Not exact matches
For purposes of illustration, let us have a simple example: A and B are actual
entities, and B
prehends A. And so there is the nexus — call it the A-B nexus — that is constituted
by B's prehension of A. 6 The phrase «prehensions of each
other» in the category suggests that, in order to have a nexus, A must also
prehend B. However, I think that Whitehead used that phrase loosely, and so its meaning can also be expressed as «prehensions of one another.»
Since God, on this view, is contemporary with every finite actual
entity, being neither in the past nor in the future of any
other actual
entity, God, on the principle in question, would be able neither to
prehend nor to he
prehended by any
other actual
entity, a conclusion more radically at variance with religious experience and practice than the doctrine Whitehead was invoked to repair.
When an actual
entity perishes and becomes objectively immortal,
other actual
entities prehend it
by reenacting some of the same eternal objects that it enacted.
Christian focuses his attention on the simplest case in which one actual
entity prehends only one
other actual
entity in its immediate past
by a simple physical feeling.
This relationship can be further explicated in Whitehead's terms
by discussing the way in which these
entities would
prehend each
other.
It is to say that each actual
entity at its inception must
prehend some divine satisfaction or
other, and each actual
entity at its satisfaction must be
prehended by some divine occasion or
other.
We
prehend other actual
entities more primitively
by direct mediation of emotional tone, and only secondarily and waveringly
by direct meditation of sense (PR 214).
If we were to reconceptualize conscious agents such as human beings so that, at least in this one regard, they were more like God, then we would have an entire class of actual
entities which did not immediately reach complete actuality Rather they would continue to concrescence while
prehending, and being
prehended by; many
other actual
entities.