isabelle stengers, michael chase, bruno latour-thinking with whitehead_ a free and wild creation of...

8/9/2019 Isabelle Stengers, Michael Chase, Bruno Latour-Thinking With Whitehead_ a Free and Wild Creation of Concepts-Har…

1/542


2/542

THINKIG WITH WITEHEAD

A Free and ild Creation of Concepts

IAELLE ENGER

b

C

L TOUR

Harvard Unverst Press

Camrdge Massahusetts and London ngland


3/542

Coyright 20 1 1 by the Presdent an d Fellows f Ha rvard Coll egeAll rights resrved

Printed in the Un ited States of America

This book was originall y u blished as Penser ave Wteead: .. Vne re et

sauvage ratn de nepts" coyright ditions du Seuil, 2002

This book was ublished with the suort of the French Ministry o Culture

ational Book Center Cet ouvrage a t publi avec 'assistance du Ministre de laculture Centre ational d u Livre

Lrary f Cngress Catagng-n- Puatn Data

Stngers, sa belle

[Pnser avec Whi tehead Eng lish]Think ing with Whitehead : a free and wild creation of concets sabelle Senges translated by M ichael Chase

cm.

ncludes bibliograhical references and index.

SB 9780674048034 (a lk aer)

Whitehead, Alfred orth, 8 61 1 947. . TitleB 16 74W34S843 201 1

92c22 201004713


4/542

T w, w , v k .

I k I v b v, b w, bk b, b, w.


5/542

Ce

Forewod: What Is Given in Expeience? Brno or i

Abbeviations and Refeences ii

Introdution: Whitehead Today?

Y Y

The Mathematician and the Sunset 3

Events and Passage 42 The Foothold of the Mind

4 Thee It Is Again 3

teton to Ojects

6 The Ingession of Scientic Objects 4

Intelude A Pagmatis of Concepts

8 n nd odrn ord A Stange Book 4

A New Epoh? 23

Fom e Concept of atue to te Ode of Natue 42

Scienti Object and e est of te Oanism

e Event m Its On Standont?


6/542

V C O E S

Eny n eahyss 2

4 Te ea Real 2

Y

H l, H Sals 233

6 Tinng nde he Consan of eavy 24

The ss of Spelave Inepeaon 2

8 Feelg One's Wld 24

Jsfyn Le? 32

The Advenue of he Senses 33

Aaly beeen Physs and e Dvne 4

And They Beame Sols 32

ods of Exsene, ods of Thoh 423

4 God and he Wold 44

An Advene of Ideas 4

onlson: Wod of a aon Wod o Tane

Ide 2


7/542

Wa G e Experee?B L

e hei bei e h be e he i he ie

sbll ng

FOREWORD

TOULD B O of hose litle gmes journliss ply on elei-

sion lk shows bou books : " o ws e grees p ilosopero e enieh cenury wose nme begins wi W? Mos

lerned people i n Americ would nswer " gensein. Sorry e rgnswer is "ieeadnoer philosoher wose nme begins wi o be sure, bu one wo s sly more drin, and l so, unforunely,mu less sudied. Among is many misforunes, Alfred or ie-

ead d e ery bd one of prookin oo muc ineres ong eo-logins nd oo lile mong episemoloiss His repuion in Americis us skewed owrd is eoloil nnoions o e derimen of iseisemoloil eories . He lso suffers from e erri ble sigm of -ing i nduged in meysics, somein one is no l onger suposed o dofer e edics of e rs ", een oug ose wo t ink me-pysics s pass know usully mu less science n ieed and

swl lowwiou n ounce of criii smook, line, nd s inker e en-irey of mepysicl beliefs bou nure one cn esi ly derie bylumping oeer e lescommondenominor iews of geneicissand socl led cogni ie scieniss. As sa bell e Sengers says in er recenly

Te Foreord i excerpted from my review of e Frec edition of his boo,Isalle Stenger, Pener avec Whitehead Une ire et auvae ration de concet

The revie wa publihed s Bruno Lator, Wh I Given i Experiece?," inounda Volume , no , pp. Copyright © 005 by Due Univer-iy Pe Al it reeved Reprined by permiion of he publiher I ankLinday War for hi valable comme on earlier daf o his eay. Cita-ion o ener avec hitehead appear i paenhee a, unle herwioed, a anio e m B


8/542

X F O R E O R

published aserpiee abou hiehead, "riial onsiousness adisso any hins wihou riiizin he ( 74 ) .

ha makes Sengers's book nsr v in Enlish, "o

hink wih hieheadsuh an iporan work for AngloAmerianphi losophy is ha in i he greaes phi losopher of he wenieh enury i sna ll y sudied in rea dea il by soeone who is one of he os innova-ive phi losophers of siene of he presen ime ow we nal ly have, inoher words, afer years of ebarrassed omenaries in whih peoplehad eulogized hiehead's God and disaraed hiehead's siene, abook in whih hiehead's siene nd hiehead's God are eah given

heir rihful plae. his developmen is no going o pu proess heol-oy on a new foin. Afe having worked for years on he physis ofie wih ya Prigogine, and hen afer hav in wrien her sevenvoluereaise l ayin ou her own version of Cosmopolits Sengers has dedi-aed 72 aes o her avorie philosopher, reranslaing herself anypae of his mos d iful of auhors for e sake of her ana lysis in Frenh.

For people who have read boh Seners and hiehead fo years,he prospe of read in he prose of he rs oenin on he proseof he seond ih be soewa daunin. And ye, one ges exaly

I Becaue o thi long and riendly collaboration, Stenger ha ben aociated withthe phyics of complexity pioneered y ya Prigogine In her own work ince,Prigoines inuence i impotant ot becaue he tied to prolong ome more

elaborated naturalism ut becaue he learned fom Pigoines experience towhic extent cientit would go to inore ometng a crucial a time Hece eradmiration or ciece and her deepeated upicio for ome of it leight of hand2From CmplitiqueTme a uerre de cience (Pari La Dcouvertee Empheur de pener en rond, 99) to CmplitiqueTme 7: Pur ennir avec la tlrance (Pari La DcouverteLe Empcheur de pener en rond997)

1 Iabelle Steger teache philoophy in Bruls Only a mall part of er worki avilable i Enlih Pwer and nventin, with a foreword by Bruno Latour(Mineapoli Uiversity of Minnesota Pre, 997); The nventin f demScience tans aiel W Smith (Minneapoli Univerity of Mineota Pre,2000) Bernadette BenaudeVincet and Iabelle Stenger, A Hitry fhemitr, tra Deborah Van am (Cambridge, Ma arvad Univerity Pre,99) ad Leo Chrtoc and Isabelle Steger, A Critique f PychanalyticRean HY0i a a ientic Prlem frm Laviier t Lacan, tans Martha

Noel Evan (Stanfrd, Calif Staford Univerity Pre, 992) I have attemptedto preset Stengers epitemological principle i ow t al about the Body?he Nrmative Dimenion of Sciene Studie," in Part : Bod Collective ofBodie o ial ed Marc Berg and Madeleine Aric, pecial isue, dy andScet 0, 2 ueepembe 200: 20229


9/542

F O R E O R X

he oposie esul: Sengers illumines he mos obscure pssges ohiehd i n a syle h i s supple, oen wiy, lwys generous So reders should no be u o by he surprising subile, which Sengers cul ly borrowed rom Deleuze: here is nohing "wi ld in his book, exceps ha word igh be used o chraerize he reedo and invenion ohe uor O hose virues he book is sufed ul

Following hiehed, Senger hs been ble o urn round ny ohe mephors usully borrowed rom criical hinking: "o ink wihhiehd oday mens o ign on in dvne o n dvenure ha willleave none o h erms we norml ly use s hey were, even hough none

will be underined or summril y denounced s crrier o il lusion (24 ) hihed i s horoughly pu o he es here, nd ye hve no doub

ha, hd he lived, Deleuze would have celebraed his book s a mjoreven i he geopoliis o philosophy: a gre bu negleced AngloAmerian is reimpored ino Frnce hrough Belgiu, nd he even isken a he ocsion o reinepre pragmais, Bergsonism, nd empiri-cism h wonder ! h an ineresing ecological " inercpure !

Alhough he book is lose reding, in hronologicl order, o hemjor books o hiehead, nd lhough i akes ood use o he bodyo exising sholrship , i does no simply ry o expla in or populrize hehisory o hi ehed 's hough As he ile i ndices so wel l, he im is ohink wth hiehed Becuse she is hersel philosopher o science whohs explored inuely many o he sme elds as hiehedhemisry,

physics, Drwini sm, ehology, nd psychology (bu no mhemics norlogic, lthough she akes very seriously he ac h hiehed hinks s mhemiian)Sengers's book n be seen s n eor o es ouhiehed's os daring conceps on new aerials and in new exm-ples But conrry o he rher cvalier wy i n which hiehed reshis own predecessors, Sengers is very precise nd follows wih gre -enion hiehed's own hunhes Have no doub: when we ed his

book, we re hinki ng with Sengers and with hiehed ll long; were no hi nking wih hiehed bou wha is on Sengers's mind

he whole book urns round he mos rduous quesion o hiehed,wihou mk ing any emp eiher o void he dicul ies or o obfus-ce his philosophy by bringing in new i rrelevn conundrums he bsic

queion is o decide wheher or no empiicism cn b renewed so h

4 The choce of the ubttle ven more bzarre, nce on page 307 Stenger reveal a clear contrat between the poitvty of Whtehead and the exageratedpism of eleuze for chao ad oancm.


10/542

X F O R E O R D

"wh is gien in experience is no simplied oo much. Ains heradiion inaugured by Locke nd Descares, hen pushed o he limisby Kn unil i ws erminated by illim Jame, hiehed offers n-oher role for the objec of sudy o ply "he objec for him is neiherhe jude of our producion nor he produc of our judmens ( 9 ) .

h ha been les criically conidered by he philosophicl radi-ion, nd especial ly by he nimeaphysical one, is he feaure of es-ern hough ha occupied hiehead for mos of his creer, wha he cal ls" he bi furcaion of naure, ha is o say, he srange and ful ly modernisdiide beween primary and secondary ualiies. Bifurcate is a srange

and awkward word, srane o he onue and ear, bu wha i beokensis somehin een worse or our hinkin. Bifurcaion is wha happenswheneer we hink he wold is d i ided ino wo ses of hins: one whichis composed o he unda menal consiuens of he uniersein is ible ohe eyes, known o science, real and ye a luelessnd he oher which isconsiued of wha he mind hs o add to he basic building blocks ofhe wold in oder o make sene o hem. hose " psychic add iions, ashiehead cal ls hem, are par of common sense, o be ure, bu hey areun orunaely of no use o science, ince hey hae no rea l iy, een houhhey are the suf ou of which dreams and alues are made

It ecause Wlam James has efused o gve to eeve cocouess ad to

ts pteson o vaace, the pvege to cupy he ee of the scee thatJames has epcated so we [fo Whtehead] what huma epeece equests fommetaphyscs ad, moe pecey, to what t equests metaphyscs to esst" 230)Fa fom psychoozg eveyth, Wtehead sees Jamesad especay n hsceebated essay o coscousesthe thke who has eded a he petesons ofth md If the atua caso" s depsychoozed, t s thanks to Jamesee a standad deo of the pobem: oweve, we must adm that the

ausaty theoy of natue has ts sto sut he easo why the bfucaton ofatue s aways ceep back to scetc phoophy s the eteme dfcutyof hbtng the peceved edess ad wamth of the e oe system of elatos wt the aated moecues of cabo and oygen wth the adat eeyfom them, ad wth the vaous functon of the matea body Uess wepoduce the aembac eatos, we ae faced wth a bfucaed atue; namey,wamth ad edess on oe sde, ad molecues, eectos ad ethe o the othesde he the two fatos ae eplaned as ben espetvey he cause ad the

md's acto o the cause" (fed Noth Whtehead, The nept Nature[Cambde: Cambde Uvesty Pess, 920J 32)7 O he poca dmeso of ths dvde, ee my ow footnoe on Whtehead'saume Pliti Nature Hw t rin he Siene nto Demra asahe Poe (Cambde, Mss avad Uvet Pes 200)


11/542

F O R E O R D X

f could summr ze Sengers's version of hiehed by sor of syl-logism, i could be he following one: modernis phlosophy of scienceimplies bfurcion of nure ino objecs hving prmry nd second-ry ul ii es. However, i f nure rell y s b ifurced, no l v ing orgnismwould be possib le, since being n orgnism mens be ng he sor of hingwhose rimry nd secondry u l esif hey did exi sre endless lyblurred Snce we re orgnisms surrounded by mny oher orgnisms,nure hs not bifurced . Corol l ry: if nure hs never bifurced in hewy phlosophy hs mpled since he ime of Locke, wh sor of me-physis shou ld be devised h would py ful l j usice o he concree nd

obsinte exisence of orgnsms? he conseuence of considerng hisqueson s rdicl indeed: "he uesion of wh is n objec nd huswh is n bsrcion mus belong, f nure s no llowed o b i furce,o natue nd no o knowledge only (9; my emphss)

Hence he roughly hree eul prs of he book (lhough Sengersdivides her book in wo): How o overcome he bifurion of nure?h s n orgnism of creive or? h sor of srnge God is im-plied for his new phi losophi l bus ness ?

. . . J hnk i is wh hehed's God h Sengers's book reels s uli-

me power. Commenors hve ofen ried eher o drg hiehedn heology semnrsforgeng h his God i s here o solve very pre-csely echnicl problem of philosophy, no of beliefr o ge rid of

hs emrrassing ppendix logeher Sengers does no hesie o goll he wy in he direcon of hiehed's rgumen: if nure cn' beseen s bfurced, f cul occions re he suff ou of which heworld is mde, if "negive prehensions re he only wy cul occ-sons have o envisge he world, o pprehend , if eernl objecs rehere gurdins gins he shif bck o subsne nd foundions,hen Godfuncion s implied in hs philosophy.

Bu, of course, everyhing now urns round he word implied or im-plicate ken supercilly, shifs he oncep of God ino one of kng who sis on hrone or some gre pln ensconced in sor ofowerpo, hold ing his posiion in order o close book of mephysicshe euv len n phi losophy of he Queen of Englnd in pol is. Or else,ken s belief, God give some hlosophcl luser o prs of he

creed of some church, becomn wh you conde n when you hve loscondence in he world nd especially n sence. hou dsregrdnghose possiblies, hehed mens somehing else loeher. Implieds no only logcl funconwho is less locin hn he hiehedof he faous e " Russell nd hehead bu horouhly ono


12/542

X V F O R E O R D

loal iolement no e world . God s e feel n for osve, nseadof neave, reen ons. Afer years (or sould say enures? ) of assoan God w negavynk, for nsane, of Hegel wll ake

some me see s role a s onssn of a os v y, bu a would be awelome cane! "Dvne exerene s, n a sense, onscous bu alsonomlee. God does no envsae wa could e. H s ex sence does norecede nor redc fuue aualzaons. Hs envsaemen comes frome s for some novely a s rs s ong o nduce bu wc,by denon, wll o eyond ( 2 )

n a way, s no surrsng a eoloy as found eead so

conenal, sne nnovaons n eology are few and far beween. BuSeners redresss e usual mbalane and laces eead's nvenonof a God mlaed squarely nsde e worldand unable o "exlae , nor o "exrae mself ou of as e mos dar n bu a lsoe mo ndsensable onsequence f s ealy fusal o le naure -furae. No more an you can coos n naure o el mnae eer rmary or seconday qual es can you ooe, n eead, beween sesemoloy and s eoloy. And , of course, woul d be mossb le osay a e moderns losoy as " no need for od, as losoersare so roud of sayn and say frequenly. Ter crossdou Godo usemy erms always ere bu only o l l as n er reasonn. By akng ead 's God as serouly as eead's esemology, Seners leadng u n e r sysema aem a ndn a meaysal al

rnave o modernsm. Te eason wy er aem are so beaufull ymovn s ha ead as a f of e mos exraordnary rary: es no a creaur f e cul ure of rque. " He knows no crque, as oneould say of a san " se knows no n.

a does mean o " seak eeadan ? Amus nly, Sengers's bookbens w some of ose long eeadan senenes a Grendel, e

draon ero of Jon Gardners emake of Beowulf, unders wen ewse o frgen s uman v ms ou of r ws Sengerss book sa frgenng one, no queson abou a: ve undred ages of urelyseulave mayss. Bu Grendel, as we learn wen we read esory, s no ere o ea all of us u. n e onrary, e s ere o remnd us of our los wsdom. How can be a Amerca, nay, e Har

vard Plosoy Dearmen, rovded a seler o e mos moran losoer of e wene enury and en as uerly forgoen m ?y as aken us so lon o undersand Grendels moanng? Probablybecause does no offer e asy ras of e usual domescaed lo socal anmals resened n zoo end bars alwas here o be n


13/542


14/542


15/542

X V A B B R E V A O N A N D R E F E R E N C E

EF tinn Souiau, Du mod 'xinc 'uv a fai," ulletin de laSoit Fran�aise de Phi/oshi anc u 5 fi 1956, pp .

P Gill Dluz an Flix Guattari, ill plateau (Pais: Minuit, 190).

PM William jam, T Mol Pilosopr an Moal if" in The Will toelieve an Othe Essays in Poular hilosophy nd Human Immortality(Nw ok: ov, 196), pp 1815.

M l . Wita, odes of Thouht (w ork F P, 1968)

PAF William jams, T lac o Affcional Facts in a Wol of Pu Expi-nc," in Esss in Radical Empiricism (w ok: Longmans Gn anCo, 191; rp., Lincoln Univrsity of Nbraska Ps 1996), pp 1715

P William jms, The Princiles of syholo (Nw Yok: Hl, 1890; pr.,Lonon: Macmillan, 1891)

PR l N. Wita, ocess and Reality coc ition by D R. Gfnan D W Srbun (Nw ok: F Ps, 179)

P Gill Dlu an Flix Guattai, Quest-e qu la phi/osphie? (ais:Miui, 1991).

RA Wlliam jam, Rx Acion an Tism," in The Will to elieve andOther Essays in Popular Philosphy and Huma Immortality (Nw York:ov, 19), pp. 1111.

RM Alfe N. Wita, Relii in the akin (Nw ok: Foam Univr-iy Ps, 196).

5MW Alf Wita, Sien and the odern Wld (Nw r: FrPss, 97)

5PP William jam Some Prolems in Phi/osohy (w rk: Longmans, Gnan Co. 1911 rp, Lincoln nivrsiy of Nbraska Prs, 1996).

55 David Abam, The Spell of the Sesuos (w York: anon ooks 1996).

Gotfi W Libniz, Essais de thoie (Paris: GarnirFlammarion, 1969).

WjEP Davi apoua, William James: Empirisme et pramatism (aris: PF,997).

WE William jams, A Worl of Pur Exprinc in Essays in Radial Empiriism (w York: Longmans, Grn an Co, 19; rp, Lincoln: Univsiyof Nbraska Prs, 996) pp 991.

te eeece Ue xcty te ext

[Referenes whose o;et should not ive rise to any diulties of identication

hve een omitte

ny Clak, eing There Puttn ain ody, and World Togthr Again (Cam-brig, Mass.: MIT Pss, 1998)William jam, Do Concioun' Exi?" in Essays in Rdil mpiicism

(Nw Yok onmans, Gen and Co, 9; p, noln: Unity ofeba , 99), pp


16/542

A B B R E V A O N A N D R E F E R E N C E X I X

Gofrid Willm Libniz Confssio Phi/osophi rns. Robr C Slig Jr(Nw Hvn, Conn.: Yal Univrsy rss 006).

Rymon Ruyr, La Gns ds forms vivants (rs: Flmmarion 1958)Donal W Srburn . A K to Whithads Procss and Raliy (looming

on: nin Univrsiy rss 1966).Dnil Srn, Th Intrrsona World of th Infat (Nw York: sic ooks,

198).


17/542

There are concepts wherever there ar habits, and habits aremade and unmade on the plane of immanence and radicalxerience: they are "conventions. This is wh English hilosohis a fe and wil reation of concets Oce a roposition isgiven, to what cnvention ds it refer what is the habit thatcostitutes its concet? This is the question of pragmatism.

ll lu nd lx u Q ?


18/542

INTRODUCTION

Weead day?

Discreet PhilspherHe glned a me, suspiious . " Youre no pying en ion.

" m ! 1 sid , join ing my nds o sow my seriousness.Bu e sook is d slowly. "Noing ineres you bu exciemen,

violence."Ts no rue! 1 sid .

His eye opened wider, i s body briened from end o nd . You ellme was rue ? e sai d.

" m rying o follow yo u. 1 do my bes, sid . "You sould be reasonable. do you expec ?

Te dron oug abou i , brei ng slowly, full o f wr. A ls eclosd is ys: " Le us ry srin somewere els, e si d . " s dmnedard, you undersnd, onning myself o conceps fmil i r o a creure

of e Dark Ages. No one ge is drker n anoer. Tecnicl j aron from noer drk ge. He scowled s if ardly cpble of forcingimse lf on. Tn, fer lon momen : " Te essnce of l i fe is o be foundin e frusrions of esblised order. Te universe refuses e dedening inuence of omplee conformiy. And ye in is refusl, i psses owrd novl order s rimry requisi for imporn experienc. e

ave o exla n he ai m forms of order, and im novel of ordr,nd e mesure of success, nd mesure of failure. Apr from someundersanding, owever dimwied, of ese carcerisics of isoricprocess . . . His voice rild off (G r, 5758 )

How does a dragon alk? Suc is e problem Jon Grdnr d osolve wn e underook o rinven epc poe Beowul a pom


19/542

2 I N R O D U C I O N

that, as vy lshsak stut hs a, s th olt uoa ltay ok tt a vaula tou to hav om o tous . th o ial ok, lo a somb, Bou s th heo ho ghtsagaist th oes o evi l th most Gnl, hom h k l ls i th stat o th om, and th ago hom h i ll li kis k i ll n th scod at, but ho ill motally oun him. n Gas tio, hov, it is Gl ho tlls his stoy, o th qustio o koin hoo gts to b a most ous a moe tt i vieoit tha tho dd by the good. One thus isovs that i Gl kills m, itis baus h is simultanously th iness, judg, an imotnt voyu

o th stag o tio ha ov thm, ad cos uo thm. Hhas n thm bui l thmslvs a st iy, a ho i ast, a glo ious utu,ith th o invent o them by th Shap o th Pot in th stogsns o iv o om. Genl is aa o th lies i ths ods, butthis knold xl us him om hat i s tak in sha bo his ys:his lu idi ty bins him nothi but hat ad dsai . Thus, h hooss,ov solitay, to b th Gat Dstoy o huma bigs, o mo

cisly th Gat constuto. H ill iv a bitt, monotonouslau om th oo h v ass iiti o humas o th imotn o thi Gos, th sls haat o thei l ivs , ad th vaity o thi hos.

Hat is a hoi, ot a oqu. Bo bcomi th scouo humankin, Gnl mt a bi muh ol tha h ms l, th agon

that Boul a to ght o ay. This ao is " byo oo a evi l,byod both th sio o onstuti ad o toying illuoy costuctios. Fo hi m, ih il istic age is just as absu as bl i, o vythingis ti toth, vything gos had n ha, cation ad tuctio,lis an authtici ty. A h kos that Gnl i l l choos xitmntan voln, dsit his avi th oly o h an iv: sk out gol asit o it . . .

Th homa o tio to hilosohy. t is aily asy to iv voi to anoue, a idol smash, a i o a l l b lie . Yet it is much had togive voi to a onhuman koled, mo ait tha humanki,ab l t s ath tha th iigiat il thy cat in th iv otim . To ca th huma oit o vi, a to do so ith th calm selv idc that aoiat, as i th oks o th uvs blo tohat s gv, yo a l l oqust a hyothsi s, Gan tu to thhilosoh Al Noth htha, oyi out ti assas omhthas last book, Modes f Thought

n hat ol los, G l as to out hi thad a sco tim .t haned i n th cous o an uson that took h m ta th ci cl


20/542

N R O D U C I O N

of the ods, those statues that terozed men ask n va in o otectionaganst h. ende eets the bind Ok, the eldest and wsest o thepiests. He decides to have soe fun and, befoe k i in Ok, he sks hito confess hi fa ith, and say who is the King of the Gods. This time, inbethess succession, t is the God of Scince and the Mden Wld theprincple of i itation, ul tate i ationali t, then that of Pcess f Reality with is innite patience, his tende concen tat notng ay belost, that come fo the blnd an's lps. endel, bewdered, lets hisprey get away.

The wods of a dragon, suging forth fo te depts of te ages, as

sociated wit te neutralit of one fo who epocs, importances, andaogances succeed one anoter, but also words of trnce, come foowee, abl to rout Gredel, wo as declared war on te poet's talespinning: t eader as now been warned. It is a strange tongue tat willgradua ll y be elaborated ere, a l anguage tat calleges al l clea di stinctons betwee descripton and talespn ing, and id uces a s ingula expeience of di sorientation in te eart of te ost famil ia r experiences. t is

a language tat can scandalize, o else adden, all tose wo tink teyknow wat tey know, but al so al l those for wo to aproac te noknowing at the eart of a l l knowlede is an undertak ing tat is meticulous, rave, and always to be take up agan.

An d yet, of the p losopes of te century ta t as ju st ended, te oe

wo propose tis strane test was te qu etest, te most gentle, and teleast anxous to sock Fo ost of tose wo know i t, te name of iteead as, until very recently, erely ca led up a mage of te couple " Russel l and teead, autos of te Pncipia Mathmatica a onuental attept at te axoatzat ion of mateatics. Nor is anyone supposedto be unawa tat Gdel's faous teore sounded te deatknoll forthis undetakn. Te nae of Bertrand Russell, intially teead's

student at Trii t Col lege, Cabrdge, and ten, beeen and s ollaboato, is assated wit many of te centuy's adventuresteead 's ame, n contast, as escaped te " Russellanditeead association only gadua lly, an d in te aftemat, to v ibate wit i ts ownresonance: rst n te United States, and ten, gadua l ly, in oter egiosof te wold, as t anslations of is geat work Pcess and Reali weeublsed.

iteheads pesonl life was not only witout stoies, but it as leftvery few traces beind. He answeed te lettes written to m onlyraely, and at is deat is pesonal papes wee destoed, as e hadequested. This is why his bogapy, by Victo Lowe, is exteel


21/542

4 N R O D U C O N

sober, espeially wi regard o e seond par o is lie (volume 2,1 9 1 01947 ): ere is noing ere o arouse e appeie o e ans obiorapialinllecual speulaion, in sear o e "man beind e

work. To my knowlede, only Berrand Russel l , wo a lways ound wayso denirae wa e did no undersand, venured suc an inerprea iono e pilosopial urn aken by is riend i was, e suesed, edea o i s so Eri, a er pilo, in 1 9 1 8 , a led i eead o rejea purely meanisic universe and un oward pi losopy. No commen.For e res, wa an we ay, exep a iead's l i e was a o agied suden, a respeed universiy poessor, a appy usband, and an

aenive, aeionae aer . . .ieead was born in Ken in 1 86 1 , e son o a scoolmaser, laer

a Anlian psor, wo ook personal carge o is educaion unil eage o oureen. His you, wi was appy, was a o a suden asi ed or sudies as e was or spors. Upon is ad mission o Cambridein 1 880, e was oered e rare oice o a scola rsip eier or lassicalor or maemaial sudies. He cose maemais, wi e en au Trini Collee rom 188 o 1910 Ye e did no devoe imsel omaemais a lone. ieead oen sa id a i pi losopial ideas oriinaed rom qusion e ad pursued rougou is li e. Tis pursui waseed, in paiular, in a rae asoniin isorical, pilosopial,eoloical , and lieray ulure, o wic e was o make ee u e rouou is works. Ye ieead was no olar. Accordin o icor Lowe,

wn e received is sudents n unday evenins near e end o is li e,"w e alked abou really onerned im (AN, 302) eer inpilosopy, eology, siene, or lieraure, is oal was neier o inormno o ul ivae imel, bu always and above all o undersand .

n 1 9 1 , a e ae o y, ieead wen ino acion. Far rom eproeced ryms o Camride, e aug a Univesiy Collee London, en a merial Collee, and ocuied a series o adminisraive

posiions. Te maemaician was eneor assoiaed no onl wian eduaiona l inkerwi, or im, is e same ing as a in ker oua n naurebu also wi a pi losoper o naure, inking e spaceme o elaiviy wi and aains Einsein .

Tis lie "wiin e wold, divided eween puli responsibiliies,reormis aciviies, and personal reear, sould ave yielded o peae

a e ae o reiremen, u wo yeas beore e aeul dae, ieeadwas o eeive e inv iaion a would ane e course o is l i e oross e ocean and o eac a Harvad. To eac is own ideas ere,wi e could nal ly develop in li vin, risky way a, or im, everyeduaional oess mlis.


22/542


23/542


whih onsiues he nourishing soil of his oneps ( l houh ody ii i n Kore nd Jpn ht hitehed 's thouh mee with is greessuess).

eneforh, Amein " hiehedins re reruied mon boh phi -loophers nd heoloins, and he plee hs been enrihed by prai-ioners from he most dierse horizons, from eoloy o eminism, pr-tis h unie politil srugle nd siriuliy wih h sciens ofedution. his fos world tht is sonishinly di sparae from Eu-open iewpoin, in which NewAe tye of hough cn rub elbowswith ethysiins discussing Plto, Leibniz, nd Kn: srne drop

o wer in he mzing Ameicn ult ipl ici ty, bu which rms itself in sinulaly l ily nd tencious wy.

his is "slighly ecre school s Deleuz wrote in L P (LP, 103),d hee he secre is no ssied with desire for mysery, quie heonrry: hiehedin phi losophes re pssionely ched o ech-nicl onroersy, to explining coneual difulies, nd o eluatinpossible or neessry modictions. he secrecy deries from he legyof hilosopher who, discreely nd wihout polemics, withou eer sk-ig hi s eders o thri l l o he udciy nd rd icli sm of he risk or o thehre of isol ion, bu wih n obstine enderness, undertook o forge onepul lnue ht fores hose who cquire te fo i o hink.

hitehed ws matheaicin, and i i s no doubt becuse he was mheaicin, beuse he knew nd loed he wy mhemis forces

mtheaicins o think , but l so knw he riorous consra ins to whicheey mahemicl denition must repond, th he neer hought hmheics could consitue model h ws enerl izble. he ki ndof necessi y proper o mheticl deonsrions cnno be rnsferredo philosophy. Philoophical resonin h ries o be demonsrtie inthis ense could only roduce n imiation unworhy of he denure h,fo theic ins, is constiued by he production of demonsrion.

h is more, in order o confor to the loil mhemticl model ,suh resoning would requi re the oodwi ll of the reders, heir submis-sion o deniions ha re siplisic comred wih he exrordinrysub ley boh of he siuions and of he uses of nura l l nue si confrons hese siutions. Suh siplisi deniions, which uilequesions, would be he rice o py for n proh h would nlly

be ionl. As maheiincumphilosoher, hiehed trns-ferred rom mthemics o hilosophy no he uthoriy produced byeonrion, bu he adenure and commien o nd for ques-in, the " bd fai th with erd to eey " s is well known, all onsen-sul plauib il i ies.


24/542

I N R O D U C I O N

f hihd's work is hd o pproh, i is bcus i dmnds, wihur discrion, h is rdrs cc th dvnur of h qusionsh will spr hm from vry onsnsus Of cour, on could sy hhi s is h cs o l l "gr phi loophrs, hos who do no li mi thmsl v o sk in "clss i qusio : h of humn frdom, or h ofh vlidity of our knowld, or of h rlio bwn fcs nd vlus, for insn hn philosoph rnorm h lndscp of qusions, hir rdrs cnno limi hmslvs o " king cognizn of whis proposd, or o vluing, s "conoissurs, h wy rin wllknown rumns formuld d usd, nd whos uhors siu

hmslvs onsuc llincs, inrodu nw distinions h ohrswi l l hn hv o disuss, consrv, or rjc Evn whn n rgum i skn up gi, i mning chngs, nd h drs mus cp hxprinc of his chn Y vn whn philosophrs innov in hiswy, h nvly is usully inroducd in wy h offrs rdrs noh kind of sbiliy, h on h cn b ssocid wih prorss fhey dr, hy will b h ons o oppl h prs ino n obsolps, ps in which " opl sil l bl ivd h hy will b unidby h udiy of wh hy dny, nd wh hy no loger nd Advn hilosophr like izsch, who hough h ws wriing for noon, bs no rdrs could br o siu hmslvs "byond goodnd vil, supplid, no doub involunrily, h formul for nw consnsus: no, of cours, o liv wh is unlivbl, or o think wh is un

hikbl bu o fer o h unl ivb l nd he unhinkb l , o riicize ordconsru h i which ohrs si ll " bl iev

f Grdr's monsr Grndl s, h lp lss, insd of k i l l ing h bl indpris , i is bcus hi hrd is fd by h wy humn bings r si udin hisory h h cnno shr, hi sory h i s he work of h Shap,who rnsforms heir li vs i no p is And o disrm Grnd l 's hrd ,i is o nough o dny progrss, o rjc humn grss im nd

gin, h monsr wi ll prciv h ngion d rfuion r q ul lyh frmion of h suprioriy o hos who hv bcom cpbl ofdnyin nd rfuing h i n wh ich ohrs belivd ime nd in , hwill discrn he work of h Shap nd h will kill Grdnr nddhihd o giv voic boh o h pris nd o h dron bcus hndd samns h, in wo diffrn mods, spr Grndl from

wh ms him monsr h dron is xrpi, bu he pris, forhis , mks Grndl 's powrs of discrnmn rd undn How couldon disrn mndcious consrucion whr nohing clims o b uhorizd by h fcs, whr no rgumn vr cl ims h powr o bringino grmnt hos who wll prov, by hs grmn, h hy r


25/542


worhy o wh is demnded of hem? he pries's speeh is " l uhble,s hiehed's mbiion my seem luhble in he eyes of onemporry philosophers: o onsru hilosophy tht is opely nd sysemil ly speulive

ne of he tess hiehed reserves for h is reders hus onerns hequesio o wh i s h ilosophilly " serious, or wh every serious philosopher knows ody: i is illusory o del in posiive wy wih theruh of God, or of he universe his seriousness is mrked he divisionbewe he quesions ht belon o he hi sory of philosophy, nd thoseh desine is onemporry errioris. Hi sorins o phi losophy n

devoe hundreds of pes o Plto's des, he Heel in Spir i, he Leibnizin mods, he resin God, or the vision in God of Mlebrnhe, ndhey n experiene he efy proer to hese ones, d even sueed in rnsmiing hem hey will no be sked how hey siue hemselves wih rerd o hese philosophil proposiions, beuse hey redoin the job o hisorin. hey re proeed by heir disne Y hitehed is qusionemporry philosopher He wroe he sme time sHeideer, Husserl, nd ienstein, who re sill ited ody s referenes for think in bou our epoh. is hus impossib le o keep h im " disne. And ye he seems o be unwre h here is "before Kn,whn philosophers onsidered hemselves free o speule bout God,he world , nd he humn soul, nd n " fer Kn, in whih, exep for ew oldfshione nifs, hey hve lerned he lesson of humn niude,

hve eed he onsequenes of the f ht hey do no hve he bene o d iret inu iion of hese ul ime rel iies, nd hve dmied h"houhs wihou inuiive onen r empy.

Taing a Speculative Philsphy Seiusly?

ow n we ke serious ly book li ke Pcss and Rali whih opens

wih hper devoed o h speulive philosohy h we r supposed to hve releged o hisory? All he more so in h hieheddoes no underke o deend he ond iions of posib il iy of suh ph ilosophy, or o nswer he ondemnion ht hs been dereed g ins i .He l imi ts himsel o l inin u, in wy h is perely serene, s if heywere so mny sel fev idenes, semes li ble o plunge serious philoso

phers ino bysses o ind inn perplexi y, if hey do no lose he bookfer two pes, no eve seeing how one ou ld tk thouht h isdisrmin in is nivety nd is domism. And how ould one keseriouly, s us ionemorry, ok h ends wih he grndiosevisio o ereu omi roes suh h "he ove in e world


26/542

I N R O D U C I O N 9

asses into the love in heaven, and oods back again into the world( PR, 31 )

The diculty is al l the greater because i t is iossible to ai ntain thathitehead, as a atheatician, was naive and ignorant in hilosohy,or to lassify hi aon those who attemt a "return to a hilosohyof the " eKantian tye Does he not hiself exlici tly deny the ossibi l ity of such a return when he writes that " hilosohy never reverts toits o ld osition after the shk of a great hi losoher ( PR, ) Of course,hitehead read Descartes, Sinoza Leibniz, and even Kant as if theywere his conteoraries, but he knows that he asks the questions that

are not thei rs, he knows that he does not resect what atters for the,or what ade the think

Perhas one had to be a atheatician to real ize that i t i not aroriate to ake seriously, for one instant, the unavoidable dileas andthe insurountable alternatives that hilosohers roduce in order togive their deonstrations a necessity that also enables the to criticizeand denoune Yet a huor of thought was a lso necessary in order not tooverestiate this knowledge, so as not to transfor i t into an i nstruentof j udgent, to know that, unli ke atheatical den itions, den itions inhilosohy are just as interesting by what they deny, judge, or refuse tothink, as by what they afr Phi losohical stateents ust generally beheard twice: in the ode of creation, they nd their necessity in the roble that set the hilosoher to work in the ode of j udgent, they desig

nate what the hi losoher has undertaken to sil ence and diqua l i fy, thatis, al so the transforation of what gave rise to the roble in oleicsagainst rivals and iosters

hitehead's seculative hilosohy is indeed situated "after Kant,after the shok constituted for hilosohy by the Kantian rohibitio ns, because this h i losohy does not couniate with a " right tothink Thus, hitehead does not infringe uon any rohibition, for

rohib itions esuose such a couniation The question for hiis not what w can k now, but what we k now f he becae a hi losoher, it i s beause questions to which, as an eir ica l fact, he fel t thathis eoch eanded an answer situated hi in that tradition knownas hilosohy

Reading hitehead is a test, for he deands of his readers not only

that they accet these questions, but a lso, and above a ll , that they accetthe ossib i lity that such questions are not destined to reain wi thout ananswer, the object of a editation on the huan condi tion, i ts aradoxes,and even it tragedy More than any other hilosoher, Whitehead waseeated by the vertignous ditance between the ossiblities of the


27/542


univese an ou huan abil itie to ahen the Yet he never boweown beore a question, for evey question is a huan orulation, andnone, as such, transcens the huan aventue The way we forulateuestions always coes fo soewhee, and can always lea soewhee: not, cetainly, to an answer that woul e enitive at last, butathe to new ways o forulating the, in a way that no loner counicates with an insuountable eniga, but with a roble If theeis one osition that enies the nitue of the huan con ition, i t is theone that clais to ut a sto to the aventure o thouht, an suosesthat we know what is iose y that conition

f reai n hitehea eans accetin to coit oneself o an adventue whe stating oint is always the orulation of a roble, without the legiti acy of the oble being wel l founed, without the ossibiliy of answein it bein justie in tes o the right to think, oneay ihtly wonder if the forulations he attete ae still able to enae us toay Such a question coul , of couse, be raise with egar toevey hilosohe, and it is the eatness of the hi stoy o hilosohy thatit succees, soeties, i n ivin what one coul call , with Gil les Deleuze,a " otait of the hi losohe with his obl Even when the oleis no loner ous, the way i t force the hi losoher to think, create, aneject can then ecoe ours, in the sense that i t ceates the exerience ofthe oveent o thought roe to hi losohical c reation Deleuze waswel l awae of thi, he who iscovee that hilosohy woul be his l i fe,

woul be what woul ake his life woth living, ate a st class onPlato's easeven if any consie hi a the antiPla tonic hi losoherpa xcellnc. The surest way to "k il l hilosohy is to tansi t it i n theanne o a cience: one oes not nee to enter into contact with Newton's ole to learn rational ynaicsthe equations o Lagrane anailton ene what ust be etained of itbut to eal with Platowithout st shar ing hi oble is soewhat analogous to stuying but

t ies on the basis o a collection of inne butteies, without eve havin seen one y

t Thinking with Whitehad oes not belong, roely seaing, tothe histoy o hilosohy n it, to be sure, hitehea will never be seaatd fo his oble, and ore recisely o the way in which henever cease forulatin an refoulating his roble Yet this is no

"ortait, o what is at stae in this boo is also, an insearaly, toresent hitehea as a hilosoher who belons to ou och Unliethe ortraitist, whose ta is to ae the viewers eel, to tansfe whatwas live an ceate, but without ersonally tain ove o it, yaroah to hitehad cnnot e disoiated o the iortance of


28/542

I N R O D U C I O N

his work i y li fe . this sese, a art of the otley cew of "hi teheadians, of those ecologists, feiists, educators, theologians, ad soon who have discovered that hi tehead heled the to iagie and to

ght aaist " readyade odels, and above al l ot to desai r.The discovery that hitehead heled e i this way is isearablefro y practical situatio ore tha thirty years ao: that of a youhilosoher who had coe fro the exeietal sciences to hi losohybecause she did not accet the way researchers in sciece ae trained , andwho was trying to ure out how to situate hersel with reard to thesescieces. Te goal , for he, was to be ale to think about the creative ower

of these cienceste ath of citical episteology was henceforthlosedbut also about their catastrohic id ifferece to what they judge"nonscientic. The ath that aties this judgent by aking the sciences, in one way or anothe, an " access to real ity beyond our i ll usioswas theefore closed as well .

t could however, e aintaied that hitehead failed, if not in hisdianosis, then at least in his roosis with regard to science. For aniortant asect of what engaged his hilosohical adventure was hisconvictio that what is called oder science had reached a turingoint, which deanded a new hilosohical thouht. The eriod whendern science had develoed by reudiat in hilosohy had been fruitfu l , but as he wrote in 1 925, the threat was henceorh that science ightegenerate into a "edley of ad ho hyotheses (SM, 1 7) t will be said

that this threat has not aterial ized, and that hysicists have, without thehel of the hilosohers, transfored the foundations of their science, andhave accolished what seeed iossib le to Kant: to interrogate the origin of the Univese, of atter, and even to lace i debate the question"why is there soething ather than nothin t will also be said thatbioloy ha accolished its revolutio, and that we have learned oreabout l iving eings in a few decades tha throughout the receding cetu

ries Other could al so say that if science is threatened today, it is rathe bythe way i which its tad itional al l ies, th State and industry, have undertaken to eslave it directly through what is called the econoy of knowledge, and that hitehead's oositions ignoe what should be thouhtabout today: not a cience that is still a couin of hilosohy, trying toconer a itelligile ordr o what confronts us, but a technosciece for

which to uderstad is to be able to transfor, and which lindly sevesthose who actual ize that ower to trasor the world .Of course, hitehead was only lateal ly inteested in this last q uetion,

al thouh oe could say that the way he desinated the "ethod o trai ningroeiona l (S, 9) , a one o the eat ad ost edutable


29/542


discoveries of the nineteenth century, ha lost none of its ower. Yet hisgoal wa not to denounce ofessionals or to bing them cultue, the"sulement of soul they lack. hitehead belongs to ou eoch because

he asks a question that is ous, that of our lack of resistance to the way inwhich, snce the beginning of the nineteenth century, what has beencalld roess has redened the world. From this viewont, one couldsay that today, at a tie when it has ecoe iossile to inoe thecosequences of this roes, worrsome to say the least, hitehead'sthouht nds an actuality it lacked in its own day. To be sure, thee hasbeen in novation, but a lso rarefaction of thoe who, stil l in hitehead's

time, took the time to think . nstead, we have to do with a veritable "cu ltof the scientic revolution a new revolution wil l come along to solvethe questions rai ed by the receding one One must "wai t for genius,and meanwhile nothing must slow down the race, the ocess of accumulatin results by researchers who a dened, i n the st instance, bycometition.

Yet what, one will ask, does hitehead suest Are we to believethat his concets, formulated so lon ao, miaculously conseve theirrelevance in a world he could not imaine s he the genius we werewai ting for By no means, and ust confess that the way some hysicists who have w thdrawn fro the race to secul ate have ecome inteested in hitehead, and have found amon the "rocess hilosohers the syathetic and attentive ear their colleagues refused them,

does not convince e. For thi iterest arms what hi tehead refused :that the questions that issue rom the ecialized adventue known ashysics are the "big quetions that deal with eality as such Muchore ositive i n thi s regard is the in terest o certain cheis ts or bio logist s, who do not ai at a sumi t mean in etween their science andmetahysics, bu t d iscover that the hitehead ia n concets ake asectso the situations they study interestig and sinicant they do not il

lustate the ower of theoetical araches tha t ae habitual , but imosed by exeientation

owever, fo a hlosoher like m, interested in cience, what is nodoubt ot iotant is the way hitehead sugests uttin thins inersective. t a llows us to resist the identication of the question of science wi th tha t of nowledge. Confronted by science, hi losohy does not

have to think of human knowledge, either to mae thi s sciece the accolishment o huan rationality, and extract from it eistemological ornomative noms in ordr to diagose, in the manner of Bergson, thelmts of rational knowlede, or, like eideer, to denounce science as that wich de ot thin Beyo their ctaictions, all these hilo


30/542


31/542


In other wors, for one who leared to think with hitehead, the confrontation, which a few ears ao insired so an assions under thenae of the " science wars, was not at al surri sing. If the "obective

sciences can reeate to undecidabe ction what has not undergone aredenition that woud na be scientic, wh would reresentativesof the huanities derive theselves of transforing this ction into acounterffnsive cateor to show that the socaled "hows, nall obective, conceal the "whs of huan undertakings As hitehead wrotewith regard to the dual it between free, entrereneuial indiv idua siri tand regular, subissive atter bequeathed to us b the seventeenth cen

tur, "There is Aaron's rod, and the agicians' serents; and the olquestion for hilosoh is, which swalows which; or whether, as Descartes thouht, the al li ve ha together (SM, 1 424 ) .

istor has roved Descartes wron. Each "advance of an obctiv iteuted to be scientic has been accaied b soe as a gain in rationa it, and condened b others as an a ttack on the subect. In fact, onecoud al ost sa that rovokin denunciation has becoe a favorite rhetorica trick in certain scientic elds. The scanda stired u bears witness to the conquest. The barking dogs consti tute in theseves the roofthat the caravan is assin, transorting the rst fruits of the irresistibeconquest. And the dos ae all the ore useful in that the caravan inquestion is transortin on oods that are not ver interestin at alltha t is, the etensions of "evoutionar scholog.

hat ha haene to us ne o the unique asects of hitehead'ssuestion is that is oes not conain an "bad us, nor an exanatorconstruction of continuit that refs to soethin we "coudn't hl.That "adventure is the rst and the last word i ies that al l contiu itis questionabe, and that no incie of econo should revai l that allows us to foret th at the resution of a seinl s i i ar thee takeslace i n circustances that a re di fferent ever tie, and with stakes that

ae a was di fferent. The question "what has haened to us i s terefore not the search fo an u tiate exanat ion, but a resource for te ingour stories in anther wa, in a wa that situates us otherwisenot asdened b the ast, but as a be, erhas, to nheri t fro i t in another wa.

hitehead's conteoraies coul, with auseent, eexit, orscandal, wonder whether one shoud reall incur the risks of a secula

tive oeration, ovin eaven and Earth, God and atter, to reeddifcuties that ae ultiate scondar: does not odern "rogressbear wi tness to the fact that, deste everth n, " we have succeeded indistnushn ouseves ro thse eoes who, n act, roted at thetie r th enets o civ zn lna i s ie have chaned and


32/542

N R O D U C O N 5

what a have seeed to be "exess a be worth of lang a role nthe arentesh tha t toda oses tsel wth regard to ourselves Forgood ntentons and a onlator srt are not enouh Vsons of the

world that af ontrad tons b weakenng the w ll alwas be at theer of one of the ters that wl l transfor the fragle br dge of rese-blanes that has un ted t wth the other as a eans of assage and on-quest And the all ow us, n a l l good onsene, to roose to the rest ofthe world a thouht that s nall onsensual The seulatve oeratonatteted b htehead ould wel l be ore relevant toda than t was nhs da, beause t breaks wth the la to anont that nhabts us

and onsttutes us, stl l and aan, as " the thnkng head of huant Tolearn to resst, wth regard to the "us that ade the Chnese s le, s alsoto learn that ou adventure an ndeed ake eole sle

Thining with Whitehead

Thnkng wth htehead toda therfore eans aetng an adventurefro whh none of the words that serve as our referene onts shouldeerge unsathed, but fro whh none wll be dsqual ed o denounedas a vetor of l l uson Al l are a art of the roble, whether the reer tothe whs o huan exerene or to the hows of "obetve realt Iforose solutons do not sufe, t s beause the tr to ruventthe roble nstead of rasng t; that s, the tr to tgate the ontra-

dtons and to ake oatble that whh denes tself as ontualhtehead wa s a atheatan, an d atheatans a re the wh o donot bow down before ontrad tons but transfor the nto an ngredent of the roble The are the ones who dare to "trust n the ossbl-t of a soluton that reans to be reated thout ths " trust n a os-sble soluton, atheats would not exst

Ths truth s the one l la Jaes alled ath or belef, hs onl an-

swer when onfronted b those who have delared that l fe s nt worthl v ng, " the whole ar of sudes ( ) an ar whose rollall, lkethe faous evenng gun of the Brtsh ar, follows the sun round theworld and never ternates ( LL, 7 ) It has nothng n oon wthwhat I would al l, to underl ne the d fferene, " to be ondent, that s,to ontnue, to arr on n the ode of "everthng wll work out ne

The atheatan's trust s nsearable fro a o tent not to u-t late the roble n order to solve t and to take ts deands full ntoaount Yet t l es a ertan del berate anesa wth regard to the ob-vousness of obstales, an atve ndeternat on of what the ters o theoble "ean Transfered to hlosoh, ths ndeternaton eans


33/542

6 N R O D U C O N

that what announed itsel as a foundation, authoizin a ostion androvding its banner to a ause, will be transfored nto a onstraint,whih the soluton will hav t reset but uon whih it a, if nees-sar, onfer a soewhat unexeted siniaton .

To i ll ustrate this indetein zation, I wi ll refer to a well known fable.There one was an o ld Bedouin, who, ensin that hi s death was i -nent, gathered toether his three sons and sined hs last wshes tothe. To the eldest, he beueathed hal f hi s inheri tane, to the seond onequarter, and to the third one sixth. As he said this, he de, leavng hi s sonsin erlexi t, for the inheri tane in question onssted of eleven aels.

ow were the to reset the old an 's wl l Should the k il l those ofthe aels whoe division seeed resribed, an d share the eat aonthe as this the requi red l ia l iet Did ther father reall want the torove their love aeting this loss r had he ade a stake, dis-trated or weakened b his inent death In fat, at least one erro waobvous, beause onehal f lus a quater lus a ixth do not ake one. Yett inherit n the bais of an interretation that disqual ies a last wsh, isth s not o insult to the dead And in ths ase, oreover, how ou ld onedivde ho would take awa the rainder of the division All the in-gedent were there for a fratriidal war. The three brothers neverthelessdeided to tr to avoid the war, that is, to waer that a solution ouldexist. This eans that the went to ee the old sae who so often las aole n suh stories. Ths old sae, on this oason, told the that he

uld not do anthing for the exet to ofer the what ht erhashel the: his old ael, skinn and halflnd. The inheritane nowounted twelve ael: the eldest took six of the, the seond three, theounest two, and the old ael was returned to the old sage.

hat did the twelfth ael aolsh B its resene, it ade oss-le what seeed ontradito, siultaneousl oben the father's wishes,disoverin the ossibilit o reseting their ters, and not destroing

the val ue of the inheitane. All this beause it ade i t ossible to bringto exitene that whih reained d isretel undeterined in the aternalstateent, the q uestion of what it eans to " share an inheri tane. It isusual l d iv ided into arts, and this i s what the stateent sees to o-and . Yet this nor i onl one wa of answerin the roble hat isrequred is that one the alloation has been ae, the ontents of the

inheritane are distibuted, but nothin deterines what the alloationust deal with. The ontent of the inheritane is a iven that ats as aonstraint, but the role of thi s nstraint belons to the solution, and thequestion o the alloation an tus e luned witin a wider eld ofoibilitie. u, te olution e no etail ubssion t the rob


34/542

N R O D U C O N

lea t stateent, but the nvention of the eld i n whih the roble ndsts solution

The fable of the twelfth ael i l luinates the eaning of what hite-head was to all "seulatve hilosoh First, it illustrates the differ-ene between " trust in and " bein ondent in If the brothers had goneno farther than to wonder whether the ould be ondent n their father'sintentions, their situation would ean without issue It is onl beausethe aete the aternal wll as an unknown, beause none of thelaied to know what ther father "eant, that the went to onsult theold ae And the " trust resuosed b thei r roedure i s not d i reted

to the old sage hiself, for the goal is not to ie ld to hs authorit ratherthan to the aterna l authori t It i s di reted to the ossb le as suh, to theossib il it of a solution on the bas is of whh the unknown of the ater-nal wll ght nd ts eanin As far as the twelfth ael added to theinheritane s onerned, it llustrates the efa roer to the seula-tive roostion This ael wi ll not benet an of the brothers It akesthe dvision ossible, in onforit with the fathe's wll, but t s not ds-tributed itself and is not added to an share

The seit of the onet oosed b hitehead i s that, l ike thetwefth ael one the have done their ob, one the have transforedthe wa in whih a situation raises a roble, the dsaear wthout leav-in a trae other than ths transforation itself This is wh hiteheadan write that the interest of the seulative shee he has onstruted

resides in its aliations, n the transforations it arries out in ourwas of exlainng or haraerizing our exerienes It i s these transfor-ations that are to give ri se to the exeriene htehead assoia tes withthe goal of hi losoh, an exeriene of " sheer di slosure (MT, 49) ratherthan the onets theselves The onets are require b the transfor-ation of exeriene, but it is this dislosure that has, and alwas willhave, the la st word For nstane, the queston ra sed b th e seula tive

onstrution of God, equired b h tehead, does not il the existeneof this God The onl question s that of knowing whih exerieneswoul have been eleated to il lusionhow the roble would have beenutilatedif what hitehead naes God had not been inluded in theonetual arangeent onstuted b hitehead

Yet the fa that hitehead was able to disover that his onetual

arrangeent eeded Go il es an a set of h eulative hilosohthat the fab le of the aels oes not al low us to desbe, beause thisfable has the for of a iddle that all ows one ath to a solution , and onloe In the ase of seulative hilosoh, the role of the ding father,woe last whes dene what the solution to te role of denition


35/542

8 N R O D U C O N

ust aheve, s not laed b anone Ths s wh one annot sa tatthe hteheadan ooston onsttutes "the answe, nall dsov-ee Qute the onta, this roostion s nsearable fo the on-

stants that tehead had to iose uon self in orde to foru-late the oble to be solved, for t is these onstants that ake h aeato: n othe words the onfe uon the soluton being sought theower to obl ge h to ete This s wh the seulatve answe fou-lated n css and ali s tself oheent with what it tes to brngabout: " seer dslosue It s insearable fro an adventure n whhe oble of hi losohers, tat is, the onstrants that ust be sat sed

the soluton the onstut av not eased to e eforulateIf hthead s the one who bns adventur into extene, where

wat we seek are reasons and justatons, o wat s suosed to tran-send an a uthoze ou hoes, t s rual not to oneve of ths ad-venture as redu ble to what s arbit rar o ontingent hat s a t stakeee enales e both to haaterize htehead's aroah as "onstu-tvist and to efend te ontrutvst oston aanst the use thatweihs t down toda, a weight t transfes to the situatons n whih itntevenes There are soal, ultual, linguist, neurohsologial hs-torial , and ol ta l onstutv ss, but ther oon feature is des-tiaton In a wa that bears wtnss n tself to the oleal ower ofou ateoies, to afr " it's a onstuton s to af "t s a ere on-struton, and t will then ost often be a atter of afng the abi-

tra natue of what others bel eve the an j ust f In atula, the re l to whh the sienes la to have aess ust fal l s lent, unable to akea sinant dfferene beteen the nteretative onstrutons tat on-ern it Suh la s are theselves " ee onstrutons, or "naratves

here oles unasks, htehead addesses adventues In cssad ali he seaks of ratonal s as an "exeiental adventure ( PR,9) and of etass as an "adventure of hoe (PR, 42), but he also

denes, in a seulatve ode, al l ontinu t as an "adventure n hange(PR, ) For hi, then, the ter "adventue s val d s ultaneousl, bothon an eal levelto haraterize what we are dealng wth, butwhh a lso stuates usand on a seulatve level And the hoie of thiste aentuates a queston that oleal onstutvss rende se-onda Thee s no adventure wthout a sk elat on to an envonent

that has te owe to olate ths adventue, o even to doo t tofa lue Likewse, tee s no onstuton that oes not rase the questonof "how t holds toethe, o ow t is affeted b ts envonent andow t affets t

That a bge a ol tougout ts "a ventue o ange, thoughte ultil tl tat ts envoet ose uo t i te aeve


36/542

N R O D U C O N 9

ent that atters in it ase And no one will sa, with reard to aenturold br de, " it's onl a onstruton . However, it w ll be obeted,if no one sas ths, t s beause no one las the ontrar: no one la isthat the bre is "obetive, or ndeendent of huan knowlede. Yetth is answer albet leitate, rovides a ood translat on of the urse thatweihs uon onstrutivs, that s, on its ature b a oleial net-work. If the noton of onstution is used n a eoratve wa, it s be-ause it was intiall obled b sentists to haraterize what s notsenti, then atastohall reservn ts sae onnotaton of arb-trarness, b the " deonstrutvsts, to how that sient knowlede an-

not esae the sae udentThe fat that all ontnuit ust be desrbed as an "adventure reates

the ossibi li t of esan oleis. Instead, a set of notons oranzes t-el f around the notion of adventure and artiu lar l that of a onstru-ton that " able to old, whh, foll owin htehead, and in the ath-eatal sene, we wll all "ener hen htehead ues the word"eneri, and also wen he seaks of "eneral t, he is not thnk n l kea loian and is not ivn the ter the ower to dene a class of arti-ular ases ( all en are ortal; Sorates . . ) . The ener notion does notauthorze an dention. t suests a wa of addressin a stuat on whoseeventual suess wi l l be the rlevane of the quetions to whh t ives rseGeneral ites n the loal sense authore lassatons, wth eah art-ular ase exelfn the eneral haraterist that denes a set of

notons. hteheadan hi losohal general tes, and the notons he al ls"eneri, ake the waer that the qustions to whh the wi ll ve risewill shed lht on features that are iortant for eah stuat on.

ortane s a hitehead an ener noton. It enables no l assa-ton, et nevertheless doe not onden t: to lassf a be what at-ters, for nstane, for a botan st. Th s s not a atter of sholo, for ifone queston botansts, the wll seak of veetal rolferaton, of the

thorn questns raised b ea t of lassaton, n short, of an ad-venture that onfronts one wth lants. Ever adventure thus a ll s forththe generi queston "what does t ake atter whh an also ean" how s the ontrast between suess and defeat dened for t and thisqueston will all forth others n turn, whh wll l the trials, rsks,and t of environent requi red for suess, and so on

As an exaple, but al so in order to ntrodue self, I w l l al low selfto sketh here the wa I have tried to haraterize odern exerientalsiene. I have ratied an aroah that ould be alled onstrutvist,but not n the sense of a theo of knowlede or an eisteolo thatas that nt real t, but huan ativities a lone are resonsib le for ouowlede. e tutvit quetn have ae " wat aes these


37/542

2 0 N R O D U C O N

huan bens, these roduers of th knowledge we al l exerentalbeoe atve In other words, what is the uniqueness of the adven-ture in whih the have beo engaed what atters to the

what does suss ean to the f ourse, an thins are ortant for in dividual s, but here thequestion bears not uon the but on the wa the dene an aheve-ent, and the wa this den ton enages the. In Th Invntin f Md-n Scincs I sugested that what untes exerienters, what fores theto boe ative and to think tgethr, s a queston that an onl beasked in the laborator: did this exeriental aranent rovide the

henoenon bing questioned wit the ab il t to bear witness n a rel i-ab le wa, onernin the wa what s a de observable a bout th s he-noenon ust b intereted Has it sueded in onferring uon thehnoenon being q uestioned the role of resondent for the interre-tation that i given to it

The abi li t to resst the ausaton of being a ere onstrution, nthe snse of a erel huan (soia l, linu sti, tehnial , subetive) fab-raton, is thus no longer the ivilege of the exeriental roedure,but ts ke eleent. It i s what denes the deands of the environent onwhh the suess of an exeriental sugestion deends, and th is ab il itdoes not exlude the huan beings who beoe ative, di suss, and hesi-tate, but soliits the and obil izes the around the eventual i t of thisahievent. And ths i s an ah event that no theor of knowledge, no

esteolog ould ust, for t blongs to the order of the event, of whatan haen but i s not deserved, and does not orresond to an rght. I tis an aheveent th at is rare, extreel seletve, and radal l situated.hat situates t is not the world, obetivel deihered at last, but theexeriental aaratu, for the questons that atter are establshedaround the exeiental aaratus. It is here that huan bengs beoeative, and that an art of testin and of onsequenes is ratied, whose

orrelation is the sgnature of the event. The tests of an exerentalroositons reliablit are not a goal in theselves; the tue veriationof a oositon onerns ts onsequenes or the new ossibi li ties that i takes oneivable and whh, f the ae fruitful, w ll ather researherstogether, whatever eteolot a sa.

That this te of suess ould beoe the odl of a theor of gen-

eral knowledge, ontann th d squaaton of what s erel sub-etve, s the sgn of a roaanda oeraton . Te event here we ando soethn ! s transfred nto a nor ( ost often ted of what,fr experenters, aks an event, so as to extend t to the totalt ofwhat s reonzed as sent ), ad vtn tat esa th s nr


38/542

N R O D U C O N 2

is laed in the sae sak, dene b the "wh of huan subetvitThe suess stor of this oerat ion is art of the quest on "what has ha-ened to s but i n order to resst t there s no need to "deonstrut theexerietal ahieveent n the ontrar, t s b aeting it n its se-letve nd rare unqueness that we an nderstand that t s not "na tureth at akes an exerienter t hn k Hedegger was rght: n th s sense,indeed, "scene does not thnk hat atters to exerenters are theobetons and the tests to whh their rooston w ll be subeted, andthe future i t akes it ossble to envsage

Suh an aroah offers a erta n analog with the fable of the telfth

ael , beause t l its tself to add ng an ingredient l a ble to rodue a" sheer di slosure the onfrontaton onl seeed inevtab le beause thsingredent had been left out of the robleat landsae Ths obvious ldoes not solve the ver onrete robles rai sed b the role of siene andof sentsts n ou soet, but t searates these robles fro what, forthe exerenters, an onl be a delaration of war: the udgent that whatrodue agreeent between the s nothng ore than a urel huanonstruton ne an lsten to ientsts tell the stor of ther aheve-ents wthout havng to hallenge the, for the are stuated in, and be-long to, an adventue that has nothin to sa about what does not answerto ts deands The questions that ssue forth fro th is adventure areadded to the other han questons and a oliate the, but f theaear to take the lae of questons that atter in other adventures, as

onsttutin th e "na l l obetive version of the, there s no need foronfrontaton, and it is enogh to searh with trust for how the stor hasbeen transfored nto roaganda

However, ths aelwhh I would a ll " ratal , sne the ngred -en t t adds desgnates what atters for exerienta l rat iesdoes notaolish the irale of instantaneous reonliation roosed b theorgnal fable, an ore than hitehead 's "seulative telfth ael does

Instead , t rooses a wa of addressing those who are dv ded in to toantagonsti oles

Thus, one an ertanl ask sentsts an thns, but not to renounewhat a tters to the, and artula rl what resonates in the question " st ubl shable : the ra of the obetions of "oetent olleagues,the onl obetions that an lae their rooston n danger, beause the

are the onl ones aab le of detetng a fault, an overhast hothesis, aossb le ounternterretation Qu te the ontrar, one would d isern theossible destrution of the exerienta l adventure f the knowledge eon-o were to revai l and transfor oetent ol leagues into olaentolleagues, beause the share the sae deendenies n the ontrar,


39/542


40/542

Chices f Witing

N R O D U C O N 2 3

To tr to ende a hilosohical roosit ion " resent eans rst of a l l to

tr to avoid the for of coentar that is suitable for the xosition ofan authors be lifs, of what he or she th inks It is to ake thought i nsea-rable fro the roble of " how to think that obl iges this thought. Thisis wh I have chosen an aroach that has the look and feel of a narration,accoaning hitehead over the course of a few ears fro Th Cn-cp f u ublished in 920, to Pcss nd Rliy ublished in 929 , i n which an itinerar is accol ished fro nature to etahsics,

an fro etahsics to cosolog This is not a real stor As I havealread ehasized, we have acticall no biograhical testion thatal lows us to tell the stor of how the erson of interest exerienced thisitinear. It is in he text itself with one excetion: "Aril 92 that Ihave trie to follow the construction of the robles and the wa theutate and ricochet b collidin with the uestions and deands forwhich the oen the wa.

The narative for indicates that the erson who is readin Th Cn-cpt f tue o Scinc nd h Mdn Wld is not readin the as aconteoar of thei writ in, but with the knowledge of what was goingto haen. This does not, I hoe, ean a nal ized read ing, iosing uonthe texts an end that was not theirs, but a reading that tries to deciherthe aths of an adventure that has the nature of a iddle At the beginning

of Th Ccpt f tu hitehead ehasized the extent to which itwould be hard for hi readers to accet that he would indeed conne hisrobles within the narow lits he ha ust described, whereas it isrecisel beond these l i ts that thins usual l start to get exciting CN,4 8) At the end of Pcss nd Rlity the sae author ses to have ex-loded al l the lii ts that odern good anners ios uon tought

Another aoach would have been ossible: it would have started out

ro the estions raised b this world, and woul have sought the wathe aris in iteheadian ters, as oortunities for "alications ofthe concetual schee roosed b hitehead. In articul ar, i t wouldhave been ossib le to gve oe sace to conteora uestionings, thatis, to " bring hitehead u to date, and to afr his relevance toda. neof the reaons that tuned e awa fro this ossibilit is the ease with

which relevane can becoe a odel, that i s, a souce of answers. hte-ead s oosition does not address itsel f to knowledge in the sense that i tould be detached fro the si tuations in which i t is oerative I t does notonstitute a vision of the world or a " new aradiindeed this is rob-abl the wot conuion tat can occur with reard to it. It is addressed


41/542

2 4 N R O D U C O N

t ur "des f thuht, in the wa a tl addresses ur des f a-tin, difin the relatn that rvides their identit elative t thsewh at and t that n whih the at, b redi str buting what is red

as dable r nt dable In ther wrds, it addresses the thinequa

situ-ated, in the wa that the thiner denes his r her situat in I had the reat d lu t exeriene the efa rer t hite-

head's thught n the asn f a twieannual urse, whih had theartiularit f atherin senir studnts in hilsh and ther senirstudents wh had never dne hilh befre Eah tie, an exeri-ene t lae, bth lletive and individual, that suressed all hie-

arh between hilshers and nnhilshers, but athered thetgether i n a sheer d isver that is di fferent fr eah, eause it is re lativeeah tie t their ara eten: " ne an thin l e that! Faed bthe rble f a b t be written, nern was t redsver, bther ean, what the interventins, questins, and astn ishents n-tributed t the ral exerise f the lass r else, t use an exessin deart Gi l les Deleuze, t rvide self with the nstraints aable f fringe t "thin hitehead dwn the iddle in the twfld sense f theter: withut a "beinnin fr whih the rest uld be dedued, andfae t fa with the bles t whih it gi ves rise Hw uld ne fash-in a textual aa ratus that uld intrdue the unfresen nature f thebetn that hinders the unfldi n f a sverein intentinali t

It is said that hitehead hated t be bred, and ela brated his thught

in the resene f his students Mst f his hilshial writins havetheir rigin in letures, whih he later wred u Perhas the redu re Ihave hsen is in resnse t this euliar harate f theirs: I hse itst f all as an exerient, " ust t see, and then with a surrised inter-est in its ffets, whih stried e f an authr's sitin withut therebnstraining e t disaear, quite the ntrar: " t let hitehead (anda few thers) d the tal ing in ln fraents whih, rather than quta-

tins, are interventins, and t ae wn text the sli lqu f a e-sn wh is exlring in her wa, alwas in her wa, what the intervntinae haen fr her

Se f these interventins wil l be "ries, thers elabratins, in whihtuht is " ut t w in real tie, but stil l thers are enuine eratrsf brutal bifuratin T let hitehead d the taling at se length al-

was eans exsin neself t the ris that he a la the nast tri fderai li n the rderl train f an exlanat in tward a eeingl inngru-us hrizn And that is reisel what students d when a lass awaenstheir thught, inites thr betns, the " but thens, the " in that asesPea, as well ts is te wa hteead hisel untned when the


42/542

T R O U C T O 2 5

resene of hs stuents rovoke the isk of thout in rea tie, rereatin a t ever ste the eanin or the necesi t of the next ste I onot know to what extent the soution have exeriente with wi suitthose who wi rea this book hat I an sa is that t has ae of itswritin an aventurous an eanin itinera, in which what I a reaknew has not ease to rue new consequences an also the ostcosefout work of neotiation with sntax an coosition have everknown

The reaer wi l l note that have, oreover, ae the soewhat acrobatic choe of avo in a footnotes This i s not the eas solution, but

instea, one aain, a onstraint the text shoul o as i t is, an aboveal shou not have the aearance of an exhaustive exosition A note,in enera , refrs ei ther to a i rection that the textua l it i nerar coul havetaken, an wich the author ecies not to take an further, or to a tecna isussion that te author beieves woul overburen the text Teforer te of note il ies that the nuber of ecisions a bout te i tinerar is ite but here it is not, for at ever ste other irections couhave een taen, since each ste is i n fact a ecision in the heart of aabrinth As far as the technca notes are concerne, ost of thewou have rfere to the network of i scussions an controveries thatweave te links etween rocess hi osohers But this book was writtenn French, that is, for reaers who are forein to ths network, areunknown n Franohone ans I a aware that transa tion transfors

tis asect of situation, but it oe not transfor the concetion of thebook itse f, wich i s aso the ituation of the erson who conceive i t anwho i not ncounter rocess hi loso unt we after her enounter with hi tehea ith the crucia excetion of the rea in rooseb Lewis For, which I aot, it is the baton of hiteheas text that have wishe to take u, an not of the iscussions that oncern hi, forte question for e was notabove a lto c ai to ho the " riht inter

retation, that is, to iscuss other ossib le i nterretations as we l hatatters to e s to inhabit the oveent that hitehea rooses forthouht, an, without stoin this oveent, to exerience an utto the test the wa in which i t is or is not able to reeive questions thatitehea i not ak ecause the are not those of his tie n otherwors, choie is not to interret but to tr to transit , that s, a so, as

ver over of hi tehea knows, to take u aain in wa, tin it in to questons, that wich as no oter truth than the set of resutions towih it wi ive rse

Another teson to tis coie s the absene in the inex of the greathiteheaia oncts Te intevene vrwhere (for instance,


43/542

2 6 T R O U C T O

"event, "obet, "nature, or "organis in the st a, "to fee,"onresene, "atua ization, " soiet, "subet in the seond art),and taking the u aain in the index woud have rodued soethingonstrous I have, however, rivieed rtain transversa thees thatharaterie the wa I have inhab ited the hiteheadian oveent Soe,suh as intersties and infetion, are not even inuded in the hiteheadianindies, wh ie others are not roer hitehead ia n Yet the have iosed theseves uon e a thes, in te us ia sne of the ter, andI thouht that the index ight he those who iht enounter one ofthese thes i n the anner of "we , hee it is aain and wo ud wonder

where it has a read intervened.B another aset, the index bears witness to the wa this book tries

to roon the hitehead ian oveent outside of the usua ategoriesof hioso: the heading "soia roes or tes brings together naesof ratitioners ( atheatiian, hsiian, heist, biooist, shoogist, et ) and naes of an ia (rabbit, , bateria, et ) I have taken iniration i n this regard fro Berson who, in the index to his lutin catice uxtaosed the naes of those who, for hi, transatedthe uination of two d ivergent aths of evout ion: hi osohrs, on theone hand, arasi tes and i nset on the other Exet that the oint here isnot to roose a sae of beins, di stributing to eah that to whih i t aa ai hat interets e i s the adventurization of the exeriene thathi osohis of the subet have too often "d oestiated under the at

egories of the reexive oniousnessIt is the task of ethooists, and a those who ive in attentive ontat

with a nias to question, seif, and enrih what an ias ake us feeand think It is the ob of sienti ounities to test the reevane ofthe robeati denitions that ake the wok But it beongs to seuat ive thout to ht aainst the iovrishent of exeriene, artiuar aainst i ts onsation b the great theoretia debates that oose

ankin, "endowed with onsiousnes, to a the others suosedderived of it Obvious, seuative adventuization does not rodueiraes: I do not ai to seak for esh and bood hsiians, shooits, and soiooists an ore than I ai to have aess to theexeriene of a butter or a rabbit hen I refer to ratitioners and toanias then, he goa i not to enetrate teir own exeriene but to

think on the basi of the "habits that enabe us to sa "a rabbit or "asoioogist, that is, to evoke a ste or xeriene or adventure that is endowe with a ertain stabi i t

Aongside the hiteheadian referenes, I have thereore added a fewthers athful n hs ead t h nai r itih hioso


44/542

N T R O U C T O N 2

h, as it ha been characterize b Gilles Deleuze an Flix Guattari:not to buil nor to foun, but to inhait "A tent is enough for the The concet is a habit acquire b contelating the eleents fro

which one rocees (hence the ver seial Greekness of British hilosoh, its eiical Neolatonis) e are all contelations, an therefore habits I is a habit There is conet wherever there is habit, anhabits are ae an unae on the level of ianence an raical exeriene: they are conventions' This is wh British hilosoh is a freean savage ceation of concets Given a roosition, to what convention oes i t refer, what is the habit that constitutes its oncet Thi s i s the

question of ragatis (QPh, 1 0 1 ) "A fee an savage creation of concets, erhas: but one can onl

"think with hitehea if one is willing to searate the aective "freefro the noun "freeo, in the sense of absence of constraints, an theaective "savage fro the noun "savager, in the sense of an aetite forestrution Free an savage creat ion, therefore, but not, esecia lly not, ferocious, not ening that with whih it eals as a re to be attacke Theoint is not to eclare war on the conventions that bin us, the habits thatnable us to characterize nstea, i t is erel to lace on the sae levelthat is, i n aventureal l of our ugents, or our "as is wel l knowns,an tus to searate the activel fro what ives the the ower to exlue an to isquali

n clos ing thi introuction, woul l ike to offer aolog to the reaes who ight be shoke i f the encounter a hsiian or a oet " in theasculine nsofar as the are gures of thought, woul have like tolace the in the neuter, as woul have like to lace in the neuter thatGo who, for hitehea , is a " he But coul not bring self to associate the with this kin of a roble, for the woul then have esignate real ersons hoe these excuses will be accete, for feel eel

inebte for he attention that Aerican thinkers have tauht us to evote to the wa in which wors influence thought


45/542


46/542

e Maemaiia ad e ue

his is going to about natureBut how can we ene nature? i w w w i ppi

C H A PTER ONE

ITA S PROPOS a starting oint tat sees to bequite innocent A bit too general or silistic, one iht sa,al though it attributes a ost interesting role to "awareness, a

word that we Frenchlanuage hilosohers have soe reasons to envour Anlohone colleaue. All we have available is the word "con-science, which is a tra here because of the reexive diension that isoften associated with it. That i s wh chose, when writing in French, to

use the word "erience a atue est ce dnt nus avns / xpincdans la pcptin. M oal was to oint out tha t awareness desinatesa ode of exerience that inc ludes a contrast between a " sef and " thatf which there i exerience ut without d ui cating i t b reference toa n " or a "e : a contrast, not an oosi tion. The question then arises:who is this " we, who is aware of nature, and what does i t incude Mostethologists will sa without hesitation that a chianzee, a do, or a rab-bi t are "aware. Their ercetual eerience, without ili ng reexiveconsciousness ust ive eaning to the ossibilit of an exloratoractiv it, bearing witness to the fact that that " that which is erceived aaise the question of eaning when a rabbit turns its head in the direction fro which a noise coes, it is exoring that noises eaning. Yetthe discussion a bein with the idea that bees aso "exlore. Does it

not conceal a uch ore radi ca di fference b eans of a and eta-hor Hesitation tus coe into a for bees, ticks, ants or sdersAnd it d isaears when we ave to do with thistes or ignonette.

hiteeads starting oint which eads us s quickl into etologicalsecuations, tu sees hl indeteinate, too indeterinate to be


47/542

3 2 F R O M T H E P H L O S O P H Y O F T U R E T O M E T P H Y S C S

able to uara ntee a selection of what can testif, in a rel ia ble wa, for thatnature whose conet i s to be onstruted

e ust beware, howevr, as we conlude, that we wi l l erta inl haveto o beond this tartin oint hitehead is a athatiian For aathatiian, a startin oint is not what enabls one to o eond tis what oits us t i tha t to whih one ust sueed in hold in fat

To restrit ourselves to what we are aware of in eretion: th is is theachetal Eiricist deision Yet we ust ieiatel foret the lihs that often follow that decisio, and which hitehead knows well,beause the are tose in which hi fore collaborator Brtrand Russel l

henceforth indulesf hitehead had wri tten "nature is what we erceive, a version see

inl lose to the in it ia l stateent, what would have fol lowed was alostautoati hat do ou ereive A e stone hat does what ouereive authorize The afation that "this stone is re n ontrast,th question "wat a r ou aware of in the eretion of this stone ouall re blocks the edaoial series of exlanations A contrast insinuates itself, between the words iediatel ava i lab le for sain "whatwe eceive, and the q uestion, oen for its art , of what we are aware of" in eretion An indnite onstellation of coonents beoes eretible, which " that stone is rethat stateent aarentl so sileand transarenthad skied

Fi rst of a l l , however, when would eres such an aa rentl sile

stateent Perhas iht sa it to a a inter, if a scandal ized b thelak of fa ithfulness of his eroduction of the stone Or el se, uon reeivin the, i f had ordered ochrecolored stones n thi s ase, however, theontrat between what erceive and what a aware of in thi s eretion beoes intene, for eerience wil l be doinated b the risk ofhallenin the aintes hoie, or b the roet of enterin into anunleasant dicussion with a distrated or even ishonest erhant

As a startin oint for hilosohial reasonin, what we are aware ofin the ercetion of the inted hase "this stone is re, is not, oreover, an siler Th work of ournin to whih rea ders are oin tobe oblied is alead announed to the The will be aked to liitleitia te stateents about eerience to those tha t desinate a " ureeretual eerience The stone iht, oreover, as the case a be,

beoe a "re atch, i f readers are constrai ne to adit that the visua ldata do not let the afr anthin ore Thus languag haitually sts bf th mind a mislading abstact f

th indnit cmplxity f th fact f slfawanss ( 18 ) The eiriist deion to l imi t ouelve to what we ae aware o f i n

peeon, uld thu e cal ed t what lauae ooe, tn

8/9/2019 Isabelle Stengers, Michael Chase, Bruno Latour-Thinking With Whitehead_ a Free and Wild Creation of Concepts-Har

isabelle stengers, michael chase, bruno latour-thinking with whitehead_ a free and wild creation of...

Documents