A conversation with philosopher David Ray Griffin
Can philosophy move the world?
It was political philosophy that led, in part, to the American and French Revolutions, strongly inspired by the work of Paine, Locke, Hobbes, Spinoza, Rousseau, Descartes and other Enlightenment philosophers.
It was economic and political philosophy, from Marx and Engels primarily, that led to the communist revolutions, rightly or wrongly, in the 20th Century.
But can philosophy move the world in the right direction when it comes to spiritual growth and a shift to global environmental stewardship? David Ray Griffin thinks it can. He’s been a lifelong proponent of “process philosophy,” a school of thought begun in the modern era by British mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.
Griffin has over thirty books under his belt and has spent his scholastic career expanding and clarifying the process philosophy and related “process theology” that Whitehead inspired.
Griffin co-founded, with John Cobb Jr., the Center for Process Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California in 1973. He received his Ph.D also from Claremont Graduate University, in 1970, and has lived in Santa Barbara since his retirement in 2004.
I was tremendously inspired by Griffin’s 1998 book Unsnarling the World-knot: Consciousness, Freedom and the Mind-Body Problem, which is his extended explanation of how Whitehead’s process philosophy solves the mind-body problem — a key aspect of the “world-knot,” a term that Schopenhauer used to describe the riddle of explaining why the world is the way it is.
When I first read Unsnarling, I had been reading widely but unsystematically in philosophy for about twenty years, trying to find a philosophy that made sense and trying to find an explanation of consciousness that was at least tenable. I felt like I had finally found some valid answers when I read this book and many of Griffin’s other works.
While I don’t accept all aspects of process philosophy — for example, I still have a hard time with Whitehead’s “eternal objects,” as have many other philosophers, and also with the notion of “objective values,” as we discuss below — I do find the Griffinian version of Whitehead’s process philosophy to be the most appealing of any western system of philosophy I have encountered in my thirty years of reading widely in philosophy.
In the last decade I have used process philosophy as the primary philosophical and physical basis for my work in the philosophy of mind and the development of my General Resonance Theory of consciousness.
I have corresponded with Griffin numerous times over the last decade and we met a few times over lunch or at his house where he often holds small workshops to discuss various aspects of his work. I am honored to have been able to interview David here. We conducted this interview by email in 2019 and 2020.
As a philosopher and theologian you have focused during your career largely on the “process philosophy” and “process theology” based on Alfred North Whitehead’s writings, and his intellectual descendants Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb, Jr. So who was Whitehead and why has he been so inspirational for you and many others?
Whitehead began as a mathematician in England, focusing on applied (not pure) mathematics, which led him to deal with issues such as quantum theory and relativity. I was inspired by his efforts to develop a philosophy that would (a) handle experiences of all types and that would (b) provide explanations of various phenomena, such as the mind-body relation, which is both adequate to the facts and self-consistent.
What are the central ideas of process philosophy and how are they different than most other philosophical systems?
At the center of Whitehead’s philosophy is “panexperientialism” (previously known as “panpsychism”) which allows him, for example, to solve the mind-body in an adequate-to-the-facts and self-consistent way.
Can you flesh these ideas out a little?
The main problem in modern philosophy is the mind-body problem, which is the question of how the body and (especially) the brain can interact with the mind. This has been an insoluble problem from the point of view of dualism and materialism. Both of these regard the body (including the brain) to be composed of insentient matter, so they cannot explain how the mind (conscious experience) can be influenced by the brain, and how experience can influence the brain.
Panexperientialism avoids that problem, by saying that the brain cells have their own experiences. This has seemed impossible to both dualists and materialists. But microbiologists have shown that bacteria — the lowest form of life — have experience and act on the basis of it.
What status does time and the passage of time have in process philosophy?
Time is absolutely central, as expressed in the introduction to my edited volume, Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time.[1]
By understanding electrons, protons, etc. as personally-ordered societies, Whitehead portrayed time to be ultimately real for physics. There is no possibility for reverse causation; no need for entropy to generate time; no possibility for reality to be an ‘eternal presence.’
Have you modified or extended Whitehead’s thinking? Are there any key doctrines that Whitehead advocated that you don’t agree with?
I have agreed with Charles Hartshorne that Whitehead’s God must be revised so as to portray God as a “living person” (a serially-ordered society of actual occasions) rather than a single actual entity. Unlike Hartshorne, however, I have retained Whitehead’s doctrine of eternal objects.
What is God in your system? Not an old white guy up in the clouds, right? What does it mean that God is a “living person”?
Process thought affirms panentheism, which says that the entire world exists in God, not separate from God. To say that God is a living person means that God, rather than being an unchanging entity, exists as a serially-ordered society of divine occasions of experience. So in each moment, God influences the world, and then in the next moment is influenced by the world, and so on.
What are “eternal objects” and why do some Whitehead scholars, like Hartshorne, seek to remove them from process philosophy?
I wrote an essay on the differences between Whitehead and Hartshorne, in which I tried to explain why Hartshorne rejected Whitehead’s view, but I still don’t understand it.
Do you see important differences between process philosophy and process theology? Or is it more a matter of emphasis?
It is mainly a matter of emphasis, with process theology giving special attention to matters of religious concern, such as divinity and ultimate meaning.
What are the main contributions of process theology to today’s theological debates?
We have lots of contributions that we would like to make, but we can make contributions if any of our distinctive ideas are accepted. Process theology is recognized as developing a distinctive type of theodicy [also known as “the problem of evil,” which seeks to explain why there is evil in the world]. And the idea of panpsychism, which we have long championed — although we prefer to call it panexperientialism — is no longer treated with contempt.
As indicated above, process philosophy’s most important position is its solution to the mind-body problem. This solution also shows how we can understand the God-world relation, as just mentioned.
Why is Whitehead and his process philosophy, and your own writings, catching on in China so much today? Do you see China as an important center for global philosophy as we move forward into the 21st Century?
There is a pre-established harmony between Whitehead’s philosophy and traditional Chinese philosophies. Perhaps most important, they both portray the universe as containing objective values while rejecting the idea of a supernatural creator of the universe.
What are the key commonalities between Whitehead’s philosophy and traditional Chinese philosophies?
A portrayal of time as real and values (moral and aesthetic) as ultimate in the universe.
What do you mean by “objective values”?
As distinct from values that are entirely subjective (some philosophers say that moral values are ‘invented’ by us), objective values, by contrast, exist in the nature of things. It is objectively true that 2 and 2 are 4. Also, it is equally true of the stipulation that one should not inflict pain on other people just for fun.
Where do mathematical and ethical values reside objectively?
They exist in the primordial nature of God. The main reason to take issue with Hartshorne on this issue is that he cannot answer this question [due to his rejection of eternal objects].
Do we need to posit objective values in order to promote ethical behavior? Isn’t it enough, based on humans being highly social animals, to promote ethical behavior through traditional socialization and conformance pressure?
This question cannot be answered quickly. I answer it in my book God Exists but Gawd Does Not.
How serious an impact is process thought having in China today? There are a couple of dozen centers of process studies in China now, which work loosely with the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, California. How close is this relationship? Are there attempts to maintain any kind of Whiteheadian orthodoxy over process thought as it exists in China or is it fairly free-form and organic in terns of China’s scholarly and cultural embrace of process thought?
Nobody, as far as I know, has tried to enforce any kind of orthodoxy in the Whiteheadian world, including China; any such attempt would be un-Whiteheadian and, in any case, would be a failure.
What Chinese philosophical or theological notions, if any, have cross-pollinated into process thought?
The Buddhist idea of co-dependent origination has become a central idea of Western process thought, especially due to John Cobb.
How involved are you in the growth of process thought in China and other countries?
I helped initiate the development of process philosophy and theology by means of the introductions to some of my books, especially The Reenchantment of Science and Spirituality and Society. Since then, however, I have not sought to keep up with developments in China. Fortunately, John Cobb has been able to replace the role I originally played.
Have you attempted to craft and promote your own “Griffinian” version of process thought or are you content to be known primarily as a reinterpreter and extender of Whitehead’s system?
I have not tried to promote a unique version of process philosophy and theology. Some theologians have, of course, sought to develop “neo-Whiteheadian” philosophies of theologies, but I generally found attempts to go beyond Whitehead have actually not yet caught up with him.
It is true, of course, that I have articulated a “postmodern” version of process theology, in which I have included ideas that, while not seeking to go beyond Whitehead, do go beyond what could be called “standard interpretations” of his philosophy, which generally treat Whitehead as, in my terms, a modern thinker. I have instead emphasized postmodern ideas such as non-sensory perception and have hence dealt positively with psychical research and life after death.
Of all the books you’ve written, which is your favorite?
Unsnarling the World-knot: Consciousness, Freedom and the Mind-Body Problem is my favorite. As you mention above, this book goes into detail about Whitehead’s interesting and valuable solution to the mind-body problem, or what’s often called “the Hard Problem” by modern philosophers.
And which, in your view, has been the most impactful in the world?
God, Power, and Evil; The New Pearl Harbor. This book is, as the title suggests, about the spiritual dimensions of the 9/11 attacks.
Some of your recent work has often focused on environmental and political stewardship (for example, your book, Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?). In brief, how can process philosophy help shift the world toward a responsible stewardship of our environment and more enlightened democracies?
My work portrays the universe as radically historical, thereby providing a framework for appreciating how present life on Earth resulted from a set of novel and contingent features that emerged only a few centuries ago. And how we are now leaving behind the epoch in which civilization emerged, and if global warming continues unabated, the things that we value the most will be destroyed. This is one way in which philosophy can help shift the world toward more responsible stewardship.
[1] An easier to read version is in “Time in Process Philosophy,” KronoScope: Journal for the Study of Time 1/1–2 (2001): 75–99.
