/lit/ - Literature

>>13750027
But for whom is it a unity? Is it an objective unity, or is it a unity because it can be considered by a thinking subject as such (for example, in the same way that "the fact that I am cold right now" can be treated as a "unity," for purposes of logical predication, and as a fact of consciousness)?

Or is it only a unity once it HAS been considered by a subject as a unity, e.g., in the same way that I could look at a massive gas cloud in outer space, in a telescope image, and divide it up into "regions" based on its apparent shape to me, even though those regions don't really exist, and in fact are an artefact of my subjective perspective of the cloud? This view makes the most sense to me and it's closest to the standard phenomenological/logical view. It's essentially nominalist. But I don't think that's what Whitehead is saying.

Pic related only confused me more. There seems to be exactly the debate I was referencing above, the nominalist problem of what qualifies as a primary substance, going on in Whitehead circles as well. How can something so elemental to his system be unclear?