¹ Cambridge University Press, Second Edition, 1925.

² Cambridge University Press, 1920.

³ Macmillan, 1929.

⁴ For instance, PR, pp. 454, 455.

⁵ PNK, p. 61.

⁶ CN, p. 78.

⁷ PNK, p. 59.

⁸ Op. cit., p. 62.

⁹ Op. cit., p. 104; CN, p. 76.

¹⁰ CN, p. 33; PNK, p. 80.

¹¹ CN, pp. 143–144; PNK, pp. 62–63.

¹² CN, p. 144.

¹³ PNK, p. 63.

¹⁴ CN, loc. cit.

¹⁵ Ibid. For apparent assertions to the contrary, however, see CN, p. 78. and PNK, p. 64.

¹⁶ CN, pp. 143–144, 149–150, 170–171, and throughout chapter VII.

¹⁷ Op. cit., p. 145.

¹⁸ Op. cit., pp. 146–147.

¹⁹ Op. cit., p. 147.

²⁰ Op. cit., p. 148.

²¹ PNK, p. 91.

²² CN, p. 160.

²³ PNK, p. 5.

²⁴ PNK, p. 104; cf. CN, p. 79.

²⁵ CN, pp. 79–80.

²⁶ PNK, p. 105.

²⁷ CN, pp. 80, 84; PNK, p. 104.

²⁸ CN, p. 80.

²⁹ Op. cit., p. 81.

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ PNK, p. 105.

³² Ibid.

³³ CN, p. 82.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Op. cit., p. 83.

³⁷ Op. cit., p. 81.

³⁸ Op. cit., p. 83.

³⁹ The diagram follows a suggestion in PNK, p. 105. However, throughout the present exposition I follow the approach used in CN in order to avoid the troublesome devices of “primes” and “antiprimes.” Incidentally, what is named “equal in abstractive force” in CN is called in PNK “K-equal,” K standing for “extends over.”

⁴⁰ CN, p. 84.

⁴¹ PNK, p. 112.

⁴² CN, p. 61; italics mine. “ideal” and “abstract” are thus plainly equated.

⁴³ Op. cit., p. 85.

⁴⁴ PNK, p. 112.

⁴⁵ CN, p. 84.

⁴⁶ The doctrine is consistent throughout CN. Thus also Whitehead speaks of a moment as being “the class of all abstractive sets of durations with the same convergence.” (CN, p. 62; italics mine).

⁴⁷ Op. cit., p. 57; italics mine.

⁴⁸ Op. cit., pp. 57–58.

⁴⁹ Op. cit., pp. 56–57; italics mine.

⁵⁰ Op. cit., p. 61; italics mine.

⁵¹ Ibid. Thus there are concepts whose status is ideal but which receive their meaning from the actual.

⁵² Op. cit., pp. 56–57.

⁵³ Page 144. of this essay.

⁵⁴ CN, p. 160.

⁵⁵ For instance, the treatment of motion in terms of analytic geometry; see Chapter XIII. These applications themselves constitute the basis for a possible separate study of Whitehead, but they are outside the immediate scope of the present essay.

⁵⁶ CN, p. 85.

⁵⁷ Op. cit., p. 83.

⁵⁸ Op. cit., pp. 85–86; italics mine.

⁵⁹ Op. cit., p. 91.

⁶⁰ Op. cit., p. 86.

⁶¹ Op. cit., p. 172.

⁶² Op. cit., p. 177.

⁶³ Op. cit., p. 173.

⁶⁴ Op. cit., p. 117.

⁶⁵ Op. cit., p. 86; cf. PNK, p. 121: “An event-particle is the route of approximation to an atomic event, which is an ideal satisfied by no actual event.”

⁶⁶ CN, p. 191.

⁶⁷ Op. cit., p. 148.

⁶⁸ Nowhere in the early works is there a sustained defense of the notion of time as regular and continuous, except insofar as this character is derivative from the continuity of the inclusion of events, one within another. It seems likely that Whitehead's recognition of the logically primitive aspect of this character of time is coupled with his gradual passage from the cosmological primacy of extension and cogredience to that of “becomingness” or “proccess.” See PNK, note II, p. 202.

⁶⁹ Further support of this interpretation in terms of the conceptual and abstract status of instantaneous space is to be found in CN, pp. 89–90.

⁷⁰ Page 152 of this essay.

⁷¹ I bypass the technical rigors of the notion of a “station,” whose inclusion would not facilitate our discussion and whose omission does no damage to it.

⁷² CN, pp. 113–114.

⁷³ Op. cit., pp. 86, 135.

⁷⁴ Op. cit., p. 86.

⁷⁵ Op. cit., p. 114.

⁷⁶ Op. cit., p. 177.

⁷⁷ Op. cit., p. 106.

⁷⁸ Ibid; italics mine.

⁷⁹ P. 173; italics mine.

⁸⁰ Op. cit., pp. 82–83, 89–90.

⁸¹ Op. cit., p. 96.

⁸² Op. cit., p. 191.

⁸³ Op. cit., p. 173.

⁸⁴ Indeed he indicates that the terms are interchangeable, CN, p. 94. Also Whitehead uses “punct” for an “instantaneous point,” CN, pp. 91–92, and elsewhere says of event-particles that they are the points of instantaneous space, CN, pp. 86, 173.

⁸⁵ Op. cit., p. 92.

⁸⁶ Op. cit., pp. 90–91.

⁸⁷ There is a qualification which should nevertheless be included. It is this: since a “moment” is all nature at an instant, what we are fastening our attention upon are the extensive features of a moment, neglecting the natural properties which are the limiting characters of nature in space at that instant.

⁸⁸ Op. cit., p. 94.

⁸⁹ Op. cit., pp. 92–93; italics mine.

⁹⁰ Op. cit., p. 93.

⁹¹ Op. cit., pp. 83–84.

⁹² Op. cit., p. 92.

⁹³ Op. cit., p. 94.

⁹⁴ Op. cit., p. 186; italics mine.

⁹⁵ Op. cit., p. 80; italics mine.

⁹⁶ Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. by Norman Kemp Smith, Macmillan, 1933, p. 396.

⁹⁷ Ibid.

⁹⁸ Op. cit., p. 402.

⁹⁹ CN, p. 93. Whitehead seems quite clearly to mean here by “recognition” not his own use of the term which we have already discussed, but simply that ordinary treatments of a point as related to a scheme of nature do not acknowledge the two characters of a point.

¹⁰⁰ Op. cit., p. 94.

¹⁰¹ Op. cit., p. 193.

¹⁰² Op. cit., pp. 171–172.

¹⁰³ Op. cit., p. 171.

¹⁰⁴ PNK, p. 95.

¹⁰⁵ CN, p. 126.

¹⁰⁶ Op. cit., p. 125.

¹⁰⁷ PNK, p. 98.

¹⁰⁸ CN, p. 23; italics mine.

¹⁰⁹ PNK, p. 99.

¹¹⁰ CAT, p. 162.

¹¹¹ Op. cit., p. 40.

¹¹² Op. cit., p. 28.

¹¹³ PR, p. 366.

¹¹⁴ Op. cit., pp. 376–377.