larvalsubjects Says: May 26th, 2007 at 10:19 pm Whitehead is of interest to me because he develops an ontology of relations, complex systems, and systems that are dynamic and developing, i.e., processes. I do not advocate materialism of the Lucretian or Democritan sort, where everything is ultimately atoms bouncing off one another in the void. In my view, matter is composed of ongoing events and interrelations among events. In the attempt to formulate such a position I’m engaged in research pertaining to any philosopher that has sought to thematize relations, systems, and events. This does not make me a Whitehead. Nothing prevents you from talking about Russell and I’m not sure what would give you this impression. Didn’t you notice a rather productive discussion on this blog about Davidson recently?
I have never claimed allegiance to analytic philosophy or any other philosophical school. I take useful concepts wherever I find them in the attempt to articulate my own thoughts. Psychoanalysis, incidentally, is not a theory of mind but a theory of what takes place in the clinical consulting room between analyst and analysand. You might think of it as a particular sort of micro-sociology. As a result, Hume’s critique of mind is quite irrelevant.larvalsubjects Says: May 27th, 2007 at 5:22 am Glen, so are you seeing Whitehead’s eternal objects as analogous to Deleuze’s sense? I think there’s definitely a strong connection between Deleuze and Whitehead, but increasingly I’m coming to feel that Deleuze is also offering a critique of a number of aspects of Whitehead’s ontology. These eternal objects really leave me scratching my head.