/lit/ - Literature

>his head was white

>That two descriptions are required for an actual entity: (a) one which is analytical of its potentiality for 'objectification' in the becoming of other actual entities, and (b) another which is analytical of the process which constitutes its own becoming.
>That how an actual entity becomes constitutes what that actual entity is; so that the two descriptions of an actual entity are not independent. Its 'being' is] constituted by its 'becoming.' This is the 'principle of process.'
This btfos Kant, because it means the entity can't have its nature in itself perverted when it is represented, in fact, the thing itself is defined by how it gets objectified by others, and this is intimately linked to its own inner nature.
>That every prehension consists of three factors: (a) the 'subject' which is prehending, namely, the actual entity in which that prehension is a concrete element; (b) the 'datum' which is prehended; (c) the 'subjective form' which is how that subject prehends that datum.
>That the first analysis of an actual entity, into its most concrete elements, discloses it to be a concrescence of prehensions, which have originated in its process of becoming.
This btfos Schopenhauer. The subject is nothing more than the actual entity in which an experience is present, but the actual entity is nothing more than its prehensions. Thus the subject is cognized whenever you cognize your own experiences.

>That two descriptions are required for an actual entity: (a) one which is analytical of its potentiality for 'objectification' in the becoming of other actual entities, and (b) another which is analytical of the process which constitutes its own becoming.
>That how an actual entity becomes constitutes what that actual entity is; so that the two descriptions of an actual entity are not independent. Its 'being' is] constituted by its 'becoming.' This is the 'principle of process.'
This btfos Kant, because it means the entity can't have its nature in itself perverted when it is represented, in fact, the thing itself is defined by how it gets objectified by others, and this is intimately linked to its own inner nature.
>That every prehension consists of three factors: (a) the 'subject' which is prehending, namely, the actual entity in which that prehension is a concrete element; (b) the 'datum' which is prehended; (c) the 'subjective form' which is how that subject prehends that datum.
>That the first analysis of an actual entity, into its most concrete elements, discloses it to be a concrescence of prehensions, which have originated in its process of becoming.
This btfos Schopenhauer. The subject is nothing more than the actual entity in which an experience is present, but the actual entity is nothing more than its prehensions. Thus the subject is cognized whenever you cognize your own experiences.

By collapsing the distinction between subject and object, William James permitted Whitehead to consider that there is a plurality of things in themselves (actual entities) which experience with the same general form of experience that we experience, and the reason we can gain knowledge about them is that we can gain knowledge about ourselves, and we are each things in themselves.

It all boils down to the argument that, because we can't get any concept of the thing in itself except from the only example of a thing in itself we have, ourselves (for we can objectify and contemplate ourselves, since we are a plurality and there is no subject/object distinction) the idea of the thing in itself is itself the idea of ourselves AS other things, It's the return of the hermetic law of analogy.

This allows us to re-establish the word noumena as both the original meaning and the meaning given to it by Kant. For since the thing in itself, ourselves, the general form of which we analyze to discover the general forms of all things in themselves, is the part of ourselves that thinks, the thing in itself has the general form of mind, and there is really a plurality of things in themselves called noumena.

I've already used these realizations to create some very powerful conceptual models and I believe I'm even close to discovering how to make the concepts of experience, objectification, echelon, noumenon, etc, mathematically precise.

>>21829744
Stop being a retarded materialist and this literally all goes away.

Maybe you guys don't realize this yet, but Whitehead is the philosopher of the 22nd century. You probably think that he is just a new rehashing of Plato or something. Completely incorrect. Whitehead is a post-Quantum revolution Radical Empiricist Panpsychist, who characterizes reality as an infinite manifold of relating entities.

Materialism right now is basically dead and there's been a philosophical slump because people refuse to let it die. Imagine that Thales was born after the time of Aristotle and Plato yet still held to the hypothesis that the world originated entirely from water and everything is made exclusively of water. You can excuse him for believing that in pre-Aristotle times, but not in post-Aristotle times. Modern Materialists are basically like Thales if Thales had believed in his water theory post-Aristotle. Materialism is a 400 year old theory that has not advanced since Hobbes, Descartes, Newton and Laplace.

What this means is that Materialism is NOT VIABLE in the modern world and the general consensus and the collective psyche of western man is drifting away from materialism and is in many ways already severed from it. This is spurned on by the creation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Quantum revolution. A NEW PSYCHE IS BEING IMPLANTED IN THE POST-QUANTUM WEST and eventually they will have to turn to a philosopher to embody this new psyche, one who has transcended materialism and exemplified entirely the modern man's soul. This philosopher will without a doubt be Whitehead. Whitehead's version of Panpsychism, where Actual Entities entire nature is to Prehend, and everything in the universe and anything that can act as a cause is an actual entity, and the "Prehensions" are actually pure experiences or moments of consciousness (Whitehead constantly says prehensions are "ideas in the Lockean sense" he gets this from William James's essay on "does consciousness exist" where James says that "idea in the Lockean sense" characterizes a monist form of consciousness that he calls pure experience) is the only viable philosophy for modern man. Whitehead will become the Philosopher of our time, as Aristotle was the philosopher of the middle ages (from Aquinas to the Renaissance) and Plato was the philosopher of the Renaissance.

>>20077623
Forgetting about someone?

Philosophy- the science of difference and enumeration- is a disease and we can look at the “progress” of philosophy as a viral contagion. As we all know, Philosophy begins in earnest with Plato. The central concern of the dialogues (themselves a capture mechanism whereby the “oral” tradition is contained within what would begin the expansion/contagion of the first fully standardized, internal, highly abstract, economical, phonemic/atomistic representational exogrammic model) is “what is x in and of itself?”.

This archetypal question is advanced with much rigor and is indeed the archetypal question. This question gives rise to what I call “the problem of meaning”. Meaning is a new category arising in ancient thought and meaning itself arises with its necessary (ananke) organ- the soul. This archetypal questioning can be seen as “symptomatic” of exposure to something, thus it is a problem to be solved not by advancing the cause of philosophy but by seeking a cure. The Pharmakos, Logos and the Savior are all attempts at various times answers stages to contain and or cure philosophy. As a side note, Hegel is the AIDS of philosophy. The arising of what is x for itself is the “birth of the problem of meaning”.

Debord was a voyeurs voyeur and thus a radically incomplete thinker. Trapped within the completion phase of Cartesian/Newtonian/materialist voyeurism, Debord was unable to see the sorcerous aspect of his own compulsions. In other words he didn’t go far enough, deep enough, surreal enough in his contemplations.

There is a reason why the logos and light and vision and linear time and Utopianism and industrialism and Cartesianism and voyeurism reign supreme in the west.

Whutehead vs. Heidegger
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=342

thoughts?

was whitehead the most evil and reprehensible man to ever exist?

Reminder that all of western philosophy is literally just footnotes to Plato