Process and Reality — the Gifford Lectures, 1929

The intuitive judgment is the comparative feeling with its datum constituted by the generic contrast between the nexus involved in the indicative feeling and the proposition involved in the imaginative feeling. In this generic contrast each actual entity has its contrast of two-way functioning. One way is its functioning in the exemplified pattern of the nexus, and the other way is its functioning in the potential pattern of the proposition. If in addition to the contrast between exemplification and potentiality, there be identity as to pattern and predicate, then by the category of objective unity there is also the single complex eternal object in its two-way functioning, namely, as exemplified and as potential. In this case, the proposition coheres with the nexus and this coherence is its truth. Thus ‘truth’ is the absence of incompatibility or of any ‘material contrast’ in the patterns of the nexus and of the proposition in their generic contrast. The sole contrast, involving the category of objective diversity, is merely that between exemplification and potentiality, and in all other respects the coherence is governed by the category of objective identity.

If a contrast arise in any respect other than that between exemplification and potentiality, then the two patterns are not identical. Then the proposition in some sense, important or unimportant, is not felt as true.

It will be noted that the intuitive judgment in its subjective form conforms to what there is to feel in its datum. Thus error cannot arise from the subjective form of the integration constituting the judgment. But it can arise because the indicative feeling, which is one of the factors integrated, may in its origin have involvedp. 415 reversion. Thus error arises by reason of operations which lie below consciousness, though they may emerge into consciousness and lie open for criticism.

Finally, what differentiates an intuitive judgment from a conscious perception is that a conscious perception is the outcome of an originative process which has its closest possible restriction to the fact, thus consciously perceived. But the distinction between the two species is not absolute. Among the conscious perceptions we find transmutations by which concepts entertained in the nexus are transmuted into physical feelings in the nexus, and also the unauthentic propositional feelings in which a proposition with a ‘reverted’ predicate has arisen. These are cases in which conscious perceptions take on the general character of intuitive judgments. On the other hand the diversity between the two physical feelings—when they are diverse—may be trivial. The nexus which is the datum of the one may be practically identical with the nexus which is the datum of the other. In such a case an intuitive judgment approximates to a conscious perception.

The condensed analysis of the stages of origination of an intuitive judgment is (i) the ‘physical recollection’ and the ‘indicative feeling,’ (11) the ‘predicative feeling,’ derived from the physical recollection, (iii) the ‘imaginative feeling’ derived by integration of the ‘predicative feeling’ with the ‘indicative feeling,’ (iv) the intuitive judgment, derived by integration of the ‘imaginative feeling’ with the indicative feeling.

It is a great mistake to describe the subjective form of an intuitive judgment as necessarily including definite belief or disbelief in the proposition. ‘Three cases arise. The generic contrast which is the datum of the intuitive judgment may exhibit the predicate of the proposition as exemplified in the objectified nexus. In this case, the subjective form will include definite belief. Secondly, the predicate may be exhibited as incompatible with thep. 416 eternal objects exemplified in the objectified nexus. In this case, the subjective form will include definite disbelief. But there is a third case, which is in fact the more usual one: the predicate may be exhibited as irrelevant, wholly or partially, to the eternal objects exemplified in the objectified nexus. In this case, the subjective form need exhibit neither belief nor disbelief. It may include one or the other, of these decisions, but it need not do so. This third case will be termed the case of ‘suspended judgment.’ Thus an intuitive judgment may be a belief, or a disbelief, or a suspended judgment. It is the task of the inferential process sometimes to convert a suspended judgment into a belief, or a disbelief, so far as the final satisfaction is concerned.

But the main function of intellectual feelings is neither belief, nor disbelief, nor even suspension of judgment. The main function of these feelings is to heighten the emotional intensity accompanying the valuations in the conceptual feelings involved, and in the more physical purposes which are more primitive than any intellectual feelings. They perform this function by the sharp-cut way in which they limit abstract valuation to express possibilities relevant to definite logical subjects. In so far as these logical subjects, by reason of other prehensions, are topics of interest, the proposition becomes a lure for the conditioning of creative action. In other words, its prehension effects a modification of the subjective aim.

Intellectual feelings, in their primary function, are concentration of attention involving increase of importance. This concentration of attention also introduces the criticism of physical purposes, which is the intellectual judgment of truth or falsehood. But intellectual feelings are not to be understood unless it be remembered that they already find at work ‘physical purposes’ more primitive than themselves. Consciousness follows, and does not precede, the entry of the conceptual prehensions of the relevant universals.

p. 417

SECTION VI