Page History

I should wish to say, accordingly, that God and concrescence are distinct in that concrescence is \-\- to use Hartshorne's terms \-\- "the ultimate analogical universal or form of forms," or _"the_ _transcendental," which applies to everything concretely real, analogically though not univocally, whereas God is the eminent or unsurpassable form of concrescence, everything else concretely real being an instance of its noneminent or surpassable form. In a sense, however, this distinction between God and concrescence is not tinalfinal, because all concrescence is_ _either_ _God's own self-creation_ _or_ _a datum therefor-either, in Whitehead's terms, a divine "subjective form" or a divine "objective form," either a contribution divinely made to the creatures or a contribution divinely received from them. Thus God is, in a way, "concrescence itself," "concrescence" beihg understood as "the determining of ofthethe antecedently indeterminate \[but determinable\]," "free growth in definiteness," "contingent production of additional definiteness"-all phrases used by Hartshorne to elucidate "creativity" (cf "Whitehead's DitTerences from Buddhism":_ _409\~_ _10:_ _241, 201)._