Process and Reality — the Gifford Lectures, 1929

The integration of a conceptual and physical prehension need not issue in an impure prehension: the eternal object as a mere potentiality, undetermined as to its physical realization, may lose its indetermination, i.e. its universality, by integration with itself as an element in the realized definiteness of the physical datum of the physical prehension. In this case we obtain what in Part III is termed a ‘physical purpose.’ In a physical purpose the subjective form has acquired a special appetition—adversion or aversion—in respect to that eternal object as a realized element of definiteness in that physical datum. This acquisition is derived from the conceptual prehension. The ‘abruptness’ of mental operations is here illustrated. The physical datum in itself illustrates an indefinite number of eternal objects. The ‘physical purpose’ has focussed appetition upon an abruptly selected eternal object.

But with the growth of intensity in the mental pole, evidenced by the flash of novelty in appetition, the appetition takes the form of a ‘propositional prehension.’

p. 280

tah PROPOS PELONS 281

These prehensions will be studied more particularly in Part III. They are the prehensions of ‘theories.’ It is evident, however, that the primary function of theories is as a lure for feeling, thereby providing immediacy of enjoyment and purpose. Unfortunately theories, under their name of ‘propositions,’ have been handed over to logicians, who have countenanced the doctrine that their one function is to be judged as to their truth or falsehood. Indeed Bradley does not mention ‘propositions’ in his Logic. He writes only of ‘judgments.’ Other authors define propositions as a component in judgment. The doctrine here laid down is that, in the realization of propositions, ‘judgment’ is very rare component, and so is ‘consciousness.’ The existence of imaginative literature should have warned logicians that their narrow doctrine is absurd. It is difficult to believe that all logicians as they read Hamlet’s speech, “To be, or not to be: .. .” commence by judging whether the initial proposition be true or false, and keep up the task of judgment throughout the whole thirty-five lines. Surely, at some point in the reading, judgment is eclipsed by aesthetic delight. The speech, for the theatre audience, is purely theoretical, a mere lure for feeling.

Again, consider strong religious emotion—consider a Christian meditating on the sayings in the Gospels. He is not judging ‘true or false’; he is eliciting their value as elements in feeling. In fact, he may ground his judgment of truth upon his realization of value. But such a procedure is impossible, if the primary function of propositions is to be elements in judgments.

The ‘lure for feeling’ ‘is the final cause guiding the concrescence of feelings. By this concrescence the multifold datum of the primary phase is gathered into the unity of the final satisfaction of feeling. The ‘objective lure’ is that discrimination among eternal objects introduced into the universe by the real internal constitutions of the actual occasions forming the datum of the concrescence under review. This discrimination also inp. 282volves eternal objects excluded from value in the tem. poral occasions of that datum, in addition to involving the eternal objects included for such occasions.

For example, consider the Battle of Waterloo. This battle resulted in the defeat of Napoleon, and in a constitution of our actual world grounded upon that defeat. But the abstract notions, expressing the possibilities of another course of history which would have followed upon his victory, are relevant to the facts which actually happened. We may not think it of practical importance that imaginative historians should dwell upon such hypothetical alternatives. But we confess their relevance in thinking about them at all, even to the extent of dismissing them. But some imaginative writers do not dismiss such ideas. Thus, in our actual world of today, there is a penumbra of eternal objects, constituted by relevance to the Battle of Waterloo. Some people do admit elements from this penumbral complex into effective feeling, and others wholly exclude them. Some are conscious of this internal decision of admission or rejection; for others the ideas float into their minds as daydreams without consciousness of deliberate decision; for others, their emotional tone, of gratification or regret, of friendliness or hatred, is obscurely influenced by this penumbra of alternatives, without any conscious analysis of its content. The elements of this penumbra are propositional prehensions, and not pure conceptual prehensions; for their implication of the particular nexus which in the Battle of Waterloo is an essential factor.

Thus an element in this penumbral complex is what is termed a ‘proposition.’ A proposition is new kind of entity. It is a hybrid between pure potentialities and actualities. A ‘singular’ proposition is the potentiality of an actual world including a definite set of actual entities in a nexus of reactions involving the hypothetical ingression of a definite set of eternal objects.

A ‘general’ proposition only differs from a ‘singular’ proposition by the generalization of ‘one definite set of

p. 283

actual entities’ into ‘any set belonging to a certain sort of sets.’ If the sort of sets includes all sets with potentiality for that nexus of reactions, the proposition is called ‘universal.’

For the sake of simplicity, we will confine attention to singular propositions; although a slight elaboration of explanation will easily extend the discussion to include general and universal propositions.

The definite set of actual entities involved are called the ‘logical subjects of the proposition’; and the definite set of eternal objects involved are called the ‘predicates of the proposition.’ The predicates define a potentiality of relatedness for the subjects. The predicates form one complex eternal object: this is ‘the complex predicate. The ‘singular’ proposition is the potentiality of this complex predicate finding realization in the nexus of reactions between the logical subjects, with assigned stations in the pattern for the various logical subjects.

In a proposition the various logical subjects involved are impartially concerned. The proposition is no more about one logical subject than another logical subject. But according to the ontological principle, every proposition must be somewhere. The ‘locus’ of a proposition consists of those actual occasions whose actual worlds include the logical subjects of the proposition. When an actual entity belongs to the locus of a proposition, then conversely the proposition is an element in the lure for feeling of that actual entity. If by the decision of the concrescence, the proposition has been admitted into feeling, then the proposition constitutes what the feeling has felt. The proposition constitutes a lure for a member of its locus by reason of the germaneness of the complex predicate to the logical subjects, having regard to forms of definiteness in the actual world of that member, and to its antecedent phases of feeling.

The interest in logic, dominating overintellectualized philosophers, has obscured the main function of propositions in the nature of things. They are not primarilyp. 284 for belief, but for feeling at the physical level of unconsciousness. They constitute a source for the origination of feeling which is not tied down to mere datum. A proposition is ‘realized’ by a member of its locus, when it is admitted into feeling.

There are two types of relationship between a proposition and the actual world of a member of its locus. The proposition may be conformal or non-conformal to the actual world, true or false.