affective neuroscience ... just a tip of the iceberg.
Forgive me for my ignorance of your work, I've only been more than just peripherally aware of how you think for a few months and much of it is behind a paywall that's beyond my means. Your presentation style gives my asperger's fits because I see so many possibilities and don't intuit your implied meanings like someone with "normal" social function would, so I have to take what you say/write at face value and wonder if my interpretation was anywhere close.
So I'll try to make my question more clear.
Do you interpret reality, whether scientifically, biologically, artistically, or any other modality, strictly through the lenses of process philosophy and naturalism or do you integrate any or all of the other philosophical ideologies?
It's raining here today, so I can't do landscaping work and actually have time to read things and write my thoughts. Most days it's just listening and thinking.
Ah good question. I don't think I am interpreting reality at all. For me writing is more like creating a painting. Instead of paints I use words and syntax. Some of the paintings are yellow ( procss philosophy) sometime the paintings use more blues and reds (esoteric buddhism). How everything I have read and get exposed to gets integrated is not something I am fully aware of. I hope to infuse into the work, and give to the reader, something of what enlivens me in the first place -- curiosity, wonder, amazement, amuzement, bemuzement, unravelling mental knots, more degrees of freedom, and most of all, love of the living world. Sometimes, the work presents itself as a fun challenge, especially when "solving" certain metaphysical puzzles. I am not an academic, so I am not particular interested in placing myself in the history of professional philosophers. Someone offered me a book contract, so now I find myself in the fortunate (and unfortunate) positions of wanting to (trying to) stich together small moments of insights that have inspired me to pay attention, into 300 pages of a narrative arc that people will enjoy.
Neither am I an academic, with only PH 101 as training. (During which the questions I asked were glossed over or met with blank stares) I'm just an interesting independent landscaper who never let go of the attributes you describe. And exploring, in whatever way, is my greatest joy.
To address your claim that you don't think you are interpreting reality, any description of the Toa is not the Toa. Not simply because words can't possibly fully describe reality, but also because any given experiencer has their own relative perspective of any experience. I'm sure you already know that. Whatever painting you make, through whatever medium, is still an interpretation of the experience through a perspective with a unique relationship with the occurrence that is experienced. You already know this too. Maybe you where saying that you don't actively or intentionally interpret experiences and insights. Different level of interpretation.
Maybe I'm getting aspie again..
Why Buddhism? So many limitations, even with the esoteric designation.
I'm inclined to think that any asymmetry is most often perspectival. That it exists on a continuoum and is constantly shifting from one polarity to another, never favoring any one beyond situational demands, but never more than momentarily perfectly symmetrical. And that's still too simple.
"Causality, substance, memory, perception, temporal succession, modality, are all but modulations of one principle of creative synthetic experiencing, feeding entirely upon its own prior products."
Love this!
It seems like, perhaps, a-terms are more wavey and r-terms are more particle-like.
"...experience is never simultaneous with its concrete objects but always subsequent."
Seems like this must be true, yet in the "...creative synthetic experiencing, feeding entirely upon its own prior products" there would be, I think, the experiencing of that creation occurring (the collapsing of a waveform), which would likely be indistinguishable from simultaneous...depending on the rate at which time is being experienced, I suppose. It also, I would think, must be true that recognition that experience has occurred will come immediately after the experience itself, but separating that recognition from the experience seems just as impossible as separating the "object" from the raw experience.
Woah! This is incredible. It's like I've been facing backwards my whole life. You're answering the question "how do continuums work?". This helps me see the world of human abstractions as the fluff on top of reality. Like an arrangement of ideal furniture with no where to sit.
Could you make this section into a drawing?:
"From a process metaphysical understanding, it means that religious, spiritual, and metaphysical idealism entails the exaltation of objects over subjects—things over process. Yet it would be mistake to conclude that process metaphysics merely reverses the bias. It would be more accurate to say that it transverses the subject-object dichotomy by making process prior to their delineation in a duration of prehension."
(I see amoeba grasping at and eating paramecium which then becomes para-amoeba.)
Also, I want to know what is 'a duration of prehension'. The length of a now moment?
Yes, exactly... You are on your way, meaning something is opening in your mind to understand more. I think there is the final installment of the series coming next month. THEN we can talk?
Holy shit. This is mind blowing. I have always struggled with Idealism because it’s hard to walk & talk & live with in experience. This helps immensely. Thank you, Bonnie.
A VERY clear statement of a deeply transformational observation. Thank you. I have been developing a metaphysics of 'movement' as primary process that people (all life) informationally objectify, which fits with Hartshorne's development of Whitehead's 'prehension'. Movement can be known (entered into informationally) as a unity of 'changing relatedness repatterning forms'. Have you come across that unitary analysis of process anywhere? As soon as the mind tries to break it apart and analyse each of those terms as if separable, life corrupts...
I am happy there are more people trying to language a truly process relational philosophy in terms that people can feel into. It's challenging right? I feel myself oscillating between the old model (the categorical stack that goes energy-matter-life-mind- ...) and letting that go to feel into something new. As Whitehead said "it could be otherwise"
Yes, Bonnitta, it's a conversational reality in which there's a 'musicality' of timing to relational processes that needs feeling into... As soon as we think 'about' nature, we've lost it! As soon as we think, "breathe with the rhythm of nature' we're back participating in... ('It'?... No!) in life.
So tell me Bonnie, are you a process philosopher or also a process philosopher? Are you a Naturalist or also a naturalist? What else do you include?
From my twitter profile:
I am a gardener, botanist, ecologist … landscape designing, dog training, cat loving, duck housing, horse whispering process philosophizing poet. I play the piano & harmonium (well), recorder, guitar, ukulele, (not so well) and bang on bongos whenever I get the chance.
Thank you for that. But my question was, and I should have been more specific, what other philosophies do you include? As far as I can tell none of them are sufficient to describe reality on their own.
I'm not sure what you are asking for. The book I am working on has 224 pages of bibliograpy, from object-oriented philosophy, Actor-network Theory, anthropology, and esoteric Dzogchen texts. I am even incorporating Hawkings last theory, Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw's new book on black holes, Nick Lane's book Transformer, and a book about the science of chirality; also -- glimpsing at my desk right now, I see Faber and Fackenthal's Theopoetic Folds, and lots of texts on affective neuroscience ... just a tip of the iceberg.
Forgive me for my ignorance of your work, I've only been more than just peripherally aware of how you think for a few months and much of it is behind a paywall that's beyond my means. Your presentation style gives my asperger's fits because I see so many possibilities and don't intuit your implied meanings like someone with "normal" social function would, so I have to take what you say/write at face value and wonder if my interpretation was anywhere close.
So I'll try to make my question more clear.
Do you interpret reality, whether scientifically, biologically, artistically, or any other modality, strictly through the lenses of process philosophy and naturalism or do you integrate any or all of the other philosophical ideologies?
It's raining here today, so I can't do landscaping work and actually have time to read things and write my thoughts. Most days it's just listening and thinking.
Ah good question. I don't think I am interpreting reality at all. For me writing is more like creating a painting. Instead of paints I use words and syntax. Some of the paintings are yellow ( procss philosophy) sometime the paintings use more blues and reds (esoteric buddhism). How everything I have read and get exposed to gets integrated is not something I am fully aware of. I hope to infuse into the work, and give to the reader, something of what enlivens me in the first place -- curiosity, wonder, amazement, amuzement, bemuzement, unravelling mental knots, more degrees of freedom, and most of all, love of the living world. Sometimes, the work presents itself as a fun challenge, especially when "solving" certain metaphysical puzzles. I am not an academic, so I am not particular interested in placing myself in the history of professional philosophers. Someone offered me a book contract, so now I find myself in the fortunate (and unfortunate) positions of wanting to (trying to) stich together small moments of insights that have inspired me to pay attention, into 300 pages of a narrative arc that people will enjoy.
Neither am I an academic, with only PH 101 as training. (During which the questions I asked were glossed over or met with blank stares) I'm just an interesting independent landscaper who never let go of the attributes you describe. And exploring, in whatever way, is my greatest joy.
To address your claim that you don't think you are interpreting reality, any description of the Toa is not the Toa. Not simply because words can't possibly fully describe reality, but also because any given experiencer has their own relative perspective of any experience. I'm sure you already know that. Whatever painting you make, through whatever medium, is still an interpretation of the experience through a perspective with a unique relationship with the occurrence that is experienced. You already know this too. Maybe you where saying that you don't actively or intentionally interpret experiences and insights. Different level of interpretation.
Maybe I'm getting aspie again..
Why Buddhism? So many limitations, even with the esoteric designation.
I'm inclined to think that any asymmetry is most often perspectival. That it exists on a continuoum and is constantly shifting from one polarity to another, never favoring any one beyond situational demands, but never more than momentarily perfectly symmetrical. And that's still too simple.
"Causality, substance, memory, perception, temporal succession, modality, are all but modulations of one principle of creative synthetic experiencing, feeding entirely upon its own prior products."
Love this!
It seems like, perhaps, a-terms are more wavey and r-terms are more particle-like.
"...experience is never simultaneous with its concrete objects but always subsequent."
Seems like this must be true, yet in the "...creative synthetic experiencing, feeding entirely upon its own prior products" there would be, I think, the experiencing of that creation occurring (the collapsing of a waveform), which would likely be indistinguishable from simultaneous...depending on the rate at which time is being experienced, I suppose. It also, I would think, must be true that recognition that experience has occurred will come immediately after the experience itself, but separating that recognition from the experience seems just as impossible as separating the "object" from the raw experience.
Fascinating...thanks
Woah! This is incredible. It's like I've been facing backwards my whole life. You're answering the question "how do continuums work?". This helps me see the world of human abstractions as the fluff on top of reality. Like an arrangement of ideal furniture with no where to sit.
Could you make this section into a drawing?:
"From a process metaphysical understanding, it means that religious, spiritual, and metaphysical idealism entails the exaltation of objects over subjects—things over process. Yet it would be mistake to conclude that process metaphysics merely reverses the bias. It would be more accurate to say that it transverses the subject-object dichotomy by making process prior to their delineation in a duration of prehension."
(I see amoeba grasping at and eating paramecium which then becomes para-amoeba.)
Also, I want to know what is 'a duration of prehension'. The length of a now moment?
Yes, exactly... You are on your way, meaning something is opening in your mind to understand more. I think there is the final installment of the series coming next month. THEN we can talk?
Deal?
Deal. (I'm not going anywhere...;)
Holy shit. This is mind blowing. I have always struggled with Idealism because it’s hard to walk & talk & live with in experience. This helps immensely. Thank you, Bonnie.
A VERY clear statement of a deeply transformational observation. Thank you. I have been developing a metaphysics of 'movement' as primary process that people (all life) informationally objectify, which fits with Hartshorne's development of Whitehead's 'prehension'. Movement can be known (entered into informationally) as a unity of 'changing relatedness repatterning forms'. Have you come across that unitary analysis of process anywhere? As soon as the mind tries to break it apart and analyse each of those terms as if separable, life corrupts...
Hey there
I am happy there are more people trying to language a truly process relational philosophy in terms that people can feel into. It's challenging right? I feel myself oscillating between the old model (the categorical stack that goes energy-matter-life-mind- ...) and letting that go to feel into something new. As Whitehead said "it could be otherwise"
Yes, Bonnitta, it's a conversational reality in which there's a 'musicality' of timing to relational processes that needs feeling into... As soon as we think 'about' nature, we've lost it! As soon as we think, "breathe with the rhythm of nature' we're back participating in... ('It'?... No!) in life.
Great article. Thanks!