Examining whitehead's redesigned metaphysical language, the author first argues that its apparent lack of a formal syntactic structure throws its validity into question. then, reconstructing whitehead's method, he contends that his categories do not constitute the ground of a precise language. he further submits that whitehead's metaphysical language appears to be both descriptive and constitutive of reality. the author then examines whitehead's concept of creativity in the context of his distinction between appearance and reality. finally, he argues that whitehead's metaphysical (...) sentences do not satisfy the minimal requirements of confirmability and convey at best poetic attitudes and moods. (staff). (shrink)