david ray griffin - parasychology and philosophy a whiteheadian postmodern perspective

8/13/2019 David Ray Griffin - Parasychology and Philosophy a Whiteheadian Postmodern Perspective

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/david-ray-griffin-parasychology-and-philosophy-a-whiteheadian-postmodern 1/55

Parapsychology and Philosophy: A Whiteheadian

Postmodern Perspective1

David Ray Griffin2

PARAPSYC!"!GY# PS$# A%D &' (!D'R% W!R"D)$'W

The Marginality of Parapsychology in the Modern World

(odern science in general has had a tremendo*s impact *pon philosophical tho*ght inrecent cent*ries# and this fact has remained tr*e in the 2+th cent*ry, Altho*gh some

philosophical circles in an earlier portion of this cent*ry -ere dominated .y movementsthat so*ght to ins*late themselves from the sciences# s*ch as phenomenology#

e/istential0ism# and analytic philosophy# philosophical tho*ght overall has .een greatly

transformed .y the effects of scientific discoveries and theories, &his is tr*e not only ofthe so0called nat*ral sciencesthe effects of the second la- of thermodynamics#

*ant*m physics# evol*tionary theory# molec*lar .iology# and ecology spring to mind.*t also of the so0called social scienceshere one thin3s immediately of the impact of

(ar/ism# 4re*dian0ism# and the theory of paradigm0shifts# -hich arose in the

sociohistorical st*dy of science,

o-ever# altho*gh the science of parapsycho0logy# at least *nder the older name

5psychical research6 7$ *se the t-o terms synonymo*sly# e/cept -hen indicatingother-ise8# has e/isted for over a cent*ry# it has yet to have m*ch impact *pon

philosophical tho*ght, $ndeed# altho*gh the Parapsychological Association has .een anaffiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 199# most

scientists and philosophers still do not thin3 of it as a science# -hether thro*gh e/plicitre;ection or simply .y not thin3ing a.o*t it at all,

&he reasons mat have .een given most often for this contin*ed marginality ofparapsychology .y its detractors are these: 718 &he alleged interactions of

parapsychology violate certain f*ndamental ass*mp0tions 7often called# follo-ing C, D,

<road=s >199? analysis# 5.asic limiting principles68 of the -orldvie- that ispres*pposed thro*gho*t the philosophical and scientific comm*nitiesa -orldvie- that

-or3s perfectly -ell for almost everything e/cept the alleged data of parapsychology

7Camp.ell# 19@# pp, BB# 9109 4eigl# 19+# pp, 2@0298, 728 Parapsycho0logy is s*spect.eca*se of association -ith the 5occ*lt6 7Allison# 19@# p, 2@18, 7B8 Parapsychology has

.een *na.le to prod*ce e/periments that are repeata.le in the strong sense, 'ven ifsome replica.ility has .een achieved# it is not s*fficient given the fact that the

implications of the alleged res*lts do not cohere -ith many .asic principles acceptedthro*gho*t the rest of the scientific comm*nity: e/traordinary claims re*ire e/traordi0

nary evidence 7E*rtF# 19@1# pp, 1B018, 78 &he parapsychology comm*nity has not

prod*ced a -idely accepted# testa.le theory of ho- and -hy the effects appear -henthey occasionally do# if they do,

Parapsychology as a Revolutionary Science

&his marginality of parapsychology has evo3ed contrasting proposals from theparapsychological comm*nity, Altho*gh mere is a large spectr*m of attit*des# $ -ill

spea3 in terms of t-o main tendencies# the conservative and the revol*tionary,

&he conservative stance involves# in the first place# minimiFing the appearance of



contradiction .et-een the -orldvie- of the scientific comm*nity in general and that of

the parapsychological comm*0nity, 4ello- parapsychologists are *rged not to spea3 oftheir science as revol*tionary, &he seemingly paranormal types of ca*sal interaction

st*died .y parapsychologists are called 5anomalies#6 -hich implies that they may

event*ally .e e/plained in terms of conventional ca*sal theories 7some have s*ggestedthat they may already .e th*s e/plaina.le# -ith *ant*m physics .eing the favorite

5conventional6 theory8, $t has even .een *rged that ca*sal hypotheses .e given *p# at

least temporarily, Some parapsychologists advocate the *se of terms that imply nohypotheses a.o*t the types of ca*sality involved in the vario*s phenomena st*diedrather# they say these terms sho*ld .e defined negatively or phenomenalistically, &he

term 5psi6 has .een proposed as s*ch a term to refer to all the phenomena 7$ -ill *sethe term# .*t not -ith the phenomenalist meaning8, A second conservative tendency

has .een to disting*ish 5parapsychology#6 *nderstood as a la.oratory science# from5psychical research#6 -hich investigates spontaneo*s cases as -ell# and to e/cl*de

from parapsychology the st*dy of evidence for life after death and the more .iFarre0seeming physical phenomena# s*ch as materialiFa0tions# there.y .rea3ing the

association .et-een parapsychology and the occ*lt, A third conservative tendency#closely related to the second# is to try to find an e/periment that -ill .e s*fficiently

repeata.le to convince other scientists of the reality of the phenomenon st*died, Afo*rth conservative tendency# closely related to the third# is to do process0oriented

st*dies to try to *nderstand the dynamics .ehind the prod*ction of psi effects,

At the opposite end of the spectr*m is a revol*tionary stance, &his stance says that ifthe types of interaction st*died .y parapsychologists are gen*ine# so that telepathy#

psycho3inesis# and precognition really occ*r# this sho-s that the conventional

-orldvie- of modern science and philosophy is completely inade*ate, Precognition#-ith its implication that the f*t*re e/erts .ac3-ard ca*sation *pon the present-hich

-o*ld mean that an effect can e/ist .efore its ca*seis often offered as the clearestcase in point, Conventional ideas of ca*sality and time 7as -ell as space8# it is said#

m*st .e given *p, Regarding the second and third points in the general criti*e ofparapsychology# those -ith a more revol*tionary approach# .eing less concerned -ith

acceptance .y conventional science and less -orried a.o*t charges of association -ith5the occ*lt#6 tend to .e impatient -ith the methods and generally meager res*lts of the

strictly e/perimental approach# and -ant to devote more attention to large0scalespontaneo*s phenomena and to consider serio*sly the *estion of s*rvival, Regarding

the fo*rth point# altho*gh these thin3ers are not necessarily *ninterested in discoveringthe *nderlying dynamics# they s*spect that the dynamics operating -hen normal

s*.;ects intentionally prod*ce 7small0scale8 manifestations of psi are *ite differentfrom those operating in e/traordinary individ*als -ho have spontaneo*sly manifested

large0scale effects 7&aylor# 19@# p, B28, &he la.oratory# e/perimental approach# they.elieve# is therefore not going to help *s *nderstand the nat*ral phenomenena# -hich

*nderstanding -as the motive for esta.lishing the science in the first place,4*rthermore# there may .e something a.o*t psi that -ill al-ays prevent s*ccessf*l

e/periments that are repeata.le in a very strong sense 7'isen.*d# 19@B# pp, 1901@8,

(y o-n reading in the area# -ith eyes conditioned .y the philosophy of Alfred %orth

Whitehead 71@10198#B has led me to a position some-here in the middle of thespectr*m .et-een the conservative and revol*tionary stances, &he foc*s of my

disc*ssion -ill .e on the *estion of -orldvie-# especially on -hat C, D, <road 71998called the 5.asic limiting principles,6 $ agree -ith those -ho see this iss*e as primary

and the rest# s*ch as the iss*e of repeata.ility# as secondary, 4or e/ample# sociologist

of science (arcello &r*FFi 719@+8# one of the fairest of parapsychology=s critics# ma3esthese t-o points a.o*t repeata.ility and parapsychology:

7a8 a.sence of replica.ility is present for significant claims in many other accepted

sciences 7especially in psychology and sociology .*t also in s*ch fields as astronomy8and 7.8 replica.ility is also a matter of degree# and many e/periments in



parapsychology have .een replicated -ith some consistency .y different e/perimenters

7to say nothing a.o*t replications -ith the same e/perimental set or replications -ith asingle s*.;ect8# 7p, B8

!n this .asis he endorses the follo-ing statement .y Pa*l Allison 719@8:

While the discovery of an easily repeata.le e/periment might *ltimately save parapsy0chology# the lac3 thereof s*rely does little to e/plain the intensity of those -ho oppose

the field, $t certainly hasn=t stopped other fields 7e,g,# psychology8 from .eing acceptedas scientifically legitimate, %o# the opposition seems to stem most from t-o closely

related feat*res of parapsychology: its threat to .asic scientific ass*mptions and itsorigins hi and contin*ed association -ith the occ*lt# 7p, 2@18

$ -o*ld say that these t-o reasonsthreat to .asic ass*mptions and association -ith

the occ*ltare so 5closely related6 that they# in fact# are t-o sides of the same coin:

&he principles of the 5modern scientific -orldvie-6 that the evidence from para0psychology challenges -ere originally adopted precisely# in large part# to r*le o*t

5occ*lt6 pheno0mena, Challenging these principles therefore inevi0ta.ly loo3s todefenders of the modern -orldvie- li3e s*pport for 5the occ*lt,6

At the center of the ne- philosophy of nat*re that emerged victorio*s in the 1thcent*ry -as a mechanistic doctrine of nat*re, &his position -as# in fact# often referred

to as the 5ne- mechanical philosophy,6 &his vie- of nat*re had t-o f*ndamentaldimensions# .oth of -hich e/emplified the demand that all 5occ*lt6 *alities and

po-ers .e .anished from nat*re,

!ne dimension -as the elimination of all sponta0neity# self0motion# or self0

determinationespecially any self0determination in terms of an ideal end 7finalca*sation8from nat*re# -hich res*lted in determinism, &he second meaning of

mechanism -as that there can .e no action at a distance: All ca*sal infl*ence m*st .e

.y contact, A statement .y Richard Westfall 719@+a8 nicely s*mmariFes these t-opoints:

All >mechanical philosophers? agreed on some form of d*alism -hich e/cl*ded from

nat*re the possi.ility of -hat they called pe;oratively 5occ*lt agents6 and -hichpresented nat*ral phenomena as the necessary prod*cts of ine/ora.le physical

processes, , , , All agreed that the program of nat*ral philosophy lay in demonstratingthat the phenomena of nat*re are prod*ced .y the m*t*al interplay of material particles

-hich act on each other .y direct contact alone, 7pp, 1018

!ne of the factors ma3ing action at a distance s*ch an important iss*e at the time -as

the 5-itch0craFe6 of the 1th and 1th cent*ries# -hich some historians consider thema;or social pro.lem of the time 7Eors H Peters# 1928, &he acc*sations of -itchcraft

pres*pposed the idea that the h*man mind co*ld directly ca*se harm to other peopleand their possessions, &he mechanistic philosophy of Descartes and (ersenne# .y

denying that any action at a distance can occ*r and# more partic*larly# .y denying thatthe mind can e/ercise infl*ence *pon remote o.;ects 7Descartes= philosophy made it

diffic*lt to *nderstand ho- the mind co*ld even infl*ence its o-n .ody8# *ndermined

the -orld of tho*ght in -hich the -itch0craFe flo*rished and helped .ring a.o*t itsdemise 7'aslea# 19@+ "eno.le# 19B# pp, 1@# @909 &revor0Roper# 1998,

A second theological0social pro.lem# pro.a.ly e*ally important# involved the

interpretation of 5miracles,6 Competing -ith .oth Aristotelianism and the mechanisticphilosophy -as a -ild assortment of %eoplatonic# ermetic# Ca.alistic# and nat*ralistic

philosophies that had spread north-ard from the Platonic Renaissance that .egan in$taly in the 1th cent*ry, Some of these -ere 5magical6 philosophies# -hich allo-ed

action at a distance, &hey specifically allo-ed the h*man mind to e/ert and receiveinfl*ence at a distancefor e/ample# thro*gh 5sympathy,6 &hese philosophies implied#

and some of their proponents e/plicitly arg*ed# that the miracles of the %e- &estament



7and# for Catholics# the ongoing Christian tradition8 -ere p*rely nat*ral effects# not

different in 3ind from e/traordinary events that have occ*rred in other traditions andnot re*iring any s*pernat*ral intervention, Defenders of Christianity sa- these

philosophies as posing a profo*nd threat# .eca*se the appeal to miracles as the sign of

God=s esta.lishment of Christianity as the one tr*e religion -as the central element inChristian apologetics, (any .elieved# f*rthermore# given the close relation .et-een the

Christian Ch*rch and the state# that the sta.ility of the -hole social fa.ric rested on this

point 7'aslea# 19@+# pp, 909# 1+@011# 1B2# 1B# 1B@# 1@# 21+ Iaco.# 19@# pp, 12018,

&he mechanistic philosophy -as seen .y many as the .est defense of this traditional

Christian position against the nat*ralistic interpretation of miracles, 4or e/ample#4ather (arin (ersenne# -ho -asalong -ith Descartes# and in -ays more important

than Descartesthe central fig*re in the esta.lishment of the mechanistic philosophy inscientific# philoso0phical# and theological circles in 4rance# advocated the mechanistic

philosophy on these gro*nds, <eca*se it sho-ed that no infl*ence at a distance co*ldocc*r nat*rally# the miracles that occ*rred in the %e- &estament and later Christian

history -ere really miraclesthat is# they re*ired the s*pernat*ral intervention of God7"eno.le# 19B# pp, 1BB# 101@# 21+# B# B@18, 7&hose similar events that occ*rred

in other traditions -ere said to .e prod*ced .y Satan, Altho*gh Satan=s po-ers -eresaid to .e not tr*ly s*pernat*ral# .*t only preternat*ral# they incl*ded the po-er to

sim*late mirac*lo*s effects,8

Part and parcel of this denial of infl*ence at a distance -as the sensationist doctrine of

perception# according to -hich -e can perceive act*alities .eyond o*rselves only .ymeans of the .odily senses, S*ch perception involves a chain of contig*o*s infl*ences#

-hereas nonsensory percep0tion -o*ld involve a direct contact .et-een the mind and aremote o.;ect or mind, &his sensationism helped *ndermine the -orld of tho*ght that

allo-ed .oth for -itchcraft and for nat*ralistic interpretations of certain miracles 7s*chas Ies*s= 3no-ledge of -hat -as in other people=s minds8,

Some of the theological0sociological reasons for preferring the mechanistic doctrine ofnat*re# ho-ever# involved the other meaning of this doctrinethe denial to matter of

the capacity for self0motion, !ne of these had to do -ith .elief in life after death, Some

of the Renaissance philosophies# referred to a.ove# regarded matter as self0moving andperhaps self0organiFing, Some of the proponents of the idea that matter is self0movinge/plicitly propo*nded the heresy of 5mortalism#6 -hich says that -hen the .ody dies#

so does the so*l, &hey arg*ed for this on the gro*nds that the .ody is composed of self0moving things and yet it clearly decays at death there is no reason# accordingly# to

ass*me that the fate of the so*l -ill .e any different, &his heresy -as also profo*ndlythreatening in the eyes of the defenders of the ch*rch=s a*thority and there.y of social

sta.ility, (ost people# friends and opponents ali3e# agreed that the ch*rch=s a*thoritylay primarily in its having 5the 3eys to the 3ingdom#6 meaning the po-er to determine

-hether people at death -o*ld go to heaven or hell, $f .elief in life after deathcr*m.led# so -o*ld the a*thority of the ch*rch,

Again# the mechanistic vie- of nat*re -as seen as a godsend, $t portrayed matter as

having no self0moving po-er, &his vie- of nat*re made it o.vio*s that .eca*se -e areo.vio*sly self0moving .eings# there m*st .e something in *s that is different in 3indfrom matteran immaterial# self0moving so*l, Accordingly# it -as arg*ed.y (ersenne#

Gassendi# Descartes# <oyle# and the Royal Societythe fact that the .ody decays atdeath is no reason to s*ppose that the so*l decays# too 7'aslea# 19@+# pp, 1+@011#

1B@# 1@# 21+ Iaco.# 19@# pp, 1101 "eno.le# 19B# pp, 1BB# 101@# 21+# B#B@18,

$ mention this third e/ample# a.o*t ho- the mechanistic philosophy of nat*re -as *sedto s*pport .elief in life after death# for t-o reasons, 4irst# it sho-s that in its first phase

the 5modern -orldvie-6 -as not intended to r*le o*t .elief in life after death# .*t to



s*pport it, &he so*l -as different from the .rain and separa.le from it, $ -ill ma3e *se

of this point .elo- in delimiting psi and the paranormal, Second# this e/ampleill*strates the fact that the idea that nat*re=s .asic *nits are devoid of the po-er of

self0motion -as as central to the modern -orldvie- as the denial of action at a

distance, (y proposal in this essay -ill .e that -e need a postmodern philosophy in-hich .oth of these feat*res of the modern -orldvie- are re;ected, &hat is# .esides

allo-ing for action at a distance# the Whiteheadian philosophy $ commend is a

nond*alis0tic# neoanimistic# pane/perientialist philosophy# in -hich e/perience andspontaneity are f*lly nat*ral feat*res of the -orld# characteristic of nat*re at everylevel,

4or no-# ho-ever# the iss*e is the relation .et-een the modern -orld0vie-# action at adis0tance# and the controversial and therefore potentially revol*tionary nat*re of

parapsychology, (y proposal is that# if -e say that parapsychology st*dies ostensi.lepsi relations# then ho-ever 5psi relations6 are e/actly to .e defined to differentiate

them from other phenomena# the feat*re of action at a distance sho*ld .e central, &hatthis is the most distinctive feat*re of the 3inds of events st*died .y para0psychologists

is s*ggested .y many of the terms *sed: telepathy# tele3inesis 7a variant of psycho03inesis8# teleportation# remote vie-ing# retrocog0nition# and precognition, 7Sometimes

the distance is temporal# sometimes spatial# and sometimes .oth,8 &he idea of infl*enceat a distance is# f*rthermore# at least arg*a.ly implicit in the other phenomena

considered to .e appropriate for parapsychologists or psychical researchers,

<y proposing that psi relations .e defined in terms of ca*sal infl*ence at a distance# $

am re;ecting the conservative tendency to define psi and there.y the s*.;ect of

parapsychology in a merely negative or phenomenalistic -ay, 4or e/ample# some peoplepropose that parapsychology is the st*dy of all paranormal phenomena# ta3ing

5paranormal6 .roadly to mean anything that does not fit into the c*rrent -orldvie-#

that is# the late modern -orldvie- of materialism, 4reedom# ho-ever# does not fit-ithin this -orldvie-# and yet no one -o*ld thin3 ostensi.le instances of free action

.elong to the s*.;ect matter of parapsychology and many other e/amples co*ld .elisted 7see the disc*ssion of the inade*acies of materialism in the section .eginning on

p, 2BB8, Another negative definition states that parapsycho0logy=s s*.;ect matter

consists of types of effects for -hich there is no- no 3no-n ca*se, We do not# ho-ever#*nderstand the ca*sal .asis for many phenomena# s*ch as ho- a spider 3no-s ho- tospin a -e.# or ho- the *niverse came into e/istence 7if one says# 5thro*gh a .ig .ang#6

-e can as3 -here the -here-ithal for the .ig .ang came from8 and many people say-e have no idea of ho- the mind affects the .rain and vice versa, S*ch a negative#

temporally0.ased definition# f*rthermore# -o*ld have the res*lt that if -e came to*nderstand ho- psi relations are ca*sed# they -o*ld no longer .e psi relationsJ &he

phenomenalistic definition of psi relations as 5anomalo*s correlations6 also# li3e thenegative definitions# shies a-ay from that -hich ma3es parapsychology a potentially

revol*tionary sciencethe fact that it may confirm ;*st the 3ind of ca*sal infl*ence thatthe modern -orldvie- not only r*les o*t# .*t -as intentionally designed to r*le o*t:

ca*sal infl*ence at a distance,

(any philosophers# s*ch as Iames Wheatley 7198# have e/pressed the hope that -ecan e/press o*r 5int*itive notion of -hat psi occ*rrences are6 in a 5positive

characteriFation6 7p, 128, (y s*ggestion is that this positive characteriFation of thenat*re of psi m*st involve the notion of infl*ence at a distance,

&his type of positive characteriFation of psi has .een resisted .y many

parapsychologists, !ne of the most important reasons for this resistance is that if psi isth*s characteriFed# and parapsychology is defined as the st*dy of psi events# then it is

easy for critics to claim that parapsychology is not a legitimate science .eca*se its verys*.;ect matter is in do*.t, &he proper -ay to solve this pro.lem# ho-0ever# is not to

define psi negatively or phenomena0listically# .*t simply to define parapsychology# as



Iohn Palmer 719@8 has s*ggested# as the st*dy of ostensi.le psi events, 7Palmer

himself said 5ostensi.le psychic events#6 .*t $ prefer psi,8 Parapsychology then clearlyhas a s*.;ect matter, Palmer=s s*ggestion# f*rthermore# provides a definition that is

accepta.le for .oth those -ho do and those -ho do not .elieve that psi really occ*rs#

there.y removing the s*ggestion that a parapsycho0logist is necessarily a 5.eliever6 inpsi, Parapsycho0logy# then# is the scientific st*dy of ostensi.le psi events# meaning

events that# ho-ever more precisely they .e specified# seem to involve a form of ca*sal

infl*ence at a distance,(y claim that parapsychology is inevita.ly potentially revol*tionary ma3es my analysisclose to that of <rian and "ynne (ac3enFie 719@+8, &hey rightly say that the

5paranormal6 events st*died .y parapsychology are not simply 5anomalo*s6 in thesense of .eing a 5specifia.le class of events -hich ;*st happen to conflict -ith the

scientific conception of the -orld,6 Rather# 5they -ere esta.lished as paranormal .y thegenesis of that scientific conception# and are not defina.le separately from it, , , , &he

Kparanormal= -as esta.lished as s*ch .y .eing r*led o*t of nat*re altogether6 7pp, 1B#1B8, Accordingly# they say#

the incompati.ility of parapsychology -ith modern science is neither accidental nor

recent# .*t is .*ilt into the ass*mptive .ase of modern science itself, $t is .eca*se the

aims and claims of parapsychology clash so strongly -ith this ass*mptive .ase that the

field attracts s*ch hostility, $t is for the same reason that# if accepted# parapsychology-o*ld have the revol*tionary implications on -hich Rhine and some otherparapsychologists fre*ently insist# 7p, 1B8

Aside from the fact that the (ac3enFies define parapsychology as the st*dy not ofostensi.le paranormal relations# .*t simply of paranormal relations 7-hich p*ts

parapsychology itself rather than its possi.le res*lts in tension -ith the -orldvie- ofmodern science8# their analysis seems correct, &hey are correct# f*rthermore# in their

identification of the nat*re of this tension, &hey introd*ce this topic .y *oting thefamo*s statement of George Price 719@8# made prior to his change of mind: 5&he

essence of science is mechanism, &he essence of magic is animism6 7p, 1B8, Accordingto the modern -orldvie-# in other -ords# 5scientific6 e/planations are mechanistic

e/planations# -hereas parapsycho0logy points to phenomena for -hich mechanistic

e/planations do not seem possi.le, <eyond this point# ho-ever# the analysis of the(ac3enFies needs revision,

$n their acco*nt of the esta.lishment of modern science in the 1th cent*ry# the

(ac3enFies 719@+8 foc*s on the 5reification of mathematics6 and the res*lting schemaof primary and secondary *alities# according to -hich only physical entities -holly

descri.a.le in mathematical terms -ere said to .e ca*sally efficacio*s in nat*re, &hismove -as clearly central# and they rightly see that this vie- of nat*re implied a d*alism

.et-een mind and nat*re, (ind .ecame the repository of all feat*res of the -orld notdescri.a.le mathematically, 5(ental and other nonmathematico0physical entities and

forces -ere tolera.le in the scientific scheme , , , only if they -ere confined -ithin thenonphysical minds of individ*al organisms# -here they co*ld not interfere -ith the

orderly co*rse of nat*re6 7p, 128,

While this is all tr*e# at least as a tendency# the (ac3enFies -rongly ta3e this feat*re of

the 5mechanistic6 -orldvie- to .e the primary feat*re violated .y 5paranormal6phenomena, 4or the (ac3enFies# the defining characteristic of all movements .elonging

to -hat they .roadly call 5the parapsychological tradition6 is that 5they all involveattempts to demonstrate more or less p*.licly the e/istence and ca*sal efficacy of some

3ind of irred*ci.le nonmathematico0physical elements in the -orld6 7p, 1@8,Parapsychology insists on 5the irred*ci.le efficacy of some 3ind of , , , agency availa.le

to persons .*t not to physical systems6 7p, 1BB8, $f this -ere all that -ere involved#

ho-ever# then Descartes# the arch0mechanist# -o*ld .elong to the 5parapsychologicaltradition6 insofar as he .elieved that the mind infl*ences the .rain# -hich in t*rn



infl*ences the arm# -hich in t*rn prod*ces effects in the -orld .eyond the person=s

.ody, !*r e/perience of deciding to move a spoon -ith o*r hand and then doing so-o*ld evo3e as m*ch -onder in *s as -itnessing someone .end a spoon .y simply

thin3ing a.o*t it,

What is missing from their analysis of the mecha0nism of the modern -orldvie- is thecentrality of the denial of action at a distance, !ne of the primary meanings of

5mechanical#6 as $ arg*ed a.ove# -as that all ca*sal action is .y contact, As Richard

Westfall 719@+a8 says# 5the f*ndamental tenet of Descartes= mechanical philosophy ofnat*re >-as? that one .ody can act on another only .y direct contact6 7p, B@18,

&his claim might seem to .e *ndermined .y the fact that one of the central pillars of the

modern -orldvie-# %e-ton=s theory of *niversal gravitation# seems to involve action ata distance, A *alification is indeed needed, &here -ere several versions of the

mechanical philosophy# and %e-ton=s version diverged more radically from Descartes=than did any of the others# at least on this point, $n contrast -ith

Descartes= kinetic mechanical philosophy# %e-ton had a dynamic mechanical

philosophy# in -hich the *ltimate agent of nat*re -as# in Westfall=s -ords# 5a forceacting .et-een particles rather than a moving particle itself6 7p, B9+8, &his meant that

%e-ton=s philosophy of nat*re -as at least open to the idea of action at a distance# and

his lang*age of 5attractions6 seemed to imply it, &his is precisely -hy his philosophy

-as so controversial -hen it -as first artic*lated# especially on the Continent# -herethe Cartesian philosophy reigned, Christiaan *ygens# the leading Cartesian scientistafter Descartes= death# -rote the follo-ing a.o*t %e-ton to a friend: 5$ don=t care that

he=s not a Cartesian as long as he doesn=t serve *s *p con;ect*res s*ch as attractions6

7Westfall# 19@+a# p, 8, $t -as precisely in this conte/t that %e-ton -ent positivisticsaying that he -as only giving mathematical form*lae of the effects of the force

involved# and that his -ord 5attraction6 did not entail any claims a.o*t the nat*re of

the force 7p, 8,

4*rthermore# altho*gh scientists and philoso0phers contin*ed to spea3 of the

5%e-tonian -orld0vie-#6 d*ring the 1@th and 19th cent*ries %e-ton=s ideas -ereassimilated as m*ch as possi.le to the Cartesian mechanistic philosophy# so that it is

more acc*rate to descri.e the res*lting -orldvie- as %e-tonian0Cartesian 7Schofield#

19+# pp, 110128, &his process .egan -ith %e-ton himself, <esides leaving open thepossi.ility# -ith his positivistic disclaimers# that mechanical ca*ses might .e fo*nd forgravity and other forms of apparent attraction and rep*lsion#6 in his final years# a

gro-ing philosophic ca*tion led %e-ton to retreat some-hat to-ard more conventionalmechanistic vie-s6 7Westfall# 19@+a# p, 8,

&he claim can remain# accordingly# that for the most part the first version of the modern

-orldvie-# -hich -as d*alistic and s*pernat*ralistic# said that events involvingapparent action at a distance do occ*r# .*t that they occ*r only thro*gh s*pernat*ral

po-er 7or at least the preternat*ral# virt*ally s*pernat*ral# po-er of Satan8, !f co*rse#the d*alism .et-een mind and nat*re# -hile insisting that there can .e no action at a

distance -ithin nat*re 7that is# .et-een t-o material .odies8# might have allo-ed the

mind# -hich -as effectively placed o*tside of nat*re# to have received and e/ercised

infl*ences at a distance, Some thin3ers# in fact# did arg*e for this position 7Prior# 19B2&homas# 191# pp, 0@ &revor0Roper# 199# pp, 1B201BB8, &he act*al nat*re of thed*alism adopted .y most d*alists# ho-ever# did not allo- for this, &he infl*ence of mind

on matter at a distance -as r*led o*t# and mind -as said to .e a.le to perceive onlythro*gh the material senses,

&he second version of the modern -orld# -hich dropped the s*pernat*ralism as -ell asthe d*alism of the first version# did not allo- at all for events ine/plica.le

mechanistically, &he mechanistic vie- of nat*re -as retained the re;ection of d*alismmeant that this vie- of 5nat*re6 no- applied to the -orld as a -hole# incl*ding h*man

e/perience and the re;ection of God meant that there is no po-er to prod*ce effects



that cannot .e e/plained .y contig*o*s ca*ses, $t -as this transition to the late modern

-orldvie- that .ro*ght the complete a priori denial that events ine/plica.le thro*ghmechanical principles# *nderstood as r*ling o*t action at a distance# co*ld occ*r,

A slight *alification of this statement might .e needed -ith regard to gravitation,

&here has# to .e s*re# .een a contin*ation of the early hostility to the action0at0a0distance interpretation of gravity# and there have .een attempts to find alternative

interpretations# s*ch as 5c*rved space6 and 5gravitons,6 (any intellect*als in the

modern -orld# ho-ever# have accepted gravitational attraction as a form of action at adistance# -hile re;ecting all alleged instances of psi# evidently .eca*se of severaldifferences, 718 Gravity -as associated -ith 5the great %e-ton6 and the esta.lishment

of the 5scientific -orldvie-6 7%e-ton=s involvement in 5occ*lt6 phenomena -as not-idely 3no-n *ntil recently8, 728 Gravity is very reg*lar and is directly e/perienced as

s*ch all the time, 7B8 Gravity can .e given a mathematical description, 78 Gravityinvolves inanimate nat*re# not the mind, &he latter t-o points accord -ith the

(ac3enFies= analysis of -hat modernity declared to .e accepta.le# and the fo*rth pointin partic*lar fits -ith the concern to r*le o*t all 5-itchcraft6 and 5.lac3 magic6 as -ell

as the concern 7among s*pernat*ralists8 to precl*de nat*ralistic interpretations of the.i.lical 5miracles,6

!*t of this disc*ssion# -e can say that psi events# ho-ever they sho*ld .e more

precisely defined# are events in -hich minds either receive causal influence from adistance or exert causal influence at a distance, &his characteriFation# of co*rse#conforms to -hat are *s*ally considered the t-o ma;or forms of psi: e/trasensory

perception and psycho3inesis, $ prefer# ho-ever# the terms 5receptive psi6 and5e/pressive psi#6 for reasons that $ -ill e/plain later,

Receptive psi -o*ld occ*r if a mind receives infl*ence at a distance# meaning infl*ence

that has not arrived thro*gh a chain of contig*o*s events 7-ith the last lin3s in thechain .eing constit*ted .y the .ody=s sensory system8, &his category incl*des

everything that is *s*ally classified *nder e/trasensory perception 7e/cept tr*eprecognition# for reasons to .e clarified .elo-8,

Expressive psi -o*ld occ*r if a mind e/erted ca*sal infl*ence at a distance, &his

category incl*des not only psycho3inesis as narro-ly definedthat is# as the directinfl*ence of the mind on inanimate matter other than that in the .rain.*t also s*ch

ostensi.le phenomena as tho*ght0transference# psychic healing# and psychicstim*lation of plant gro-th,

An o.vio*s o.;ection to my proposal that infl*ence at a distance .e made part of thedefining essence of psi relations is that it leaves o*t -hat is *s*ally listed as the third

ma;or s*.;ect matter of parapsychology# life after death, $ndeed# the fo*nders ofpsychical research -ere first and foremost interested in this iss*e, &his s*.;ect matter

of parapsychology or psychical research# in fact# no- has its o-n name# 5theta psi,6 Adefinition of parapsychology that leaves it o*t# one co*ld claim# cannot .e ade*ate,

"ife after death# ho-ever# does not o.vio*sly involve action at a distance and the sameco*ld .e said for o*t0of0.ody e/periences, What is paranormal in these cases# one co*ld

say# is not receiving or e/erting action at a distance .*t simply existing apart from thephysical .ody,

&his ;*dgment# ho-ever# reflects the change from the first to the second version of themodern -orldvie-, $nsofar as the materialistic e*ation of the mind# self# or so*l and

the .rain has .ecome the 5normal6 vie- in intellect*al circles# the e/istence of the mindapart from the .rain has come to seem 5paranormal,6 $n the early modern -orldvie-#

ho-ever# the so*l=s e/istence apart from the .ody did not go against the paradigm, &heearly modern -orldvie- -as intended# in fact# not to threaten this .elief .*t to s*pport

it, What -as r*led o*t -as onlycommunication .et-een incarnate and discarnate so*ls#.eca*se s*ch comm*nication -o*ld have .een e/trasensory, 4rom this perspective#



then# onlyevidence for life after death# not life after death as s*ch# -o*ld .e considered

paranormal,

&a3ing this approach -o*ld p*t the self0definition of parapsychology in harmony -ithmost traditions of the -orld, $n virt*ally all of these# life after death has .een accepted#

-hereas the capacities to e/ert infl*ence at a distance# clearly to perceive events at adistance# and to comm*nicate reg*larly -ith departed spirits have .een considered

e/traordinary capacities# possessed .y only a fe-, 'ven in the Lnited States today#

most people .elieve in life after death 7*s*ally on the .asis of a premodern or earlymodern -orldvie-8# considering it a 5normal6 thing# -hereas for most of themtelepathy# psycho3inesis# and direct evidence for life after death 7aside from that

provided .y the <i.le8# .elieved to come thro*gh tho*ght0transference or other formsof e/pressive psi from departed so*ls# are considered very *n*s*al# perhaps impossi.le,

(y proposal is not that -e give *p the term 5theta psi6 and no longer regard evidencefor life after death as a distinct area of parapsychology# .*t only that -e state clearly

that -hat is ostensi.ly paranormal in this area is the evidence for life after death# not

life after death as s*ch, &hat is# the 5psi relation6 in theta psi sho*ld not refer to thee/istence of the so*l apart from the .ody# .*t to the relations that ostensi.ly give

evidence of the capacity of the so*l to e/ist apart from the .ody, &his is ho- many

already *nderstand theta psi .*t others 7s*ch as C, D, <road# as -ill .e seen .elo-8

have tho*ght that the very e/istence of the so*l apart from the .rain -o*ld .eparanormal# and some a*thors oscillate .et-een the t-o meanings, $n any case#.esides .ringing parapsychology into line -ith -hat most c*lt*res have considered

*n*s*al# my proposal -o*ld have another advantage: $t -o*ld allo- all the ma;or typesof phenomena st*died .y parapsychologists to .e defined in terms of ca*sal infl*ence at

a distance involving mindsand it is al-ays nice if the vario*s phenomena placed *ndera field of st*dy have something positive in common,

aving said this# let me add that $ co*ld go the other -ay, $ said a.ove that life afterdeath and o*t0of0.ody e/periences do not 5o.vio*sly involve action at a distance,6 <*t#

it co*ld .e replied# altho*gh the action at a distance might not .e as o.vio*s as in othercases# it -o*ld still o.tain, &hat is# a mind e/isting apart from a .rain -o*ld# to e/ist#

have to .e perceiving something .eyond itself# and pro.a.ly infl*encing something

.eyond itself as -ell, &his perception and action -o*ld# .eca*se not mediated .y a

.rain# pro.a.ly have to involve the reception and e/ertion of infl*ence at a spatialdistance 7ass*ming that spatial distance -o*ld .e a meaningf*l concept in that

conte/t8, Accordingly# the very e/istence of the mind apart from the .rain -o*ld involveinfl*ence at a distance,

&his arg*ment ma3es sense to me# given my Whiteheadian perspective# according to-hich to e/ist 7as act*al8 is to perceive and to .e perceived# and according to -hich all

5minds6 as -ell as other act*alities have spatial0temporal location, &a3ing this position#f*rthermore# -o*ld fit -ith those -hose sense of 5normality6 has .een decisively

shaped .y the late modern -orldvie-, $ do not feel strongly a.o*t this iss*e# and co*ldaccept cither option# as long as# if o*t0of0.ody e/periences 7incl*ding e/periences after

death8 .e considered paranormal# they .e considered s*ch .eca*se infl*ence at a

distance is involved,

$n any case# parapsychology sho*ld he *nderstood as a potentially revol*tionaryscience# $ have arg*ed# in that it st*dies ostensi.le psi events# events that seem to

occ*r and that# it a*thentic# seem to imply that at least some minds# especially someh*man minds# are capa.le# at least at times# of e/erting andMor receiving ca*sal

infl*ences at a distance, $nsofar as psi th*s *nderstood is a*thenticated# the modern-orldvie-# to the e/tent that it implies that this 3ind of ca*sal infl*ence is impossi.le#

-o*ld need to .e modified,

(y o-n .elief is that psi has .een s*fficiently demonstrated# .oth e/perimentally and



.y doc*mentation of spontaneo*s cases, $ hold# therefore# that parapsychology act*ally

does have revol*tionary implications# that the modern -orldvie- does need to .emodified in order# among other reasons# to incl*de the e/istence of ca*sal infl*ence at a

distance to and from minds,

Parapsychology as not Ultra-Revolutionary

aving s*pported the revol*tionary nat*re of parapsychology in this respect# $ -antimmediately to distance myself from the *ltra0revol*tionaries,

!f all the ostensi.le psi effects# tr*e precognition# if accepted# -o*ld .e the most

revol*tionary, Trueprecognition# most commentators agree# -o*ld imply .ac3-ardca*sation that the precogniFed event ca*sed the precognition of it# -hich -o*ld mean

that the 5effect6 e/isted .efore its 5ca*se6 7<rier# 19# p, 1 Pratt# 19# p, 18,

&his is parado/ical at .est# .*t 5nonsensical6 -o*ld .e a .etter term,

We are here spea3ing# of co*rse# a.o*t efficient ca*sation# meaning the ca*sal infl*ence

of one event *pon another 7-hich is to .e disting*ished from final ca*sation in thesense of self0ca*sation# in -hich the ca*se and effect are one and the same8 and it

.elongs to the very meaning of an efficient ca*se that it does not come after its effect,

Altho*gh $ -o*ld say# in fact# that an efficient ca*se necessarily comes efore itseffects# some people might hold that at least some efficient ca*ses occ*r

sim*ltaneo*sly -ith their effects, $n any case# -e cannot intelligi.ly say that anefficient ca*se comesafter its effects, What philosophy teacher# *pon confronting a

st*dent -ith evidence sho-ing that she had plagiariFed Aristotle in her term paper#-o*ld accept her alternative e/planation that Aristotle m*st have plagiariFed her N $f

the st*dent claimed# instead# that she m*st have pic3ed *p Aristotle=s ideas .yclairvoyance or retrocognition# the teacher# -hile perhaps not .elieving the st*dent#

co*ld at least find the claim intelligi.le,

'ven if the idea that an efficient ca*se cannot come after its effects -ere not considered

analytic and the idea of .ac3-ard ca*sation -ere not re;ected as *nintelligi.le on othergro*nds 7$ give some more later# and see also <ra*de# 19@# pp, 21028# it remains

tr*e that the idea -o*ld have far more drastic conse*ences for o*r -orldvie- than-o*ld any of the other forms of psi, 7As 'isen.*d# 19@B# says: 5&he radical ass*mptions

a.o*t time that have .een s*ggested to acco*nt for Kprecognitive= phenomena areirreconcila.le on all fronts -ith all other correspondences 3no-n to science6 >p, ?,8

&hese drastic implications might have to .e pondered# of co*rse# if alternativee/planations for ostensi.le precognition -ere not possi.le, $ .elieve# ho-ever# that

they are possi.le# and $ -ill offer 1B of them later,

'liminating tr*e precognition and therefore .ac3-ard ca*sation from the revol*tionary

threat posed .y parapsychology -o*ld go a long -ay to-ard allo-ing people toe/amine the evidence for psi rationally,

Another conservative move that sho*ld also help in this regard -o*ld .e to sho- thatthe acceptance of e/pressive and receptive psi -o*ld not destroy the val*e of all the

scientific -or3 that has .een cond*cted on the ass*mption that they do not occ*r, As(arcello &r*FFi 719@+8 has p*t it: 5>Proof of psi? -o*ld merely limit the domain of the

accepted principles to their previo*s area of generaliFation: they -o*ld not .e falsifiedfor that limited domain6 7p, 8,

&his mention of 5accepted principles6 .rings *s to C, D, <road=s 71998 list of 5.asic

limiting principles6 mentioned earlier, According to <road# these principles# 5apart fromthe 7alleged? findings of psychical research# are commonly accepted either as self0

evident or as esta.lished .y over-helming and *niformly favora.le empirical evidence6

7p, 98, $ -ill *se this list to s*mmariFe the -ays in -hich parapsychology sho*ld .eseen as a revol*tionary# .*t not *ltra0revol*tionary# science,



Rather than repeating <road=s list of nine s*ch principles# $ -ill s*mmariFe the most

important of them in terms of fo*r .asic principles# pointing o*t the types of things thatare there.y r*led o*t,

1, &here can .e no ca*sation and 7therefore8 no perception at a distanceeither at a

temporal distance# -hich r*les o*t precognition and retrocognition# or at a spatialdistance# -hich r*les o*t telepathy and clairvoyance, 7<road=s Principles 1,2 and 1,B8

2, &here can .e no 7a8 infl*ence of a mind on the -orld# or 7.8 infl*ence of the -orld ona mind# that is not mediated .y the .rain, &his principle is already implicit in the first#

.eca*se .oth r*led0o*t types of infl*ence -o*ld .e instances of ca*sation at a distance,<*t stating it as a distinct principle r*les o*t even more e/plicitly .oth receptive psi

7e/trasensory perception of every type8 and e/pressive psi 7psycho3inesis of everytype8, 7<road=s Principles 2 and B8

B, (inds cannot e/perience apart from .rains# -hich r*les o*t s*rvival of death apartfrom a s*pernat*ral act, 7<road=s Principle B8

, An efficient ca*se cannot come after its effect7s8# -hich means that there can .e noretroca*sation and 7therefore8 no precognition, 7<road=s Principle 1,18

Altho*gh <road=s limiting principles are often cited .y those -ho re;ect psi interactionsas virt*ally s*fficient reason for re;ecting claims for their e/istence# <road=s o-n vie-

-as that the evidence for some 3inds of psi is s*fficiently strong to 5call for very radicalchanges in a n*m.er of o*r .asic limiting principles6 7p, 228, e -as more convinced of

receptive psi and precognition than of e/pressive psi and life after death, !f the fo*rprinciples in my list# that is# he -as *ncertain a.o*t 2a and B .*t tho*ght -e sho*ld

definitely re;ect 1# 2.# and , With regard to # he said that 5the esta.lishment ofparanormal precognition re*ires a radical change in o*r conception of time# and

pro.a.ly a correlated change in o*r conception of ca*sation6 7p, 2+8, With regard to

paranormal 3no-ledge in general# he s*ggested that -e sho*ld not 5tin3er -ith theorthodo/ notion of events in the .rain and nervo*s system generating sense data6 7p,

2B8# .*t that -e sho*ld e/tend or modify the 3ind of theory <ergson had s*ggested#

according to -hich the main f*nction of the .rain# nervo*s system# and sensory organsis to filter o*t information# not to generate it,

$ agree -ith <road that# rather than tin3ering -ith the orthodo/ theory of reality# -eneed a f*ndamentally different theory, <y contrast# ho-ever# $ .elieve# on the one

hand# that this theory needs to allo- for e/pressive psi no less than for receptive psi#-hich means that 2a m*st .e re;ected, $ also .elieve there is eno*gh evidence for

s*rvival that the theory sho*ld allo- for its possi.ility# -hich means that principle Bsho*ld .e# if not re;ected as definitely as 1 and 2# at least considered do*.tf*l, 7'ven if

life after death as s*ch sho*ld not .e classified as paranormal and hence as a type ofpsi# a disc*ssion of the possiility of life after death .elongs in a philosophical .asis for

parapsychology insofar as parapsychology e/amines data s*ggestive of life after death#.eca*se# for one thing# ho- -e regard the possi.ility for s*rvival -ill affect ho- -e

interpret these data,8 $ do not .elieve# on the other hand 7as $ indicated earlier8# that-e need to re;ect Principle , $ accept the contention that it is self0evident, We do not#

therefore# need to revise the normal conception of ca*sality -ith respect to time7altho*gh it needs revision in other respects8,

<esides not re;ecting Principle # a second step to-ard overcoming the -idespreadass*mption that one m*st choose .et-een psi and science as -e have 3no-n it is to

sho-# as $ s*ggested a.ove# that the acceptance of psi# incl*ding gen*ine evidence forlife after death# implies not the complete re;ection of the remaining three principles .*t

merely the relativisation of them, $n partic*lar# one co*ld form*late these principles inthe follo-ing alternative terms 7the 5A6 is for 5alternative68:

1A, (ost# if not all# forms of ca*sation that are .oth strong and reg*lar occ*r .et-een



contig*o*s events# and# in partic*lar# most and perhaps all ca*sation .y the h*man

mind that is strong and reg*lar 7i,e,# it is repeata.le at -ill .y a given individ*al# and itcan .e e/ercised .y most if not all normal ad*lt h*man .eings8 employs the .rain and

the motor system of the h*man .ody, And all conscio*s perception of e/trasomatic

things that occ*rs in a reg*lar# relia.le manner for most h*man .eings most of the timeinvolves chains of contig*o*s events and therefore the .odily sensory organs and the

.rain,

2A, All infl*ence of the -orld on the mind and of the mind on the -orld that is .othstrong and reg*lar 7in the relevant senses specified in 1A8 is mediated .y the .rain,75Strong6 -ith regard to the infl*ence of the -orld on the mind means strong eno*gh to

.ecome conscio*s on a reg*lar .asis 5strong6 -ith regard to the infl*ence of the mindon the -orld means strong eno*gh to .e readily noticea.le,8

BA, Animal minds cannot originally come into e/istence apart from .rains# and mosts*ch minds cannot e/ist apart from .rains,

&his revision of the principles -o*ld# -hile saying that Principles 1 and 2 and perhaps Bare false in their *n*alified form# sho- -hy most of the facts of ordinary e/perience

and science are generally ta3en to confirm them, &his is the 3ind of 5reconciliation6 thatis needed# $ .elieve# .et-een evidence for psi# on the one hand# and the principles that

are pres*pposed in most scientific -or3 and most daily e/perience# on the other hand,&hat is the 3ind of postmodern reconciliation that Whitehead=s philosophy can provide,

$t is postmodern# rather than modern# in that it re;ects most of modernity=s 5.asiclimiting principles6 that -ere accepted in order to r*le o*t psi interactions, $t is

postmodern# rather than premodern# in that it accepts the fact that these principlese/press important tr*ths a.o*t reality# and therefore accepts the he*ristic val*e of

these principles for many p*rposes# especially for a 5democratic6 civiliFation -ith ascientific0technological mentality# -hich is interested primarily in that range of h*man

po-ers that can .e e/ercised .y most people# most of the time# on a reg*lar# relia.le.asis,

&his position has implications for the other t-o feat*res of the tension .et-een theconservative and the revol*tionary stances in parapsychology: the val*e of contin*ing

to search for a strongly repeata.le e/periment# and the val*e of process0oriented

st*dies to try to *nderstand the dynamics involved in the manifestation of conscio*sreceptive psi and deli.erate e/pressive psi, $n the section .eginning on page 2 $ give

s*pport for .oth efforts,

The !lleged !de"uacy of the Modern Worldvie# for Everything Except Psi

<efore moving to Whitehead=s postmodern philosophy# one more feat*re of the

accepted -isdom a.o*t parapsychology needs to .e challenged, &his is the -idespread

ass*mption# accepted even .y many .elievers in psi#@ that the modern -orldvie-# -ith

its .asic limiting principles# 5-or3s perfectly -ell for almost everything e/cept thealleged data of parapsychology6 7*oting paragraph B# a.ove8, &his idea is not even

close to tr*e,$f .y 5the modern -orldvie-6 -e mean the late modern# materialistic -orldvie- -ith

its sensationist doctrine of perception# -hich is dominant in scientific circles today# itcannot acco*nt for a -ide range of ideas that are pres*pposed in practice.oth

ordinary and scientific practice.y scientists as -ell as everyone else,

<eca*se of its materialism# -hich leads to the vie- that the 5mind6 is really someho-identical -ith the .rain# -hich is held to .e composed of insentient matterMenergy# this

-orldvie- cannot acco*nt for o*r o-n conscio*s e/perience, Altho*gh materialists hold

that this e/perience 5emerged6 in the co*rse of evol*tion# they cannot e/plain ho-insentient st*ff gave rise to e/perience, &hey cannot e/plain ho- this e/perience



e/ercises freedom# altho*gh everyone in practice ass*mes that he or she and other

people are partly free, &hey cannot e/plain ho- the partly free decisions of theire/perience affect their .ody and there.y the -orld .eyond themselves# as -hen they

manip*late a microscopeho- can e/perience affect none/periencing matterN So#

altho*gh materialists often re;ect psycho3inesis for a priori reasons# .eca*se theinfl*ence of the mind on e/trasomatic o.;ects is *nintelligi.le# the infl*ence of the mind

on its o-n .ody is no less *nintelligi.le on their premises, 75(ind6 is *sed here to refer

to the person=s stream of e/perience# -hich clearly e/ists even if it is tho*ght 5really6to .e someho- 5identical6 -ith the .rain,8

&he sensationist doctrine of perception that is inherent in this materialistic ontology

ca*ses no fe-er pro.lems,

4or e/ample# scientists see3 tr*th# and those -ho re;ect .elief in the e/istence of psi do

so .eca*se it seems to .e *ntr*e .*t if all of o*r perception of things .eyond o*rselvesis sensory perception 7-hich is -hat the sensationist doctrine of perception claims8# -e

have no percept*al .asis for 3no-ing that 5tr*th6 is important, &he same is tr*e for all

other val*es# -hich as ideal rather than material or physical things cannot .e contactedthro*gh o*r physical senses, &here is said to .e no .asis# accordingly# for the *niversal

ass*mption that some things are 5.etter than6 others# s*ch as the .elief that science is

.etter than occ*ltism,

Sensory perception also gives *s no e/periential .asis# as *me pointed o*t# for

spea3ing of ca*sation as the real infl*ence of one thing or event on another,Sensationist scientists and philosophers -ho re;ect psi .eca*se they cannot *nderstand

ho- ca*sality can act at a distance are therefore in the *ncomforta.le position of not.eing a.le to say ho- -e 3no- anything a.o*t ca*sation at all, 7!f co*rse# they# -ith

*me# may redefine ca*sation phenomenalistically to mean nothing .*t 5constantcon;*nction6 .et-een t-o types of events# pl*s the convention that the event that

comes first -ill .e called the 5ca*se,6 <esides the fact that this convention leads toseveral *nconventional conse*ences# s*ch as that the rooster=s cro-ing ca*ses the

s*nrise# this phenomenalistic definition of ca*sation does not fit at all -ith thematerialist=s *s*al complaint that psi ca*sation is *nintelligi.le .eca*se there is no

5mechanism6 for it,8

4*rthermore# as *me also sho-ed# .esides not .eing a.le to say that no part of the-orld e/erts ca*sal efficacy *pon another# a sensationist cannot even spea3 of a real

-orld# .*t only of the ideas and impressions in one=s mind: sensationism implies

solipsism 7the doctrine that# for all $ 3no-# $ may .e the only act*al e/istent8, 'venmore# as Santayana 7198 sho-ed# it implies 5solipsism of the present moment#6

.eca*se sensory perception as s*ch gives *s no 3no-ledge of the past or the f*t*re7pp, 118, 4inally# .eca*se of this# it also gives *s no 3no-ledge of time,

(aterialism -ith its sensationist doctrine of perception# in s*m# can provide no .asis inits theory for all sorts of ideas that -e all pres*ppose in practice, $ call these ideas

5hard0core commonsense ideas,6 &hey are 5common6 .eca*se they are *niversal#.elonging to the sense of the entire h*man comm*nity, $ add the ad;ective 5hard0core6

to stress their difference from ideas that may .e called commonsense .*t that are not#in fact# pres*pposed in practice .y all people# and that can .e denied -itho*t

contradiction, '/amples of s*ch 5soft0core commonsense ideas6 are the ideas that theearth is flat# that it -as created only a fe- tho*sand years ago# that all perception is

sensory perception# and that molec*les have no feelings, $n any case# it can .e arg*edthat the hard0core commonsense ideas sho*ld .e ta3en .y thin3ers 7philosophers and

scientists ali3e8 as the *ltimate criteria for ;*dging any theory, &he reason for this claimis that if -e pres*ppose these ideas in the very act of stating a theory that denies them#

-e there.y contradict o*rselves# and the principle of noncontradiction is the first

principle of rational tho*ght, &hese ideas are the really 5.asic limiting principles6 to

-hich all theory m*st .o-# as Whitehead 719@8 s*ggests 7pp, 1B# 118,9



&he moral of this disc*ssion is that .elievers in psi sho*ld not accept the .asic premise

of most a priori dismissals of claims for psi# -hich is the claim that the materialistic-orldvie- of late modernity -or3s perfectly -ell for almost everything -e 3no- a.o*t

reality as long as psi is not .ro*ght into the pict*re, &he tr*th is that this -orldvie-

does not -or3 at all -ell for all sorts of things# incl*ding most of the ideas -e allpres*ppose in practice# incl*ding scientific practice, Would it not e interesting$ and in

fact significant$ if the modifications that are needed to account for these hard-core

commonsense ideas are the same modifications that are needed to account for psi% &hisis# $ -ill s*ggest in e/plicating Whitehead=s philosophy# e/actly the case,

<efore moving to this philosophy# $ need .riefly to consider another alternative# more

common in parapsychological circles# -hich is to ret*rn to the early modern -orldvie-#-ith its ontological d*alism .et-een mind and nat*re, &his d*alistic -orldvie- says

that# .esides the insentient matter0energy of the physical -orld# -hich operatesaccording to mechanistic principles# the -orld contains minds# -hich are different in

3ind from material things, !n this .asis# -e can acco*nt for freedom and# if -e add thes*pposition that minds can have nonsensory perceptions# -e can acco*nt for o*r

3no-ledge of val*es 7s*ch as tr*th8# for a real -orld# for ca*sation as real infl*ence#and for the distinction .et-een the perceiver=s past and the anticipated f*t*re and

therefore for time, Contra Descartes# f*rthermore 7a contemporary d*alist co*ld hold8#minds need not .e limited to h*man .eings# .*t can .e posited to e/ist to varying

degrees thro*gho*t the animal 3ingdom,

$n spite of its o.vio*s strengths# ho-ever# this d*alistic sol*tion has severe pro.lems,

$t can provide no nonar.itrary point to dra- the line .et-een insentient and sentientthings for e/ample# some d*alists say that the cells in o*r .odies are insentient# .*t

that amoe.ae# -hich are single0cell organisms# are sentient, Also# having dra-n theline# d*alism cannot e/plain ho- ca*sal infl*ence transverses itho- mind 5emerged6

from matter in the evol*tionary process and contin*es to .e infl*enced .y it 7-hetherthis matter .e contig*o*s or at a distance# as in clairvoyance8# and ho- mind in t*rn

infl*ences matter 7-hether this matter .e contig*o*s or at a distance# as inpsycho3inesis8, &his pro.lem of interaction has .een# in fact# the main reason for the

-idespread re;ection of ontological d*alism,1+ &he only possi.le sol*tion to this

pro.lem 7other than fran3 admission that it cannot .e ans-ered8 seems to .e to ret*rnto the other element of the early modern -orldvie-# its s*pernat*ralism# and say thatGod# .eing omnipotent# can ca*se *nli3es to interact# or at least to appear to

interact,11 <esides the other pro.lems that this move -o*ld create# s*ch as an insol*.lepro.lem of evil 7Griffin# 19# 19918# it -o*ld .e a strange move for an advocate of psi

to ma3e# .eca*se .elief in psi# *ndermining the .elief that 5miracles6 are s*pernat*ralacts of God# removes one of the t-o main reasons3no-ledge of the evol*tionary

origin of the -orld removes the otherfor .elief in an omnipotent deity *ndeterred .ymere metaphysical impossi.ilities,

<eca*se .oth forms of the modern -orldvie- are so pro.lematic# it -o*ld seem-orth-hile to e/plore a postmodern philosophy that is neither materialistic nor

d*alistic, &his is -hat Whitehead provides,

W$&''AD=S P!S&(!D'R% P$"!S!PY

&reative Experience as the Universal Stuff

At the root of Whitehead=s postmodern philosophy is a conception of the .asic 5st*ff6 ofreality that re;ects the modern conception of it, <y the .asic st*ff# $ mean -hat Aristotle

meant formally .y the notion of the material ca*se of the *niverse: that f*ndamentalst*ff of -hich all things in the -orld are instances, &he different species of things differ



in that they in0form this st*ff -ith different forms, 4or Aristotle this st*ff -as 5prime

matter,6 4or early modern tho*ght there -ere t-o radically different st*ffs: for thephysical -orld it -as inert# insentient matter# -hereas for the h*man mind it -as self0

determining conscio*sness, o- these t-o 3inds of st*ff co*ld interact# or at least

appear to# -as# as mentioned earlier# a mystery resolva.le only .y appeal tos*pernat*ral ca*sation,

&his d*alism -ith its s*pernat*ralism is re;ected in the late modern -orldvie-# so that

inert matter is said to .e the st*ff of -hich all things are composed# even h*mane/perience, A completely red*ctionistic# deterministic -orldvie- follo-s, &o .e s*re#this matter is no longer said to .e inert# .eca*se it and energy have .een discovered to

.e converti.le, (atter0energy# or energetic matter# is therefore said to .e the materialca*se of all things, $n spite of this re;ection of inertness# ho-ever# matter is still said

not to .e self0determining, 'ach thing or event is said to .e f*lly determined .yprevio*s events, &his determinism is said perhaps not to hold at the *ant*m level,

'ven -hen the idea of ontological indeterminacy in s*.atomic particles is entertained#ho-ever# this indeterminacy is not interpreted as self-determinacy# and -hatever

indeterminacy o.tains at the micro0level is said to .e canceled o*t at the macro0level .ythe 5la- of large n*m.ers#6 so that ca*sal determinism holds for all o.;ects of sensory

e/perience# incl*ding h*man .eings, &his notion reflects the ontological red*ctionism ofthe late modern -orldvie-# according to -hich all apparent -holes are in principle

red*ci.le to 7e/plaina.le in terms of8 their least parts, &he .ehavior of a cat or a h*man

.eing is# therefore# as f*lly determined as that of a roc3 or a comp*ter, Altho*gh mind#e/perience# or conscio*sness is said someho- to 5emerge6 in the evol*tionary process#

it is not a self0determining reality that mitigates determinism# and therefore the -orld=s

predicta.ility# in principle, Whether -hat -e call the mind is said to .e5epiphenomenal#6 5identical6 -ith the .rain# or something else# it has no a*tonomo*s

po-er# and certainly no a*tonomo*s po-er to e/ert ca*sal infl*ence .ac3 *pon the.rain# .*t is simply a strange cog in the deterministic system of nat*re, What -e call

conscio*s e/perience o.vio*sly e/ists# in some sense# .*t it does not play a self0determining ca*sal role in the -orld,

4rom this late modern conception of the .asic st*ff of the -orld follo-s a threefolddoctrine of ca*sation, 7a8 All ca*sation is physical and hence efficient and deterministic

there is no mental or final ca*sation# in the sense of self0determination in terms of anideal, 7.8 All ca*sation is either *p-ard or horiFontalthere is no do-n-ard ca*sation

from -holes to their parts# or in general from higher to lo-er things, 7c8 All ca*sation islocal# .et-een things or events that are spatially and temporally contig*o*sthere is

no ca*sal infl*ence at a distance# -hether over a temporal or a spatial distance,12

Whitehead=s postmodern starting point is to conceive of the .asic st*ff of the -orld# its

5material6 ca*se# not as 5material6 at all# .*t as creative experience,1B 'ach act*althing# from s*.atomic particles to h*man minds# is an em.odiment of creative

e/perience, &his means that .oth e/perience and creativity# -hich incl*des the po-erof self0determination# are f*lly nat*ral# rather than ill*sions# epiphenomena# or

emergent properties, &his idea p*ts Whitehead=s philosophy in the class often called

5panpsychist#6 .*t the term 5pane/perientialist6 is .etter, 75Panpsychism6 s*ggeststhat the *ltimate *nits are end*ring psyches# -hereas they are >.y hypothesis?momentary e/periences also the term 5psyche6 s*ggests a higher level of e/perience

than is appropriate for# say# electrons or even cells,8

!ctual Entities as 'ccasions of Experience

'/cept for anticipations of this point .y William Iames and enri <ergson# Whitehead=sphilosophy is *ni*e among s*ch philosophies 7at least in the Westsome forms of

<*ddhism come close to Whitehead=s vie- here8 in saying that the f*lly act*al entities



are momentary events that occ*r# not things that endure thro*gh time, is term for

these events is 5act*al occasions,6 <eca*se they are drops of e/perience# they are alsocalled 5occasions of e/perience,6 Act*al occasions can ta3eor# really# constit*te

varia.le amo*nts of time# -ith s*.atomic events at one end of the spectr*m

constit*ting perhaps a.o*t a .illionth of a second and occasions of h*man e/perience at

the other end constit*ting perhaps a.o*t a tenth of a second,1

'nd*ring individ*als# s*ch as photons# protons# atoms# molec*les# macromolec*les#

living cells# and animal psyches# therefore# are not n*merically self0identical s*.stancesthat simply end*re thro*gh time# .*t are each constit*ted .y a more0or0less rapidlyrepeating series of occasions of e/perience, 'ach occasion receives infl*ences from the

previo*s occasions# repeating to a large degree the forms em.odied in them# and thenpasses these forms on to f*t*re occasions, 'nd*rance# therefore# is not simply

*ndifferentiated .*t is the res*lt of repetition, An end*ring individ*al# then# is a 7p*relytemporal8 5society#6 -ith each momentary mem.er having social# ca*sal relations -ith

previo*s and later mem.ers,

'ach occasion e/ists in t-o modes, $t e/ists first as a su(ect of e/perience# d*ring

-hich it en;oys e/perience, $n its mode as a s*.;ect it is dipolar , $t .egins .y receivinginfl*ences from past occasions# -hich means that it receives e/periences from them#

and it concl*des .y e/ercising self0determination, &he reception and repetition of prior

e/periences is the occasion=s 5physical pole#6 -hereas its self0determination is its5mental pole,6 &his mentality# or self0determination# can .e e/tremely insignificant# asit m*st .e in lo-0grade individ*als s*ch as photons# protons# and atoms, All that is

insisted *pon is that it is never entirely a.sent# .eca*se this a.sence -o*ld imply an

essential d*alism .et-een dipolar and p*rely physical 7and therefore f*lly determined8occasions,

After an occasion has en;oyed its e/perience# -hich is more or less self0determined or

self0created# it then e/ists in a second mode# as an o(ect of e/perience, $t is no longera s*.;ect en;oying e/perience it is an o.;ect for the e/periences of s*.se*ent

s*.;ects, As an o.;ect# it no longer e/ercises receptivity and self0determination insteadit e/ercises efficient ca*sation *pon other 7s*.se*ent8 occasions, $n losing

s*.;ectivity and final ca*sation# an event ac*ires o.;ectivity and efficient ca*sation

7Whitehead# 1929M19@# p, 29 19B@# 19@# p, 2B8,

!ne of the most important implications of this move from a materialistic to apane/perientialist notion of nat*re is for the image of -hat is going on in efficient

ca*sation, &he materialistic vie- implies that efficient ca*sation is some-hat analogo*sto the impact of one .illiard .all on another, &he pane/perientialist vie- s*ggests that

efficient ca*sation involves a transfer of e/periences, Whitehead=s proposal is that the

physical pole# or initial phase# of an occasion of e/perience is a 5conformal phase#6 in-hich the e/periences of the effect are conformed to those of its ca*ses, Ca*sation

therefore involves a relation of 5sympathy#6 .eca*se the later event .egins .y feelingthe e/periences of the previo*s event -ith it,

Efficient &ausation as Exclusively )or#ard &ausation

'fficient ca*sation# defined as the ca*sal efficacy of one act*al occasion *pon another#occ*rs only from past to present occasions,

4*t*re occasions do not yet e/ist and# therefore# cannot e/ert ca*sation 7Whitehead#19BBM19# p, 198, An occasion can e/ert efficient ca*sation only after its self0

ca*sation 7final ca*sation8 has .een completed# and the self0ca*sation of a f*t*reoccasion has not only not .een completed# it has not even .eg*n, We can# to .e s*re#

spea3 of 5f*t*re occasions#6 in that some occasions or other are .o*nd to occ*r, $t is

even tr*e that the nature of those occasions is already more or less determined .y the



past and the present# so that in this sense the f*t*re is implicit in the present, <eca*se

every occasion# ho-ever# has at least some iota of mentality# and therefore e/ercises atleast some iota of self0creativity# f*t*re occasions are not yet f*lly determinate, &heir

details are fleshed o*t only .y them# in their moment of self0determination, What are to

*s still f*t*re occasions do not someho- e/ist 5tenselessly6 and hence do not e/ist aso.;ects for an omniscient mind, 'ven God does not 3no- the details of the f*t*re, As

<ergson 719118 said# 5&ime is invention or it is nothing at all6 7p, B+8, And it is not

nothing, We m*st not 5spatialiFe6 time# as <ergson 7198 said# .y thin3ing of it as afo*rth dimension analogo*s to space 7pp, 1B# 1n8, <eca*se f*t*re occasions are notyet act*al# they cannot act .ac3 *pon the past,

4*rthermore# the past is not the sort of thing that co*ld .e acted .ac3 *pon, &he past isf*lly determinate, &he .ecoming of an occasion of e/perience is its .ecoming f*lly

determinate, $t is partially determined .y the occasions in its past, $n its moment ofreception and self0creation it passes from partial to complete determination, !nce it has

.ecome f*lly determinate# and there.y an o.;ect for s*.se*ent e/periences# it cans*ffer no additions, $ts meaning# of co*rse# can change, &he meaning of %e-ton is

different for *s than it -as for people of the 1@th cent*ry, <y reeval*ating the import of%e-ton# ho-ever# -e do not change -hat he tho*ght and ho- he felt a.o*t things, &he

f*t*re can affect the meaning .*t not the .eing of the past,

&his position provides clear distinctions .et-een the meanings of 5past#6 5present#6 and5f*t*re,6 &he past is that -hich is f*lly determinate the f*t*re is that -hich is stillpartially indeterminate and the present is that -hich is .ecoming determinate

7artshorne# 19+# pp, 1BB01B8,

&hese definitions imply that .esides there .eing no efficient ca*sation from the f*t*re

to the present# there is also no efficient ca*sation .et-een contemporaries, &his doesnot mean that t-o contemporary enduring individuals do not interact contemporary

people o.vio*sly interact# as do contemporary s*.atomic particles# m*t*ally e/ertingefficient ca*sation *pon each other, What is meant is only that t-o

contemporary occasions of experiencedo not interact, &he reason for this has nothing todo -ith the finite speed of radiation 7so that some form of instantaneo*s transmission

or perception -o*ld allo- contemporary e/periences to interact8, &he reason is that an

occasion can e/ert efficient ca*sation only after it has .ecome f*lly determinate# andcontemporary occasions are .y definition onlyecoming determinate,

&his limitation does not place severe restrictions *pon the interconnectedness of the

*niverse: $f a.o*t a .illion photonic occasions occ*r in a second of a photon=s e/istence#then t-o photons co*ld have a.o*t a half0.illion interactions d*ring that second if

a.o*t a doFen h*man occasions occ*r in a second# h*man .eings co*ld have a.o*t ahalf0doFen interchanges in a second, All that is e/cl*ded is the self0contradictory notion

that something co*ld .e an o.;ect for others .efore it has decided for itself precisely-hat it is to .e,

&his point# -hich e/cl*des ca*sation from .oth f*t*re and contemporary e/periences#entails that all efficient ca*sation r*ns from the past to the present# and from the

present to the f*t*re, $n this sense of the term 5linear ca*sation#6 all ca*sation islinear, &here are# ho-ever# at least three meanings of the phrase 5linear ca*sation6 in

-hich all ca*sation is not linear in Whitehead=s philosophy, '/plaining this pointre*ires a disc*ssion of the notion of a 5compo*nd individ*al#6 -hich is important in its

o-n right,

&ompound *ndividuals

&here are t-o f*ndamental -ays in -hich end*ring individ*als-hich are p*relytemporal societies of occasions of e/perience .eca*se only one mem.er e/ists at a time



can come together to form spatiotemporal societies# in -hich there are many

contemporary mem.ers 7ta3ing the 5mem.ers6 here to .e the end*ring individ*als#s*ch as electrons# atoms# and cells8, !ne -ay is to form anonindividuali+ed society # in

-hich there is no dominant mem.er to give the society as a -hole a *nity of response

and action in relation to its environment, A roc3 is an inorganic e/ample of s*ch asociety# as is a comp*ter, $t -o*ld seem that plants are organic e/amples# in that there

seems to .e no need to posit a so*l of the plant as a higher level of e/perience and self0

e/pression over and a.ove that of its cells, &he .ehavior of the plant seems e/plaina.lein terms of cooperation among the vario*s cells and the societies# s*ch as roots andleaves# that they form, Whitehead 719B@M19@8# accordingly# says that a plant is a

5democracy6 or a 5rep*.lic6 7pp, 2# 18# .eca*se it has no monarch to coordinate itsvario*s parts,

&he other -ay for end*ring individ*als to form spatiotemporal societies res*ltsin compound individuals, A higher end*ring individ*al arises from the -ay in -hich the

lo-er individ*als are interrelated, $n the atom# for instance# o*t of the interrelation ofthe electrons# ne*trons# and protons there emerges a series of atomic occasions of

e/perience, &his higher0level individ*al# having s*pervening po-er to infl*ence7altho*gh not totally to control8 its s*.atomic parts# co*ld acco*nt for the -holistic

properties of the atom# s*ch as the Pa*li e/cl*sion principle, $n a molec*le comprised ofa n*m.er of atoms# -e can li3e-ise thin3 of a series of molecular occasions, &hin3ing

analogo*sly of macromolec*les can provide a .asis for *nderstanding the po-er of the

D%A molec*le actively to transpose its parts, Procaryotic cells -o*ld have# a.ove and.eyond their macromolec*les# a series of living occasions of e/perience, '*caryotic cells

-o*ld .e even more comple/ individ*als# .eing compo*nded o*t of a n*m.er of

organelles 7-hich are perhaps incorporated procaryotic cells8, (*lticelled animals# andespecially those -ith central nervo*s systems# are# in this -ay of thin3ing# still more

comple/ compo*nd individ*als: !*t of the more0or0less comple/ organiFation of thecells arises the animal so*l# -hich is a temporal society of higher occasions of

e/perience,1 &hese occasions of e/perience constit*ting the animal so*l are not

different in 3ind from those constit*ting the cells of the animal .ody# .*t they are#especially in the higher animals# greatly different in degree,

&hose occasions of e/perience comprising the mind# psyche# or so*lthese terms arehere *sed interchangea.lyare called dominant occasions .y Whitehead 71929M19@#p, 1198, $n this he follo-s "ei.niF# -ho referred to the mind as the 5dominant monad,6

&he similarity to "ei.niF# ho-ever# stops there, "ei.niF=s monads -ere end*rings*.stances# .eing n*merically self0identical thro*gh time# and -ere accordingly

5-indo-0less#6 not .eing open to ca*sal infl*ence from each other, Whitehead=send*ring individ*als# .y contrast# are temporal societies of momentary events# each of

-hich .egins as an open -indo-# as it -ere# to the -hole past *niverse,

$n any case# the term 5dominant6 does not mean 5omnipotent,6 &he so*l does have

disproportionate po-er in the total psychophysical organism# ma3ing it a 5monarch6 ofsorts, &he .odily cells# ho-ever# do not# in .eing parts of a larger -hole# lose their o-n

po-er, &hey are also centers of creative e/perience# each -ith some a*tonomo*s

capacity to e/ercise self0determination and then to e/ert creative infl*ence on the restof the .ody and .ac3 *pon the mind, &hese cells# f*rthermore# are organiFed into giant

colonies of partly a*tonomo*s organs# tiss*es# and fl*ids, Whitehead 719B@M19@8s*ggests# accordingly# that the image of a fe*dal society might .e more apt 7p, 28,

Whatever image is *sed# the main point is that a compo*nd individ*al has a higher0level

series of e/periences that gives the total individ*al a *nity of e/perience and action notpossessed .y nonindivid*ated societies# s*ch as roc3s# comp*ters# and pro.a.ly plants,

<y virt*e of its dominant occasions of e/perience# -hich *nify into themselves thevario*s e/periences of its .odily parts and then e/ert a s*pervening po-er thro*gho*t

the ne/t moment of the .odily life# the compo*nd individ*al can respond as a -hole to



its environment,

!n this .asis# -e can see -hy -e# *nli3e roc3s# have freedom# and -hy this freedom is

not red*ci.le to *ant*m indeterminacy, $t is commonly tho*ght that *ant*mindeterminacy# even if it .eto3en some ontic 7not merely epistemic8 indeterminacy at

the microlevel# and even if this .e interpreted as self0determinacy# -o*ld not*ndermine determinism at the macrolevel of o.;ects of ordinary e/perience# incl*ding

h*man .eings, &he arg*ment is .ased on the la- of large n*m.ers: Altho*gh individ*al

electrons and n*cleons might not .e totally determined .y their environments# in thingss*ch as roc3s# in -hich there are .illions of them# their respective indeterminacies getcanceled o*t# so that the .ehavior of the roc3 as s*ch is completely predicta.le 7or at

least virt*ally so for all practical p*rposes8, Cats and h*man .eings are li3e-isecomposed of .illions and .illions of s*.atomic particlesthe arg*ment r*nsso they

m*st li3e-ise .e f*lly determined and th*s in principle f*lly predicta.le 7or at leastvirt*ally so8# even if they are too comple/ for their .ehavior to .e predicta.le in fact,

&hat arg*ment pres*pposes that all spatiotemporal societies of end*ring individ*als are

of the same type# so that a cat or a h*man .eing is analogo*s to a roc3 or a comp*terthis analogy is precisely -hat the doctrine of compo*nd individ*als denies, A h*man

.eing is not simply a very comple/ aggregate of s*.atomic particles# so that its

.ehavior -o*ld .e *nderstanda.le in principle in terms of the interactions of the fo*r

forces of physics, A.ove and .eyond those centers of creative infl*ence that -e calls*.atomic particles# there are higher centers of creative infl*ences*ch as atoms#molec*les# macromolec*les# organelles# and living cells-hich are e"ually act*al# and

-hich in fact have more po-er, At the top of the pyramid is the dominant series ofe/periences# the so*l# -hich has far more mentality# and therefore far more capacity for

self0determination# than even those relatively high0level creat*res -e call .rain cells,

<eca*se of the hierarchical organiFation of the h*man .ody# the freedom that is present

in s*.atomic particles# far from .eing canceled o*t# is greatly increased thro*gho*t a-hole series of steps, &he freedom of the h*man so*l# and th*s of the h*man .eing as a

-hole# is not limited to the min*sc*le degree of freedom that -o*ld res*lt solely from*ant*m indeterminacies in the ne*rons in the .rain, &he h*man so*l is ;*st as act*al

as an electron# and has far more po-erthe threefold po-er of receptivity# self0

determination# and other0determination 7or efficient ca*sation8, &his great difference indegree of po-er is the res*lt of several .illions of years of evol*tion# -hich has .eencharacteriFed 7not e/cl*sively# to .e s*re# .*t importantly8 .y the gro-th of

increasingly higher centers of creative e/perience,

,onlinear &ausation Self-&ausation$ .o#n#ard &ausation$ and &ausation at a .istance

&he .asis has no- .een laid for stating the -ays in -hich ca*sation is not linear, $ hadstated earlier that it is linear in the sense that efficient ca*sation goes e/cl*sively from

the past to the present and from the present to the f*t*re, Ca*sation is not linear#ho-ever# in three other respects,

4irst# efficient ca*sation# defined as the infl*ence of one act*ality *pon another# is notthe only form of ca*sation e/erted .y act*al occasions, Rather# as already e/plained#

each occasion of e/perience also e/erts self0determination, &his is self0ca*sation# -hichmeans ca*sation .y the occasion of e/perience upon itself , Lnless -e affirm that -e

e/ercise self0ca*sation in this sense# -e imply that o*r o-n e/periences# and there.yall of o*r actions# are totally determined .y the past,

$t is diffic*lt to *nderstand ho- -e h*mans can have this po-er of self0determination*nless some degree of this po-er is posited all the -ay do-n, o-# -itho*t positing a

s*pernat*ral intervention# co*ld -e e/plain the rise of self0determining organisms inthe evol*tionary process o*t of p*rely mechanical entitiesN o-# again -itho*t positing



adeus ex machina# co*ld -e *nderstand the interaction of the self0determining aspect

of o*r selves -ith the p*rely determined dimensions 7-hich is one -ay of stating thepro.lem of Cartesian d*alism8N Accordingly# this postmodern philosophy s*ggests that

p*rely linear# in the sense of p*rely mechanistic# ca*sation does not occ*r .et-een

individ*als at any level of nat*re,

&his 3ind of .illiard0.all ca*sation does occ*r# of co*rse# .et-een non0individ*aliFed

societies of individ*alss*ch as .illiard .allsJ <eca*se s*ch societies have no *nity of

e/perience# these societies as s*ch have no mentality# -hich means that they cane/ercise no self0determination, &heir interactions -ith each other# accordingly#appro/imate the p*rely mechanical interactions pict*red .y mechanistic philosophers,

$t is no mista3e to .elieve that s*ch ca*sation occ*rs, &he mista3e is to ass*me that itis the .asic 3ind of efficient ca*sation# so that it applies to individ*als# .oth simple and

compo*nd# as -ell as to nonindivid*aliFed societies,

A second sense in -hich ca*sation is not linear involves the direction of vertical ca*sal

infl*ence, &o say that all ca*sation is linear can mean that in a h*man .eing# all vertical

ca*sation r*ns *p-ard from the s*.atomic particles to the person as a -hole, &his isthe doctrine .ehind ontological red*ctionism# according to -hich the .ehavior of every

-hole# incl*ding any e/perience it may have# is red*ci.le to the .ehavior of its most

elementary parts, !f co*rse# a p*rely linear model co*ld say instead that all ca*sation

r*ns from the top do-nthe doctrine C, I, D*casse 71918 called hypophenomenalismas -hen Christian Science holds that the health of the .ody depends entirely *pon thestate of the mind# or -hen traditional theism holds that all events in the -orld res*lt

from the -ill of God,

With regard to this iss*e# Whitehead=s philosophy is radically nonlinear, 'ach individ*al

event is a center of partially a*tonomo*s creative po-er and infl*ences every event inits f*t*re# at -hatever level, Accordingly# efficient ca*sation does# as modern tho*ght

says# flo- *p-ard# from s*.atomic particles and molec*les to macromolec*les# cells#and the so*l# as -ell as horiFontally# from 7say8 cell to cell and from molec*le to

molec*le, <*t it also flo-s do-n-ard# from the cells to the molec*les and from the so*lto the cells and the lo-er organisms, <eca*se do-n-ard as -ell as *p-ard ca*sation

occ*rs# the flo- of ca*sal infl*ence is reciprocal and circ*lar as -ell as m*lti0leveled,

4or e/ample# $ am infl*enced in the present moment .y .rain cells that -ere infl*enced.y my e/perience in a previo*s moment# -hich had in t*rn .een infl*enced .y events inthe .rain cells in a still earlier moment# and so on,

&he notion that all ca*sation is linear can mean# in the third place# that# all ca*sation istransmitted thro*gh chains of contig*o*s events# so that there is no action at a

distance, Whitehead=s vie- is# to the contrary# that each event is directly infl*enced# toat least some slight e/tent# .y all past events, &he standard vie-# reflected in <road=s

limiting principles# is that my present e/perience directly infl*enced only .y events that

are spatially and temporally contig*o*s1 -ith this e/perience# -hich means only .yimmediately past .rain events, &he rest of the past -orld does infl*ence me 7in

'instein=s relativity theory# the past for an event is defined as all those events that

affect the event in *estion8# .*t it is said to infl*ence me only indirectly# via its

infl*ence *pon contig*o*s events, $n Whitehead=s philosophy# .y contrast# eachnoncontig*o*s event in the past e/erts a direct as -ell as an indirect infl*ence *pon thepresent event, 7&he 5past#6 therefore# is not limited to those events considered past in

an 'insteinian light cone# .*t incl*des many events that -o*ld .e considered5contemporaries6 -ithin 'insteinian relativity theory d*e to the finite speed of light,8

&his point depends# at least largely# *pon the distinction# introd*ced earlier# .et-eenthe physical and the mental poles of an event, An event=s physical pole# it -ill .e

recalled# is that event=s incorporation of infl*ences from previo*s events, &he event isphysical insofar as it simply repeats past forms of creative e/perience, An

event=s mental pole is its self0determination, Any novelty in an event -ill originate in its



mental pole,

An event can e/ert infl*ence *pon s*.se*ent events in terms of .oth its physical pole

and its mental pole, 'ither 3ind of infl*ence can .e said to .e physical ca*sation#.eca*se efficient ca*sation is al-ays e/erted .y an act*al occasion as a -hole# not

simply .y one of its poles 7.eca*se a pole is an a.straction and as s*ch cannot act8# andevery occasion has a physical pole, &here is no p*relymental efficient ca*sation# in the

Cartesian sense of a p*rely mental s*.stance e/erting ca*sality in the physical -orld,

We can disting*ish# ho-ever# .et-een pure physical ca*sation and hyrid physicalca*sation,1 $t is pure physical ca*sation insofar as the in0formed creativity transmittedfrom the ca*se to the effect7s8 arose in the physical pole of the ca*se, $t

is hyrid physical ca*sation insofar as this creativity first arose in the mental pole of theca*se,

&his distinction is relevant to the *estion at hand# .eca*se Whitehead 71929M19@8s*ggested that -hereas p*re physical ca*sation seems to occ*r mainly .et-een

contig*o*s events# hy.rid physical ca*sation might not .e th*s .o*nd 7p, B+@8, &his3ind of ca*sation# he s*ggested# sho*ld .e e/erted on more0or0less remote as -ell as

*pon contig*o*s events# and he pointed to telepathic infl*ence as one reason to .elievethat this form of action at a distance occ*rs,

&he reason he gave for the difference is that the physical poles of occasions are -hatgive rise to the space0time contin**m# -hereas the mental poles involve the ingression

of eternal forms# -hich are not related more to any one part of space0time than to allothers, is statement is cryptic# leaving his reasoning opa*e# .*t# especially given his

geni*s and the amo*nt of time he devoted to *nderstanding the mysteries of space0time# his s*ggestion seems -orthy of e/ploration .y those -ho are familiar -ith

contemporary disc*ssions in physics,

$n any case# the change from a materialistic to a pane/perientialist doctrine of nat*re

ma3es the idea of infl*ence at a distance thin3a.le as a general characteristic of the-orld, So long as the act*al entities of nat*re are tho*ght to .e even remotely

analogo*s to .illiard .alls# efficient ca*sation .et-een them m*st .e tho*ght to .e .ycontact, $t is not as int*itively self0evident# ho-ever# that the infl*ence of one

e/perience on another cannot occ*r at a distance, (any premodern philosophies#incl*ding some of the %eoplatonic and ermetic philosophies that flo*rished .et-een

the 1th and the 1th cent*ries# said that 5sympathetic6 relations can occ*r .et-eennoncontig*o*s things# and for Whitehead efficient ca*sation involves the transfer of

feeling# and th*s involves sympathy 71929M 19@# p, 12 19B@# 19@# p, 1@B8,

&o s*mmariFe this disc*ssion of ca*sation and linearity: Ca*sation is linear in the sense

that efficient ca*sation# meaning the ca*sal infl*ence .et-een act*al occasions# r*nse/cl*sively from the past to the present .*t ca*sation is not linear in the sense that

-o*ld e/cl*de self0determination -ithin an act*al occasion# do-n-ard ca*sation fromhigher to lo-er occasions of e/perience# and ca*sal infl*ence at a distance,

&reativity and Energy At the heart of Whitehead=s postmodern position on these iss*es is an e/pansion of the

notion of 5energy6 into 5creativity,6 4rom his perspective# the 5energy6 of c*rrentphysics is simply an a.straction from# a limited aspect of# the f*ll0.lo-n creativity that

is the tr*e material ca*se em.odied in all act*alities 7Whitehead# 19BBM19# p, 1@8,&he energy of c*rrent physics involves only the *antitative aspect of the creativity of

events# and then only the e/ternal side of this *antitative aspectthat is# the energytransfers .et-een events, 'nergy th*s treated leaves o*t the *alitative side of the

creativity and -hat this creativity is for the events themselves# -hich incl*des an

e/periential realiFation of val*e and an element of self0determination, 7$t is to .ring o*t



this richer meaning that $ sometimes translate Whitehead=s term 5creativity6 as

5creative e/perience,68 4*rthermore# the energy of c*rrent physics is limited to forms ofcreativity that are e/emplified in the most elementary act*alities of the -orldatoms

and s*.atomic particles, &his limitation lies .ehind the a.s*rd notion that everything

that happens in the -orld# incl*ding the compassion of a <odhisattva# m*st .ecompletely red*ci.le to# and th*s e/plaina.le in terms of# the fo*r forces of physics,

Whitehead holds# .y contrast# that partly a*tonomo*s po-ers of self0determination and

efficient ca*sation e/ist at higher levels# s*ch as cells and psyches# and that somepsyches# s*ch as those of h*mans# have m*ch more of these po-ers than others# s*chas those of rats, 7Some h*mans# f*rthermore# may have more than others,8

&his enlargement of 5energy6 into 5creativity6 is also important to the iss*e of action ata distance, What is a.ove called pure physical ca*sation is meant to descri.e -hat is

occ*rring in those interactions that physicists consider transfers of physical energy, Asmentioned previo*sly# this 3ind of transfer generally seems to occ*r only .et-een

contig*o*s events, $f gravitation is not ta3en to .e an e/ception to this general r*le#and if psycho3inesis is re;ected# it -o*ld .e nat*ral to ass*me that the transfer of

physical energy can occ*r only .et-een contig*o*s occasions, So if the creativity ofevents -ere e/ha*sted .y their physical energy# th*s *nderstood# then the only form of

efficient ca*sation they co*ld e/ert -o*ld .e p*re physical ca*sation# and infl*ence at adistance -o*ld .e impossi.le, $f an event em.odies mental as -ell as physical energy#

ho-ever# so that hy.rid as -ell as p*re physical ca*sation can occ*r# then one co*ld

allo- for infl*ence at a distance -itho*t challenging the idea that the transfer of5physical energy6 occ*rs only .et-een contig*o*s occasions, 4*rthermore# once one

form of action at a distance is allo-ed# then it .ecomes easier to co*ntenance the

s*ggestion that even pure physical ca*sation might at least occasionally occ*r at adistance# if the evidence for psycho3inesis seems to demand it, $n these -ays

acceptance of a -orldvie- in -hich the 5energy6 of the contemporary physicscomm*nity is enlarged to Whiteheadian 5creativity6 -o*ld ma3e people more open to

loo3ing at evidence that seems interpreta.le only in terms of some 3ind of infl*ence ata distance,

&he reference to 5mental energy6 s*ggests another -ay of reading Whitehead=sproposal in relation to energy and creativity, &he distinction .et-een the t-o terms

co*ld .e *nderstood as a temporary e/pedient# -ith the long0term goal .eing anothere/pansion of the concept of energy, &his concept has had to .e e/panded several times

previo*sly to save the la- of the conservation of energy, %o-adays the notion of theinfl*ence of the mind on the .rain is angrily deno*nced on the gro*nds that s*ch

infl*ence -o*ld violate this la-, 'ven if this 5la-6 sho*ld .e ta3en as sacrosanct#ho-ever# no violation -o*ld .e involved if -e enlarged the notion of energy to incl*de

the notion of psychic energy 7as -ell as intermediate forms# s*ch as cell*lar energy andmacromolec*lar energy8, <*t -hether -e adopt the term creativity for that po-er

-hich is em.odied in all events or enlarge the concept of energy so that it no- refers to-hat Whitehead meant .y creativity# the effect -ill .e the same: Ca*sation -ill no

longer .e *nderstood as linear in -ays that r*le o*t self0determination# do-n-ard

ca*sation# and action at a distance,

&he nat*re of Whitehead=s s*ggestion as to ho- to overcome the materialistic#red*ctionistic philosophy of late modernity can .e .etter *nderstood if his doctrine of

eternal forms# -hich -as mentioned earlier in passing# is e/plored,

Eternal )orms

Whitehead=s position on this topic is one of the -ays in -hich his philosophy is clearlypostmodern, !ne aspect of modern tho*ght has .een a tendency to deny the reality of

eternal# ideal forms that transcend the realm of act*ality, $f disposed to accept their



reality at all# the modern mind red*ces them# -ith Eepler# to mathematical forms,

Whitehead 71929M19@8 not only e/plicitly affirms the e/istence of eternal forms *nderthe name 5eternal o.;ects#6 .*t he also disting*ishes .et-een the 5o.;ective species6

of eternal o.;ects# .y -hich he means the mathematical forms# and the 5s*.;ective

species#6 -hich incl*des forms s*ch as red# desire# anger# and conscio*sness 7pp, 291029B8, &he o.;ective species can characteriFe only an o.;ect of perception the s*.;ective

species can also characteriFe ho# an o.;ect is perceived,

&ogether these t-o types of forms in0form the creative e/perience of each act*al entity#determining the species to -hich it .elongs and largely characteriFing its *ni*eness-ithin its species, &he *alifier largely is essential# .eca*se each occasion of e/perience

also incl*des -ithin itself the past act*al -orld o*t of -hich it arose an act*alitycannot .e ade*ately descri.ed in terms of a com.ination of creativity and a.stract

forms, !nce this caveat 7-hich is one of the main feat*res of Whitehead=s philosophy8is made# ho-ever# it remains tr*e that act*al occasions of vario*s types differ largely

.eca*se of the different eternal forms they em.ody, With regard to the o.;ects st*died

.y physics# for e/ample# -e differentiate .et-een the vario*s s*.atomic particles .y

indicating their mass# charge# spin# ang*lar moment*m# and so on, 'ach of thesefeat*res is an eternal form, Different forms are em.odied in the vario*s atoms#

molec*les# organelles# cells# and psyches, &he forms em.odied in the higher act*alitiesare no less real in the nat*re of things than those in the lo-er, Contra most

materialists# something does not have to em.ody the forms appropriate to the lo-est

level of act*ality# s*ch as mass and charge# to .e act*al, 7"i3e-ise# contra mostidealists# something need not em.ody forms appropriate to the highest types of

act*alities# s*ch as conscio*sness# to .e act*al,8

(odern materialistic tho*ght has re;ected this democratic attit*de to-ard the forms.eca*se of its e/ternalism or o.;ectivism# meaning the tendency to limit scientific

tho*ght to categories characteriFing the e/ternal# o.;ective side of things# and to ta3ethe internal# s*.;ective side as less real# as epiphenomenal, $n Whitehead=s tho*ght# .y

contrast# the internal side of things and the e/ternal# the s*.;ective and the o.;ective#are e*ally act*al# e*ally primordial# and therefore the s*.;ective species of eternal

o.;ects is as real as the o.;ective, 'motion is as real as mass# intensity of e/perience asreal as charge, &his democracy in the ho*se of forms# along -ith the pane/perientialism

it pres*pposes# reinforces the Whiteheadian antired*ctionistic conviction that animalpsyches are as act*al as protons,

A pair of *estions that m*st .e faced .y those -ho affirm the reality of forms is -herethey e/ist and ho- they .ecome effective in the -orld, $n and of themselves# they do

not have act*al# .*t merely ideal# e/istence that is# they are not themselves act*alities

.*t merely possi.ilities to .e act*aliFed .y act*al things, $t is a -idespread int*itionthat merely ideal# possi.le e/istents cannot e/ist on their o-n# .*t can only 5s*.sist6 in

something act*al e*ally -idespread is the int*ition that they cannot .e efficacio*s on

their o-n .*t only thro*gh the agency of something act*al,

Whitehead 71929M19@8 reaffirms .oth of these int*itions *nder the r*.ric of the

5ontological principle#6 defining it .oth as the principle that everything m*st .e

some-here# -ith 5some-here6 ta3en to mean in something act*al# and as the principlethat only act*alities can act 7pp, +# 8,

&his train of tho*ght led him to spea3 of the 5primordial nat*re of God6 as that aspect

of an everlasting nonlocaliFed act*ality in -hich eternal forms not yet act*aliFed in the-orld co*ld s*.sist 7pp, # 28, &his aspect of God he tho*ght of as a primordial

appetite to have these forms act*aliFed in the -orld, &he infl*ence of this appetitiveenvisagement of the forms e/plains ho- previo*sly *nact*aliFed forms# altho*gh

nonact*al in themselves# can e/ert press*re on the act*alities of the -orld to get

themselves act*aliFed, &he divine appetite -hets the appetites of the creat*res fornovel possi.ilities,



&his idea is f*ndamental to Whitehead=s s*ggestion as to ho- o*r -orld -as created

thro*gh an evol*tionary process, !*r -orld -as created not o*t of a.sol*tenothingness# as if once *pon a time only God e/isted -ith no finite act*alities# .*t o*t

of relative nothingness# or a chaos of act*alities 7Whitehead# 1929M19@# p, 98, 4or

Whitehead# the *niverse is a plen*m of act*al occasions, What -e call 5empty space6 isempty not of act*al occasions .*t of stationary end*ring o.;ects# s*ch as electrons and

protons, &his is relative chaos 7pp, 92# 98, At one time# chaos may have prevailed

every-here# perhaps as an interl*de .et-een a previo*s cosmic epoch and o*r o-n,Getting o*r -orld started# -ith its photons# ne*trons# electrons# protons# ne*trinos#mesons# and so on# and -ith its .asic la-s# s*ch as Planc3=s constant and the

gravitational constant# -o*ld have re*ired getting the appropriate sets of eternalo.;ects em.odied in sets of act*alities,

Creation# in other -ords# involved not calling finite act*alities as s*ch into e/istence#.*t l*ring the realm of finit*de to em.ody ne- forms of order 7p, 98, &his creative

process has contin*ed thro*gho*t the evol*tionary process for several .illion years#-ith ever ne- forms of order .eing elicited into act*al e/istence, $n lang*age familiar

to parapsychologists# creation involves materialiFation, I*st ho- the divine l*re getsne- forms em.odied in the -orld# and ho- this provides an analogy for materialiFation

in the more c*stomary sense# -ill .e more easily e/plaina.le after a disc*ssion ofWhitehead=s vie- of perception# to -hich $ no- t*rn,

Perception and Prehension

<eca*se Whitehead has a pane/perientialist ontology# his doctrine of perception is in

some respects simply the reverse side of his ontology, !ne can# therefore# introd*ce adisc*ssion of his doctrine of perception .y simply e/plicating some points implicit in his

ontology,

$f all act*al entities are occasions of e/perience that perceive previo*s occasions of

e/perience# t-o points are already implied, 4irst# not all e/perience is conscio*se/perience# -hich seems over-helmingly li3ely# at least if -e# -ith Whitehead# thin3 of

conscio*s e/perience as that -hich contrasts -hat isthe case -ith -hat might have

een 71929M19@# p, 28, $f amoe.ae# vir*ses# D%A molec*les# and even atoms andelectrons have e/perience# there is no good reason to s*ppose that it is conscio*se/perience# th*s *nderstood, &he second point is that not all perception is sensory

perception# -hich is o.vio*s if things s*ch as cells# molec*les# and protons# -hich have

no sensory organs# nevertheless en;oy a form of perception, &hese t-o points# as -e-ill see# are closely related# .eca*se sensory perception is m*ch more li3ely than

nonsensory perception to .ecome conscio*s,

RecogniFing that the term 5perception6 tends to connote conscio*s sensory perception#Whitehead s*ggested the term 5prehension6 as a more ne*tral term for perceptions

that may or may not .e conscio*s or sensory 719BBM19# p, 2B8, $ -ill# in fact# *se5prehension6 to refer to nonsensory perception, $ -ill also# *nless $ indicate other-ise#

*se 5prehension6 to mean a physical prehension# -hich means a prehension the o.;ect

of -hich is another act*al occasion or a set of occasions, 7A 5concept*al prehension#6.y contrast# has for its o.;ect an eternal o.;ect and th*s a possi.ility# not an act*ality,8

Whitehead=s vie- is that an act*al entity# .eing an occasion of e/perience# involves a

creative synthesis of a m*ltiplicity of prehensions, 'ach occasion of e/perience# then#-hether or not it .ecomes conscio*s# and -hether or not it incl*des sensory

perceptions# .egins -ith a m*ltit*de of nonsensory perceptions of past occasions,

&hese prehensions# in some sense and to some degree# respond to the entire past

-orld# .oth the contig*o*s past and the more remote past, &his statement# *n*alified#-o*ld# .esides .eing incredi.le# seem to imply that all occasions of e/perience# from



American Christian to Asian <*ddhist# and from h*man to electronic# -o*ld .e virt*ally

identical, <*t *alifications are given, 4irst# one=s spatiotemporal standpoint isimportant# .eca*se -e are in general directly affected more strongly .y contig*o*s than

.y more remote events, Second# a distinction is made .et-een positive and negative

prehensions, A positive prehension# also called a 5feeling#6 incl*des some aspect of theprehended o.;ect into the present e/perience, A negative prehension e/cl*des the

entire o.;ect from incorporation it eliminates the o.;ect from the prehending s*.;ect=s

feeling 7Whitehead# 1929M19@# p, 2B8, &he different grades or species of act*aloccasions differ mainly in this respect: the lo-er the grade# the less comple/ thee/perience can .e# and conse*ently the more of the past that m*st simply .e

e/cl*ded, &hird# occasions of e/perience are partially self0created, &hey decide ;*st ho-to synthesiFe the given data for e/ample# in occasions of e/perience that rise to

conscio*sness# one thing to .e decided is ;*st -hich feat*res of the e/perience arefoc*sed on conscio*sly, &hro*gh these three *alifications of the principle that each

occasion prehends the entire past# the specific and historical differences .et-eenoccasions of e/perience can .e acco*nted for,

Conscio*sness# ft sho*ld .e clear .y no-# is a very optional element in e/perience, <yfar most of the occasions of e/perience in the *niverse have no conscio*s e/perience

and# even in those that do have conscio*s e/perience# of the elements incl*ded -ithinthe e/perience are not lit *p .y conscio*sness, What needs f*rther disc*ssion is -hat

conscio*sness is and ho- it arises,

Conscio*sness is defined .y Whitehead 71929M19@8 as the s*.;ective form of an

intellect*al prehension 7pp, 2# B8, &his is a prehension -hose o.;ect is the contrast.et-een a fact and a proposition-hich is another -ay of saying -hat -as said earlier#

mat conscio*sness arises only if one contrasts -hat is -ith -hat might have .een,

&his 3ind of contrast can arise only in a very comple/# sophisticated occasion of

e/perience# -hich can synthesiFe vario*s types of prehensions, &he first phase of anoccasion of e/perience is constit*ted .y physical prehensions# thro*gh -hich past

act*alities are prehended, !*t of each physical prehension arises a conceptual prehension# thro*gh -hich the eternal o.;ects incarnate in the prehended act*alities# or

other possi.ilities closely related to them# are prehended, &his prehension is not

ne*tral# .*t involves a s*.;ective form# the most elementary of -hich is a positive ornegative val*ation of that possi.ility, &his is an elementary stage of mentality# .eca*seit introd*ces an element of self0determination into the e/perience, "o-0grade occasions

of e/perience close o*t their s*.;ective e/istence -ith a simple final phase constit*ted.y physical purposes# in -hich the possi.ilities received from the past -orld are .lindly

reaffirmed or atten*ated in intensity 7Whitehead# 1929M19@# pp, 2@029# 28, $t

ta3es a more comple/ level of e/perience# pro.a.ly that of an animal psyche or at leasta living organism# to t*rn the contrasts in that third stage into propositions# in -hich

the note of possi.ility is really entertained, $t ta3es a still more comple/ e/perience to

contrast that proposition# -hich involves a possi.le fact a.o*t the -orld# -ith theact*al -orld# so as to get an intellectual prehension, !nly -hen this is done does

conscio*sness arise as the s*.;ective form of the prehension,

!f the vast n*m.er of o.;ects prehended in a moment of h*man e/perience# and of thesmaller n*m.er of propositions entertained# only a min*sc*le n*m.er .ecome clothedin conscio*sness, Conscio*sness is a very poor g*ide to -hat is in fact e/perienced,

&omplexity$ /ierarchy$ /aits$ and Regularity

!ne set of implications of this philosophy concerns the related topics of the 5la-s of

nat*re6 and the 5hierarchy of the sciences,6

&he early modern -orldvie- tho*ght of the la-s of nat*re as a.sol*te# prescriptive



la-s imposed .y a s*pernat*ral deity e/ponents of the late modern -orldvie- have

generally 3ept this vie- of la-s even after having given *p the imposing la-giver, &hered*ctionism of this -orldvie- has implied# f*rthermore# that the most comple/ .eings

sho*ld .ehave in as la-0li3e a manner as the simplest things: *man .eings sho*ld .e

as la-0a.iding as rats# -hich sho*ld in t*rn .e as la-0a.iding as atoms and .illiard.alls, $t is only the comple/ity of the more comple/ things that prevents their .ehavior

from .eing in fact as predicta.le as that of the simpler things# and therefore prevents

scientific e/periments involving them from .eing as repeata.le,Whitehead=s postmodern philosophy has radically different implications, All la-sdescriptive of the .ehavior of electrons# atoms# and molec*les are sociological la-s no

less than are the la-s descriptive of the .ehavior of h*man .eings .elonging to apartic*lar society, Whitehead agreed -ith William Iames and Charles Peirce that these

so0called la-s of nat*re are really the most -idespreadhaits of nat*re 7Whitehead#19B@M 19@# pp, 101 19BBM19# p, 18 and are# accordingly# statistical la-s, A

mem.er of a society acting in an a.normal -ay is not violating some imposed la- .*tsimply failing to conform to some more0or0less pervasive ha.it of its species,

&he ha.its of t-o 3inds of .eings -ill .e reg*lar eno*gh to allo- high degrees of

prediction and control, !n the other hand# the .ehavior of lo-0level end*ring o.;ects

-ill .e highly predicta.le# at least statistically# .eca*se the occasions of e/perience

ma3ing *p these end*ring individ*als are almost entirely physical: &heir mental poleshave little po-er to e/ercise self0determination, 'ach occasion largely repeats itspredecessor# so that a proton or atom may last .illions of years# acting in the same -ay

all the -hile, 'ven more predicta.le -ill .e the .ehavior of nonindivid*ated aggregatesmade *p of .illions of these lo-0grade end*ring individ*als# .eca*se they have no

dominant individ*al to give the society as a -hole any spontaneity of response,Whatever min*sc*le spontaneities the end*ring individ*als# s*ch as electrons# manifest

-ill .e m*t*ally canceling# so that the .ehavior of the -hole -ill reflect the massaverage .ehavior of the .illions of components, &he .ehavior of these aggregates# s*ch

as .illiard .alls# -ill .e almost perfectly predicta.le in principle# *nless some*nforeseen e/traordinary po-er intervenes, &he sciences st*dying these lo-0level

individ*als and nonindivid*aliFed aggregates -ill .e capa.le of highly replica.lee/periments,

As one deals -ith increasingly comple/ compo*nd individ*als# ho-ever# the ha.it0.o*nd .ehavior -ill recede, &he occasions of e/perience of the dominant mem.er -ill

have an increasingly significant mental pole therefore they -ill have increasingly morepo-er to deviate in the moment from the .ehavior of former e/periences .y responding

to novel possi.ilities, Also# the physical poles -ill have more feelings or positive

prehensions in comparison -ith negative prehensions# so that not so m*ch of theenvironment is simply e/cl*ded from feeling, (ore varia.les -ill therefore .e involved

in determining the e/act character of the occasions of e/perience# .oth in their o-n

s*.;ective response and then in their o.;ective effects on others, When one comes toh*man .eings# the n*m.er of varia.les involved in their e/perience is virt*ally infinite#

and their capacity to respond in vario*s -ays to any partic*lar type of stim*l*s isenormo*s, Altho*gh there is some faint analogy .et-een a h*man psyche and a proton#

any scientific approach to h*man psychology or sociology predicated on the ass*mptionthat h*man conscio*s e/perience# or even h*man o*ter .ehavior# -ill approach that of

protons 7let alone .illiard .alls8 in la-li3eness -ill .e doomed to perpet*al fr*stration,Some fo*r .illion years of evol*tion on o*r planet have come in .et-een# d*ring -hich

*niform ha.its have .ecome increasingly less determinative in comparison -ithspontaneity and *ni*eness,

/ard-&ore &ommonsense ,otions



<efore t*rning to the -ay in -hich Whitehead=s postmodern philosophy allo-s psi

interactions to occ*r# $ -ill .riefly point o*t the -ay in -hich it allo-s for the hard0corecommonsense notions mentioned earlier# for -hich any philosophy claiming to .e

ade*ate to the facts of e/perience m*st .e a.le to acco*nt,

&he doctrines of pane/perientialism and compo*nd individ*als sho- ho- o*r o-ne/periences# some of -hich have conscio*sness# can .e considered f*ll0fledged

act*alities and ho- their seeming freedom can .e ta3en at face val*e, And o*r o-n

creative e/perience can .e regarded not as a great e/ception in the -orld .*t as a high0level e/emplification of a principle pervasive thro*gho*t nat*re, &he distinction.et-een the psyche and the .rain does not create an insol*.le pro.lem of ho- they

interact# than3s to the doctrine of pane/perientialism, &his position is not d*alism .*tnond*alistic interactionism: &he psyche# -hilenumerically distinct from the .rain 7so

that there are t-o things to interact8# is not ontologically different in kind from the.rain cells# .*t only greatly different in degree# so that the ca*sal interaction is not

.et-een *nli3es .*t .et-een inferior and s*perior instances of the same 3ind ofindivid*als, 'fficient ca*sation involves sympathy# or the sharing of feelings,

&he idea that o*r .asic -ay of apprehending the act*al -orld .eyond o*r o-n

e/perience is nonsensory prehension# so that sensory perception is a secondary#

derivative form of perception# sho-s ho- -e can 3no- many things that -e

pres*ppose .*t that cannot .e 3no-n thro*gh sensory perception, 'fficient ca*sation#as the real infl*ence of one thing on another# is 3no-n in this -ay, $n fact# physicalprehension is also called 5perception in the mode of ca*sal efficacy6 7Whitehead#

1929M19@# pp, 121# 19# 1B018# .eca*se -hat the percipient prehends is preciselythe ca*sal efficacy of previo*s e/periences *pon itself, $ncl*ded in this mode of

perception is the act*ality of these prior e/periences# -hich e/plains -hy none of *sare solipsists in practice, &he fact that this 3no-ledge# that there is a -orld .eyond

o*rselves that is ;*st as act*al as -e are# comes thro*gh a pre0intellect*al prehensionrather than an intellect*al ;*dgment e/plains also -hy o*r dogs and# in fact# all

organisms manifest nonsolipsistic responses to their environments, <eca*se this modeof perception involves a prehension of past act*alities# and .eca*se an occasion of

e/perience al-ays anticipates the fact that it -ill infl*ence f*t*re events# o*r3no-ledge of the past and the f*t*re 7not the act*al f*t*re# .*t that there #ill e a

f*t*re >Whitehead# 19BBM19# p, 19B?8# and therefore of time# is also gro*nded, <yvirt*e of the fact that this philosophy# -ith its pane/perientialism# says that a lo-0

grade end*ring individ*al# s*ch as an atom# is analogo*s to a h*man psyche.eingli3e-ise a society of occasions of e/perience# each of -hich prehends its past and

anticipates its f*t*re# ho-ever minimallye/plains -hy time is real for all of nat*re# sothat -e have no mystery of ho- temporal and nontemporal individ*als can interact# or

of ho- time someho- emerged,1@ 4inally# the doctrine that -e have a mode ofperception more .asic than that -hich is mediated thro*gh o*r physical sense organs

e/plains ho- -e can apprehend those nonphysical realities -e call val*es# s*ch astr*th# .ea*ty# and goodness,

aving given a .rief 7or# to the -eary reader# $ sho*ld say: as .rief as possi.le8

e/position of some of the feat*res of Whitehead=s philosophy and ho- these feat*reshelp *s ma3e sense of o*r most .asic pres*ppositions# $ t*rn no- to some -ays in

-hich this philosophy can help *s ma3e sense of psi interactions, $ offer no evidence forthe reality of the phenomena# .*t simply ass*me for the sa3e of this disc*ssion that

they do occ*r 7e/cept# of co*rse# for tr*e precognition8# and as3# if they do# ho- this is

possi.le -ithin the conte/t of the philosophy offered .y Whitehead,

&' P$"!S!P$CA" $%&'""$G$<$"$&Y !4 )AR$!LS 4!R(S !4 PS$



Receptive Psi

Receptive psi involves the mind=s prehensive reception of infl*ences at a distance, &his

reception need not .ecome conscio*s,

&he distinction .et-een experience as such andconscious e/perience is of vital

importance to parapsychology# as is the *estion of -hy some forms of e/perience.ecome conscio*s on a reg*lar .asis# -hereas other forms of e/perience .ecome

conscio*s only rarely# if at all, $n partic*lar# sensory e/perience reg*larly .ecomesconscio*s#19 -hile e/trasensory perception 7'SP8as generally *nderstood# to mean

nonsensory perception of remote entitiesrarely does, Whitehead=s philosophyprovides a possi.le e/planation for this t-ofold fact# an e/planation that modifies

<ergson=s theory 7to-ard -hich <road -as favora.ly disposed8 that the .rain andcentral nervo*s system f*nction to filter o*t e/trasensory perceptions,

&here is a reason -hy the sensory perception of remote o.;ects is m*ch more li3ely torise to conscio*sness than nonsensory prehensions of remote 7noncontig*o*s8 o.;ects,

&his reason is .ased on the general point that the more intensely a dat*m is received#the more li3ely it is to rise to conscio*sness in the creative synthesis of prehensions

constit*ting the dominant occasions of e/perience,

&his reason is t-ofold: 4irst# in sensory perception# the data are .eing received .y the

dominant occasions of e/perience from contig*o*s occasions of e/perience# namely#cell*lar occasions in the .rain, Second# the data from contig*o*s occasions are *s*ally

transmitted -ith considera.le strength .eca*se they are not dil*ted .y data derivingfrom intervening occasions 7Whitehead# 1929M19@# p, B+8 and .eca*se they can

res*lt from p*re physical ca*sation 7as -ell as hy.rid8, &he data received directly fromnoncontig*o*s occasions# .y contrast# -ill generally .e .ased on hy.rid physical

ca*sation# and -ill# therefore# arrive -ith m*ch less strength, &hey# accordingly# -illseldom force their -ay *p to the conscio*s s*rface of e/perience# generally remaining

in the *nconscio*s depths,

!n this .asis# -e can see -hy sensory perception of a remote o.;ect# s*ch as a tree 1++

yards a-ay# sho*ld .e so m*ch more relia.le# in terms of .ecoming a 5clear anddistinct6 o.;ect of consciousa-areness# than e/trasensory perception of that same

o.;ect,

Sensory perception res*lts from a chain of contig*o*s ca*sal transmissions: Series of

photonic events .ring the data from the tree to the eye# then series of ne*ronic events75firings68 .ring the data# pro.a.ly in some-hat transm*ted form# from the s*rface of

the eye to the .rain, &hen the dominant occasion receives the data 7pro.a.lytransm*ted still f*rther8 from occasions of e/perience constit*ting the .rain, 'ach lin3

in the chain is constit*ted .y nonsensory prehensions, &his is tr*e not only in the finalevent# in -hich the dominant occasion prehends the .rain cells .*t also each ne*ron in

the optic nerve received its data from neigh.oring ne*rons thro*gh prehension thecells in the eye received data from the photons .y prehending them and the data -ere

conveyed from tree to eye thro*gh long chains of photonic events# each of -hichprehended a prior photonic event,

&he difference .et-een sensory perception and e/trasensory perception of a remoteo.;ect is# therefore# not that the latter involves nonsensory perception sensory

perception also involves nonsensory perception, &he difference is that sensoryperception is .ased *pon chains of contig*o*s events# so that at every step there is

p*re physical ca*sation# -hich is stronger than hy.rid physical ca*sation and -hich

generally e/ha*sts itself on contig*o*s events, &he .ody=s sensory system 7li3e thesystems of nat*re to -hich it is att*ned# s*ch as light and so*nd -aves8 is a very

relia.le system for transmitting information of a certain type -ith s*fficient intensity to

ma3e it thro*gh to the final phases of the dominant occasions of e/perience# -hereconscio*sness may arise, &his relia.ility means repeata.ility# .oth .et-een different



occasions of e/perience in the history of one person and .et-een different persons# d*e

to the similarity of o*r sensory systems,

'/trasensory perception of a remote o.;ect# -hether it .e a roc3# a tree# or anotherperson# cannot# .y definition 7ass*ming that it is perception at a distance8# rely *pon a

chain of contig*o*s ca*sal transfers, $t# therefore# -ill not generally .e strongeno*gh# relative to the data from the rain# to rise to conscio*sness on a reg*lar .asis,

&he data from the .rain and central nervo*s system -ill# therefore# *s*ally .loc3 o*t

the e/trasensory information from remote o.;ects, &he data are not .loc3ed o*t fromthe dominant occasion of e/perience altogether# .*t only from the conscio*s part of thise/perience, &he .rain# -ith the rest of the central nervo*s system# does this .loc3ing

o*t not .eca*se that is directly its f*nction# .*t simply as a side effect of one of its mainpositive f*nctions# -hich is to .ring precise information of certain types -ith s*fficient

intensity to rise to conscio*sness in a reg*lar# relia.le fashion,

When e/trasensory prehensions of remote o.;ects do occasionally rise to

conscio*sness# accordingly# this is neither a violation of some la- of nat*re# nor a

fail*re of one of the f*nctions of the .rain, $t is simply an e/ception to the -ay things#in fact# normally happen for intelligi.le reasons,

Why it is that data from these prehensions do rise to conscio*sness in a fe- cases

pro.a.ly differs from case to case, 'ven if -e can fig*re o*t the most common factors#it is *nli3ely that -e -o*ld learn ho- to prod*ce them at -ill 7apart# at least# from

long0term spirit*al discipline -ith other ends in vie-8, $n any case# the most li3elyapproach to finding fairly repeata.le e/periments involving 'SP# if the a.ove analysis

has merit# -o*ld .e to concentrate *pon evidence for unconsciouse/trasensoryperception, A fe- s*ch e/periments have .een cond*cted, <y far the ma;ority of

e/periments# ho-ever# have tested for evidence of conscious 'SP, &he reason for this# $s*spect# lies in the desire of many parapsychologists to find -ays to ma3e 'SP *sef*l in

daily life, $n any case# this concern sho*ld .e clearly disting*ished from the concern tofind repeata.le e/periments, &rying to do .oth things at once -ill most li3ely res*lt in

nothing .*t contin*ed fr*stration,

$n a paper a decade ago# 'rlend*r araldsson 719@+8 stated that st*dies of the

physiological correlates of psi had recently decreased in n*m.er# evidently .eca*se of

the concl*sion of many researchers# e/pressed in a s*rvey of the literat*re .y <rian(illar 71998# that 5res*lts so far do not , , , indicate s*ch e/periments yield any easier

access to 'SP performance than proced*res *sing conscio*s 'SP responses6 7p, 1+8,

o-ever# given .oth the philosophical and empirical reasons for .elieving that psireception occ*rs primarily at the *nconscio*s level and the relative pa*city of

e/periments designed to test for s*ch reception# it -o*ld .e premat*re to concl*de thatthis approach -ill not yield more repeata.le res*lts than that involving conscio*s 'SP,

Panexperientialism and Some )orms of Receptive Psi

$n this disc*ssion# $ have dealt -ith receptive psi in general# not differentiating

.et-een 7conscio*s8 telepathy and clairvoyance 7ta3ing this latter term .roadly toincl*de claira*dience and all other forms of e/perience in -hich information a.o*t

e/ternal feat*res of remote o.;ects is received -itho*t *se of the senses8,

&his similar treatment of telepathy and clairvoyance is possi.le -ithin the frame-or3 ofWhitehead=s philosophy# than3s to its pane/perientialism, <eca*se all act*alities are

occasions of e/perience or gro*ps of s*ch# the direct# e/trasensory ca*sal relation

.et-een a roc3 and a h*man psyche is not different in 3ind from that .et-een t-oh*man psyches, $n each case# feelings originally e/perienced .y the o.;ect -hen it -as

still a s*.;ect 7or# in the case of the roc3# a cl*ster of s*.;ects8 are then felt .y theprehending psyche, $t is telepathy# or feeling at a distance# in .oth cases, &he difference



is that# in the case of clairvoyance# one receives information a.o*t the o*ter 7generally

called the physical8 characteristics of things 7*s*ally aggregates8# information that mayres*lt in the constr*ction of sensory0li3e images, $n telepathy# .y contrast# one receives

information a.o*t the inner e/perience of an individ*al,

Clairvoyance is th*s analogo*s to o*r direct prehensions of o*r .rain insofar as sensoryimages may arise from them ho# these sensory images arise from the data is no more

and no less mysterio*s in the one case than in the other, Ro.ert &ho*less 71928 -as

th*s right to say that the relation .et-een a remote o.;ect and the mind is the same asthe relation .et-een the .rain and the mind# e/cept that the former percept*al relationocc*rs over a distance, Contrary to his position# ho-ever# the relation .et-een the

.rain and the mind sho*ldnot .e called a psi relation precisely .eca*se the element ofinfl*ence at a distance is not involved,

Psychometry# or o.;ect reading# is another form of receptive psi, $n one sense# it maynot involve perception at a distance# .eca*se the person may handle the o.;ect in

*estion, $n another sense# it does# insofar as the o.;ect elicits perceptions of events

remote temporally and perhaps also spatially,

&he pane/perientialist philosophy also ma3es this 3ind of phenomenon moreintelligi.le, $f# for e/ample# the molec*les in a roc3 have e/periences# then it is possi.le

that they co*ld incorporate memories of events that occ*rred in their pro/imity, &hisidea sho*ld not seem o*trageo*s to materialist philosophers# incidentally# in that their

vie- that the mind is really identical -ith the .rain implies that conscio*s memories arepresent in the molec*les of the .rainin fact in the s*.atomic particles# if they are

rigoro*s -ith their red*ctionism, $n any case# the molec*les -o*ld not need to havememories of the events in *estion in their f*ll concreteness .*t only eno*gh memories

to elicit the perception of the events in the psychometrist=s mind,

Yet another form of receptive psi is retrocognition 7-hich# .esides .eing an

independent form of psi# is also involved in psychometry# at least as $ have interpretedit8, $t involves the perception of an event in the remote past that is not .ased *pon a

chain of contig*o*s events connecting the event in *estion and the percipientoccasion, Retroprehension -o*ld .e a .etter term# .eca*se in many# in fact in most#

instances# no conscio*s 3no-ledge -o*ld .e involved, $n any case# if prehension is

al-ays the reverse side of ca*sal infl*ence# as -ith Whitehead $ maintain# thenretroprehension -o*ld mean that the remote past is still e/erting some form of ca*sal

infl*ence *pon the present,

Whitehead=s philosophy again helps *s *nderstand ho- this can .e so, According toWhitehead=s description of creativity# 5the many .ecome one# and are increased .y one6

71929M19@# p, 218, &his is -hat occ*rs in each occasion of e/perience, &he 5many#6 asclarified earlier# are solely in the past contemporary and f*t*re occasions cannot apply

for entrance, &he 5past6 incl*des the entire past# ho-ever# not simply the contig*o*spast, !nce an occasion of e/perience .ecomes an o.;ect# it is an o.;ect forever, $t does

not ;*st e/ist as an o.;ect for a split second and then pass into complete none/istence,&he past is still act*al-hich is nice# .eca*se it gives historians something to tal3

a.o*t, 7$n other -ords# the fact that the past still e/ists in some sense is one of thosenotions that -e all pres*ppose in practice# insofar as -e .elieve that propositions a.o*t

the past are either tr*e or false-hich -o*ld not .e the case if there -ere no o.;ectsto -hich the propositions co*ld either correspond or fail to correspond,8

&he remote past does not e/ist in the same -ay# of co*rse# .eca*se it does not e/ert

the same 3ind of ca*sal infl*ence as the immediate 7contig*o*s8 past, &hat immediatepast e/erts a 3ind of comp*lsive infl*ence *pon *s that the more remote past does not,

ere again the distinction .et-een p*re and hy.rid physical ca*sation is

relevant, Pure physical ca*sation e/ha*sts itself immediately in its effects *pon the7*s*ally contig*o*s8 f*t*re events the event does e/ist as an o.;ect of this sort for



merely a split second, A form of hyrid physical ca*sation# ho-ever# can contin*e to

e/ert infl*ence# al.eit of an e/tremely -ea3 form# forever, &his analysis can e/plain-hy retrocognition can occ*r 7retroprehension is occ*rring all the time8# and also -hy it

is s*ch a rare phenomenon 7retro0prehension is the reception of ca*sal infl*ences that

are too -ea3# apart from e/traordinary circ*mstances# to elicit the 3ind of conscio*sresponse re*ired to have retrocognition8,

!ne more alleged phenomenon that is *s*ally classed as a distinct form of receptive psi

is precognition, As $ indicated earlier# ho-ever# there is no possi.ility of tr*eprecognition from a Whiteheadian perspective: &here is no possi.ility of retroca*sationand therefore preprehension nor is time *ltimately *nreal# so that all events

conventionally disting*ished as past# present# and f*t*re-o*ld e/ist eternally, &hetypes of e/periences often classified as precognition m*st# accordingly# .e at most

called apparent precognition and m*st .e e/plained in other -ays, $ s*spect that theseother -ays involve a com.ination of prehensive and e/pressive psi, <efore dealing -ith

apparent precognition# then# $ m*st treat e/pressive psi,

Expressive Psi

“Psycho3inesis6 7PE8 is very *nsatisfactory as a synonym for the vario*s forms of

e/pressive psi, $t most immediately s*ggests ca*sing locomotion in some remoteo.;ect# as in moving a matchstic3 on a ta.le# .y the po-er of tho*ght, $n most forms of

e/pressive psi# s*ch as materialiFation# psychic photography# and psychic healing#

ho-ever# locomotion is not the central res*lt, $n some forms of e/pressive psi# s*ch astho*ght0transference 7-hich is distinct from telepathy insofar as the reason for the

*n*s*al nat*re of the event lies more in the agent than in the recipient8# locomotionmay not .e a direct effect at all, %evertheless# $ -ill sometimes *se 5psycho3inesis6 as

a synonym for e/pressive psi# mainly .eca*se the ad;ectival and adver.ial forms of the

-ord are *sef*l,

4or most p*rposes# e/pressive psi can .e *nderstood as efficient ca*sation e/erted .y a

psyche on entities .eyond its o-n .ody that is not mediated thro*gh that .ody,o-ever# the psyche co*ld also e/ert e/pressive psi on its o-n .ody, Phenomena s*ch

as stigmata and ectoplasm might .e e/amples, &hey -o*ld .e e/pressive psi if they-ere cases of action at a distance# -hich means that the psyche=s effects -o*ld not .e

mediated thro*gh a chain of contig*o*s ca*sation# .eginning -ith the .rain, Also# for aperson to ca*se his or her o-n .ody to levitate -o*ld apparently involve direct action

of the mind on the vario*s components of the .ody,

Part of the -ay in -hich Whitehead=s philosophy allo-s for the reality of e/pressive psi

has already .een e/plained, $f every occasion of e/perience prod*ces# to at least some

slight degree# direct effects *pon every remote as -ell as every contig*o*s event in itsf*t*re 7-hich is simply the reverse side of every event=s directly prehending every

occasion of e/perience in its remote as -ell as its contig*o*s past8# then the psyche in

an animal -ith a central nervo*s system is at all times prod*cing direct effects *pon itse/trasomatic environment as -ell as indirect effects via the .rain, !f co*rse# insofar as

this direct infl*ence is pervasive# steady# and e/tremely -ea3# it -o*ld pro.a.ly not .eh*manly detecta.le .y even the most s*.tle proced*res# especially if its intensity is not

increased .y spatial pro/imity,

Detecta.le e/pressive psi evidently res*lts from intentional acts on the part of a psyche#

-hether those acts .e conscio*sly intended# as in psychic healing 7or in;*ry8#intentional tho*ght0transference# and la.oratory PE e/periments# or more

*nconscio*sly intended# as in the 5side0effects6 of PE e/periments and in the effectsprod*ced .y 5poltergeist children,6 &he *estion is ho- to *nderstand ho- intentions#

-hether conscio*s or *nconscio*s# can res*lt in the more intense degrees of ca*salinfl*ence at a distance, o- is it that the capacity to prod*ce e/trasomatic effects that



go .eyond the 3ind of pervasive infl*ence e/erted 7.y hypothesis8 on all events is

possessed .y the psycheN

A related *estion is -hy the h*man psyche# evidently# can have so m*ch more of thispsycho3inetic po-er than can the psyches of other animals, &here is e/perimental

evidence# to .e s*re# that other animals do have psycho3inetic po-ers, $ndeed# anond*alistic# evol*tionary philosophy -o*ld lead one to e/pect that the h*man psyche

-o*ld not in any of its po-ers .e a.sol*tely discontin*o*s -ith the rest of nat*re, &he

po-er to e/ert e/pressive psi seems# nevertheless# to .e far greater in h*man psychesthan in the psyches of any other animals, &he a.ility to materialiFe or teleport things# tomove heavy o.;ects# and to .ring a.o*t the vario*s .iFarre phenomena often associated

-ith 5poltergeist6 cases seems to .e limited to h*man psyches, Why sho*ld the h*manpsyche .e so distinctive in this respectN

&he first step in *nderstanding the *ni*e capacity of the h*man psyche in this respecthas .een provided .y the previo*s disc*ssion of compo*nd individ*als, &he relevant

points -ere that the evol*tionary process has prod*ced increasingly higher forms of

occasions of e/perience# and that the higher forms have more po-er than the lo-erones 7rather than less or no po-er# as late modern tho*ght has ass*med8,

&o give an estimation of ho- m*ch more po-er# let *s ass*me that the ca*sal

interaction .et-een the .rain and the psyche is a fair e/change# -ith each side e/ertinga.o*t the same amo*nt of po-er on the other 7-hich -o*ld seem to .e tr*e if there is a

5la- of the conservation of creativity68, %o-# the psyche in each moment consists of asingle occasion of e/perience 7this might .e tr*e even in cases of m*ltiple personality8#

-hereas the .rain consists of at least ten .illion cells, $t -o*ld seem to follo-# then#that the dominant occasion of e/perience -o*ld .e at least ten .illion times as po-erf*l

as a single .rain cell, &he .rain cell is in t*rn comprised of .illions of molec*les# -hich-o*ld seem to imply that the living occasions of e/perience in the cell are .illions of

times more po-erf*l than a molec*lar occasion 7ass*ming the interaction .et-een theliving and the molec*lar occasions to .e a fair e/change8, &he molec*les are in t*rn

comprised of many s*.atomic particles, &he h*man psyche -o*ld therefore .e .illionsof .illions times stronger than any s*.atomic particle,

We can see here the radical distinction .et-een this vie- and that of the red*ctionism

of modern materialism, S*.atomic particles do indeed possess impressive forms ofpo-er# as made o.vio*s .y n*clear e/plosions, $t m*st .e remem.ered# ho-ever# that

the po-er e/erted in these e/plosions is not the po-er of a single s*.atomic particle#

.*t of .illions of .illions of them, Also# their effects are so noticea.le .eca*se o*ratmosphere# .*ildings# and .odies are comprised of the same 3inds of entities and are

there.y radically affected .y a n*clear chain reaction, We sho*ld not .e misled#therefore# .y the impressive nat*re of s*ch effects into s*pposing that s*.atomic

particles have more po-er than the h*man psyche, !ther-ise -e -ill .e *na.le toacco*nt for the dominance -ithin the .ody that is indeed e/ercised .y the dominant

occasions# and for other facts a.o*t the -orld# s*ch as that the face of the earth has.een changed more radically .y h*man .eings in an e/tremely .rief period of time than

it has .y any other species over aeons,

&he other salient point of the previo*s disc*ssion to apply to the present iss*e is the

distinction .et-een energy as *nderstood .y contemporary physics and the moregeneral notion of creativity, Creativity can .e informed .y many different sets of eternal

o.;ects, &he feat*res descri.ed .y physicists as mass# charge# spin# and so on constit*teonly a fe- of many possi.le sets of eternal o.;ects that can inform creativity, &he fact

that the living occasions of a cell and the dominant occasions of an animal do not havetheir creativity informed .y those eternal o.;ects does not mean that they have no or

even less creative po-er# meaning the po-ers of receptivity# self0determination# and

efficient ca*sation, All the evidence# red*ctionistic .linders aside# s*ggests that theliving cells have more po-er than their constit*ents and that the dominant occasions in



the animal have still more, &his is the hypothesis implied .y Whitehead=s philosophy,

&he prior t-o paragraphs have provided e/planations as to -hy the psyche of animals

sho*ld have more po-er to e/ert on other things# .oth contig*o*s and at a distance#than do lo-er act*alities, &he reason -hy the psyches of the higher animals sho*ld

have more of this po-er than the lo-er is not hard to *nderstand, <*t -hy sho*ld there.e s*ch a difference .et-een the h*man psyche and that of other primates -hen

genetically -e are so similarN &o give a possi.le ans-er to this *estion# -e sho*ld as3

-hat constit*tes the main difference .et-een h*mans and other primates,

Iohn Co.. 7198# a Whiteheadian thin3er# has s*ggested that the threshold dividingh*mans from other animals -as crossed -hen 5the s*rpl*s psychic energy .ecame

s*fficient in *antity to ena.le the psychic life to .ecome its o-n end rather thanprimarily a means to the s*rvival and health of the .ody6 7p, B98, <y 5s*rpl*s psychic

energy6 is meant energy .eyond that needed for the -ell0.eing of the .ody, &hiss*rpl*s energy can .e *sed for the psyche=s a*tonomo*s development# in -hich it

p*rs*es ends that are intrinsically re-arding# independently of conse*ences for the

.ody, &his point a.o*t a*tonomo*s development -ill .e relevant later# -hen disc*ssingthe possi.ility of the psyche=s s*rvival of .odily death, 4or no- the relevant point is that

this great increase in s*rpl*s psychic energy co*ld .e *sed also for e/erting e/pressive

psi,

Given the fact that .oth empirical evidence and Whiteheadian theory s*ggest that the

h*man psyche is in general more po-erf*l than other end*ring individ*als# the ne/t*estion is ho- to *nderstand the nat*re of the po-er that is occasionally manifested

in e/pressive psi, Why is this po-er so seldom *nder the conscio*s control of theperson# at least in great *antitiesN (ost people seem incapa.le of intentionally

prod*cing any noticea.le psycho3inetic effects# at least apart from e/tensive spirit*aldisciplines 7see .elo-8, (ost of the people -ho do seem capa.le of prod*cing PE

effects deli.erately generally prod*ce s*ch -ea3 effects that they are discerni.le onlythro*gh very s*.tle meas*rements andMor statistical analyses, $n most cases of more

conspic*o*s effects# often called macro0PE# the effects seem to .e prod*ced more*nconscio*sly than conscio*sly 7as -ith so0called poltergeist children8, $t is a rare

person -ho can prod*ce macro0effects# s*ch as psychic photography# spoon0.ending# or

even moving a matchstic3 across a ta.letop# thro*gh conscio*s effort and even -iths*ch persons the po-er generally comes and goes, !nly in a fe- rare so*ls does it seemto .e a po-er that is *nder conscio*s control reg*larly over a long period of time,

&hese facts s*ggest the d*al hypothesis that the po-er to e/ert e/pressive psi is avaria.le po-er# so that some people have more of it than others# and also that it is a

po-er that# at least for the most part# resides in a portion of the psyche on -hich theconscio*s portion of the psyche cannot directly dra-,

&his latter point is some-hat intelligi.le in terms of the earlier disc*ssion ofconscio*sness, Conscio*sness arises# if at all# only in a late integrative phase of an

occasion of e/perience, (ost of the creative po-er of the occasion of e/perience -o*ldthere.y occ*r .elo- the threshold of conscio*sness, &he direct effects that conscio*s

intentions can have *pon the -orld are therefore *ite -ea3# e/cept for those effectsthat are mediated thro*gh those channels that have .een fine0t*ned over .illions of

years of evol*tion to respond to the s*.tlest changes in conscio*sness, $ mean# ofco*rse# the .ody=s motor system, Also# -e are no- learning that other systems# s*ch as

the imm*ne system# are more responsive to conscio*sness than -e had previo*slytho*ght# .*t even here the most decisive effects seem to .e# analogo*s to psi effects#

prod*ced .y *nconscio*s feelings, &here seems to .e more po-er in the depths of thepsyche than at its s*rface,

&his fact fits -ith a f*rther aspect of Co..=s s*ggestion: &he m*ch greater s*pply of5s*rpl*s psychic energy#6 -hich disting*ishes h*mans from the rest of the animals#



e/ists primarily in -hat -e call the *nconscio*s portion of the psyche, Co..=s

s*ggestion# infl*enced .y the I*ngian historian of conscio*sness 'rich %e*mann# differsin this respect from most evol*tionary acco*nts of the rise of h*man e/istence, <oth

acco*nts ma3e the rise of sym.olism central, &he standard acco*nts# ho-ever# foc*s on

the practical advantages for s*rvival given .y the development of sym.olic lang*age,Co.. 7198 says# .y contrast# that it -as not practical advantages that constit*ted

h*manity=s tr*e distinctiveness# 5.*t rather the greatly increased *nconscio*s psychic

activity organiFing the -hole of e/perience for its o-n sa3e6 7p, B98, &his *nconscio*spsychic activity of sym.oliFation did# to .e s*re# res*lt in 5a ne- and incompara.lyricher mode of conscio*sness6 7p, 18, &he great increase in s*rpl*s psychic po-er

occ*rred# ho-ever# primarily in the *nconscio*s# and has contin*ed to reside there evenafter giving rise to the ne- mode of conscio*sness, (ost of the s*rpl*s energy of the

psyche to this day is *nconscio*s energy# employed for sym.oliFing activity that islargely a*tonomo*s from the sym.oliFing activity of the conscio*s portion of the

psyche, &his hypothesis -o*ld e/plain -hy the po-er to e/ert e/pressive psi# andespecially to e/ercise strong amo*nts of it# -o*ld .e .eyond the conscio*s control of

most people,

$f this is so# ho- is it possi.le that occasionallyeither no- and then in a partic*lar

person or on a some-hat reg*lar .asis in an occasional personconscio*s effort is a.leto prod*ce rather large0scale e/pressive psi effectsN A possi.le e/planation is that the

conscio*s mentality of one occasion of e/perience# altho*gh *ite -ea3 in itself# can

sometimes activate the *nconscio*s portion of the s*cceeding occasion of e/perience#ind*cing it to e/ert its generally *nmanifest po-er to .ring a.o*t e/traordinary

e/trasomatic effects, o- e/actly this occ*rs# if it does# is a mystery# and perhaps -ill

al-ays remain s*ch .*t then ho- e/actly the psyche ind*ces the appropriate part ofthe .rain to move into action to raise an arm is also a mystery# and perhaps -ill al-ays

remain s*ch, $n any case# in this -ay -e can e/plain ho- conscio*s -illing# -hilenormally *ite -ea3# can occasionally prod*ce conspic*o*s PE effects, &hese

e/ceptional events -o*ld depend *pon a special att*nement .et-een the conscio*s and*nconscio*s portions of the psyche,

&his s*ggestion fits -ell -ith the fact that people -ith some capacity to prod*cee/pressive psi effects thro*gh conscio*s intention generally have a correlative capacity

for .ecoming conscio*s of receptive psi infl*ences, 'ach side of this d*al capacity -o*lddepend *pon a greater0than0average att*nement .et-een the conscio*s and

*nconscio*s levels of e/perience, &his idea coheres -ith the fact that .oth types of psieffects# called in $ndian tho*ght the 5siddhis#6 are often side0effects of spirit*al

disciplines that serve 7-hether or not their p*rpose is th*s descri.ed8 to .ring one=sconscio*s e/perience into harmony -ith one=s *nconscio*s e/perience, ere the effects

are not intentionally prod*ced in one sense# of co*rse# insofar as the person does notconscio*sly intend to prod*ce those effects .*t they are the prod*cts of conscio*s

intention in another sense# insofar as it is the spirit*al discipline# conscio*sly e/erted#that res*lts in the greater att*nement -ith the *nconscio*s and there.y in the

*nintended effects, 7At a still higher stage of spirit*al development# these psi effects# at

least as conscio*sly *nintended# *ncontrolla.le side0effects# generally disappear,8

Another *estion a.o*t e/pressive psi involves -hat is tho*ght to .e going on in thething on -hich it is e/erted, (any treatments have ass*med that the ca*sal relation is

not *nli3e that of p*shing a roc3 -ith one=s hand, &his analogy can lead to thee/pectation that PE e/periments sho*ld .e *ite repeata.le, &his ass*med analogy has

also created a *estion of -hether certain types of psi effects sho*ld .e classified as PEor not, 4or e/ample# Iohn <eloff 7198 has responded negatively to the idea that

plants co*ld have telepathic feelings .eca*se# as a d*alist# he does not .elieve thatplants or their cells are sentient 7pp, B0B8, $f plants sho- signs of responding at a

distance to infl*ences from h*mans or other animals# then the psi effects m*st .eclassified as PE on the part of the animal psyches# he insists# not as 'SP on the part of



the plants,

4rom the nond*alistic perspective of pane/perientialism# ho-ever# no s*ch antithesis

e/ists, All act*al things are either s*.;ects or cl*sters of s*.;ects, A plant is a society ofcells# each of -hich prehends its contig*o*s and more remote environments directly a

roc3 is a society of molec*les# each of -hich is a prehender, &he psi infl*ence of ah*man psyche *pon a plant or a roc3 can# therefore# .e called either an instance of

e/pressive psi# if considered from the standpoint of the h*man .eing# or an instance of

receptive psi# if considered from the standpoint of the individ*als constit*ting the roc3or the plant,

$n some cases# to .e s*re# it is more meaningf*l to spea3 of the ca*sal0prehensive

relation in one -ay than in the other# if -e have reason to .elieve that either the agentor the recipient is more responsi.le for the e/traordinary effects, $n some cases of psi

relations .et-een t-o h*man .eings# for e/ample# the first may deli.erately see3 totransmit a tho*ght to the second at a time -hen the second has no conscio*s

3no-ledge of the attempt, $f the attempt is s*ccessf*l# -e -o*ld spea3 more of

tho*ght0transference than of telepathic reception, $f the second# ho-ever# see3s to5read the mind6 of the first at a time -hen the first is ma3ing no attempt to transmit

tho*ghts to the second# then -e -o*ld spea3 more of telepathic reception than of

tho*ght0transference, "i3e-ise# if a roc3 is moved thro*gh a psi relation# -e -o*ld

spea3 of e/pressive psi 7-hether conscio*s or *nconscio*s8 rather than telepathy#insofar as -e do not s*ppose that the roc3 molec*les did anything *n*s*al to initiatethe special psi relation, We -o*ld# li3e-ise# assign most of the responsi.ility in a

h*man0plant psi relation to the h*man .eing, %evertheless# it -o*ld not .e a.s*rd tospea3 of a telepathic response of the plants to the moods of their careta3er,

(*ch more important than the *estion of ho- to classify vario*s am.ig*o*s instancesof psi# ho-ever# is the implication of thin3ing of all psi relations as relational# rather

than *nilateral# prod*cts, A psi occ*rrence is relational .et-een t-o individ*als orcl*sters of individ*als# in -hich each of the individ*als e/ercises some modic*m of self0

determination, '/traordinary psi occ*rrences# s*ch as conscio*s 'SP or conspic*o*s PE#depend *pon .oth the 5agent6 and the 5percipient,6 &he sit*ation is even m*ch more

comple/# insofar as .oth the 5agent6 and the 5percipient6 are not self0enclosed

s*.stances .*t are constit*ted o*t of their total environments, $ -ill come to thiscomplication later for no- it is eno*gh to consider the implications of the fact that thepsi relation depends *pon partially self0determining entities on .oth sides of the

relation,

Parapsychologists have .een a-are of this m*t*ality -ith regard to telepathy# and

some-hat so -ith regard to clairvoyancehaving learned# for e/ample# that cards -ithimages that are emotionally laden for the s*.;ect are more li3ely to elicit a correct

response, &hey have seemingly .een less a-are of this m*t*ality -ith regard to PE#pro.a.ly .eca*se of the d*alistic ass*mption that act*alities .elo- a certain level are

lac3ing all capacity for e/perience and self0determination, $f this d*alism is replaced .ya pane/perientialist philosophy# efforts to prod*ce PE effects in plants# .acteria# or

even in matchstic3s -ill .e *nderstood as attempts less at coercion than at pers*asion,

7$ am here *sing 5pers*asion6 for any efficient ca*sation in -hich the entity *pon-hich the ca*sation is e/erted can and m*st ma3e a partially self0determiningresponse, 5Coercion#6 in the metaphysical sense *sed here# refers to ca*sation -here

this is not the case, &he a.sol*te difference .et-een coercion and pers*asion -hen theterms are *sed in this metaphysical sense is different from the mere difference in

degree .et-een the terms -hen they are *sed in the more common# psychologicalsense, 4or ela.oration# see Griffin# 1991,8 &he effort to move a matchstic3 on a ta.le

-itho*t physical means -o*ld .e less li3e moving it -ith one=s hand than li3e trying toraise the temperat*re in one=s hand or to heal one=s *lcers .y psychological processes,

&his vie- -o*ld e/plain -hy it often ta3es some time to prod*ce PE effects: A



5sympathetic6 relation m*st .e esta.lished .et-een the agent and the recipient, What

is .eing transmitted from the agent is less a physical force than a s*ggestion# to -hichthe prehending s*.;ects constit*ting the o.;ect in *estion may or may not respond in a

detecta.le manner, &hey may or may not .e pers*aded, '/pressive psi# th*s

interpreted# -o*ld .e the res*lt of hy.rid physical ca*sation on the part of the agent#and of hy.rid physical prehensions on the part of the recipients 7for e/ample# the

molec*les in a matchstic38,

(any varia.les -o*ld .e involved in determining s*ccess, &he first *estion is -hetherthe hy.rid physical prehensions are positive or negativethat is# -hether the ca*salinfl*ences coming from the agent are positively felt and therefore incorporated# or

-hether they are e/cl*ded from feeling, $t might ta3e some time to overcome thiso.stacle, $f it is overcome# the ne/t *estion is -hether the s*.;ects respond favora.ly

to the s*ggestion-hether their appetites are -hetted for this ne- possi.ility, &hatmight ta3e more time, $f that occ*rs# the ne/t *estion is -hether this appetition or

mentality# -hich occ*rs in a series of molec*lar occasions of e/perience# .ecomesincorporated into the physical pole of some s*.se*ent occasion -ithin that same

molec*le, Yet another *estion is -hether a ma;ority of the molec*les in the matchstic3respond in these -ays, !nly if all of this occ*rs -ill the matchstic3 move,

$f 5s*ccess6 in this sense depends on this type of process# in -hich self0determination

.ased *pon sympathy and appetition are involved# it is *nderstanda.le -hy one personmight .e s*ccessf*l and a tho*sand others not, $t is even *nderstanda.le that the sameperson might .e s*ccessf*l only sometimes, Altho*gh -e spea3 of the 5same person6

thro*gh time# the end*ring person is some-hat a.stract: &he concrete ca*sal agentsare the momentary occasions of e/perience# and each of them differs at least slightly#

and they may differ radicallyin intensity of e/perience# in emotional tone# in p*rpose#and in the content of tho*ghts and feelings# .oth conscio*s and *nconscio*s# ma3ing *p

the e/perience, Any of inn*mera.le varia.les co*ld ma3e a decisive difference,

&his type of e/planation# ho-ever# seems to fit only some of the reported instances of

e/pressive psi, !ther instances seem to re*ire another e/planation, $n these# theeffects are dramatic and virt*ally instantaneo*s, &hings .end or .rea3# -eighing scales

drop as if a +0po*nd -eight had .een p*t on them# o.;ects fly thro*gh the air#

telephones ring# lights go off and on# and so on, $n s*ch instances# the lang*age of5pers*asion6 seems less appropriate, &he effects seem to indicate the e/ertion of -hat-e ordinarily call 5physical force,6 $n Whiteheadian terms# -e seem to have p*re# not

simply hy.rid# physical ca*sation, &his .rings *s .ac3 to the *estion of -hether p*rephysical ca*sation at a distance is possi.le,

Whitehead himself did not r*le o*t the possi.ility, e said:

provided that physical science maintains its denial of 5action at a distance#6 the safer

g*ess is that >p*re physical prehension? is practically negligi.le e/cept for contig*o*soccasions .*t that this practical negligi.ility is a characteristic of the present cosmic

epoch# -itho*t any metaphysical generality, 71929M19@# p, B+@8

Accordingly# he did not assert that# if p*re physical prehension and hence p*re physical

ca*sation occ*rs only .et-een contig*o*s occasions# this feat*re of o*r -orld -o*ld .ea metaphysical feat*re of reality# .*t s*ggested that it -o*ld .e a contingent

characteristic of o*r cosmic epoch 7-hich -e no- .elieve to have .eg*n 1202+ .illionyears ago8, Also# if it is s*ch a characteristic# this -o*ld not mean that p*re physical

ca*sation at a distance -o*ld .e strictly impossi.le# .*t that it -o*ld .e 5practically

negligi.le,6 4inally# he did not even assert -ith any confidence that it is a generalcharacteristic of o*r cosmic epoch# .*t only that this is 5the safer g*ess6if physical

science finds no e/amples of action at a distance,

Whitehead did not comment here on -hether in his o-n vie- gravitation constit*teds*ch an e/ample 7he 3ne- f*ll -ell 'instein=s alternative interpretation in terms of



c*rved space# having -ritten a contrary interpretation see Whitehead# 19228, Also#

altho*gh he did mention telepathy as an e/ample of hyrid physical action at adistance# he did not mention psycho3inesis# and th*s did not reflect *pon -hether it

-o*ld imply pure physical action at a distance, 7Whitehead pro.a.ly learned -hat he

3ne- a.o*t psychical research in t*rn0of0the0cent*ry Cam.ridge# 'ngland# and *iteli3ely shared the then dominant vie- there that altho*gh telepathy is credi.le#

psycho3inesis is not,8

$n any case# even tho*gh Whitehead intended his theory to .e ade*ate to 'SP .*t notnecessarily to PE# his theory does allo- for it# even if PE .e tho*ght to re*ire p*rephysical ca*sation# hence the transmission of -hat in the h*man psyche is analogo*s to

physical energy in a s*.atomic particle# at a distance, &o assert that this does occ*r-o*ld not .e to affirm a metaphysical impossi.ility# or even an e/ception to a

cosmological la-# .*t only an e/ception to a very -idespread ha.it, $f this ca*salinfl*ence is e/erted# at least .y an e/ceptionally po-erf*l psyche# then the res*lting PE

event -o*ld .e .ro*ght a.o*t almost *nilaterally .y the agent# -ith very littlecooperation re*ired on the part of the recipient of the ca*sal infl*ence,

$ no- loo3 .riefly at a fe- types of e/pressive psi .eyond the simple forms of PE

already disc*ssed,

Some Types of Expressive Psi

0evitation is a form of psycho3inesis that tends to evo3e either a-e or incred*lity,

<eca*se o*r e/perience of gravitation is so f*ndamental# lev0itation seems mirac*lo*s,

$f -e accept the idea of compo*nd individ*als# ho-ever# the possi.ility of levitationneed not seem so remote, $f the atom as a -hole is a compo*nd individ*al# then it has

po-er to infl*ence its s*.atomic parts 7in -hich all the gravitational mass is

em.odied8, &he force of gravitational attraction is e/tremely -ea3# .eing 1+B times

-ea3er than the electromagnetic force, 'ach atom in a .ody -o*ld# accordingly# have toe/ert only a minisc*le co*nter0force *pon its s*.atomic parts in order to ne*traliFe the

force of gravity and allo- the .ody to levitate, &he levitation of# say# a .all co*ld

accordingly .e ca*sed psycho3inetically if a h*man psyche co*ld ind*ce the appropriateeffect in the atoms ma3ing *p the .all, !ne form of action at a distance -o*ld there.yovercome another 7if gravitation is to .e th*s interpreted8,

Another type of reported psi phenomenon that seems a priori impossi.le to mostmodern minds ismateriali+ation and demateriali+ation# in -hich a psyche ca*ses a

material o.;ect# s*ch as a lamp# to spring either into or o*t of e/istence, Teleportation#in -hich an o.;ect disappears from one place and appears at another place# can .e

regarded as an e/ample of .oth dematerialiFation and materialiFation, &hisphenomenon of dematerialiFation and materialiFation has .een regarded as very

*nli3ely .eca*se it has seemed to .ear no analogy to any other processes, &ho*less and

Wiesner 7198 even gave it its o-n name# psi epsilon# .eca*se it seemed s*fficientlydifferent from ordinary psycho3inesis# -hich they called psi kappa,

Whitehead=s philosophy can decrease the anomalo*s nat*re of this phenomenon

some-hat, According to this philosophy# an end*ring o.;ect# s*ch as an atom# is really aseries of occasions of e/perience, !ne occasion 5perishes#6 in the sense that it loses its

s*.;ectivity and hence its character of presentness#2+ and is replaced .y a ne-occasion# -hich repeats the same set of forms, &he atom is# accordingly# popping in and

o*t of e/istence all the time, $t .ecomes less thin3a.le# therefore# that it might pop o*tof e/istence at one place and pop .ac3 in at another place,

&his is -hat in fact occ*rs 7.y hypothesis8 on a smaller scale in ordinary locomotion, Anoccasion of e/perience does not move from one spatiotemporal standpoint to another#



.*t simply occ*rs -hen and -here it .egins, &he concept of locomotion does not apply

to an act*al occasion .*t only to an end*ring individ*al, &he locomotion of the atominvolves the differences among the spatiotemporal standpoints of its s*ccessive

occasions relative to the standpoints of the s*ccessive occasions of other end*ring

individ*als 7Whitehead# 1929M19@# pp, B# @+8, Accordingly# an atom does sometimespop o*t of e/istence at one place and pop .ac3 in at another, What happens is that the

pattern of forms em.odied in the one occasion is transmitted to the ne/t occasion#

-hich occ*rs at a more0or0less different location, &he difference .et-een thiscommonplace occ*rrence and -hat is *s*ally meant .y teleportation# ordematerialiFation and re0materialiFation# is only a difference in degree, !nce it is

granted that the h*man psyche e/ercises action at a distance on atoms# and that the-ay it does this is .y getting one atomic occasion to e/ert a type of efficient ca*sation

*pon a s*ccessive occasion that it -o*ld not have other-ise e/erted# -e cannote/cl*de the possi.ility that it can ind*ce a set of atomic occasions 7constit*ting# say#

the lamp0at0the0moment8 to get their s*ccessors to occ*r at a different place than theyother-ise -o*ld have,

&he notion of materialiFation not .ased *pon a prior dematerialiFation is more diffic*lt.eca*se it seems to involve the creation of something o*t of nothing# .*t even here

Whitehead=s scheme can .e helpf*l, 4or Whitehead# as e/plained earlier# the -orld is aplen*m of act*al occasions, &he difference .et-een -hat -e call 5empty6 and 5filled6

space is that in the latter the act*al occasions incarnate partic*lar sorts of eternal

o.;ects# s*ch as those -e call mass and charge# -hich they pass along from occasion tooccasion so as to form end*ring individ*als, &he origin of o*r *niverse -o*ld have

involved not the creation of finite things# s*ch as electrons# o*t of a total a.sence of

finite act*alities# .*t getting certain eternal forms incarnated in series of act*aloccasions,

Whitehead=s s*ggestion is that God# -ho -or3s solely .y pers*asion# did this .yenvisaging the desired sets of forms -ith appetition-ith the appetite that they

.ecome incarnate in finite act*al occasions, A set of finite occasions# feeling the divineaim -ith conformity# incarnates these forms# first in their mental poles# as appetitions#

and then# .y means of hy.rid physical prehensions# in the physical poles of lateroccasions, $n this fashion photons# electrons# protons# ne*trons# ne*trinos# mesons# and

so on co*ld have .een formed as a first step in cosmic evol*tion, $n later stages of theevol*tionary process# more comple/ forms -ere incarnated# so that molec*les#

macromolec*les# procaryotic cells# e*caryotic cells# and then still more comple/individ*als -ere formed, 'ach stage involved a ne- level of materialiFation# in -hich

forms not previo*sly realiFed in the -orld .ecame incarnate# creating a ne- species ofact*al e/istence, 'ach ne- incarnation involves a response to the psyche of the

*niverse# -hich# as the 5eros of the *niverse#6 l*res creat*res to em.ody novel forms,

&he psyches of h*man .eings and other animals are analogo*s to the divine psyche in

.eing em.odiments of creative po-er, *man .eings em.ody more creative po-er thanother animals# and are especially analogo*s to the divine psyche in having the capacity

to imagine novel possi.ilities and to prehend them -ith strong appetition,

<eca*se they have this trait# and also .eca*se they 7*nli3e the divine psyche8are locali+ed centers of creative po-er# an especially po-erf*l h*man psyche might# .yevo3ing a sympathetic response to its appetition# .e a.le to ind*ce the incarnation of

desired forms in a partic*lar spatiotemporal region *ite a.r*ptly, Something -o*ld not.e created o*t of nothing rather# forms that -ere not previo*sly incarnate in a region

-o*ld s*ddenly .egin characteriFing a set of occasions there, &his might -ell involve aprior dematerialiFation from another region# filled perhaps -ith molec*les of o/ygen#

car.on dio/ide# and other atmospheric gases# so that energy -as only transferred# notcreated,

Psychic photography# -hich has received considera.le attention in recent years# than3s



primarily to I*le 'isen.*d 7198# is some-hat of a .ridge .et-een simple forms of PE#

in -hich locomotion is ca*sed# and f*ll0.lo-n materialiFations, <*t it is a form ofmaterialiFation# insofar as a psyche ind*ces a piece of film to incarnate a comple/ set of

forms,

(aterialiFation# incidentally# is more interesting than the simpler forms of e/pressivepsi that the term 5psycho3inesis6 s*ggests# .eca*se it more clearly sho-s the po-er of

the psyche to ind*ce a pattern# not simply locomotion,

!pparent Precognition

aving disc*ssed .oth receptive and e/pressive psi# $ t*rn no- to one form of p*tativepsi interaction that cannot .e incorporated -ithin a Whiteheadian conte/t# namely# tr*e

precognition, $t cannot .e incorporated for a variety of overlapping reasons,

4irst# an occasion of e/perience cannot perceive an event in its f*t*re .eca*se that

event does not yet e/ist and therefore cannot e/ert ca*sal infl*ence *pon the presentpercipient,

Second# the impossi.ility of .ac3-ard ca*sation aside# the present e/perience cannotinfalli.ly 53no-6 e/actly -hat is going to happen in a fe- years# -ee3s# days# ho*rs# or

even min*tes: What is going to happen is not yet f*lly determined# .eca*se of the self0determination that -ill .e involved in the event and in a -hole series of intervening

events, Propositions a.o*t f*t*re contingencies are not yet either tr*e or false 7e/ceptinsofar as certain a.stract feat*res of the f*t*re events may already .e settled8 their

tr*th0stat*s is still indeterminate,

&hird# Whitehead removes the .asis for saying that time is *nreal for the o.;ectsst*died .y physics and# therefore# *ltimately *nreal, A s*.atomic particle s*ch as an

electron is a series of act*al occasions# each of -hich incorporates its predecessors into

itself, An electron# accordingly# cannot 5go .ac3-ard in time#6 .eca*se the temporalprocess is cumulative, &ime=s arro- is not a contingent feat*re of o*r -orld# d*e

perhaps to the direction of entropy, $t is as real for an individ*al electron as it is for *s-ith o*r asymmetrical relation to the past and the f*t*re, We rememer the past# .*t

only anticipate the f*t*re# and therefore -e prehend the past in a -ay that -e do notprehend the f*t*re, &he same is tr*e# at a m*ch more elementary level of co*rse# for an

electron 7Griffin# 19@8,

4o*rth# there is# f*rthermore# no perspective from -hich all of history is laid o*t to .e

vie-ed in one glance, God may .e said to .e omniscient# .*t omniscience does notincl*de 3no-ledge of the f*t*re: omniscience is the capacity to 3no- everything that is

3no-a.le# and the f*t*re does not yet e/ist to .e 3no-n, A mystical prehension of thedivine mind .y a h*man mind -o*ld not# accordingly# provide a .asis for prophecy in

the sense of precognition ta3en literally,

o-# then# if gen*ine precognition cannot 7.y hypothesis8 occ*r# can instances ofapparent precognition .e e/plainedN &here are at least thirteen -ays# any one of -hich

might .e the correct e/planation for a given event, Sometimes it seems to .e s*pposed

that all instances of apparent precognition have to .e e/plained 7a-ay8 .y some onealternate e/planation# so that if this e/planation -ill handle only some of the cases#

then gen*ine precognition m*st .e pres*med in the remaining cases,21 The "uestion$

ho#ever$ is not #hether some one alternative$ such as expressive psi$ can explain allthe instances$ ut only #hether explanations employing exclusively for#ard causation$

and therefore exclusively ack#ard prehension$ can handle all the cases1 $f several s*chpossi.le e/planations e/ist# then one of them may seem the most pro.a.le in one case#

another in a second case# and still another in a third case, $nsofar as one or the other of

the e/planations seems pla*si.le for each of the -ell0attested cases of apparentprecognition# the resort to tr*e precognition# -ith its e/tremely pro.lematic



implications# is o.viated,

$n the list of alternate e/planations to .e given# some of themthe first fo*rare not

paranormal, <*t $ do not .elieve that all -ell0attested instances of apparentprecognition can .e handled thro*gh 5normal6 e/planations, Also# some of the alternate

paranormal e/planations do not seem very pla*si.le to me# .*t $ mention them .eca*sethey seem at least possi.le# -hereas .ac3-ard ca*sation does not, $f it came do-n to

this -ith regard to some case# $ -o*ld choose one of these 7to me8 -ildly impla*si.le

e/planations rather than agree that .ac3-ard ca*sation might have occ*rred,22 ere#then# is a list of at least some of the possi.le e/planations for apparent precognition:

1, &oincidence, Altho*gh it -o*ld strain statistics# and therefore cred*lity# to s*ggest

that all instances co*ld .e e/plained a-ay as mere coincidences# meaning that there-as no ca*sal e/planation to .e so*ght# it is pro.a.le that some instances sho*ld .e so

categoriFed,

2, Unconscious kno#ledge of one2s o#n state or unconscious intentions leading to

unconscious inference plus dramati+ation, 4or e/ample# one might have a dream ofone=s o-n death# a dream that 5comes tr*e6 in three years, &he dream co*ld have .een

created .y the *nconscio*s 7*sed here as shorthand for the *nconscio*s portion of

e/perience8 on the .asis of *nconscio*s 3no-ledge of# say# the precancero*s state of

one=s .ody or of an *nconscio*s death0-ish that effects its goal,B, Suliminal sensory perception leading to unconscious inference plus dramati+ation,

4or e/ample# a -elder has a dream in -hich a ship on -hich he had -or3ed manymonths ago sin3s# and then it does, &he e/planation co*ld .e that he s*.liminally

noticed a fla- in the h*ll -hile he -as -or3ing on it# then made the *nconscio*sinference that the ship -o*ld develop a lea3 in a fe- months that -o*ld ca*se it to

sin3# and finally prod*ced a dream that .ro*ght this *nconscio*s inference to theattention of his conscio*s e/perience,

, /allucinated fulfillment , 4or e/ample# a -oman has a dream in -hich a man -earinga topcoat and a der.y is feeding a stra-.erry icecream cone to a St, <ernard in a

department store -hen she goes to the department store in a fe- days# she 5sees6 thissame scene# than3s to a hall*cination, S*ch an event -o*ld not# of co*rse# .e on any

list of -ell0attested events# .eca*se even if she had previo*sly told someone a.o*t herdream# no one else -o*ld 7.y hypothesis8 have 5seen6 its f*lfillment, &he event#ho-ever# -o*ld pro.a.ly .e *ite convincing to the -oman herself,

, )ulfillment #ith multiple hallucination, As a first e/ample of e/planations -ith a

verified paranormal element# -e can simply ass*me that the -oman in the previo*scase had told some of her friends a.o*t the dream# that these friends accompanied her

to the department store# and then that she ind*ced the hall*cinated vision in her friendsthro*gh tho*ght0transference,

, &lairvoyance of virtually present conditions plus unconscious inference anddramati+ation, &his e/planation is the same as %*m.er B# e/cept here the *nconscio*s

3no-ledge is ac*ired paranormally, A person co*ld ac*ire thro*gh clairvoyance the3no-ledge that the ship has a str*ct*ral defect that -ill event*ally ca*se the ship to

sin3 if it is not repaired, &he res*lting vision of the ship sin3ing might occ*r severaldays# -ee3s# or even months .efore the ship act*ally sin3s, &he ca*sal infl*ence r*ns

not from the f*t*re to the present# .*t from immediately past 7-hich $ have called thevirt*ally present8 conditions to the present,

, Unconscious telepathic kno#ledge of other human souls$ plus unconscious inferenceand dramati+ation, At least three variations on this possi.ility co*ld occ*r# 7a8

&elepathy co*ld prod*ce *nconscio*s kno#ledge of another=s 3no-ledge, 4or e/ample#a person on shore co*ld pic3 *p telepathically the 3no-ledge# conscio*s or *nconscio*s#

of a cre- mem.er on a ship that the ship has a str*ct*ral pro.lem# and o*t of this



prod*ce a dream of the ship=s sin3ing, !r one co*ld learn telepathically of another

person=s *nconscio*s 3no-ledge of his or her precancero*s condition# 7.8 &elepathyco*ld prod*ce 3no-ledge of the intentionsof other h*man .eings# conscio*s or

*nconscio*s, A -oman co*ld learn telepathically# for e/ample# that her .rother# -ho

-as in a remote# isolated place# had a death -ish sometime .efore he .ecameconscio*sly a-are of this fact and committed s*icide, Accordingly# she might have a

dream of his death and record it in her diary long .efore his death# even .efore the date

at -hich tho*ghts of s*icide .egan to appear in his o-n diary# 7c8 &he telepathy co*ldprod*ce *nconscio*s 3no-ledge of another person=sfeelings, 4or e/ample# s*ch3no-ledge of a man=s strong hatred for another person co*ld lead to an apparently

precognitive dream in -hich the man m*rdered someone,

@, Unconscious telepathic kno#ledge from a discarnate spirit leading to unconscious

inference plus dramati+ation, Again# the 3no-ledge co*ld .e a.o*t facts# or# ass*mingthat discarnate spirits can act psycho3inetically# a.o*t things the spirit intends to do,

&his e/planation -ill seem more fancif*l to those -ho do not .elieve in discarnatespirits or -ho are at least do*.tf*l of their capacity to comm*nicate -ith *s and

other-ise to act in o*r -orld, <e that as it may# this e/planation is not# *nli3e thatemploying the notion of .ac3-ard ca*sation# strictly nonsensical,

9, Unconscious prehensive kno#ledge of the kno#ledge or intentions of a soul of the

planet 3a sentient 4aia5 leading to unconscious inference plus dramati+ation, A caveatsimilar to that added to the previo*s point -o*ld .e in order,

1+, Unconscious prehensive kno#ledge of 4od2s kno#ledge and6or intention plus the

same dynamics, Regarding divine kno#ledge: As already indicated# God does not 7.yhypothesis8 literally 3no- the f*t*re in its concrete details# .eca*se it does not e/ist to

.e 3no-n, <*t certain more0or0less a.stract feat*res of the f*t*re are alreadydetermined 7the more remote the f*t*re in *estion# the more a.stract the details that

are already determined8# and God# .eing omniscient# -o*ld 3no- these, 'ven -ithregard to a.stract feat*res of the f*t*re that are not yet completely settled#

pro.a.ilities e/ist# and God -o*ld 3no- these, &he idea of prophecy a.o*t the f*t*rethat has a high degree of pro.a.ility and that is .ased *pon a direct e/perience of God

is# accordingly# not r*led o*t, With regard to divine intentions: <eca*se the individ*als

ma3ing *p the -orld have their o-n t-ofold po-er of self0determination and efficientca*sation# -hich cannot .e overridden .y God# the fact that God intended something ina certain sit*ation -o*ld not necessarily mean that it -as going to occ*r, %evertheless#

insight into divine intentions might increase the li3elihood that a 5prophetic vision6 ofthe f*t*re -o*ld .e f*lfilled,

11, .irect unconscious kno#ledge of o(ective proailities aout the future plus the same dynamics, According to Whitehead# o.;ective pro.a.ilities a.o*t the f*t*re do

e/ist 71929M19@# p, 2+8# and they can in principle .e directly int*ited, Accordingly#the idea that apparent precognition might in fact .e .ased *pon 3no-ledge

a.o*t present pro.a.ilities can .e *sed -itho*t .ringing telepathic 3no-ledge of God ordiscarnate so*ls into the disc*ssion, $n any case# the e/planation of so0called

precognitive int*itions in terms of pro.a.ilities seems to fit the e/perience of at least

many people -ho reg*larly have s*ch int*itions# .eca*se they have the sense that theanno*nced event -ill happenunless action is ta3en to prevent it, (any 5prophecies6 areiss*ed as #arnings# -hich -o*ld ma3e no sense if the predicted event had 5already

happened6 in a timeless no*menal realm# or -ere going to occ*r no matter -hat I, R,Smythies 7198 is one of many -ho have said that the f*t*re precogniFed might .e

only the most pro.a.le f*t*re-hich -o*ld mean that one is not perceiving f*t*reevents at all# .*t only the tendencies and pro.a.ilities inherent in the present 7or#

strictly spea3ing# the immediate past8,

12, ! discarnate spirit learns the content of a person2s dream telepathically and thenrings aout an event corresponding to it , &he discarnate might .e a misg*ided spirit



-ho .elieves in the reality of tr*e precognition and -ants others to .elieve accordingly

or he or she might simply .e a f*n0loving spirit doing this for 3ic3s, $ mention thispossi.le e/planation .eca*se# fancif*l as it is# to accept it -o*ld re*ire less of an

ad;*stment in the notions -e ordinarily pres*ppose than -o*ld the idea of .ac3-ard

ca*sation,

1B, The experience of having a vision of an event$ #hether in a dream or a #aking

state$ itself rings aout an event corresponding to the vision1 4or e/ample# the

-oman=s dream mentioned in '/ample ca*ses a man -ho often -ears a topcoat and ader.y -hile -al3ing his St, <ernard in the neigh.orhood of a department store# and-hom the -oman has often seen in this area 7altho*gh she does not conscio*sly recall

this fact8# to enter the store# .*y a stra-.erry ice cream cone# and feed it to his St,<ernard, &his e/planation is# of co*rse# the 5active6 or PE theory of apparent

precognition# perhaps first s*ggested .y A, &anagras 7199# 198 as the theory of5psycho.olie#6 then revived .y I*le 'isen.*d 719@2 19@B# pp, 0# @09@# 1B018

and others 7<ra*de# 19@# pp, 202 Roll# 191# pp, 11012@8, &his e/planationseems less impla*si.le to the degree that one 3no-s a.o*t# and synthesiFes# the

follo-ing facts: the po-er of *nconscio*s images and intentions to .ring a.o*te/traordinary PE effects# s*ch as in so0called poltergeist cases the po-er of s*ggestion

*nder hypnosis and in posthypnotic sit*ations to ca*se people to act o*t .iFarrese*ences of .ehavior and the capacity to ind*ce hypnotic states telepathically, !ne

needs to remem.er# f*rthermore# that to invo3e this e/planation for some cases of

apparent precognition does not mean that it m*st .e invo3ed for# and seem pla*si.le in

relation to# all s*ch cases,2B

(y s*ggestion is that most cases of apparent precognition can .e handled in terms of'/planations 2# B# # # # 11# and 1B, &he fe- remaining cases# if any# can .e handled

.y one of the other possi.le e/planations# among -hich is that of mere coincidence, $n

this -ay# -e can accept the evidence for apparent precognition -itho*t .eing forced toallo- for the possi.ility that ca*sation can r*n .ac3-ards# that the f*t*re is -holly

determined .y the past# or 7-hich is finally the same thing8 that time is *ltimately*nreal,

All my e/amples# incidentally# have .een of spontaneo*s cases, With regard to

la.oratory st*dies# $ am happy to appeal to the a*thority of Ro.ert (orris# -ho in as*rvey 5Assessing '/perimental S*pport for &r*e Precognition6 has said that5alternative# on0line interpretations do e/ist for all st*dies that offer evidence for

retroactive infl*ence6 7(orris# 19@2# p, BB8,

'ut-of-7ody Experiences and 0ife after .eath

&he *estion of the reality of life after death -as central to psychical research from the

o*tset and# after a period d*ring -hich 5parapsychology6 largely ignored the iss*e# it

has# sometimes *nder the heading of theta psi # .ecome important for at least a portionof the parapsychological comm*nity, &he *estion of ho- to interpret o*t0of0.ody

7incl*ding near0death8 e/periences is closely related, $n each case# the .asic ontological

*estion is -hether the h*man so*l is capa.le of e/isting apart from its physical0.iological .ody, $f this *estion is ans-ered in the affirmative# then the .asicepistemological *estion is -hether any of the ostensi.le instances of theta psi or !<'s

provide strong evidence for at least temporary discarnate e/istence,

Whiteheadian postmodern philosophy c*ts .oth -ays on this topic, !n the one hand# its

ontology allo-s discarnate e/istence to .e thin3a.le, !n the other hand# .y s*pportingthe vario*s other forms of psi# even strong manifestations of them# it allo-s for

alternative conceiva.le e/planations 7so0called s*per0psi e/planations8 for at leastmost instances of ostensi.le theta psi and !<'s, 4or e/ample# .y portraying past

e/periences as still e/isting# and as therefore capa.le of .eing directly prehended# it



allo-s in principle for alternative e/planations of ostensi.le cases of reincarnation and

possession, <y allo-ing for virt*ally *nlimited po-ers of telepathy and clairvoyance#and .y recogniFing the po-er of the *nconscio*s to create or impersonate other fig*res

7as in dreams and hypnotic states8# ostensi.le manifestations of discarnates thro*gh

medi*ms can in principle .e e/plained a-ay, <y allo-ing for strong e/pressive psi#incl*ding materialiFation and levitation# the e/traordinary physical phenomena that

prima facie s*ggest the intervention of discarnate spirits can .e alternatively e/plained,

And so on,&he *estion# of co*rse# remains as to -hether these alternative e/planationssometimes strain cred*lity more than do e/planations involving discarnate so*ls,

Central to this *estion is -hether discarnate e/istence is tho*ght possi.le, $ t*rn#accordingly# to a .rief consideration of the -ays in -hich Whiteheadian postmodern

philosophy allo-s for the possi.ility of the e/istence of a h*man psyche apart from itsphysical0.iological .ody,

4irst# pane/perientialism allo-s for nond*alistic interactionism 7see the s*.section on

hard0core commonsense notions a.ove8 and# there.y# for an intelligi.le assertion thatthe psyche is distinct from the .rain and therefore co*ld conceiva.ly e/ist apart from it,

(aterialistic identism# of co*rse# does not allo- for any o*t0of0.ody e/istence 7and

therefore for any life after death apart from a s*pernat*ral res*rrection or re0creation

of the physical .ody8, D*alistic interactionism# .y .eing *na.le to e/plain ho- psycheand .rain can interact# cannot provide a defensi.le doctrine of the psyche=s distinctnessfrom the .rain it therefore tends to collapse into identism, Pane/perientialism can 3eep

the distinctness -itho*t the *nintelligi.ility, $t there.y can provide one of thenecessary conditions for holding that the psyche co*ld conceiva.ly e/ist apart from its

.ody,

A second necessary condition for !<'s and life after death -o*ld .e for the psyche to

.e a.le to perceive apart from the .ody=s sensory apparat*s, Within the conte/t ofsome philosophies# according to -hich to .e act*al does not necessarily involve .eing

related to things .eyond oneself# it -o*ld ma3e sense to as3: 'ven if a psyche co*lde/ist apart from its .iological .ody# co*ld it perceive apart from itN <*t from a

Whiteheadian point of vie-# a psyche is a temporally0ordered society of occasions of

e/perience# and each occasion m*st .egin .y prehending other things# ta3ing aspects ofthem into itself as the .asis for its o-n e/istence, &his .asis constit*tes its 5physicalpole,6 ence# if -e ta3e the notion of perception .roadly to incl*de 7nonsensory8

prehension# it -o*ld ma3e no sense to s*ggest that the psyche might e/ist .*t .eincapa.le of .eing related to others percept*ally, &o e/ist 7as an act*ality8 is to

prehend, $t is also to .e self0determining and to .e prehended .*t it is# first of all# to

prehend,2

Whitehead=s postmodern philosophy allo-s for perception# in the sense of prehension#

apart from the .ody# .y sho-ing that nonsensory prehension is more f*ndamental than7and is in fact pres*pposed in8 sensory perception 7see the s*.section on receptive psi

a.ove8, <eing apart from the .ody=s sensory apparat*s -o*ld not# accordingly# remove

the psyche=s capacity to prehend,

At this point $ need to refer to a -idespread misconception a.o*t the implications of

Whitehead=s philosophy for the *estion of s*rvival# a misconception ens*ing fromdiffering *ses of the term 5physical,6 Whitehead says that every act*al occasion m*st

have a physical pole from this fact some interpreters have dra-n the concl*sion thatthe psyche -o*ld not .e a.le to s*rvive apart from the physical .ody .eca*se it -o*ld

then not have a physical pole, &his concl*sion# ho-ever# involves accepting theordinary# d*alistic meaning of 5physical#6 according to -hich the .ody is physical and

the mind or psyche is mental# and applying it to the Whiteheadian philosophy# -hichre;ects this d*alistic *sage, 4or Whitehead# the psyche is comprised of a series of

dominant occasions of e/perience# each of -hich has a physical as -ell as a mental



pole, "i3e-ise# the cells comprising the .ody are societies of occasions of e/perience#

each of -hich has a mental as -ell as a physical pole, &o .e s*re# one can say that the.ody is more physical than the psyche# in that the cells have m*ch less mentality and

are# therefore# more completely constit*ted .y their physical poles, Also# the psyche is

an individ*al# -hereas the .ody is an aggregate of .illions of individ*als# there.yhaving those characteristics# s*ch as mass and apparent solidity# that -e normally

associate -ith the 5physical,6 &he -ord 5physical#6 nevertheless# does not apply

e/cl*sively to the .ody and the -ord 5mental6 e/cl*sively to the psyche,&he psyche=s physical pole is# of co*rse# constit*ted to a great degree .y the psyche=sprehensions of its .ody .*tand this -as the point of the a.ove disc*ssionit is not

e/cl*sively constit*ted .y these prehensions, $t also prehends other psyches and# infact# the -hole past -orld# as -ell as God, &hese prehensions also constit*te its

physical pole, $f a psyche is a.le to s*rvive apart from its .ody# it -o*ld still have aphysical pole# insofar as it is a.le to prehend other act*alities, &he *estion of the

possi.ility of s*rvival is -hether these other prehensions can .e s*fficiently intense andharmonio*s to contin*e to provide s*fficient no*rishment to the so*l -hen it no longer

has the physical .asis previo*sly provided .y the .iological .ody,

Ass*ming a positive ans-er to this *estion 7to -hich $ -ill ret*rn later8# a second

*estion might .e: Wo*ld the psyche in a discarnate state .e a.le to

have conscious perceptions on a reg*lar .asis# or -o*ld the data coming in from one=sprehensions of the environment *s*ally remain *nconscio*s# rising to conscio*snessonly sporadically# as telepathic and clairvoyant perception no- doN

&his *estion arises .eca*se of the point made earlier# that conscio*sness primarilylights *p sensory# rather than nonsensory# data, Act*ally# the point made there -as that

nonsensory perceptions of remote o.;ects are m*ch less li3ely to rise to conscio*snessthan sensory perceptions of s*ch o.;ects,

&here is a form of nonsensory perception# ho-ever# of -hich -e are reg*larlyconscio*s, &his is that form of nonsensory perception that -e call 5memory,6 $n it# the

mind=s present occasion of e/perience directly prehends some of its prior occasions ofe/perience, People have not *s*ally tho*ght of memory as a form of 7nonsensory8

perception# .eca*se they have *s*ally tho*ght of the mind as an end*ring# self0identical

s*.stance# n*merically one thro*gh time memory -as regarded# therefore# not as a

relation .et-een one act*ality and another .*t a relation of one act*ality to itself,2 $f#ho-ever# the f*lly act*al entities are occasions of e/perience# then memory is a form of

perception# .eca*se the present act*al entity is prehending previo*s act*al entities,(emory# therefore# can .e regarded as a form of nonsensory perception -hose contents

reg*larly .ecome conscio*s, &his is not to say# of co*rse# that most or even a ma;ority

of o*r memories are conscio*s# .*t only that the contents of o*r memories .ecomeconscio*s m*ch more reg*larly than do the contents of e/trasensory perceptions in the

*s*al sense, 7A possi.le e/planation for this difference is that -e are connected -ith allof o*r past occasions of e/perience thro*gh a chain of contig*o*s occasions of

e/perience,8

&here is# f*rthermore# a second form of nonsensory perception of -hich -e arereg*larly conscio*s, &his is o*r prehension of the vario*s parts of o*r .odies, We

reg*larly .ecome conscio*s of .odily pains and pleas*res .*t -e also# in sensoryperception# are a-are of o*r nonsensory perception of o*r organs of sensation, <esides

.eing conscio*s of the sensory data provided .y the eye# for e/ample# -e are conscio*s#even if less vividly# of the fact that -e see y means of the eye# that -e to*ch y means

of the hand# and so on, Accordingly# thro*gh memory and prehensions of o*r .odies# -eare already conscio*s on a reg*lar .asis of data of nonsensory perceptions,

4*rthermore# the reason that sensory data are no- generally the ones ill*mined mostclearly and reg*larly .y conscio*sness# in contrast -ith nonsensory perceptions of



things .eyond one=s o-n psyche and .ody# it -as s*ggested earlier# is that these data

are generally presented to the psyche -ith the greatest intensity, 5Greatest intensity6 iso.vio*sly a relative matter, $f the psyche finds itself apart from its .odily sensory

system# then m*ch more of the 7nonsens*o*sly8 prehended data may reg*larly rise to

conscio*sness# no longer .eing .loc3ed o*t .y sensory data, &elepathic and clairvoyantperceptions may# accordingly# .e conscio*s -ith the 3ind of clarity and reg*larity that is

no- associated -ith memories and .odily and sensory perceptions,

A third *estion might .e: Granted that a psyche may .e a.le to e/ist apart from its.iological .ody# and that this e/istence -o*ld incl*de prehensions of other things# andeven that these nonsensory prehensions can res*lt in reg*lar conscio*s perceptions#

-o*ld a discarnate psyche .e a.le to actN Wo*ld it .e a.le to comm*nicate -ith others#to e/press its tho*ghts and emotions# or -o*ld it .e condemned to an e/istence of

perpet*al fr*strationN I*st as *estions a.o*t the possi.ility of perception oftenpres*ppose sensationismthe doctrine that -e can perceive only thro*gh o*r physical

sensory organsthe present *estion often pres*pposes -hat can .e called motorismthe doctrine that the psyche can act on the -orld only .y means of its motor system

7the nerve system connecting the .rain to the .ody=s m*scles8,

&he first element in the ans-er to this *estion is provided .y the fact that altho*gh an

occasion of e/perience is first of all a s*.;ect of e/perience# it is secondly an o.;ect or

s*per;ect for the e/perience of others, $t is first a s*.;ect# in -hich the e/periences ofothers are implanted in if# it is ne/t a s*per;ect# -hich implants itself in others, $n itsmode of e/istence as a s*.;ect# to .e is to prehend in its mode of e/istence as a

s*per;ect# to .e is to .e prehended, &o .e prehended is to .e an efficient ca*se,Accordingly# ;*st as it -o*ld ma3e no sense -ithin this philosophy to say that the

psyche might e/ist .*t .e incapa.le of perceiving# it -o*ld ma3e no sense to say that itmight e/ist .*t .e incapa.le of acting,

With regard to -hat it might act *pon# the fact that the psyche is not no-constit*tionally capa.le of acting only *pon its motor0m*sc*lar system is sho-n

empirically .y vario*s effects la.eled psychosomatic or psychogenic# from *lcers#place.o effects# and effects *pon the imm*ne system# to stigmata, &he psyche seems

capa.le of affecting any part of its .ody, 4*rthermore# the evidence for the vario*s

types of e/pressive psi s*ggests that the psyche can act directly *pon other e/periencesat a distanceother h*man e/periences and also lo-er0level types of e/periences#incl*ding those cl*sters of e/periences that -e normally spea3 of as physical o.;ects,

&hese empirical data are consistent -ith the Whiteheadian theory that action andperception are simply t-o sides of a ca*sal relation: *f * am prehended y all others$

including others at a distance$ then * y definition can act upon all others$ including

others at a distance,

Disc*ssing ca*sation in terms of 5.eing prehended#6 ho-ever# ma3es it so*nd as if the5agency6 is passive and nonselectivethat a psyche simply acts -illy0nilly# .y .eing

there to .e prehended# and that the nat*re of the ca*sation e/erted is *p to thepercipients more than to the agent,

&his is# ho-ever# not Whitehead=s meaning, &he present occasion of e/perience activelyinfl*ences the f*t*re, Whitehead refers to 5the thro..ing emotion of the past h*rling

itself into a ne- transcendent fact6 719BBM 19# p, 18,

&his self0h*rling# f*rthermore# is selective: the 5anticipation6 that characteriFes all

occasions of e/perience 7pp, 192019B8 rises to conscio*s intention in h*man

e/perience, 'mpirically# -e clearly do have the capacity for selective agency: We canmove one hand -hile 3eeping the other still -e can -arm *p one hand

psychosomatically and not the other some people can move a matchstic3

psycho3inetically -itho*t moving another near.y one and people -ho e/ercisetho*ght0transference can direct it to a partic*lar person# rather than sending o*t a



general .roadcast that is pic3ed *p indifferently .y many, So# .esides the general#

pervasive infl*ence -e have *pon everything in o*r f*t*re -orld simply .y e/isting# -ehave more foc*sed effects *pon those parts of the -orld to -hich -e direct# conscio*sly

or *nconscio*sly# partic*lar forms of energy, We can imagine that -e -o*ld# in a

discarnate state# .e a.le to e/ercise this type of selective agency in -hatever ne-environment -e fo*nd o*rselves,

$f it is conceiva.le that h*man psyches have the capacity to e/ist apart from their

physical0.iological .odies# and that this e/istence -o*ld involve the capacity to haveconscio*s perceptions on a reg*lar .asis and to act selectively# a final *estion -o*ld.e: Ass*ming that this capacity for s*rvival is not possessed .y the dominant mem.er

of all compo*nd individ*als# -hy do h*man psyches have itN

&his *estion arises .eca*se of t-o feat*res of the Whiteheadian position, 4irst# in this

nond*alistic# evol*tionary philosophy# h*man psyches are not different in 3ind fromanimal psyches# incl*ding the psyches of the most primitive animals# s*ch as amoe.ae

and the psyche of an amoe.a# in fact# is not ontologically different from that -hich

acco*nts for the *nity of vir*ses# macromolec*les# ordinary molec*les# and atoms, &heyare all temporal societies of occasions of e/perience, Second# this philosophy is

nat*ralistic rather than s*pernat*ralistic, Altho*gh it incl*des a form of theism# it is a

nat*ralistic theism 7or pan0en0theism8# according to -hich God cannot occasionally

interr*pt the normal ca*sal processes# and cannot# therefore# *nilaterally ca*sesomething to happen that -o*ld other-ise .e impossi.le, &his re;ection ofs*pernat*ralism is one reason that Cartesian d*alism m*st .e avoided: God cannot#

contra Descartes# (ale.ranche# Reid# and other s*pernat*ralistic d*alists# simply ca*se*nli3es to interact# or to r*n along parallel to each other, $n the same -ay# God cannot

simply ca*se the h*man so*l to s*rvive its separation from the .ody if it does not havethe capacity to do so, &he generally accepted dict*m that the po-er of God does not

incl*de the po-er to do the logically impossi.le 7s*ch as to ma3e ro*nd s*ares8 ise/tended to the metaphysically impossi.le,

&hese t-o points# and the preceding disc*ssion# can .e ta3en as a commentary *ponWhitehead=s statement that his philosophy is 5ne*tral6 on the *estion of the s*rvival

of the h*man so*l 7192M19+# p, 1+8, &his ne*trality means# on the one hand# that

his description of the h*man so*l does not# *nli3e materialistic0identist descriptions#ma3e s*rvival impossi.le# and# on the other hand# that his description does not ma3es*rvival necessary, &he *estion# Whitehead s*ggested-ith an o.vio*s all*sion to

psychical researchsho*ld 5.e decided on more special evidence# religio*s or

other-ise# provided that it is tr*st-orthy6 7p, 1+8,2 &his *estion of the

tr*st-orthiness of the evidence lies .eyond the scope of this paper .*t a s*ggestion asto -hy the h*man so*l may *ni*ely .e capa.le of s*rvival is in order,

&his s*ggestion is that the capacity to s*rvive apart from its .ody may .e a capacity

that emerged in the evol*tionary process# in the same -ay that other capacities# s*chas the capacity for sym.olic lang*age# emerged, A difference in degree co*ld .ecome# in

effect# a difference in 3ind 7as Whitehead s*ggested -as the case -ith the rise of the

h*man capacity for sym.olic lang*age >19B@M19@# pp, 2# 1?8, !ne aspect of this

difference is s*ggested .y Whitehead=s statement# made in another conte/t in -hichthe *estion of s*rvival -as in vie-# that 5the personality of an animal organism may.e more or less, $t is not a mere *estion of having a so*l or of not having a so*l, &he

*estion is# o- m*ch# if anyN6 719BBM19# p, 2+@8,

&his is the idea that has .een developed .y Iohn Co.. 7198 in the s*ggestion

introd*ced in the s*.section on e/pressive psi# a.ove, $n the lo-er animals# the energyof the psyche is devoted to the care of the .odily organism, 'ven in the higher animals#

there is pro.a.ly little s*rpl*s psychic energy to .e *sed for a*tonomo*s activities ofthe psyche, $n h*man .eings# ho-ever# the great increase in s*rpl*s psychic energy

allo-s for -hat Co.. calls 5a*tonomo*s development of the psyche#6 -hich involves



t-o elements,

4irst# the aim at intensity or richness of e/perience on the part of individ*al moments of

the so*l=s life leads the so*l to act*aliFe itself in -ays that are immediately re-ardingto it# independently of their conse*ences for the organism as a -hole, Second#

s*ccessive occasions .*ild *pon the achievements of their predecessors# 7p, B@8

$n other animals# accordingly# the dominant occasions of e/perience respond primarily

to the infl*ences coming from the .ody# and the p*rposes of these dominant occasionsare directed primarily to-ard the -ell0.eing of the .ody, &here is a so*l# to some

degree# .eca*se each dominant occasion also responds to the immediately priordominant occasions, &he animal psyche# ho-ever# has fe- if any p*rposes aside from

the -ell0.eing of the organism# so there is not a very strong thread of individ*alitythro*gh time, 'ach dominant occasion responds more to its .ody than it does to its o-n

past,

$n some of the higher animals# s*ch as gorillas and dolphins# there is s*rely more so*l#

in the sense of end*ring individ*ality .*t it -o*ld seem to .e only in h*man .eingsthat the emphasis is decisively reversed# so that aims of the psyche that are relatively

independent of .odily -elfare# or that are even in opposition to it# can .ecome so strongthat the infl*ence from the mental poles of one=s prior dominant occasions 7received

thro*gh hy.rid physical prehensions8 can .ecome as important as# or even moreimportant than# the needs of the .ody, &hese aims can .ecome so important that -e

-ill p*rs*e them to the point of neglecting the .ody# even endangering it or deli.eratelydestroying it, &he h*man .eing# in short# evidently has m*ch more so*l than other

animals: 'ach dominant occasion of e/perience has m*ch more po-er and the series ofdominant occasions is .o*nd together thro*gh time m*ch more strongly,

&his t-ofold -ay in -hich the h*man so*l is *ni*e 7among earthlings any-ay8 co*ldmean that the h*man so*l no- has the capacity to s*rvive apart from the conte/t# the

h*man .ody# that -as first necessary to .ring it into e/istence,

&he point made .y that last cla*se is an essential ingredient in this nat*ralistic#

evol*tionary vie-, Re;ected is gnostic d*alism# .y -hich $ mean the idea that h*man0li3e so*ls co*ld .e directly created .y God 7or 5emanated from6 the !ne or <rahman8

apart from a long evol*tionary process, $t is pres*med# instead# that a step0.y0stepevol*tionary process is the only -ay to create individ*als -ith high0level po-ers, "iving

cells co*ld not .e created directly# .*t pres*pposed the e/istence of organelles# -hichin t*rn pres*pposed the e/istence of macromolec*les# and so on, &he emergence of a

psyche pres*pposes the e/istence of a central nervo*s system composed of ne*rons#and co*ld not .e created directly o*t of iron and silicon atoms 7as some -ho -rite

a.o*t 5artificial intelligence6 s*ppose8# let alone o*t of a primordial chaos of very lo-0grade act*al occasions# or o*t of nothing, &his philosophy agrees# accordingly# -ith

modern tho*ght insofar as the latter insists that a h*man0li3e mind co*ld have firstemerged only in the 3ind of environment that is provided .y a h*man0li3e .ody# -hich

co*ld only have .een prod*ced .y a grad*al evol*tionary process,

&his postmodern philosophy differs# ho-ever# .y s*ggesting that once the h*man mind

-as s*fficiently formed# it may have developed the emergent po-er to s*rvive in a ne-environment, &his is my e/plication of .asic limiting principle BA# as stated in the

section on parapsychology as not *ltra0revol*tionary,

%ot .eing r*led o*t a priori# then# the reality of postmortem life and premortem o*t0of0

.ody e/istence .ecomes an empirical *estion,

SL((ARY

$ have s*ggested that there are elements of tr*th and val*e in .oth the conservative



and the revol*tionary stances ta3en .y philosophers of parapsychology -ho .elieve in

the reality of receptive and e/pressive psi,

$n line -ith the conservative stance# it is right# $ .elieve# to see3 repeata.lee/periments# to see3 to *nderstand the dynamics involved in e/perimental and

spontaneo*s psi 7-hile remaining open to the possi.ility that the dynamics involved inthese t-o types of psi may .e *ite different# and to the possi.ility that there may .e

something a.o*t psi that -ill forever fr*strate attempts to prod*ce it

especially conscious receptive psi and conspicuouse/pressive psiat -ill >at least apartfrom spirit*al disciplines that do not have this as a goal?8, &he most important part ofthe conservative stance is the desire to overcome the appearance of a strong clash

.et-een the principles needed to *nderstand psi or paranormal phenomena and theprinciples needed to *nderstand the phenomena of 5normal6 science and everyday

e/perience,

&he -ay to f*lfill this desire# ho-ever# is not# $ have s*ggested# to see3 to give *p

ca*sal hypotheses# and especially the hypothesis of ca*sal infl*ence at a distance# or to

see3 to e/plain psi phenomena in terms of the -orldvie- of late modern science7incl*ding that aspect of it that most points .eyond itself to-ard a postmodern

-orldvie-# *ant*m physics8,

Rather# recogniFing that the modern -orldvie- is not ade*ate even -ith regard to thepres*ppositions of daily life and# therefore# the pres*ppositions of normal science# -e

sho*ld overcome the tension in *estion .y creating or adopting a postmodern-orldvie- 7this is the main tr*th in the revol*tionary stance8 that can do ;*stice to

them .oth,

$ have so*ght to sho-# finally# that Whitehead=s philosophy# especially as interpreted .y

someone a-are of parapsychological phenomena# can ta3e *s a long -ay in thatdirection# and that the same revisions of the modern -orldvie- necessary to allo- for

the hard0core commonsense pres*ppositions of science and daily life also allo- for thereality of psi,

Whitehead=s philosophy# ta3ing temporal process as *ltimate# cannot# to .e s*re# allo-for tr*e precognition 7as involving retroca*sation8# .*t this is no -ea3ness .eca*se

that notion can .e seen to .e *nintelligi.le even apart from Whitehead=s philosophy#and .eca*se alternative e/planations for the phenomena in *estion are possi.le, !ne

.on*s of this position# .eyond intelligi.ility# is that# if parapsychology is there.y seen topose merely a revol*tionary rather than an *ltra0revol*tionary threat# more

philosophers and scientists may .e a.le to e/amine it rationally,

%otes

1 An earlier version of this paper -as presented at a conference on 5Parapsychology#

Philosophy# and Religion: Postmodern Approaches#6 -hich -as held in 199+ at "a Casade (aria retreat center in Santa <ar.ara# California# -hich cosponsored the conference

-ith the Center for a Postmodern World and the Center for Process St*dies,

2 &he conference -as made possi.le .y a grant from "a*rance Roc3efeller# to -hom

heartfelt than3s are here.y p*.licly e/tended, $ am gratef*l to 4rederic3 4erre# Iohn

Palmer# Stephen <ra*de# oyt 'dge# I*le 'isen.*d# and t-o anonymo*s revie-ersfor 8!SPR# all of -hose criti*es ena.led me to ma3e the present version considera.ly

.etter, $ -ish# finally# to add that $ plan event*ally to e/pand this essay into a .oo3#and that $ p*.lish it here in 8!SPR partly in hopes of receiving f*rther helpf*l criticism#

-hether in print or privately,

B Altho*gh this is the first e/tensive treatment of parapsychology or psychical research



from a Whiteheadian perspective# there have .een a fe- shorter essays see <ag.y

7198# 'slic3 719@B# 19@8# ooper 7198# and O*illen 71998,

&he idea of the inertness of matter -as also *sed to arg*e for the e/istence of God,

<oyle and %e-ton# for e/ample# arg*ed that .eca*se matter is devoid of the po-er of

self0motion# a divine 4irst (over m*st e/ist, &his arg*ment -as employed againstatheists and pantheists -ho proposed that no e/ternal creator -as needed .eca*se

matter# .eing self0moving# co*ld have organiFed itself to form the present *niverse

7Elaaren# 198,

Certain psi phenomena# s*ch as stigmata# self0levitation# ectoplasmic materialiFations#

and o*t0of0.ody e/periences might seem to .e e/ceptions, <*t stigmata -o*ld involveca*sal infl*ence .y the mind at a distance *nless they -ere tho*ght to .e ca*sed .y the

mind=s acting thro*gh the .rain and nervo*s system# in -hich case# if -e -ant to 3eep

o*r categories neat# -e co*ld classify stigmata as a psychosomatic# rather than aparapsychological# phenomenon, &he same can .e said of self0levitation# ectoplasmic

materialiFations# and other phenomena involving the agent=s o-n .ody, Regarding theo*t0of0.ody e/perience 7incl*ding life after death8# $ -ill s*ggest later that it as s*ch#

as distinct from the 7e/trasensory and perhaps psycho3inetic8 evidence for it# need not.e considered paranormal,

Westfall -rites else-here 719@+.8 that .esides .anishing life# color# and other*alities from nat*re 7as the (ac3enFies correctly point o*t8# 5the mechanical

philosophy also .anished from e/istence another deniFen of some previo*s philosophiesattractions of any 3ind, %o scorn -as too great to heap *pon s*ch notions, 4rom one

end of the cent*ry to another# the idea of attractions# the action of one .ody *ponanother -ith -hich it is not in contact# -as an anathema to the dominant school of

nat*ral philosophy, Galileo co*ld not s*fficiently e/press his amaFement that Eeplerhad .een -illing to entertain the p*erile notion# as he called it# that the moon ca*ses

the tides .y action *pon the -aters of the sea, $n the >1?9+s# *ygens and "ei.niFfo*nd similar ideas ;*st as a.s*rd for the same reasons, &o spea3 of an attraction

-henever one .ody -as seen to approach another -as to philosophiFe on the sameplane -ith (oliere=s doctor -ho e/plained the po-er of opi*m to ca*se sleep .y a

dormative virt*e it contained, , , , An attraction -as an occ*lt virt*e# and Kocc*lt virt*e=-as the mechanical philosophy=s *ltimate term of oppro.ri*m6 7p, 18,

!n this point $ agree -ith the vie-s of# among others# I*le 'isen.*d 719@B# pp, 0

8 and C, W, E, (*ndle 719@8,

@ 4or philosophers -ho re;ect the reality of psi on this .asis# see Armstrong# 19@# p,

B Camp.ell# 19@# pp, BB# 9109 4eigel# 19+# pp, 2@# 29, 4or -riters -ho accept psi.*t see it as the only good evidence against materialism# see <eloff# 192# pp 2 2@

"orimer# 19@# pp, 119# B+, Price, 19# p, B@

9 $ have disc*ssed these *ltimate pres*ppositions of practice# or 5hard0core

commonsense ideas#6 in Griffin# 19@9.# pp, B0B9# and Griffin H Smith# 19@9# pp, 9+091#

19+019,

1+ $ have disc*ssed the pro.lems of d*alistic interactionism at greater length in Griffin#

19@@# pp, 1021 and 19@9a# pp, 102,

11 &-o of Descartes= follo-ers# Arnold Ge*linc/ and %icolas (ale.ranche# said that mind

and matter# .eing completely different in 3ind# cannot interact, &he fact that mind and.ody appear to interact they e/plained thro*gh the doctrine of occasionalism: on the

occasion of yo*r leg .eing .itten .y a dog# God ca*ses pain in yo*r mind then# on theoccasion of yo*r feeling the pain and deciding to free yo*r .ody from the dog=s grip#

God ca*ses yo*r .ody to ma3e the desired moves 7Copleston# 19+# pp, 1019# 1@@0



19+8, &homas Reid# Scottish Calvinist philosopher# simply said that if God# .eing

omnipotent# -ants mind and matter to interact# God can# in spite of their ontologicalheterogeneity# ma3e them do so 7Reid# 199# pp, 909# 99# 11+# 11@# 12B# 22+# 2+#

B1@8,

12 Regarding gravitation as a possi.le e/ception# see the disc*ssion in the first section#a.ove, &he other o.vio*s e/ception is nonlocality in physics# -hich many physicists no-

accept, &his acceptance# $ -o*ld arg*e# is a f*rther move# .eyond indeterminacy# a-ay

from modern physics to-ard a postmodern physics, &he strong re;ection of nonlocalityas self0evidently false .y physicists# s*ch as 'instein# -ho had strongly em.odied aversion of the late modern -orldvie-# and the great interest that the notion of

nonlocality has created in and .eyond the physics comm*nity# are signs that aparadigm0threatening development has occ*rred,

1B Whitehead himself la.els the *ltimate simply 5creativity6 71929M19@# p, 218,<eca*se he is# ho-ever# a pane/perientialist and th*s denies the e/istence of any

5vac*o*s act*alities#6 meaning act*al things devoid of e/perience 7p, 18# it is correctto refer to the *ltimate as 5creative e/perience,6

1 $t may seem self0contradictory to say that act*al occasions do not end*re thro*gh

time and then to s*ggest that they may last from a .illionth to a tenth of a second, &his

iss*e# -hich involves Whitehead=s 5epochal theory of time#6 is too comple/ to disc*ssade*ately here, &he main points# ho-ever# are that time does not pre0e/ist an event#as if time -ere a pre0e/istent contin**m thro*gh -hich events end*red# for ho-ever

.rief a period, Rather# time is constit*ted thro*gh the relations .et-een events, Alteran event has occ*rred# ho-ever# one can say that it constit*ted a certain period of time,

&his is the reason for correcting in the te/t the statement that an occasion 5ta3es6 acertain amo*nt of time -ith the statement that it really 5constit*tes6 this period,

1 &he reader may .e conf*sed .y the description of things s*ch as molec*les# cells# andh*man .eings .oth as 5end*ring individ*als#6 *nderstood as p*rely temporal societies

in -hich there is only one mem.er at a time# and also as 5compo*nd individ*als#6 in-hich there are many act*al entities at once, &he resol*tion of the apparent

contradiction is indicated in the te/t .y saying that it is the so*l# not the h*man .eing

as a psychophysical -hole# that is the p*rely temporal society, &he h*man .eing as a-hole is a compo*nd individ*al .y virt*e of the dominance of the so*l, &he same is tr*e#analogo*sly# of cells and molec*les, &he molec*le# for e/ample# has 7.y hypothesis8 a

series of molec*lar occasions# -hich are regnant in the molec*le as a -hole, <eca*sethe molec*lar occasions are regnant# giving the molec*le a degree of *nity of action and

response# the molec*le is a compo*nd individ*al &he fact that the molec*lar occasions

form a temporally0ordered society# analogo*s to the h*man so*l# ma3es the molec*lealso descri.a.le as an end*ring individ*al,

1 &-o occasions are contig*o*s# ro*ghly# -hen there is no other occasion .et-een

them, 4or a more complete acco*ntthe concept of spatial contig*ity is more diffic*lt

than that of temporalsee Whitehead# 19BBM19# pp, 2+202+B,

1 Whitehead himself does not spea3 of p*re and hy.rid physical ca*sation# .*t of p*reand hy.rid physical prehension 71929M19@# pp, 208, <eca*se physical prehension

is ;*st the reverse side of ca*sation 7p, 2B8# ho-ever# it is ;*stifia.le to spea3 of p*re

and hy.rid ca*sation,

1@ $ have disc*ssed the reality of time for atoms and s*.atomic particles in Griffin#

19@,

19 &his does not mean that all or even most sensory perception .ecomes conscio*s

most of it is s*rely s*.liminal,



2+ aving stressed that past events still e/ist to .e prehended 7as in retrocognition#

-hen they .ecome prehended conscio*sly8# $ sho*ld perhaps stress that -henWhitehead says that act*al occasions 5perish#6 this is a misleading term 7-hich has

indeed misled many interpreters8, e does not mean that the occasions simply cease toe/ist or even to .e act*al, e means only that their s*.;ective e/perience ceases, 5<*t

that does not mean that they are nothing, &hey remain Kst*..orn fact=6 7Whitehead#19BBM19# p, 2B8, $n fact# .esides losing something# they gain something: the a.ility

to e/ercise efficient ca*sation 71929M19@# p, 298, Accordingly# in 5perishing6 they donot lose the a.ility to .e prehended that a.ility is precisely -hat they ac*ire,

21 4or e/ample# in a .oo3 that is in most respects *ite good# Iohn eaney 719@8

e/amines fo*r alternative e/planations for apparently precognitive events, !f the firstone# psycho3inesis 7my %*m.er 1B8# he concl*des that it 5certainly does not stand as a

reasona.le e/planation for many correct paranormal predictions6 7p, 918, !f the5s*.liminal comp*ter theory6 7-hich co*ld cover my alternatives 01+8# he says that it

5fails as a *niversal e/planation of precognition6 7p, 928, &hen# after mentioning t-o

others that $ -o*ld not even consider# he concl*des that 5these theories do not seems*fficient to e/plain most precognitive events6 7p, 9B8, 4rom this concl*sion he infers

that most apparently precognitive events m*st involve tr*e precognition# -hich he

ta3es to imply that 5part of *s# it seems# is o*tside of time# or is capa.le of assimilating

another 3ind of time6 7p, 1+8, <*t his concl*sion -o*ld .e reasona.le only if 7a8 hehad considered an exhaustive list of alternative e/planations# not ;*st a fe-# and 7.8 ifhe had as3ed not -hether any one of them co*ld handle all the cases .*t -hether all of

them together could , eaney=s treatment of this iss*e# nevertheless# is less cavalierthan most,

22 ere my position is similar to that of C, W, E, (*ndle 719@8# altho*gh $ present

more alternative e/planations than does he,

2B &he 7*nderstanda.le8 alarm evo3ed -hen the PE interpretation of apparent

precognition seems to .e offered as the only and# therefore# incl*sive alternative

e/planation for cases of apparent precognition is ill*strated in G, 4, Dalton=s 71918comments on a paper .y W, G, Roll 71918 on precognition: 5Applied to spontaneo*s

cases , , , >Roll=s hypothesis? gives alarming res*lts, A ro*gh chec3 thro*gh a fe-recorded so*rces s*ggests that# on this theory# ostensi.le precognitionists have .een

responsi.le for at least 1++ deaths# @ rail-ay accidents# fires# 2 ship-rec3s# 1e/plosion# 1 stro3e of lightning# 1 volcanic er*ption# 2 -orld -ars, $f PE is really

operating on this scale# no one is safe6 7p, 1@B8, !f co*rse# in this -orld no one is safe#so thereductio ad asurdum fails, Dalton=s response# f*rthermore# co*ld simply .e ta3en

as f*rther s*pport for I*le 'isen.*d=s 719@B8 s*ggestion that the PE interpretation ofapparent precognition is -idely ignored or re;ected more for emotional than for

theoretical reasons 7pp, 0# 1B018, $n any case# it is important# in offering the PEinterpretation# to ma3e clear 7as <ra*de# 19@# pp, 202@# for e/ample# does8 that

one is offering it not as the sole alternative to tr*e precognition and# therefore# not asthe e/planation for all cases of apparent precognition,

2 ere Whitehead=s position is similar to <ishop <er3eley=s# in that .oth agree that to

.e actual is to perceive, <*t <er3eley said that to .e perceived is to .e merely ideal#-hereas Whitehead allo-s t-o -ays of .eing perceived# or prehended: 7a8 to .e the

o.;ect of a conceptual prehension is to .e merely idealto .e an 5eternal o.;ect6.*t7.8 to .e the o.;ect of a physical prehension is to .e an0o.;ect0that0had0.een0a0s*.;ect#

and th*s to .e act*al, &he other .ig difference .et-een the t-o thin3ers is that<er3eley allo-ed only God and h*man so*ls to .e perceivers and# therefore# to .e

act*al# -hereas Whitehead 7li3e <er3eley=s contemporary "ei.niF8 allo-s perceivers ofall grades# so that 7for e/ample8 cells# molec*les# atoms# and s*.atomic particles are all

e*ally act*al,



2 Also# the materialistic -orldvie- teaches people to thin3 of all memories as stored in

the .rain# and only in the .rain# so that remem.ering involves a relation not to the pastat all .*t only to the 7virt*ally8 present .rain,

2 <eca*se this statement -as made in Religion in the Making 7Whitehead#

19219+8# in -hich Whitehead=s ontology of dipolar occasions of e/perience -as notyet f*lly developed 7he sometimes spo3e of 5physical occasions6 and 5mental

occasions6 >192M19+# p, 99?8# it is important to note that Whitehead 719BBM198reaffirmed in !dventures of *deas# one of his latest -ritings# his .elief that his position

allo-s for the possi.ility of s*rvival# saying that 5in some important sense the e/istenceof the so*l may .e freed from its complete dependence *pon the .odily organiFation6

7p, 2+@8,

References

A""$S!%# P, 719@8, '/perimental parapsychology as a re;ected science, $n R, Wallis7'd,8# 'n the Margins of Science The Social &onstruction of Re(ected 9no#ledge 7pp,

2102918, Eeele# 'ngland: Lniversity of Eeele,

AR(S&R!%G# D, (, 719@8, ! Materialist Theory of Mind , "ondon: Ro*t0ledge H Eegan Pa*l,

<AG<Y# P, , 7198, Whitehead: A ne- appraisal, $n ', I, Garrett 7'd,8# 7eyond the )iveSenses 7pp, 290298, Philadelphia: I,<, "ippincott,

<'"!44# I, 71928, The Existence of Mind , "ondon: (acGi..on and Eee,

<'"!44# I, 7198, Revie- of Psychic Exploration ! &hallenge for Science# .y ', D,

(itchell et al, 7I, White# 'd,8# 8ournal of the !merican Society for Psychical Research#9# B10B,

<'RGS!%# , 719118, &reative Evolution 7A, (itchell# &rans,8, %e- Yor3: enry olt,

<'RGS!%# , 7198, .uration and Simultaneity With Reference to Einstein2s Theory 7",

Iaco.son# &rans,8, $ndianapolis# $%: <o..s0(errill,

<RALD'# S, ', 719@8, The 0imits of *nfluence Psychokinesis and the Philosophy ofScience, %e- Yor3: Ro*tledge H Eegan Pa*l,

<R$'R # <, 7198, Precognition and the Philosophy of Science, %e- Yor3: *manities

Press,

<R!AD# C, D, 71998, Religion$ Philosophy and Psychical Research, %e- Yor3: *manities

Press,

CA(P<'""# E, 719@8, 7ody and Mind 7rev, ed,8, %otre Dame# $%: Lniversity of %otre Dame

Press,

C!<<# I, <,# Ir, 7198, The Structure of &hristian Existence, Philadelphia: Westminster

Press,

C!P"'S&!%# 4, C, 719+8, ! /istory of Philosophy1 :ol1 *: .escartes to 0eini+ , "ondon:<*rns Gates,

DA"&!%# G, 4, 71918, &he pro.lem of precognition: Comments on W, G, Roll=s paper on

precognition, 8ournal of the Society for Psychical Research# 1# 1@B,

DLCASS'# C, I, 71918, ! &ritical Examination of the 7elief in a 0ife !fter .eath,

Springfield# $": Charles C, &homas,

'AS"'A# <, 719@+8, Witch /unting$ Magic and the ,e# Philosophy !n *ntroduction to the

.eates of the Scientific Revolution ;<=>-;?=>, Atlantic ighlands# %I: *manitiesPress,



'$S'%<LD# I, 7198, The World of Ted Serios, %e- Yor3: (orro-,

'$S'%<LD# I, 719@28, Paranormal )orekno#ledge Prolems and Perplexities, %e- Yor3:

*man Sciences Press,

'$S'%<LD# I, 719@B8, Parapsychology and the Unconscious, <er3eley# CA: %orth Atlantic

<oo3s,

'S"$CE# ", 719@B8, )rom the #orld to 4od The cosmological argument , &he (odern

Schoolman# +# 1019,

'S"$CE# ", 719@8, <ergson# Whitehead# and psychical research, $n A, C, Papanicolao* H

P, A, Y, G*nter 7'ds,8# 7ergson and Modern Thought To#ards a Unified Science 7pp,BB0B@8, %e- Yor3: ar-ood Academic,

4'$G"# , 719+8, (ind0.ody# not a pse*dopro.lem, $n S, oo3 7'd,8# .imensions ofMind 7pp, 20B8, %e- Yor3: %e- Yor3 Lniversity Press,

GR$44$%# D, R, 7198, 4od$ Po#er$ and Evil ! Process Theodicy , Philadelphia:Westminster Press,

GR$44$%# D, R, 719@8, $ntrod*ction: &ime and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, $n

D, R, Griffin 7'd,8# Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time 7ohm$ Prigogine$ and

Process Philosophy 7pp, 1@8, Al.any: State Lniversity of %e- Yor3 Press,

GR$44$%# D, R, 719@@8, 4od and Religion in the Postmodern World , Al.any: State

Lniversity of %e- Yor3 Press,

GR$44$%# D, R, 719@9a8, $ntrod*ction: Archetypal psychology and process theology:

Complementary postmodern movements, $n D, R, Griffin 7'd,8# !rchetypal Process Selfand .ivine in Whitehead$ 8ung$ and /illman 7pp, 108, 'vanston# $": %orth-estern

Lniversity Press,

GR$44$%# D, R, [email protected], Postmodern theology and AMtheology: A response to (ar3 C,&aylor, $n D, R, Griffin# W, A, <eardslee# and I, olland# :arieties of Postmodern

Theology 7pp, 29018, Al.any: State Lniversity of %e- Yor3 Press,

GR$44$%# D, R, 719918, Evil Revisited Responses and Reconsiderations, Al.any: State

Lniversity of %e- Yor3 Press,

GR$44$%# D, R,# H S($&# , 719@98, Primordial Truth and Postmodern Theology , Al.any:State Lniversity of %e- Yor3 Press,

ARA"DSS!%# ', 719@+8, Confirmation of the percipient0order effect in a plethysmographicst*dy of 'SP, 8ournal of Parapsychology # # 1+12,

AR&S!R%'# C, 719+8, &reative Synthesis and Philosophic Method , "aSalle# $": !penCo*rt,

'A%'Y# I, I, 719@8, The Sacred and the Psychic Parapsychology and &hristianTheology , Ramsey# %I: Pa*list Press,

!!P'R # S, ', 7198, Telepathy in the light of Whitehead2s philosophy , i..ert Io*rnal#

2# 2@02B,IAC!<# I, R, 719@8, Roert 7oyle and the English Revolution, %e- Yor3: *rt 4ran3lin,

E"AAR'%# ', (, 7198, Religious 'rigins of Modern Science 7elief in &reation in

Seventeenth-&entury Thought , Grand Rapids# ($: William <, 'erdmans,

E!RS# A, C,# H P'&'RS# ', 71928, Witchcraft in Europe ;;>>-;?>>, Philadelphia:

Lniversity of Pennsylvania Press,

ELR&# P, 719@18, $s parapsychology a scienceN $n E, 4raFier 7'd,8# Paranormal

7orderlands of Science7pp, 02B8, <*ffalo# %Y: Promethe*s <oo3s,



"'%!<"'# R, 719B8, Mersenne ou la naissance du mechanisme, Paris: "i.rairie

Philosophi*e I, )rin,

"!R$('R # D, 719@8, Survival% 7ody$ Mind and .eath in the 0ight of Psychic Experience,"ondon: Ro*tledge H Eegan Pa*l,

(ACE'%$'# <,# H (ACE'%$'# S, ", 719@+8, Whence the enchanted .o*ndaryN So*rces andsignificance of the parapsychological tradition, 8ournal of Parapsychology # # 1201,

($""AR # <, 71998, Physiological detectors of psi,European 8ournal of Parapsychology # 2#0@,

(!RR$S# R, ", 719@28, Assessing e/perimental s*pport for tr*e precognition, 8ournal ofParapsychology # # B210BB,

(L%D"'# C, W, E, 719@8, Does the concept of precognition ma3e senseN $n I, "*d-ig7'd,8#Philosophy and Parapsychology 7pp, B20B+8, <*ffalo# %Y: Promethe*s <oo3s,

PA"('R # I, 719@8, Progressive s3epticism: A critical approach to the psicontroversy, 8ournal of Parapsychology # +# 292,

PRA&&# I, G, 7198, Parapsychology !n *nsider2s :ie# of ESP , Garden City# %Y:

Do*.leday,

PR$C'# G, 719@8, Science and the s*pernat*ral, $n I, "*d-ig 7'd,8# Philosophy andParapsychology 7pp, 10118, <*ffalo: Promethe*s <oo3s,

PR$C'# , , 7198, Psychical research and h*man personality, $n I, R, Smythies7'd,8# Science and ESP 7pp, BB8, %e- Yor3: *manities Press,

PR$!R # (, 719B28, Ioseph Glanvill# -itchcraft and seventeenth0cent*ry science, ModernPhilosophy # B+# 1019B,

OL$""'%# 4, W, 71998, &he ethereal .ody as a means of s*rvival, Process Studies 9# B+0B,

R '$D# &, 71998, Essays on the *ntellectual Po#ers of Man, Cam.ridge# (A: ($& Press,

R !""# W, G, 71918, &he pro.lem of precognition, 8ournal of the Society for Psychical

Research# 1# 11012@,

SA%&AYA%A# G, 7198, Scepticism and !nimal )aith, %e- Yor3: Dover,

SC!4$'"D# R, ', 719+8, Mechanism and Materialism 7ritish ,atural Philosophy in an !ge of Reason, Princeton# %I: Princeton Lniversity Press,

S(Y&$'S# I, R, 7198, $s 'SP possi.leN $n I, R, Smythies 7'd,8# Science and ESP 7pp, 1018, %e- Yor3: *manities Press,

&A%AGRAS# A, 71998, The theory of psychoolie, # B# 1101,

&A%AGRAS# A, 7198, Psychophysical 'lements inParapsychological

Traditions 7Parapsychological (onographs %o, 8, %e- Yor3: Parapsychology4o*ndation,

&AY"!R # ', 719@8, Prospectus for a person-centered science The unreali+ed potential of psychology and psychical research, @1# B1B0BB1,

&!(AS# E, 71918, Religion and the .ecline of Magic , %e- Yor3: Scri.0ner=s,

&!L"'SS# R, , 71928, )rom !necdote to Experiment in Psychical Research, "ondon:Ro*tledge H Eegan Pa*l,

&!L"'SS# R, ,# H Wiesner# <, P, 7198, &he psi process in normal and 5paranormal6

psychology,Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research# @# 1019,

&R')!R 0R !P'R # , 71998, The European Witch-&ra+e of the ;@th and ;?th &enturies and



'ther Essays, %e- Yor3: arper H Ro-,

&RL$# (, 719@+8, A s3eptical loo3 at Pa*l E*rtF=s analysis of the scientific stat*s of

parapsychology, 8ournal of Parapsychology # # B0,

W'S&4A""# R, I, 719@+a8, ,ever at Rest ! 7iography of *saac ,e#ton, Cam.ridge#

'ngland: Cam.ridge Lniversity Press,

W'S&4A""# R, I, 719@+.8, &he infl*ence of alchemy on %e-ton, $n (, P, anen# (, I, !sier#

H R, G, Weyant 7'ds,8# Science$ Pseudo-Science and Society 7pp, 101+8, Waterloo#!ntario: Wilfrid "a*rier Lniversity Press,

W'A&"'Y# I, (, !, 7198, $mplications for philosophy, $n S, Erippner 7'd,8# !dvances inParapsychological Research ; Psychokinesis 7pp, 19018, %e- Yor3: Plen*m Press,

W$&''AD# A, %, 719228, The Principle of Relativity , Cam.ridge# 'ngland: Cam.ridgeLniversity Press,

W$&''AD# A, %, 719+8, Religion in the Making, Cleveland: World, 7!riginal -or3p*.lished 1928

W$&''AD# A, %, 7198, !dventures of *deas, %e- Yor3: 4ree Press, 7!riginal -or3

p*.lished 19BB8

W$&''AD# A, %, 719@8, Modes of Thought , %e- Yor3: 4ree Press, 7!riginal -or3p*.lished 19B@8

W$&''AD# A, %, 719@8, Process and Reality 7corrected ed,8 7D, R, Griffin H D, W,Sher.*rne# 'ds,8, %e- Yor3: 4ree Press, 7!riginal -or3 p*.lished 19298

david ray griffin - parasychology and philosophy a whiteheadian postmodern perspective

Documents