/lit/ - Literature

>>19933749
Just as a note, I'm fairly new to the concept as well - that's my understanding of it though.

>>14166358

What most people think process philosophy is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8

What process philosophy actually is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmwXkJV_B-w

>The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative generalization; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational interpretation. -Alfred North Whitehead

>Where polemics unmasks, Whitehead addresses adventures. In Process and Reality, he speaks of rationalism as an "experimental adventure."and of metaphysics as an "adventure of hope" but he also defines, in a speculative mode, all continuity as an "adventure in change." For him, then, the term "adventure" is valid simultaneously, both on an empirical level - and on a speculative level - to characterize what we are dealing with, but also which also situates us - and on a speculative level. And the choice of this term accentuates a question that polemical constructivisms render secondary. There is no adventure without a risky relation to an environment that has the power to complete this adventure, or even to doom it to failure. Likewise, there is no construction that does not raise the question of "how it holds together" or how it is affected by its environment and how it affects it.
-Isabelle Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts pgs 18-19

>To turn the Whiteheadean "scheme" into a matrix, whose applications would be thinkers who may be somewhat eccentric but are vectors of a disarming politeness, will surprise more than one reader. In general, philosophers are no more polite than physicists or sociologists, and much less so than some ethologists, who learn from what they observe how to address it. The critical interpellation "remember the conditions that set limits to your knowledge," a descendant of "remember you are going to die," is not polite. It shocks those it addresses, as is to be expected, since the point is to wake them up. The need for awakening presupposes the need for "making someone lose hold," of shaking up routines and shattering certainties. Speculative interest, in contrast, respects the importance of the hold. The critical interpellation "remember ..." is then replaced by the questions "what is required by your hold?" "from what wager does your success proceed?" - polite questions that one creature may address to another creature. And if the exchange is possible, if sometimes - an essentially anonymous event - one dream may induce the modification of another or evoke another, it is insofar as their point of junction is always a tangent point: neither a frontal clash between rival powers nor being swallowed up in the other's dream, not confusion in a banal dream of power but a local resonance, designating past tenses of divergent accomplishments and future tenses responding to distinct tests.

What most people think process thought is about:

What the CURRENT of process thought actually is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmwXkJV_B-w

>The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative generalization; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational interpretation. -Alfred North Whitehead

>Where polemics unmasks, Whitehead addresses adventures. In Process and Reality, he speaks of rationalism as an "experimental adventure."and of metaphysics as an "adventure of hope" but he also defines, in a speculative mode, all continuity as an "adventure in change." For him, then, the term "adventure" is valid simultaneously, both on an empirical level - and on a speculative level - to characterize what we are dealing with, but also which also situates us - and on a speculative level. And the choice of this term accentuates a question that polemical constructivisms render secondary. There is no adventure without a risky relation to an environment that has the power to complete this adventure, or even to doom it to failure. Likewise, there is no construction that does not raise the question of "how it holds together" or how it is affected by its environment and how it affects it.
-Isabelle Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts pgs 18-19

>To turn the Whiteheadean "scheme" into a matrix, whose applications would be thinkers who may be somewhat eccentric but are vectors of a disarming politeness, will surprise more than one reader. In general, philosophers are no more polite than physicists or sociologists, and much less so than some ethologists, who learn from what they observe how to address it. The critical interpellation "remember the conditions that set limits to your knowledge," a descendant of "remember you are going to die," is not polite. It shocks those it addresses, as is to be expected, since the point is to wake them up. The need for awakening presupposes the need for "making someone lose hold," of shaking up routines and shattering certainties. Speculative interest, in contrast, respects the importance of the hold. The critical interpellation "remember ..." is then replaced by the questions "what is required by your hold?" "from what wager does your success proceed?" - polite questions that one creature may address to another creature. And if the exchange is possible, if sometimes - an essentially anonymous event - one dream may induce the modification of another or evoke another, it is insofar as their point of junction is always a tangent point: neither a frontal clash between rival powers nor being swallowed up in the other's dream, not confusion in a banal dream of power but a local resonance, designating past tenses of divergent accomplishments and future tenses responding to distinct tests.

>>14112126
Exactly. Why is he irrefutable? Because he REFUTES HIMSELF! He reverse engineers his own philosophical creativity, opensources it as much as possible, then steps back and says "This is obviously not good enough, because if it was, it would do incredible things on its own. It would be literally magical: a perspective that affects the world more greatly than any other perspective in the history of philosophy."

And then he points forwards towards the future away from himself. "Be better than me in every way, it is surely possible!"

Whitehead did more than merely "write philosophy," he started an extraordinary movement that evolved and developed in extraordinary ways that have been obscured before now, because it's ways are subtle and "polite."

>>14049018
Wish the shitposters on /lit/ would catch a clue and realize that the Next Movement is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm7Xt2Qsjcg

>>13908210
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEI-NCTsiPE&
Very relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEI-NCTsiPE&