>In the inescapable flux, there is something that abides; in the overwhelming permanence, there is an element that escapes into flux. Permanence can be snatched only out of flux; and the passing moment can find its adequate intensity only by its submission to permanence.
What did Whitehead mean by this?
Other urls found in this thread:
religion-online.org
shaviro.com
twitter.com
THE POWER OF NOW
huh?
I think he means the power of critique, but if that’s the case then shouldn’t everything be shelved and forgotten anyways?
Talking about habit while trying really hard to cover up the fact that he is ripping off Peirce
I dont think he even read him
peircefag only proving he's a dumb gay pseud who doesn't even understand peirce let alone chadhead if he truly believes in this kind of midwit linear causality assigning ownership and origin to ideas and abstract concepts
dumb whiteheadian doesn't even get my conspiracy posting.
Nobody knows?
Permanent flux?
I already told you, it's about the evolution of law from continuity. Nobody listened because they were enraged and confused by my sophisticated Peirce shitposting.
Bump
Plagiarized Peirce and was retroactively btfo by Parmenides, Advaita school and Guenon. He's basically newage but for guys.
He's talking about the magical qualities of negro seed, duh.
this tbqh
It's called Monism, honey.
It's so good to learn clarifying statements to dissipate confusion.
>Talking about habit while trying really hard to cover up the fact that he is ripping off Peirce
Right on the mark, he's talking about experience having aspects of anticipated repeatability, and divergence from the expectations of habitual thought. As you point out by "ripping off Peirce" this isn't an original thesis of Whitehead, but is _THE_ central thesis of process and organicist thought. Here's the same thesis by Henri Bergson: ( religion-online.org
>religion-online.org
>for Bergson, calculus is more than just a handy metaphor or analogy, but rather, he indeed aimed at framing an approach to the organicist world hypothesis that employs the calculus as its actual method of discovery (i.e., differentiation) and explanation (i.e., integration), and that every discovery is the inverse of an explanation and every explanation the derivative of a discovery.
I started my own adventure into process thought by making the assumption that the fundamental operations of calculus describes the nature of change in the most general and universal sense. I derived this independently from reading any process philosopher by following the ideas of evolutionary biology, and most especially Richard Dawkins' extension of evolutionary theory into the real of ideas with his concept of "meme" which encouraged the imaginative leap of generalization of evolutionary theory to its metaphysical implications, which is precisely the terrain explored by the organicists. This generalized extension is the entire horizon of experience as an evolutionary process. The operation of conscious integration I corresponded to "reason and logic," the "art of following implications" and conscious differentiation to questionability, with the ingredient of instantaneous, present experience being that of questionability, such that to engage in the becoming of experience is to make reason and logic questionable, i.e. beholden to what is presented via experimental change. Conscious experience mutates as well as selects.
My model of perception was greatly inspired by "The Mindful Way Workbook" by John Teasdale et al, which described the exact dynamic in terms of two "modes" of being and doing, describing mindfulness practices as the cultivation of the "being" mode. I instantly understood this to describe the basic operations of calculus as modes of change-perception, and developed a model of our perception of change as comprised as two different reference frames that are between the instantaneous and cumulative. This is EXACTLY the model of perception derived by Whitehead, which "distinguishes between two separate modes of perceptive experience: presentational immediacy and causal efficacy," which together form the subject of symbolism: shaviro.com
The analogy I find that best describes this dynamic between perspectives of change is that of viewing a film strip as a series of events, as opposed to viewing the "motion picture" of their flux. This is more than analogy, but another example of how this dynamic is universal to the nature of movement itself, including in how we engage in it with our media. It is no surprise to find additional huge levels of overlap with philosophers who have engaged in media criticism and process philosophy, as the overlying subject is that of creative evolution.
Of course the question of creativity is as old as philosophy, which is why Whitehead described philosophy as being "footnotes to Plato," the Greeks (at least in the West) started the same basic conversation we're having, and what has changed is addendums to this basic conversation. Whitehead would agree that he had "ripped off" every philosopher ever, as in having insufficiently given attribution for contributions.
Whitehead isnt a monist. He dethrones substance in his philosophy.
How so?
postmodern neomarxist nonsense
This board is still unready for Whitehead.
You would do well to post more about Hegel.
Based
Whitehead's flux is the philosophical equivalent of physical entropy. It is very useful conception of understanding constancy, and time-space constraints for consciousness.
What
That despite all your external modifications you won't be able to change your gender, you fucking tranny