Immanence and transcendence as inseparable processes: on the relevance of arguments from Whitehead to Deleuze interpretation [draft] A discarded magnifying

glass lies by the side of a country lane, a mere child's toy, given a ay free on the cover of a magazine! It captures, or prehends, the sun's rays as they prehend its glass, focusing thereafter on ithered, tinder"dry grass, setting it alight! A forest of mature trees is devastated in the subse#uent fire, never to return, or at least not plausibly, in the ne climate that turned the undergro th to perfect $indling hile con%uring up summer inds of unmatched intensity! Ancient homesteads and chancy ne builds suffered e#ually on the fire front& those that did not or could not flee ere cho$ed then calcinated! It ta$es a very detached eye indeed to survey this loss and to claim e#ual value for the ne scrub and the ancient settled hills ith their natural comple'ity, animal life and human bonds! ()he orld is thus faced by the parado' that, at least in its higher actualities, it craves for novelty and yet is haunted by terror at the loss of the past, ith its familiarities and its loved ones!* +Whitehead ,-./: 0123 )his haunting is one of the forces behind the emergence of religion, ith its clinging to transcendence as resistance to the passing of all immanent actualities: (the culminating fact of conscious, rational life refuses to conceive itself as a transient en%oyment, transiently useful!* +Whitehead ,-./: 0123 4armony, running from past to future through the accord of transcendent entities ith passing and novel ones, allo s for a dance of transcendence and immanence!, )ranscendent eternal ob%ects carry forth the valuation of positive prehensions5 and, as a sum, as one, Whitehead ill call them a side of 6od, his primordial nature: (In our cosmological constructions e are, therefore, left ith the final opposites, %oy and sorro , good and evil, dis%unction and con%unction 7 that is to say, the many in one 7 flu' and permanence, greatness and triviality, freedom and necessity, 6od and the World!* +Whitehead ,-./: 01,3* 8et Whitehead*s model for immanence and transcendence is very subtle and neither realm is full ithout the other, since each is formed by the other in creative processes!0 6od*s conse#uent nature comes from actual creations each one creating a ne valuation and a ne series of relation bet een eternal ob%ects, but each novel creation comes from a creative pull in 6od*s primordial nature: 9or Whitehead, 6od is therefore immanent in each occasion by supplying it ith its initial sub%ective aim and instilling in it the desire for perfection as is possible in its immediate situation! :n the other hand, as conse#uent, 6od is the conscious and unbiased reception of the physical orld as it passes into the immediacy of his (feeling* [!!!] ;o the mental, permanent side of the universe passes into the physical, transient side by the primordial nature of 6od, hich is his guide for realisation! )he one becomes many by the unity of 6od's vision passing into the physical orld! And the transient, physical side of the universe passes into the mental, permanent side by the conse#uent nature of 6od, hich is his coordination of achievement! )he many become one by reaching a final completion and harmonisation in 6od's eternal being! +<c 4enry ,--5: ,=23 )hus once Whitehead has set his speculative metaphysical categories in >rocess and

?eality, he proceeds to describe and e'plain a set of (derivative notions* of hich 6od is one! Derivative should be seen in a strong sense here, as logically derived from the categories, such that 6od*s conse#uent and primordial nature follo from categories for eternal ob%ects and immediate occasions!1 4ere e can see the folding of one and many into one another, not layered and hierarchical imbrications, such as the ones e shall see Deleuze move beyond a little later +see also @loots 522-: =-".23, but relations of mutual derivation and dependency here the fold is all and the folded things, mere passing abstractions! :ne of these folds leads to an entire multiplicity, the many in the one and the one in the many: ()he primordial created fact is the unconditioned conceptual valuation of the entire multiplicity of eternal ob%ects! )his is the primordial nature of 6od!* +Whitehead ,-./: 0,3 8et this entire valuation is itself created, something that dra s Whitehead far a ay from traditional monotheisms: (:ne of the ma%or aims of Whitehead's metaphysical endeavour is to provide a rational interpretation of the immanence of 6od ithout denying the necessary element of transcendence enabling him to be considered as the principle of concretion and in that sense primordial, hereas the direct conse#uence of >lotinus* philosophical efforts as to carry the transcendence of 6od to its utmost e'tremity in his separation of the spiritual realm from the sensible orld, placing him beyond being!* +Wilmot ,-.-: .23A )he conse#uent nature of 6od is the ay this creativity and (all"inclusive unfettered* valuation touch the transcendence of a future destiny through concretions of prehensions: (By reason of its character as a creature, al ays in concrescence and never in the past, it receives a reaction from the orld& this reaction is its conse#uent nature!* +Whitehead ,-./: 0,3 )his creative circle moving from abstract eternal realm through a creative transformation in the actual and bac$ to a no transformed virtual realm is a$in to Deleuze*s circle of destiny and his re%ection of fatalism +Deleuze ,--2: ,1-3, here Ideas or sense move through surface or intensity to an actual realm, here a counter"actualisation re or$s the form and po er of the virtual, sending it bac$ to return again as ne creativity +Deleuze ,--2:,A,3! It could seem that surface and intensity are the missing terms in Whitehead*s account, but feeling can ta$e on this role and intensity has been surveyed as a central component of his account by Cudith Cones in this e'act conte't: ()he reference to the fulfillment of 6od's o n being here is unfortunate, for it suggests a divine agency ith a directive office someho transcendent of the creative process in hich there is aim at intensity of satisfaction! But Whitehead's 6od has no such office! 6od's Dprimordial appetitionsE, hereby there is this aim at intensity are not transcendent of creative process but primordial in it!* +Cones ,--/: ,1=3 )he Feibnizian term appetition is ta$en up by Whitehead to describe the or$ of valuation and hence eternal ob%ects +studied of course by Deleuze in )he 9old: Feibniz and the Baro#ue& Deleuze ,--0: .="/53 and 6od in the drive for ard of immediate occasions +see ;haviro 522-: 51"= and Williams 522-b: 5/=".3! Where Deleuze often tal$s of the desires and compulsions shaping our destiny as genetic members of damned families or alcoholics +Deleuze ,--0: =-".23, Whitehead chooses the more universal e'ample of thirst: ()hirst is an appetite to ards a difference 7 to ards something relevant, something largely identical, but something ith a definite novelty!* +Whitehead, ,-./: 053 )he elegance of his position comes out strongly here, refusing to lapse into notions of pure identity or essence to ards hich thirst ould return us once e have satiated it, and insisting instead on the becoming ithin the organism and its creative

novelty, e'plicable only through an e'ternal source, but one hose full or$ can only be hen transcendence and immanence combine to pro%ect things for ard: (EAppetitionE is immediate matter of fact including in itself a principle of unrest, involving realization of hat is not and may be* +Whitehead, ,-./: 053 )hus e find transcendence and immanence on t o parts of a circle connecting them here neither transcendence, 6od as the unity of all multiplicities, nor immanence, 6od as conse#uence of specific actual creations can be treated independently of one another: (6od*s immanence in the orld in respect to his primordial nature is an urge to ards the future based upon an appetite in the present!* +Whitehead ,-./: 053 )here is an important lesson for speculative metaphysics to ta$e from Whitehead's characterisation of immanence and transcendence!= It lies in his positioning of the main philosophical problem a ay from orries about the mi'ing of the t o terms: ()he vicious separation of the flu' from the permanence leads to the concept of an entirely static 6od, ith eminent reality, in relation to an entirely fluent orld, ith deficient reality!* +Whitehead ,-./: 01=3 9lu' and becoming must be part of transcendence and immanence& it is a mista$e to define one in terms of perfect self"identity and to assign it the role of setting relative identity and being in the other realm! Instead, they are relations e should thin$ of in terms of becoming of different $inds and ith different, but complementary, processes! )he real problem lies, on the contrary, in their (vicious separation*! )he surprising use of this technical but also physical ad%ective could be read in many ays, for instance, as a orry about ho the t o terms are separated, or as concern for the denial of the priority of one or other term in their separation! 8et hat Whitehead means has little to do ith ho the terms are divided, or ith a ish to preserve one or other of them! Instead, the separation is vicious because of the results of the separation for both terms! Both suffer violence because they belong together and can only be separated at the cost of creating a false image of each one: (But if the opposites, static and fluent, have been so e'plained as separately to characterize diverse actualities, the interplay bet een the thing that is static and the things hich are fluent involves contradiction at every step of its e'planation!* +Whitehead ,-./: 01=3 9or Whitehead, separated transcendence is pure stasis, meaningless because no change hatsoever can ta$e place ithin it, a timeless and momentum free bloc$! 8et pure immanence is e#ually nonsensical, since as pure flu' e cannot e'plain its valued for ard momentum and novelty, it becomes free of any realities and ithout sense! )his sense is rendered, in >rocess and ?eality in terms of (immortality* and (everlastingness* +Whitehead ,-./: 01.3 Again, though, the meaning of these terms is transformed by Whitehead! Immortality occurs through participation in a process of perfection through eternal ob%ects and 6od, but not in them or as them: ()his factor is the temporal orld perfected by its reception and reformation [G]* +Whitehead ,-./: 01.3 :nce again, this determination of the orld as everlasting and completed as such is ans ered by a mirroring completing of 6od in the orld.: (In this ay 6od is completed by the individual, fluent satisfaction of finite fact, and the temporal occasions are completed by their everlasting union ith their transformed selves, purged into conformation ith the eternal order hich is the final absolute ( isdom** + Whitehead ,-./: 01/3 Honetheless, and against Whitehead*s o n critical reaction to brute materialism as a mista$en return to substance metaphysics,/ there have been persistent attempts to situate his philosophy on one or other side of the immanence and transcendence divide, as either

a philosophy that still culminates in a 6od consistent ith the hierarchical transcendence of @hristian monotheism,- or as form of immanent natural realism ith no need for any reference to 6od, eternal ob%ects and hence to transcendence in its strong sense implying different realms +even if these cannot be separated and share the same ontological status in becoming rather than being under the same metaphysical categories3! )he former interpretation is perhaps understandable given Whitehead*s choice of language, even if it very distant from his arguments and from the logical structure of his metaphysics! ,2 )he latter interpretation, ho ever, must brac$et off Whitehead*s or$ on 6od in the latter chapters of ;cience and the <odern World, Adventures of Ideas and >rocess and ?eality, in order to emphasise his search for metaphysics consistent ith his contemporary sciences! 9ollo ing Corge Hobo*s or$ +Hobo ,-/=3, 6eorge Fucas ma$es the follo ing important points against the conflation of immanence and naturalism in the non"theistic, naturalistic interpretations of ;herburne, Fo e and 9ord:,, (;uch an account of the ground of final causation ultimately reduces Whitehead's category of creativity either to an account of mere randomness or to a mere reiteration of the past! In either case, no non"theistic rationale for the selective dominance in the present of some certain and specifiable element of the past seems apparent 7 hence the ould be Whiteheadian naturalist cannot offer a satisfactory or coherent account of the origin of the novelty in discrete e'perience, hich is the hallmar$ of Whitehead's o n metaphysical system!* +Fucas ,-/-: ,=13 )his understanding of the crucial role played by a transcendent realm completed by an immanent one in creativity and novelty is of course %ust as essential to an understanding of Deleuze*s account of the third synthesis of time and the role of Hietzschean eternal return in Difference and ?epetition! I#ually though this leads to the criticism that there is still too much transcendence in both philosophers as seen in criti#ues of Deleuze on creativity reminiscent of the early <ar'*s orries about 9euerbach and religion: (9euerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man! But the essence of man is not an abstraction inhering in isolated individuals!* +<ar' 522=: ,,.3 @ommenting on Deleuze*s reading of ;pinoza, >eter 4all ard thus ma$es the follo ing critical point: (?ather than distinct facets of one and the same substance, the being" together of absolutely divergent modes can again only be thought via the pure affirmation of that unthin$able plane upon hich their aberrant creating or deviant differing (consists*!* +4all ard 522=: ,A=3 )he $ey terms see$ing to re"establish a transcendent reading of Deleuze via the idea of a lac$ of relation in his philosophy of creativity are (absolute*, (pure* and (unthin$able*! )his brea$do n of relations then allo s 4all ard to dra the follo ing conclusion ([G] Deleuze $no s perfectly ell hat (unifies* the field of being or creation in ;pinoza isn*t the idea of substance per se but the notion of 6od, i!e! the idea of an infinity and perfection of essence! Ho here in his or$ does Deleuze put in #uestion such infinity or perfection& on the contrary his philosophy presupposes them at every turn!* +4all ard 522=: ,A=3! 8et, if e turn to Whiteheadian arguments about this insidious return of the transcendent in a philosophy of creation, e find the counter that 6od +or Ideas, or the virtual or pure difference3 is as much created as creating: ()he result of these truncated, one"sided interpretations of creativity, according to Hobo, has been a failure to appreciate Whitehead's full commitment to the active, creative Dpo er of the pastE +as Whitehead himself describes it3, of causal efficacy and of Dsettled fact,E and of the radical subordination +from 4artshorne on ards3 of efficient to pure final causality in a manner that transforms Whitehead's critical realism into a species of idealism or Jantian

phenomenalism!*,5 +Fucas ,-/-: ,.13 I ill sho defending Deleuze against the same charge!,0

belo

ho

this argument also applies in

I ant to dra on three ideas from Whiteheadian scholarship in tune ith Fucas*s points to sho ho this argument plays out in detail! )he first is from a recent interpretation by >ierfrancesco Basile here he argues, completely at odds ith 4all ard*s steps ith respect to ;pinoza and Deleuze, that Whitehead*s metaphysics of 6od and orld is one of essential relation and mutual dependency: ([Whitehead*s si' antitheses] formulate a novel orld vie in hich 6od and the orld, although distinct, are essentially related, mutually dependent upon each other! )his involves a significant revision of the traditional philosophical theology derived from Aristotle 7 Whitehead's 6od is still a mover, but not an unmoved one!* +Basile 522-: ,103 )he second idea comes from more traditional source in the scholarship through 9ord*s criti#ue of Heville*s reading of Whitehead on 6od,1: ()his creator 6od must be transcendent to all e'perience and its categories, and thus be #uite un$no able! ;uch a 6od is a$in to the Dcausal natureE behind the scenes that Whitehead has re%ected in his earlier boo$s on the philosophy of nature! Whitehead's hole effort to achieve ma'imum coherence ta$es the form of trying to conceive of all actualities, including 6od, ithin one set of common categories* +9ord ,-/0: 5.5"03 )he use of maximum coherence fits ith my earlier insistence on completeness in Whitehead and Deleuze! It is a point often missed in readings of Deleuze, such as 4all ard*s, because they ta$e (absolute*, (infinity* and (perfection* as applying to the hole metaphysical picture hen in fact thin$ers such as Deleuze and Whitehead,A are see$ing to ma'imize coherence across different processes here one side may be defined as absolute or pure or unity yet nonetheless be incomplete in relation to other processes thereby re#uiring a ma'imization against the bac$ground of creative antitheses +Whitehead ,-./: 01/3 or creative parado'es +Deleuze ,--2:,223!,= ;o, to move to the third idea ta$en from Whitehead scholarship, the points about relations, mutual dependency and coherence mean that hen e have a term such a potentiality it must never be seen as a pure and untouched reserve of possibility or as a creative fount or, to use Whitehead*s term from earlier in this paper, as a form of eminence! )his is Feclerc*s careful statement of this point, here e can see hy ?orty as inspired by Feclerc for his o n account of the comple' relation of transcendence and immanence in Whitehead*s thought: (;uch potentiality is not a mere abstract possibility! It is a specific determinate possibility as potential for the sub%ect in #uestion! '>otentiality' includes 'possibility' in its connotation, but potentiality in this sense is a determinate selection from pure abstract possibility [!!!] the purpose and function of actualization is to contribute to subse#uent achievement as the potentiality for that subse#uent actualisation!* +Feclerc ,-/0: =03 )he $ey argument here turns on the use of (subse#uent* because it sets potential ithin a circle rather than at the high point of a ladder, even one that permits vibrations up and do n it! ?eciprocal determination in a circular motion means that there is never a pure origin in creation, or a privileged realm, all is subsequent, since ere e to define this realm as absolutely primordial e ould miss the fact that it is so only hen it is incomplete and shorn of a essential relation that determines it as constituted rather than constituting! )o conclude then ith Deleuze*s o n discussion of immanence in relation to transcendence in his short paper (Fes plages d*immanence*, ritten in honour of his

teacher at the ;orbonne, <aurice de 6andillac! )he first thing to note is the correspondence of themes bet een the paper and Whitehead*s reflection on transcendence and immanence studied here! Fi$e Whitehead, Deleuze contrasts transcendence as (eminent* and (emanation* ith immanence as a (coe'istence of t o movements, complication and e'plication* +Deleuze 5220: 5113! @omplication and e'plication ould be Whitehead*s t o processes of creation in relation to 6od: complication for the conse#uent creation of 6od& e'plication for the creation in the orld through the pull of the primordial nature of 6od! ) o movements hose resulting relations Deleuze describes in e'actly the same ords chosen by Whitehead: (The multiple is in the one hich complicates it, as much as the one is in the multiple that e'plains it* +Deleuze 5220: 511& my emphasis3! )here is then a (play* of immanence and transcendence here the immanence of the earth +of the orld for Whitehead3 pushes through celestial hierarchies banishing any thought of a pure or absolute realm, yet also mi'ing orld and 6od in the t o processes! )his is an (adventure* of immanence in transcendence, here immanence in reflections and geneses form (the t o bases of an e'pressionist [and hence a Deleuzian] philosophy!* +Deleuze 5220: 51A3 ;hould it still be said that this leads to an abstraction from life, the last ord should be ith Deleuze in his description of an individual human life: (>hilosophical concepts are also, for their inventors and those ho release them, modes of life and modes of activity! )o recognize the orld of hierarchies, but at the same time to ma$e planes of immanence pass through it, bringing it do n more than any direct engagement could& that is an image of life inseparable from <aurice de 6andillac!* +Deleuze 5220: 51A"=3

Bibliography Basile, >ierfrancesco Feibniz, Whitehead and the <etaphysics of @ausation +Basingsto$e: >algrave <acmillan, 522-3 @loots, AndrK (Whitehead and Deleuze: thin$ing the event* in ?obinson +ed!3 Deleuze, Whitehead, Bergson: ?hizomatic @onnections +Basingsto$e: >algrave <acmillan, 522-3 @ode, <urray >rocess, ?eality, and the >o er of ;ymbols: )hin$ing +Basingsto$e: >algrave <acmillan, 522.3 Deleuze, 6illes )he Fogic of ;ense )rans Fester and ;tivale +He >ress, ,--23 ith A! H! Whitehead

8or$: @olumbia Lniversity

Deleuze, 6illes )he 9old: Feibniz and the Baro#ue )rans! @onley, )! +Fondon: Athlone ,--03 Deleuze, 6illes (Fes plages d*immanence* in Deu' rKgimes de fous +>aris : <inuit, 52203 Iisendracht, @! )he Lnifying <oment: the >sychological >hilosophy of William Cames and Alfred Horth Whitehead +@ambridge <A: 4arvard Lniversity >ress, ,-.,3 9ord, Fe is 'Heville's interpretation of creativity' in 9ord and Jline ,-/0, pp 5.5"9ord and Jline +eds!3 I'plorations in Whitehead's >hilosophy +He Lniversity >ress, ,-/03 8or$: 9ordham

4all, David 'Whitehead, ?orty, and the return of the e'iled poets* in >olano s$i C! and ;herburne, D! Whitehead's >hilosophy: >oints of connection +He 8or$: ;LH8, 52213 pp /0" ,20 4all ard, >eter :ut of this World: Deleuze and the >hilosophy of @reation +Fondon: Merso, 522=3 Cones, Cudith Intensity: an Issay in Whiteheadian :ntology +Hashville: Manderbilt Lniversity >ress, ,--/3 Feclerc, Ivor 'Being and becoming in Whitehead's philosophy' in 9ord and Jlein +,-/03 pp A0"=. Fucas, 6eorge )he ?ehabilitation of Whitehead: an Analytical and 4istorical Assessment of >rocess >hilosophy +Albany: ;LH8 >ress, ,-/-3 <alone"9rance, Dere$ Deep Impiricism: Jant, Whitehead, and the Hecessity of >hilosophical )heism +Fanham <D: Fe'ington Boo$s3 <artin, ?! <! Whitehead's categorical ;cheme and other >apers +)he 4ague: <artinus

Hi%hoff, ,-.13 <ar', Jarl Iarly >olitical Writings +@ambridge Lniversity >ress, 522=3 <ays, Wolfe Whitehead's >hilosophy of ;cience and <etaphysics: an Introduction to his )hought +)he 4ague: <artinus Hi%hoff, ,-..3 <c 4enry, Feemon B! Whitehead and Bradley: a @omparative Analysis +Albany: ;LH8 >ress, ,--53 Heville, ?obert 'Whitehead on the one and the many' in 9ord and Jline ,-/0 pp 5A."., Hobo, Corge Fuis Whitehead*s <etaphysics of I'tension and ;olidarity +Albany: ;LH8 >ress, ,-/=3 >ittenger, Horman Alfred Horth Whitehead +Fondon: Futter orth >ress, ,-=-3 ?obinson, Jeith (Deleuze, Whitehead and the reversal of >latonism* in Deleuze, Whitehead, Bergson: ?hizomatic @onnections +Basingsto$e: >algrave <acmillan, 522-3 ?orty, ?ichard '<atter and event' in 9ord and Jline +,-/03 pp =/",21 ;haviro, ;teven Without @riteria: Jant, Whitehead, and Aesthetics +@ambridge <A: <I) >ress, 522-3 ;herburne, Donald A Jey to Whitehead*s >rocess and ?eality +Lniversity of @hicago >ress, ,-==3 ;tengers, Isabelle >enser avec Whitehead: une libre et sauvage crKation de concepts +>aris : ;euil, 52253 Whitehead, A! H! ;cience and the <odern World +@ambridge Lniversity >ress, ,-5.3 Whitehead, A! H! Adventures of Ideas +4armonds orth: >enguin, ,-1/3 Whitehead, A! H! >rocess and ?eality +He 8or$: )he 9ree >ress, ,-./3 8or$: >rometheus, 52213

Whitehead, A! H! )he @oncept of Hature +He

Rose, Philip On Whitehead (Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 2002) Williams, James Gilles Dele !e"s Di##eren$e and Repetition: a Criti$al %ntrod $tion and G ide (&din' r(h )ni*ersit+ Press: 200,) Williams, James Gilles Dele !e"s -o(i$ o# .ense: a Criti$al %ntrod $tion and G ide (&din' r(h )ni*ersit+ Press, 200/) Williams, Cames (Ageing, perpetual perishing and the event as pure novelty: >Kguy,

Whitehead and Deleuze on )ime and 4istory* in Bell and @olebroo$ +eds!3 Deleuze and 4istory +Idinburgh Lniversity >ress, 522-a3 Williams, Cames (A! H! Whitehead* in Cones and ?offe +eds!3 Deleuze*s >hilosophical Fineage +Idinburgh Lniversity >ress, 522-b3 Wilmot, Faurence, Whitehead and 6od: >rolegomena to )heological ?econstruction +Waterloo, :ntario: Wilfred Faurier Lniversity >ress, ,-.-3 pp ,=A".

0his re$ipro$al relation or dialo( e o# immanen$e and trans$enden$e, or one and man+, is o#ten seen as the $ore o# Whitehead"s spe$ lati*e metaph+si$s1 %t nderpins the readin( set o t here, and $an 'e s pported, #or instan$e, thro (h a readin( o# -e$ler$"s interpretation o# Whitehead: 20he 'ein( o# an o sia is its 'e$omin(, its 'e$omin( a$t al1 And it 'e$omes a$t al in order to 'e potentialit+ #or # rther o siai1 Whitehead sees the ni*erse as in rh+thmi$ p lsation, #rom potentialit+ to a$t alit+, and #rom a$t alit+ to potentialit+, #rom the man+ to the one and #rom the one to the man+1 3or him the ni*erse is to 'e nderstood as in the pro$ess, and not stati$all+12 (-e$ler$ 45/,: 6678)
5

3or a help# l dis$ ssion o# the ne$essit+ o# this *al ation o*er and a'o*e other relations see Rose"s treatment o# the iss e: 29111: while all 2thin(s2 are $onstit ted '+ their relations, all relations are # rther de#ined as *al e7relations, that is, relations o# some positi*e or ne(ati*e $hara$ter12 (Rose 2002: 2) 3or a related a$$o nt in terms o# a leap into trans$enden$e see Whitehead 45;/: ,,<1
0

=ote how the *ersions o# these ar( ments a'o t immanen$e and trans$enden$e are m $h more sophisti$ated in Pro$ess and Realit+ than .$ien$e and the >odern World, #or instan$e in the wa+ the distin$tion 'etween primordial and $onse? ent nat re e@pands (reatl+ on the idea o# God as APrin$iple o# Con$retion" and Aprin$iple o# limitation" in .$ien$e and the >odern World (Whitehead 4528: 246724) 1 3or a parti$ larl+ interestin( a$$o nt o# this lo(i$al aspe$t o# Whitehead"s worB see >artin"s ri(oro s re$onstr $tions: 29W: wishes to el $idate Csomewhat e@$eptional elements in o r $ons$io s e@perien$e D those elements whi$h ma+ ro (hl+ 'e $lassed to(ether as reli(io s and moral int itions1E 0he e@traordinar+ appeal o# Whitehead2s approa$h is that it seeBs to a$$ommodate these e@$eptional elements in the same $ate(ori$al #rameworB that it seeBs to a$$ommodate lo(i$ mathemati$s and empiri$al s$ien$e, and not F st s per#i$iall+, in a tellin( phrase or two, ' t with a reasona'l+ # ll delineation o# 'asi$ notions, de#initions, and # ndamental prin$iples12 (>artin 458;: ;;)
A

Wilmot (i*es a # ll theolo(i$al as opposed to philosophi$al re$onstr $tion o# this relation o# immanen$e and trans$enden$e, see Wilmot 4585, 46<78
=

3or a de#en$e o# the se o# metaph+si$s when re#errin( to Whitehead and Dele !e see Ro'inson 2005: 4,27,G see also Code 2008: 4/8 . >artin (i*es a (ood a$$o nt o# this m t al $ompletion in terms o# the primordial and $onse? ent nat re o# God: (6od DcreatesE the World in the sense of providing items in it ith the initial valuations or sub%ective aims, but the World creates 6od in the sense of providing the physical data for those valuations!* <artin ,-.1: A/
/

.ee Whitehead"s dis$ ssion o# materialism in Pro$ess and Realit+ (Whitehead 458/: 8/75) his de#inition o# histori$al materialism in 0he Con$ept o# =at re (Whitehead 200;: 80) 9or an e'ample of the use of Whitehead*s thought as consistent ith @hristian monotheism see >ittenger ,-=-: A1! 9or a much more developed account of the necessary move to a transcendent 6od based on freedom as a condition for creation and on the importance of e'planations for evil see Iisendracht: ')his theology, ho ever triumphant, cannot be entirely sustained, for it ould deny freedom and deal inade#uately ith the problem of evil! If 6od supplies the initial sub%ective aim of each occasion, and if 4e integrates all occasions into the perfection of 4is vision, ho can Ivil persist in the orldN' +Iisendracht ,-.,: 52,3
,2

Wol#e >a+s s pports this point in drawin( o t the $on$ern with reli(ion in Whitehead"s dis$ ssion o# the eternal: 'We have already seen that hitehead is concerned in his account of the concept of 6od's functioning in the universe, ith indicating the elements of permanence or eternality in the orld, ith hich, he claims, religion has essentially concerned itself!' +<ays ,-..: ,023 Honetheless it remains very important not to ma$e the rapid step from concern ith the religious drive and its value to an attunement ith this or that religion and even less ith this or that form of religious transcendence!
,,

3or an alternati*e $riti? e o# this red $ti*e nat ralisti$ readin( o# Whitehead, we #ind the perhaps s rprisin( essa+ '+ Rort+ (in his earl+ pre7lin( isti$ t rn phase) on Whitehead where he distin( ishes Whitehead #rom Aristotle, defending Whitehead's realist but not reductionist vie of matter: 'If time is ta$en seriously, ho ever, and it is thus recognized that 'actual orld' and 'actuality' are to$en refle'ive terms, then one can escape the first horn of the above dilemma [that forms are indistinguishable from their actualization] by distinguishing bet een the definiteness of an entity's characterisation +its Dob%ectiveE reality3 and the decisiveness of its concrescence +its DformalE reality3! )he latter is actual, and therefore non"repeatable! )he former is repeatable, and therefore potential, in the sense that it is related +e'ternally to it, although internally to each entity hich

prehends it3 to a potentially infinite number of subse#uent actualities by being Dpresent in themE [!!!] Its second horn [that matter and form are so different that the latter cannot characterise the former] is escaped by replying that the difference bet een the characterisation of the actual and the actual entity is no greater, though no less great, than bet een past and present 7 hich, if one ta$es time seriously, is precisely the difference hich one ould e'pect!' +?orty ,-/0: -A"=3 ?orty*s fine analysis, indebted to Feclerc, is particularly acute in focusing on the role of time& an argument as important for a reading of Deleuze as anti" Aristotelian and non"reductionist! 9or an illuminating discussion of the relation of Whitehead to ?orty see 4all 5221!
,5

0here is not spa$e here to (o into the relation o# Whitehead to Hant and to trans$endental philosoph+ and ded $tions1 3or a st d+ o# this in relation to God in the conte't of Jant's transcendental philosophy see Dere$ <alone"9rance 522=: ,A/".5! 9or an e'cellent discussion of hitehead Deleuze and Jant in relation to creativity and aesthetics, and Deleuze*s transcendental empiricism in particular, see ;haviro 522-: 00".!
,0

0here is not spa$e here #or a # ll readin( o# %sa'elle .ten(ers worB on this ? estion aro nd the $on$ept o# God in Whitehead, ' t man+ o# the insi(hts in that dis$ ssion are the startin( points #or this st d+ (.ten(ers 2002: <2072/) and (Williams 2005a: 4<675) ,1 ;ee Heville ,-/0: 5=."., ,A %n no wa+ sho ld this rappro$hement o# the two thinBers 'e seen as a $on#lation o# their terms, see #or instan$e the *er+ di##erent treatment o# the $on$ept o# m ltipli$it+ in Pro$ess and Realit+ (.her' rne 4566: 2,0) and Di##eren$e and Repetition (Williams 200,: 4;675) ,= 3or a # ller a$$o nt o# parado@ in this $onte@t see Williams 200/: 6/786