Process and Reality — the Gifford Lectures, 1929

Tue primordial created fact is the unconditioned conceptual valuation of the entire multiplicity of eternal objects. This is the ‘primordial nature’ of God. By reason of this complete valuation, the objectification of God in each derivate actual entity results in a graduation of the relevance of eternal objects to the concrescent phases of that derivate occasion. There will be additional ground of relevance for select eternal objects by reason of their ingression into derivate actual entities belonging to the actual world of the concrescent occasion in question. But whether or no this be the case, there is always the definite relevance derived from God. Apart from God, eternal objects unrealized in the actual world would be relatively non-existent for the concrescence in question. For effective relevance requires agency of comparison, and agency belongs exclusively to actual occasions. This divine ordering is itself matter of fact, thereby conditioning creativity. Thus possibility which transcends realized temporal matter of fact has a real relevance to the creative advance. God is the primordial creature; but the description of his nature is not exhausted by this conceptual side of it. His ‘consequent nature’ results from his physical prehensions of the derivative actual entities (cf. Part V).

‘Creativity’ is another rendering of the Aristotelian ‘matter,’ and of the modern ‘neutral stuff’ But it is divested of the notion of passive receptivity, either of ‘form,’ or of external relations; it is the pure notion of the activity conditioned by the objective immortality of 46p. 47 the actual world—a world which is never the same twice, though always with the stable element of divine ordering. Creativity is without a character of its own in exactly the same sense in which the Aristotelian ‘matter’ is without a character of its own. It is that ultimate notion of the highest generality at the base of actuality. It cannot be characterized, because all characters are more special than itself. But creativity is always found under conditions, and described as conditioned. The non-temporal act of all-inclusive unfettered valuation is at once a creature of creativity and a condition for creativity. It shares this double character with all creatures. By reason of its character as a creature, always in concrescence and never in the past, it receives a reaction from the world; this reaction is its consequent nature. It is here termed ‘God’; because the contemplation of our natures, as enjoying real feelings derived from the timeless source of all order, acquires that ‘subjective form’ of refreshment and companionship at which religions aim.

This function of creatures, that they constitute the shifting character of creativity, is here termed the ‘objective immortality’ of actual entities. Thus God has objective immortality in respect to his primordial nature and his consequent nature. The objective immortality of his consequent nature is considered later (cf. Part V); we are now concerned with his primordial nature.

God’s immanence in the world in respect to his primordial nature is an urge towards the future based upon an appetite in the present. Appetition is at once the conceptual valuation of an immediate physical feeling combined with the urge towards realization of the datum conceptually prehended. For example ‘thirst’ is an immediate physical feeling integrated with the conceptual prehension of its quenching.

Appetition * is immediate matter of fact including in itself a principle of unrest, involving realization of what

1 Cf. Leibniz’s Monodology.

p. 48

is not and may be. The immediate occasion thereby conditions creativity so as to procure, in the future, physical realization of its mental pole, according to the various valuations inherent in its various conceptual prehensions. All physical experience is accompanied by an appetite for, or against, its continuance: an example is the appetition of self-preservation. But the origination of the novel conceptual prehension has, more especially, to be accounted for. Thirst is an appetite towards a difference—towards something relevant, something largely identical, but something with a definite novelty. This is an example at a low level which shows the germ of a free imagination.

In what sense can unrealized abstract form be relevant? What is its basis of relevance? ‘Relevance’ must express some real fact of togetherness among forms. The ontological principle can be expressed as: All real togetherness is togetherness in the formal constitution of an actuality. So if there be a relevance of what in the temporal world is unrealized, the relevance must express a fact of togetherness in the formal constitution of a non-temporal actuality. But by the principle of relativity there can only be one non-derivative actuality, unbounded by its prehensions of an actual world. Such a primordial superject of creativity achieves, in its unity of satisfaction, the complete conceptual valuation of all eternal objects. This is the ultimate, basic adjustment of the togetherness of eternal objects on which creative order depends. It is the conceptual adjustment of all appetites in the form of aversions and adversions. It constitutes the meaning of relevance. Its status as an actual efficient fact is recognized by terming it the ‘primordial nature of God.’

The word ‘appetition’ illustrates a danger which lurks in technical terms. This same danger is also illustrated in the psychology derived from Freud. The mental poles of actualities contribute various grades of complex feelings to the actualities including them as factors. Thep. 49 basic operations of mentality are ‘conceptual prehensions.’ These are the only operations of ‘pure’ mentality. All other mental operations are ‘impure,’ in the sense that they involve integrations of conceptual prehensions with the physical prehensions of the physical pole. Since ‘impurity’ in prehension refers to the prehension arising out of the integration of ‘pure’ physical prehensions with ‘pure’ mental prehensions, it follows that an impure mental prehension is also an ‘impure’ physical prehension and conversely. Thus the term ‘impure’ applied to a prehension has a perfectly definite meaning; and does not require the terms ‘mental’ or ‘physical,’ except for the direction of attention in the discussion concerned. The technical term ‘conceptual prehension’ is entirely neutral, devoid of all suggestiveness. But such terms present great difficulties to the understanding, by reason of the fact that they suggest no particular exemplifications. Accordingly, we seek equivalent terms which have about them the suggestiveness of familiar fact. We have chosen the term ‘appetition,’ which suggests exemplifications in our own experience, also in lower forms of life such as insects and vegetables. But even in human experience ‘appetition’ suggests a degrading notion of this basic activity in its more intense operations. We are closely concerned with what Bergson calls ‘intuition’ —with some differences however. Bergson’s intuition is an ‘impure’ operation; it is an integral feeling derived from the synthesis of the conceptual prehension with the physical prehension from which it has been derived according to the ‘category of conceptual reproduction’ (Categoreal Obligation IV). It seems that Bergson’s term ‘intuition’ has the:same meaning as ‘physical purpose’ in Part III of these lectures. Also Bergson’s ‘intuition’ seems to abstract from the subjective form of emotion and purpose. This subjective form is an essential element in the notion of ‘conceptual prehension,’ as indeed in that of any prehension. It is an essential element in ‘physical purpose’ (cf. Part III). If we con-

p. 50