• Gnomon
    628
    Gnomon - I really don't think I can do this question justice right now...but the essential idea is that the actual entities composing reality are "occasions of experience" (a la Whitehead)...little "droplets" (perhaps) of experiential reality which all interact with one another to a greater or lesser degree depending on the complexity of their "aggregations". Some "aggregations" are just that - e.g. a rock or a solar system - others are organized composite units or organisms - like a human being for example - discrete individuals.Siti
    Although, years ago, I had difficulty following Whitehead's abstract argument in Process and Reality, I could see that he was talking about some of the same concepts that I was beginning to consider in my own thesis of Program and Reality : i.e.Enformationism. For example, the distinction between inert "aggregations" and animated "organisms", is based on the difference between Parts and Wholes. He just used his own unique terminology, such as "occasions of experience" where I coined my own Information-based terms : "Enformy" --- Creativity, which includes converting physical interactions into psychic experiences.

    From his analysis of the temporal process of reality, Whitehead concluded that some timeless Eternal Objects (Forms?) must necessarily exist in some sense. And the most fundamental of those EOs is the notion of "World Soul: which he also called "God. Ironically, in order to define "God" in "Anthrodecentric" terms, he had to humanize the deity into an "erotic" experiencer. Yet that physical attribute is not compatible with metaphysical Timelessness or Omnipotence. Which is where his "dipolar" deity differs from mine. Since my G*D is infinite and eternal, S/he must by definition encompass all possibilities. Nevertheless, like ANW's Eternal God, my Enfernal G*D is "Dipolar" : potential for both Good and Evil.

    However, since Whitehead was an old man when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, and long dead when the Cosmic Microwave Background evidence was discovered, he assumed that the Real World was eternal. But now that we know the space-time World is not eternal, we must shift our God-paradigm from Natural (within space-time) to Extra-natural (prior to BB). That's because he was correct in his assumption that eternity is the default state of being, but wrong about the eternity of Reality. Therefore, I think an informed ANW would now agree with me that the deity is not simply a "creature of creativity", but the ultimate Creator. :smile:


    Eternal Objects : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/04/06/whitehead-eternal-objects-and-god/

    Anthrodecentric : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/08/22/anthrodecentrism-the-genesis-and-meaning-of-a-word/

    Dipolar Theism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipolar_theism
  • christian2017
    1.3k
    I'm currently reading a book on Human Nature, that raises the volatile question of Essentialism. I'm only superficially familiar with that worldview, which seems to go back at least to Plato's "Forms", and the "Kinds" of Genesis. Apparently, Essentialism was the default assumption of science up until Darwin's theory of evolution blurred the boundaries between Species (Kinds)*1.

    After a brief review, I get the impression that today the notion of fixed categories in nature is held primarily by Conservatives, both political and religious. But I suspect the topic may be vociferously debated among philosophers of various political & religious views. Non-philosophers may be expected to prefer a simple black or white scheme for Human Nature, but deeper thinkers tend to dissect their topics into smaller chunks, and into rainbow colors. Yet those fine distinctions are not so easily verified by evidence or by appeals to authority, hence leading to an infinite regression of unresolved debates.

    The Human Nature controversy in recent years seems to be centered primarily on Gender issues. If God created Man & Woman for distinct roles in the world, then where do LGBTQ humans fit into the scheme of things? Are those who refuse to remain in their rigidly-defined physical and social niches, somehow defying the law of God? Even for those who are not concerned about the laws of God, what about violating the laws of Nature?

    Although my moderate worldview does not divide the world into simplistic dualistic categories, it also can't abide the absurdity of infinite regression. So, before I bring my own Intrinsic Biases to this polarizing book, I'd like to see what others on this forum have to say about Essentialism in general, and Gender Categories in particular. :cool:
    Gnomon

    If you want to have a sex change to become a women or a man, first have an plastic surgery operation to become a frog (or something similar) and then lop off the penis or graft on a vagina and voila you now have become the opposite sex. Humans have XX, XY and XXY and also damaged or missing genitalia. The holy book i adhere to actually preaches that being a wierd dna or having fucked up genitalia usually means you are some super spiritual power house. On the XX, XY and XXY and ..... please let me know if i missed any.
  • christian2017
    1.3k
    All fetuses begin as female, and then, if it is supposed to become male, the body needs to be masculinized, as well as the brain. If something goes wrong with one or the other process or both or partially then you can imagine all the resultant special genders of LGBTQ. 'God'/Bible gets shown up again, as always.PoeticUniverse

    When the fetus is a single cell, i don't know what gender it is but if a penis hasn't grown yet(in the case of dna XY) does that mean its a women or just a eunuch. This whole argument seems trite and overly simplistic.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.