Footnotes2Plato Podcast

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

Someone recently tipped me off to Google’s latest AI product: NotebookLM. Here is a link to the article “they” are discussing: “Standing Firm in the Flux: On Whitehead’s Eternal Objects” (Whitehead at Harvard, 1925-1927, ed. by Joseph Petek and Brian Henning. Edinburgh University Press, forthcoming). I am honestly not sure what to think about this yet. Is it sometimes cringe? Yes. Is it sometimes offering a decent entryway to rather inscrutable ideas for nonspecialists? Yes, I think so actually. Get full access to Footnotes2Plato at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

A summary of some of the themes we explored: McGilchrist Conference ReviewSimon and Sam had been watching some of the recordings of the McGilchrist conference I cohosted back in March, asking for my overall sense of whether some synthesis perspective emerged from the various presentations. I explained that one major theme was the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and how it is influencing our human self-understanding. Several speakers including John Vervaeke and Zak Stein expressed grave concern about the ways tech companies are seeking to integrate AI into culture through marketing and interfaces designed to mimic human interactions. This is a very dangerous trend, particularly for young people who may grow up with these technologies in ways that derail normal psychosocial developmental pathways.Recontextualization and Human AtomizationSimon shifted the conversation to a discussion about recontextualization, drawing insights from Mike Levin’s conference talk on bioelectricity. He highlights the idea that humans currently experience a highly atomized sense of self, disconnected from larger social and cosmic bodies. In premodern cultures, people generally felt more integrated into their communities and environments, while modern individuals feel isolated within their own bodies. Simon reflects on how, in the past, people might have felt part of the “body of Christ” or the “body of the cosmos,” while today, humanity struggles with its place amid the deterioration of Gaia’s biosphere.Gaia as an Organism and Evolutionary TheoryI then explored the idea of the Gaia hypothesis and the way that traditional evolutionary theory itself can’t fully explain Gaia’s status as a living organism. Life on Earth might be viewed as derivative from a more primary “Gaian cell,” shifting the way we think about life’s origins and evolution. Rather than Darwinian selection alone, Gaia could represent a more primary form of self-organization that Darwinian processes enhance but do not create. Granted, many of the self-regulating feedback loops currently understood by Earth Systems Science seem to have emerged at some point after living cells, but we can understand the birth process of Gaia as beginning prior to our usual understanding of what constitutes biological life.Humanity’s Role as an Organ in GaiaThe conversation deepens into an exploration of humanity’s role within Gaia, with speculations on whether humans can learn to see themselves as organs within Gaia’s planetary body. We liken the human role to that of cells within a liver or another organ, questioning how cells identify with their place in the body. Might humanity come to recognize itself as a vital organ within the biosphere?Disruptive Societal Changes and EvolutionIt may be difficult to distinguish in advance whether a societal shift will be destructive or lead to a higher form of organization. Referencing Whitehead’s philosophy, I suggested that “evil is novelty in the wrong season,” and sometimes, disruption is necessary to catalyze evolution, even if the initial effects seem negative.Death, Mortality, and ReincarnationThe conversation takes a spiritual turn as we get into the importance of death in human and biological evolution. Confronting our mortality may turn out to be essential for contacting Gaian intelligence, since individual human life is part of a larger planetary and cosmic cycle. I explore the possibility of reincarnation as a way to take our ecological responsibilities seriously. Even in a naturalistic sense, reincarnation can foster a sense of continuity between generations and deepen our connection to the nonhuman lifeforms with whom we share this planet. Humans inherit the successes and failures of past generations, and the idea of reincarnation offers a way to understand how our actions today impact the future, as we will be here to face the consequences.Critique of Transhumanism and the Denial of DeathWe criticize the transhumanist goal of defeating death and the idea that human consciousness could one day be uploaded into machines. I believe it to be a great delusion that may lead to a bifurcation in human evolution, where some people become cyborgs while others resist such technological “enhancements.” This discussion ties into the broader theme of humanity’s technoscientific disconnection from Gaia her potential immune response to ecological degradation, such as declining fertility rates due to environmental toxins.Humility, the Role of Humanity, and Gaia’s EvolutionWe emphasized the importance of humility in humanity’s relationship with Gaia. Although humans may currently act as parasites, Gaia likely values human life and is seeking to guide us back into alignment with planetary processes. We discuss the possibility that humanity is still in an adolescent phase, rebelling against its parent (Gaia), and that technological infrastructure represents our attempt to create an artificial womb from which we must eventually emerge to fully re-integrate with the Earth.Wonder, Love, and Cosmic CommunionSam reflects on the importance of cultivating wonder and love as antidotes to the indifference that can destroy the fabric of human society as well as Gaia’s body. He suggests that the human ability to experience awe is a powerful means of reconnecting with Gaia and understanding our role within the larger cosmic order. I believe this sort of cosmic communion is essential for the growth of the divine body—an evolving process that depends on the conscious participation of all beings.The Internet, Noosphere, and New Forms of ConsciousnessI mentioned Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s idea of the Noosphere or emerging planetary mind. I am critical of the transhumanist interpretation of the Noosphere as simply equivalent to the Internet, suggesting that instead, it represents Gaia’s emerging consciousness. He speculates that the Internet and AI infrastructure may be a temporary scaffolding for something more organic and subtle that will arises humanity matures. The Internet has the potential to create planetary culture and a sense of global interconnectedness, though it has also fueled culture wars. We agree that this tension represents growing pains as humanity navigates the transition to a more conscious and integrated planetary body. Get full access to Footnotes2Plato at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

Early this week, I shared some reflections on Peirce’s essay “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God.” You can read that here:Tim and I met earlier today to discuss this essay. Peirce has both a radically original and a perennial understanding of the relationship between logic and ontology. He is defending a new kind of proof for the reality of God that is neither deductive nor inductive but rather abductive—rooted in our direct intuition and imaginal experience of ideals like Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. In Peirce’s cosmos, human imagination or “Musement” (and our scientific explication and evaluation of its speculative harvests) is continuous with nature’s spontaneous originality and order-creating tendency. In fact human imagination attuned to its own theurgic powers is just the biopsychosocial process of earthly and cosmic energetic transaction become aware of itself. One implication of Peirce’s argument is that evolutionary biology shall become the scientific study of spirit’s incarnation into flesh. Peirce believes (at least in his brighter moods) that healthy thinking is or will be led by force of its own sound logic, careful observation, and moral pragmatism to affirm the hypothesis of God as necessary being.Peirce’s triadic logic serves as his foundation for thinking about divine order. He is like other thinkers such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rudolf Steiner, and Alfred North Whitehead, who sought to integrate evolutionary theory with Christianity, implying a neglected continuity between evolutionary theory and the Biblical account of the crucial role of history in mediating the God-World relationship.Tim describes Peirce’s argument as a form of meditation, one that begins with the contemplation of phenomena, approached from different perspectives and without the urge to leap to conclusions. For Tim, this contemplative approach mirrors the essay itself, as he treats it as a living encounter with Peirce's mind, full of personality and philosophical depth. He adds that Peirce's concept of God's reality—rather than God's existence—must be understood in terms of experience and its effect on conduct, much in line with Peirce's pragmatic maxim.Our conversation often circled around Peirce's nuanced and problematic use of the word "God"—not as a precise term but as a vernacular one, vague and unscientific, yet useful in capturing something fundamental. Peirce criticizes logicians and scientists who become atheists by trying to over-define God, missing the point of its vagueness and its role in human experience. Tim expands on this, noting that Peirce distinguishes between arguments and argumentation: arguments as signs that induce belief, but not necessarily through precisely defined premises. The "neglected argument" itself, Tim notes, is a form of abduction, which begins the process of generating premises rather than relying on pre-established ones.Peirce argues that abduction serves as the origin of all inquiry, not just in theology but also in natural science. For Peirce, this form of reasoning allows us to reach into the origins of phenomena, and encourages our primal faith in the human capacity to interpret and communicate.Peirce claimed that everyone—atheists included—secretly believes in God due to their inherent faith in their own capacity to think and reason. Here, Peirce’s concept of thirdness becomes particularly important, as it refers to the divine element of mind and its role in creating the other categories (firstness and secondness). Tim and I engaged in a long discussion about whether thirdness should be considered primary or whether firstness and secondness already imply it. We agree there may be tension in Peirce's thinking, as Peirce sometimes implies that chance (firstness) is sufficient for order to arise, while at other times he suggests that a pre-existing habit-taking tendency (thirdness) is necessary.I also questioned Peirce’s description of God as the “Creator” of firstness and secondness, and his affirmation of the traditional divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. God is a Creator ex nihilo.And yet, Peirce suggests that God may be said to grow, contradicting the traditional notion of divine immutability. He acknowledges the inherent difficulty of reconciling a purposeful, evolving God with the notion of divine transcendence, yet leaves the tension unresolved. For Tim, this reflects Peirce's desire to have it both ways: an evolving, creative universe that hints at God’s reality without fully committing to the traditional theistic conception of God as omnipotent and immutable.We touched on the problem of evil, which Peirce links to secondness and describes as one of the "major perfections of the universe." I introduced Josiah Royce’s interpretation of Peirce in his two volume work The Problem of Christianity (1913), as well as his criticisms of Bergson’s account of the perception/conception dichotomy. Peirce allows us to think the firstness of impression and the secondness of reflection (or percept and concept, respectively) as always already mediated by the thirdness of interpretation.William James’ viewed religion as primarily a solitary endeavor, which contrasts with Royce’s understanding of the centrality of the beloved community in religious life. I appreciated Tim’s emphasis on the prosaic nature of firstness: that religious experience should not be seen as the preserve of a few exceptional individuals but as something available to everyone in the everyday world. I thought of Whitehead, who in Religion in the Making further contextualized James’ idea by suggesting that religion is also about world-loyalty, tying religious experience not only to human communities but also to a deeper connectedness with the cosmos.We linked Peirce’s thought to ancient traditions, including Kabbalah, Taoism, and hermeticism. I drew connections to thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa and Pseudo-Dionysius, who engaged in negative theology, establishing a tradition of unsaying God, which resonates with Peirce’s emphasis on vagueness. Tim brings in psychoanalytic perspectives, especially Jung and Lacan, noting how psychoanalysis, like theology, grapples with the deep structures of human meaning-making and its confrontation with trauma, alienation, and the symbolic order. Tim explores the idea of God as "insistence" rather than "existence," paralleling the way the unconscious insists through its perturbations of consciousness in psychoanalysis.Peirce’s argument resonates with other evolutionary thinkers like Teilhard and Steiner. While the human mind is of course continuous with the many other examples of mindedness at play in natural processes all around us, there is also something unique about our capacity for conscious participation in what nature and perhaps even God undertake unconsciously. We are not just another species of animal. Steiner claimed that each human individual constitutes its own species, while Teilhard saw humanity as a new kingdom of nature. Peirce’s convergent idea of humans as generalizers and creator/discoverer of new universals sets us apart from other forms of life, echoing Hermetic and Kabbalistic traditions like the work of Pico della Mirandola, who argued that humans are not instinctually bound to any one archetype but are free to embody them all. Get full access to Footnotes2Plato at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

I had the pleasure of dialoging with Oliver Griebel about our shared interests in philosophy, cosmology, and the integration of modern scientific thought with spirituality. I’ve been reading the anthology that Oliver edited, Both One and Many, and particularly appreciated his insightful critiques of materialism rooted in the premise that scientific knowledge itself presupposes human personhood (conscious agency, etc.), and so cannot explain it away by reference to some favored set of abstractions.We touched on the role of expertise and the balance between inclusivity and maintaining rigorous, well-defended philosophical and scientific foundations. We also explored Whitehead's process philosophy and its relevance to modern scientific developments, considering its potential to offer an alternative to reductionist materialism. Oliver shared his interest in Whitehead's idea of a constantly updating universe and how this might relate to his own cosmic holism. We both agree that irreversible time is a real feature of the physical universe, contrary to some popular reductive (meta)physical arguments otherwise (eg, the block universe or cartoon “flip book” conception of the universe). Next time we plan to delve into more theological issues. Watch the video of our dialogue: Get full access to Footnotes2Plato at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe

Timothy Jackson and I discuss M. Beatrice Fazi's book Contingent Computation: Abstraction, Experience, and Indeterminacy in Computational Aesthetics (2018), focusing in particular on her interpretations of Gilles Deleuze and Alfred North Whitehead.Watch our dialogue below: Here an edited ChatGPT summary of the transcript: Discussion on Computation and Ontology:* The conversation begins focused on the book Contingent Computation by M. Beatrice Fazi, which Matt had not encountered before but is now deeply interested in, particularly due to its engagement with Deleuze and Whitehead. He appreciates how Fazi reads Whitehead as "post-Deleuzian" and contrasts their views on discreteness, logic, and potentiality.* Matt explains Fazi's position that Whitehead offers a way to treat logic and computation as irreducible to sensibility or bodily affect, distinguishing conceptual prehensions from physical ones. He notes Fazi's emphasis on the irreducibility of logical and quantitative aspects of computation, which she believes Whitehead's philosophy can accommodate.* Tim expresses some skepticism, noting that Fazi's reading of both Deleuze and Whitehead might be overly simplistic. He references how Deleuze’s political critique of computation, while grounded in concerns about control and identity, might still allow for a more nuanced understanding of the ontology of computation. Tim also brings in the concept of computational irreducibility, as explored by Stephen Wolfram, and suggests that Fazi could have engaged with this concept to bolster her argument.* Matt and Tim explore the idea that both Deleuze and Whitehead might be more balanced in their philosophical approaches than Fazi suggests. They delve into Whitehead's concept of God, which Fazi omits, arguing that Whitehead's God plays a crucial role in maintaining the coherence of his philosophical system, particularly in balancing the conceptual and physical aspects of reality.Philosophical Tensions and Syntheses:* The conversation weaves through various philosophical tensions, such as the relationship between the eternal, the virtual, and the actual, the role of abstraction, and the balance between identity and difference. * Matt highlights Whitehead's view that abstraction is a constructive process, integrating past actuality and ideality into experience, which contrasts with Deleuze’s more critical stance on abstraction as a burden on experience. Tim argues that Deleuze, too, recognizes the constructive role of abstraction, though in a different way, emphasizing the need for novel differentiation.Conclusion and Future Directions:* The conversation concludes with a discussion on the importance of taking an ontologically realist and media ecological perspective on computation. Both Matt and Tim see the value in exploring how our direct experiential engagement with emerging technologies shapes the ways we then come to understand those very technologies. They plan to continue their exploration of these ideas, with a return to Peirce’s work in their next discussion. Get full access to Footnotes2Plato at footnotes2plato.substack.com/subscribe