Process Philosophy (Peirce, Whitehead)

They Only Saw the Surface of Things

by J.W. Trull

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

by Derek Michaud

Edited in The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology

Is There an Ethics of Creativity?

by Brian G. Henning

An Imagined Drama of Competitive Opposition in Carter's Scrivo in Vento, with Notes on Narrative, Symmetry, Quantitative Flux and Heraclitus

by Joshua B. Mailman

Music Analysis, v.28, ii-ii (2009)

Carter's music poses struggles of opposition, for instance in timbre (Double Concerto), space (String Quartet No. 3)... more Carter's music poses struggles of opposition, for instance in timbre (Double Concerto), space (String Quartet No. 3) or pulse (String Quartet No. 5). His preference for the all-interval tetrachords, 4–Z15 [0, 1, 4, 6] and 4–Z29 [0, 1, 3, 7], is also well known. From these facets of Carter's music, I develop a narrative interpretation of his Petrarch sonnet–inspired solo flute piece, Scrivo in Vento (1991). Specifically, I forge narrative pathways by imagining the two tetrachords as active agents opposed in competition. Previous Scrivo analyses (Capuzzo 2002; Childs 2006) stress continuity by revealing Q-transforms and common-note voice leading between the tetrachords. While acknowledging such features, my analysis emphasises oppositional struggle by tracing the tetrachords as separate entities which cooperate and conflict as they manoeuvre to outdo each other.

The analysis advances three theses: (1) it guides listening to and reading Scrivo in a way which resonates with Carter's concern for the aesthetics of oppositional struggle, his choice of a sonnet as inspiration and his affinity for all-interval tetrachords; (2) it shows that music-analytical detail can be organised into dramatic narratives by (a) projecting dramatic roles onto categories asserted by a formal theory and (b) treating the formal theory's relations metaphorically as actions performed by each role as the musical work unfolds; and (3) it shows how detailed pc-set analysis can support a Heraclitean view of music: a flux of opposing forces seeking and resisting unity.

Sanatana Dharma As a Whiteheadian Religious Pluralism?

by Matthew LoPresti

“Sanātana Dharma as a Whiteheadian Religious Pluralism?” Process Studies 36.1 (Spring/Summer 2007): 108-120. Corrigenda in Process Studies 36.2.

Whiteheadian religious pluralism was first developed by John B. Cobb, Jr., and furthered recently by David Ray Griffin... more Whiteheadian religious pluralism was first developed by John B. Cobb, Jr., and furthered recently by David Ray Griffin in the edited volume Deep Religious Pluralism.  Though the theory can be found in different forms in Cobb’s earlier writings, it is most cogently presented by Griffin and Cobb in this book, where they, in addition to a number of other scholars, explore the application of this hypothesis to various non-Western religious traditions. Jeffery Long’s article on Santanta Dharma as a Whiteheadian religious pluralism appears in this same volume.  Cobb and Griffin’s theory holds that there is a plurality of religious ultimates or ultimate religious categories (viz., God and Creativity) as opposed to a traditional one (e.g., God or Dao). God and Creativity are regarded as equally worthy of ultimate religious concern in their theory because they can account for both personal and impersonal absolutes (e.g., the God of Abraham and Buddhist sunyata or Emptiness) and determinate and indeterminate aspects of reality (e.g., Advaita Vedanta’s Saguna and Nirguna Brahman, Brahman with or without particular qualities). Neither ultimate is in complete control; rather, the two work together to carry the world forward. Their generic notion of a deity differs in important ways from other characterizations of God in the Abrahamic tradition, but it is still a powerful being who acts in the world and is experienced by people as good, caring, and uniquely omniscient. It is, to this extent, arguably compatible with the sacred texts of the three major theistic faiths of the West. Creativity, on the other hand, works as a generic category that can include non-theistic, non-personal, and non-dualistic religious ultimates such as the nameless, formless Dao of Daoism, the blissful Emptiness (sunyata) of Buddhism, and the unqualifiable nirguna Brahman of Hinduism. Creativity drives “the becoming of the world,” the divine being shapes it and inspires us toward moral and aesthetic improvement. In Whitehead’s philosophy, the world could not exist as it does without both of these ultimates working together, and Cobb argues that it is precisely these two ultimates that underlie the objects of religious worship, or concern, of the world’s various traditions. This religious pluralism is “deep” then insofar as these two ultimates can serve as the common metaphysical ground that enables a multiplicity of religious traditions (theistic and non-theistic) to be simultaneously true. Long attempts to utilize Sanatana Dharma in a similar way and thus attempts to develop a Hindu deep religious pluralism.

INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM: A Philosophical Critique of Pope Benedict XVI and the Fall of Religious Absolutism

by Matthew LoPresti

“Inter-religious Dialogue and Religious Pluralism: A Philosophical Critique of Pope Benedict XVI and the Fall of Religious Absolutism.” Philosophical Basis of Inter-religious Dialogue: The Process Perspective, edited by Mirosław Patalon. (Cambridge, England: Cambridge 
Scholars Publishing 2009): 66-94.

This paper does not concern itself with a dialogue between those who share, or think they share, a common vision of... more This paper does not concern itself with a dialogue between those who share, or think they share, a common vision of reality. Rather, the focus is on those who generally do not share a common vision of reality. By focusing on this second, more interesting, group we are presented with a challenging philosophical and practical problem in our examination of inter-religious dialogue, specifically, we are faced with the question: is it possible to hold an absolutist view of the truthfulness of one’s own traditions and still engage in an open inter-religious dialogue with other religions? The importance of this question cannot be overemphasized: and this paper is dedicated to framing the question in a way that highlights the need for an agreed upon philosophical basis for this dialogue, and in so doing demonstrates the intimate connectivity of inter-religious dialogue with religious pluralism.

ATEMPORAL CREATIVITY: EVOLUTION BEYOND LINES AND SPIRALS

by Zayin Cabot

ReVision Vol. 32 no. 1                  Spring 2010

"Whitehead & the Elusive Present: Process Philosophy’s Creative Core"

by Gregory Nixon

@ *Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research* 1(5), July/2010. 625-639.

Time’s arrow is necessary for progress from a past that has already happened to a future that is only potential until... more Time’s arrow is necessary for progress from a past that has already happened to a future that is only potential until creatively determined in the present. But time’s arrow is unnecessary in Einstein’s so-called block universe, so there is no creative unfolding in an actual present. How can there be an actual present when there is no universal moment of simultaneity? Events in various places will have different presents according to the position, velocity, and nature of the perceiver. Standing against this view is traditional common sense since we normally experience time’s arrow as reality and the present as our place in the stream of consciousness, but we err to imagine we are living in the actual present. The present of our daily experience is actually a specious present, according to E. Robert Kelly (later popularized by William James), or duration, according to Henri Bergson, an habitus, as elucidated by Kerby (1991), or, simply, the psychological present (Adams, 2010) — all terms indicating that our experienced present so consists of the past overlapping into the future that any potential for acting from the creative moment is crowded out. Yet, for philosophers of process from Herakleitos onward, it is the philosophies of change or process that treat time’s arrow and the creative fire of the actual present as realities. In this essay, I examine the most well known but possibly least understood process cosmology of Alfred North Whitehead to seek out this elusive but actual present. In so doing, I will also ask if process philosophy is itself an example of the creative imagination or if Whitehead's controlled unfolding process actually denies a truly creative present.