Crealectics and Personal Singularity

Theorists are rigid when they forget the person, and as such, theories cut through the flesh of life. Professions themselves are unreliable: for every good doctor there is a mediocre one. For every alert philosophical practitioner or bus driver, there is an average one. There is no such thing as a general practice that cannot be spoiled by an unreliable practitioner: an uninspired shaman, a bad parent, a deviated president, a stubborn accountant – parent, shaman, president, accountant: those are empty labels. No social practice, label or theory is good enough that it cannot be betrayed by mediocrity and somnambulism. Conversely, any profession or social function can be represented by genuine heroes: the nobleness of a practice is in fact the nobleness of the person that elevates such and such practice to an active degree of awareness and creative care, no matter how valued or despised the practice is by a given society.

I have been avoiding constructing crealectics as a pure theoretical system without embodied practice, a mere speculative edifice, because this would contradict the very intention of crealectics. Theory and speculation are very pleasant, yet what counts is to detect and awaken the crealectician in each of us. We are the collective body of regeneration and creativity, and each person or node in this collective body may actualise crealectics in a singular manner.

I – among others – dream of a theory which would be embodied, personified, metamorphic, multiplied in diversity and undogmatic. Each person can be a singular flame of inquisitive goodwill, of creal power, or genuine creativity and openness to welcome the new in others and situations. Crealectics is relational and intersubjective.

Spirit is present in each of us as attentiveness and capacity for singularity. This crealectic spark is perhaps what Hegel called the life of spirit, the flame of freedom, and it is the source of love because it generates tolerance for difference. When you are overwhelmed by fear, the crealectician dies in you. When you are governed by conformism, the crealectician dies in you. When you sleep-walk through your daily routines, the crealectician dies in you.

Conversely, when you listen deeply, the crealectician awakes in you. When you question and wonder, and try to see things in a new light, the crealectician awakes in you. When you respect creative difference in others and see the person in front of you as an inspiration for novelty and singularity, you are the crealectician that we all can be: one singular locus or node of a multifarious esprit de corps, an experiential fold on the spatium of the cosmological manifold which is our common origin, the absolute transimmanence of relational singularity I call Creal.

Whiteheadian Crealectics

“‘Creativity’ is the principle of novelty. An actual occasion is a novel entity diverse from any entity in the ’many’ which it unifies. Thus ‘creativity’ introduces novelty into the content of the many, which are the [32] universe disjunctively. The ‘creative advance’ is the application of this ultimate principle of creativity to each novel situation which it originates. ‘Together’ is a generic term covering the various special ways in which various sorts of entities are ‘together’ in any one actual occasion. Thus ‘together’ presupposes the notions ‘creativity,’ ‘many,’ ‘one,’ ‘identity’ and ‘diversity.’ The ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction. The novel entity is at once the togetherness of the ‘many’ which it finds, and also it is one among the disjunctive ‘many’ which it leaves; it is a novel entity, disjunctively among the many entities which it synthesizes. The many become one,  and are increased by one. In their natures, entities are disjunctively ‘many’ in process of passage into conjunctive unity. This Category of the Ultimate replaces Aristotle’s category of ‘primary substance.’ Thus the ‘production of novel togetherness’ is the ultimate notion embodied in the term ‘concrescence.’ These ultimate notions of ‘production of novelty’ and of ‘concrete togetherness’ are inexplicable either in terms of higher universals or in terms of the components participating in the concrescence. The analysis of the components abstracts from the concrescence. The sole appeal is to intuition.”

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality (Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session 1927-28) (pp. 21-22). Free Press. 

Five Principles of Philosophical Health for Critical Times

Five Principles of Philosophical Health for Critical Times, by Dr Luis de Miranda The goal of this session is to deepen our understanding of philosophical health as it may be practiced and anticipated in contexts of care, whether the object of care is our own self, the self of others, or the integrity of our real-life engagement – these objects of care being occasionally subjected to crisis situations. Philosophical health is henceforth defined as a process of harmonious and sustained coherence between a person’s ways of thinking and their engagement with life. In a time where politics seems to have abandoned the utopian impetus in favor of a technocracy of problem-oriented management and normality engineering, it is perhaps left to philosophy to take up the asymptotic challenge of imparadising our existence to the highest standard. How then can philosophy be of any help in “perpetual crisis” democracies? In a world often described or experienced as chaotic and frantic, what can philosophers propose that could still be heard and adopted, and how can they be made to help individuals and communities strive for a wise, just and meaningful life? A first answer is to propose clear principles for the cultivation of philosophical health.