For Whitehead, however, while there is nontemporal
knowledge of pure possibility, there can be only temporal knowledge of actualities and propositions.
God and world are just this sort of coupled system, with God limiting the absolute
field of pure possibility to that region or order compatible with the actual world.
«The «primordial nature» of God is the concrescence of a unity of conceptual feelings» (PR 134), which «achieves, in its unity of satisfaction, the complete conceptual valuation of all eternal objects» (PR 48) or pure forms, thereby generating the entire
structuring of pure possibility.4 Seen in terms of his everlasting aspect or consequent nature, however, the only way God is directly related to the World, the converse is true.
As before, the question of such survival is left open, but a new note is struck by the reference to the everlasting nature of God, which is his consequent nature as the weaving of his temporal physical feelings of actualities upon his nontemporal
conceptualizations of all pure possibilities (PR 524).
With Whitehead we can make a formal distinction between two natures or aspects of God's actuality: his primordial nature as the
locus of all pure possibilities, which God draws upon in order to provide the initial aims for each emerging event, and his consequent nature as the ultimate recipient of all actuality, which is perfectly experienced and treasured within God.
We may equally well designate the primordial aspect the nontemporal dimension of God's being, for it is God conceived of as divorced from time, wholly independent of the world, timelessly envisioning the entire
multiplicity of pure possibilities.
In February 1887, Caitriona Wallace and Émile Nouguier meet in a hot air balloon, floating high above Paris, France - a
moment of pure possibility.
Granted, therefore, that God's infinite conceptual
valuation of pure possibility may justly be termed «free» since it is «limited by no actuality which it presupposes (PR 524), yet the temporal integrative activity of his consequent nature, whereby he loves particular occasions of the actual world, may also be called «free,» though in a somewhat different sense.
«From the beginning we looked upon the term [Zero] not as an expression of nihilism — or as a dada - like gag, but as a word indicating a zone of silence and
of pure possibilities for a new beginning as the count - down when rockets take off — ZERO is the incommensurable zone in which the old state turns into the new.»
8The theory of propositional knowledge for real possibilities has strong affinities with Luis de Molina's middle knowledge, which is between the knowledge of actualities and the
knowledge of pure possibilities.
Nontemporal, he creates himself as the envisagement of the
infinitude of all pure possibilities.20 Just as the world acquires a future from God, so God acquires a past from the world.
Both substantial activity and the realm
of pure possibility are entirely neutral with respect to what kinds of actual entities shall occur: for example, as to the number of dimensions they shall have.
God's envisagement
of pure possibility is beyond the influence of events.
Ritual, according to Turner, is the «realm
of pure possibility whence novel configurations of ideas and relations may arise» (Turner 97).1 Reference to a realm of pure possibility ought not to suggest to students of Whitehead an analogue to his notion of the primordial nature of God; liminality is not quite that flexible.
These investigations aligned Aubertin with the ZERO group's search for «a zone of silence and
of pure possibilities for a new beginning» for art.