I think? — Marcus de Brun

Thought thinks?

This might sound like a goofy question, but there's a reason I'm asking it ... which I'll share a bit later on.

apokrisis: Not speaking for Whitehead, but for process thinking in general, the problem for the process view is how does "atomistic" individuation arise when everything is united by a common flow? So an "occasion" would be like a whorl in a stream - a feature that arises as its own momentary thing while also being part of a greater temporalised flow.

The whorl thus exists both as an expression of its context, and also marked by its momentary departure from the over-riding character of that context. A whorl is a rotation that fleetingly betrays the possibility of other directions of flow and so marks itself out even as it is borne off downstream.

Gotcha. Tangent:

The whorl is itself a process, has duration, exists and changes over time, etc. Right?

What is the 'atom' of a process, its smallest existent? (I don't wanna say smallest particle, because this implies substance.) Does this question even make sense in pp'ical terms?

But within the whorl itself, it is characterised by itself being a departure from that prevailing general flow. The whorl opens up the possibility of a brief spin heading upstream. It itself constrains the water flow locally, and any objects bobbing about on the surface, to its quick little rotation. Locally, the past/present/future is set up with its own fleetingly distinctive sense of direction.

Thus, in the physicalist reading of process philosophy, you have a general character to time as @Janus outlines. And it can sound pretty psychological. History locks in a set of expectations as far as the present is concerned. Time itself is thus a process. It has an internal story arc rather than just being a collection of structureless instances.

The notion of time as story/process really appeals to me. As a composer I've often worked with multilayered soundscapes, with time flowing uniquely for each layer. And psychological time can flow dramatically differently when you are in different moods, situations, states of mind.

1. If time is a process, any slice of it (duration) would have a beginning, middle, and end. Likewise, each of these would have a beginning, middle, and end. And so on, fractal-like, ad infinitum. Yes?

2. If time is a process, does it imply that space is also a process?

raza: I'm very much with you on this. That said, I love words and symbols!

What are you?
What is existence? — raza

I'm happy to share my view/belief/feeling about this ... but you might not like it!

The answer to both: the Mystery.

Or, because it sounds so gorgeous in German: das Mysterium.

Whitehead distinguishes between "moments", which have no temporal extension, and "durations". / Actual entities, for Whitehead, are not atemporal (in the sense of unchanging), but are rather temporal occasions or processes. So, an atemporal moment would be an idealized instant of no duration, not an actual moment which, in possessing temporal extension, endures "for a time". In Husserlian terms, it means that a lived, as opposed to an idealized, moment is both retentive and protentive. It carries the past that in-forms it, into the future that is expected in it, and which it will, in turn, in-form. — Janus

Thanks, Janus!

What I get from this (with respect to my original questions) is that no-thing (no unchanging substance) exists in the present moment. Existents (actual entities) are event-sequences that unfold over time.

Sound about right?

Thanks, fdrake.

> You can find argument for your own non-existence, whether temporal or physical, if that's what you want. But it's not very useful; if nothing else you'll be left with the being who wanted to not exist!

The Boy Who Wanted To Not Exist ... I'd read it! ;-)

No I'm not looking for an argument for my non-existence. (I'd have to exist to be doing that.) I'm having a conversation with some Buddhists about process philosophy, and this question came up.