Alfred North Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism with Matthew D. Segall

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 72

  • @lkd982
    @lkd982 2 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    "Why is the wavelength repeating that pattern? Because it's enjoyable". Love it; my kind of philosophy.

  • @mizubiart6230
    @mizubiart6230 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    this reminds me of the Mayan conception of time and space, and their metaphysics of relation. They see time as circular, not linear. among ancient peoples they are one of the oldest and most advanced in the fields of sciences like astronomy, irrigation, water filtering, geometry... each sun dictates an era, and we are in the 5th era. it's really complex, and sadly few sources remain, but the Mayan people still exist (albeit, not in the way before colonization) and there are some interesting things you can find out online.

  • @andrewroddy3278
    @andrewroddy3278 3 ปีที่แล้ว +24

    This is a wonderful and tantalizing exposition. Thanks for this. There is so much that seems to chime intuitively but also so much that simply makes my brain sore. The ambition and scope of Whitehead's vision is breath-taking. It's almost equally impressive that someone makes such a conscientious attempt to absorb his scheme and pass it on anew!

    • @geoffreynhill2833
      @geoffreynhill2833 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm with the soreheads. 😵‍💫(Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉

    • @JillFreeman-kb4ih
      @JillFreeman-kb4ih 8 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      I recommend Terrence Mckenna and Rupert Sheldrake as other minds that interpret Whitehead brilliantly. Not easy...

  • @KipIngram
    @KipIngram 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I am getting so old. Matthew looks soooo young. 🙂 I guess we all eventually pass the torch along sooner or later.

  • @KipIngram
    @KipIngram 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    This is making me think of things I've heard from Rupert Sheldrake and also things I've heard from Bernardo Kastrup. I think both of them have perspectives that could entwine well with Whitehead's.

    • @dominicbailey7558
      @dominicbailey7558 9 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      th-cam.com/video/S3uobpHbo1Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Lp6VjHEwhm2IQmp9
      Merlin Sheldrake completing the loop for you here!

    • @cheri238
      @cheri238 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      🙏❤️🌎🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵

    • @monicaarcher7107
      @monicaarcher7107 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Is this network of events like Indra's Net?

    • @maesk52
      @maesk52 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Here we are 👋🏼

    • @vasey6635
      @vasey6635 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Sheldrake is explicitly influenced by Whitehead and Bergson.

  • @natureszodiac
    @natureszodiac ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Just amazingly explored and articulated- thank you!

  • @thomascoonen7248
    @thomascoonen7248 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    As regards the sun, bored hydrogen, and the creation of the universe, in the sun hydrogen has attained an intensity of feeling that must be very satisfying even as it stabilizes and feeds our world. Anyway, thanks again for the clarity you bring to your presentations. It's very impressive and motivating.

  • @brynbstn
    @brynbstn 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Excellent lecture on Whitehead. I've listened to quite a few talks on Whitehead, on YT, and this is the first that explains some of the metaphysical terms and their operation so clearly - really value that part (it starts at 50'30"). I also really like the part about hydrogen atoms becoming suns via INGRESSION - "they want to attain greater order and complexity and deepen their experience." What confidence and daring Whitehead had to seriously propose the Greek believe in Inherent Purpose, so soon after the Modern Age put it to rest. Would love to get a book referral for understanding Whitehead's process metaphysics (no, I don't really want to read his "Process and Reality", thank you)

  • @charlesdavis7087
    @charlesdavis7087 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Wonderful presentation. Thank you so much.

  • @adamslowikowski3085
    @adamslowikowski3085 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Great interview on a very important modern non-materialistic thinker! Thanks to both of you for introducing the public to Whitehead's process thinking! 👏👏👏👏👏

  • @andymurray8620
    @andymurray8620 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This was really good. Just an interesting takeaway: I am a big Terence Mckenna fan. He was a big Whitehead fan. And he had a lot of little idiosyncrasies and favorite words ("bifurcation" comes to mind). Anyways, "concrescence" was another one that Mckenna loved to use. And now I know where he got it.

  • @slewpjb2548
    @slewpjb2548 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Outstanding overview, very lucid and comprehensive, with broad knowledge of the relevant historical contexts. If you are trying to work your way through Sherburne's Key to Process and Reality, this is a great place to start first!

  • @KipIngram
    @KipIngram 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I thought it was the precession of Mercury's orbit that Einstein predicted double what Newton did. Was that also the case with the light bending around the sun?

  • @KassJuanebe
    @KassJuanebe หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you for bringing these beautiful ideas to enrich our world.
    I have thought for a long time that consciousness is primary.
    Isn't it obvious that an electron knows how to be an electron? That's a form of consciousness.

  • @joecaner
    @joecaner ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The introduction of the concept of Reification alone justifies the time spent watching this video.

  • @pvybe
    @pvybe ปีที่แล้ว

    Hey, you want to ask Matt to hit me up to talk about this in terms of dog training? I'm using this for teaching my dogs. Cue prehends, aporia allows the dog to create the abstract reality, the Trigger actualizes. I am using concrescence and whitehead's decision making triad as an anchor. Per the concrescence 50:56 on is the exact process.
    I'm back again screencapping and bookmarking timecode to go over this again.
    Hit me up. I think you'll dig what I got going on. Doing this with a critter gets outside the mind. I need assistance too.
    Peace

  • @westt9030
    @westt9030 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you for this research !!

  • @Andy-p9u6z
    @Andy-p9u6z 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    So 32:56 is basically saying that we are not detached, other than physically, but our ability to transfer information changes us, and as such makes us all nodes on a network?
    To draw connection between Whitehead and Dawkins, I would propose that conscious mind is created as an interpreter, and originally created as a kind of AI interpreter to assist the recumbent brain processes in forming patterns from the input from the human body in order for it to better survive more successfully, but as a result of it's ability to interpret, it also becomes a node in a bigger enterprise given that it also has access to organic materials designed to manipulate airwaves into soundwaves in order to communicate trans directionally.
    When I state words like created, I refer not to an active decision that was made, but through the process of genetic evolution.
    For example, the hamstring of the thigh hurts, the conscious mind "instinctively" looks at the pain in assessment. The arms usually come down to cover the potentially damaged cells, or they help the conscious mind assess the damage.
    In a social situation, the networked experience triggers, through tribality motivation of the group survival mechanism, or from the higher concept of empathy alone. The same can be observed in that people investigate other's pain and symptoms with the instinct to protect the whole, or the external individual for increased survival in the future.

  • @lkd982
    @lkd982 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    "The Big Bang didn't just happen in the past and was done; it's still Banging". Love that kind of talk

    • @lkd982
      @lkd982 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Xaviar 77versus99 please expand on this thesis?

    • @FFE-js2zp
      @FFE-js2zp 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I love that they use the principal of invoking agreement from your imaginary friend to prove their religious belief.

  • @paddydiddles4415
    @paddydiddles4415 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    It sounds like ‘panpsychism’ is a diagnostic label for those who are not able (or not willing) to visualise the process of an emergent phenomena?

  • @satyamtiwari7602
    @satyamtiwari7602 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Please provide this topic pdf

  • @w1zzk1dd
    @w1zzk1dd 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I think there's a video hidden in ads

  • @charlesdavis7087
    @charlesdavis7087 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    We are living in an organism (we call the universe) which is itself alive.

  • @NZthou
    @NZthou 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Experience goes all the way down.

    • @AL_THOMAS_777
      @AL_THOMAS_777 หลายเดือนก่อน

      due to poisons in our bodies . . .

  • @36cmbr
    @36cmbr 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Amazed!

  • @boblove3167
    @boblove3167 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Very helpful!

  • @paulholbach3716
    @paulholbach3716 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    meshwork with dewdrops on a spiderweb reminds me strongly of Indra's net.

  • @davidbridges6656
    @davidbridges6656 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Excellent 👍

  • @johannesbongers
    @johannesbongers 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    No Deleuze?

  • @Andy-p9u6z
    @Andy-p9u6z 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    perhaps i am missing the concept a little

  • @natashapope3785
    @natashapope3785 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Hello. Wow. Thank you.

  • @jeffpicklo525
    @jeffpicklo525 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Oddly I see similarities with whitehead and Alan Watts. The bow of the boat , Indra’s net ,

  • @Andy-p9u6z
    @Andy-p9u6z 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I'm not clear on why there is such a thing as the human soul, and don't know how it fits into this situation. If by human soul you are referring to the conscious mind, I don't think that the conscious mind is the protagonist, but rather the slave of the human existence. The subconscious filters information into the the consciousness, so why do we assume the consciousness is the main protagonist. If we as individuals are the conscious part of our brain, then perhaps we should shy from our ego, and assume we are a part of our whole, and not owners of our whole?
    similar to the way that the governors of a town are lead by the town, but seem to have control over the town.

  • @KipIngram
    @KipIngram 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    37:50 - Well, Earth won't be an issue if it's 1-2 billion years from now; by then the Sun will have burned Earth down. If we're still around we'll be either living further out in our own solar system or will have hopped to another star altogether. Proxima Centuri is our nearest neighbor, and is a red dwarf - they can live as long as ten trillion years.

  • @X11bl
    @X11bl ปีที่แล้ว

    Amazing that physics conclude that time is not fundamental.

  • @NZthou
    @NZthou 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Why doesn’t the superject become a prehension for the next concrescience?

  • @seanstars6637
    @seanstars6637 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    That is some beard, pal.

  • @michaelpryzdia6233
    @michaelpryzdia6233 ปีที่แล้ว

    All things considered, Bohm’s work seems much more coherent than Whitehead’s.

  • @donaldwhittaker7987
    @donaldwhittaker7987 ปีที่แล้ว

    Been reading whitehead for 50 years and I don't understand him at all. Russell I get

  • @SeiroosFardipour-wf4bi
    @SeiroosFardipour-wf4bi 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I remmber when i was reading "processes & reality 36 years ago ,alli remmber is that i imagine myself in a colovoir made of mirrors reflecting in all directions to infinity hierarchy mirroring fractaly to infinite numbers non of were real and all were real .

  • @hn6187
    @hn6187 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Russell was Panpsychist

  • @HelenBrown-s1j
    @HelenBrown-s1j หลายเดือนก่อน

    Walker Donna Brown Jeffrey Perez Linda

  • @Pie314159265358
    @Pie314159265358 29 วันที่ผ่านมา

    So many ridiculous notions of dogmatic thinking here.

  • @kehindeonakunle7404
    @kehindeonakunle7404 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Whitehead is deliberately too technical and obscurantist. Brilliant ideas though.

    • @oblongtom
      @oblongtom 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Not that odd, ANW is pretty much a Daoist who overthunks it

    • @thomascoonen7248
      @thomascoonen7248 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@oblongtom the "myriad" or "10,000 things" leaves a lot of room for exposition if ya happen to be good at that sort of thing. As does "the One," for that matter.

  • @DaliHorse
    @DaliHorse 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    During this 1hr presentation there are approximately 417 "Ums"

    • @lsdc1
      @lsdc1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      “Not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts.” - (attr.) A. Einstein

    • @Arctic-fox717
      @Arctic-fox717 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lsdc1 there is an app for that

    • @robertbentley3589
      @robertbentley3589 ปีที่แล้ว

      Way too many before he even started.

  • @rl7012
    @rl7012 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Too many 'errrms', 'ah', 'erm', 'em' 'errrrrrrrr' etc.

  • @robertorobertini6221
    @robertorobertini6221 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    A speaker that uses arr and um so frequently doesnt really know their subject

    • @rl7012
      @rl7012 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It is so off putting too

  • @tulliusagrippa5752
    @tulliusagrippa5752 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Empty waffle. Produce a testable theory and then you will have produced something worthwhile. Everything else is piffle.

    • @francishuxley5928
      @francishuxley5928 ปีที่แล้ว

      AAhhhh....if it can't be reproduced in a test tube....it's not knowledge....Scientism is on the way out, ultimate reality cannot be found in a test tube, and conscious, sentient beings are capable of much more knowledge than experimental fact, reality is pregnant with information, in fact the material realm is derivative of information, "it's are from bits" Dr. Archibald Wheeler, and information is only useful, in fact, only exists, for sentient, intelligent cognizers!!

    • @rl7012
      @rl7012 11 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      What testable theory does empirical science have then?

    • @tulliusagrippa5752
      @tulliusagrippa5752 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@rl7012 Mechanics and gravitation, which enables us to navigate spacecraft to the further most reaches of the solar system, medicines, germ theory, electromagnetic theory, atomic theory, thermodynamics, quantum theory, special relativity, general relativity, engineering theories such as the theory of structure, chemistry, … is that a sufficient list? Or are you just a moron?

  • @KingMinosxxvi
    @KingMinosxxvi ปีที่แล้ว

    what a beard