Process philosophy is truly the philosophy of adventure.

[Anonymous No.14159338]

What most 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

Compare the energy and message of the song and narrative with this description of Whitehead's work:

>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

[Anonymous No.14159340]

>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 is required by your hold?": such a question affirms and presupposes that the others' dreams, like yours, are created according to the means of their own adventure, and to this extent this question constitutes a test: it is a question that beings of power will have difficulty tolerating, proceeding as they do in the name of an intangible right that must be satisfied everywhere, which recognizes no difference between here or there, other than that of the parasites to be eliminated so that they themselves may be confirmed. Yet it is a question that one dreamer can address to another dreamer, for dreams to not abstract from the means, but rather dissolve the dreamer's identity in adventures that restore to the "means" their mode of actual existence: that of propositions that posses individuals far more than individuals posses them. This is why, when philosophy has succeeded in doing what it can do, not only is wonder still there, but henceforth infects all the statements whose vocation was to explain the world, that is, to disenchant it.

[Anonymous No.14159354]

>The Whiteheadean scheme is a work of politeness because it seeks to be "adequate," refraining from insulting any living value. Yet if it is effective, it owes this to its fabrication, to the articulation of constraints that oblige thought, an "asignificant" matrix whose truth is the events of "disclosure" it may induce, modifying a being's relations to its environment, and in this case, the relations of a statement to its consequences. Whitehead made coherence the vector of this efficacy, and it is coherence that demanded the twofold production of Whitehead as speculative thinker and of that strange object, the speculative scheme. Whitehead fabricated this scheme in order that the scheme might fabricate him, that it might oblige him to undergo the becomings of thought demanded by coherence.

[Anonymous No.14159596]

Process philosophy is about the creative process that is the common rhythm of all creative processes. Amon Tobin evokes where this energy comes from: passionate inspired curiosity, a passion for creativity that allows for appreciation for life and beauty to blossom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxVVm75k_8Q
Behind the technicalities of Whitehead and other processists is the *passion and energy* of the processists, which is the acceptance of the concrete risk of failure in the pursuit for the advancement of creative aspiration. Process philosophy is truly the philosophy of the 23rd century because it sings of the commitments behind artistic and scientific activities alike, and imagines both of them as elevating each other in a co-creative synthesis of imaginative speculation and critical testability.

Once a large enough current on the internet *really begins to understand* the expansive vision process thought offers, things will get truly hardcore.

[Anonymous No.14159607]

>>14159338
it was retroactively refuted by Parmenides and Guenon, it's worth studying solely as a historical curiosity, as an example to be learned from of how smart people can be disastrously wrong

[Anonymous No.14159670]

>>14159607
Process thought proactively advances the conditions of creativity by inspiring novel advance from the immediate gaspability of present being.

Process thought is truly about finding the future. In the conditions of the present, there is only one future left to find: to save the world for the final time, to thread the needle of the Great Filter itself ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter ) and to bring about the arrival of an age of humanity beyond all threat of war and violent conflict.

There are many others like me, we are future finders and together we are creating the future. There is nothing left to stop us.

[Anonymous No.14159683]

>>14159607
Based

[Anonymous No.14159695]

>>14159607
>retroactively ... Parmenides

Preemptively perhaps?

[Anonymous No.14159707]

Amon Tobin is the most Deleuzian musician ever. Compare and contrast:

>For the Schizophrenic, words collapse, not into nonsense, but into the bodies that produce and hear them. Deleuze refers to "a new dimension of the schizophrenic body, an organism without parts which operates entirely by insufflation, respiration, evaporation and fluid transmission (the superior body or body without organs of Antonin Artaud)." This body is also described as "howling", speaking a "language without articulation" that has more to do with the primal act of making sound than it does with communicating specific words.

Amon Tobin embodies process thought as the process of being a musician, describing the kind of enchanted wonder and passion that is behind this irresistible creative rhythm some people become inspired and captivated with. This rhythm gives a richness to one's experience and relationships to life that is satisfying yet ever-transformative. The wager by which my success proceeds is that this kind of awesome inspiration will be the kind of psychological energy that saves the world. How to diffuse a death-spiral of hate? Create an explosion of wonder and enthusiasm!

[Anonymous No.14159710]

>>14159607
Came to post this

[Anonymous No.14159713]

>>14159695
>Preemptively
Nope. Google block universe

[Anonymous No.14159714]

>>14159670

>philosophy for its own sake rather than a genuine investigation of truth

why are we supposed to take this seriously?

[Anonymous No.14159718]

>>14159710
4chan is best understood as a competition to post as the biggest moron.

[Anonymous No.14159734]

>>14159714
Why not both? Because my position is literally both: for-itselfness and for-the-others-and-the-totality. As Whitehead put it:

>It is more important that a proposition be interesting than it be true. … But of course a true proposition is more apt to be interesting than a false one.

By selection criterion for quality propositions is that they are both interesting AND true. I do not see these as opposing requisites, but rather the highest intensities of each are convergent upon the same proposition: the most true propositions are the most interesting. This is the wager from which my success depends.

[Anonymous No.14160027]

>>14159707
Based process poster. I know the stuff you write about to be true and am trying to explore its implications through daily practice to expand my own perception, sensation, and intuitive capacities. The main practice i do is meditation focusing on breath along with some visualizations and mental number games. The other practice is improvisatory jazz piano and drums, sitting for a period of time and trying to come up with novel chord structures and satisfying polyrhythms. I feel that these practices among others like qi gong have great potential in altering consciousness, but im only at the beginning of a lifetime journey.

[Anonymous No.14160113]

>>14159607
>it's worth studying solely as a historical curiosity, as an example to be learned from of how smart people can be disastrously wrong
I thought about Spinoza

[Anonymous No.14160520]

>>14159338
Whitehead is good, I'm reading Perspective in Whitehead's metaphysics and I'm enjoying it so far.
>>14159607
Why Guenon?
>>14159354
Memetics as a study only affirms the real.
Also die for "I refer" and Hofstadter and Burroughs.

[Anonymous No.14160838]

>>14160027
It's ridiculous how much into this stuff I am. For example I reverse engineered a meditative art I call "perception bending": https://pastebin.com/vHKeTau2

I took a class on mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in 2015 which taught me the inverse meditative process: mindfulness or "awarenessing," which is de-immersion from one's experienced inner narratives that are immersed to as emotionally experienced realities. My experience in this class and the model given from this workbook of consciousness having two fundamental "modes" of being and doing directly inspired my model of perceptual calculus ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Tao_of_Calculus/comments/9rpnrl/space_taoism_101/ ) where I connect these two modes as reference frames of change-perception corresponding to the two fundamental operations of calculus: instantaneous change in the present and cumulative change over time. This model of perception is exactly similar to Whitehead's perceptual modes of presentational immediacy and causal efficacy, and what I did is effectively derive the fundamentals of Whitehead's theory of psychology from a different starting point. Studying Whitehead and related currents has massively interfertilized the development of my own theory.

For me process thought isn't "theoretical," some abstraction in my mind. I have lived it as a series of lived and sometimes extreme experiments in self-creativity. This is the maddest science possible, as I am my own mad science experiment, and I have made myself into an artistic freak of nature.