Process and Reality — the Gifford Lectures, 1929

An example of the lure for feeling is given by Hume himself. In the first section of his Treatise he lays down the proposition, “That all our simple ideas in their first appearance, are derived from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they exactly represent.” It must be remembered that in the organic philosophy the ‘data of objectifications’ are the nearest analogue to Hume’s ‘simple impressions.’ Thus, modifying Hume’s principle, the only lure to conceptual feeling is an exact conformation to the qualities realized in the objectified actualities. But Hume (loc. cit.) notes an exception which carries with it the exact principle which has just been laid down, namely, the principle of relevant potentials, unrealized in the datum and yet constituent of an ‘objective lure’ by proximity to the datum. The point is that ‘order’ in the actual world introduces a derivative ‘order’ among eternal objects. Hume writes: ‘There is however, one contradictory phenomenon, which may prove that it is not absolutely impossible for ideas to go before their correspondent impressions. I believe it will readily be allowed, that the several distinct ideas of colours, which enter by the eyes, of those of sounds, which are conveyed by the hearing, are really different from each other, though, at the same time, resembling. Now, if this be true of different colours, it must be no less so of the different shades of the same colour, that each of them produces a distinct idea independent of the rest. . . . Suppose, therefore, a person to have enjoyed his sight for thirty years, and to have become perfectly well acquainted with colours of all kinds, excepting one particular shade of blue, for instance, which it has never been his fortune to meet with. Let all the different shades of that colour, except that single one, be placed before him, descending gradually from the deepest to thep. 133 lightest; it is plain, that he will perceive a blank, where that shade is wanting, and will be sensible that there is a greater distance in that place, between the contiguous colours, than in any other. Now I ask, whether it is possible for him, from his own imagination, to supply this deficiency, and to raise up to himself the idea of that particular shade, though it had never been conveyed to him by his senses. I believe there are few but will be of opinion that he can; and this may serve as a proof, that the simple ideas are not always derived from the correspondent impressions; though the instances is so particular and singular, that it is scarce worth our observing, and does not merit that, for it alone, we should alter our general maxim.”

This passage requires no comment, except for its final clause. Hume puts the ‘instance’ aside as being ‘particular and singular’; it is exactly this estimate which is challenged by the philosophy of organism. The analysis of concrescence, here adopted, conceives that there is an origination of conceptual feeling, admitting or rejecting whatever is apt for feeling by reason of its germaneness to the basic data. The gradation of eternal objects in respect to this germaneness is the ‘objective lure’ for feeling; the concrescent process admits a selection from this ‘objective lure’ into subjective efficiency. This is the subjective ‘ideal of itself’ which guides the process. Also the basic data are constituted by the actual world which ‘belongs to’ that instance of concrescent process. Feelings are ‘vectors’; for they feel what is there and transform it into what is here.

The term ‘potential difference’ is an old one in physical science; and recently it has been introduced in physiology with a meaning diverse from, though generically allied to, its older meaning in physics. The ultimate fact in the constitution of an actual entity which suggests this term is the objective lure for feeling. In the comparison of two actual entities, the contrast bep. 134tween their objective lures is their ‘potential difference’; and all other uses of this phrase are abstractions derivative from this ultimate meaning.

The ‘objectifications’ of the actual entities in the actual world, relative to a definite actual entity, constitute the efficient causes out of which that actual entity arises; the ‘subjective aim’ at ‘satisfaction’ constitutes the final cause, or lure, whereby there is determinate concrescence; and that attained ‘satisfaction’ remains as an element in the content of creative purpose. There is, in this way, transcendence of the creativity; and this transcendence effects determinate objectifications for the renewal of the process in the concrescence of actualities beyond that satisfied superject.

Thus an actual entity has a three-fold character: (i) it has the character ‘given’ for it by the past; (11) it has the subjective character aimed at in its process of conerescence; (11) it has the superjective character, which is the pragmatic value of its specific satisfaction qualifying the transcendent creativity.

In the case of the primordial actual entity, which is God, there is no past. Thus the ideal realization of conceptual feeling takes the precedence. God differs from other actual entities in the fact that Humce’s principle, of the derivate character of conceptual feelings, does not hold for him. There is still, however, the same threefold character: (i) The ‘primordial nature’ of God is the concrescence of an unity of conceptual feelings, including among their data all eternal objects. The concrescence is directed by the subjective aim, that the subjective forms of the feelings shall be such as to constitute the eternal objects into relevant lures of feeling severally appropriate for all realizable basic conditions. (ii) The ‘consequent nature’ of God is the physical prehension by God of the actualities of the evolving universe. This primordial nature directs such perspectives of objectification that each novel actuality in the temporal world contributes such elements as it can to a realization in Godp. 135 free from inhibitions of intensity by reason of discordance. (iil) The ‘superjective’ nature of God is the character of the pragmatic value of his specific satisfaction qualifying the transcendent creativity in the various temporal instances.

This is the conception of God, according to which he is considered as the outcome of creativity, as the foundation of order, and as the goal towards novelty. ‘Order’ and ‘novelty’ are but the instruments of his subjective aim which is the intensification of ‘formal immediacy.’ It is to be noted that every actual entity, including God, is something individual for its own sake; and thereby transcends the rest of actuality. And also it is to be noted that every actual entity, including God, is a creature transcended by the creativity which it qualifies. A temporal occasion in respect. to the second element of its character, and God in respect to the first element of his character satisfy Spinoza’s definition of substance, that it is causa sui. To be causa sui means that the process of concrescence is its own reason for the decision in respect to the qualitative clothing of feelings. It is finally responsible for the decision by which any lure for feeling is admitted to efficiency. The freedom inherent in the universe is constituted by this-element of self-causation.

In the subsequent discussion, ‘actual entity’ will be taken to mean a conditioned actual entity of the temporal world, unless God is expressly included in the discussion. The term ‘actual occasion’ will always exclude God from its scope.