", 31 December 2013 (UTC) 
 :::::::::::::I am beginning to come to my utter wit's end. 
 :::::::::::::Once again, I have no issues whatsoever with what you have written in terms of accuracy.  And once again, I think you have nearly zero appreciation for how opaque your writing is to people who do not have philosophy degrees.  You know this stuff so well (at least as well, and quite possibly better, than I) that you are blind to what your writing looks like to someone who doesn't already have a background in this area.  You assume people know what you're talking about, but fail to adequately explain yourself in terms they have a good chance of understanding. 
 :::::::::::::Let's look at the first sentence you propose above: ""Whitehead challenged some of our most common notions about the world.""  What common notions?  You have not said.  Furthermore, the second sentence is no help on this score.  It says that they are ""misleading remnants of the classical philosophic schemes.""  Vague once again.  People do not know what those are, they have no background in philosophy.  And when you finally come to things that might serve as solid examples, it turns out they are not examples: these schemes are ""based on ""substance,"" ""matter,"" and ""form"".  ""Based on""?  Apparently Whitehead does not find these terms problematic in any sense, only with the ""schemes"" that they are ""based on,"" schemes which you have told the reader nothing about. So it turns out that in the first two sentences you have not given any example that regular, non-philosophy people can understand about what Whitehead is objecting to.  They only know that he objects to ""classical philosophic schemes"" about which they neither know anything, nor care about. 
 :::::::::::::By my invocation of ""material substance"" (or ""matter/substance"" or just ""matter"" or just ""substance"", I don't really care at this point), you accuse me of a ""misleading emphasis.""  You say that: ""It is inaccurate to portray that replaced scheme as merely restricted to substance materialism. You want to restrict it to that for pedagogical reasons, reasons which are ultimately your own. What is problematic is not the concepts of substance, matter, and form, as such. They do account pretty well for change. The problem that Whitehead was tackling was that they do not achieve monism.""  And I would say in response that ""the concepts of substance, matter, and form"" are problematic for Whitehead, not ""as such"" but as concepts for pointing to the ultimate building blocks of reality.  There is nothing incorrect in saying so.  You are worried people will be misled into thinking that Whitehead is criticizing matter ""as such.""  But they cannot be led correctly or misled if they have no idea what is being talked about in the first place.  They cannot misunderstand if they do not understand at all.  You need to provide a solid example, a way in. 
 :::::::::::::In any case, your apparent solution to this possibility of misleading readers is to not give any examples about what Whitehead objects to at all, just ""classical philosophic schemes.""  If that is all he is objecting to, then why does anyone today care?  Pretty much everyone thinks that we've evolved in our understanding of the universe since ancient Greece.  So apparently he is just another old, dead white guy who objects to what some really old dead white guys said a long time ago, and we're not even going to make explicit exactly what it was he objected to in the opening sentences. 
 :::::::::::::You have to give an example of a common notion that Whitehead challenged right off the bat, because right now, you're assuming everyone knows what you're talking about when you talk about ""challenging common notions.""  They don't.  Hence why I start with ""matter"" or ""substance.""  If it bothers you to think of it as an emphasis, think of it as an example, or as a starting point.  And whatever you want to call it, my statement is not untrue.  It is a way to help the reader ease in to extremely difficult material.  Look at it again: ""Whitehead was convinced that the whole idea of material substances was misleading as a way of describing the ultimate nature of things.""  Stop thinking about Aristotle.  Think about today.  Average people are still convinced that the world is constructed of inert ""stuff,"" and Whitehead thought that was wrong.  That is all I am trying to get across.  If you have better wording to convey this basic idea, I'll gladly listen to it. 
 :::::::::::::Then we get below the block quote, and again with the jargon.  ""Whitehead observed that those those philosophic schemes do not fundamentally reconcile inanimate physical processes with personal subjective experience""?  You really think this is clear?  Once again, it's gibberish to 95% of people.  Not