One all-pervasive fact, inherent in the very character of what is real is the transition of things, the passage one to another. This passage is not a mere linear procession of discrete entities. However we fix a determinate entity, there is always a narrower determination of something which is presupposed in our first choice. Also there is always a wider determination into which our first choice fades by transition beyond itself. The general aspect of nature is that of evolutionary expansiveness. These unities, which I call events, are the emergence into actuality of something. How are we to characterise the something which thus emerges? The name event given to such a unity, draws attention to the inherent transitoriness, combined with the actual unity. But this abstract word cannot be sufficient to characterise what the fact of the reality of an event is in itself. A moment’s thought shows us that no one idea can in itself be sufficient. For every idea which finds its significance in each event must represent something which contributes to what realisation is in itself. Thus no one word can be adequate. But conversely, nothing must be left out. Remembering the poetic rendering of our concrete experience, we see at once that the element of value, of being valuable, of having value, of being an end in itself, of being something which is for its own sake, must not be omitted in any account of an event as the most concrete actual something. ‘ Value’ is the word I use for the intrinsic reality of an event. Value is an element which permeates through and through the poetic view of nature. We have only to transfer to the very texture of realisation in itself that value which we recognise so readily in terms of human life. This is the secret of Wordsworth’s worship of nature. Realisation therefore is in itself the attainment of value. But there is no such thing as mere value. Value is the outcome of limitation. The definite finite entity is the selected mode which is the shaping of attainment; apart from such shaping into individual matter of fact there is no attainment. The mere fusion of all that there is would be the nonentity of indefiniteness.
The salvation of reality is its obstinate, irreducible, matter-of-fact entities, which are limited to be no other than themselves. Neither science, nor art, nor creative action can tear itself away from obstinate, irreducible, limited facts. The endurance of things has its significance in the self-retention of that which imposes itself as a definite attainment for its own sake. That which endures is limited, obstructive, intolerant, infecting its environment with its own aspects. But it is not self-sufficient. The aspects of all things enter into its very nature. It is only itself as drawing together into its own limitation the larger whole in which it finds itself. Conversely it is only itself by lending its aspects to this same environment in which it finds itself. The problem of evolution is the development of enduring harmonies of enduring shapes of value, which merge into higher attainments of things beyond themselves. Aesthetic attainment is interwoven in the texture of realisation. The endurance of an entity represents the attainment of a limited aesthetic success, though if we look beyond it to its external effects, it may represent an aesthetic failure. Even within itself, it may represent the conflict between a lower success and a higher failure. The conflict is the presage of disruption.
Gavin Brooks
Help
Jace Kelly
HELP
Jordan Reed
HELP
Ryan Hill
No one's cared about this guy ever since Parmenides retroactively debunked him.
Andrew Watson
>These unities, which I call events, 1 event = one manifestation of the gamut of evolutionary actualization. >Value is the outcome of limitation =Noumena. Since what is being spoken about can only be spoken about as emergence of its own evolutionary existence.
Logan Wright
oh u know what he's saying it's the same old bullshit "it's not the destination, it's the journey braaaaaah" typical taoist buddhist BS be one with all things, since all things are one bla bla bla transcend into what lies beyond kama sutra
Dominic Cox
why are you trying to get Yea Forums to do your homework for you?
Brandon Rogers
He was retroactively refuted by parmenides and guenon
Christian Long
He's meditating on the dynamics by which evolution can happen at the same time as stability. Elsewhere he talks about the tragedy of loss in change, here he's talking about the importance of stability as grounds for genuine progress.
Read that text and weep, you dolts. Whitehead is not the same, or even comparable in any significant way, to Heraclitus or Lao Tzu. The fact that his work is complex does not warrant you projecting your shallow understanding onto him.
Camden Flores
I dont think that is what it means. Whitehead breaks the noumena/phenomena distinction in his philosophy.
Noah Peterson
field dynamics, action at a distance [faster than light], fate ~ future past and present mutually conditioning each other in malleable superpostion > The endurance of an entity represents the attainment of a limited aesthetic success, though if we look beyond it to its external effects, it may represent an aesthetic failure. Even within itself, it may represent the conflict between a lower success and a higher failure. The conflict is the presage of disruption.
Caleb Harris
Whitehead could not contend with the Eleatic doctrine. There’s no point reading him. >If only he had started with the Greeks...
Kayden White
Thank you for the quality post. Can you elaborate on this?
