REDISCOVERING SYMBOLISM: ITS MEANING AND EFFECT BY ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD

Colin Wilson
An old friend of mine, the headmaster of a major public school in England, became irritated by the friendliness of the people who traveled on his local railway line. He liked to use train journeys to read and think; his fellow travelers usually wanted to talk. One day he had immersed himself in hitehead!s Adventures of Ideas when the other occupant of the carriage tried to inaugurate a conversation by asking him what he was reading. Hugh handed him the book, and for the ne"t minute or so, his fellow passenger scanned the pages with an e"pression of increasing bafflement. #inally, he handed it back with a bewildered shake of his head and made no further attempts to interrupt. #rom that time on, Hugh told me, he never traveled without his $enguin paperback of Adventures of Ideas in his pocket. % suppose that, with the e"ception of Heidegger, Alfred &orth hitehead '()*(+(,-./ is probably the most obscure of twentieth+century philosophers. hen he settled at Harvard at the age of si"ty+three, his fame as a 0great philosopher1 guaranteed that most of his later books would achieve paperback editions, and even when % first came to America in (,*(, you could usually find at least a half do2en in every campus bookstore. 3et it is doubtful whether many people outside college campuses actually read works like Adventures of Ideas and Modes of Thought. 4hey probably picked at them, and then gave up. '%f you see copies of hitehead in secondhand bookstores, note how often the pencil marks occur in the early pages, then fade out./ % had bought a paperback of 5cience and the 6odern orld when % was si"teen, and % made it my business to ac7uire a copy of the immense hitehead Anthology of &orthrop and 8ross soon after it came out in (,9:. %nfluenced by the vitalism of 5haw and the antihumanism of 4. E. Hulme and 4. 5. Eliot, % had recogni2ed immediately that hitehead!s concept of the 0bifurcation of nature1 was a powerful philosophical tool in the battle against positivism and reductionism. hitehead had objected to the way that post+8alilean science had staked out its own field of the 0scientifically knowable,1 and thereby consigned art, poetry, and religion to the realm of the unmentionable. %n a magnificent passage in Adventures of Ideas, hitehead listed his own notion of the kind of e"perience that should concern the philosopher; 0&othing can be omitted, e"perience drunk and e"perience sober, e"perience sleeping and e"perience waking, e"perience drowsy and e"perience wide+awake, e"perience self+conscious and e"perience self+forgetful, e"perience intellectual and e"perience physical, e"perience religious and e"perience sceptical, e"perience an"ious and e"perience carefree,<e"perience normal and e"perience abnormal.1 %n due course, hitehead played a prominent part in the early pages of my first book The Outsider '(,9*/, and was central to the concluding chapter of its se7uel Religion and the Rebel. 3et % have to confess that % had never made the slightest attempt to dip into the little book with the off+putting title Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect. %t sounded a bore. And it was not until % came upon an intriguing reference to it in a pamphlet on hitehead!s

philosophy of physics that % finally read the two chapters 'two+thirds of the book/ reprinted in the Whitehead Anthology. % would like to say that my first reading was a revelatory e"perience, but that would not be true; hitehead has no gift for immediately sei2ing the attention. 4here was certainly no instant recognition that % was reading not only one of hitehead!s most important books but one of the most important books of the century. 04he slightest survey of different epochs of civilisation discloses great differences in their attitude towards symbolism. #or e"ample, during the mediaeval period<.1 And he goes on to discuss language, writing, and algebraic symbolism, then points out that our perceptions are also basically symbolic; % see a colored patch and say; 04hat is a chair1; but it isn!t; it!s a colored patch. e then have sections on the definition of symbolism, e"perience as activity, and the nature of language. Only in the eighth section, 0$resentational %mmediacy,1 does he finally get down to business; 0Our perception of t e !or"# i$ #i%i#e# into t!o t&pe$ of content. T e fir$t t&pe i$ our i''e#i(te $en$(tion$ of t e pre$ent 'o'ent.1 Having said which, he forgets to e"plain the second type, and talks about walls for another page or so. %t is the tenth section before he finally recalls the second type; 0Of t e t!o #i$tinct percepti%e 'o#e$) one 'o#e *o+,ectifie$- (ctu(" t in.$ un#er t e .ui$e of pre$ent(tion(" i''e#i(c&) (n# t e ot er 'o#e) ! ic I (%e not &et #i$cu$$e#) *o+,ectifie$- t e' un#er t e .ui$e of c(u$(" effic(c&.1 4ypically, he then forgets to e"plain what he means by 0causal efficacy,1 and rambles on for the rest of the first chapter about presentational immediacy. %t is not until the second chapter that hitehead discusses 0causal efficacy,1 and even then he feels no urgent need to e"plain what he means by it. He says that the #ifference +et!een /i''e#i(c&0 (n# /c(u$(" effic(c&0 i$ t (t /! ere one i$ %(.ue) t e ot er i$ preci$e1 ! ere one i$ i'port(nt) t e ot er i$ tri%i("20 And he then goes on to announce, with all the gravity of a dotty professor, that 0It !i"" +e e%i#ent to &ou t (t I (' ere contro%ertin. t e 'o$t c eri$ e# tr(#ition of 'o#ern p i"o$op &) $ (re# ("i3e +& t e $c oo" of e'pirici$t$ ! ic #eri%e$ fro' Hu'e) (n# t e $c oo" of tr(n$cen#ent(" i#e("i$t$) ! ic #eri%e$ fro' 4(nt20 =ut patience > he is slowly getting there. He cites the passage in Hume, in which it becomes clear that Hu'e $ee$ t e 'in# ($ ( p($$i%e) recepti%e $u+$t(nce 5 Loc3e-$ t(+u"( r($( 5 ! ic "e(rn$ fro' e6perience2 =ut, of course, there is no /re(" &ou0 +e in# t e 'in#2 W en Hu'e "oo3$ in$i#e i'$e"f) e ne%er co'e$ upon ( per$on c(""e# D(%i# Hu'e) +ut 'ere"& upon ( "ot of i#e($ (n# i'pre$$ion$) $!ir"in. (roun# "i3e (utu'n "e(%e$ in t e !in#2 T ou. t i$ 'ere /($$oci(tion0 of t e$e $!ir"in. fr(.'ent$ +& ( p($$i%e proce$$2 5o when you have a $en$e of 'e(nin. > perhaps tasting a good wine or listening to a =eethoven symphony > this is not a 0real you1 perceiving real meaning; it is an i'(.in(r& /&ou)0 ! o i$ not re(""& t ere) re$pon#in. !it t e 'ec (nic("ne$$ of ( 7(%"o%i(n ref"e6 to something that makes you salivate. %f we fo""o! Hu'e) !e (ccept t (t "ife i$ ( tot(""& 'e(nin."e$$ proce$$) (n# '(n ( 3in# of i""u$ion2 Or) ($ S(rtre put it) ( /u$e"e$$ p($$ion20 5o what is W ite e(#-$ ("tern(ti%e8 If /'e(nin.0 i$ not (n /($$oci(tion of i#e($)0 t en ! (t i$ it8 ' e have reali2ed by now that by /c(u$(" effic(c&)0 W ite e(# 'e(n$ $i'p"& /'e(nin. perception20/ According to hitehead, 'e(nin. i$ ( #irect perception, like sitting on a pin. hen you hear the words nited States, you might as well have heard America. 3ou do not say; 0?nited > that means all together; 5tates > ah yes, of course, they

are not talking of any united states, but of America.1 4here is no 0association1 of ideas, no matter how swift. 3ou hear nitedstates as one word, and it means America. And is that a really important issue@ ell, yes, it is. He is talking about a problem that can drive men mad, that can result in nervous breakdowns. W en !e (re tire#) our 'e(nin. perception ten#$ to e%(por(te) (n# !e (re (!(re on"& of /i''e#i(c&.1 %n A !are"ell to Arms, He'in.!(& t("3$ (+out t e 'o'ent ! en &ou !(3e up #run3 in +e# (n# t e !("" i$ .oin. roun#) (n# &ou 3no! /t (t i$ ("" t ere i$20 %n such states, i''e#i(c& i$ $ittin. on &ou $o (r# t (t &ou c(nnot e%en 'o%e2 04hat is all there is.1 hitehead cites the =ritish prime minister 6r. $itt, who on his death bed was heard to murmur; 0 hat shades we are, what shadows we pursue.1 '=urke actually said; 0W (t $ (#o!$ !e (re) ! (t $ (#o!$ !e pur$ue)1 but $itt!s version scans better./ hitehead comments; 0Hi$ 'in# (# $u##en"& "o$t t e $en$e of c(u$(" effic(c&) (n# !($ i""u'in(te# +& t e re'e'+r(nce of t e inten$it& of e'otion) ! ic (# en%e"ope# i$ "ife) in it$ co'p(ri$on !it t e +(rren e'ptine$$ of t e !or"# p($$in. in $en$e9pre$ent(tion20 %n other words, $itt was simply tired, and was mistaking his tiredness for an ultimate perception of the futility of life. 4his e"cited me so much because % had begun The Outsider with a chapter about the feeling that 0that!s all there is,1 the futility of human life and the vanity of human wishes. % had cited that gloomy final work by H. 8. ells called Mind at the End of Its Tether, in which he declared his belief that all life is coming to an end as its capacity for self+delusion vanishes, and we see the 0cinema screen1 behind the shadows. And % had gone on to discuss 5artre!s novel #ausea, in which n(u$e( i$ t (t $u##en fee"in. t (t not in. i$ re(" e6cept '(tter) (n# t (t ("" our $en$e of 'e(nin. i$ (n i""u$ion !e i'po$e on +rute) 'e(nin."e$$ f(ct2 Accor#in. to S(rtre) /n(u$e(0 i$ t e fun#('ent(" re("it& of u'(n e6i$tence, the basic truth. 4hat is why 0it is meaningless that we live and meaningless that we die1 and why 0man is a useless passion20 But (ccor#in. to W ite e(#) t i$ i$ in it$e"f ( #e"u$ion) #ue to ( 3in# of tire#ne$$) ( co""(p$e of perception 5 r(t er "i3e ( c i"# fee"in. $o tire# (fter ( C ri$t'($ p(rt& t (t e fee"$ ("" p(rtie$ (re tot(""& futi"e2 4his, for me, was the fundamental 0Outsider problem,1 the problem of so many of those oversensitive romantics who committed suicide or died of tuberculosis in the nineteenth century, the problem of 0negation1 as e"pressed by Aostoevski in The $ossessed or by Eliot in The Waste %and and The &ollo" Men. And here, incredibly, was a respectable philosopher in the =ritish empirical tradition going right to the heart of the matter and declaring that the /'e(nin."e$$ne$$0 i$ ( #e"u$ion) "i3e our con%iction t (t t e $un .oe$ roun# t e e(rt 2 4his, % think, is ultimately what % find so ama2ing about hitehead. 4he style and the manner convince you that here is a more+or+less academic philosopher, building his incredibly abstract system in a kind of vacuum, when in fact he is a creative genius of the same order as $lato or =eethoven. T i$ pro+"e' of /'e(nin. perception0 i$ fun#('ent("2 hen van 8ogh painted The Starry #ight' he was overwhelmed with a total conviction of meaning. hen he shot himself in the stomach, he was overwhelmed with a total conviction of tragedy and meaninglessness > not just personal, but universal. 06isery will never end.1 Aostoevski had raised the same 7uestion in the most powerful chapter in all his work, the 0$ro and Bontra1 chapter of The (rothers )arama*ov. And here was a =ritish philosopher answering it 7uite coolly with the

comment; 0&o, the meaningless is a simple delusion1 > and then e"plaining it all in words of one syllable. % had asserted in The Outsider that t i$ i$ t e 'o$t +($ic pro+"e' of u'(n e6i$tence > all others are trivial in comparison. Re($on te""$ u$ t (t /i''e#i(c&0 i$ ( "i(r) but we find it very hard to trust reason on such a momentous issue. 3et !e (re ("" f('i"i(r !it t e t!o oppo$e# 'o#e$ of perception2 T ere (re #(&$ ! en I fee" tot(""& tr(ppe# in t e pre$ent 'o'ent) (n# #(&$ ! en I (%e ( curiou$ fee"in. of $tren.t (n# opti'i$') ( cert(int& t (t /You c(n !in20 4he problem is that the two feelings tend to be mutually contradictory, like two e"tremely honest people each assuring me that the other is a liar. A drunken man feels that the world is self+evidently wonderful. A man suffering from a hangover feels that it is self+evidently grim and dull. e might be inclined to believe the drunken man on the grounds that his vision is wider, a 0bird!s eye view1 as opposed to the 0worm!s eye view1 of the man suffering from headache. =ut, as hitehead says, the bird!s eye view is also vaguer; the drunk may not even be able to get his key in the keyhole. hat % found so fascinating is that t ere (re 'o'ent$ ! en t e t!o %i$ion$ $ee' to co'+ine2 Even S(rtre-$ /n(u$e(te#0 ero Ro:uentin e"periences such moments > for e"ample, when listening to a record of a &egro woman singing 0One of these days.1 /M& +o#& fee"$ (t re$t) "i3e ( preci$ion '(c ine20 3es, in such moments we e"perience a curious sense of +recision' of control. %t is as if the two beams of perception > 'e(nin. (n# i''e#i(c& 5 co'+ine (n# oper(te $i'u"t(neou$"&. % compared the effect to what happens in the film The ,am (usters. 4he problem for the Coyal Air #orce was how to destroy the 6oener Aam with bombs that bounced along the lake like golf balls; the bombs had to be dropped from precisely the correct height > too high and they broke up, too low and they sank. =ut how to judge the e-act height of an aeroplane above the lake@ 4he solution was simple; to place two spotlights on the plane, one in the nose and one in the tail, whose two beams would converge only when the plane was at e"actly the correct height. hen the pilot saw the two circles blend together into one on the surface of the lake, he knew he was at the right height and could release the bombs. We ("" 3no! of 'oo#$ in ! ic t!o +e('$ con%er.e) (n# !e e6perience (n o%er! e"'in. cert(int& of 'e(nin. (n# of o+,ecti%e re("it&2 Hu'e $(&$ $uc 'o'ent$ (re ( #e"u$ion 5 t ere i$ on"& one +e('2 W ite e(# #i$(.ree$1 e $(&$ t (t $uc 'o'ent$ (re re(""er t (n our nor'(""& "i'ite# /i''e#i(c& perception21 And this is of tremendous significance for the philosophy that has followed 5artre!s e"istentialism. 'Here % wish that % had twice as much space to e"plain what % mean, but % will try to compress it./ E"istentialism was a kind of tar trap of Da =rea. 4ier3e.((r#) S(rtre) C('u$) Hei#e..er) ;($per$ 5 ("" #ec"(re# t (t /re("it& i$ ere (n# no!)0 (n# !e $ ou"# #i$tru$t ("" (+$tr(ction$. But p i"o$op & i$ i'po$$i+"e !it out (+$tr(ction$: to re($on i$ to /(+$tr(ct0 fro' t e pre$ent re("it&2 Baught in this parado", the e"istentialists sank deeper and deeper into the tar trap until it closed over their heads. %n England) t e po$iti%i$t$ $(i# 08ood riddance.1 4hey believed, like ittgenstein, t (t /t e ri##"e #oe$ not e6i$t)0 t (t t in.$ (re ! (t t e& (re) (n# t (t-$ t (t2 =ut, as hitehead pointed out 'in Modes of Thought/, if our ancestors of a few thousand years ago had been positivists, civili2ation would not e"ist, for it has developed through asking 7uestions and trying to solve riddles.

T e Frenc trie# to e6tr(ct t e'$e"%e$ fro' t e 'e$$ !it ( p i"o$op & c(""e# Structur("i$') based on DEvi+5trauss!s recognition that primitive societies have hidden 0underlying structures.1 If $o'et in. ($ /e6i$tenti("0 ($ ( pri'iti%e $ociet& c(n (%e i##en $tructure$ <(not er !or# for /'e(nin.$0=) t en t ere i$ ope &et. 6ichel #oucault proceeded to look for underlying structures in history 'in periods he called 0epistemes1/ and Coland =arthes in language and literature. %t was an e"citing epoch. 3et the basic philosophy of #oucault and =arthes seemed to be ( 3in# of o"#9f($ ione# '(teri("i$' #eri%e# fro' M(r6 r(t er t (n Hu'e2 4hen Fac7ues Derri#( took England and America by storm. He began his career with a careful (n("&$i$ of Hu$$er") ! o (# 'uc in co''on !it W ite e(# in i$ o+,ection to t e $cienti$t-$ /+ifurc(tion of n(ture20 =ut Hu$$er"-$ centr(" point !($ t (t t ere i$ ( /contro""in. Me0 +e in# perception2 7erception i$ intention("1 it f"ie$ "i3e (n (rro! to it$ t(r.et) (n# t e /(rc er0 i$ ( / i##en Me0 +e in# perception2 S(rtre (# ("re(#& contr(#icte# t (t %ie! in (n e(r"& e$$(& <T e Tr(n$cen#ence of t e E.o=) (n# no! Derri#( !ent furt er2 He (.ree# !it Hu'e t (t t ere i$ no / i##en Me0 i#in. in$i#e '& e(#2 W (t i$ 'ore) t ere i$ no .enuine 'e(nin. out t ere eit er2 He c(""e# 'e(nin. /pre$ence)0 (n# e6p"(ine# t (t /pre$ence0 i$ (n i""u$ion c(u$e# +& ti'e2 %f this sounds too abstract for those who have never read Aerrida, let me try to put it more simply. Cupert =rooke has a sonnet called 0Dove1 in which he e"plains that love is an illusion. 4wo lovers may feel that they have established real 0contact1; in fact, they are really lying 0each in his own cold night, each with a ghost.1 Dove is a /con$titute# effort)0 ( for' of ! (t Derri#( c(""$ 7re$ence or ! (t Sc open (uer c(""e# i""u$ion2 If !e (ccept t i$) t en !e (re +(c3 to S(rtre (n# Hu'e2 We /i'po$e0 'e(nin. on t e cine'( $creen) +ut it i$ on"& $ (#o! #eep2 Aerrida!s main argument against Husserl occurs in S+eech and $henomena, where he discusses Husserl!s theory of time consciousness. Husserl says that time consciousness assumes two forms; retention and reproduction. If I (' tr&in. to rec("" ! (t $o'e+o#& $(i# &e$ter#(&) I (%e to /recon$truct0 it fro' 'e'or&1 t i$ i$ repro#uction2 But if I (' "i$tenin. to $o'eone $pe(3in. no!) I #o not (%e to /recon$truct0 t e fir$t ("f of i$ $entence in or#er to un#er$t(n# t e $econ#1 I .r($p it ($ ( ! o"e2 T i$ i$ retention2 Derri#( (r.ue$ t (t Husserl is cheating when he makes this distinction. hat is the difference in principle between time that passed yesterday and time that passed a few seconds ago@ 5urely t ere i$ no /retention)0 on"& repro#uction@ %t is easy enough to see that Hu$$er"-$ retention i$ W ite e(#-$ c(u$(" effic(c& or 'e(nin.9perception2 %t is perhaps a little more difficult to see that Hu$$er"-$ repro#uction i$ W ite e(#-$ pre$ent(tion(" i''e#i(c&2 =ut if we grasp t e e$$ence of t e #i$tinction +et!een 'e(nin. (n# i''e#i(c&) !e $ee t (t one i$ /! o"e0 ! i"e t e ot er i$ /piece'e("20 4his is easier to grasp if we think in musical terms. %f % try to recall a familiar theme > say the opening of =eethoven!s #ifth 5ymphony > % do so immediately; this is obviously retention, since it is the shape or 0meaning1 of the phrase that comes into my head. %f % have to look up a theme in a score, or reconstruct it from my memory of its resemblance to some popular tune, this is reproduction; % start from 0immediacy1 and move to 0meaning.1 5o although at first they look 7uite different, retention and reproduction are the same as meaning+perception and immediacy+perception. %n which case, W ite e(#-$ (r.u'ent (.(in$t Hu'e c(n ("$o +e u$e# (.(in$t Derri#(2

Derri#(-$ (r.u'ent i$ t (t t ere i$ no in$t(nt(neou$ /'e(nin.)0 no /pre$ence20 W ite e(# !ou"# rep"& t (t ! en ( +(+& reco.ni>e$ it$ 'ot er-$ f(ce) t (t i$ in$t(nt(neou$ 'e(nin.2 T e f(ce i$ .r($pe# ($ ( .e$t("t) ( ! o"e2 %n Of .rammatology, Aerrida uses Cousseau to illustrate his argument about the none"istence of 0presence.1 Cousseau asked why his own life is more real to him when he writes about it than when he was living it. He thinks this is due to the weakening of his 0reality function1 'to borrow $ierre Fanet!s term/ by his habit of imagination and autoeroticism, which also e"plains why he finds masturbation more satisfying than 0normal se".1 Aerrida will not accept this e"planation; he thinks that Cousseau!s assumptions reveal the 0fallacy of presence,1 the notion that 0real life1 and 0normal se"1 ought to be realler than writing and masturbation because they involve retention, an 0immediate1 grasp of meaning. hitehead would reply that Cousseau was right and Aerrida wrong. His pro+"e'$ (re #ue to ( !e(3enin. of i$ /re("it& function20 If W ite e(# i$ correct (n# 'e(nin.9 perception i$ (not er 'o#e of perception) t en Rou$$e(u-$ pro+"e' i$ t e $('e ($ Wi""i(' 7itt-$ ! en e 'ur'ure# /W (t $ (#e$ !e (re) ! (t $ (#o!$ !e pur$ue20 /N(u$e(0 <! ic i$ ! (t Rou$$e(u i$ t("3in. (+out= i$ #ue to "o!9ener.& perception2 In f(ct) 'o$t of our u'(n perception$ fit t i$ #e$cription +ec(u$e 'o#ern '(n ($ .ot +o..e# #o!n in $&'+o"$) in "(n.u(.e) in /co'p"ic(tion$20 But t ere re'(in t e f"($ e$ of true perception 5 Ro:uentin "i$tenin. to /One of t e$e #(&$)0 t e +(+& reco.ni>in. it$ 'ot er-$ f(ce2 To #en& t eir re("it& (n# pri'(c& i$ not on"& to 'i$$ t e point of p i"o$op & +ut of "ife it$e"f2 Derri#(-$ (tt(c3 on 'et(p &$ic$ 5 t e notion t (t "ife ($ (n un#er"&in. /'e(nin.0 5 was so successful that it has led to the movement known as $ostmodernism 'e"emplified in the work of Dyotard and =audrillard/ in which the /#i$inte.r(tion of 'e(nin.0 i$ t(3en for .r(nte#2 Li3e Decon$truction) 7o$t'o#erni$' i$ +($e# upon t e $('e $i'p"e ($$ertion: t (t /'e(nin.0 i$ (n i""u$ion t (t c(n +e (n("&>e# into it$ con$tituent p(rt$2 Loo3 (t ( ne!$p(per p oto.r(p of ( $'i"in. .ir" t rou. ( '(.nif&in. ."($$1 it #i$$o"%e$ into #ot$2 T i$) $(&) t e neo9Hu'e(n$) pro%e$ t (t t e $'i"e i$ not ( .e$t("t1 it i$ /con$titute#0 +& t e #ot$2 Accor#in. to W ite e(#) t e #ot$ (re irre"e%(nt. 0?nited 5tates1 is made up of two words, but we grasp it as a unity; America. Loo3 (t t e p oto.r(p fro' ( #i$t(nce (n# &ou $ee t (t t e $'i"e i$ .enuine) (n# t (t t e p oto.r(p c(pture$ (n /e$$ence20 Tr& to +re(3 #o!n t (t e$$ence into t e propert& of t e #ot$) (n# &ou f(i" utter"&2 It !($ t ere) in t e $'i"in. .ir"2 It c(n +e $een t (t t i$ i$ not on"& (n i'port(nt i$$ue1 it i$ t e i'port(nt i$$ue2 T e Hu'e(n po$ition !($ fir$t e6pre$$e# +& Ecc"e$i($te$) ! en e $t(te# t (t ("" "ife i$ %(nit& <i2e2) t (t /pre$ence0 i$ (n i""u$ion=2 C"e(r"&) W ite e(# #i$(.ree$2 4hose who want to know e"actly why he disagrees should take a deep breath and try $rocess and Reality 'in which the two modes of perception occupy a central position/. 4hose who prefer their metaphysics in a more digestible form may find Religion in the Ma/ing more to their taste. % am aware that my earlier comments on Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect had a critical ring. 4he truth is that hitehead is a bad organi2er; he would have written atrocious symphonies. His merit lies in brilliant perceptions and in images that stick in the mind 'e.g., likening philosophical arguments to cavalry charges in a battle, or comparing Datin to a tightly packed suitcase, and English to a suitcase that lies open with all its contents displayed/. 4hose who come to love hitehead for his da22ling perceptions and memorable images can easily forgive him the lack of organi2ation. hitehead once called illiam Fames 0that adorable genius,1 and anyone who admires both philosophers can recogni2e that the

description applies e7ually to hitehead himself. %t hardly matters that Symbolism is a muddle; it is also one of the most important books ever written.