Process and Reality — the Gifford Lectures, 1929

A single word is not one definite sound. Every instance of its utterance differs in some respect from every other instance: the pitch of the voice, the intonation, the accent, the quality of sound, the rhythmic relations of the component sounds, the intensity of sound, all vary. Thus a word is a species of sounds, with specific identity and individual differences. When we recognize the species, we have heard the word. But what we have heard is merely the sound—euphonious or harsh, concordant with or discordant with other accompanying sounds. The word is heard in the pure perceptive mode of immediacy, and primarily elicits merely the contrasts and identities with other percepta in that mode. So far there is no symbolic interplay.

If the meaning of the word be an event, then either that event is directly known, as a remembered perceptum in an earlier occasion of the percipient’s life, or that event is only vaguely known by its dated spatio-temporal nexus with events which are directly known. Anyhow there is a chain of symbolic references (inherited along the historic route of the percipient’s life, and reinforced by the production of novel and symbolic references at various occasions along that route) whereby in the datump. 277 for the percipient occasion there is a faintly relevant nexus between the word in that occasion of utterance and the event. The sound of the word in presentational immediacy, by symbolic references elicits this nexus into important relevance, and thence precipitates feelings, and thoughts, upon the enhanced objectification of the event. Such enhanced relevance of the event may be unfortunate, or even unjustified; but it is the function of words to produce it. The discussion of mentality is reserved for Part III: it is a mistake to think of words as primarily the vehicle of thoughts.

Language also illustrates the doctrine that, in regard to a couple of properly correlated species of things, it depends upon the constitution of the percipient subject to assign which species is acting as ‘symbol’ and which as ‘meaning.’ The word ‘forest’ may suggest of memories of forests; but equally the sight of a forest, or memories of forests, may suggest the word ‘forest.’ Sometimes we are bothered because the immediate experience has not elicited the word we want. In such a case the word with the right sort of correlation with the experience has failed to become importantly relevant in the constitution of our experience.

But we do not usually think of the things as symbolizing the words correlated to them. This failure to invert our ideas arises from the most useful aspect of symbolism. In general the symbols are more handy elements in our experience than are the meanings. We can say the word ‘forest? whenever we like; but only under certain conditions can we directly experience an existent forest. To procure such an experience usually involves a problem of transportation only possible on our holidays. Also it is not so easy even to remember forest scenes with any vividness; and we usually find that the immediate experience of the word ‘forest’ helps to elicit such recollections. In such ways language is handy as an instrument of communication along the successive occasions of the historic route forming the life of one individual. By anp. 278 extension of these same principles of behaviour, it communicates from the occasions of one individual to the succeeding occasions of another individual. The same means which are handy for procuring the immediate presentation of a word to oneself are equally effective for presenting it to another person. Thus we may have a two-way system of symbolic reference involving two persons, A and B. The forest, recollected by A, symbolizes the word ‘forest’ for A; then A, for his own sake and for B’s sake, pronounces the word ‘forest’; then by the efficacy of the environment and of B’s bodily parts, and by the supplemental enhancement due to B’s experiential process, the word ‘forest’ is perceived by B in the mode of immediacy; and, finally by symbolic reference, B recollects vaguely various forest scenes. In this use of language for communication between two persons, there is in principle nothing which differs from its use by one person for communication along the route of his own actual occasions.

This discussion shows that one essential purpose of symbols arises from their handiness. For this reason the Egyptian papyrus made ink-written language a more useful symbolism than the Babylonian language impressed on brick. It is easier to smell incense than to produce certain religious emotions; so, if the two can be correlated, incense is a suitable symbol for such emotions. Indeed, for many purposes, certain aesthetic experiences which are easy to produce make better symbols than do words, written or spoken. Quarrels over symbolism constitute one of the many causes of religious discord. One difficulty in symbolism is that the unhandy meanings are often vague. For instance, this is the case with the percepta in the mode of efficacy which are symbolized by percepta in the mode of immediacy: also, as another instance, the incense is definite, but the religious emotions are apt to be indefinite. The result is that the meanings are often shifting and indeterminate. This happens even in the case of words: other people misunderstand their import. Also, in the case of incense the exact religious emotions finally reached are very uncertain: perhaps we would prefer that some of them were never elicited.

Symbolism is essential for the higher grades of life; and the errors of symbolism can never be wholly avoided.

CHAPTER, Tx
THE PROPOSITIONS

SECTION I

A LIVING occasion is characterized by a flash of novelty among the appetitions of its mental pole. Such ‘appetitions,’ i.e. ‘conceptual prehensions,’ can be ‘pure’ or ‘impure.’ An ‘impure’ prehension arises from the integration of a ‘pure’ conceptual prehension with a physical prehension originating in the physical pole. The datum of a pure conceptual prehension is an eternal object; the datum of an impure prehension is a proposition, otherwise termed a ‘theory.’