What is Process Philosophy?
The world (this is cosmology, so I mean “universe”) is fundamentally a gigantic concatenation of interwoven processual activity. The old way was to think of the world as made of “stuff” because this is what our visual and tactile inspection gives us…stuff. But this stuff is really only an abstraction from something more basic and more real. An atom isn’t a “thing” it’s a process. A tree is an abstraction from a larger process: we pull a frame in the movie and freeze it, and nature undergoing a process halts briefly for us and we see an object, a tree. But the tree we’re looking at now (tree “B”) started as another tree (tree “A”), in the past; it was a small plant, and grew and changed according to a series of processes, bore fruit, that fruit fell to the ground, germinated, continued it’s process, and now we see it as a tree, and soon it will fall away and dissolve into a myriad of other processes. Substitute any word for “tree” (such as desk, lamp, electron, star, piece of toilet paper, etc.).
Please leave a comment giving your view about Process Philosophy.
Jay McDaniel
February 21, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I must apologize that I am only now discovering your Youtube site, and I realize that its aims are somewhat similar to my own in developing jesusjazzbuddhism.org. However, yours is much better in many ways; and we at JJB want to learn from you and, equally important, set up a link with you. Our own viewership is in many countries now, not least in mainland China. Our focus is “phenomenological” rather than “cosmological,” in keeping with the interests of many of our Chinese and American viewers who are less scientific in orientation, and more oriented toward finding wisdom for daily life. As you will see, we use the word poetics to name the activity of seeking and finding wisdom for daily life; hence our interest is in a Whiteheadian, cross-cultural poetics. With this in mind, I wonder if you might have time to send to my e-mail two lists: one of your postings which, to your mind, (1) introduce Whitehead’s philosophy to the non-specialized reader and, on the other hand, (2) take Whitehead in constructive directions vis-a-vis science and philosophy. (We want to stretch in the latter direction, and we need many more postings on science than we now have.) I also wonder if you might like to write a column for us introducing your site. I look forward to hearing from you directly, and learning much more about your marvelous endeavor. Jay McDaniel,