Sentences with phrase «physical pole»

Instinct, which corresponds to the physical pole of an actual occasion, is the experience of efficient causation.

These forces seem to correspond to the physical pole, the mental pole, and the subjective aim of an actual occasion.

From the point of view of dual - aspect monism, these realities exist at the extreme mental pole of the complementary duality involved, just as sticks and stones exist at the far physical pole.

Whitehead shows that this is caused by the overwhelming preponderance of the physical pole or physical feelings.

Just as physical prehensions comprise the physical pole of each actual occasion of experience, so conceptual prehensions constitute the mental pole.

Whitehead calls it the «physical pole» (PR 49.)

She contends that, if one takes into account the priority of the conceptual pole (the divine primordial nature), over the physical pole (the divine consequent nature), within God, one can propose that the divine consequent nature is prehensible by «worldly» actual occasions since it is constantly integrated with the fully determinate valuation of eternal objects characteristic of the divine primordial nature.

God's mental or conceptual pole is termed the «primordial nature,» and God's physical pole is termed the «consequent nature.»

The physical pole also includes the prehension of the eternal objects as they are embedded in those other actual entities.

It requires it also to mediate between the newly arising formal determinations and the old forms already realized in the «physical pole.»

But God does not derive creativity from another, and thus can not originate out of connections with another entity; However, to say that God does not originate out of the prehension of other entities is to say that God does not originate out of the physical pole.

Rather than arguing that God originates from the mental pole, however, I will be content to argue that God does not originate from the physical pole.

From my perspective, the primary reason a finite actual entity» originates from its physical pole is that its creativity must be derived from another.

Thus, both at the level of creativity - esse and at the level of creativity - characterization, it follows that God, as the source of creativity, could not originate from the physical pole.

There is the freedom of conceptual innovation in which novel corrective and developmental forms of definiteness emerge in the mental pole as potentiality for final causation, and there is autonomous self - causation in which a mutually determined synthesis of the physical pole and the mental pole modifies the initial ideal aim to become the subjective aim, which is the final cause.

The objectivity of this initial phase, as it is effective within the occasion, is the physical pole of the occasion; whereas» «appearance» is the effect of the activity of the mental pole» (AI 270).

The efficiently caused physical pole of each actual occasion uninterrupted by divine action provides the medium for the expression of responsible freedom.

God is manifest solely as the Creator, for even the consequent nature of God is God's physical pole, his prehension of the actual occasions constituting the temporal world.

But Whitehead went on to affirm that God has a physical pole as well which feels all the feelings of the world.

The panexperientialist version of physicalism does justice to this fact by portraying the mind in each moment (that is, each dominant occasion of experience) as having both a physical pole, which is constituted by the causal influences from the physical environment, and a mental pole, which entertains ideal possibilities, including logical, ethical, and aesthetic norms.

Given panexperientialism's view that all actual entities have a physical pole, it agrees.

Each actual occasion is physical, accordingly, in the twofold sense that it begins with a physical pole, which means as an effect of prior events, and concludes by becoming a causal ingredient in the physical poles of subsequent events.

Panexperientialism agrees: Every actual entity has a physical pole.

When the eternal object selected for this purpose was embodied in the physical pole of the actual occasion felt or prehended, that is, when it expresses how that actual occasion prehended its predecessors, then the simple physical feeling is» pure.»

This is because it objectifies its predecessor by the physical pole, and such prehensions are only of contiguous occasions.

To the contrary we have asserted previously (PAWM 39) that there is good evidence in Process and Reality that the physical pole is part of the unified satisfaction of any entity.

The standard interpretation of concrescence pictures a transition from the physical pole to the consummate satisfaction associated with the mental pole.

The point is that the soul does have a structure that includes forms of physicality inherited from the physical pole.

But here the physical pole is dominant not because of its unusual strength but because it does not supply the rich and vivid contrasts necessary for a strong mental pole to develop.

Besides having a conformal phase (or «physical pole») in which it inherits, every actual occasion has a supplemental phase (or «mental pole») in which freedom and novelty are real possibilities.

Indeed, dreams seem not only to involve «slow time,» they are also what I shall call «physical pole heavy.»

The growth of the role of the mental pole does not happen at the expense of the physical pole.

Every actual entity is «in time» so far as its physical pole is concerned, and is «out of time» so far as its mental pole is concerned.

Nevertheless, there may be a developmentally - grounded diagnostic scheme in which the mental pole becomes increasingly important in the constitution of self as a person matures, adding its contribution to that of the physical pole.

For pain does appear to be experience in which the physical pole is dominant in the occasions of the regnant nexus.

The consequent nature refers to the physical pole and is characterized by the fact that God is finite, temporal, and responsive.

An occasion is a throb of experience, so of course its «physical pole» can not consist of matter, in the sense of a permanent unfeeling substance; and consciousness is too slight and occasional to define the «mental pole.

The origination of God is from the mental pole, the origination of an actual occasion is from the physical pole» (PR 54).

If the mental pole can not be sharply separated from the physical pole, Sherburne thinks, Whitehead must accept the same limits for hybrid feelings as for physical feelings.

Its wording is somewhat ambiguous, and he may have remembered it as deriving the mental pole from the physical pole, thus endorsing the particularization of that doctrine with respect to individual feelings.

The mental pole originates as the conceptual counterpart of operations in the physical pole.

The mental pole starts with the conceptual registration of the physical pole.10... The mental pole is the subject determining its own ideal of itself by reference to eternal principles of valuation autonomously modified in their application to its own physical objective datum.11 (PR 248.21 - 24,.34 - 41a, D in F)

Whitehead seems to be saying that God's primordial valuation of the eternal objects is his mental pole and his enjoyment of the world is his physical pole.

If the mental pole were derived from the physical pole, what would be the role of the subject with respect to that pole (or those physical feelings) considered by itself?

That is, the physical pole is normally understood as the initial phase of conformal feelings that merely receives what is given to it, while the mental pole is normally understood as the supplemental phases comprising pure conceptual feelings would leave out the various propositional feelings Even if this were a correct understanding of the mental and physical poles, it would still be inadequate, for the two poles would not include all of God's feelings.

Actual occasions range hierarchically from those dominated by the physical pole to those dominated by the mental pole.

The physical pole of an occasion is constituted by physical prehensions or feelings (strictly the notion of feelings excludes that of negative prehensions, but that is irrelevant here).

Continuity and divisibility are properties that, for Aristotle as well as for Whitehead, belong to an entity by reason of its «matter» or its «physical pole.»

Thus the «mental pole» can serve as the analogue of Aristotelian form, while the «physical pole» takes on the role of the «matter» of the «actual entity.»

The consequent nature of God is God's physical pole, his prehension of the actual occasions constituting the temporal world.