Footnotes2Plato Podcast

The discussion of Reiner Schürmann’s article on neoplatonic henology in Plotinus, Eckhart, and Heidegger begins at 30:07. The first half hour is a discussion of Tim’s work on improving interactions between venomous snakes and human beings. The conversation begins with Tim recounting his recent work in India, where he has been engaged in projects addressing the pervasive issue of snakebites. He explains the challenges of understanding and mitigating the issue, touching on topics such as venom variability, regional antivenom production, and the behavioral ecology of snakes.The discussion then transitions into philosophy, with a focus on Reiner Schürmann's essay, "Neoplatonic Henology as an Overcoming of Metaphysics." We delve into Schürmann’s critique of traditional Western metaphysics and his embrace of the historical and cultural situatedness of philosophical inquiry. Philosophy has an epochal nature, such that in some sense philosophy just is the history of philosophy. We consider the dangers of reifying metaphors and the risks of projecting static hierarchies onto dynamically nested systems. We discuss Heidegger’s Nazi affiliations, grappling with how a thinker so attuned to the subtleties of Being could fall prey to such a violent ideological fixation.We advocate for a process-oriented approach that embraces groundlessness as a source of creativity and renewal, rather than as a cause for nihilistic despair."Radicalizing analogy means moving beyond resemblance to operation—to active participation in the process itself. This is not about static structures mirroring each other but about sharing in the active principle of becoming." -Tim"The no-thingness of the ground is not a void; it’s a pure activity. It’s a precondition for the formation of determinate objects—a groundless ground." -Tim"Philosophy is the history of philosophy. Science is the history of science. And the history of ideas is really an evolution of consciousness, where the very perceptual Gestalt changes—not just the concepts, but the way phenomena themselves appear transforms over the course of history." -Matt"There is a way in which the groundlessness of the soul mirrors the anarchic creativity of the divine—not as a fixed structure but as a shared openness to becoming." -Matt"The way up and the way down are the same. There’s a strange indecipherability between the One and matter, where the highest and lowest coincide in a way that questions the idea of linear hierarchy." -Matt Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

Trigger warning! Chad and I discuss archetypal astrology in this podcast : ) We have both studied with the cultural historian and philosopher Richard Tarnas. Check out his introduction to archetypal cosmology at this link. We circle back to a conversation Tim Jackson and I had about Carl Jung’s Problem of the Fourth and connect it with the archetypal significance of Pluto’s discovery in 1930, Rudolf Steiner’s prophecy of the second coming of the etheric Christ, and explore the role a depth psychologically informed recovery of astrology can play in cosmological renewal. For more context, here are my reflections on Jung’s essay on the Problem of the Fourth: Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

The Theōros Project hosted philosopher Evan Thompson at CIIS for a dialogue with me about his new book (with Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser) The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience (2024). We covered a lot of territory:* early 20th century philosophical warnings about an impending crisis in scientific culture from Husserl and Whitehead* the construction of temperature out of our felt sense of warmth* the radically different treatments of color by Newton and Goethe* the nature of time as highlighted in the Einstein-Bergson debate* the nature of life as autopoiesis and what makes its emergence rather surprising from the perspective of the blind spot metaphysics informing much of physics and chemistry* the hype surrounding artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies (which Evan and I argue are not intelligent and will not at least with anything like their current architecture realize consciousness)* the way the horizonal structure of consciousness makes it entirely unlike any other natural phenomenon; it provides the condition for the possibility of scientific knowledge as such, and so cannot be explained in objectivist scientific terms.I’ve written about and discussed the book several times earlier this year: Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

I begin with historical context about two important biologists who influenced Whitehead at Harvard: Lawrence Henderson and William Wheeler. Henderson, in his 1913 book The Fitness of the Environment, argued for continuity between cosmic and biological evolution, suggesting the universe is fundamentally biocentric. Wheeler, in his 1928 book Emergent Evolution, discussed balancing genetic continuity with evolutionary novelty, arguing that the emergence of life and mind were gradual developments rather than sudden appearances. Tim points out that gradualism was orthodox Darwinism regarding species change, though Darwin himself was agnostic about the origin of life. We discuss how Whitehead distinguishes between gradualism at the level of matter/life/mind distinctions versus gradualism in speciation, with Whitehead rejecting strict gradualism at the species level. He affirms a deeper cosmological gradualism (or synechism, to borrow Peirce’s term) such that there can be no sudden leaps into life from matter, nor from matter into mind, at least not if matter is conceived of as bits of stuff pushed around by forces obeying fixed laws. To provide more historical context, I shared that Whitehead was responding to the rise of logical positivism and behaviorism in the 1920s. While some of his specific targets may seem dated, his defense of final causality and immanent aims in nature remains relevant. Whitehead saw purpose as plainly evident in animals and human beings, our behavior becoming entirely inexplicable if its reality is denied. And it is only denied when special scientific methods effective within limited domains are inappropriately generalized. We discuss Whitehead’s warning against the reduction of reason to merely pragmatic survival value, and his defense of speculative reason as necessary for science to understand itself. Without acknowledging the reality and importance of speculative reason, science risks adopting naive materialism as an unacknowledged metaphysics. A key point of discussion is Whitehead’s treatment of Spenser’s term “survival of the fittest” and the extent to which we can meaningfully define grades of complexity in evolution. Tim argues that complexity can emerge through niche partitioning and differentiation without requiring a separate principle of upward progress. I suggest Whitehead is making observations about complexity rather than proposing explanatory principles. The conversation concludes with an exploration of Whitehead’s concept of rhythm and cycles as basic not only to life but to all physical existence. He sees rhythm as involving both repetition and variation, providing a way to understand evolution that balances order and novelty. I tried to connect his idea of cycles to contemporary theories about the origin of life through chemical cycles and the intimate resonances between organisms and their environments (mostly other organisms). We acknowledge both the dated aspects of his presentation and the continuing relevance of his core insights about reason, purpose, and evolution. Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

You can find links to the articles Timothy Jackson and I are discussing in this brief reflection I wrote about them: I asked ChatGPT4o to condense and dramatize the transcript of our three hour conversation into the form of a Platonic dialogue. Here is the output: In the Platonic style, we can condense the dialogue between Matt and Tim into succinct philosophical positions, with each interlocutor sharply focusing on their core points. Here’s a distilled version of their conversation:Matt: "Tim, you are but a hallucination, just as I am to you, a constructed model of your mind. Does this not lead us to question the reality of our perceptions?"Tim: "Indeed, the models we create must constantly update themselves. But this does not negate our experience—it refines it. We are not static beings; we exist as multiplicities, always shifting and adapting."Matt: "As in my recent experience, when time seemed to stretch in a moment of danger, our consciousness reveals its plasticity. Time dilates, and in that dilation, we discover the deep relationship between mind and world. Yet, is not this dilation evidence of a more profound engagement with reality than mere predictive error minimization?"Tim: "Ah, but therein lies the paradox. Predictive processing offers us a model, yet can it account for the spontaneity of improvisation, of flow states where we exceed even our own expectations?"Matt: "Predictive processing, as useful as it is, often seems to trap us in a feedback loop. We must turn to active inference, wherein perception is action, and action reshapes perception. It is in this engagement that we transcend the Kantian trap of a merely representational mind."Tim: "But even in improvisation, are we not bound by constraints? The self dissolves, yes, but does this not allow a deeper attunement to the richness of the world around us? The danger lies in confusing constraint with generation. We do not create the world—we respond to it."Matt: "True, but is not the act of responding itself a form of creation? When we act, we reshape the world. The brain may indeed function like a Bayesian engine, but we are not mere calculators. Our consciousness, our awareness, stretches beyond the confines of predictive models. We are agents, creators of novelty, not prisoners of expectation."Tim: "And yet, agency itself must be understood in context. The environment, too, acts upon us. Just as we shape it, it shapes us in return. The self, the environment, the organism—each influences the other in an endless dance of improvisation."Matt: "Exactly. This mutual shaping is the essence of experience. But the danger, as always, is in reducing this dynamic to mere mechanism. We must acknowledge the creativity at the heart of perception, the spontaneity at the core of life."Watch this conversation on YouTube: Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

Flavio and I explored the intersection of Whitehead’s process philosophy with modern theories of consciousness, such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and the Free Energy Principle (FEP), while also tying in quantum physics (as we’ve discussed in prior sessions). Flavio had been pondering whether IIT could be compatible with Whitehead’s framework and how concepts like Von Neumann entropy in quantum mechanics might lead to a rethinking of FEP’s treatment of Shannon information. I agreed that there are superficial similarities between IIT and Whitehead's philosophy, but pointed out a key difference: IIT treats experience as intrinsic and non-relational, while Whitehead’s process-relational ontology allows us to analyze experience in terms of prehensions or feelings; that is, in terms of its relational essence.Flavio proposed that IIT might be useful in quantifying moments of concrescence, the process by which an actual occasion reaches satisfaction. I agree there is something to the comparison worthy of further consideration. I also shared my concerns with FEP’s focus on error minimization, suggesting that Whitehead’s philosophy offers a more complete account of life, one that includes a creative urge to ingress novelty. We moved into a discussion about quantum physics, specifically how Whitehead’s process ontology might address the question of wave function collapse. I introduced Quantum Bayesianism (Qbism), suggesting that with a slight shift from an epistemological to an ontological orientation it starts to sound a lot like Whitehead’s panexperientialism.We ended by reflecting on the broader implications of moving from a mechanistic worldview to a cosmovision that embraces relationality and the intrinsic value of all life. Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

Simon, Sam, and I followed up on our conversation a few weeks ago. We began with my reflection on the depth of insight expressed in Simon’s recent Voicecraft conversation that included Sean Kelly, Cadell Last, and Layman Pascal. This lead to a discussion of creativity, initiated by Sam, who wonders whether human artistic expression is merely uncovering something already present rather than inventing something new. He reflects on Walt Whitman’s idea that music already exists and is awakened through instruments. Here is a stanza from Whitman’s poem “Music”:All music is what awakes from you when you are reminded by the instruments,It is not the violins and the cornets, it is not the oboe nor the beating drums,It is nearer and farther than they.Do you suppose that in these, touched by the fine players of the world, are the primary of the feelings that move you?No; there is something else,This something is in the soul and eludes description.Do you know what music does to the soul?Music, the most spiritual of sensuous enjoyments, gives it some faint sign of the harmony and measure that are of its essence.I tied this idea to what J. R. R. Tolkien wrote in a letter to his friend C. S. Lewis: “If God is mythopoeic, man must become mythopathic.” There are many parallels between Tolkien's view of divine cosmogenesis and Whitehead’s concept of divinely inspired creativity, where God is imagined as akin to a conductor guiding (but not determining) an orchestra.We moved on to explore the unconscious mind’s role in creativity, how human alignment with unconscious patterns brings clarity to one’s purpose, and the relationship between past, present, and future possibilities. We tried out metaphors of constraint, growth, and improvisation, weaving in references to Whitehead’s eternal objects and immanent forms of teleology.I tried to articulate how constraints, both from past actualities and future lures, shape creativity. I contrasted mere randomness with meaningful improvisation and emphasized Whitehead’s notion of a divine “lure for feeling” that entices but does not determine the possibilities that we end up actualizing. Sam introduced the idea of mystic consciousness, asking whether those at the edges of human experience might access different realms of creativity or potential.As the conversation progressed, we explored the role of trauma and suffering in evolution. Trauma can overly constrain creativity but, when processed or reinterpreted, may also deepen our sensitivity to and expression of deeper beauty. Simon elaborated on metaphors of roots, slime molds, and nutrient gathering to illustrate how revisiting the past can release hidden potential. I noted how life seems to push beyond mere survival, seeking intensified experience and flourishing in ways that challenge materialistic reductionism’s narrow focus on natural selection. Sam brings up the duality of health and disease, suggesting that illness can enhance life’s depth. Suffering isn’t something we necessarily seek out, but it nonetheless intensifies experience and might ultimately enhance beauty.Toward the end, we circled back to philosophical questions about justice, creativity, and aesthetics. I recommended the final chapters of Whitehead’s Adventures of Ideas which emphasize how human creativity participates in the universe’s broader artistic impulse. The discussion closed with Simon asking what generative AI means for creativity, suggesting it as a topic for future conversation.Watch the video of this conversation: Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

I am sharing a series of lecture commentaries on Whitehead’s book Modes of Thought. For a PDF of this lecture, click here.Below is a playlist of me reading the book itself: Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

ChatGPT summary of our conversation: Roman and Matt engaged in a wide-ranging conversation that traversed philosophy, personal agency, societal evolution, and the human condition. The dialogue began with Roman inquiring about Matt's preparations for an upcoming presentation to fellow Whitehead scholars. Matt reflected on the challenge of presenting new insights within a field already rich with scholarly work. He mentioned the extensive publications on Alfred North Whitehead's first year at Harvard and the debates surrounding interpretations of his ideas, particularly those involving scholar Lewis Ford.Matt acknowledged that while much has been written about Whitehead's development of concepts during 1924-1925, he hoped to contribute fresh perspectives. He aimed to move beyond the "philosophical trivia" of pinpointing when Whitehead conceived certain ideas, instead focusing on what those ideas mean for our understanding of existence. Matt emphasized the importance of demonstrating a deep engagement with Whitehead's texts and situating philosophical points within the biographical context of Whitehead's life, especially his classroom teachings from a century ago.Roman asked whether Matt felt a sense of communion or divergence when interacting with other Whitehead scholars. Matt affirmed that there is broad agreement and a shared appreciation for Whitehead's work, noting that it offers more than just a new theory—it presents a new civilizational impulse. This shared vision fosters a sense of urgency among scholars to make Whitehead's ideas effective in practical contexts. However, he also acknowledged that disagreements exist, particularly concerning the relationship between atomism and continuity in Whitehead's philosophy (related to Ford’s controversial thesis).Delving deeper, Matt explained that this abstract debate has significant implications for concepts like freedom and individuality. If nature's unfolding is seen as a pure, unbroken continuum without individuality, then the notion of freedom becomes untenable. Whitehead, a process thinker, introduced the concept of "actual occasions" as atomic units, balancing continuity with discrete moments of decision and self-realization. Scholars debate when exactly Whitehead developed this idea and whether it was a sudden revelation or a gradual refinement. Matt believed this seemingly abstract conceptual issue matters not just for philosophical history but for understanding human freedom and our place in the universe.The conversation shifted to the practical significance of these philosophical ideas, particularly in the context of personal agency and societal constructs. They discussed the impact of materialistic views that deny free will, considering how such perspectives might shape individual behavior and societal norms. Matt argued that if people come to believe they are merely programmed entities without conscious agency, society may increasingly reflect that mechanistic view, leading to a loss of creativity and freedom. He emphasized that our thoughts and language shape our being, and embracing a deterministic outlook could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.Roman brought up the creative process, noting that moments of inspiration often feel effortless, as if ideas are gifts rather than products of deliberate choice. This observation led to a discussion about the interplay between effort and grace in the pursuit of creativity and enlightenment. Matt agreed, emphasizing the importance of preparing oneself to be open to inspiration while recognizing that true creativity often arises when one becomes a vessel for ideas beyond conscious control. They touched on the paradox of striving for freedom and enlightenment: effort is necessary, yet too much striving can impede the very state one seeks.The dialogue then explored the broader implications of societal development and decline. Roman questioned whether people throughout history, such as during the fall of the Roman Empire, were aware of the collapse happening around them or if the sense of impending doom is a perennial aspect of the human psyche. Matt suggested that while civilizations rise and fall over extended periods, significant events like the sacking of Rome are felt acutely by those who experience them. He posited that humanity has an inherent sense of the apocalyptic, driven by a moral response to the disparity between ideals and reality.They examined the current state of civilization, discussing whether modern society is experiencing a unique kind of decline due to its unsustainable relationship with the biosphere. Matt compared the potential collapse of contemporary civilization to historical precedents but noted that today's challenges are global in scale. He expressed concern that while previous civilizations faced localized environmental issues, the modern world grapples with planetary-scale problems that could have unprecedented consequences.The conversation turned to the role of myth and whether a new unifying narrative could emerge to guide humanity through these challenges. Matt reflected on the writings of Carl Jung, suggesting that myths cannot be constructed deliberately but arise organically from the collective unconscious. He emphasized that while we cannot fabricate myths to order, we can cultivate the psychological and cultural conditions that allow new myths to take root. This involves fostering openness, community, and dialogue, preparing the soil for new ideas to flourish.Roman questioned the feasibility of creating a new myth, referencing Joseph Campbell's assertion that it might not be possible for several generations. Matt acknowledged the difficulty but expressed hope that by planting the seeds of philosophical ideas and nurturing the right cultural environment, a new mythos could eventually emerge. They agreed that while technological and material advancements have provided comforts, they have also led to isolation and a loss of deeper connections and meaning.Delving into personal experiences, Roman shared his reflections on materialistic philosophies that deny free will. He recalled reading works like Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and how they initially felt liberating but ultimately served as justifications for selfish behavior. Matt concurred, criticizing the deterministic narrative that reduces humans to programmed machines. He argued that such views undermine the sense of purpose and agency essential for individual fulfillment and societal well-being.The dialogue touched on the importance of love, morality, and the potential for spiritual growth. Matt cited Emerson's belief in the transformative power of love and the possibility of societal revolution through genuine affection and unity. They discussed the challenges of living in accordance with these ideals, especially in a world rife with injustice and suffering.Roman raised difficult questions about the application of these principles in extreme situations, such as acts of violence or war. He wondered whether advocating for love and nonviolence is feasible when confronted with aggression and whether one can maintain spiritual equanimity in the face of personal loss. Matt acknowledged the complexity, differentiating between immediate anger in response to harm and the cultivation of hatred over time. He suggested that acting to neutralize a threat out of a sense of love and duty is different from seeking revenge fueled by hatred.They explored teachings from various spiritual traditions, including the Bhagavad Gita, which addresses acting without attachment to outcomes. Matt emphasized that living in love does not equate to passivity or allowing oneself or loved ones to be harmed; rather, it involves conscious, ethical action grounded in compassion.The conversation then navigated the contentious topic of historical atrocities and the interpretation of history. Roman mentioned modern reinterpretations of past events, such as AI-generated speeches of historical figures like Hitler, and the potential dangers of reframing narratives in ways that could be misleading or harmful. They discussed the ethical implications of technology enabling the spread of extremist content and the responsibilities that come with freedom of information.Matt grappled with the balance between censorship and the free exchange of ideas. He expressed concern over who decides what content should be restricted and the slippery slope that censorship can entail. At the same time, he acknowledged the need to be vigilant about how certain content might influence society, especially if it glorifies or trivializes historical atrocities.In concluding their dialogue, Matt reiterated the importance of love as a guiding principle. He read an excerpt from an anthroposophist author named Georg Kühlewind emphasizing that love drives out hate, aversion, and fear. The passage underscored the idea that one must begin with oneself in fostering love and understanding, rather than waiting for others to change. This return to the theme of love highlighted their shared belief in the power of compassion and ethical action as foundational elements for individual growth and collective progress.Watch the video of our dialogue here: Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

Above are my notes on the same essay that Timothy Jackson and I discuss in this podcast. Below is the video of our conversation. Get full access to ☿Footnotes²Plato☀☾ at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe