To Whitehead
In her book This Is Shakespeare, Smith introduces the concept of "gappiness" as a defining characteristic of Shakespeare's plays. She suggests that his works are incomplete, filled with ambiguity and gaps, requiring readers or audiences to actively engage to find meaning. This participatory nature transforms "Shakespeare" into a verb, representing an ongoing, dynamic engagement with his texts. Hear Smith on Shakespeare:
To Shakespeare
That gappy quality is so crucial to my approach that I want to outline it here. Shakespeare’s plays are incomplete, woven of what’s said and what’s unsaid, with holes in between…Gappiness is Shakespeare’s dominant and defining characteristic. And ambiguity is the oxygen of these works, making them alive in unpredictable and changing ways. It’s we, and our varied engagement, that make Shakespeare: it’s not for nothing that the first collected edition of his plays in the seventeenth century addressed itself ‘to the great variety of readers’. His works hold our attention because they are fundamentally incomplete and unstable: they need us, in all our idiosyncratic diversity and with the perspective of our post-Shakespearean world, to make sense. ‘Shakespeare’ is here less an inert noun than an active verb: ‘to Shakespeare’ might be defined as the activity of posing questions, unsettling certainties, challenging orthodoxies, opening out endings.
To Whitehead
Try taking this paragraph and substituting Whitehead for Shakespeare, with the exact wording except for that difference. It would read like this:
That gappy quality is so crucial to my approach that I want to outline it here. Whitehead’s texts are incomplete, woven of what’s said and what’s unsaid, with holes in between…Gappiness is Whitehead’s dominant and defining characteristic. And ambiguity is the oxygen of these works, making them alive in unpredictable and changing ways. It’s we, and our varied engagement, that make Whitehead: it’s not for nothing that the first collected edition of his works in the twentieth century addressed itself ‘to the great variety of readers’. His works hold our attention because they are fundamentally incomplete and unstable: they need us, in all our idiosyncratic diversity and with the perspective of our post-Whiteheadian world, to make sense. ‘Whitehead’ is here less an inert noun than an active verb: ‘to Whitehead’ might be defined as the activity of posing questions, unsettling certainties, challenging orthodoxies, opening out endings.
The idea of "to Whitehead" as an active verb highlights the participatory nature of his philosophy. Whitehead challenges us to rethink certainties, engage with complexity, and acknowledge the incomplete and unstable character of the world. His ideas are not static but are, like life itself, constantly evolving through interaction with new perspectives and experiences. "To Whitehead" is to wrestle with questions, to seek novelty, and to embrace the open-endedness of thought—much like his cosmology suggests a universe that is always becoming.
*
I share this idea with a friend, a philosopher whom some think a "Whiteheadian." She quickly say: "I am not a Whiteheadian, but I like 'To Whitehead.'" In that moment, inspired by Smith, she transforms Whitehead into an active verb, not a noun. "To Whitehead" is, for her, akin to what Emma Smith says about Shakespearing: the act of "posing questions, unsettling certainties, challenging orthodoxies, opening out endings." She does this while drawing on Whitehead's ideas, without deifying them. To be sure, my philosopher friend is deeply familiar with Whitehead's thought. She can effortlessly discuss the categories of existence: actual entities, pure potentialities, propositions, subjective forms, prehensions, contrasts, nexūs, multiplicities. She can talk about the relationship of the one and the many; the ultimacy of creativity; the nature of God; the principle of relativity; the sense of Beauty; and, of course, the fundamental ideas of process. But to her, Whitehead’s philosophy is not merely a collection of categories or principles—it is an invitation to think dynamically, to embrace a way of philosophizing that evolves, adapts, and engages with the flux of life. It is a living conversation that perpetually opens up new avenues for inquiry and understanding, not a static doctrine.
Her remark immediately calls to mind Roland Faber and his remarkable book The Mind of Whitehead: Adventure in Ideas. More than any other process philosopher I know, Faber exemplifies what it means "to Whitehead." He is deeply versed in Whitehead's writings, and his book is a cornucopia of scholarship. Yet, rather than confining Whitehead’s philosophy within a rigid conceptual framework, Faber opens new directions in Whitehead studies, making it a living process of thinking—adventurous, expansive, and creative.
Faber’s approach suggests what process philosophy might become in the future. He avoids turning Whitehead's thought into a rigid structure that requires all topics to conform to its parameters. Instead, Faber embraces a more fluid and dynamic way of thinking, turning Whitehead into a verb—a practice of philosophical exploration, not a set of fixed doctrines. This distinction is vital: "To Whitehead" is fundamentally different from claiming a closed system of thought. It leaves room for growth, adaptation, and the intellectual curiosity that Whitehead himself embodied.
"Whiteheading" as a Process of Thinking
For Faber, "Whiteheading" is not about building a static structure where all ideas are neatly categorized. Instead, it is about engaging with ideas in a continuous process of discovery. Whitehead’s ideas are not rigid but serve as tools for thinking in new ways. In The Mind of Whitehead, Faber explores Whitehead's philosophy as an invitation to rethink, reimagine, and explore the world with fresh eyes. He shows that Whitehead’s thought is not a fixed system to be accepted as final truth but an open pathway to inquiry.
Faber's practice of "Whiteheading" aligns with Whitehead’s own process philosophy, which views reality as always evolving. In Whitehead’s metaphysics, the world is not made up of static entities but of processes—events constantly in flux. Following this idea, Faber encourages readers to think in terms of ongoing processes, to leave behind static categories, and to let ideas evolve.
Adventurous and Expansive Thought
"To Whitehead" is to think adventurously and expansively. It involves remaining curious across disciplines, as Whitehead himself did. Whitehead was not just a philosopher—he was deeply engaged in mathematics, science, religion, and art. Faber embraces this interdisciplinary curiosity, demonstrating that "Whiteheading" knows no boundaries. It is a way of thinking that draws from diverse fields of knowledge, connecting areas that might traditionally remain isolated.
This expansiveness contrasts with the tendency to reduce Whitehead’s thought to a closed system. Faber’s work exemplifies that "Whiteheading" is about crossing intellectual borders, making unexpected connections, and following lines of inquiry wherever they might lead. It is a philosophy of openness rather than closure.
Avoiding Conceptual Grids
One of the most refreshing aspects of Faber’s work is his resistance to conceptual grids. Traditional approaches to philosophy often seek to create systems where all ideas fit neatly together. While such systematization can be intellectually satisfying, it risks turning philosophy into a static exercise, shutting off new possibilities for thought.
Faber’s "Whiteheading" resists this temptation. He doesn’t try to force all ideas into a singular, overarching system. Instead, he allows Whitehead’s ideas to breathe, evolve, and take on new forms. This openness mirrors the nature of reality as Whitehead described it—reality as a process, always in motion and always becoming. By letting ideas flow, Faber invites a deeper, more authentic engagement with process philosophy.
Philosophy as an Ongoing Process
To Whitehead is to practice philosophy as an ongoing process, never finished or complete. It is a way of thinking that remains open to the future, to novelty, and to transformation. Faber illustrates that Whitehead’s philosophy is not a collection of answers, but rather a method for asking better, deeper questions.
In this sense, "to Whitehead" is not about mastering a system but about participating in an ongoing adventure of thought. Faber’s work embodies this spirit of adventure, treating Whitehead’s ideas as living concepts that grow and change alongside us as we develop in our thinking.
To Whitehead is to Engage with Life
To Whitehead is not to conform to a rigid conceptual grid. It is to think adventurously, to remain open to new ideas, and to embrace the dynamic, evolving nature of reality. Through his work, Faber offers a new direction for Whitehead studies—one that is as vibrant and alive as the philosophy itself. It is a direction that invites us to continue Whitehead’s legacy, not by replicating his thoughts but by keeping them in motion, evolving and adapting as we engage with the complexities of life
To Shakespeare
That gappy quality is so crucial to my approach that I want to outline it here. Shakespeare’s plays are incomplete, woven of what’s said and what’s unsaid, with holes in between…Gappiness is Shakespeare’s dominant and defining characteristic. And ambiguity is the oxygen of these works, making them alive in unpredictable and changing ways. It’s we, and our varied engagement, that make Shakespeare: it’s not for nothing that the first collected edition of his plays in the seventeenth century addressed itself ‘to the great variety of readers’. His works hold our attention because they are fundamentally incomplete and unstable: they need us, in all our idiosyncratic diversity and with the perspective of our post-Shakespearean world, to make sense. ‘Shakespeare’ is here less an inert noun than an active verb: ‘to Shakespeare’ might be defined as the activity of posing questions, unsettling certainties, challenging orthodoxies, opening out endings.
To Whitehead
Try taking this paragraph and substituting Whitehead for Shakespeare, with the exact wording except for that difference. It would read like this:
That gappy quality is so crucial to my approach that I want to outline it here. Whitehead’s texts are incomplete, woven of what’s said and what’s unsaid, with holes in between…Gappiness is Whitehead’s dominant and defining characteristic. And ambiguity is the oxygen of these works, making them alive in unpredictable and changing ways. It’s we, and our varied engagement, that make Whitehead: it’s not for nothing that the first collected edition of his works in the twentieth century addressed itself ‘to the great variety of readers’. His works hold our attention because they are fundamentally incomplete and unstable: they need us, in all our idiosyncratic diversity and with the perspective of our post-Whiteheadian world, to make sense. ‘Whitehead’ is here less an inert noun than an active verb: ‘to Whitehead’ might be defined as the activity of posing questions, unsettling certainties, challenging orthodoxies, opening out endings.
The idea of "to Whitehead" as an active verb highlights the participatory nature of his philosophy. Whitehead challenges us to rethink certainties, engage with complexity, and acknowledge the incomplete and unstable character of the world. His ideas are not static but are, like life itself, constantly evolving through interaction with new perspectives and experiences. "To Whitehead" is to wrestle with questions, to seek novelty, and to embrace the open-endedness of thought—much like his cosmology suggests a universe that is always becoming.
*
I share this idea with a friend, a philosopher whom some think a "Whiteheadian." She quickly say: "I am not a Whiteheadian, but I like 'To Whitehead.'" In that moment, inspired by Smith, she transforms Whitehead into an active verb, not a noun. "To Whitehead" is, for her, akin to what Emma Smith says about Shakespearing: the act of "posing questions, unsettling certainties, challenging orthodoxies, opening out endings." She does this while drawing on Whitehead's ideas, without deifying them. To be sure, my philosopher friend is deeply familiar with Whitehead's thought. She can effortlessly discuss the categories of existence: actual entities, pure potentialities, propositions, subjective forms, prehensions, contrasts, nexūs, multiplicities. She can talk about the relationship of the one and the many; the ultimacy of creativity; the nature of God; the principle of relativity; the sense of Beauty; and, of course, the fundamental ideas of process. But to her, Whitehead’s philosophy is not merely a collection of categories or principles—it is an invitation to think dynamically, to embrace a way of philosophizing that evolves, adapts, and engages with the flux of life. It is a living conversation that perpetually opens up new avenues for inquiry and understanding, not a static doctrine.
Her remark immediately calls to mind Roland Faber and his remarkable book The Mind of Whitehead: Adventure in Ideas. More than any other process philosopher I know, Faber exemplifies what it means "to Whitehead." He is deeply versed in Whitehead's writings, and his book is a cornucopia of scholarship. Yet, rather than confining Whitehead’s philosophy within a rigid conceptual framework, Faber opens new directions in Whitehead studies, making it a living process of thinking—adventurous, expansive, and creative.
Faber’s approach suggests what process philosophy might become in the future. He avoids turning Whitehead's thought into a rigid structure that requires all topics to conform to its parameters. Instead, Faber embraces a more fluid and dynamic way of thinking, turning Whitehead into a verb—a practice of philosophical exploration, not a set of fixed doctrines. This distinction is vital: "To Whitehead" is fundamentally different from claiming a closed system of thought. It leaves room for growth, adaptation, and the intellectual curiosity that Whitehead himself embodied.
"Whiteheading" as a Process of Thinking
For Faber, "Whiteheading" is not about building a static structure where all ideas are neatly categorized. Instead, it is about engaging with ideas in a continuous process of discovery. Whitehead’s ideas are not rigid but serve as tools for thinking in new ways. In The Mind of Whitehead, Faber explores Whitehead's philosophy as an invitation to rethink, reimagine, and explore the world with fresh eyes. He shows that Whitehead’s thought is not a fixed system to be accepted as final truth but an open pathway to inquiry.
Faber's practice of "Whiteheading" aligns with Whitehead’s own process philosophy, which views reality as always evolving. In Whitehead’s metaphysics, the world is not made up of static entities but of processes—events constantly in flux. Following this idea, Faber encourages readers to think in terms of ongoing processes, to leave behind static categories, and to let ideas evolve.
Adventurous and Expansive Thought
"To Whitehead" is to think adventurously and expansively. It involves remaining curious across disciplines, as Whitehead himself did. Whitehead was not just a philosopher—he was deeply engaged in mathematics, science, religion, and art. Faber embraces this interdisciplinary curiosity, demonstrating that "Whiteheading" knows no boundaries. It is a way of thinking that draws from diverse fields of knowledge, connecting areas that might traditionally remain isolated.
This expansiveness contrasts with the tendency to reduce Whitehead’s thought to a closed system. Faber’s work exemplifies that "Whiteheading" is about crossing intellectual borders, making unexpected connections, and following lines of inquiry wherever they might lead. It is a philosophy of openness rather than closure.
Avoiding Conceptual Grids
One of the most refreshing aspects of Faber’s work is his resistance to conceptual grids. Traditional approaches to philosophy often seek to create systems where all ideas fit neatly together. While such systematization can be intellectually satisfying, it risks turning philosophy into a static exercise, shutting off new possibilities for thought.
Faber’s "Whiteheading" resists this temptation. He doesn’t try to force all ideas into a singular, overarching system. Instead, he allows Whitehead’s ideas to breathe, evolve, and take on new forms. This openness mirrors the nature of reality as Whitehead described it—reality as a process, always in motion and always becoming. By letting ideas flow, Faber invites a deeper, more authentic engagement with process philosophy.
Philosophy as an Ongoing Process
To Whitehead is to practice philosophy as an ongoing process, never finished or complete. It is a way of thinking that remains open to the future, to novelty, and to transformation. Faber illustrates that Whitehead’s philosophy is not a collection of answers, but rather a method for asking better, deeper questions.
In this sense, "to Whitehead" is not about mastering a system but about participating in an ongoing adventure of thought. Faber’s work embodies this spirit of adventure, treating Whitehead’s ideas as living concepts that grow and change alongside us as we develop in our thinking.
To Whitehead is to Engage with Life
To Whitehead is not to conform to a rigid conceptual grid. It is to think adventurously, to remain open to new ideas, and to embrace the dynamic, evolving nature of reality. Through his work, Faber offers a new direction for Whitehead studies—one that is as vibrant and alive as the philosophy itself. It is a direction that invites us to continue Whitehead’s legacy, not by replicating his thoughts but by keeping them in motion, evolving and adapting as we engage with the complexities of life