But it is also possible to understand a great deal about the
nature of physical reality by beginning from the other end of the continuum.
However, for our purposes it is sufficient to indicate the «temporal - experiential» quality that both expressions are pointing to in the
constituents of physical reality.
It is also possible to reach a more concrete understanding
of physical reality by recognizing its mental aspects.
And rather than feeling miserable about those things, I began to glimpse a deeper
level of physical reality at which my life was behaving exactly as it should.
As we noted in Chapter III, however, causation has often been narrowly construed in accordance with now unacceptable
concepts of physical reality and perception.
Most discussions of economics ignore the actual
character of physical reality, and most discussions in the physical sciences ignore the existence of human beings and their impact in the physical world.
These thinkers have attempted to keep the specific discoveries of modern science in a box where such data can not effect the study of the
foundations of physical reality, namely metaphysics.
But we may also understand «purpose» in terms of the «mental - experiential»
character of physical reality that we set forth in the earlier chapters.
These thinkers have attempted to keep the specific discoveries of modern science in a box where such data can not affect the study of the
foundations of physical reality, namely metaphysics.
In particular, quantum mechanics posits a role for the observer in physical reality that has fundamental implications for the Newtonian
view of physical reality as existing and developing independently of any freely acting agent.
Thus it is not a matter of indifference whether we envision the basic constituents
of physical reality as insensate lumps of matter or as percipient occasions.
We shall propose with Whitehead and Hartshorne that while consciousness does not exist on earth prior to man, mentality is a pervasive
aspect of physical reality.
We have criticized the conventional materialistic
picture of physical reality, perception, causation and evolution that follows from a thorough - going expulsion of mentality and feeling from the fundamental constituents of nature.
Though each installation is distinctive, all three simultaneously transport the viewer
out of physical reality to anchor them to the present moment.
In the second place the traditional hierarchy may have to be altered to fit the «general systems» view
of physical reality according to which there are countless levels of organization in physical reality and correspondingly numerous leaps and qualitative distinctions throughout the universe.
Consequently, our notion
of physical reality suffers from our taking sense perception too one - sidedly as the foundation of cosmological speculation.
If we view the
whole of physical reality as composed of throbs of nonconscious emotion, we can understand how, out of this, there emerged in an evolutionary process the highly complex subjectivity that constitutes our own experience.
Once we reject the dualism of mind and nature we must place our experience of temporality on a continuum with the
rest of physical reality.
Throughout the last fifty years various philosophers and physicists have attempted to assess the extent of agreement between the
conception of physical reality within the framework of process philosophy and the character of the physical world described by quantum theory.1 Recently this line of inquiry has been given new life by the discovery of Bell's...
As science is commonly understood, even among many sophisticated liberals today, the scientific picture of man and his world bears the image of a Newtonian form of orderliness in nature which readily lends itself to observation and description, and to the work of reason following from such direct
apprehension of physical realities.
The disparity which relativity science finds between man's
measure of physical realities and realities in themselves has led to a notion of indeterminacy and depth in experience which would not have occurred to scientists of an earlier period.
Where depth and complexity are taken seriously, in speaking of history as in
speaking of physical realities, something other than appeal to logic, or even to the claims of observation, is involved.