This continues from the previous post, where Shinzen Young’s model of core mindfulness practices was expanded into a system of classifying what a human bodymind can do. Here the model is deepened following the process-relational insights that are at the core of Shinzen’s system as well as of other (especially Mahayana and Vajrayana) Buddhist systems, […]
Posts Tagged ‘Peirce’
What a bodymind can do – Part 2
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, Spirit matter, tagged Buddhism, meditation, mindfulness, Peirce, practice, Shinzen Young, Whitehead on May 30, 2011 | 1 Comment »
What a bodymind can do – Part 1
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, Spirit matter, tagged Buddhism, meditation, mindfulness, Peirce, practice, Shinzen Young, Whitehead on May 30, 2011 | 5 Comments »
Working with Shinzen Young‘s system of mindfulness training, which I’ve described here before, and thinking it through in the process-relational logic I’ve been developing on this blog (and elsewhere), is resulting in a certain re-mix of Shinzen’s ideas, and of Buddhism more generally, with Peirce’s, Whitehead’s, Wilber’s, Deleuze’s, and others’. Here’s a crack at where […]
Progress (toward Ω?)
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Bryant, correlationism, Meillassoux, object-oriented philosophy, Peirce on April 12, 2011 | 3 Comments »
(This is a slightly revised version of the piece I posted a few hours ago…) I haven’t posted about the debate between object-oriented and process-relational ontologies for a while here, in part because I said I’d had enough of that debate. But the more I read of Levi Bryant’s work — both in Democracy of […]
Slice of time
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, Spirit matter, tagged Bateson, Ontology, epistemology, Peirce, rigpa, time, Whitehead on April 10, 2011 | 5 Comments »
Chris Vitale has a nice post up on Deleuze’s Bergsonian notion of the image as a “slice of time,” or a “slice of the world” — which for Deleuze amounts to more or less the same thing. In a similar spirit, I thought I’d post briefly about a Whiteheadian notion of time. Normally when we […]
Artmonks: children of Thoreau & Whitehead
Posted in Spirit matter, Visual culture, tagged art, artmonks, monasticism, Peirce, Thoreau, Whitehead on March 21, 2011 | 5 Comments »
If Thoreau’s quest to “live deliberately […] and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” were cross-bred with A. N. Whitehead’s insight that creativity is the driving core of all things in the universe, the “universal of universals,” then today’s “artmonks” are children not of Marx and Coca-Cola (as Godard […]
On animism, multinaturalism, & cosmopolitics
Posted in Philosophy, Spirit matter, tagged animism, anthropomorphism, biosemiotics, cosmopolitics, Descola, Latour, panpsychism, Peirce, Stengers, Whitehead on January 10, 2011 | 15 Comments »
Since there isn’t much available in English about Philippe Descola’s writings on animism, I thought I would share a piece of the cosmopolitics argument I mentioned in my last post. It will appear, in modified form, in the concluding chapter of the SAR Press volume mentioned there. Most of the volume will consist of ethnographic […]
the model (Peirce+Whitehead): films, dogs, worlds
Posted in Cinema, Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Agamben, Deleuze, Hartshorne, Peirce, Whitehead on December 2, 2010 | 4 Comments »
Here’s a version of the theoretical model I develop in Ecologies of the Moving Image. (An earlier version can be found here.) Following Peircian phenomenology (or “phaneroscopy”) and Whiteheadian ontology, that model is process-relational and triadic. (*See Note at bottom for more on the relationship between Peirce, Whitehead, and their leading synthesist, Hartshorne.)
This means:
Everything is three. Or, everything there is can be thought of in terms of three relational processes:
(1) The thing itself, which is a qualitatively distinctive phenomenon. Let’s call it the thing-world, since it is an unfolding of a particular kind, which sets up a formal structure of internal relations and (externally) interactive potentials as it unfolds, and since our relationship to it is generally from its ‘outside,’ though we can enter into a relationship with it.
(2) The interaction of that thing with another. Let’s call this the thing-experience, since we (or others) experience it from the ‘inside.’ This experience is what happens with us when we enter into the relationship with (1). (Other things may be happening with us simultaneously; this thing-experience doesn’t exhaust us. It’s just what we’re trying to understand here.)
(3) The relating of the thing-world and thing-experience with the whole world. To keep things simple, we can call this the thing-world/extra-thing-world relation (with the thing-experience being a subset of this whole relation, and the only piece of it that is distinctly “ours”). Or we can call it the world-earth relation, or the world-universe relation, with the ‘world’ being the thing-world and the ‘earth’ or ‘universe’ being the unencompassable ground (considered either in its earthbound or its cosmic aspect) within which all thing-worlds have their being/becoming. This relation is the full set of connections and interdependencies within which the thing has its action. To map out this relation in its entirety is impossible, but to understand the more proximal and direct parts of it is possible and useful. It is, in effect, the thing come into its fullness: both its full glory and its full dispersion into (other) things.
[. . .]
assemblages, species, genres, & cinema
Posted in Cinema, Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Delanda, Deleuze, Ontology, epistemology, Peirce, Whitehead on September 11, 2010 | 2 Comments »
(Warning: This is a long and involved post.) In reposting Steven Shaviro’s critique of DeLanda’s A New Philosophy of Society, Levi Bryant has reminded me of one of the impetuses (impeti?) that moved me to a Whiteheadian perspective. Steven’s review is excellent, and it prefigured what eventually became his book Without Criteria, which I think […]
DeLanda, Peirce, etc.
Posted in Philosophy, tagged Delanda, object-oriented philosophy, Peirce on September 1, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Larval Subjects and several other blogs have begun their reading group of Manuel Delanda’s small but ambitious book A New Philosophy of Society. It’s not my favorite of his books — that remains the brilliant A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History, followed by the drier, but useful, Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. But I think […]
writing…
Posted in Cinema, Media ecology, Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged film, Peirce on July 6, 2010 | 7 Comments »
It’s been slow here because I am hard at work on the manuscript of Ecologies of the Moving Image, which I had hoped to finish this summer. The first three chapters are complete or close to it; the last three and final epilogue are in various stages of semi-completion. Until they are complete, blogging may […]
Peirce-Whitehead-Hartshorne & process-relational ontology
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Deleuze, Hartshorne, Peirce, Whitehead on June 9, 2010 | 6 Comments »
The following are some working notes following up on my previous post on the relationship between Charles Sanders Peirce and Alfred North Whitehead, specifically on Peirce’s logical/relational/phenomenological categories (firstness, secondness, thirdness) and Whitehead’s notion of prehension and the “actual occasion.” It’s become clear to me since writing that post that any rapprochement between the two requires going through Charles Hartshorne (which is something I had been resisting due to the theological cast of many of Hartshorne’s writings, but I’ve come to see that it’s unavoidable). [. . .]
This asymmetry is what gives process-relational ontology, at least the kind exemplified by these three thinkers, its evolutionary character and forward momentum. It is also what makes it different from relational philosophies for which all things are symmetrically related to all other things, resulting in the kind of formless, changeless “ontological stew” that Graham Harman (and sometimes Levi Bryant) has critiqued (to which I’ve responded in posts like these).
Categories
- Academe (108)
- Anthropocene (73)
- Blog stuff (51)
- Cinema (88)
- Climate change (74)
- Cultural politics (43)
- Eco-culture (174)
- Eco-theory (53)
- Manifestos & auguries (41)
- Media ecology (119)
- Music & soundscape (39)
- Philosophy (261)
- Politics (164)
- Process-relational thought (101)
- Science & society (35)
- Spirit matter (128)
- Uncategorized (56)
- Visual culture (88)
Translate
Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Subscribe2
Top Posts & Pages
Popular resources
Books & articles
Interviews & music
Associated sites
Immanence on Facebook
-
