Tags
Alfred North Whitehead: And the Three Components of Knowledge
This week I wanted to share a quote from the English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. Whitehead is the originator of what is commonly known as Process Theology. And many of his ideas follow closely in a line that was drawn earlier by William James and Charles Sanders Peirce.
Whitehead in a series of lectures collectively titled The Concept of Nature writes about the three components of knowledge in ways very reminiscent of Peirce’s writings on signs. Whitehead says”
Thus there are three components in our knowledge of nature, namely, fact, factors, and entities. Fact is the undifferentiated terminus of sense-awareness; factors are termini of sense-awareness, differentiated as elements of fact; entities are factors in their function as the termini of thought. The entities thus spoken of are natural entities. Thought is wider than nature, so that there are entities for thought which are not natural entities.
Fact is the undifferentiated terminus of sense-awareness. This conception of a fact is essentially James conception of “pure experience.” It is the experience that you are having right now – the absolute totality of it – as it is – in all its diversity and chaos – without any distinctions being drawn – just the bare fact of this entire moment of experience as it is unadorned. That is Whitehead’s conception of Fact. James in his philosophy of Pure Expereince believed that reality itself was made up of these Fact – drops of undifferentiated reality as it appears to us before any distinctions are made. In fact he and his brother, the famous author Henry, used to inhale nitrious oxide to get a glimpses of pure expereince – or in Whitehead’s terminology, bare fact.
Factors are the termini of sense-awareness. The next step down from the bare Fact of this moment is the various factors of which the pure, comprehensive total experience of this moment is made up of. The chaotic diversity of fact that is the total experience of this moment can be broken down into numerous factors. These factors are no longer pure experience – they must now at the very least be an experience of the factor PLUS some experience of the rest of experience of the moment. The wholeness of the Fact of this moment becomes divided into the many factors that make it up and implicit in the experience of every factor is some sense that it is part of a greater whole.
Entities are factors in their function as the termini of thought. When I think about something, the something of which I think is an entity. A factor of expereince has become and object of thought. Not all factors are objects of thought. Some factors may simply be parts of the reality of Fact that I notice, but do not think about at all. At the same time if I am thinking a thought, that thought will always end in – ie. be about – something and according to Whitehead that something should be called an entity.
Our knowledge of nature according to Whitehead is made up of Facts (Undifferentiated Whole Experience), Factors (Parts of Experience) and Entities (Objects of thought). For those of you that follow this blog you will notice that these three aspects are very similar to Charles Sanders Peirce’s conception of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness.
Reading Hosinski’s book about Whitehead I found an example which I think for me clarified the blog. Looking at a rose, the first category would be, as Hosinski describes, ‘a collection of atoms, and an object of beauty, and something with a good smell and a symbol of someone’s love’, it is pure experience, it is all there; reading Jeff’s blog again, I saw that the second would be a choice between these, we look than as a scientist, a florist, a perfume maker or a lover. Jeff adds to this ‘implicit in the experience of every factor is some sense that it is part of a greater whole’. The third one would be for example a poem about a rose, like Gertrude Stein ‘a rose is a rose is a rose….
I hope to find the same three explanations in the category ‘God’ because that is what this book is about. It says to explain profoundly Whiteheads ideas as process philosopher of God.. in London everybody is celebrating and practicing the reality all of these categories, I am absolutely sure that will be good, better, best!
Reading what Whitehead says about these 3 components,fact,factors and entities reminds me of an experiance I had almost two years ago.I just got done cutting the grass,so I found a nice shady spot to cool off.Then I heard a little girl playing in the distance,then a car was driving by, and then I heard a lawn mower start up.In that moment it seemed like all those different things were coming from the same source.The fact was that I was hearing these separate items as one experiance,which led me to think about a nondual experiance.So I can see the fact was my awarenes of those 3 entities which became factors and those factors together generated a thought of nondualty.
It is of course to simple what I have been saying, which became clear when I was reading further, but also in the following. Just now I heard Ken Wilber (Integrallife.com member tape) and describes in the first part of the tape creativity/spirituality according to Whitehead: he describes exactly what I wanted to understand, and in a few words: creative emergence is evolution, creativity is a component of spirit itself, it is spirit with qualities. It is creativity that goes all the way down to the big bang. Out of Spirit, out of emptiness, out of nothingness was blown the beginning of the entire world. Out of spirits fundamental creativity was the entire manifest world created. And this creativity goes all the way up to us.
We as human beings are the proof that the universe is creative because we are a product of it and any time one of us has a novel idea we are participating in that creativity of spirit itself. The more we get in touch with our fundamental spirituality, or our authentic or real self, the more we are in touch with, and feel the evolutionary current, the capacity to bring forth something new (here he points to the teachings of Andrew Cohen).
Creativity is an inherent part of ultimate reality. Whitehead was struck by the fact that there is something here, that WE ARE HERE, he mentions three characteristics of ultimate reality: the one, the many and the creative advancement to novelty. The one and the many are intimately united, in the manifest world the many are ones that are part of other ones, or holons. Whitehead: The many become one and are increased by one, that is the fundamental emergence of a holon. A whole which is a part of other wholes. The emergence of holons goes all the way back to the big bang.
The way Whitehead explained this creativity, this creative advance into novelty, is that each moment is a subject that itself had prehension, which means to touch or to grasp.So each moment, each drop of experience, is a moment of prehension, and what it feels is the previous moment, and when that subject feels the previous moment, or previous subject, it becomes an object and that object is part of the new subject, so the new subject, in a sense enfolds or includes the previous moment, and to that extent it is determined by the previous moment.
If that was all there was to say, the universe would be nothing but strict causality, but in addition to prehending(=grasping or touching) the previous moment each new moment has a capacity or characteristic; the new moment adds a degree of newness, adds its own emergent qualities.
The greater the degree of novelty, the greater the freedom this moment has; the less novelty, the less creativity, the less freedom the moment has and the more it is determined by the previous moment, the closer this moment approaches a causality.
The lowest holons, the lowest phenomena on the great developmental chain of being are material particles and these material particles add very little newness in their moment to moment existence. So they appear to be determined by causality and still there is enough novelty in these early particles, so that they can come together and create new particles. This creativity is one of the most extraordinary characteristics of reality. Fact is that there is evolution, all the way back to the earliest particles, quarks (or strings). These quarks are governed by their own past and seeming to follow a very strict causality, at some point groups of them cling together and a boundary dropped around these particles and produced protons, than electrons and neutrons. At some point the evolutionary creativity, or Eros, overcame the merely prehensive or including component and atoms where created and than oxygen, helium andsoforth where starting.
This fundamental creative drive, including things like self organization and Eros which has the extraordinary capacity to fundamentally govern this creative march into novelty. Out of the infinite potential, spirits creativity brought forth new entities, new phenomenon. At a certain point these phenomenon has so much creativity moment to moment that we cannot predict where it will be the next moment. The creativity of the universe is continuing to increase, as the complexity of consciousness in holons or phenomena continues itself to increase. Andrew Cohen says later on the tape that Wilber uses the term creativity interchangeable with evolution. I just want to add that Andrew says that ego, or the non-evolutionary enlightened personality experiences itself as trapped in some kind of static inner psychological and world place and within the previous context it becomes so convincing how important it is to let in that every moment can be a moment that gives rise to a creative advance…this is some of what they say in connection with Whitehead.
What I obviously missed when talking about Jeff’s blog is the importance Whitehead gives to relations, that is why Jeff points to Peirce (for example Peirce’ Thirdness: third is that which is what it is owing to things between which it mediates and which it brings into relation to each other. (A Guess at the Riddle’, CP 1.356, c. 1890). Relationships are internal (not imposed from outside) and essential in the ‘becoming’ of the moment. The parts of the organism and their relations to other parts and systems Whitehead is talking about are essential; the parts are completely dependent on each other,
When he talks about science Hosinski calls Whitehead a ‘rational empiricist’. The ontological principle is very important: if there is no ‘actual entity’, there is no explanation. When consciousness is involved, both experience and reason are important. Imagination as basis for reason where ‘cohesion’ and ‘consistence’ are essential.
A hypothesis also needs to be applicable to experience and need to be reliable, which means supported by all relevant facts.
When he talks about individual responsibility, Hosinski points to Whiteheads idea that the human subject creates itself by seeing possibilities and their inherent values and to choose a reaction that responds to the chosen goal in life.
Whitehead points to the fact that ‘experience’ and ‘consciousness’ do not always have to go together. For example if we sleep or are under anesthesia we do ‘experience; , but we are not conscious of it. Experiences can also be unconscious (Freund, Jung). This turns out to be extremely important: it connects us to the rest of the world: other species or phenomena do experience, even though they are not conscious of it…even sense experience is very rare – this is important because Whitehead is looking for a theory that connects all, so he is looking for experiences that we share with animals, plants and material.
The ‘moments’ Wilber talks about, the ‘actual entities’, drops of experience, a moment of experience, are there for everything in the universe, as Wilber so beautifully explained. Such a moment only last a fraction of a second, they are uninterruptible, it is ‘now’.
Reading Hosinski describing object/subject I could connect Jeff’s and Wilbers explanation. When a scientist, a florist and a lover see a rose, they all ‘prehend’ the object the rose, but subjectively they add their interpretation in the moment. The experience does not have to be a sensory experience. We do not reach conclusions after thinking of a lot of causalities, it happens in the moment itself. Hosinski uses the example of an artist, he himself and a dog seeing the ‘object’ a chair. The artist sees the artistic qualities, while he wants to sit, just as the dog. He and the dog respond in the same way: they subjectively experience the object WITHOUT conscious attention. So there is a complexity in the totality of our experience (which leads to action, see John Dewey). Whitehead adds in the example another element of experience: a draughty environment.
He talks about the totality of perceiving and the integration of it which is a complex act. I think this all connects to what Jeff is talking about, facts –de totality of experience; factors the different elements and their relationship and the subjective interpretation, which must point to Entities.
In the becoming of the moment: prehending which is the moment of ‘receiving the physical / feeling experience’, we are confronted with an object that influences us (object), than a ‘subjective form’ is produced which is the sense-experience of the subject in that moment. (think also the sense-experience of a plant; it grows towards the light)
If the subjective experience is anger in this moment, the anger will be the object that is prehended in the next moment.
Greate pieces. Keep posting such kind of info on your site.
Im really impressed by it.
Hi there, You’ve done a great job. I’ll certainly digg it and individually recommend to my friends.
I am confident they will be benefited from this web site.