But it is clear that Whitehead's requirements for
subjective unity (as then perceived) dictated that it must be so.
This is why God's
subjective unity or individuality does not require that actual world being closed.
By basing
subjective unity upon the virtual unity of objective data Whitehead has imposed on his philosophy this additional requirement that there be no elimination in later phases.
After introducing
subjective unity in terms of subjective aim, Whitehead does not go back and revise his theory of the initial phase in ways that make full use of this innovation.
It is this total reciprocal activity so directed which constitutes
the subjective unity of the concrescence.
At one point Kirkpatrick writes that the process view asks us «to imagine a process of unification as having, in effect,
subjective unity prior to the achievement of
subjective unity» (PS 3:20).
Unfortunately, however, we can not ground
subjective unity in the superject, for two reasons: (1) The superject is completely determinate, and hence devoid of activity; it can not do any of the things subjects are supposed to do.
This means that its unity is inherently unstable, and for that reason it is properly
a subjective unity.
In virtue of this common aim these elements participate in an overarching
subjective unity directed toward that goal.
«
Subjective unity of subjective aim» is grammatically a strange redundancy.
I take the original wording to be «
their subjective unity of aim,» where aim is conceived as a common feature by which all feelings are ordered together.15 Note that the unity of aim is quite static, for the divine conceptual actuality is itself static.
We should have expected either «unity of subjective aim» or «
subjective unity of aim.»
(Religion in the Making, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1960, 115) A clearer statement of the significance of the ordering to God as an actual entity is: «The conceptual feelings, which compose his primordial nature, exemplify in their subjective forms their mutual sensitivity and
their subjective unity of subjective aim.
Only a single definite form can be the basis of embryonic
subjective unity.
The presence of A in B does not conflict with
the subjective unity and actuality of B. No aspect of B's own being is displaced by A's presence.
The wholeness of an occasion in
its subjective unity is the vital and exclusive actuality which is completely lacking in the inclusiveness of the primordial vision taken by itself.
For God engages in no temporal decisions of his own, as these would undermine
the subjective unity of his own nontemporal, primordial decision.
Finally, and most importantly for our present purposes, the first categoreal condition of
subjective unity requires that what is prehended be compatible for synthesis, and this requires perspectival elimination.
Since his interest lies in the intrinsic value of each occasion as it might contribute to his own multiplicity, and not in the reduction of that value so that it might provide him with a novel decision, God in no way violates
the subjective unity of the satisfaction he prehends.
This brief commentary on the category of
subjective unity was expanded by a response to the problematic just rehearsed (S7).
Note that
subjective unity differs from the substantial unity Whitehead rejects.
Sherburne twice (PS 1:102, 103) quotes against me Whitehead's statement that «
the subjective unity dominating the process forbids the division of the extensive quantum which originates with the primary phase of the subjective aim» (PR 434).
1.3 seems to have been inserted in order to qualify the category of
subjective unity (1.5, 1.4 being an introduction the categories).
The many feelings must be compatible for every phase, according to the theory of
subjective unity Whitehead held when the first condition was formulated, by reason of the unity of the subject.
It is in accord with Whitehead's emphasis upon
the subjective unity of an actual entity, that an entity acts as a whole, and with the indivisible unity of polar opposites, particularly God and the world.
Strictly, as in the theory of
subjective unity, this means «compatible for integration» at every phase, but it can mean simply «that which will be made compatible in the final unity» which is all that is needed for the final theory.
They are of course also regions, having all the properties of regions as well as the distinctive property of atomic unification by
the subjective unity of the occasion whose standpoints they are.
Granting that Whitehead speaks of the subjective form of all events and the category of
subjective unity, Mays is undaunted and proceeds to demystify Whitehead's language.
It is only by reason of the categories of
subjective unity, and of subjective harmony, that the process constitutes the character of the product, and that conversely the analysis of the product discloses the process.
The subjective unity dominating the process forbids the division of that extensive quantum which originates with the primary phase of the subjective aim.
That exists formally, however, which governs the process of its own concrescence, imparts to its components «
subjective unity,» and thereby directs them toward the «subjective aim.»
The many become parts of one whole (one
subjective unity) at the founding of the actual entity or there is no new actual entity.
His life as a living individual consists of synthesizing into some degree of
subjective unity the various relational causes or influences which have initiated his process of becoming something definite.11
«The subjective aim at each phase provides
the subjective unity of all the data at that phase; subjective unity at every phase means only that the data are compatible for synthesis, not that they are completely integrated.
Not exact matches
The doctrine of the philosophy of organism is that, however far the sphere of efficient causation be pushed in the determination of components of a concrescence — its data, its emotions, its appreciations, its purposes, its phases of
subjective aim — beyond the determination of these components there always remains the final reaction of the self - creative
unity of the universe.
At some point during the early Upanishadic period the objective and
subjective quests for
unity tended to draw together Often both types of inquiry are presented in the same passage or narrative (Chan.
The Upanishadic quest for a
unity proceeded in two directions: the objective and the
subjective.
Admittedly, this would be an objective
unity indirectly achieved in and through the
subjective processes of unification of its constituent occasions.
We find the absolute beyond the old
subjective and objective
unities described in two ways.
But Whitehead means something else by a «whole» (as an ultimate unit of reality) when he says it is «the singularity of an entity» (Process 21), or the
unity of a subject (Category of
Subjective Unity.
Greening involves a sense of relatedness or
unity that is deeply
subjective and then also implies kinship in what is felt.
The final
unity must remain
subjective: it is the
subjective whole of God's «final» valuation.
The entity is never just a subject, but a subject - superject (PR 43), having an «emergent
unity» (PR 71), guided by a
subjective aim «determining its own self - creation» (PR 108).
Now the inspection of
subjective experience reveals a number of objects woven together into the
unity that is this occasion of experience.
On the datum theory (Q), the concrescence had its underlying
unity in terms of its initiating datum, and the subject was the
subjective aspect of this objective datum (early sense).
I do not know why Whiteheadians should object (PS 6:219) to this monistic theme, since they are committed to think in terms of a God who supplies the initial
subjective aim of each actual entity, and of the completion of the development of the actual entity by «the final reaction of the self - creative
unity of the universe» (PR 75 — italics supplied).
There are too few clues to determine how these sentences fit into Whitehead's text, but their meaning is quite appropriate to the «nontemporal» understanding of concrescence that was required by the identification of
subjective with superjective
unity.
Further, any actual entity involves many prehensions of objects and is essentially a process of synthesizing these various prehensions with their various
subjective forms into a novel
unity with one complex form.
«
Subjective aim», on the other hand, points out a definite conceptual feeling, present throughout concrescence, affecting the subjective forms of all its feelings in order to bring them into a fi
Subjective aim», on the other hand, points out a definite conceptual feeling, present throughout concrescence, affecting the
subjective forms of all its feelings in order to bring them into a fi
subjective forms of all its feelings in order to bring them into a final
unity.
Dewey calls this value «quality,» but by the term he means neither mathematical nor secondary qualities; he uses the term to refer, first, to the wholeness or deeper reality, in some aspect of the world, often as that wholeness is presented in a work of art. 24 If this were called the objective locus of quality, the
subjective locus would be the emotional intuition of the objective quality; this
subjective quality gives the experience itself the
unity which makes it that particular experience.25 It is this empirical discernment of quality which provides the substance of the derivative and propositional resolution of the conflict between the individual and its environment.