tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post110455844927266670..comments2024-01-22T08:01:58.626-08:00Comments on Panexperientialism: Whitehead, Abstruseness and EmotionJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-28585388757206033762016-10-23T03:50:57.762-07:002016-10-23T03:50:57.762-07:00Hi David
Thanks for the comment. It's been a w...Hi David<br />Thanks for the comment. It's been a while since I read Whitehead so I don't feel equipped to add much. <br />I imagine Whitehead would define "emotion" in a broader sense than a psychologist would - as being at most primitive level a "taking acount of" in terms of feelings of adversion or aversion, pleasure or pain, with increases in complexity and contrasts eventually leading to the spectrum of human emotions.<br />CheersJustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-55636451499657371742016-10-22T17:02:59.377-07:002016-10-22T17:02:59.377-07:00Justin, hi, it's been 12 years since your post...Justin, hi, it's been 12 years since your post. I happened on to it looking for a definition of what Whitehead meant by "emotion." I've familiar with Whitehead (tho not a true expert), but I come at emotion from the perspective of psychotherapy as well as the work of Sylvan Tompkins (research psychologist) and, to a lesser degree, the work of Jaak Panksepp. Tompkins discerned nine innate emotions in our species based upon cross cultural studies, facial and other bodily responses; Panksepp has discerned the neural pathways for seven basic emotions among all mammals. The way in which Whitehead uses the term, in that it can include subjective form (which can be about anything one can imagine) is seemingly without any specificity except intensity. If you can add or offer any more, I would be certainly appreciative! <br /><br />David<br /><br />David E. Roy, Ph.D. clinical at cctnet.comDavid E. Roy, Ph.D.http://www.cctnet.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-1108434020350064762005-02-14T18:20:00.000-08:002005-02-14T18:20:00.000-08:00I agree Steve. The fact that some assume that pane...I agree Steve. The fact that some assume that panexperientialism must imply that sticks and stones think is a major barrier to it being more widely considered, as well as the related issue of distinguishing true individuals from aggregates.<br />JustinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-1105047012683506752005-01-06T13:30:00.000-08:002005-01-06T13:30:00.000-08:00I enjoyed this post, Justin. Thanks. I think fee...I enjoyed this post, Justin. Thanks. I think feelings are the markers of the more primordial forms of subjective experience from our evolutionary past. Panexperientialism should be easier for people to get comfortable with if they understand that the "pan" doesn't relate to the more highly developed and complicated aspects of our human consciousness.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851240963321295307noreply@blogger.com