Whiteheadian [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was a splinter group from Hubbard's Scientology; they are different branches of the same Process Theology.
"The ultimate Satsang is a conversation of Consciousness in its deeper aspect or subjectivity, with its phenomenon dynamic expression such as the body, emotions, and its mental construct. It seems to happen as if Consciousness begins poking Itself in order to let go of its own attachments to people, places, and things. It is all a play of Consciousness as it begins awakening to Its True Nature as Pure Awareness."
"Thus there are at least three different though interlocking ways in which Marx’s notion of production is functionally equivalent to Whitehead’s cate- gory of process.
1. Both Marx and Whitehead use their respective terms to refer both to the general abstract character of all productive processive activity and to any specific concrete instance or moment of that activity.
2. Production and process both refer to and serve to explicate the move- ment of becoming that is the temporal or historical world and do so through a markedly similar structure of appropriation/prehension, productive activity/prehensive valuation, objectification/superjective being.
3. Both process and production are effected by socially related individuals such that (a) there is a subjectivist bias or focus on the social subject as agent of such movement and simultaneously (b) a recognition of the data as both supplying and limiting the possibilities of such activity." [Marx and Whitehead]
Pomeroy wrote:
"What Marx calls full communism is a realization of processive solidarity: the absolute concomitance of the social and the individual. Since processive thought is already radical, anticapitalistic thought, the real overcoming of capitalism is the actualization in human social relations of process. “Only at this stage does self-activity coincide with material life, which corresponds to the development of individuals into complete individuals” (GI, 93). It is the actualization of our essential being but this essence does not reduce us to commonality, it frees us for the full development of our individuality. It is the actualization of our absolute difference from each other but such difference does not separate us from one another because it arises as our gift to one another. It is actualization of our uniqueness but such uniqueness is not self-centered because each achievement is a relational-ization of and for the whole. “The many become one, and are increased by one” (PR, 21). Such easy dichotomies are to be actually overcome.
Communism . . . as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being—a return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man—the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. (EPM, 102-103)
A genuine dialectical unity is achieved finally for human life and because we are beings-in-relation to one another, this is not just self-appropriation and self-affirmation as freedom for myself, but the freedom that I gain by appropriating my own creative ability is also an act of freeing others. Only when I feel the solidarity of myself and all others will I really feel the suffering of the other as (necessarily) my suffering.
We do not yet live such being-in-solidarity. Real solidarity as process in actuality is not yet, but it is real as the potential future of the present and as such, the entertainment of the nonconformal proposition of full communism, of social solidarity, is a lure for feeling. “The entire movement of history is, therefore, both its actual act of genesis (the birth act of its empirical existence) and also for its thinking consciousness, the comprehended and known process of its coming-to-be” (EPM, 103).
And so, in the present we live the future only as the not-yet-potential and in that know ourselves to be the processive agents of this coming-to-be. As we think processively, as we think dialectically, we are thinking beyond capitalism and in thinking beyond capitalism we are affirming ourselves, in affirming ourselves we are freeing ourselves for this potential. “Communism is the necessary pattern and the dynamic principle of the immediate future” (EPM, 114). “[W]e characterize communism itself because of its character as negation of the negation, as the appropriation of the human essence that mediates itself with itself through the negation of private property” (EPM, 123).
And so, in the present, we strive to speak of the not-yet. We struggle and stumble, our tongues are tied and our minds battle with this thought that is our real freedom and our real possibility. We need to speak in metaphors in order to speak through all the one-sided conceptualizations that crowd our consciousness. We find it so difficult to think dialectically, we find it so difficult to express the character of processive reality, because we live still in tension with these articulations. We find it difficult to say what is not yet actual, but we hint and try and find ourselves on the brink of saying but not yet being able to say clearly. When we live process, we will no longer need to say it. True social solidarity would be a true revolution in consciousness and thus an ability to conceptualize in entirely novel ways. It would not, therefore, constitute an ideal end point but the starting point of a new epochal processive adventure of becoming anew. Not the end of history but its true beginning, the beginning of human history.
And, in the final analysis, it is possible that we cannot characterize full communism except to speak of it as the realization of dialectical and processive being. And that, in keeping with the truly dialectical nature of processive being, actually living process, actually uniting our essence with our existence, will necessarily mean already thinking beyond that actuality, but this time, with our windows of potentiality wide open and our potential for novelty lim- ited only by the possibilities given in our actuality and not by imposed scarcity. Lived solidarity may well constitute a real evolutionary leap.
Religion is founded on the concurrence of three allied concepts in one moment of self-consciousness, concepts whose separate relationships to fact and whose mutual relations to each other are only to be settled jointly by some direct intuition into the ultimate character of the universe. These concepts are:
1. That of the value of an individual for itself.
2. That of the value of the diverse individuals of the world for each other.
3. That of the value of the objective world which is a community derivative from the interrelations of its component individuals, and also necessary for the existence of each of these individuals. (RM, 59)
Dialectical consciousness, processive consciousness, radical consciousness, self-consciousness and self-appropriation as real freedom, are all instances of the concurrence in thought and in potential actuality of these three con- cepts. Therefore, full communism may be the realization in consciousness and in actuality of the sacred character of the universe. The absolute end is the “evocation of intensities” (PR, 105). Real solidarity as lived process and lived process as the freedom of the human being to creativity bounded only by the data might be our conceptual noesis with the boundlessness of the primordial graded envisionment: the realization of the sacred character of the universe and that realization as the appropriation of our role in its creation. According to Isaac Luria’s Kabbalist doctrine of Tikkun, the breaking of the “vessels” of God’s attributes scattered divine sparks in fragments throughout the material world. The task of healing these broken vessels, an enterprise in which “man and God are partners,” reestablishes the “harmonious condition of the world” not as a restoration, but “as something new.” [Marx and Whitehead]
