tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post3681704685439770093..comments2023-06-07T08:50:33.280-05:00Comments on Immanent Transcendence: Whitehead's Eternal Objects: response to Harman on Shavirokhadimirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-37999390363903556852011-08-22T12:12:57.331-05:002011-08-22T12:12:57.331-05:00Leon, and for everyone else, I believe that Gary g...Leon, and for everyone else, I believe that Gary graduated from SIUC before you came. He's a Whitehead scholar and is writing a book with Randall Auxier on Whitehead. Since one just can't "read Whitehead" and be sure of one's grasp of such complexity, I ask him to "keep me honest," as he is doing here.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-53001039520863599192011-08-21T23:04:57.532-05:002011-08-21T23:04:57.532-05:00Leon,
I won't comment that strongly myself, a...Leon,<br /><br />I won't comment that strongly myself, as I will have to continue going through the literature.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-75901143453827378392011-08-21T18:19:17.728-05:002011-08-21T18:19:17.728-05:00Harman's read of Whitehead is barely legal, Ja...Harman's read of Whitehead is barely legal, Jason. He is leaving ALOT out. What is his background with Whitehead?<br /><br />Leon / After NatureAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-39008967875874953312011-08-21T12:09:05.448-05:002011-08-21T12:09:05.448-05:00Thank you, Gary.
I hope and believe that I have s...Thank you, Gary.<br /><br />I hope and believe that I have shown such care; for my part, I believe we are in agreement. As you know, I am very versed in algebraic modes of thinking, and I think the lack of this in discussions shows on certain issues, e.g., discussing modalities of being, generativity, cosmogenesis, etc.khadimirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960757465883819380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1247368540862329841.post-14792974177561501342011-08-21T11:51:23.885-05:002011-08-21T11:51:23.885-05:00Whitehead himself actually defines eternal objects...Whitehead himself actually defines eternal objects as, "Pure Potentials for the Specific Determination of Fact, or Forms of Definiteness." (PR, loc. 866 Kindle.) (The phrase comes when he is laying out the categoreal scheme, and the capitalizations are all his.)<br /><br />Care must also be exercised (though it frequently is not) to distinguish between the "order of explanation" vs. "the order of reality" in Whitehead. Whitehead himself takes some care in this direction, though it is "care" in the way that he often takes it. (That is, he says it once or twice and then assumes his readers take him seriously enough that he does not have to continually repeat himself.)<br /><br />Thus the form in which it is necessary to talk about pure potentials as "eternal objects" has to do with the order of explanation. Despite his creativity with language, Whitehead still must explain himself with and in language. Since he also points out that the subject/predicate mode of expression is a "high abstraction," this is a clue.<br /><br />"Eternal objects" are "eternal" because temporal modes of being are irrelevant to their characterization, even as they are relevant to the modes of temporality of nexus and societies of actual occasions.<br /><br />I mention all this because importing too much ontology into "eternal objects" -- especially for anyone not completely immersed in algebraic modes of relational thinking -- is one of the primary forms of error in the entire secondary literature on Whitehead. "Eternal objects" then become "things" rather than modes of relatedness.Gary Hersteinhttp://www.interfolio.com/portfolio/GHerstein/noreply@blogger.com