We wanted to update the community with the unfortunate news that our most recent application for an NEH Scholarly Editions and Translations grant has not been funded.
In reading the reviews of the four panelists who evaluated our proposal, we were not even as close this time as we were in some previous attempts. Each panelist assigns the proposal one of five possible ratings: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Some Merit, and Not Competitive. In some past years we had received three “Excellent” ratings, with only one “Very Good,” with this one sub-optimal rating being enough to sink us. This time we received two ratings of “Very Good,” and two ratings of “Good.”
There was a common theme in the reviewer comments which is perhaps best exemplified by the final comment of the one panelist who had given an initial rating of “Excellent”:
I’m lowering my evaluation of this proposal from Excellent to Very Good. I think the other panelists are right to question the size of the audience for this project.
Other panelists made other comments along these lines:
I think it would be useful to see the larger impact on today’s readers—how might Whitehead’s work touch 21st century lay people?
[Whitehead] would not be considered as central or significant to the American tradition as some other persons.
This last comment also echoes a message we had already received from the NEH Director of Research Programs when they turned down our application:
Please note that topics for this year’s competition will be limited to those in American history and culture or Western civilization.
It already seemed obvious from the April DOGE cuts that the NEH’s priorities had changed under the new federal administration, and this feedback simply confirms it. As a result, it would appear to be a waste of our time and effort to apply for this grant until at least after the 2028 US federal election.
In the meantime, the Critical Edition will have to be sustained solely through the generosity of those who care about the life and intellectual legacy of Alfred North Whitehead. Though we do have generous recurring donors, their contributions are not quite enough to allow us to complete all of the planned volumes. We will, of course, seek other sources of funding as best we can. But if you are able to aid the project with a donation (especially a monthly or annual recurring donation), it would be greatly appreciated.
| Brian Henning, Founder & General Editor Critical Edition of Whitehead Professor of Philosophy, Gonzaga University | Joseph Petek, Executive Editor Critical Edition of Whitehead |
In Defense of Einstein ist a book where I underline Whitehead’s importance dor 2022 and 2026 in physical sciences. Christian Thomas Kohl
WITH HELP FROM AN AI, THIS MY SUMMARY OF WHITEHEADS CONTRIBUTIONS
Summary of Core ShiftsTraditional View (Substance-Based) Whiteheadian View (Process-Based)Societal Impact: Reality is made of isolated material objects. WH.Reality is a web of dynamic, interconnected events. Leading to Foundation for ecological ethics & deep ecology
Historical: .God is static, omnipotent, and external. Whitehead: God is relational, evolving, and persuasive leading to a Rise of Process Theology & modern interfaith dialogue.
Traditional: Education is the accumulation of static facts. Whiteheadian: Education is a rhythmic cycle of living ideas.Progressive, interdisciplinary, and holistic curricula.
Traditional view: Systems are machines built of fixed parts. Whiteheadian view: Systems are living networks defined by ongoing processes. spawning -Systems thinking in physics, biology, and management.
In my experience, “ebb-&-flow-of-enthusiasm” characterizes the evolving history of any system of thinking-conceptualizing. Look at “idealism,” …. existentialism … phenomenology. All had “waves” of support, and “troughs” of declining-interest. Highlighting the contrast between “subject-object” thinking and “process-relational” thinking requires energy and fortitude. It’s easier using the available language of “nouns” as “objects,” rather than using “gerunds” as “processes.”
We need to focus on changing our use of language. Start using gerunds.
Also, we need to expand the range of disciplines where we apply “process-relational” thinking. Yes, our scholastic senior leadership is now gone. But … there are many “junior” scholars who deserve nurturing and promoting.
Getting-to-work now!