Process, Insight, and Empirical Method
An
Argument for the Compatibility of the Philosophies of Alfred North
Whitehead and Bernard J. F. Lonergan and Its Implications for
Foundational Theology.
A
Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Divinity School, The
University of Chicago, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
December 1983
Thomas Hosinski, C.S.C.
Chapter III:
The Influence of Empirical Method in Whitehead’s and Lonergan’s Analyses
of Human Subjectivity [Continued]
Whitehead’s Analysis of Human Subjectivity [Continued]
The Metaphysical
Hypothesis: The Theory of Concrescence, Initial Phase
Metaphysically, Whitehead holds, the
universe is to be conceived as being made up of occasions of experience.
All the final “facts” have the character of such occasions. This view
is suggested by modern physics. In his attempt to generalize this view
into a metaphysical interpretation, Whitehead further hypothesizes that
the factors discovered in the initial dative phase of human experience
are involved in the initial dative phase of all occasions. A rather
common and immediate reaction to this procedure is to raise the
objection of anthropomorphism: with what justification does Whitehead
generalize from human experience to all types of experience, including
sub-atomic particles? Our imaginary critic might be willing to cede
that Whitehead’s interpreta-tion of experience can be extended
legitimately to the experience of the higher animals, perhaps even to
the lower animals and plants. But our critic will assert that by the
time one has come to rocks, clouds, and the world of the atom, one has
clearly crossed the line of legitimate extension. Rocks, clouds, and
atoms are not living beings. What evidence do we have to indicate that
such things experience at all, let alone that their experience is in any
meaningful way like our own? Is Whitehead’s constructive thought truly
a grounded metaphysics, or is it not in reality a groundless and
speculative flight of anthropomorphic fancy?
Whitehead’s response to this sort of
objection would be to insist that he is in fact following the procedure
of empirical method. He has identified in the data of human subjective
experience certain factors which are ignored or misconstrued by
traditional philosophical interpretations. He has shown to his
satisfaction that these factors in human experience appear to have
nothing to do with the unique capabilities and characteristics of human
beings, but lie at a very primitive level of experience. Further, we can
observe directly that the experience and practice of animals seem to
parallel our own at the primitive level under discussion.
“. . . the philosophy
of organism attributes ‘feeling’ throughout the actual world. It bases
this doctrine upon the directly observed fact that ‘feeling’ survives as
a known element constitutive of the ‘formal’ existence of such actual
entities as we can best observe.” PR, II.8.iv (M, p. 268; C, p.
177). The context of this remark is a discussion of organic as opposed
to inorganic occasions.
It is admittedly a move of speculative reason to generalize from human
experience to an account of all types of experience, but there are good
empirical warrants for this move. There is first of all the testimony
of our instinctive action and our common sense that the world in which
we live and act is continuous with the world of nature. In this
connection we have the compelling evidence—which I will reconsider in a
moment—provided by our own experience of our bodies. Thus the
speculative move begins from an empirical ground. Moreover, the
speculative interpretation will be tested against experience, so that
once it has been formulated it is confronted with a wide variety of
empirical facts. The point is that Whitehead’s procedure is not
unbridled speculation, but an application of the empirical method. The
presupposition discovered in common sense is that the world of human
experience and the world of nature studied by science are continuous, in
fact one world. Whitehead generalizes from factors discovered in human
experience so as to state that presupposition in a hypothesis with some
philosophical precision.
An occasion of experience which
includes a human mentality is an extreme instance, at one end of the
scale, of those happenings which constitute nature. . . . Any doctrine
which refuses to place human experience outside nature, must find in
descriptions of human experience factors which also enter into the
descriptions of less specialized natural occurrences. If there be no
such factors, then the doctrine of human experience as a fact within
nature is mere bluff, founded upon vague phrases whose sole merit is a
comforting familiarity. We should either admit dualism, at least as a
provisional doctrine, or we should point out the identical elements
connecting human experience with physical science.
[AI, XI, xvi, pp. 184-185.]
Whitehead’s next step is to compare
his generalized account of the most primitive level of human experience
with the concepts, principles, and presuppositions used by the physical
sciences to interpret or understand natural occasions. If the physical
sciences, in order to interpret the happenings in nature, use and
presuppose concepts akin to “inheritance,” “feeling,” “subjective form
of feeling,” and “conformation of feeling;” then the metaphysical scheme
of interpretation derived from human experience has gained some measure
of empirical support for its extension to all occasions of experience.
Further, one can predict from the metaphysical hypothesis, that if the
hypothesis reflects reality then one would expect to find in the
physical sciences doctrines of continuity and distinct individuality.
That is, in human experience Whitehead has discovered distinct
individuality in the separate occasions of experience and also
continuity in the conformal inheritance of feeling by one occasion from
another (the continuity of subjective form). Thus the metaphysical
theory predicts that continuity and distinct individuality (or
atomicity) ought to be discovered as essential factors in any occasion
of experience. If the physical sciences in fact develop and presuppose
such doctrines in their attempts to understand natural occurrences, then
the metaphysical hypothesis has gained another measure of support
respecting its adequacy.
To summarize this issue as briefly
as possible, Whitehead points out correlations between the factors he
has discovered at the most primitive level of the dative phase of human
experience and the basic principles and concepts of explanation in the
physical sciences.
[See AI, XI,
xvi, pp. 185-186; SMW, IX, pp. 216-223; PR, II.4.iv (M,
pp. 177-179; C, pp. 116-117); III.2.i (M, pp. 364-365; C, pp. 238-239);
III.3.iv (M, p. 389; C, p. 254); IV.3.v (M, p. 471; C, p. 309).]
The concept of physical energy corresponds to “feeling.” The flow or
transmission of energy corresponds to “inheritance.” The terms electron,
proton, photon, neutron, etc. indicate the fundamental recognition that
there are qualitative differences in how various occasions in nature
entertain their energy, and this, of course, corresponds to “subjective
forms.” Finally, the fact that there are recognizable paths of energy
through space and time corresponds to “conformation of feeling.”
Further, the prediction from the generalized account of human
experience that both discrete individuality and continuity ought to be
discoverable in any occasion in reality finds its confirmation in
physical theory. The quantum theory of modern physics corresponds to
the factor of distinct individuality; and the concept of the flux of
energy from particular occasion to particular occasion corresponds to
the factor of continuity. Hence it is that Whitehead can say, “the
general principles of physics are exactly what we should expect as a
specific exemplification of the metaphysics required by the philosophy
of organism.”
PR,
II.4.iv (M, p. 178; C, p. 116).
The passage continues: “It has been a defect in the modern
philosophies that they throw no light whatever on any scientific
principles. Science should investigate particular species, and
metaphysics should investi-gate the generic notions under which those
specific principles should fall.” See also SMW, IX, p. 223:· “We
may conclude, therefore, that the organic theory represents directly
what physics actually does assume respecting its ultimate entities.”
Whitehead recognizes, however, that there is still a point to the
objection of anthropomorphism. In human experience one of the strongest
factors is our sense of personal unity or identity persisting from birth
to death. Whitehead admits that “in our account of human experience we
have attenuated human personality into a genetic relation between
occasions of experience. Yet personal unity is an inescapable fact.”
[AI, XI, xviii,
p. 186.]
Does not this “inescapable fact” prohibit extending factors discovered
in human experience to a metaphysical description of all occasions of
experience? The first step in resolving this apparent problem is “to
provide an adequate account of this undoubted personal unity,
maintaining itself amidst the welter of circumstance.”
[Ibid., xix, p. 187.]
This he does by adapting Plato’s
doctrine of the Receptacle.
[Ibid., p. 187. See also ibid., IX, iv, p. 150, and
Plato, Timaeus, 49-51 passim.]
The Receptacle, as Whitehead interprets it, has the sole function of the
imposition of unity upon the events of nature by providing the locus for
them to be together. There is a unity to the events of nature simply by
the fact that they have the Receptacle as a common locus, and their
emplacement within that locus is the source of their actuality.
Whitehead regards this notion of Plato’s as providing at one and the
same time an understanding of the unity of nature and of the unity of
each human life.
The conclusion follows that our
consciousness of the self-identity pervading our life-thread of
occasions, is nothing other than knowledge of a special strand of unity
within the general unity of nature. It is a locus within the whole,
marked out by its own peculiarities, but otherwise exhibiting the
general principle which guides the constitution of the whole. This
general principle is the object-to-subject structure of experience. It
can be otherwise stated as the vector-structure of nature. Or
otherwise, it can be conceived as the doctrine of the immanence of the
past energizing in the present.
AI, XI, xx, pp. 187-188.
Whether this adaptation of Plato’s notion of the Receptacle constitutes
an “adequate” account of personal unity is, of course, open to question.
Whitehead regards it as a general description of personal unity,
divested of “minor details of humanity.” Ibid, xix, p. 187.
This general principle, guiding the
constitution of nature as a whole and the constitution of the individual
human person, is the basis of the already-drawn analogy between human
experience and natural phenomena. Just as there is a transference of
“feeling” (emotional energy) from one occasion of human experience to
the next, so there is a transference of physical energy from one
particular occasion to the next in physical nature. Our strong sense of
personal unity persisting through time is simply our consciousness of
one special strand of inheritance that is uniquely ours. It is
our special locus of inheritance within the wider locus of
spacetime.
There is still an apparent
difficulty, however. For
this analogy of physical
nature to human experience is limited by the fact of the linear
seriality of human occasions within anyone personality and of the
many-dimensional seriality of the occasions in physical Space-Time.
In order to prove that
this discrepancy is only superficial, it now remains for discussion
whether the human experience of direct inheritance provides any analogy
to this many-dimensional character of space. If human occasions of
experience essentially inherit in one-dimensional personal order, there
is a gap between human occasions and the physical occasions of nature.
[AI, XI, xxii, p. 189.]
It is in this connection that the evidence of the bodily basis of our
experience becomes compelling. The experience of our bodies testifies
that the inheritance at the base of human experience is not restricted
to one-dimensional seriality or strict personal order. “Our dominant
inheritance from our immediately past occasion is broken into by
innumerable inheritances through other avenues. Sensitive nerves, the
functionings of our viscera, disturbances in the composition of our
blood, break in upon the dominant line of inheritance.”
[Ibid.]
It is true that in our day-to-day lives we are not ordinarily conscious
of this multi-dimensional inheritance at the base of our experience.
What dominates our awareness is the other type of inheritance, the
one-dimensional personal order in which we inherit the preceding moments
of personal experience. Also, we tend to identify ourselves with our
bodies, as we have already seen. But when we are ill, there is no doubt
in our awareness that we are inheriting in a multi-dimensional way that
is not directly connected to our strict personal order. A moment ago I
was fine, perhaps engrossed in a book, planning an activity or enjoying
the company of my friends; but now the ache in my stomach or the pain in
my chest dominates my consciousness. Something has happened, and it has
nothing to do with my personal experience of a moment ago. Also
relevant in this regard is the fact that so many bodily functions go on
without conscious control, and can even be sustained after what we would
consider the death of the person. This seems to be sound empirical
evidence for Whitehead’s conclusion that
the human body is indubitably a
complex of occasions which are part of spatial nature. It is a set of
occasions miraculously coordinated so as to pour its inheritance into
various regions within the brain. There is thus every reason to believe
that our sense of unity with the body has the same original as our sense
of unity with our immediate past of personal experience. It is another
case of non-sensuous perception, only now devoid of the strict personal
order.
But physiologists and physicists are
equally agreed that the body inherits physical conditions from the
physical environment according to the physical laws. There is thus a
general continuity between human experience and physical occasions. The
elaboration of such a continuity is one most obvious task for
philosophy. [Ibid.]
It is thus legitimate to generalize
from the analysis of human experience to a metaphysical interpretation
theorizing that all happenings in the actual world are made up of
distinct occasions of experience governed by or exhibiting the same
factors discoverable in the most fundamental level of human experience.
The legitimacy of such a metaphysical hypothesis is by no means any
guarantee of its certainty, but the fact that it is legitimate—that is,
developed, tested, and established by the procedure of empirical
method—does acquit it of the charge of anthropomorphic fancy or
groundless categorea1 speculation. Further, if the theory illuminates
experience in widely diverse contexts, enables the resolution of
outstanding problems in philosophy, and holds up under all the tests to
which it is subjected, then we can conclude that it represents at least
a better approximation to the truth of our experience than we possessed
before its development.
What, then, does this particular
metaphysical hypothesis accomplish in thus bringing human experience
into continuity with the occasions of the natural world? First of all,
it throws light on the principles of scientific explanation. It
provides a description of “the more concrete fact” from which the
scientific abstraction is derivable.
Speaking in the
context of his metaphysical hypothesis, Whitehead says this: “The notion
of physical energy, which is at the base of physics, must then be
conceived as an abstraction from the complex energy, emotional and
purposeful, inherent in the subjective form of the final synthesis in
which each occasion completes itself. It is the total vigor of each
activity of experience. The mere phrase that ‘physical science is an
abstraction,’ is a confession of philosophic failure. It is the business
of rational thought to describe the more concrete fact from which that
abstraction is derivable.” AI, XI, xvii, p. 186.
This, as we have seen
[Thesis, pp. 35-44.], is one of the tasks of metaphysics
in Whitehead’s understanding. In this particular case, Whitehead has
shown that the physical concepts of energy and the transmission of
energy are abstractions derivable from the metaphysical description of
any occasion of experience—a metaphysical description generalized from
our intimate human experience. A basic presupposition of science and
common sense alike, that we live in a common world without radical
discontinuities, has been given philosophically precise expression.
This metaphysical description of the more “concrete facts” from which
science and common-sense abstract, thus illuminates why both science and
common-sense are sense. We have gained a greater degree of
enlightenment as to the basic nature of experience and as to our
experience of continuity with the world.
Another immediate result of this
metaphysical hypothesis is to cast light upon the ontological ground of
the notion of causation and, more generally, of the faith in the order
of nature that is alike presupposed by the pursuit of science and the
common-sense conduct of our daily lives.
The discussion of the problems
constituted by the connection between causation and perception has been
conducted by the various schools of thought derived from Hume and Kant
under the misapprehension generated by an inversion of the true
constitution of experience.
[PR, II.8.iii (M, p. 263; C, p. 173).]
The misapprehension is that sense perception, or perception in the mode
of presentational immediacy, is the primary fact of perceptive
experience, and that “any apprehension of causation was, somehow or
other, to be elicited from this primary fact.”
[Ibid.]
Hume can discover no ground in presentational immediacy for the notion
of causation, and ultimately appeals to memory, association, repetition,
and habit as the source of the notion. Kant grounds the notion in the
unavoidable structure of the human mind impressing order on chaotic
sense data. Both take discrete sense data or impressions as the
fundamental fact of perceptive experience and, in differing ways, make
the notion of causation the subjective response to the reception of
these data. In fact, for both the notion of causation is not based on
any causal experience, but is the subject importing the notion
into his or her entertainment of the data of experience; causation is
ultimately a way of thinking about the data of sense for both Hume and
Kant. For Hume, that thinking has no ground other than “habit’’ or
common practice; while for Kant, that thinking is the structure of the
mind giving form to primitively chaotic perceptive experience.
Whitehead adopts the empirical
procedure of predicting what ought to be the case in certain situations
if this philosophical interpretation (hypothesis) is true; and then
examining those situations.
[See PR,
II.8.iv (M, pp. 267-269; C, pp. 175-177); and, in more detail, S,
II, iii, pp. 39-43.] If either Hume’s or Kant’s
interpretation is true, Whitehead predicts, we should find that the
inhibition either of thought or of familiar sense-data, or both, will be
accompanied by a corresponding reduction or absence of any sense of
causation as an element in experience. In all of these test situations,
however, we find that the contrary is the case. It is well known, for
example, that certain powerful emotions such as an angry rage or sheer
terror are likely to inhibit both the apprehension of sense-data and the
thought process. But these emotions “wholly depend upon a vivid
apprehension of the relevance of immediate past to the present, and of
the present to the future.”
[S ,II, iii, p.
42.]
Moreover, they are the subjective response to the experience of causal
efficacy: I am experiencing anger now because my immediately past
occasion was angry and I am inheriting my body’s physiological
experience of anger, and ultimately because something in the experience
of one of the occasions of my past made me angry. I am
experiencing terror now because my immediately past occasion was
terrified and I am inheriting my body’s physiological experience of
terror, and ultimately because something in the experience of one of the
occasions .in my past struck terror into my heart. In either of these
cases I am having an overwhelming experience of causal efficacy in spite
of the fact that the rush of my emotion is inhibiting both thought and
clear apprehension of sense-data.
Again, let us choose an example
where the rush of emotion is not so strong. Let us consider our
feelings when we are in the dark. Most humans are rather uncomfortable
or nervous in the pitch-dark. The absence of visual data tends to leave
us “a prey to vague terrors respecting a circumambient world of causal
operations.”
[PR, II.8.iv (M, p. 267; C, p. 176).]
In fact, Whitehead observes, most animals of daytime habits are more
nervous in the dark, in the absence of familiar visual sensa. This is
the opposite of what should be the case if Hume’s or Kant’s
interpretation is correct; both interpretations presuppose the
presentation of familiar sense data before there can be any causal
notion or feeling in subjective experience. “Thus the sense of unseen
effective presences in the dark is the opposite of what should happen.”
[S, II, iii, p. 43; see also PR, II.8.iv (M, p.
267; C, p. 176).]
Let us take one final example, that
of reflex action.
[PR, II.8.iii (M, pp. 265-1.66; C, pp. 174-175).]
There is a man in a totally dark room. Suddenly an electric light is
switched on and the man’s eyes blink. As Whitehead says,
there is a simple physiological
explanation of this trifling incident.
But this physiological explanation
is couched wholly in terms of causal efficacy: it is the conjectural
record of the travel of a spasm of excitement along nerves to some nodal
centre, and of the return spasm of contraction back to the eyelids. The
correct technical phraseology would not alter the fact that the
explanation does not involve any appeal to presentational immediacy
either for actual occasions resident in the nerves, or for the man. [Ibid. (M, p.
265; C, p. 174).]
The philosophical interpretation derivable from either Hume or Kant, in
other words, provides no ground for the scientific explanation of the
man’s experience. In fact, the scientific explanation “presupposes a
side of the universe about which, on Hume’s theory, we must remain in
blank ignorance.”
[Ibid. (M, p. 265; C, p. 175).]
If we now turn to the private,
subjective experience of the blinking man, we find that his testimony
concerning his experience also contradicts the prediction derivable from
either Hume or Kant. The man will say, “The flash of light made me
blink.” According to Whitehead’s interpretation, the man is testifying
to the experience of four distinguishable percepts: the flash of light,
the feeling of eye-closure, an instant of darkness, and the feeling that
the experiences of the eyes with regard to the flash are causal of the
blink. “In fact,” Whitehead says, “it is the feeling of causality which
enables the man to distinguish the priority of the flash”
[Ibid. (M, pp. 265-266; C, p. 175).]
in the temporal sequence of percepts. To argue that the temporal
sequence, from flash to blink, is the premise of the man’s subsequent
causal belief is a theory which ignores an essential part of the
evidence, and the man will insist on that. If his testimony is doubted
he will stubbornly protest, “I know the flash made me blink, because I
felt it.”
For the sake of
brevity I have presented only Whitehead’s argument from experience and
omitted his critique of the inconsistency in Hume’s analysis. In capsule
form his critique of Hume runs as follows. Whitehead is fully willing
to admit that Hume’s analysis of perception in the mode of
presentational immediacy (with regard to causation) is convincing: “pure
presentational immediacy does not disclose any causal influence . . .”
PR, II.4.viii (M, p. 188; C, p. 123). In Hume’s terms there is
indeed no sense-impression of causation. In order to provide some basis
for the notion of causation (the necessity of which Hume’s does not
deny), Hume invokes “repetition,” “memory,” and “habit.” Whitehead
points out, however, that the notions of “repetition,” “memory,” and
“habit” stand to sense-impressions in exactly the same way as does
“cause and effect.” From what impression is it possible to derive the
notion of “repetition,” or “memory,” or “habit”? Hume seems to have
confused “repetition of impressions” with “an impression of a repetition
of impressions,” and so on. In short, causation, repetition, memory,
and habit are all in the same boat; without empirical grounding
according to the principles of Hume’s philosophy. Insofar as Hume
appeals to any of these notions his philosophy, by his own principles,
is inconsistent. Whitehead shows that the experiential base for all
these notions is to be found in perception in the more primitive mode of
causal efficacy, the existence of which Hume has overlooked. See PR,
II.5.ii (M, pp. 202-205; C, pp. 133-135); II.8.iii (M, p. 266; C, p.
175).
The conclusion to be drawn from all these example is that causation is
entirely misunderstood if it is regarded as a notion imposed upon or
imported into the data of sense by the subject entertaining those data.
Causation is, rather, a relationship contained in the data themselves,
not the data of sense but the data we perceive in the more primitive
mode of causal efficacy. Causation, most primitively, is not a notion
of a relationship of past to present produced by the subject reflecting
upon the data of sense, but is directly perceived in the data of causal
efficacy. It is, in short, experienced before it is reflected upon.
Hence Whitehead concludes, “the notion of causation arose because
mankind lives amid experiences in the mode of causal efficacy.”
[PR, II.8.iii (M, p. 266; C, p. 175).]
Apart from illuminating the
ontological ground of causation, this part of Whitehead’s metaphysical
interpretation also elucidates an important part of the ontological
ground for our faith in the order of nature. But since this topic
cannot be fully discussed until we have seen other parts of Whitehead’s
metaphysical hypothesis, I shall reserve this topic to a later part of
my study.
I have treated at some length this
portion of Whitehead’s analysis of human subjectivity and its extension
into a metaphysical interpretation of experience because of its
foundational importance in his philosophy, and also because it is an
excellent example of how he applies the empirical method in the
development of his metaphysics. I must now turn my attention to the
further parts of his analysis of human subjectivity.
Forward to
The
Analysis of Human Subjectivity: The Responsive Phases
Back to
Table of Contents