Unification Thought

Dr. Sang Hun Lee

To the Reader:
The book you now hold in your hands is the first full translation of Unification Thought
from the original Korean to English. Translation of abstract thought from any tongue
to another is at best difficult, and in this case faces the challenge of passage from an
Oriental language to a Western one.
We hope that by this work a path has been opened up, one not strewn with stumbling
blocks (literary and otherwise) but one by which the spirit of our civilization, the mind
of the reader, and the spirit of Unification Thought can unite in a fruitful new
understanding.
Initial capital letters are used for words and phrases describing organic parts of the
structure of the Principle presented herein; otherwise we leaned toward the current
style of avoiding capitalization. Italics are used for foreign words and phrases except
in cases of frequency of appearance. Quotation marks, besides their familiar
applications, enclose the first appearance of terms used in an unusual or technical
way, and twice set off neologisms used to conform to the Korean as much as
possible.

Contents
Preface / xiii
Part I - Fundamental Theory
Ontology
Introduction
The Significance and History of Ontology
The Meaning of Existence
1. Traditional Ideas of Existence
1. Objects of Ontological Study in Ancient Times
2. Medieval Concepts of Existence
3. Modern Concepts of Ontology
4. Current Concepts of Ontology
2. Ontology Based on the Unification Principle
Section A - Basic View
Section B - Concepts of Existence
Section C - The Theory of the Original Image (Divine Image)
1. The Contents of the Original Image
a. Divine Image
b. Divine Character (Divinity)
2. The Structure of the Original Image
a. The Formation of the Four Position Base Centering on
Heart
(i) Inner Quadruple Base
(ii) Outer Quadruple Base
(iii) The Inner Structure of the Hyung Sang
(iv) The Identity-Maintaining (Static) Quadruple
Base, and the Developing (Dynamic)
Quadruple Base
(v) The Inner Structure of the Logos (the Inner
Developing Quadruple)
b. The Chung-Boon-Hap Action or the Origin (Thesis)
Division-Union (Synthesis) Action
c. The Structural Unity of the Original Image
Section D - The Being Image of Existing Beings
1. Individual Truth Body
a. Universal Image
(i) Sung Sang and Hyung Sang
(ii) Positivity and Negativity
(iii) Logos and the Harmony
between Positivity and Negativity
(iv) Subject and Object
(v) Paired Elements and
Opposition
b. Individual Image
(i) The Location of the Individual
Image
(ii) The Monostratic Nature of the
Individual Image
(iii) The Individualization of the
Universal Image
(iv) The Individualization of the
Chung-Boon-Hap Process
(v) The Individual Image, Idea
and Concept
 (vi) The Universal and Individual
(vii) The Individual Image and the
Environment
2. The Connected Body
a. The Connected Body and Dual Purposes
b. The Connected Body and the Original Image
Section E - The Yang Sang ("Status-Image") and the Position of the
Existing Being
1. The Yang Sang of Existing Beings
2. Position of the Existing Being
3. The Various Types of Circular Movement, and Developing
Movement
(i) Types of Circular Movement
(ii) Development and Spiral Movement
(iii) Direction of Developing Movement 103
(iv) Purpose, Law, and Necessity in
Development 105
Section F - Existing Form of Being
3. Critique of Major Traditional Viewpoints of Substance
(i) Plato (427 - 347 B.C.)
(ii) Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.)
(iii) Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274)
(iv) Descartes (1596 - 1650)
(v) George Wilhelm Hegel (1770 - 1831)
(vi) Karl Marx (1818 - 1883)
(vii) Oriental Philosophy -Sung-Ih Hak
Part II - Partial Theories
1. Theory of the Original Human Nature
Section A - Meaning and Necessity of the Theory of the Original Human Nature
(i) Necessity of the Original Human Nature
(ii) Original Nature and Fallen Nature
Section B - The Original Nature
a. The Original Nature and Essence
b. The Original Nature and Existence
Section C - The Original Human Nature Pursued by Existentialism
1. The Existentialists' Views on Existence and Man
 (i) Kierkegaard's "Individual"
(ii) Nietzsche's Superman Thought
(iii) Jaspers' Limit Situation
(iv) "Existence" of Heidegger
(v) Subjectivity of Sartre
(vi) Summary
2. The Critique of Each Existentialist Philosophy and View of Humanity
(i) Critique of Kierkegaard
(ii) Critique of Nietzsche
(iii) Critique of Jaspers
(iv) Critique of Heidegger
(v) Critique of Sartre
Section D - The Original Human Nature Viewed from the Unification Principle
1. Being with Divine Image
a. Sung Sang and Hyung Sang (Perfectness)
b. Positivity and Negativity (multiplication and norm)
c. Individual Image in God
2. Being in Position
a. Being with Object Position
b. Being with Subject Position-Dominion
c. Being with an Intermediary Position
3. Being with Divine Image
a. Being with Heart
b. Being of Logos (Norm)
c. Being with Creativity
Section E - The Original Nature and Second Nature
(i) The Difference between the Original Nature and the Second Nature
(ii) The Communists' View of the Original Nature
2. Epistemology
Section A - The Meaning of Epistemology and the Process of its Formation
(i) The Origin of Epistemology
(ii) Novum Organum of Francis Bacon
Section B - Traditional Epistemology Viewed from the Contents of Cognition
1. Epistemology Emphasizing the Object Only
a. From the Viewpoint of the Source of Cognition-Empiricism
 b. From the Viewpoint of What Is the Essence of Cognition-
Realism
2. Epistemology Emphasizing the Subject Only
a. From the Viewpoint of the Source of Cognition
Rationalism
b. From the Viewpoint of the Essence of Cognition
Subjective Idealism
Section C - Traditional Epistemology Viewed from the Cognition Method
1. The Transcendental Method of Kant
(i) The Unification of Empiricism and Rationalism
(ii) Matter and Form
(iii) Ding an Sich ("Thing-in-Itself")
(iv) Cognition Form
2. The Dialectical Method of Marx
(i) The Theory of Reflection
(ii) Sensitivity, Reason and Practice
(iii) Absolute Truth and Relative Truth
Section D - The Basis of Epistemology by the Unification Principle
1. Everything is the Object of Man's Pleasure
2. All Things are Objects of Man's Dominion (Control)
3. There is Give-and-Take Action Between the Subject and Object
Section E - Unification Epistemology (Epistemology Based on the Give-and-Take
Law)
1. Critique of Traditional Epistemologies
(i) Why Subject and Object Exist
(ii) The Object Must Exist Outside 188
(iii) Is the "Thing-in-Itself" (Ding an Sich) Unknowable?
2. The Give-and-Take Relation between the Subject and Object and the
Activity of Cognition
3. The Development of Cognition
4. The Ground and Method of Cognition
a. Appraisal and Correspondence
(i) Is the Mind a Tabula Rasa (Blank Tablet) by
Nature?
(ii) There Must Be An Appraisal of
Correspondence
 (iii) Man Has the Prototypes of All Things
Within Him
(iv) The Prototypes Exist Deep in the Latent
Consciousness
(v) Cognition is the Unification of the Outside
and Inside
b. The Similarity of Content and Form
c. Transcendence and Priority
(i) The Priority of the Prototype
(ii) The Development of the Prototype
d. Spiritual Cognition
5. Summary and Conclusion
3. Axiology
Section A -The Significance of Axiology
Section B - The Theoretical Foundation of Axiology
(i) Dual Being
(ii) Dual Purposes
(iii) Dual Desires
Section C - The Kinds of Value
(i) Truth, Goodness and Beauty
(ii) Love
(iii) Holiness
Section D - The Essence of Value
(i) The Essence of Value
(ii) The Purpose of Creation
(iii) The Give-and-Take Action of Relative Elements and Harmony
Section E - The Decision of Actual Value and the Standard of Value
(i) The Decision of Actual Value
(ii) Subjective Action
(iii) The Importance of the Subjective Conditions
(iv) The Standard of Value
(v) Relative Elements and Absolute Elements
Section F - Present Day Life and Value
(i) The View of Purpose and Value
(ii) The Necessity of a New View of Value
4. Ethics
 Section A - The Necessity of Unification Ethics and its Origin in the Unification
Principle
a. The Necessity of Ethics
b. The Basis of Ethics in the Unification Principle
Section B - The Definition of Ethics
Section C - Ethics and Morality
Section D - Family Four Position Base and Ethics
a. God's Ideal of Creation and the Family Four Position Base
b. The Actualizing Process of Love
c. The Principle of Order in Ethics
d. Order and Equality
Section E - Critique of the Traditional Theories of Goodness
a. Critique of the Modem Viewpoints of Goodness
(i) Bentham's Utilitarianism
(ii) The Categorical Imperative of Kant
b. Critique of the Current Viewpoints of Goodness
(i) The Intuitionism of Moore (1873 - 1958)
(ii) The Emotive Theory of Logical Positivism
(iii) The Instrumentalism Theory of Pragmatism
5. Theory of History
Section A - The View of History by the Unification Principle
(i) The History of Sin
(ii) The History of Re-creation and Restoration
Section B - The Character of History According to the Unification Principle
1. Re-Creation by the Logos
2. The Goal and Direction of History
(i) Hegel's View of History
(ii) Marx's View of History
(iii) Spengler's View of History
(iv) Toynbee's View of History
3. The Laws of History
Section C - The Laws of Re-Creation in History
1. The Laws of Creation
2. The Laws of Restoration
Section D - The Unity, Individuality and Difference of Historical Development
 (i) The Unity of Historical Development
(ii) The Individuality of Historical Development
(iii) Differentiation of Historical Development
Section E - The Laws of Historical Development and the Method of Studying
History
(i) The Basic Laws of History
(ii) History and the Give and Take Law (G-T Laws)
(iii) The Law of Will-Action
(iv) The Historic View of the Struggle between Good and Evil
(v) Development by the G-T Action or by Struggle?
(vi) The Essence of Struggle
Section F - The Pattern of Historical Development
1. From the Providential Viewpoint
(i) The History of God's Words
(ii) The Providence of Parallel Periods
2. From the Viewpoint of Religion and Politics
(i) The Law of Dominion of the Center
(ii) The Four Types of Society
(iii) The Reasons for the Formation of the Four Societies
3. From the Viewpoint of Economy
(i) Mutual Relationships of Religion, Politics and Economy
(ii) The Developmental Steps of Economy
(iii) The Inequality of the Development of Religion, Politics
and Economy in the Period of the New Testament
(iv) The Development Stages of the Economy in the New
Testament Age
Section G - History and Culture
1. The Central Providence and Peripheral Providence in Cultural History
(i) The Central Providence of Cultural History
(ii) Peripheral Providence
2. Sung Sang Culture and Hyung Sang Culture
(i) Hebraism and Hellenism
(ii) The Sources of the Two Cultures
(iii) The Termination of History is a Unified Culture
Preface
For a long time, mankind has expected, by the progress of science, to realize a society
of well-being filled with freedom, peace, and prosperity. Today, however, in spite of the
arrival of an unprecedented scientific age when even manned spacecraft travel to the
moon, threats to freedom and peace still remain as does poverty existing in the midst of
abundance. Furthermore, incessant social chaos and international disputes still occur. If
this situation is to continue, the future of mankind looks indeed gloomy.
Today's regrettable reality is that many people are losing sight of the significance and
direction of their lives due to the present overemphasis on science and technology. All
the traditional authority systems and views -of value are collapsing, and the value
standard by which we decide the direction of politics, economy, society, culture, and the
like is becoming very faint. In the advanced nations, it is hard to maintain the status quo
even by outer binding forces such as the constitution and laws, and an unreasonable
way of thinking, that anybody can do anything he wants, is gradually prevailing. In many
countries, social crimes are inevitably increasing under this absence of morality, and
illegality and decadence are rapidly spreading. Taking advantage of this confusion,
communism, which is a pseudo-value system, is eroding the Free World both in public
and in secret. Professing to be the best value standard, communism is instead giving
rise to social confusion under the pretenses of pacifism and humanism. On the other
hand, however, in the communist camps themselves peoples' human rights are
infringed upon and human dignity is disregarded through methods of despotic terrorism.
Hence, liberalism confronts communism throughout the world and there is no
international dispute or war that is not interfered with directly or indirectly by the
communists. Moreover, unrest still remains throughout the world, and we can foresee
the possible outbreak of unexpected problems due to communist provocation.
What is the best way to save mankind from such fear and crisis? What is the true way to
protect freedom and establish peace? And who can undertake such a task? He must be
a zealous intellectual who is deeply devoted to the accomplishment of human welfare
and transcendent of national differences. It is certain that the future of mankind depends
upon a man of this caliber. Now must be the time for all sincere and zealous liberalistic
intellectuals to boldly undertake this historical task and make all possible mental efforts
to establish the genuine freedom and peace of mankind.
One of the necessary conditions of this time is the establishment of an ideological
system which is able to meet the needs of the times. In such a situation, I am going to
introduce a new system of thought. This is the thought of Mr. S. M. Moon who originally
founded the Unification Principle in Korea. These Principles are now taught throughout
the world. Because this thought is considered to be an answer to the times, I am going
to introduce its outline in this book.
This thought is theistic in standpoint; it assumes Creation by God and the action of
Divine Providence in the process of human history. For that reason, this thought has
found the ultimate cause of today's social chaos and international disputes to be at the
beginning of history. It attempts to solve the various realistic problems in a new
dimension. By recognizing the Fall of Man at the beginning of history, the action of the
Divine Providence in the process of human history, and the partial responsibility of man,
this thought is trying to approach the solution of today's problems.
Since the thought is extensive and profound, it seems to include the essentials of
various traditional philosophical and religious thoughts. However, I feel that it was a
revelation of God that made the exposure of the thought possible. The thought
originated with the founder of the Unification Principle, and is called the Unification
Thought, in the sense that it contributes to the establishment of human welfare and a
new human culture by the unification of various other thoughts.
This booklet is a summary, arrangement and record of extensive contents. However, I
can not but acknowledge that the method of expression is rather simple and
unacademic, since it was very hard work for me as I lack the capability to arrange and
systematize the extraordinary contents. Therefore I ask for the reader's understanding.
The contents of this book, which are based on the Unification Principle, the teachings of
Mr. Moon, are classified into Ontology, the Theory of the Original Nature of Man,
Epistemology, Axiology, Ethics, and the Theory of History. (It is rather regrettable that
Logic, Pedagogy, and the Theory of Arts have not been translated in time for this
edition, but they will be published in the second edition.) Since Ontology is the most
fundamental theory of the Unification Thought, it is dealt with in comparative detail. As
for the other sections, the main contents were only briefly stated. I sincerely hope for the
day in the near future, when a more scientific and systematic handling of the detailed
contents is made.
I wonder if I could have introduced Mr. Moon's thought exactly in this book owing to my
poor power of expression. Accordingly, when there is something hard to understand or
illogically presented, I am quite responsible for it. If there is something in this book found
to be of value, I sincerely pray for it to be of good service by making a contribution to the
fulfillment of true peace and everlasting welfare on earth, which is the cherished desire
of all mankind.
Seoul, Korea September 12th 1973
Ontology
Introduction
The Significance And History Of Ontology The Meaning Of Existence
Ontology is the study of existence, reality, or Being. As a field of philosophy, it may deal
with the motivation, process and purpose of all existing beings, with the ultimate cause
of existence, and with the attributes and original nature of substance itself.
It is widely known that throughout the history of Western philosophy the primary
philosophical questions have been ontological ones. The Greek philosophers, including
those of Miletos, dealt with the question of the source of the universe and regarded the
cosmic source as being different things such as water, air, soil, fire, number, idea or
eidos. Such a list reveals the great variety of concepts of existence which have been
presented.
Chapter I - Traditional Ideas of Existence
Throughout the development of history the concept of Being, which is the object of
ontological study, has changed. That is to say, in the ancient, Medieval, modern, and
current times, the objects which were dealt with in ontological study, and all the
concepts of those beings, have differed.
1. Objects Of Ontological Study In Ancient Times
In ancient time s there was no actual term ontology, but the main object of philosoical
study was the ultimate cause of the universe or arche. This was considered by different
philosophers to be many different things. For example, the ultimate cause was
considered to be water by Thales, fire by Heraclitus, einai by Parmenides, number by
Pythagoras, atom by Democritus, idea by Plato and eidos and hyle by Aristotle.
2. Medieval Concepts Of Existence
In the Middle Ages as well, there was no term ontology, because Christian theology
dominated all the spiritual aspects of man's life. However, Thomas Aquinas, the great
Medieval theologian, after studying Aristotle's logic, combined it with theology and
formed the scholastic philosophy. Thus during the Middle Ages, men rationally regarded
God as the cosmic substance (ousia or esse), and all other things as finite beings
created by God. Thomas Aquinas, in particular, demonstrated how to prove the
existence of God rationally, and he clarified the relationship between the existence
(esse) of God md-essence (essentia) of God. Thus, although the Middle Ages was a
theological age, toward its close, philosophers began to deal with the ontology of God in
the rational and logical Greek way, rather than in the intuitive and mystical way of
Augustine.
3. Modern Concepts Of Ontology
Coming into modern times, the concept of existence came to have chiefly
epistemological contents. That is to say, existence itself was dealt with as the object of
epistemology. The Medieval superhuman and supernatural view of the world was
discarded, and a world view was established which originated in the Renaissance and
which was based on natural science and centered on reason. In the formation of this
modern thought or philosophy, the new methods of philosophical cognition played the
most fundamental role. The methods of cognition of scholastic philosophy such as the
deductive and probable methods developed by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas were
rejected, and both the inductive and rational methods were asserted. The inductive
method, based on experimentation and observation, developed into empiricism in
England; while the rational method, aiming for mathematically "clear and distinct"
understanding developed into rationalism on the continent. Accordingly, epistemology
came to be the main part of modern philosophy with "existence" or "being" considered
most significant as objects of cognition.
Thus, each philosopher's view of existence varied according to his view of
epistemology. Locke considered cognitive objects as objective things; Berkeley thought
that beings were perceived ideas (esse est percipi); Descartes regarded both mind and
matter as final cause; Leibnitz saw monade as the cosmic substance, while Hegel
thought that reason (Absolute Geist) was the final cause (Substanz).
4. Current Concepts Of Ontology
Modern rationalism and the ideas of the Enlightenment reached their climax in the
German idealism of Kant and Hegel. German idealists were convinced of the
harmonious order of the real world, and they emphasized human dignity and freedom.
However, in our own times, as the defects of capitalism came to light, social unrest
spread, and as natural science developed to a high degree, the influence of idealism
lessened. To fill the gap that idealism left, contemporary philosophies appeared such as
Marxist philosophy, which rationalized the theory of violent social revolution;
existentialism, which objected to the leveling of human beings by the development of
science, and dealt with the essential human self as solitary; logical positivism which
analytically treated only logic as part of philosophy and transferred most of what had
previously been dealt with in philosophy to the different branches of science, and
pragmatism which claimed that the standard of truth should be whether or not a thing is
useful in daily life.
Because of these philosophies, the view of beings of final cause (ouisa) changed in
comparison to the views of the medieval and modern times. Karl Marx and his followers
thought that matter alone was existence or the final cause. Within existentialism, Karl
Jaspers dealt with the natural world (Welt) as objective beings, with human beings as "I-
beings" (Ichsein) and with transcendental being (Transzendenz) as "Itself-being"
(Ansichsein). Martin Heidegger saw the essential self (true being) as "being" (existing
modality, Sein) and real or actual man as the present actual being (Dasein); while he
called the average human being, common man (Mann). Logical positivists reject
problems concerning beings or final cause because to them, these problems have no
real meaning in philosophy, but rather belong to the realm of metaphysics. Pragmatism
also rejects the problems of essential nature because they are transcendental. The
pragmatists' view of God is that one can recognize the existence of God if using that
concept gives one some practical effect of moral or emotional satisfaction.
It seems good to introduce here the concept of "beings" in phenomenology, which is
another contemporary philosophy. Husserl's phenomenology analytically describes the
structure of the phenomenon of pure consciousness (Reine Bewussein). In Husserl's
phenomenology, we have to exclude all preconceived ideas about the concept of
recognition, and have to deal with the object itself as real fact. We have to use the
method of phenomenological epoche. In this case Sache Selbst (things themselves)
become the object of epoche. This Sache Selbst is dealt with as the concept of being by
Husserl.
Chapter II - Ontology Based on the Unification Principle (Part 1)
Section A - Basic View
The Principle of Creation of the Unification Principle is philosophical in nature and deals
with ontological questions. Ontology based on the Unification Principle is the
philosophical explanation of the existence of man. Let me introduce the parts of the
Unification Principle that deal with ontology.
(1) Just as the work of an artist is a visible manifestation of its maker's invisible nature,
every creation is a "substantial object" of the invisible deity of God, the creator. (Divine
Principle, p. 20.)
This part of the Principle, along with several other parts, describes God's creation and
makes it clear that the created world is the substantial object of God.
(2) How can we know the characteristics of God, who is an invisible being? We can
know them by observing the world of His creation. (Ibid., p. 20)
All things exist through a reciprocal relationship between the dual essentialities of
positivity and negativity. We must also know the reciprocal relationship between another
pair of dual essentialities, which is even more fundamental than that of positivity and
negativity. Anything in existence has both an external form [Hyung Sang] and an
internal character [Sung Sang]. 'Me external form [Hyung Sang] is visible and reflects
the internal character [Sung Sang] , which is invisible. Though the internal character
[Sung Sang] cannot be seen, it assumes a certain form, so that the external form
[Hyung Sung] resembles the internal character [Sung Sang] as its visible form. "Internal
character" [Sung Sang] and "external form" [Hyung Sang] refer to the two characters
which are the two relative aspects of the same existence. In this relationship, the
external form [Hyung Sang] may also be called a "second internal character," [Sung
Sang] so together we call them "dual characteristics" or "dual essentialities." (Ibid., pp.
21-22)
As Paul indicated, when we examine the factors which all creation have in common, we
finally come to understand that God is the First Cause of the world of creation, and He
exists as the absolute subject, having characteristics both of essential character
[Original Sung Sang] and essential form [Original Hyung Sang]. (Ibid., p. 24)
This part of the Principle clarifies that God is a harmonious being with two polarities
(Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity and negativity). Then what is the
relationship between these two attributes? The Principle explains it as follows:
What is the relationship between the dual characteristics of character and form and the
dual characteristics of positivity and negativity?
Fundamentally, God's essential character and His essential form assume a reciprocal
relationship with His ,.essential positivity" and "essential negativity." Therefore, God's
essential positivity and essential negativity are the attributes of His essential character
and essential form. (Ibid, p. 24)
In other words, positivity and negativity are the attributes of Sung Sang and Hyung
Sang. Accordingly, there are positive aspects to Sung Sang (brightness, gladness,
manliness, etc.) and negative aspects to Sung Sang (melancholy, sadness, or
womanliness, etc.), and there are both positive forms (convex parts of the body) and
negative forms (concave parts of the body) in the Hyung Sang. [Note: Since God is not
physical, He does not actually contain masculine and feminine nor convex and concave
parts but rather, God is the substance which is the First Cause of positive and negative
phenomena, and this constitutes God's positivity and negativity.]
(3) We have learned so far that each and every creation is God's substantial object
which is the manifested form of the invisible essentialities of God. Every substantial
object is called an "individual truth incarnation." [Individual Truth Body]. Man, being the
substantial object of God who was created in His image, is called the "individual truth
incarnation in image" [Image Individual Truth Body]. Since all creation, other than man,
is the symbolic object of God created in His indirect image, it is called the "symbolic
individual truth incarnation" [Symbolic Individual Truth Body]. (Ibid., p. 25)
The substantial subject and object pair then enter into another give and take action by
forming a reciprocal relationship, through Universal Prime Energy. By forming one unit
they become an object to God. In this manner, God, as the origin, is divided into two
separated substances, after which these two again unite to form one body. We call this
process "origin-division-union action." (Ibid., p. 31)
This means that the creation exists by give-and-take, and when we consider this in
relation to time, the give-and-take action appears as the action of "Origin-Division-
Union."
God contains within Himself dual essentialities which exist forever. Through Universal
Prime Energy, these two form a mutual or reciprocal relationship which develops into an
eternal give and take action. (Ibid., p. 28)
Each and every creation enters into give and take action between the dual essentialities
that form an individual self by forming a reciprocal relationship through Universal Prime
Energy. Through the force of give and take action, the dual essentialities produce a
reciprocal base, which in turn produces a foundation of existence in an individual self;
then upon this foundation, the individual self can stand as God's object and receive all
the power necessary for its own existence. (Ibid., pp. 28-29)
This indicates the constant action of give-and-take through the stages of Origin-
Division-Union (Synthesis) within God and within all creation, which thus resembles
God.
Section B - Concepts of Existence
As shown in the previously introduced Unification Principle, even if we include the things
made by human beings, there is nothing in the universe which was not created by God.
The material for the things man creates and man's creativity itself originate from God.
Therefore in a broad sense even manufactured goods can be regarded as part of God's
creation.
In the ontology of Unification Thought there are two kinds of beings. One kind of being
includes all the.-things which exist in the universe, and the other kind of being is that
which allows all things to exist.
The former kind of being is called "existing being" and the latter kind of being is called
the "Original Being." In addition to these two, Unification Thought also deals with beings
in the narrow sense.
Accordingly, there are the three following kinds of concepts of beings in Unification
Thought:
1. Original Being
2. Existing Being
3. being (In the narrow sense, it means a specific realm or character, or the fact to exist
e.g. animal being and social being.)
Chapter II - Ontology Based on the Unification Principle (Part 2)
Section C - The Theory of the Original Image (Divine Image)
I will now explain about the ontology of the Original Being (God). The reason the
Original Being must be dealt with in ontology is that all existing beings are patterned
after the Original Being. Accordingly, the attributes of the Original Being should first be
clarified in relation to their contents and structure. The Original Being's attributes are
God's polarity and His other natures, which together are referred to in the terms of
Unification Thought as "Original Image" or "Divine Image." Divine Image in the narrow
sense means polarity and "Individual Imaged," while God's other attributes are called
"Divinity."
1. The Contents Of The Original Image
Original Image means the attributes of the Original Being. These attributes are the 91
the attributes and modalities of all individual beings. According to the interpretation of
Unification Thought, the Original Image has both content and structure.
Here the "content" means each of the natures composing the attributes, and the
"structure" refers to the mutual relationships among the natures. By the Principle of
Creation, the Original Image can be explained as having the polarity of Sung Sang
(Original Sung Sang) and Hyung Sang (Original Hyung Sang), the polarity of positivity
and negativity, Individual Images, and Heart, Logos, and creativity. More precisely,
within the Original Image, the Divine Image consists of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang,
positivity and negativity, and Individual Images, while the Divinity consists of Heart,
Logos, and Creativity.
a. Divine Image
In the first place, the Sung Sang of the Divine Image is the internal attribute of the
Original Being, that is the cause of the invisible part of all things (human spiritual body,
the mind of animals, life of plants, activeness of inorganic material, etc.). Accordingly, it
means the mind of the Original Being and implies the function of intellect, emotion and
will. God's will is the subject to the human mind, is also the subject of human intellect,
emotion and volition [will]." (Ibid., p. 67)
Here intellect refers to the function of recognition including sensibility, understanding,
and reason; emotion refers to the function of feeling, such as feeling joy, anger, etc., but
it is different from Heart; and will refers to the function of intention and the impulse to
realize the purpose of Heart.
The mind of God (Sung Sang) contains another level of polarity inside itself. In other
words, another level of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang exists within the Original Sung
Sang itself. This inner level of Sung Sang is called "Inner Sung Sang", and this inner
level of Hyung Sang is called "Inner Hyung Sang." Therefore, actually the above
mentioned intellect, emotion and will do not belong to the whole Sung Sang, but only to
the Inner Sung Sang of mind, and there is another part of the mind, the Inner Hyung
Sang, consists of idea (concept) and principle (law). According to the Principle of
Creation though the internal character cannot be seen, it assumes a certain form, so
that the external form resembles the internal character as its visible form. (Ibid., p. 22)
In this relationship, the external form may also be called all second internal character,"
so together we call them "dual characteristics," or "dual essentialities." (Ibid., p. 22)
This means that there are elements of another Sung Sang and Hyung Sang (Inner Sung
Sang and Inner Hyung Sang) within the Sung Sang of the Original Image.
Next, Hyung Sang (Original Hyun Sang) is the external attribute of the Original Being,
the cause of the visible aspect of all things (human flesh body, animal's body, physical
structure of plants, substantial part of inorganic matter, etc.). Accordingly, this Hyung
Sang consists of matter and the ',"Universal Prime Force." The Original Being has the
Universal Prime Force in itself as the unifying force, and this Universal Prime Force and
matter form the Original Hyung Sang. Thus Sung Sang and Hyung Sang are
complementary, but Sung Sang is always in the subject position, whereas Hyung Sang
is in the object position; that is, the internal Sung Sang is subject, and the external
Hyung Sang is its object.
Positivity and negativity are also attributes of the Origin being which has Sung Sang and
Hyung Sang. So, strictly speaking they are the direct attributes of the Sung Sang and
Hyung Sang. Thus, Sung Sang has two kinds of aspects: the positive aspect and the
negative aspect.
The positive aspects of man's Sung Sang or mind are aspects such as activity,
brightness, delight, inventiveness, etc., and the negative aspects are those such as
passivity, melancholy, sadness, agony, etc. There are also positive aspects of man's
Hyung Sang or flesh body such as the nose, forehead, elbow, etc. (protruding and
convex parts) and negative ones such as the nostril, ear hole, lap, etc. (sunken or
concave parts). These kinds of aspects can also be seen within the animal, vegetable
and mineral kingdoms as well as among human beings. This is due to the fact that both
the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang of the Original Being have positivity and negativity
within themselves. In the reciprocal relationship between positivity and negativity,
positivity is the subject and negativity is the object.
Besides these attributes, there is another in the Divine Image of God. This is the
attribute of God which includes the Individual Images, the fundamental prototypes of
each individual being of the creation. In other words, all the existing beings, including
human beings, have the general aspects of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity
and negativity, and each creature also has a specific aspect of individuality which
reflects the Individual Image within the Original Being. According to Unification Thought,
each face, head, etc. is different from every other because each creature takes after
one of the countless Individual Images in the Original Image. These three aspects, then,
are the attributes ,of the Original Being; and as they have a kind of image (aspect), we
call them together the "Divine Image." The polarities of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang,
positivity and negativity, are called the "Universal Image" because of their universality
throughout the whole creation, and they are distinguished from the Individual Images.
[Note: For more convenient repetition of terms, the Universal Image of the Original
Image is to be called "Original Universal Image", and the Individual Image of the
Original Image is to be called "Original Individual Image."]
b. Divine Character (Divinity)
Besides the Divine Image (narrow sense) the Original Being has several specific
qualities which are Heart, Logias and Creativity. Of these, Heart is the essence of the
personality aspect of the Original Being; therefore Heart is the most fundamental
attribute of the Original Being. God is generally called omniscient and omnipotent, but in
the Unification Principle these are regarded as secondary and posterior in importance,
while Heart is regarded as the most fundamental and proper characteristic of God.
Some philosophers regard God as the absolute mind or as reason, but these too are
secondary, judging from the Unification Principle. Of all the attributes of the Original
Being, Heart is the most fundamental and essential, and causes all the other attributes
to interact. The Word (Logos) and creation appear, due to Heart, for Heart has purpose
within itself and direction to realize that purpose. Because one of the essential natures
of Heart is joy, and since it is impossible for joy to maintain itself without an object, this
Heart necessarily has purpose and direction. Heart is also the starting point of love,
because another essence of Heart is emotional "combinability." Love originates from
this "combinability." Thus Heart is the essential attribute of the personality aspect of the
Original Being. It is because the center of give-and-take action is Heart (Purpose) that
the Unification Principle indicates that the action of give-and-take in the creation occurs
centering on God.
Now let me explain about the Logos. According to the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, verse
1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
The Divine Principle indicates that the universe was created by the Word, and "It is
written (John 1:1) that Logos is in the objective position to God." (Divine Principle,
"Christology," p. 215) This Word means the Logos or natural law. To put it concretely,
Logos is the combination of reason and law (principles), which in the Unification
Principle is called the "Polarity of Logos."
In the meantime, since God, as the subject of Logos, contains dual essentialities within
Himself, Logos, as His object, should also contain dual essentialities. (Ibid., p. 215)
Namely, Logos has the polarities of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity and
negativity. Then what are the concrete contents of the polarity of the Logos? Its Sung
Sang is reason and its Hyung Sang is law (principles). The unified body created through
the action of give-and-take between the Sung Sang (Inner Sung Sang) and the Hyung
Sang (Inner Hyung Sang) is Logos.
In the creation of the universe, the Logos performs give-and-take action with the
material element (Original Hyung Sang), centering on Heart, and reveals both positive
and negative aspects. This fact means that the Logos itself has both positivity and
negativity.
There is another aspect of Divinity called "Creativity." It was because of this Creativity
that the Original Being could create all the existing beings. The fact that man, as a
created existing being, has the abilities of invention, discovery, manufacture, and
initiative means that he was given these abilities by God.
God created man so that man could reach his perfection only by accomplishing his
portion of responsibility. (Ibid., p. 55)
Creativity can be considered as nothing more than the ability to produce a new thing,
and in this sense every creature has creativity. Take for example, the procreative power
of animals and plants. However, man's Creativity is quite different from the autonomous
fertility of plants and instinctive procreation of animals, because the God-like Creativity
which God gave to man is a rational ability of Creativity, centered on Heart. Because he
has a physical body, man of course possesses instinctive creativity as well as God's
Creativity, but his ability to produce goods, originate new plans or projects comes from
God's Creativity.
2. The Structure Of The Original Image
What is the structure of the Original Image? As mentioned before, the various elements
of the Original Image are not separate, but rather are closely connected with each other
in a certain order, and they are in a definite structural relationship. [Note: Here structure
does not have the same meaning as if we were talking about the structure of a machine
which is composed of parts (such as a watch). God is unique and transcendent and
outside of space and time. Therefore, although God's attributes are many, they form
one unity and are always present. God is not a composite. This may be compared to a
wound up film whose attributes (people, events, and other things) form a unity (unified
body) in the wound up film, and transcend time and space. When the film is shown on
the screen, however, the persons and events develop within the order of time and
space. The attributes of the Original Being are not like the parts of a composite.
However, we can not but express those attributes in an analytical method just to though
we were analyzing a composite, because all the words with which we have to explain
the attributes of the Original Being, have been formed in history in order to express the
phenomena occurring in time and space in the composite world.]
a. The Formation of the Four Position Base Centering on Heart
In a word, the structure of the Original Image is a quadruple system. As mentioned
above, the Sung Sang and the Hyung Sang of the Original Image (Divine Image in the
broad sense form a union through the harmonious action of give-and-take. The
attributes of the Original Image (God) interact with one another. The action of give-and-
take necessarily requires a center, and the center of the action within the Original Image
is Heart. Thus four factors called Heart, Sung Sang, Hyung Sang, and Union form four
positions and have a definite order. Namely they make a structure composed of these
four positions, the "Four Position Base" (Quadruple Base). [Note: The concept of the
Four Position Base in the Unification Principle is explained concisely in the following:
"When, according to O-D-U [OriginDivision-Union] action, the origin is divided into two
substantial objects, they assume the roles of subject and object respectively, and finally
unite into one body. Thus three objective positions are fulfilled. Since these three
objective positions are centered on the origin, four respective positions are formed
altogether. This creates "the four position foundation" [Four Position Base]. (Ibid., p. 32)
The Quadruple Base means the base composed of one origin [thesis], two divided
substantial objects [division] , and one union [synthesis]. The origin here means God, or
more concretely, God's Heart and Purpose; the two divided substantial objects are the
Sung Sang (subject) and Hyung Sang (object); and the union means the union or new
life. Figure 1 illustrates this.]
In the action of give-and-take, Sung Sang is always subject and Hyung Sang is object.
Sung Sang is mind, and Hyung Sang is both matter and Universal Prime Energy. To put
it more concretely, mind, which contains ideas and principles, means the functions of
intellect, emotion and will. In other words, mind consists of definite functions, ideas and
principles (laws).

Fig. I Quadruple Base (Outer)

(i) Inner Quadruple Base
As already mentioned, there is another level of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in the Sung
Sang (Original Sung Sang) itself. These are the functions of intellect, emotion and will
(Sung Sang parts), and ideas, concepts and principles (Hyung Sang parts). Accordingly,
intellect, emotion and will are the subject part of the mind, while ideas, concepts and
principles are the object part of the mind. For example, we always experience that there
are both thinking and thought parts in the human mind. The mind always thinks of
something such as past experiences, ideas, concepts, or future plans. This is due to the
fact that these two elements exist in the mind of the Original Being itself. Here these two
elements are referred to as the Inner Sung Sang and the Inner Hyung Sang. Since
Sung Sang and Hyung Sang perform the action of give-and take, this Inner Sung Sang
and Inner Hyung Sang perform the action of give-and-take centering on Heart and form
the union which is the Quadruple Base composed of four parts appears (See Fig. 2).
This is called the "Inner Quadruple Base."
(ii) Outer Quadruple Base
Figure 1 shows that the Inner Quadruple Base formed within the Original Sung Sang
(subject element) itself, does, as the subject factor, form another Quadruple Base
through its action of give-and-take with the Original Hyung Sang (object element). We
call this larger Quadruple Base the "Outer Quadruple Base." It is therefore possible for
us to understand that there are two kinds of Quadruple Bases Inner and Outer
Quadruples in the structure of the Original Image.

Fig. 2 Inner Quadruple Base

Here, I will explain about the Hyung Sang of the Original Being. Hyung Sang (Original
Hyung Sang) is regarded as the ultimate cause of the material aspect of all the existing
beings. According to the Principle of Creation, all creatures (man, animals, plants,
molecules, atoms, etc.) even though their dimensions are different, consist of an
invisible Sung Sang part equivalent to mind, and a visible Hyung Sang part equivalent
to body (matter).
This ultimate being must be the First Cause of all beings, containing the absolute and
subjective character and form. This First Cause of our existing world we call God. We
call God's subjective character and form His "essential character" and "essential form."
(Ibid., pp. 23-24)
This Hyung Sang of the beings means matter or material and can be thought of as
equivalent to the philosophical term "hyle."
Shape and structure are, of course, contained in the Hyung Sang. But here this Hyung
Sang is ontologically regarded as the hyle, for from ancient times, the concepts of hyle
and eidos have been the main objects (problems) of philosophy. However, there is no
way to clarify the true character of hyle philosophically. We can only look forward to
further scientific research. The current view is that it is a certain energy which exists in
both particle and wave form. The Unification Principle does not clarify whether the
energy of the force in the Original Being is the same energy as that which is analyzed in
physics as having the properties of particles or waves. However, the Principle does say
that the force is the basic power which causes all creatures to exist. It is called the
Universal Prime Force. Even without Einstein's energy formula, E=mc2, we can perceive
that power acts in every existing being. This self-existing absolute Universal Prime
Force is the very force of the Original Being (God).
Which element of the quadruple of the Original Image this force belongs to is a moot
question. As a matter of course, it should belong to the Hyung Sang, because the
Universal Prime Force can be regarded as force which is not yet determined. Of course,
it should be argued that the Universal Prime Force which causes creatures to exist
should have a direction, and for that reason the Universal Prime Force could be looked
upon as determined. But, as mentioned before, (looking at it analytically for more
convenient understanding) the Universal Prime Force, which has direction, was
originally undetermined; but through the action of give-and-take with the Sung Sang
element, centered on purpose, it became a union having direction.
(iii) The Inner Structure of the Hyung Sang
Now, let me give a more concrete explanation of the Hyung Sang. I feel it necessary to
distinguish between the viewpoint of the Unification Principle and the traditional concept
of matter. The traditional concept viewed matter as undetermined, pure matter. But
though such a view of matter may seem presumptive, actually such matter can not
exist. The Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in the Original Being are not completely
disparate. In other words, mind and matter are not essentially disparate, but rather have
common elements in the world of ultimate cause. Their difference in the Original Being
is not one of nature, but one of concentration, since God is the God of oneness. We can
judge this from the fact that mind is conscious of matter, and matter is responsive to
mind. For example, nerves and muscles which are matter are moved by mind.
Therefore, the Divine Principle regards Hyung Sang as the second Sung Sang, and
says that:
This indicates that materials have certain elements through which they can respond to
man's intellect, emotion, and will. Such elements form the internal character of matter,
so that every creation is able to respond to human intellect, emotion, and will, though
the degree of response may vary. (Ibid., pp. 37-38)
Even if the hyle (Hyung Sang) of the Original Image is something which exists both as a
particle and wave, it can not be just a pure particle nor just a pure wave, but it is sure to
have direction and law. Direction and law are a kind of Sung Sang. Therefore hyle itself
is a union. Analyzing it for convenience, hyle is the union formed through the interaction
of its own Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, centering on a definite purpose. Figure 3
illustrates the inner structure of the Hyung Sang (Original Hyung Sang).
Since this structure is also an inner one, it may be regarded as a kind of inner quadruple
base. However, this name is apt to be confused with the Inner Quadruple Base
mentioned before, and because it is not essential in order to explain about the existence
of being, the inner structure of the Hyung Sang is not called an inner quadruple base. If
a name is needed, it may be called the quadruple within the Hyung Sung.

Fig. 3 Inner Structure of the Hyung Sang

(iv) The Identity-Maintaining (Static) Quadruple Base, and the Developing
(Dynamic) Quadruple Base
Now I touch upon the identity-maintenance and the development of the form of the
Original Image's structure. The structure of the Original Image has both the tendency to
sustain its self-identity and also to develop to a higher stage. In other words, the
Original Being both remains as the union of its attributes, and also creates new beings.
The creativity of God means that on one hand God maintains His self-existence, and on
the other hand that He creates new things. Dealing with this in view of the structure of
the Original Image, there are two kinds of Quadruple Bases, an unchanging, "Identity-
Maintaining Base" and a changing, "Developing Quadruple Base." Taking for example a
family, when a man and woman become husband and wife, their conjugal unity lasts
throughout their lives. That is, the Quadruple Base composed of the four elements --
purpose, man, woman, and conjugal union (purpose, subject, object, and union) is
unchangeable and maintains its self-identity throughout their lives. At the same time, the
married couple produces children who are quite different from their parents and who
form new generations. Accordingly, the quadruple composed of these elements --
purpose, man, woman, and children (purpose, subject, object, and multiplied body) is
developmental and dynamic. The reason that both aspects are present in all the
Quadruple Bases in the creation is that both aspects exist in the structure of the Original
Being. To put it concretely, in the structure of the Original Image, there is both an
identity-maintaining, unchanging, static Quadruple Base, and a developing, changing,
dynamic one. The former is the Identity-Maintaining (Static) Quadruple Base and the
latter is the Developing (Dynamic) Quadruple Base. Then what is the concrete function
of these Quadruple Bases? Let me put it this way. In the first place, the Identity-
Maintaining Quadruple, whether an Inner or Outer Quadruple of the Original Image,
maintains the unity. The Inner Quadruple maintains the Sung Sang (Original Sung
Sang) itself through give-and-take action between the Inner Sung Sang and the Inner
Hyung Sang, and the quadruple formed by the union of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang
through the give-and-take action is the Outer Quadruple. (See Fig. 1)
God contains within Himself dual essentialities which exist forever. Through Universal
Prime Energy, these two form a mutual or reciprocal relationship which develops into an
eternal give and take action. The energy produced through this process is the force of
give and take action. Through this force, God's dual essentialities establish a reciprocal
base. Ibis results in the "foundation of existence" upon which God, Himself, exists
forever. (Ibid., p. 28)
This refers to the Identity-Maintaining Quadruple. Because the Original Image has this
identity-maintaining aspect, every creation always tends to maintain a definite shape
and character.
In the second place, let me touch on the Developing Quadruple. The Principle of
Creation reads,
When, through Universal Prime Energy, the dual essentialities of God enter into give
and take action by forming a reciprocal relationship, the force of give and take action
causes multiplication. This action causes the dual essentialities to separate into two
substantial objects centered upon God. (Ibid., p. 31)
This means that, through this interaction, God's Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, His
attributes, create all beings, His objects. When the two aspects (Sung Sang and Hyung
Sang) of the Original Image perform the give-and-take action, they form not only the
union, but in the same action they also form the multiplied bodies. They give rise to
multiplication even though they are performing the same action. In other words, in the
latter, the action is not identity-maintaining and conserving, but generating; not
completing but developing; not stabilizing but transferring; not remaining but changing.
This kind of quadruple is called the Developing Dynamic Quadruple Base. (See Figure
4)
Fig. 4 Developing Quadruple Base (Outer)
Then why did different results come from the same structural elements of the
quadruple? Because Heart, the center of the interaction, has purpose. Since the
Original Being is self-existing, it is inevitable that it acts to sustain itself. For this reason,
the Identity-Maintaining Quadruple, centering on Heart alone, came into existence. This
phase is the stage wherein Heart does not yet pursue purpose. Yet, since Heart is
God's fundamental attribute and Heart must pursue its goal in order to realize its
purpose, this purpose factor acts upon the Identity-Maintaining Quadruple which then
becomes developmental and dynamic, bringing about new beings. The Divine Principle
indicates that the give-and-take action occurs centering on Heart as follows:
Seen from this aspect, the universe is the substantial manifestation of the invisible God,
occurring through the give and take action between His essential character and form,
centered on the purpose of creation. (Ibid., p. 40)
This developing and dynamic base is actually the Outer Quadruple, or the "Outer
Developing Quadruple." However, not only the Outer Quadruple but also the Inner
Quadruple is developing. Therefore, the Outer Developing Quadruple is formed, based
on the "Inner Developing Quadruple."
(v) The Inner Structure of the Logos (the Inner Developing Quadruple)
What is the Inner Developing Quadruple? This is the quadruple which forms the inner
structure of the Logos namely the quadruple which gives rise to principle and law or
Word.
As mentioned above, though the Logos is one of the Divine natures, it is God's object,
and the Logos itself has polarity, just as the Original Image does. This means that the
Logos has a quadruple structure, which is an inner one. In other words, the shape of the
inner structure of the Logos is the same as the inner structure of the Sung Sang, mind
(Inner Quadruple). The only difference is that the former is developing and dynamic
while the latter is identity maintaining and static. Logos is the created being brought
about by the developing movement of the Inner Quadruple. Then, why did the Inner
Quadruple develop? It developed because the purpose factor acted upon it. As the
Heart inclined to realize its purpose, the Inner Sung Sang and Inner Hyung Sang
interacted to fulfill that purpose, and as a result the Logos appeared as the object
attribute of the Original Being. Let me give a more concrete explanation. The Inner
Sung Sang, the function of intellect, emotion and will, and the Inner Hyung Sang, ideas
(concepts) and principles (laws), gave rise to the multiplied body (new life) through their
give-and-take action centering on purpose (the purpose of creation). That is, they gave
rise to the Logos. In this give-and-take action, reason in the Inner Sung Sang and law in
the Inner Hyung Sang may be understood as playing the main role to fulfill the purpose.
Accordingly, the Logos is neither simple reason nor simple law. When we say that the
universe was created by the Logos, if the Logos is regarded as reason alone, then there
is no explanation for the laws which act upon the creation. And if the Logos is looked
upon as law only, then there is no explanation for the intellectual aspects of things, such
as the structure and shape of existing beings, or the purposeful function of living beings.
This is why the Logos should be regarded as the union (synthesis) of the polarity of
reason and law. This inner structure of the Logos is the inner structure of the Original
Sung Sang in creation. It is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
This is how God created the whole universe with the Logos. This two-stage Developing
Quadruple is called the two stage structure of creation. As the Original Image's Sung
Sang has such a structure, man, who is a created being, also forms a two-staged
structure in the creative process, thus taking after the creative structure of the Original
Being. In inventing or producing anything, the thinking (Inner Developing Quadruple)
precedes the manufacturing (Outer Developing Quadruple).
b. The Chung-Boon-Hap Action or the Origin (Thesis)-Division-Union (Synthesis)
Action
As already mentioned, since the world of the Original Being (God) is outside of time and
space, the Original Image (God 's attributes) has no spatial structure, but rather all its
attributes are completely united. However, to clarify the content of the Original Image,
an analysis using the concepts of time and space becomes inevitable. This is because
language itself, the means of expressing the truth, was developed and formed in the
world of time and space. It is composed of concepts which connote the facts of time and
space. The above mentioned concept of the quadruple is dealt with in terms which
particularly imply the spatial aspect of reality. But space can not be understood
separated from time. Therefore it is also possible for us to understand the Original
Image from the aspect of time.
Fig. 6 Outer Developing Quadruple Base
The action of Chung-Boon-Hap (C-B-H) (Origin-Division-Union) deals with the Original
Image in relation to the time spectrum. In other words, the quadruple is the concept
which deals with the factors of the structure, whereas the action of Origin-Division-Union
is the concept which deals with the formation process of that structure. After all, the
structure of the Original Image is composed of four factors, and it is completed through
a process of three stages. According to the Principle of Creation, every creature has to
grow through the three stages of Formation, Growth, and Perfection, for the Original
Being is based on the number three. Then why is the Original Being based on the
number three? It is because "God is the absolute reality, the existing neutral center of
the two essentialities; therefore, He is the reality of the number 'three'." (Ibid., p. 53)
This means that the Original Being has three stages the absolute, the relative, and the
united (synthesized). These three stages in the Original Being are nothing other than
the action of Chung-Boon-Hap (Origin-Division-Union or Thesis-Division-Synthesis).
An actual lapse of time exists only in the created universe. Therefore it would seem that
the action of Chung-Boon-Hap can exist only in the creation. But since the created
world is a result, there should be, in the world of the Original Being (God), an ultimate
cause of these resultant phenomena.
In this manner, God, as the origin is divided into two separated substances, after which
these two again unite to form one body. We call this process "origin-division-union
(Chung-Boon-Hap) Action." (Ibid., p. 31)
Accordingly, the prototype of the action of Chung-Boon-Hap, that is to say the three
stages which are called the absolute, the relative, and the synthesized (united),
necessarily exist in the world of the Original Being. The Chung (Origin) of Chung-Boon-
Hap occurring in the created world is equivalent to the Absolute in the Original Being
(exactly speaking, the Heart or Purpose of God), the Boon (Division) to the relative
polarity, and the Hap (Union) to the synthesis (united stage).
Thus, judging from the time perspective, the formation of the quadruple of the Original
Being is the action of Chung-Boon-Hap. It is the process which completes a harmonious
figure through the give-and-take action of polarity, centering on Heart. Consequently,
this action of Chung-Boon-Hap necessarily has a stage of completion or conclusion.
From the spatial perspective, this completion is the Identity-Maintaining (Static)
Quadruple. Accordingly, this action of Origin-Division-Union is an Identity-Maintaining
(Static) one, and, as in the quadruple, there are also inner and outer actions. That is to
say, we know there are actions of Chung-Boon-Hap equivalent to the quadruples shown
in Figures 1 and 2, and this indicates the self-existence of the Original Being. All
creatures maintain a definite shape due to the fact that they take after the Identity-
Maintaining Quadruple which is formed by the completed Chung-Boon-Hap action of the
Original Being. Yet every existing being in the created world not only maintains its
definite shape but also incessantly changes and develops toward a new being. These
phenomena are particularly noticeable in men, animals and plants. Therefore, the
prototype of these phenomena should exist in the world of the Original Being. This
prototype is the Developing Quadruple Base, namely the Quadruple Base for creation.
As mentioned above, the purpose factor works in the formation of the Quadruple Base.
From the time perspective, this formation of the Quadruple Base is also the action of
Chung-Boon-Hap (C-B-H action), so this C-B-H action is not a completed one, but
rather a developing one. Since the developing Chung-Boon-Hap action exists in the
structure of the Original Image, with this as a prototype (cause), the created world has
developing and multiplying phenomena. The Principle of Creation reads:
... multiplication occurs through the O-D-U [C-B-H] action caused by the action of give
and take. Seen from this aspect, the universe is the substantial manifestation of the
invisible God occurring through the give and take action between His essential
character and form, centered on the purpose of creation. (Ibid., p. 40)
The Chung-Boon-Hap action can be illustrated as in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 Completed C-B-H action & Developing C-B-H action
But we should pay attention to the fact that in the created world the purpose factor acts
even upon the completed C-B-H action. In the Original Image, the completed C-B-H
action forms the Identity-Maintaining Quadruple as the self-existing form of the Original
Being, so there is no purpose to it. But there should be a purpose to every created
being, in spite of the C-B-H action having been completed. This is because, even
though a being exists for its own maintenance of identity or self-preservation, every
being came into existence in the created world by God's purpose of creation. This is the
purpose for the individual. It is impossible to fulfill the purpose of creation without
preserving the self-identity. Unless both man and nature maintain their individuality,
nature can not be man's substantial object, nor can man be God's substantial object.
Therefore to realize the purpose of creation, one's self-identity must necessarily be
maintained. Accordingly the completed C-B-H action must occur with a purpose as its
center. We should note that in the Original Being the completed C-B-H action occurs
centering on the static Heart which does not pursue the object of the purpose, but in the
general existing being, this same C-B-H action occurs centering on the purposes of
creation (purpose for the individual and purpose for the whole).
Every being has a dual purpose.... Therefore, there cannot be any purpose of the
individual apart from the purpose of the whole, nor any purpose of the whole that does
not include the purpose of the individual. All the creatures in the entire universe form a
vast complex linked together by these dual purposes. (Ibid., pp. 41-42)
This means that there are no existing beings which do not have a definite purpose. We
call these "individual truth bodies" (existing beings).
Also, each individual truth incarnation [individual truth body] is a substantial object of
God; therefore, each not only reflects God's dual essentialities of character [Sung Sang]
and form [Hyung Sang] in the individual self, but each also has within itself the dual
essentialities of positivity and negativity. (Ibid., p. 26)
In view of this statement it can now be seen that every existing being exists because of
the completed C-B-H action, centering on purpose.
c. The Structural Unity of the Original Image
As mentioned above, when we explain the structure of the Original Being within the
concepts of time and space, it becomes clear that the Original Image has both Inner
and Outer, and Identity-Maintaining and Developing Quadruples as well as the C-B-H
action. Here I emphasize that these types of structures are not separate and different
but rather are united with each other. Since the world of the Original Image is outside of
time and space, there can not be an inside and outside, nor position and process. There
is no difference between the infinite and the infinitesimal, nor between eternity and the
moment. The inside, middle or outside are the same as are the past, present or future,
and also the large, medium or small. The infinite here and the eternal now are the
essence of the world of the Original Being.
Even though it is not definitely stated in the Unification Principle, we can understand
that there is a world beyond time and space from biblical sayings such as: "Do you not
believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?" John 14: 10) and "Truly, truly, I
say to you, before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58) Also, according to the teacher of the
Divine Principle, "The mystery of the universe is contained in a cell." and "Even if a star
be thousands of light years away, at the moment that we think of it, our bodies [spirit
body] exist there simultaneously in the spirit world."
Thus there is neither place nor distance, nor priority nor posteriority in the world of the
Original Image. Frankly speaking, it is not appropriate to use the expression "world"
itself. So the four positions in the quadruple are actually one position, and the three
stages of the C-B-H action are one stage. That is to say, Heart, Sung Sang, Hyung
Sang, and the Union are one, and both division and unity are contained in the Origin;
and quiescence and movement, identity maintenance and development are all one. In
other words, there is quiescence in movement, and there is movement within
quiescence; identity-maintenance within development, development within identity-
maintenance; the Inner Quadruple exists within the Outer one, and the Outer Quadruple
exists within the Inner one, etc. Thus the attributes of the Original Being are completely
united and harmonious.
So the entire existing world is penetrated by one principle and the whole universe has
unity and harmony as an organic body. For that reason, all the existing beings from
heavenly bodies to atoms are connected with each other, have order, and exist in the
polarities of mind and body, inner character and outer form, life and organic body,
essence and phenomena, and time and space; and yet all those relative factors are
united. To understand the Original Image exactly, it was inevitable that we use the
concepts of space and time; but in spite of that, the Original Being should not be
thought of as a composite being, but rather as unique and absolute with completely
united and harmonious attributes.
Chapter II - Ontology Based on the Unification Principle (Part 3)
Section D - The Being Image of Existing Beings (part 1)
Now let me explain the being image of the existing beings. It is obvious that all beings
would have some image since they are created by the Original Being (God) who has
the Original Image. But what can we call the existing beings with such images? In the
Unification Principle, all the existing beings are called individual truth bodies and
"connected bodies." Since the Original Image is cause and the created beings are
result, they must be dealt with in relation to the Original Image. This is why every
existing being is called an individual truth body and a connected body. The former
concept (individual truth body) is derived from the formation of the Inner Quadruple
Base and the latter concept is derived from the formation of the Outer Quadruple
Base of the Original Being.
1. Individual Truth Body
Since every existing being, according to the Law of Resemblance, is created
reflecting the Divine Image (in the narrow sense), each being is identity-maintaining
in the same aspects as the Divine Image. As already mentioned, there are both
Individual and Universal Images in the Divine Image. The Universal Image means the
two relative polarities of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity and negativity
while the Individual Image means the individual, and proper characteristics of each
being. The differences among animals, plants and minerals originate from the
differences among the Individual Images. The various animals named horse, cow,
dog, hen and the like are due to the different Individual Images in the world of the
Original Image. Let me explain more concretely about Universal and Individual
Images.
a. Universal Image
(i) Sung Sang and Hyung Sang
All existing beings have both the aspects of function and character and the aspects of
matter (hyle), structure and shape. Of these, function and character are invisible,
while matter, structure and shape are visible. The invisible part is referred to as Sung
Sang, whereas the visible part is referred to as Hyung Sang. For example, in a
mineral, the physicochemical nature of the inorganic matter is the Sung Sang, while
the structure of the molecules and atoms, the material shape created by the inorganic
matter, corresponds to the Hyung Sang; in a plant, its life and unique characteristics
are its Sung Sang, whereas its cells, systems structure, and shape are its Hyung
Sang; in an animal, its life, instinct, and the function of its cells, tissues, and organs
are the Sung Sang, while the shape made up by those cells, tissues (muscle,
skeletal, nerve, and skin), and organs is the Hyung Sang; finally for man, life, the
physical mind, the spirit man, spiritual mind, and the specific functions of cells, in
addition to the kind of Sung Sang found in animals, correspond to his Sung Sang,
whereas his physical body composed of the cells, tissues and organs are equal to his
Hyung Sang.
As the above explanation points out, the Sung Sang of a plant consists of both
function and life plus the Sung Sang of a mineral; the Sung Sang of an animal is
composed of instinct in addition to the Sung Sang of a plant; and man's Sung Sang
consists of the spiritual mind in addition to the Sung Sang of an animal. There is a
similar progression in the Hyung Sang
aspect. In other words, a plant's Hyung Sang is composed of structure and shape in
addition to a mineral's Hyung Sang; an animal's Hyung Sang consists of organs and
nerves in addition to a plant's Hyung Sang; and finally man's Hyung Sang is
composed of the spirit body and the spiritual organs in addition to an animal's Hyung
Sang. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 8. We can understand through this
diagram that the stepped increase of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in both quality
and quantity is proportional to the level of the existing being. Thus it can be seen that
the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang of man, who is in the highest position, contain all the
Sung Sang and Hyung Sang elements of the mineral, vegetable, and animal
kingdoms. All this is a systematization of the following part of the Principle of
Creation:
Likewise, the things of all creation, though they may vary in dimension, have an
invisible internal character which corresponds to the mind; since this is the cause and
subject, it manipulates the external form which corresponds to the human body. This
relationship between mind and body enables the individual creation to maintain its
existence as a being with a certain purpose. Animals have an aspect which
corresponds to the human mind; since this is the subject and cause which directs
toward a certain purpose, the animal body is able to live according to the purpose of
its individual being. A plant also has an internal character which enables it to maintain
its organic function.
Men can be united because the mind is a common factor in every person. Similarly,
positive and negative ions are united to form a certain material because within each
ion there are aspects of both internal character and external form which tend to unite,
thus forming a molecule. Again, when an electron revolves around a proton to form
an atom, it is because each contains an aspect of "character" that directs it toward
the purpose of constructing an atom. (Ibid., p. 23)
Before creating man, God made all things in the image and likeness of man's
character and form. Therefore, man is the encapsulation of all things. (Ibid., p. 44)
 Fig. 8. Stepped Structure of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in Existing Beings
Therefore, man contains the structure, elements and essential qualities of animals ...
plant ... and mineral. (Ibid., pp. 44-45) [Note: We should, however, take note that in
spite of this, it is not true to say that man was created based on the attributes of
animals. From the evolutionary standpoint, man appears to have been made by the
addition of some more attributes to those of animals. But in creation, on the contrary,
". . . God made all things in the image and likeness of man's character and form."
(Ibid., p. 44) In creating man from dust, God in no way made him by making an
animal, rather man was originally created as man. Even though my previous
explanation made it appear as if upper level beings were made by adding some new
factors to lower level beings, (See "Individual Image") I only used this method of
expression to help the reader understand the concept more easily.]
At this point it should be made clear that there are three kinds of concepts of Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang. That is to say, when man is regarded as the composite of the
whole universe, when he is considered as a simple possessor of mind and body, and
when he is considered to be a being of duality, both physical and spiritual. Each time
the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang are regarded as quite different.
In the first view of man, which sees him as the composite of the whole universe, his
Sung Sang refers to the composite of the mineral Sung Sang (physicochemical
nature), the life factor in plants, the instinct of animals, and the human mind
(including the spiritual mind); and his Hyung Sang refers to the composite of all the
outer elements of atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, and nerves.
In the second view of man, which sees him as a simple possessor of mind and body,
the mind and life alone are his Sung Sang, and the physicochemical quality, for
example, with the other outer elements belongs to his Hyung Sang.
In the third view, which sees man as a being of duality, both spiritual and physical,
the spirit man is the Sung Sang and all the physical aspects belong to his Hyung
Sang. Accordingly, in this case, the spiritual mind is Sung Sang, whereas the
physical mind belongs to Hyung Sang.
Now let me make one more remark on the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang of spirit men.
The spirit man is connected with flesh, but when we look at it alone, it belongs to the
spiritual world. Since the spirit man can not live alone on earth, it is hard to regard it
as a man in the ordinary meaning of the word; however, it is surely a man when it
reaches the spirit world. (For a long time the soul has been considered only as mind
which is separated from the physical body, but the Unification Principle considers the
soul to be the spirit man.) This spirit man itself is an individual truth body with both
Sung Sang and Hyung Sang attributes. The spirit mind is its Sung Sang, whereas the
spirit body is its Hyung Sang. Consequently, including this one, there are four kinds
of concepts of the human Sung Sang and Hyung Sang.
There are also different concepts of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in all other existing
beings. We can know this because the existing beings in higher positions are
considered as composites of the factors of the beings in the lower positions. Plants
contain minerals, animals contain the elements of plants and minerals, and man
contains the elements of animals, plants, and minerals. Exactly speaking, the higher
position contains the Sung Sang aspects and Hyung Sang aspects of all the beings
of the lower positions. Generally, however, people understand that the existing being
is at a definite stage of evolution, and thus has distinctive qualities, namely the
specific differences. In Unification Thought the specific difference of the Sung Sang
of the lower position is included in the total Hyung Sang of the upper position.
Accordingly, Sung Sang and Hyung Sang are dealt with not as a stepped structure,
but as a horizontal structure. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 9.
(ii) Positivity and Negativity
Here positivity and negativity, the other relative elements of the Universal Image, are
discussed. As mentioned in the section on the Original Image, positivity and
negativity are attributes of the Original Being, and they are direct attributes of Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang. This means that both Sung Sang and Hyung Sang have
positivity and negativity as their attributes. For example, there are positive and
negative aspects to the mind, the Sung Sang. Positive, active and creative will;
bright, delightful and joyful feelings; and bright, clear and abundant concepts and
good memory within the intellect, all belong to the positive aspect of the Sung Sang.
Negative, passive, and conservative will; melancholy, unpleasant and sad feelings;
and stupid, ambiguous, bewildered and absent-minded intellect belong to the
negative aspect of the Sung Sang.
 Fig. 9. Structure of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in Existing Beings
Likewise, in the body, the Hyung Sang of man, there are both positive and negative
aspects. Standing, jutting or convex parts of the body such as the bridge of the nose,
the arm, leg, finger, toe, and masculine genitals are the positive aspect, while the
sunken or concave parts of the body such as the nostril, ear hole, feminine genitals,
etc. are its negative aspect.
Generally, there is not a clear view of the difference between man and masculinity,
and between woman and femininity, but in Unification Thought these differences are
clearly distinguished. There are two kinds of human beings, man and woman, and
both kinds of people have both the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity and
negativity, which are the attributes of the Original Being. The difference between man
and woman is that man has some additional positive elements unique to man that
woman does not have. Likewise, woman has some additional negative elements
unique to woman that man does not have. The other positive and negative elements
of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang mentioned above are all common to both man
and woman. However, it is more essential that both men and women are human
beings with Sung Sang and Hyung Sang than that they are sexual beings with
masculinity or femininity. It should not be overlooked that positivity and negativity are
the attributes of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. According to the Principle of
Creation,
What is the relationship between the dual characteristics of character and form and
the dual characteristics of positivity and negativity? Fundamentally, God's essential
character and His essential form assume a reciprocal relationship with His 11
essential positivity" and "essential negativity." Therefore, God's essential positivity
and essential negativity are the attributes of His essential character and essential
form. (Ibid., p. 24)
Positivity and negativity can be considered as the attributes of the Sung Sang and
Hyung Sang in both the static, identity-maintaining dimension, and also the dynamic,
developing dimension.
As already mentioned in the section on the structure of the Original Image, the Sung
Sang and the Hyung Sang maintain their identity by forming Static, Identity-
Maintaining Quadruples centering on Heart, and they develop and multiply through
the Dynamic and Developing Quadruples centering on Purpose. How do positivity
and negativity function as the attributes of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in the
formation of the Static, Identity-Maintaining Quadruple? As already mentioned, the
Static, Identity Maintaining Quadruple is the one which maintains the self-identity; it is
the quadruple which allows the individual truth body to remain the same over a period
of time. For example, congenitally each man has a unique and particular mind, body
and individuality. These are his unique aspects of positivity and negativity within his
mind and body. The reciprocal relationship of each one's inherent elements is
unchangeable throughout his whole existence. The mind and body of A can never
change to the mind and body of B. This shows that positivity and negativity play the
role of the attributes of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in the formation of the
Identity-Maintaining Quadruple. Therefore, precisely speaking, the Sung Sang and
Hyung Sang can not form the Quadruple Base by themselves. The base is
necessarily regulated by positivity and negativity, too. In this way the individual truth
body with an Individual Image of the Original Being is formed. In this term, "Individual
truth body", individual refers to the Individual Image and truth refers to the Universal
Image (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity).
Next, what is the Dynamic Quadruple Base? The Dynamic Quadruple indicates
development and multiplication. It is the Quadruple Base which deals with the
changing, multiplying, and developing aspects of the structure, beyond the identity-
maintaining aspect of the individual truth body. For example, man comes under
environmental influences a posteriori. First, when a man comes into being, he is
influenced by his family centering on his parents. His family may be of a positive or
negative character. In addition, there are positive and negative aspects in the various
environmental factors, such as food, weather, time (morning, noon, night, etc.),
seasons (spring, summer, autumn and winter), places of residence (seashore,
country, mountains, stream or riverside), education, ideas, etc. Moreover, all of these
environmental elements are changing incessantly. It is obvious that these changing
elements also influence the mind and body over a period of time; therefore it is
natural that all of these environmental factors act upon the formation of the
Quadruple Base by the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang (Developing Quadruple Base
centering on Purpose). From this standpoint, man, as an individual truth body, is not
a vague abstract being of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, but a concrete being
regulated by many positive and negative factors, both a priori and a posteriori, and he
is the united being of his Identity-Maintaining (Static) and Developing Quadruple
Bases. This occurs because the Original Being itself contains these united attributes.
(iii) Logos and the Harmony between Positivity and Negativity
As already mentioned, the Logos is a new creation of the Inner Developing
Quadruple Base of the Original Image, and because it is multiplied through the give-
and-take action between the Inner Sung Sang and Inner Hyung Sang, positivity and
negativity of course affect its creation. Positive and negative aspects necessarily
exist and remain harmonious in order for the Logos to create and have dominion over
the whole creation.
According to the Gospel of John, Chapter 1:1-5, God created the whole creation with
the Word, Logos. This Word contains the principle of positivity and negativity. If the
Original Being had only Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, there would have been no
creation and much less development. This is because development is a kind of
movement, and there can not even be a visible (created) being without movement.
For the creation to exist, motion is necessary, and not only circular movement in
space, but also developing movement in time. Developing movement means
incessant change toward a definite goal while the self-identity is maintained.
Development can not occur apart from such a change. Growth and the multiplication
of children are nothing other than change. However, as all the elements in the
Original Image are united and harmonious, there should be unity and harmony in the
change. Such unity and harmony in change are incomplete if there is only give-and-
take action between the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang and not between positivity and
negativity. An adequate alternation of changes and pauses in development only
appears by means of the action of positivity and negativity. For example, when a
symphony is played in a concert, each of the wind and string instruments, some of
which are more positive and some more negative, harmonizes completely with the
positivity and negativity of the ensemble; and thus with time the full harmony
develops, involving the long and short notes and the high and low tunes, including
the harmony of the peculiar sounds of the instruments. The phrases unite into
passages, and the passages unify into movements. Such harmony and unity in the
passage of time occur only because of the principle of positivity and negativity.
Therefore, it goes without saying that the more distinguished the symphonies are, the
better the harmony and unity between positivity and negativity. We can understand
therefore, that the principle of positivity and negativity acts during development.
The universe was not only created by the Logos, but has been also developing for
billions of years, and will develop forever by the Logos. This means that there have
been give-and-take actions between positivity and negativity, as well as between
Sung Sang and Hyung Sang; consequently, the Logos for development was already
contained in the Logos for creation. Since the Logos was regulated by the give-and-
take action between positivity and negativity in the development of the universe,
Logos has brought diverse changes. The record of creating the universe in six days
can be regarded as creation by means of the principle of positivity and negativity. So
the development of the universe has been the continuation of a grand symphony that
fulfilled ideal beauty and was made with countless instruments called Sung Sang and
Hyung Sang (each having positive and negative aspects). The symphony continues
today. The harmony and unity of the symphony have been lost only in the history of
man, due to the fall.
Finally, let me touch on the give-and-take action between positivity and negativity.
The give-and-take action between positivity and negativity, as that between Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang, has both static and dynamic aspects. Static give-and-take
action means the horizontal and simultaneous giving and taking which occur
regardless of time, such as conjugal harmony, a mixed chorus, the harmony between
males and females in the animal kingdom, the harmony between mountains and
plains, sea and land, dark and light colors, activity and inactivity and the like.
Accordingly, in these give-and-take actions, the positive elements (husband, man,
male, mountain, land, activity, etc.) and the negative elements (wife, woman, female,
plain, sea, inactivity, etc.) co-exist in creation and perform the give-and-take action.
This is shown in Figure 10.

Fig. 10 Static Give-and-Take Action between Positivity and Negativity

The beauty of all the static artistic works such as painting, architecture, sculpture and
the like is the outcome of the harmony between the static give-and-take actions of
positivity and negativity.
The dynamic give-and-take action refers to the vertical and successive harmony of
positivity and negativity, while the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang bring about change
and multiplication through the formation of the Developing Quadruple Bases. To say
that the Quadruple Base develops means that one aspect changes to another. The
change itself is initiated by Logos, but the actual changing aspects appear through
the give-and-take of positivity and negativity such as high key to low key, strong
sound to weak one, melancholy after delight, night after day, fortune and misfortune,
positive birth (son) and negative birth (daughter) and the like. The germination of a
plant in spring is the positive aspect of its Sung Sang and the descent of the sap into
the roots in autumn is the negative aspect of its Sung Sang. Thus, the dynamic
(developing) give-and-take action between positivity and negativity is vertical and
successive. This is shown in Figure 11. The beauty of all the dynamic artistic works
such as dance, novels, poems, music and the like is the outcome of vertical harmony
between positivity and negativity.
 Fig. 11 Developing Give-and-Take Action between Positivity and Negativity
In the development of the Quadruple Base, the three aspects of Sung Sang and
Hyung Sang, Logos, and positivity and negativity act unitedly. If one of these aspects
does not participate, there is no development; they are thus called the "Three
Motives of Development."
(iv) Subject and Object
I have touched upon the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity and negativity,
all of which are attributes of the Original Being. The relationships between Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang, and between positivity and negativity are those of subject
and object. Sung Sang is the subject of the Hyung Sang, and the Hyung Sang is the
object of the Sung Sang; while the positivity is the subject of the negativity, and
-negativity is the object of the positivity. The Principle of Creation says,
What then is the relationship between internal character and external form? The
invisible internal character is the cause and is in the subjective position, while the
visible external form is the result of the former and stands in an objective position to
it. (Ibid., p. 22)
Accordingly, positivity and negativity also have a reciprocal relationship existing
between internal and external.... subject and object. (Ibid., p. 24)
From the fact that the relationships between Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and
positivity and negativity are those of subject and object, and from the fact that every
individual truth body has the Universal Image (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity
and negativity), we can conclude that every existing being contains both subject and
object elements. Namely, every individual thing necessarily has the two elements
within it, and one is subject and the other is object. The subject takes the center or
upper position, whereas the object revolves around or is below the subject. Because
the positions of subject and object are not the same, the world of existing beings is
ordered.
The Inner Quadruple Base is the outcome of the give-and-take action between the
Inner Sung Sang and Inner Hyung Sang within the Original Sung Sang (subject).
Thus within the concepts of subject and object, there is also this other level of an
inner subject part and inner object part within the subject.
The Outer Quadruple Base is the outcome of the give-and-take action between the
Sung Sang and Hyung Sang in the Original Image. In other words, it is the Quadruple
Base formed through the give-and-take action between the subject and object. The
relationship between positivity and negativity in the Original Image is like this also.
The fact that the Original Image has such a structure means clearly that the individual
truth bodies, existing beings, have the same structure. To put it concretely, the Inner
Quadruple Base can be formed by the inner subject and inner object elements, and
the Outer Quadruple Base is composed of outer subject and outer object elements.
What is the Inner Quadruple Base in the individual truth body, then? It consists of
both the Inner Identity-Maintaining (Static) and Developing (Dynamic) Quadruples.
I previously made it clear that the individual truth body, like the Original Image, is the
union of the Identity-Maintaining and Developing Quadruple Bases. To say that the
individual truth body takes after the Original Image means that it takes after the Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity of the Original Being. Additionally,
the Quadruple Base of the individual truth body takes after the Inner Quadruple Base
of the Original Image, because every existing being is created to have outer
relationships with other beings. In other words every existing being has both the inner
and outer relationships, and in order to exist, the formation of both the Inner and
Outer Quadruple Bases is indispensable. In other words, everything should have
both existing structures. Taking the example of man for instance, the human being,
as an individual truth body, has both inner and outer relationships. The relationships
between mind and body, spirit man and physical man, and the spiritual mind and
physical mind are the inner relationships; and the relationships between family
members, teachers and students, are the outer relationships. For flowers there is the
inner give-and-take between the stamen and pistil (self-pollinating only), and the
outer give-and-take with bees and butterflies. Thus the individual truth body taking
after the Original Image has both inner and outer aspects, namely all existing beings
perform both inner and outer give-and-take actions simultaneously. [Note: When an
individual truth body performs outer give-and-take actions with other beings by
forming an Outer Quadruple Base, the individual truth body is called a connected
body. (This will be clarified later.)]
Through this, it is possible for us to understand that the Quadruple Bases (Identity
Maintaining and Developing) that compose the individual truth body are equivalent to
the Inner Quadruple Bases of the Original Image. Accordingly, we can easily
understand that an Outer Quadruple Base which is formed between one individual
and another individual, such as the familial Quadruple Base, would correspond to the
Outer Quadruple Base of the Original Image. Consequently, one individual is an
individual truth body taking after the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang (or positivity and
negativity) of the Original Being not only from the sense of being a mere creature, but
also from the sense of taking after the Inner Quadruple Base of the Original Image.
(See Figure 12) In short, every individual truth body not only has a subject and object
relationship with other individual truth bodies, but also contains the two elements of
subject and object within itself. These two elements necessarily form an Inner
Quadruple Base by give-and-take action. Thus every individual is actually an
individual truth body.
 Fig. 12 Individual Truth Body, and the Inner and Outer Quadruple Bases
(v) Paired Elements and Opposition
The fact that every existing being has two elements internally and also has
relationships with other beings externally means clearly that the concept of the
individual is relative. That is, an individual not only has relative elements within itself
but is also relative to other individuals externally. Furthermore, every individual exists
as a partial being which composes the whole, and at the same time as a whole being
composed of some partial elements. Thus an individual truth body can also be seen
as a relative body. For example, a molecule is an individual truth body both as a
whole composed of atoms and also as a partial element that adds to the composition
of cells as a whole. Therefore we call the subject and object elements of the
individual truth body paired elements. In other words, every existing being can be
regarded as the union of the paired elements of subject and object.
Since give-and-take action occurs centering on Heart, Purpose or a definite cause,
both the subject and object center on one common element. It has often been
overlooked that there is always a common purpose, motive or cause whenever two
individuals have any relationship. According to the Unification Principle, every give-
and-take action has a center. This center is called God. Here God sometimes means
the God with personality in the broad sense, but in the narrow sense, "God" also
means the Heart, Purpose, aim, cause, motive and so on which concern God's
creation. The fact that this sort of common element is always the center of give-and-
take can be easily understood from the case of the give-and-take between men.
Strictly speaking, the union of man and woman is made centering on the purpose of
creation which causes them to unite, even though they may appear to unite centering
on their own realistic purposes. The common purpose behind the give-and-take
between governments and people is to improve economic life. In the give-and-take
action within nature other than man (animals, plants, minerals, etc.), however, the
common factors between things are not so obvious. But according to the Unification
Principle, there is, and should be a common factor acting as their center. For
example, even though it is matter of course that the male and female sexes in the
animal kingdom breed because of their instinct, in the broad sense, this action
originated from the purpose of creation to preserve individuals through multiplication.
The give-and-take between butterflies or bees and flowers through exchanging
nectar and pollen also has its origin in the common purpose of keeping individuals
preserved. The stamen and pistil have give-and-take based on the common purpose
of bearing fruit. Sodium and chlorine combine into salt because the valence
requirement of each is equal. This equality of the valence requirement originates in
the purpose of the creation of God, and since the Na ion is a positive ion and the C1
ion is a negative ion, they tend to unite with each other. So from this standpoint they
may be seen to have a common purpose. Thus all existing beings (subject and
object) perform the give-and-take action centering on common factors. If there were
opposite or contrary purposes or elements rather than common ones, there would be
repulsion or exclusion rather than give-and-take action. This is why two positive
electrodes exclude or repel one another. Even in human society, any difference of
interest, purpose or duties, etc. between two persons causes them sometimes to be
disharmonious or to quarrel. Through the above-mentioned, it may have been
clarified that paired elements (subject and object) perform give-and-take action
centering on a common purpose or element. This concept of paired elements is of
great importance in investigating the communist view of matter.
As is widely known, communist philosophy, which is based on dialectical materialism,
regards all things (existing beings) as objective beings or as consisting of matter
alone. According to this theory, all things consist of two elements, but these two
elements are not relative (paired) but rather are contradictory. Communism contends
that all things change, move and develop because the two contradictory elements in
an existing being struggle against each other. They maintain that these two elements
need each other on the one hand and repel each other on the other. This need they
call unity and this repulsion they call struggle. Communist philosophers compare the
relationship between any two elements to that between the ruling and ruled classes.
In other words, the classes require each other on the one hand and repel each other
on the other. They consider struggle to be more essential than mutual necessity in
the class society. just as a society is overthrown and replaced by a new one through
struggle, so the relationship between the two elements within anything is one more of
struggle than of mutual necessity, and the movement, change and development of
material are accomplished through this struggle. They call these two elements
opposition or contradiction.
In the communist view, things are not a union of relative (paired) elements (individual
truth bodies), but rather the unity of contradiction and opposition. Now let me
investigate this in detail.
Communist dialectics, which were first advocated by Marx, had their origin in Hegel's
philosophy. Therefore, its concepts of "opposition" and "contradiction" are the same
as Hegel's. According to Hegel's "Theory of Essence" in his Logic, contradiction
means not simple opposition, but sharp opposition completely denying or repelling
the other party. Neither a common purpose nor common elements can be found
between oppositions. Thus, his contradiction is thorough negation.
These concepts have been used by the communists including Marx. Accordingly,
when they call every existing being a "unity of opposition" or "unity of contradiction",
they recognize no common purpose between the two elements. Engels, in his book
Dialectics of Nature, cited many natural phenomena within the realms of dynamics,
biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics and astronomy as being the unity of
opposition or of contradiction. However, after a close examination of his theory, it
becomes obvious that he made a big mistake, because he applied the concept of
opposition or contradiction to all correlative or unified phenomena and mere
differences among natural things.
Dialectics of Nature reads,
... so-called objective dialectics rules over all nature, ... every chemical process
involves attraction and repulsion.... meanwhile all the progress to man has been
made through the incessant struggle between heredity and adaptation. (Dialectics of
Nature, lwanami Library Vol. 11, p. 56)
He regards all relative phenomena as opposite and contradictory. For example, he
says,
When a magnet is cut in two, its neutral middle part becomes polarized maintaining
the relationship of the previous poles; moreover, if an earth worm is cut in two, it
maintains the in-taking organ at the positive pole, and makes a new negative pole,
having the anus on the negative pole, but the previous negative (anus) changes to
the positive pole, and becomes the in-taking organ (mouth), and a new excretory
organ (new negative pole) is made in the cut part. (Ibid., p. 66)
He says that the same opposition or contradiction as before is maintained after
cutting a magnet or an earthworm in half. Is this true? The positive and negative
poles in a magnet do not exist for the purpose of repulsion or exclusion but rather for
unity, just as the mouth and the anus of an earthworm do not exist to repel each
other but rather have the common purpose of keeping an individual alive through
taking in nutrition and excreting digested food. He says, "In chemistry, analysis is the
main form of study, but without its opposite pole (synthesis) chemistry is nothing."
(Ibid., p. 78) This means that the methods of analysis and synthesis are opposites
and thus chemistry can not exist without the opposition or contradiction of analysis
and synthesis. But are analysis and synthesis contradictory? No, they are never
contradictory. They are only relative methods being used together in order to acquire
perfect knowledge. In other words they are not in a repelling and negative relation,
but rather in a coordinated and affirmative one.
Engels applies the concepts of opposition and contradiction even to the field of
mathematics as follows:
Subtraction (a-b) can be expressed as addition (-b+a),
division
as multiplication

... all the fixed distinctions of the kinds of calculations cease to exist and all can be
expressed as the opposite forms. The power can be expressed as the power root

and the power root can be expressed as the power

... This means that addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, and power
and power root are contradictory opposite ways of calculation. This is far from the
truth; however, all these are relative ways to attain the exact calculation. They are not
contradictory ways of calculation, repelling each other.
He says also,
Nowadays, if physiology does not regard death as the essential moment of life, it is
not referred to as science. The denial of life is contained as an essential element
within life itself. Thus life must necessarily be considered in relation to death (which is
the inevitable result of life); that is, as part of the form of an embryo. This is the
dialectical understanding concerning life. (Ibid., p. 208)
In other words, "Life is maintained by the denial of death, its opposite party." But this
is also a mere mechanical interpretation forcibly adjusted to the dialectical category.
Let me give an example. If a man has lived for seventy years, and if Engel's saying is
true, then these seventy years should be the length of the opposition between life
and death. However, how can we possibly find the confrontation of death with life? It
is impossible to find death existing; that is, death can not be found among the brains,
the nerves, frame, internal organs, and the five organs of sense, but rather there is a
perpetual replacement of cells and blood corpuscles. It is inaccurate to look upon the
replacement of cells as a relationship of opposition.
In the first place, if the relationship between life and death is regarded as opposition,
this relationship of opposition should be considered within the same unit of life (the
same individual body). But the whole human body and a cell are quite different units.
Although a cell may die, the human body continues to live. And even this death of a
cell, exactly speaking, is not really death, but rather the cell's replacement by new
cells, as will be mentioned later.
In the example of man, the fetus grows up and becomes a newborn child, separated
from its mother. After birth, the child then grows up without negating the life of the
parents at all. On the contrary, most children help their parents. Man does not die
due to being negated by the fetus, but rather dies of old age or due to illness.
In the second place, human life is maintained not by an opposition with death, but by
the harmonious give-and-take between cells, tissues, organs, and the like; that is to
say, by the formation of various levels of Quadruple Bases. While life is maintained,
there is no connotation of death. Each of the cells disappears and new ones appear
just as when clothes wear out, and are replaced by new ones. Like this, in human life,
old cells are replaced by new ones.
Through the above explanation, it may have been clarified that while communists
look upon every existing being as in opposition, actual existing beings have neither
opposition nor contradictions. This explanation dealt with the universal images of the
individual truth bodies. In conclusion, each existing being thus takes after the
Universal Image of the Original Being and necessarily has relative (paired) elements
rather than opposition within it, thus forming the existence structure named the
Quadruple Base.
b. Individual Image
As already mentioned, all the existing beings take after the Original Universal Image
by having the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity, and they take
after an Original Individual Image by having individual characteristics. Namely, every
existing being has its own peculiarity, and this is its Individual Image.
According to Genesis, Chapter 1, God created man in His own image after He
created the whole universe in six days. In the Divine Principle it says,
That is, man is God's substantial object with His dual characteristics manifested as
"direct image," while all things of the universe are the substantial objects of God with
His dual characteristics manifested as "indirect image" (symbol) (Divine Principle, p.
26)
and
The universe consists of countless such individual truth incarnations, mutually related
in good order, from the creature of the lowest grade to the highest, with man as the
highest truth incarnation. (Ibid., p. 36)
Summarizing these statements, God's creation is a differentiated one. Taking after
God, the universe shows differentiation in various aspects.
God began His creation with animals of a lower order, then created animals with a
more complicated function; and finally He created man, who has the highest function.
(Ibid., p. 44)
This means that all things including man have peculiar shapes, structures and
functions. In creating the protozoa, fish, amphibia, the reptiles, and mammalia, the
different forms, structures and functions were differentiated at each level. The same
is true for plants and minerals. We know that the atomic structure and chemical
qualities of each element are different. All these examples show that all the existing
beings take after both the Individual and Universal Images of the Original Being.
Then to which part of the Original Image does the Individual Image of the Original
Being belong? And what are the concrete contents of the Individual Image? Let me
touch upon this question now.
(i)The Location of the Individual Image
There are Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity in the Original
Image, thus the Individual Images should be located within one of them. In other
words, one of the polarities should be the location of the Individual Image, because,
since an Individual Image is an image, and not character or matter (hyle), the image
can not be located in the Divine Character (Divinity). Then where is it located? It is in
the Inner Hyung Sang within the Original Sung Sang. I commented before that the
give-and-take action between the Inner Sung Sang, namely, intellect, emotion and
will, and Inner Hyung Sang, namely, principle and law, form the Inner Quadruple
Base. We can not but consider that the countless Individual Images are located
nowhere else but within the Inner Quadruple Base. As an Individual Image is neither
only positive nor only negative, nor mere matter (hyle), nor the Universal Prime
Energy, the Individual Images can not be within the positivity, negativity or the
Original Hyung Sang, but must be within the Original Sung Sang. However, as the
Sung Sang consists of the Inner Sung Sang, that is the part which thinks (intellect,
emotion, will), and the Inner Hyung Sang, that is the part which is thought, its location
is the Inner Hyung Sang. This means that in the creation of the universe, at the
beginning there was an idea in the Original Image of the Original Being; then the
word appeared, and finally the creation was developed. Logos (Word) comes into
being centering on purpose, and that purpose is the very purpose of creation. Once
the purpose is established, there should naturally follow the idea of what and how to
create to fulfill that purpose. Logos appears as a concrete plan through this action. In
thinking, there must be the subject part of thinking which is the intellect, emotion and
will (particularly reason, which is part of the intellect), and there must be the object
part of thinking or thought part which is the idea or shape,. structure and function of
an actual individual that is
to be created. Let me give an example. If the Original Being intended to create a bird,
He would have first thought of a bird, and then an Individual Image of the bird
(representation of the bird) would have come into his mind. That is, an Individual
Image would have appeared in the Inner Hyung Sang and He would have thought of
how to create it. Then the principles (laws) within the Inner Hyung Sang would have
been used by the reason and finally Logos, the concrete Word to create the bird,
would have been formed. Through the give-and-take action between this Word with
the rest of the Original Sung Sang (emotion and will) and the Original Hyung Sang
(hyle), the bird would have appeared as a being (a creature). This is shown in Figure
13.
 Fig. 13 Relation Between the Location of the Individual Image and Creation
(ii) The Monostratic Nature of the Individual Image
As already mentioned, every creature is a concrete individual truth body, and has
both the Universal and Individual Image of the Original Image. Thus it has peculiarity
as an individual being. Then what is the concrete meaning of an Individual Image?
Does it mean the individual's own features which are beyond the attributes common
to other individuals? Here the attributes common to others are the Universal Image.
Then, is it the Individual Image which is left after the Universal Image has been
abstracted from the individual truth body? Logically, it would seem that the remainder
after the abstraction of the Universal Image is the Individual Image. Within logic, the
distinctive features remaining after the abstraction of the Universal Image (common
character) from existing beings are called specific differences. So the specific
differences seem to be the Individual Images. However, as specific differences have
many levels of application, the issue is not so simple. For example, an actual person,
say a Korean person, has various specific differences, i.e. peculiarities. Let us trace
these peculiarities.
In the first place, since he is a living organism rather than inorganic matter, he has
the peculiarities (specific differences) of living things such as cells, life and
multiplication.
In the second place, among living things, as he is an animal rather than a plant, he
has the peculiarities of animals such as digestion, excretion, respiration,
reproduction, sense, and movement as specific differences.
In the third place, as human beings belong to the sub-phylum Vertebrata, he has the
peculiarities of this kind of animal such as a head, trunk, limbs, tail, nerves,
circulatory system and the dioecious feature.
In the fourth place, among the classes of vertebrates, he belongs with the Mammalia
rather than fish or reptiles, and hence has mammalian peculiarities such as hair,
viviparity, and lactation.
In the fifth place, among the orders within the Mammalia, he belongs to the Primates,
and so has primate peculiarities such as a developed cerebrum, short face, limbs
with five fingers or toes, two breasts and the like. And among these Primates, he
belongs to the human race, and therefore he also has human peculiarities such as
reason, value criteria, language and creativity. Since he belongs to the Oriental race,
he has certain peculiarities of skin and hair, and because his nationality is Korean, he
has peculiarities such as a particular language, history, tradition and way of life.
Finally, because he is a particular person among the Koreans, he has individual
peculiarities of height, appearance, individuality, etc. Thus if we regard the remainder
after excluding the Universal Image (common character) as Individual Images,
according to the increase of the number of species in a particular level, the kinds of
Individual Images (specific differences) can be seen to decrease proportionally. That
is, if we compare the specific differences (Individual Images) with the number of
species in the different levels of beings, we find that the number of species and the
number of specific differences are in opposite proportion. (e.g. Man is the most
specialized being. He has all the specific differences of all the other beings; however,
in his level of specialization, he is the only species.) In other words, a concrete
person, A, has various peculiarities (Individual Images) such as those of a living
being, of an animal, of a vertebrate, of a mammal, of a Primate, of a human being, of
a Korean, and of a particular individual. Is it true that the Individual Image in the
Original Being before creation is such a conglomerate? According to Unification
Thought the creatures God intended to create were not vague and abstract beings
but actual and concrete ones. In other words, God had a mind to create each of the
concrete and actual beings directly. Scripture says, "And the Word became flesh and
dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only
Son from the Father." (John 1:14) This passage means that the begotten son was not
a vague human being, but Jesus, an actual person with peculiarities of height,
appearance, character, temperament and the like. He was not a person with an
Individual Image based on a polystrata of the collected characteristics of all living
things. Jesus was not a man made of a "polystrata" of the lower levels, but a man of
"monostratum."
In this theory there may be some who disagree because this view disregards the
theory of evolution. But in reality, the Unification Principle does disregard the theory
of evolution. Only from a phenomenal perspective does the process of creation seem
to have evolved. That living things seem to have evolved from lower stages to higher
is due to the gradual process of creation from lower to higher. Thus, even though
man was created in the last stage, it does not necessarily mean that he was made by
adding one more Individual Image to the features of all the minerals, plants and
animals of the previous stages which had been added one after another. According
to the Divine Principle, "Before creating man, God made all things in the image and
likeness of man's character and form. Therefore, man is the encapsulation of all
things." (Ibid., p. 44)
This quote makes it clear that, on the contrary, nature was created to take after parts
of the human peculiarities; that is to resemble man's Individual Image. After all, the
human Individual Image is not polystratic but rather simple and monostratic. Scholars
have tried to analyze the Individual Images academically and classify them into
various differences. Though this may be of academic significance, it has nothing to
do with the human Individual Image in the Original Being. It is similar to all the other
beings, because, although in the order of creation, the lower things were created first
in the Original Image, they were preceded by the Individual Image of the higher
beings. The lower beings were created taking after the parts of the Individual Images
of the higher beings.
To say God created the entire universe setting up man, the highest being, as this
standard, means that He created animals and plants setting up man as their
standard, and He created minerals setting up animals and plants as their standard.
The Individual Images of the lower beings which are formed by taking after parts of
the Individual Images of the higher beings are never polystratic in nature, but are
rather monostratic simplifications. Every existing being has monostratic peculiarities
in relation to its shape, structure, function, elements, action and the like.
(iii) The Individualization of the Universal Image
Since an individual truth body has both Universal and Individual Images, what is the
relationship between these Universal and Individual Images? Is the Individual Image
within an individual separate from the Universal Image (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang,
positivity and negativity)? Do the Universal and Individual Images within individuals
have nothing to do with each other?
To jump to the conclusion, the Individual Image is the individualization of the
Universal Image. That is, it is a Universal Image with a concrete uniqueness. Let me
demonstrate this using as the example, two persons named A and B who have quite
different personalities. A has a squarish face; he is tall; his frame and muscles are
well developed, and he is fond of sports and music. His forehead is not so broad; his
temperament is bright and sociable, and he is kind and has a lot of common sense.
In contrast with A, B is short and high browed; his face is narrow and long; his frame
and muscles are average in development, and his particular taste is for reading
rather than sports or music. His temperament is introverted and unsociable; he has
great technical knowledge in a special realm rather than broad general knowledge.
All of these aspects are the peculiarities and Individual Images of A and B. Both of
them have the Universal Image (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positive and negative
aspects) while their Individual Images are the peculiarities of their mind (Sung Sang)
and body (Hyung Sang), and of their positivity and negativity. A's tall stature,
squarish face, developed frame and low-browed forehead are the peculiarities of his
Hyung Sang (body) namely the Individual Image of the Hyung Sang; and his taste for
sports and music, sociability, and kindness are the peculiarities of A's Sung Sang,
namely the Individual Image of the Sung Sang. Likewise, B's short stature, averagely
developed frame and muscles, and high-browed forehead are the peculiarities of his
Hyung Sang; while his taste for reading, his unsociability, introversion, and capacity
for technical knowledge, etc. are the peculiarities of his Sung Sang. The relationship
between positivity and negativity and the Individual Image is similar to this. For
example, to express the positive side of his mind, A may smile while B may make a
joke. That is to say, there may be different ways of expressing positive feelings, such
as brightness and cheerfulness. It is the same with negative feelings. That is, to
express grief, A may shed tears while B may endure in silence. Also in both positive
forms such as the nose bridge and negative forms such as the ear hole, there are
many differences between people. Thus the Individual Images appear in the Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity and negativity. In conclusion, the Individual
Image is not unrelated to the Universal one. Rather, it is nothing but a special type of
Universal Image, its peculiar phenomenal type. There is no concrete Universal Image
which does not hold an Individual Image. Namely the Universal Image is, without fail,
regulated by an Individual Image in its development into the world of phenomena.
This is because the location of the Individual Image is in the Inner Hyung Sang of the
Original Being. The Inner Hyung Sang is the Hyung Sang part within the Original
Sung Sang. In other words, the Original Individual Image is already in existence
within the Universal Image of the Original Being. In the formation of the Developing
Quadruple Base of the Original Image (the Universal Image), this Individual Image
causes it to have definite peculiarities by regulating the character of the give-and-take
action.
(iv) The Individualization of the Chung-Boon-Hap Process
Here I am going to touch upon the relationship between the Individual Images and
the C-B-H process. As already mentioned, an individual truth body forms a
Quadruple Base internally and there are both Static and Dynamic Quadruples.
judging from the time perspective, this formation of the quadruples is the Chung-
Boon-Hap Process. Because the Individual Image is one of the attributes of an
individual truth body, the relationship between the Individual Image and the C-B-H
process should rightfully be made clear. Stating the conclusion prematurely, an
Individual Image is nothing less than the individualized Chung-Boon-Hap process,
that is, the individualized action of give-and-take. Here the G-T (give-and-take)
actions are those between the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity,
that is to say, the G-T actions of subjects and objects. Yet as mentioned above, when
a Universal Image appears, it naturally has a definite peculiarity, or Individual Image.
A Universal Image appears, of course, only through the G-T action. None of its
elements (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity) can appear by
themselves. For instance, mind (Sung Sang) can not directly appear without the G-T
action between mind and body (brain cells) which gives rise to mental activities such
as pleasure, displeasure, perception, memory, reasoning and the like. And it is
obvious that the mental activities are incomplete when the G-T action is interrupted
such as when the brain is benumbed by alcohol or high fever. The same is true for
the body. The physiological operations such as digestion, respiration, blood
circulation, and so on can not become perfect through the functioning of the stomach,
lungs and heart alone, but only together through their harmonious G-T action with the
other organs. For example, the stomach can function fully only through its G-T action
with the heart, liver, pancreas, etc. A healthy body (Hyung Sang) is indebted from
childhood to the ingestion of nutritious food, to harmonious physiological action and
to a perfect G-T action between the mind and body, whereas a sickly body is due to
imperfect G-T actions between the above-mentioned factors.
It should not be overlooked that a good or bad internal G-T action has a decisive
effect on the development of a Universal Image. Accordingly if an Individual Image
means the individualized Universal Image, in the same sense, the individualized
Chung-Boon-Hap process is also the Individual Image itself.
Then what is the concrete meaning of the individualized C-B-H process? It means
that each person has a different way of giving and taking. Owing to the differences of
the G-T actions between the mind and brain cells in each person, even when we look
at the same moon, one person may rejoice while another may feel sad. Furthermore,
as there are differences in the physiological operations of men, while eating the same
kind of food, one person will be all right while another will develop urticaria. Medical
science has recognized that there are differences in the physical constitutions of
people. These in fact are the differences of man's physiological operations and the
individualization of the many compound C-B-H actions within man.
As already mentioned, there are two aspects to the C-B-H action, both static and
dynamic. Of these, the dynamic developing C-B-H action has three dimensions, that
is, its development occurs due to three factors: the G-T action between Sung Sang
and Hyung Sang, the G-T action between positivity and negativity, and the Logos. All
these factors are the universal elements common to all individual truth bodies.
However, since every individual is an existing being with individual peculiarities in
addition to the universal elements, these three actions must have their respective
Individual Images. The Individual Images mentioned above are those of the Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang, and of the positivity and negativity. Here I am to touch on the
Individual Image of the Logos. As stated above, the Chung-Boon-Hap process is also
regulated by the Logos. Logos means the nomological dimension within an individual
truth body, so it obviously affects its development; that is to say, development also
has a special aspect according to each individual. This is the Individual Image of the
Logos.
Take, for example, multiplication. When a pregnant woman delivers her baby, it is the
contraction of the uterus that actually delivers the child; but the intensity, frequency,
and duration of travail, time of delivery, and the strength of the womb contractions,
etc. are different according to different women. The delivery of the baby by the womb
contractions is a physiological action which is a kind of natural law (Logos). Thus the
differences in the concrete expressions of the action (law) are due to the individual
peculiarities such as, the differences in the anatomical structures of the wombs and
of the path of delivery (in childbirth), mental and nervous distinctions and the like.
This is the Individual Image of the Logos (Principle).
Thus, it is clear that the action of Logos in development has both universal and
individual aspects. After all, there is evidently another element-the Individual Image
involved in development-along with the three elements of 1) Sung Sang and Hyung
Sang, 2) positivity and negativity, and 3) Logos. It is the unified action of these four
elements which gives rise to concrete developing phenomena. We call such a feature
the "Four Motives of Development." Through these four motives of development, it is
possible to explain how an individual truth body changes constantly while maintaining
its identity. However, in dealing only with the Universal Image in development there is
no need of the Individual Image, so in this case, a concept named the "Three Motives
of Development" is established.
(v) The Individual Image, Idea and Concept
First let me deal with the relationship between an Individual Image and an idea. An
idea, as is widely known, is the image in the mind which portrays an object. In
creating the universe in the beginning, God would have had mental images of each
thing to be created. In other words, in His mind, He would have thought of the images
of each creature with their peculiarities such as shape, structure, function, and so on
and He would have surely created things just the same as these images which would
have been the standard for creation. As a painter maps out his scheme first and then
paints what he visualized in his mind, so God caused the images in His mind to be
expressed in time and -space. According to Scripture,
And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light ... and there was evening, and
there was morning, one day .... and God made the firmament and separated the
waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament. And it was so .... a second day .... And God said, "Let the earth put forth
vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit". . . . And it was so .... a
third day. And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to
separate the day from the night;" . . . And it was so.... a fourth day. And God said,
"Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth
across the firmament of the heavens.". . . a fifth day. And God said, "Let the earth
bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things, and
beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.... God created man in His
own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created
them ... And it was so ... a sixth day. (Genesis 1: 3- 3 1)
The words "it was so" mean that all things were created like their images in His mind
as well as created as He had wished. Such a mental image is referred to as an idea.
Then what is the relationship between an Individual Image and an idea? Needless to
say, the idea is the very Individual Image itself. The Individual Image in the Original
Image was the mental image pictured in the mind (Sung Sang) of the Original Being;
namely it was an idea or representation. I mentioned above that the Individual Image
was in the Inner Hyung Sang of the Original Sung Sang. The Inner Hyung Sang
contains ideas and representations. As frequently mentioned, the Sung Sang
contains both the actual thinking element and also the thoughts themselves. The
thinking element is subject while the elements being thought are the objects of the
thinking element. The former is the Inner Sung Sang which has the function of
intellect, emotion and will, and the latter is the Inner Hyung Sang which contains
ideas (concepts) and principles (laws). The ideas composing this Inner Hyung Sang
are Individual Images. (See "The Structure of the Original Image.") Next, I will touch
upon the relationship between an Individual Image and a concept.
A concept is a mental image which is the synthesis of abstracted elements common
to various kinds of individuals. It has both intension (connotation) and extension
(denotation). After all, a concept is a name given to common features; it thus may
contrast with the Individual Image which means the individual peculiarities. The
concept "man" is a "rational and valuable being", while the individual peculiarities of a
Mr. Kim may be expressed by his particular appearance, stature, personality, unique
temperament and the like. The concept "bird" is "an animal which flies", while the
individual peculiarities of a crow may be "a black bird which cries, 'caw, caw.' " Thus,
concepts indicate common features, and ideas indicate peculiarities.
From such a view, the relationship between concepts and Individual Images seems
the same as that between the Universal and Individual Images. But, strictly speaking,
this is not true, because the Universal Image means only Sung Sang and Hyung
Sang, positivity and negativity. Needless to say, Sung Sang and Hyung Sang,
positivity and negativity may be denoted by a concept, but since a series of
subordinate and superordinate concepts exists, the subordinate concepts may be
considered individual compared to the superordinate concepts. For example, though
"fowls" is the superordinate concept to sparrows, doves, hens, and the like, it may
also be regarded as a subordinate concept along with fish, reptiles, mammals, and so
on in relation to the concept "Vertebrata." Accordingly, compared with the Vertebrata,
the concept of fowls is more individual because it is more specific. In other words,
when considered as a peculiarity, the concept fowls is individual but when considered
from the point of common features, it is a concept. But most important here is that no
vague animals, plants, men, fowls, and so on, that is to say, no conceptual beings
were predetermined in creation. Rather, concrete animals were determined such as
cows, horses, dogs, hens, sparrows, doves, mackerels, anchovies, etc.; and concrete
plants such as pine trees, bamboo, apple trees, rose bushes, rice, barley and the
like; and concrete human beings with peculiarities of appearance, personality, etc.
What must be clarified here is that these individuals have concepts, namely common
features, in multifold strata. For example, a hen (individual) has not only the
peculiarities of being a hen itself but also the peculiarities of fowls, the vertebrata and
even of living beings, as broader superordinate concepts. In other words, people may
say that higher beings (such as higher animals) are polystrata of all the
characteristics of lower beings (such as lower animals); however as mentioned in the
section "Monostratic Nature of the Individual Image", the polystrate concept is false.
The fact that individual characteristics seem to form a polystraturn is due to the
abstraction, classification and systematization of the common features of various
individual truth bodies through man's rational approach which is attempted for a
better understanding of existing beings.
If, however, all these concepts are the outcome of the abstraction and classification
of individual characteristics, were there not originally concepts in the Original Image?
Were there only ideas in the Original Image? No, never. Concepts were in the Inner
Hyung Sang of the Original Image along with the ideas. Abstraction existed in the
world of the Original Image and man's ability to abstract resulted from this. As the
creation is one of resemblance and there are so many ideas, and they are so diverse,
it is natural that all the individual bodies have common features. Accordingly, it is
obvious that the abstraction of common features and the concepts of it would have
already existed in the Original Image. To put it exactly, concrete ideas and abstract
concepts co-existed in the Original Image.
(vi) The Universal and Individual
Here I will now touch upon the relationship between the universal and individual
again, but from a different angle. It was previously made clear that the Universal and
Individual Images are not separate but rather compose the individual truth body
through their unity. Which of these is prior, the Universal Image or the Individual
Image? As mentioned above, ideas are prior to concepts. But since the relationship
between the Universal Image (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity)
and the Individual Image is not the same as the concept-idea relationship, I will deal
with them in a separate way. To jump to the conclusion, a Universal Image is prior to
an Individual Image, because in the Original Image, the Universal Image is the
attribute necessary for the self-existence of the Original Being; whereas an Individual
Image is a necessary condition only for the act of creation. For example, in the
relationship between mind and body (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang), and thinking,
which is prior? Since mind and body are inborn and thinking is acquired, the former
are, of course, prior, while the latter is posterior.
In the Original Being, the Universal Image is indispensable for the self-existence of
the Original Being while the Individual Images are a necessary condition or means
only for making the Original Being joyful through creation. They have no relation to
His self-existence. Therefore the Universal Image is primary or prior and the
Individual Images are secondary or posterior. (Strictly speaking prior and posterior do
not really exist, but rather, as mentioned above, the term "prior" really means "more
essential", and the term "posterior" means only "less essential.") There is a similar
question, however, which asks which is prior, the universal or individual? Here
universal does not mean the Universal Image but has a meaning similar to "concept."
It is the kind of name given to the common features of various kinds of things, such
as mineral, plant, animal, and man. Here individual means the concrete individuals
such as Mr. Lee so and so, Mr. Kim so and so, hibiscus, peach, hen, dove, iron,
copper and the like.
Accordingly, the question of priority between the universal and individual presents the
following issue. Did "a man" exist as an idea in God and then develop into Mr. Kim or
Mr. Lee through creation, or was there no vague "man" in the beginning but rather
were the concrete men named "Mr. Kim" or "Mr. Lee" created first and then the term
"man" made by the abstraction of the common features of these concrete men (such
as "men are rational and valuable beings, different from all other animals")? The so-
called Universalienstriet (the dispute about the universal) among scholastic
philosophers was typical of the disputes concerning this question throughout the
history of philosophy. This philosophical question is such an important one that
Unification Thought should clarify its own standpoint on this issue.
According to Unification Thought, the relationship between the universal and
individual is considered like that between concepts and ideas, idea being prior and
concept posterior. The reason the relationship between the universal and individual is
considered to be like that between concepts and ideas is that we have to seek the
ultimate cause of the universal and individual in the world of phenomena and deal
with the problem in the world of cause. And next, the reason that idea is prior and
concept is posterior is, as mentioned above, that the creation of God is not a creation
of vague conceptional beings but one of concrete individual truth bodies. Both
concepts and ideas were required for creation. To repeat, however, ideas were prior
while concepts were posterior, for as already mentioned, God's creation was not of
concepts but of concrete individuals. The ultimate causes of the universal and
individual were the concepts and ideas in the Original Image. The concepts came to
be formed as mental images corresponding to the common features of ideas which
had existed prior to them.
To put it concretely, since the Original Being has Heart, he is considered to have first
visualized Adam and Eve, concrete human individual truth bodies, as objects of heart
and love. Then because creation begins with the outer aspects, it was inevitable that
God create an environment for human life such as animal, plant, and mineral
individual truth bodies. For their creation, God used Adam and Eve as the standard
(specimen). In other words, the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms were created
taking after certain parts of the elements of Adam and Eve. [Note: Taking after
certain partial elements implies disregarding the rest of the elements. For instance,
God disregarded man's (Adam and Eve's peculiarities such as reason, heart, and so
on and created animals, plants and minerals using man's physical body as the
specimen. This means that the parts of the specimen (the flesh body of man) given
to the animals, plants and minerals through imitation are their common elements.
Therefore taking after partial elements means abstracting these very elements.
Man's faculty of abstraction must have indeed come from that of God.]
These parts then became the common features of all the existing beings other than
man, and accordingly became the concepts of these beings. We call such common
features the "Concept Derived from the Specimen." Meanwhile, since the
descendants of Adam and Eve have taken after them, the parts taken after have
become the common features of the human race, and so necessarily make up the
concept "man." One or several concrete animals would be created first, and then
many other similar animals would be made in imitation of those already created. In
other words, in the creation of animals also, the ideas of individual beings were
formed first, as in the case of man, and then many kinds of animals similar to them
were made imitating the individual beings. In this case also, the imitated aspects
become the common features of all the other various individual beings taking after
them. These aspects corresponding to the imitated aspects then, namely, the
concepts derived from the specimens, are considered to have been formed in this
way.
Thus in the creation process first there was the idea which became the specimen,
then secondly, from this idea, the concept was formed. In this case, in Unification
Thought, the idea is called "Idea as Specimen." In this view, the idea-forming process
of the Original Being is opposite to the creation process of the universe. In the
universe, the creation order was from inorganic matter to organic matter, plants,
animals, and man. To the contrary, in the world of the Original Being the order of the
formation of ideas was from man to animals, plants, organic matter and inorganic
matter. Thus even the ideas of the individual beings of the microscopic world, such
as the ideas of molecules, atoms, and elementary particles, were all formed in
imitation of the elements of human physical constituents (the human physical body is
composed of many elements).
In nature there are, of course, many elements that are not in the human physical
body, but the ideas of these elements may be considered to have been formed
through a further imitation of one of the imitated parts of the human physical
elements. With such a view, we can understand the true meaning of the Principle of
Creation that the entire creation, from atoms to heavenly bodies, was created for
man. The saying "Before creating man, God made all things in the image and
likeness of man's character and form. Therefore, man is the encapsulation of all
things." (Ibid., p. 44) is a concise expression of this fact. This, then, is the Unification
Thought standpoint on the relationship between concept and idea. However, it should
not be overlooked that this order applies only to the order of ideas as specimens and
the concepts derived from the specimens. The ideas of the various kinds of individual
truth bodies of the lower positions, that had to be created by the imitation of the
concepts which were derived from the specimens, were created after the concepts.
Thus an idea coming from the concept which was derived from the specimen had an
aspect which imitated the specimen. This aspect is called the "Idea of Similarity."
For example, there first was an idea for the specimen named Adam, and then with
Adam's physical body as the specimen, the concepts derived from the specimen
appeared: animal, plant and mineral. These concepts, based on the specimen named
Adam, were posterior to the idea. But when the ideas of the similarities of the various
individual beings such as cow, dove, snake, salmon, hibiscus, barley, pine tree, tulip,
hydrogen, chlorine, and iron, were formed from the concepts derived from the
specimen, in these cases the concepts were prior to the ideas, because, in these
cases, the ideas are of similarities not of specimens. In conclusion, the idea as
specimen is prior to the concept derived from the specimen, while the concept
derived from the specimen is prior to the idea of similarity. This is the viewpoint of
Unification Thought. Thus there are two ways to settle the dispute of the order of the
appearance of ideas and concepts in Unification Thought. [Note: Since Adam and
Eve took after the Original Image, the idea of Adam and Eve could be considered an
idea of similarity, and the Original Image may be referred to as a concept derived
from the specimen. In this case, the concept seems to be prior to the idea. But as
mentioned before, the Original Image can not be considered a concept. This is
because the Original image is an attribute of the Original Being, while concepts are
one of the composing elements of the Inner Hyung Sang. The concepts contained in
the Original Being are not the Original Image itself, but rather these exist in the Inner
Hyung Sang. Therefore the relationship between the Original Being and man is, as
mentioned before, like that between the Universal Image and Individual Image, and
never like that between concepts and ideas.]
(vii) The Individual Image and the Environment
Through the above explanation, it has been made clear that the unique features of all
individual truth bodies originated in the Individual Images within the Original Image.
Here it should be added that these individual beings change and develop through G-
T with their environment. As already mentioned, [see ii and iv] the individual truth
bodies form Developing Quadruple Bases through G-T action (in a subject and object
relationship) with other beings. This means, in other words, that an individual body
itself changes through its G-T action with the environment. That is to say, the
Individual Image of the individual truth body is ruled not only by the Original Image,
which conditions it even before it is materialized, but also is still partly under the
influence of the environmental factors after it is materialized. For example, when a
man comes into being, the Individual Images such as his frame, appearance,
individuality, physical constitution, etc. are predetermined by heredity. But in the
growing process, a man's physical frame and constitution change, and his
personality, individuality and posture are influenced by food, weather, regional
conditions (mountains, seashore, coast or city), education, family environment and so
on. Namely, the human Individual Image is not totally determined a prz*orz*, but is
also influenced a posten*0n*. The same is true for the animal, plant and mineral
kingdoms. For example, though the Individual Image such as the specific kind and
quality of rice is already determined inside the rice seed, after the young rice plant is
planted, the realistic length, volume and quality of rice produced are influenced by
water, weather, fertilizer, etc. Every chemical element changes incessantly through
G-T, that is, through physicochemical interactions with other elements. Thus,
although an Individual Image is regulated by the Original Image, a part of it changes
through the environmental factors. Before, I said that when an individual truth body
forms the Inner Quadruple Base and the Dynamic (Developing) Quadruple Base,
from the time perspective this is the C-B-H process. The individualization of the C-B-
H process meant the G-T actions between mind and body (brain), and the actions
among the various organs such as sense organs, tissues, cells, etc. Yet, this inner C-
B-H process does not develop independently of the outer G-T (the relationship with
the environment), but is related to it. The Inner Quadruple and inner C-B-H process
continue under the influence of the outer conditions, and the outer G-T action
appears through the inner G-T action.
This is an outline of the environmental influence on the Individual Image of the
individual truth body. The individual truth body as a subject also often exercises
influence over the environment. In relation to man, this means that man, as a subject,
exercises dominion over nature. The animal, plant and mineral kingdoms also
influence the environment as individual truth bodies. The influence of an individual
truth body means that each individual being (according to its Individual Image),
exercises a particular influence on the environment.
There are many films on Nature which show clearly that every animal, from
microscopic to huge ones, exercises a particular influence on its living environment,
and so the animals, plants, and minerals mutually affect each other. Thus the
outcome of the respective particular influences of one individual being on another
through the G-T actions between them is here called the "Individual Effect of a G-T
Action. "
Accordingly the Individual Image of an individual truth body was essentially regulated
in the Original Image but in actual phenomena, it is outwardly and incessantly
regulated and changed by countless individual effects of G-T actions. In other words,
an Individual Image exercises influence over others and is also influenced by them.
Chapter II - Ontology Based on the Unification Principle (Part 4)
Section D - The Being Image of Existing Beings (part 2)
2. The Connected Body
The connected body, just like the individual truth body, is one of the being images of
existing beings. As all existing beings take after the Original Image, they must have
some images corresponding to it. One of these images is the individual truth body
and the other is the "Connected Body."
a. The Connected Body and Dual Purposes
Directly speaking, the connected body refers to a being with dual purposes, namely
the existing being, which simultaneously has both purposes for the whole and for the
individual. Every being has these two purposes. The purpose for the whole (called
the Sung Sang purpose) means the purpose by which the individual contributes to
the preservation and development of the whole. The purpose for the individual (called
the Hyung Sang purpose) means the purpose for the multiplication and development
of self as well as for self-preservation and self-strengthening.
A certain purpose in life is given to every man, such as contributing to one's state or
society in one or more realms such as tax-payment, military service, business,
administration, education, industry, and science. A family member must contribute to
his family, a teacher to education, and a workman to the enterprise to which he
belongs, and so on. These examples show the purpose for the whole. Few people
recognize this kind of contribution as the purpose for the whole given to every man by
the Original Being. Most men regard it as their duty. Men who are able to perform this
duty willingly, do so because they feel the purpose for the whole unconsciously.
Because, in terms of the Principle, this performance of duty and the consequent
fulfillment of purpose are determined and projected by the mind, because the largest
whole is God, and because the whole in the created world represents God to an
individual, the purpose for the whole may be called the "Sung Sang Purpose." This is
also true for all the other things besides man. Though animals and plants may seem
to struggle against one another for existence, in reality they do not. They all
contribute to the whole. Were a part of the earth's plant life destroyed, the human
race would find difficulty in living due to a lack of oxygen; and if all animals
disappeared the result would be the same, because due to the shortage of C02 and
fertilizer, plants would have difficulty maintaining themselves. If the mineral kingdom
disintegrated there would be a crisis in the preservation of the biological world, for
every living thing has to ingest mineral matter.
What about the individual purpose? No individual exists without the purpose of
preserving and maintaining his existence. Every being without exception has the
purpose of self-preservation, development, multiplication, and benefit. Food, clothing,
housing, the fine arts, academic life, religious faith, and so on, all exist for self-
preservation, joy, multiplication, growth, and development. Thus for a man to be for
himself means to be for physical life or one's own sake. An individual man is the
object of God, the whole, and in a position of Hyung Sang to God. Consequently the
purpose for the individual may be called the "Hyung Sang Purpose." This sort of
purpose is recognized in animals, plants and minerals as a matter of course. We can
easily understand that animals and plants have this purpose for the individual
because it seems as if they live only for self-preservation and self-existence. And
even though it is not so obvious whether minerals have a purpose for the individual
they should and do have this purpose. This issue will be dealt with in detail later.
The purposes mentioned above were applied only to existing beings on the earth, but
all the existing beings in the cosmos, from atoms to heavenly bodies are the same.
For example, the nine planets, centering on the sun, rotate on their own axes for their
own purposes, and revolve around the sun for the purpose of the whole. If one of the
planets suspended its revolution, the whole aspect of the solar system would change.
Therefore, it is true that even planets and fixed stars have both the purposes for the
individual and for the whole. An electron revolves around a proton due to its purpose
for existence as a particle and also for the atomic structure as a whole, similar to the
relationship of the planets to the sun. An element unites with another and forms a
molecule also because of both the purposes for the individual and the whole. The
purposes for the individual and the whole are not independent but interdependent,
intercausative, and they exist in an inner and outer relationship. As the purpose to
serve the whole may also indirectly be a purpose to better the individual too, likewise,
the purpose for the individual to become better indirectly presupposes an intention to
serve the whole more effectively through the individual's betterment. The greatest
purpose for the whole, for nature, is the purpose of serving man, namely bringing him
pleasure and joy. Not only the sunlight but also the stars twinkling in the night sky,
and the elementary particles of the microscopic world all exist to serve human life.
Some may be skeptical of how stars and elementary particles serve human beings,
but according to the Unification Principle, even these things have dual purposes and
their supreme purpose is to bring pleasure to God, through giving joy to man.
The universe is the object in which man's character and form are manifested in substance.
Therefore, man, whose center is fixed upon God, would feel immense joy when he
objectively feels his own character and form through all things as his substantial objects.
(Ibid., p. 45)

God created the universe so as to feel joy and peace by feeling objectively, His subjective
Sung Sang, through the creation. (The Explanation of the Divine Principles, p. 50)

God's purpose in creating the universe was to feel happiness when He saw the purpose of
goodness fulfilled in the Heavenly Kingdom.... (Divine Principle, p. 41)

Because man was created as the center of the universe, the supreme subject and
dominator of all things, the supreme purpose (purpose for the whole) of all creation is
to serve man. As mentioned above, man is a microcosm, a composite substance of
the whole of nature. Though man was created last of the created world, in the world
of the Original Image the idea of man was set up first, and then the ideas of the
whole universe were set up taking after the various features of man. All this means
that the ultimate purpose for the whole of all things, including heavenly bodies, was to
be for man. Thus man freely dominates all of nature. The moon which previously
contributed to man only through light has now also begun to contribute material to
him since man has reached her. Now man has begun to explore Mars and Venus.
According to the teacher of the Unification Principle, a spirit man can easily reach
stars which are at a distance of several hundred thousand or several million light
years away. The motivating force behind astronomical research is to make space
serviceable to human life.
All things are of service to man in one of various forms: for instance as raw materials
for products; as experimental objects; as objects with artistic beauty such as
landscapes, colors and sounds; as inspirations to find truth (many philosophers
including the Apostle Paul perceived truth through observing nature); as stimulants to
the artistic feelings of man (birds, flowers, trees and the moon were often the themes
of poems); and as means of comparison (metaphors) of the characteristics of man
(we sometimes express certain characteristics of man with expressions such as
"steady as a rock", "strong as an ox", "delicate as a flower", "iron will", "happy as a
lark", "hungry as a bear", and the like).
Thus each thing's ultimate purpose for the whole is to be of service to human life in
some way. What is mentioned above is concisely expressed in the Divine Principle
as follows:
Man was thus created to be the center of the whole creation, and so the point where
God and man become one united body is where we find the center of the
macrocosm.
Let us discuss man's being the center of the macrocosm from a different aspect. We call the
two worlds, the visible and invisible, the "macrocosm," with man being the substantial center
of this total macrocosm. (Ibid., p. 38)

Consequently, the purpose of the universe's existence centered on man is to return joy to
God, the Creator. Every being has a dual purpose. As already explained, every existence
has both character and form; accordingly, its purpose is two-fold. One purpose pertains to
internal character and the other to external form. The relationship between the two is exactly
the same as that between character and form in any individual being. The purpose pertaining
to the internal character is for the whole, while the purpose pertaining to the external form is
for the individual. In other words, the former and the latter relate to each other as cause and
effect, internal and external, and subject and object. Therefore, there cannot be any purpose
of the individual apart from the purpose of the whole, nor any purpose of the whole that does
not include the purpose of the individual. All the creatures in the entire universe form a vast
complex linked together by these dual purposes. (Ibid., pp. 41-42)

b. The Connected Body and the Original Image

I have touched on the connected body from the viewpoint of purpose. Now let me
explain it in relation to the Original Image.
The individual truth body mentioned before is a concept which deals with the aspect
of the existing being that reflects the Inner Quadruple Base of the Original Image.
The connected body on the other hand is a concept which deals with the aspect of
the existing being that reflects the Outer Quadruple Base of the Original Image.
Before, I explained that an individual truth body performs the give-and-take action not
only between the subject and object parts within itself through forming the Inner
Quadruple Base, but also performs the give-and-take action outwardly with other
individual truth bodies in a subject and object relationship, through forming the Outer
Quadruple Base. This means that an individual truth body also simultaneously plays
the part of a connected body. The Outer Quadruple Base of the Original Image is one
of absolute dimensions formed through the absolute give-and-take action between
the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. As the Quadruple Base of the Original Image is in
the world of the Original Being outside of time and space, its Inner and Outer
Quadruples can not but be formed in a unique, absolute dimension.
But as the universe is the four-dimensional world of space with time, the Quadruple
Base should be formed within the passage of time and in the three dimensions of
space. Accordingly, the Quadruple Bases under the influence of time and space are
formed in the various dimensions of the upper and lower sides, right and left, front
and back, and before and after. For example, a person will have his parents, elder
brothers and sisters, and superiors above; younger brothers and sisters, sons and
daughters and inferiors below; teachers, leaders, and seniors in front; disciples and
juniors in back; friends and neighbors to the right; opponents to the left; and within
the passage of time, he performs the give-and-take action with new persons and new
environments incessantly. Thus, the formation of Quadruple Bases occurs in various
dimensions in the created world. There is not one of the countless individual beings
composing the universe which does not form these kinds of multidimensional
Quadruple Bases. This means that every creature is connected with others through
its upper and lower sides, in the past and in the future, directly and indirectly, etc. For
example, man is directly connected with food, clothing and housing; with his
environment or surroundings (family centering on parents; minerals, plants and
animals through foods; mountains, lands and climate through dwellings, etc.); and
with social life (getting in touch with members of the community, contacting
foreigners, and the like); and indirectly connected with the planets of the solar system
(through gravitation, the rotation and revolution of the earth, and the sunlight); and
with stars (through the cosmic rays and utilization of the constellations).
If any one of these connections were cut off man would be influenced greatly. It is
well known that cosmic rays exercise an important influence on the living things on
earth. Thus to say every existing being takes after the Original Image means that
each being in nature has paired (relative) elements inwardly (in itself) and has give-
and-take actions in various dimensions outwardly (with others). The former state is
called an individual truth body and the latter, a connected body. In other words, every
existing being is an individual truth body for self and a connected body for others.
That is, an individual truth body is the image for self of an existing being; whereas the
connected body is its image for others. Because existing beings have these two
aspects, the dual purpose comes into existence. The purpose for the individual is for
the maintenance of the self, that is to say, self-existence; and the purpose for the
whole is for the maintenance of the whole, that is to say, the purpose to make the
whole more perfect. This is the reason for calling the existing being with dual
purposes a connected body. Therefore, there is no solitary being in the universe; all
are connected to each other. The entire universe is a vast organic body composed of
connected bodies with dual purposes. Consequently, when we consider this in
relation to the Original Image, we can see that an existing being is composed of the
Inner and Outer Quadruples. Dealing with self it is called an individual truth body, and
dealing with others it is called a connected body.
Chapter II - Ontology Based on the Unification Principle (Part 5)
Section E - The Yang Sang ("Status-image") and the Position of the Existing
Being
It was made clear above that every being taking after the Original Image had to form
the Inner Quadruple Base inwardly as an individual truth body, and the Outer
Quadruple Base outwardly as a connected body. This formation of the Quadruple
Bases is the being image, namely, the existing structure taking after the Original
Image. The existing being with this structure does not remain stationary but
incessantly moves. Its type of movement is a kind of revolution, that is to say, circular
movement. In other words, when the subject and object form the Quadruple Base
through give-and-take action inwardly and outwardly, circular movement develops.
The Unification Thought calls this the Yang Sang of being. (The detailed explanation
of the Yang Sang is given in the section "The Status of Existence of the Four Position
Foundation," in Divine Principle, pp. 32-39).
Here let me explain the difference between the concepts of the being image and the
Yang Sang. As the content of both the being image and the Yang Sang is the
formation of the Quadruple Base, it can be seen that the two concepts are similar.
But there is quite a difference between them. The being image is a concept which
deals with the structure and elements only, whereas the Yang Sang is a concept
which deals with the movement. As frequently clarified, the being image, as it takes
after the Original Image, consists of the Universal and Individual Images of the
existing being. The Original Image has the Quadruple Base structure; namely the
system which is formed by the four elements in the four positions is the Quadruple
Base. Furthermore, viewed from the time perspective this formation of the structure is
called the Chung-Boon-Hap action. Thus reflecting the Original Image, every existing
being is called an individual truth body or a connected body. After all, all forms of the
Quadruple Bases of the existing beings take after the structure of the Original Image.
Then, does circular movement, as an aspect of the existing beings, take after the
Original Image too? From the standpoint of causality, it may take after some aspect
of the Original Image, and by such reasoning, the circular movement might reflect the
non-angled nature of the love (G-T action) of God (Original Image); but as the world
of the Original Image is one of absolute dimensions outside of time and space, there
is no actual circular movement in it, because circular movement requires time and
distance (space). [Note: Accordingly, a moving body is not able to stand still at a
definite point in space or at a definite moment. If we maintain that a moving body
stands still at a definite point in time and space, this accepts Zenon's assertion that a
"flying arrow stands still", and also accepts the communist sophistic and dialectical
viewpoint of movement which says "a moving body simultaneously exists and does
not exist at a definite point at a definite moment." In essence a point has no size. But
if a point actually exists, it naturally has size, large or small, which means that it
occupies space. Within space, movement can not stand still, because to stand still is
not movement. Therefore there is no true point in the spatial world. Accordingly, a
moving body never stands still in space but constantly moves. In strict terms, a point
has only position and no size, and is dealt with only in mathematics.]
1. The Yang Sang Of Existing Beings
As mentioned above, the Yang Sang refers to circular movement. Namely, it means a
state of being displaying circular movement through the formation of the Quadruple
Base.
Whenever a creation has formed a four position foundation by fulfilling its three
objective purposes through O-D-U action, it begins to perform global spherical
movement in order to maintain its three-dimensional existence. (Ibid., pp. 32-33)
But it should be noted that to say the existing being displays circular movement by
the formation of the Quadruple Base does not mean that all of the four elements in
the four positions move in circles. As already mentioned and clarified in the section
on the Original Image and individual truth body, in the Chung-Boon-Hap action which
completes the Quadruple Base, the origin is Heart or Purpose. Accordingly the
"origin" (Chung) of an Identity-Maintaining (Static) Quadruple Base in the created
world is not an actual existing being, but rather the quadruple's "division" (Boon)
(subject and object) are existing beings, while the "union" (Hap) is nothing but a
union of the division (subject and object). And in the Developing (Dynamic)
Quadruple Base also, the "origin" is Purpose, and not an existing being. Although the
"multiplied body" (Hap) is a new being, it is an outcome of the movement.
Consequently the subject and object are the only elements involved in the circular
movement of the Chung-Boon-Hap (Origin-Division-Union) action or in forming the
Quadruple Base.
What is the concrete meaning of the circular movement of these relative beings? It
means that an object revolves centering on the subject. Needless to say, in this case,
the relative beings perform the G-T action with a common purpose, and in the
process of the G-T action, the object revolves around the subject. The movements of
particles and heavenly bodies are examples of this. Electrons revolve around the
nucleus of protons and the nine planets revolve around the sun. It is a matter of
course that the proton and sun are the subjects. Yet it should not be overlooked that
within the circular movement both the subject and object rotate on their own axes.
This is because when we consider the Quadruple Base of subject and object we find
that within both the subject and object, there are Inner Quadruple Bases containing
inner subjects and inner objects. The inner objects revolve around the inner subjects
and thus create the inner rotational movements. For example, as the moon revolves
around the earth, the earth rotates on her own axis, and as the earth revolves around
the sun, the sun rotates on its own axis. This means that the object elements within
the moon, earth, sun, electrons, and protons also revolve around their subjective
elements. Astronomy says that not only the solar system but the galaxy as well, to
which the solar system belongs, rotates. It is said that centering on a nuclear system
of fixed stars, the galaxy with a diameter of several hundred thousand light years
rotates once every two hundred forty million years. Thus the simultaneous rotation
and revolution actually means that every existing being is an individual truth body in
relation to itself and a connected body in relation to others. For that reason, by
means of the G-T action between the subject and object, circular movement develops
both internally and externally.
Then why do all the existing beings rotate? Does circular movement develop by
chance or necessity? The circular movement is necessary, because it is caused by
the purpose or dual purposes of the existing being. As touched on before, every
existing being has both a purpose for the individual or self-existence, and a purpose
to improve the whole. Due to these purposes every existing being moves in circular
motion. In other words, there can be no existence of the individual or whole without
circular movement. When an electron rotates on its own axis and revolves around the
proton, these motions occur both for self-existence and for the maintenance of the
eternity of the atomic structure. The same is true for the rotation and revolution of the
earth. Thus in order to maintain the eternity of existence of both the individual and the
whole, the object rotates and revolves centering on the subject. In this case the
subject, the center of the circular movement, also revolves centering on a new
subject and thus becomes an object in the higher dimension. The sun, along with
other stellar groups, as an object revolves around a system of nuclear fixed stars
which is the center of the galaxy in the higher dimension. Thus all existing beings,
from the small atoms to the great cosmos, including the galaxy, form a hierarchy
consisting of many levels of centers, and develop circular movement.
Then what is the center of the highest level of these circular movements? It is man.
The highest center of these countless centers is man. Thus man is the supreme
center of the circular movements of the individuals within the universe.
Again, every individual truth incarnation moves spherically, with the lower individual
truth incarnations in the objective position to the higher ones. The center of the
spherical movement of this object is in the individual truth incarnation which is in the
position of subject, on a higher level. Likewise, the centers of countless such
symbolic individual truth incarnations are connected with one another from the lowest
to the highest. Man, the individual truth incarnation in image, is the highest and
central created being. (Ibid., p. 36)
When many objects revolve around one subject at orbits of regular intervals or at
different angles, spherical space is formed centering on the subject, -and the
movements of all the objects are synthesized into one spherical movement. This is
shown in Figures 14 and 15.

Fig. 14 When the orbits are at regular intervals Fig. 15 When orbiting angle is
different
The rotation of the earth corresponds to Diagram 14, and in this case the center, its
subject, seems to be a line. The movement of atoms may correspond to Diagram 15
and in this case the center looks like a point or a ball.
To say the circular movements of many objects centering on one subject form a
spherical shape means that all individual truth bodies have a spherical shape. It is a
matter of common knowledge today that atoms or heavenly bodies have a spherical
form, and we can easily understand that seeds or fruits have spherical shapes too.
Besides we know that the fertilized eggs of animals and various kinds of bird's eggs
are spherical.
All these examples indicate that in principle the basic form of every individual truth
body is spherical. That the shapes of plants, animals, and men seem to have nothing
to do with the spherical form may be due to the fact that the spherical forms were
transformed so as to be more favorable to the realization of the purpose of each
individual.
[Note: The same physical conditions do not exist in the formation of the spherical
forms between heavenly bodies such as the earth and of fertilized eggs or fruits. In
other words, the formation of the spherical forms of the heavenly bodies and the
formation of the spherical forms of fertilized eggs (cells) are not necessarily the
same. The former surely originate in circular movement, while the latter are caused
by the liquidity of cytoplasm which is like a water drop. Yet the Unification Principle
does not regard these spherical forms as the accidental outcome of liquidity. In
creation, an idea has to be set up first in the Original Image and then the individual
truth body is created according to that idea. It is not valid to regard spherical form as
a result of the liquidity but rather to consider that the cytoplasm was made liquid so
as to ultimately create the spherical form.
From such a standpoint, it is possible for us to understand that the spherical forms of
heavenly bodies, fruits, seeds, and eggs all originated from the same common
motive, and it is possible for the Quadruple Base of the Original Image to be
expressed in a sphere. As already mentioned, since the world of the Original Image
is outside time and space, inside and outside are one; large and small are one; and
the past, present, and future all exist in the eternal present. Accordingly it is possible
to say that the four elements of the Quadruple Base consolidate at one point
centering on Heart, and if that point is expanded, it may be expressed as a sphere.
Particularly, in the Static Quadruple Base, since the fourth position is nothing but a
union of the subject and object, the components are the three elements of Heart,
subject and object. To say the subject and object perform G-T action centering on
Heart means that the subject sometimes becomes the object, and the object
sometimes becomes the subject. When a husband and wife have give-and-take,
sometimes the husband is subject and sometimes object to his wife. Such a
phenomenon is due to the nature of the Quadruple Base in the Original Image. That
is to say, in the Original Image, the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang can change
positions with one another. This nature of the Original Being may perhaps be shown
diagrammatically as a circle. When the needle of a compass is turned to the object
from the subject at the radius of SH (distance between subject and Heart) centering
on the heart point (when subject stands at the position of object), a semicircle
appears with S 0 as its diameter, and at the same time the object comes to the
position of subject, its locus also forming a semicircle. Here finally a full circle is
made. From such a standpoint, the Original Image may well be called a circular
image, for the Original Image centers on Heart, and Heart is the starting point of love,
and the nature of love is harmony which has no angles, like a circle. As such, the
Original Image is a circular one and in the first stage of the creation every creature
was made circular. However, as the creation progresses, every being develops the
peculiar shape suitable for its own purpose and function.]
2. Position Of The Existing Being
Here position refers to that of the subject and object, which, strictly speaking, are in
different positions.
As already mentioned, every existing being has within it the two elements of subject
and object (paired elements) as an individual truth body, and as a connected body
every being performs the give-and-take action in a subject and object relationship
with another being. In this case, the subject and object are not at the same level. The
relationships of subject and object are those of superior and inferior, active and
passive, dominating and submitting, central and dependent, creating and conserving,
and positive and negative. The subject being lies above the object being. The subject
is superior to the object. Such a difference in the positions of subject and object is
due to the following facts:
In the first place, in the Original Image, Sung Sang (subject) is mind which has
positive functions (intellect, emotion, and will), whereas Hyung Sang (object) is
undetermined passive matter. In other words, all things were created by mind's
dominion over material (matter).

Fig. 16 Circular Expression of an Original Image

In the second place, in the relationship between positivity (subject) and negativity
(object), the difference of positions is inevitable, because positivity has bright, full,
prominent, hot and warm qualities, whereas negativity has dark, vacuous, concave,
cold and cool qualities.
Thus in the relationships between the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and positivity and
negativity of the Original Image, the position of the subjects is above, and that of the
objects is below. In other words, the Original Image itself has an orderly structure.
For that reason in the world of beings (created world), differences of positions and
levels exists. If there were no differences, all the existing beings on the same level
would have a mind to dominate each other or to refuse each other's dominion, and
this- universe would eventually be thrown into confusion. Order is necessary in the
natural world and human society. Therefore, even if we disregarded the fact that all
creatures take after the Original Image, there would have to be differences of
positions between subjects and objects if only to maintain order in the created world.
How much more the order is necessary then, when the created world takes after the
Original Image. How can this sort of difference of positions between the subject and
object bring about order? The order originates in the fact that the object revolves
around the subject due to the purpose for the whole. An object rotates on its own axis
due to the purpose of the individual and revolves around the subject due to the
purpose of the whole. Then the subject, which becomes an object, revolves around
another subject on a higher level, in addition to rotating on its own axis for the
purpose of the individual. Thus, in the created world there is a series of countless
centers, and man occupies the supreme position of this series. In other words, man is
the center of the whole universe, which forms a vast, orderly, organic body.
Here a further explanation about the fact that man is the center of the universe
should be given. We know, of course, that man merely lives on the earth just as
animals and plants do. Then how can he be the center of the universe? The earth on
which man lives revolves around the sun as its object, and the sun itself revolves, in
the object position, around the system of nuclear fixed stars as a member of the
galaxy. From such a standpoint, man along with the earth on which he lives is one of
the most minute beings in the universe. judging from a physical viewpoint alone, man
can hardly be the center of the cosmos. As a physical being, man is between 5 and 7
feet tall, and weighs 100-300 pounds or so. But from the standpoint of the purpose of
creation, the situation takes a new light. No matter how vast the universe is, it was
created to bring pleasure and joy to man. Namely, it was created as the object of
man. Man is the dominator and the entire universe is the dominated being.
Comparing the relative importance of man and the universe according to the purpose
of creation, human value is greater than the united value of the entire universe,
because an object exists for the subject. Therefore there are two kinds of centers
which are named the physical center and the purpose center. The former is called the
Hyung Sang center; the latter is called the Sung Sang center.
As already explained, every existence has both character and form; accordingly, its
purpose is two-fold. One purpose pertains to internal character and the other to
external form. The relationship between the two is exactly the same as that between
character and form in any individual being. (Ibid., pp. 41-42)
Therefore, the physical centers of circular movement are the physical subjects at the
various levels (the nucleus in the atom, the sun in the solar system, etc.), but their
purpose center (Sung Sang center) is only man. In view of the purpose of creation,
the electron revolves around the proton (nucleus) not only to maintain the atomic
structure (purpose for the whole) but also to bring joy to man indirectly. And the earth
revolves around the sun not merely to form the solar system (purpose for the whole)
but also to bring joy and pleasure to man indirectly through the changing of seasons.
The purpose for the physical center (purpose for the whole) of a lower level is no
more than an individual purpose when considered from the higher level. For example,
at the level of atom, the purpose of the electron, to preserve the atomic structure
through revolving around the proton (purpose for the whole) is, at the molecular level,
a purpose for the individual atom. The purpose of the earth to maintain the solar
system through revolving around the sun (purpose for the whole) is, at the galactic
level, nothing but a purpose for the individual solar system itself. Thus in physical
movement, the subordinate purposes for the whole are superordinate purposes for
the individual. Such physical purposes for the whole are superordinate purposes for
the individual. Such physical purposes for the 'Individual and whole are called Hyung
Sang purposes whereas the ultimate purpose of every individual to contribute to
human life directly or indirectly is called the Sung Sang purpose. Now it has been
clarified that the Sung Sang purpose of all individuals other than man is to serve
man, and the expression that man is a cosmic center means that man is the Sung
Sang center. This is shown in Fig. 17.

Fig 17 The Relationship between the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang Purposes of the
Existing Beings
As frequently mentioned, through all things staying in their definite positions, various
levels of centers (subjects) are formed, and the center of the highest level is man.
This means that the higher the subject level is, the broader its scope of dominion
becomes, and since man is the highest center, the whole universe is under his
dominion. Though man doesn't have direct dominion over the entire universe at
present, the day will come in the future when, through the further development of
science, human beings will directly dominate other heavenly bodies from the earth.
Even though man's scope of dominion will always be restricted to some extent, this
does not mean that man is far from having dominion over the whole universe. This
sort of restriction applies only to a man on the earth who is limited by physical
conditions, but the restrictions of time and space do not exist for the spirit man free of
his physical body.
3. The Various Types Of Circular Movement, And Developing Movement
The circular movements of each existing being are not identical, but rather vary. It
was clarified previously that every existing being must have the circular motion of G-T
actions both inwardly and outwardly in order to exist. But the actual phenomena of
the natural world show that there are a lot of exceptions to this. Molecules, which are
composed of various elements, do not rotate inwardly, and the cells composed of
molecules stand still without any rotation or revolution, as do the tissues made up of
cells and the organs composed of tissues. Animals and man are the only beings that
move, but still they do not move in a completely circular motion. If a man rolled
around like a top, he would surely find it difficult to maintain his life because he would
get too dizzy. Thus most phenomena in nature do not coincide with the fact that
every existing being rotates and revolves. This seeming contradiction can be
resolved through reaffirming that all existing beings are connected bodies with dual
purposes. Before, I made it clear that atoms and heavenly bodies rotated and
revolved due to their dual purposes. In order to realize the dual purposes for both the
individual and the whole, every being performs circular motion. Therefore, strictly
speaking, circular movement is a condition for existence as well as a Yang Sang
(Status-Image). In other words, for existing beings to exist they can not but become
connected bodies. Accordingly, every existing being is both in the position of subject
and whole to subordinate beings, and in the position of object and part to
superordinate beings. To say that an existing being develops circular movement
inwardly and outwardly means it is functioning as a connected body. In short, circular
movement is a means or condition through which a connected body can function. In
other words, for a connected body to perform the function of its dual purposes,
conditions other than circular movement may be necessary. There may be many
ways of realizing the dual purposes of a connected body, according to the positions
of the various beings such as molecules, cells, plants, animals, and man. Let a more
concrete explanation be given about this.
(i) Types of Circular Movement
Let me first deal with the conditions necessary for realizing the purpose of the
connected body at the molecular level. All molecules are composed of atoms and
exist as either inorganic or organic matter. From an historical viewpoint of the
development of the earth, organic matter was created far later than inorganic matter,
which has been proven to be the fundamental material of the earth. Considering the
significance of the development of the earth from the standpoint of creation, the earth
was surely created as the environment for human life, as man's object of beauty and
dominion, and as the place for the various minerals, plants, and animals to exist. If
this is true, then inorganic matter (the basic building block in development), that is, all
the elements in the form of molecules, must compose all the minerals, plants and
animals, and at the same time, solidify the earth so as to make it suitable for the life
of all things. If it were sparse like cotton, or gaseous like a cloud, there could be no
evolution of minerals and no habitat for plants or animals. The function of molecules
(inorganic matter) as connected bodies may thus be considered to solidify the earth
and for that purpose, circular movement which requires spatial intervals at the
molecular level could not occur since the molecules need to be tightly connected
through chemical unions. Furthermore, in order to maintain the particular
characteristics of different minerals such as gold, silver, iron, etc., the components
must be completely and tightly connected with each other. Thus, the molecular level
of connected bodies because of its specific dual purpose performs its function
through chemical union rather than circular motion.
In the second place, let us deal with the function of the cell. The cell is the basic unit
that composes living things. For that reason, unless it is fixed in a definite position as
part of a living body, the continuity of the shape and structure of the individual can not
be maintained. If the muscle cells which compose the heart (cardiac muscle cells)
began to travel here and there, the structure of the heart (cardiac structure) would
crumble immediately. The position of a cell which is a component of a living body
must be fixed in order to realize the purpose for the whole. Rather than moving itself,
it is connected with other cells through the circulation of blood and lymph. Since the
cell itself is an individual truth body, it performs the give-and-take action between its
nucleus and cytoplasm which are its inner subject and object parts; however, this
give-and-take action is not circular movement either but rather a form of biochemical
action. This same situation applies to tissues and organs.
Now let me deal with man as an individual truth body or connected body. In the first
place there is the inner Chung-Boon-Hap action of the individual truth body, namely
the inner give-and-take action which establishes harmony between the physical mind
and the spirit mind.
In the second place, the coordination of the organs (stomach, heart, lungs, etc.)
through the blood and nerves makes the physiological action perfect. The Sung Sang
aspect of man's purpose for the individual is to enjoy living in truth, goodness and
beauty in addition to perfecting his personality through raising his standard of heart,
and the Hyung Sang aspect of his purpose for the individual is to multiply children as
well as to have food, clothing, and shelter to make the physical body sound.
Furthermore, as a connected body, a person can and should do his best to fulfill his
responsibilities to the persons he is in touch with through the relations of upper and
lower, left and right, before and after, and so on. For example, he should be dutiful to
his parents, respectful to his teachers, and should love and educate his children. In
the final analysis, to perform the give-and-take action as a connected body is a
matter of loving the object as a subject, and following the subject as an object.
Next, what is give-and-take action like in social life? It may be similar to that between
individuals. A government is to enforce good policies in the political, economic and
social realms to improve the social welfare of its people, and the people are to be
grateful to the government and follow its policies. The same should be true for
relationships, such as those between teachers and pupils, employers and
employees, and officers and soldiers. Particularly in economic life, the harmonious
circulation of capital, raw materials, and goods should be established between
different industries, between the cities and rural areas, between different enterprises,
between production and consumption, and so forth.
Through the above explanation it may have been clarified that all the levels of
connected bodies other than atoms have no physical circular movement, and that the
types of give-and-take action are different on each level. But as mentioned before, all
connected bodies have common features in that no matter what type of give-and-take
action they perform, it is a method of, or condition for, fulfilling the dual purposes as a
connected body.
The circular movement of atoms, the chemical union of molecules, the biochemical
action of cells, the physicochemical action of tissues and organs, the physiological
action of the human physical body, the Sung Sang action between the physical and
spirit minds, the harmonious give-and-take in social life, and the like, are the same
from the standpoint that all these connected bodies can not but perform G-T action in
order to realize their dual purposes.
However, we can consider the most basic and typical of all these forms of give-and-
take action, for according to the principle of resemblance, at least one of these will
surely directly reflect a certain aspect of the Original Image. Which then is the most
basic form? It may well be the circular form; that is, the circular movement shown in
atoms and heavenly bodies is the essential form of the give-and-take action.
To say all the movements of heavenly bodies including the earth and the atoms
which compose the material of the whole universe are circular movements, in other
words, to say the movements of both the macroscopic and microscopic worlds are
circular, means that the basic type of give-and-take action of connected bodies is
circular movement. Then how can we understand the rest of the patterns of give-and-
take actions? They may be considered as transformations in order to be suitable for
the positions and purposes of the beings. Circular movement was transformed to
chemical union to allow the close connection of molecules; to biochemical action
owing to the colloidal liquidity of cells; to physiological action due to the specific
structure of the human body; to mental action centering on heart and value, due to
the peculiar feature of the duality of flesh and spirit; to the circulation of commodities
and money due to the economic and social peculiarities, and the like. From such a
view, all these patterns of give-and-take actions may be included within the category
of circular movement.
(ii) Development and Spiral Movement
The above-mentioned circular movement was chiefly physical and spatial, but there
is another kind which may be called circular movement in time. This is a developing
movement, and as developing movement is one of the important categories of
philosophy, let us consider it in detail.
The concept of development generally means a changing process which moves
irreversibly forward. To put it concretely, it is a process of changing to a high phase
from a low one, to a new phase from an old one, to a complex phase from a simple
one and so on. Such processes of change are irreversible. The processes such as
the growth of plants and animals, multiplication, the formation of the universe, or the
evolution of living things, never retrograde to the previous phases. For example, a
seed grows into a sprout, then into a stem, branches, leaves, flowers, fruit and then
develops into many more seeds than existed before; this process of growth is
irreversible. The formation of the universe going from a gaseous to a liquid, and then
to a solid state, may also be regarded as the process of development.
Thus development is an irreversible directional movement. Accordingly, the features
of developing movement are finality (goal), time, and stages of development. The
irreversibility of direction can not be formed without the establishment of a goal
(purpose) and the change can not become fixed without a lapse of time. [Note:
Communist philosophy recognizes only the direction of developing movement, and
not its goal. It asserts that development occurs due to the contradictions within
material and that the direction is decided secondarily and automatically by the
physicochemical laws acting in material. Their philosophy does not recognize that a
goal is established first and then the physicochernical conditions are prepared in
order to direct toward the goal. If an established goal is recognized, this admits a
teleological cosmology which would finally result in the breakdown of atheistic
communism. Therefore it is inevitable that communists deny established goals in
order to adhere to their atheistic philosophy. But one has to regard an egg as having
the possibility (goal) of becoming a chicken, and a seed can not but be looked upon
as containing the possibility of becoming a new fruit after maturity. How much more
valid this view of an established goal is, when considered from the standpoint of the
Unification Principle which asserts the creation theory of the cosmos.]
Furthermore, the reality of stages becomes apparent in the development shown in
the above examples. When a plant bears fruit, a new stage, the seed stage appears.
After a chick hatches from an egg, it grows to become a mother hen, and then starts
a new stage by laying an egg. In the formation of the cosmos as well, it is said that
there were the three stages of gas, liquid and solid. In the evolution of living things,
the evolution occurred not through a gradual and continuous process but through
stages. Consequently, it has become obvious that development is a directional
movement with a goal (purpose), time and stages.
Then what shape does developing movement take? According to its directivity toward
the goal, it takes the shape of a straight line, and according to its stages, it would be
circular. But as development involves time, its form will be spiral-the united form of a
straight line and circular forms, as shown in Figure 18.
 Fig. 18 Development in Spiral Form
Thus development is a kind of circular movement. When a solid body is performing
circular movement and a force acts along the direction of the circular movement, the
circular movement changes into a spiral one.
What are the concrete contents and significance of a developing movement which
displays a spiral form like this? As already mentioned, development is a phenomenon
which appears in the formation of the dynamic Quadruple Base. Namely when the
subject and object perform the action of give-and-take centering on a definite
purpose, the outcome appears with direction toward the accomplishment of the
purpose, and this itself is development.
In other words, development occurs through the dynamic Chung-Boon-Hap process.
Before, it was said that new multiplied bodies appear as a result of the dynamic
Chung-Boon-Hap process. In the Unification Principle, the terms "multiplication" and
"development" are often taken to mean the same thing. But strictly speaking, the
multiplied body means a new stage of development. In plants, for example, the stage
of new fruits is multiplication; in animals, the stage of the newly born offspring is
multiplication, and so forth. Development is, after all, the dynamic inner and outer C-
B-H action of an existing being. To say development takes the shape of spiral or
circular movement means that all development is performed with similar contents in
every stage and with a definite period.
Why does development take the form of circular movement and pass through
stages? It is because of the principle that every existing being has to perform circular
motion in order to maintain its existence eternally. As already mentioned, every
existing being performs circular movement which appears by the G-T action between
the subject and object. Here the following question may arise. If a physiological
action occurring within the physical body is circular movement, and an animal's
growth is development; and if, as mentioned before, circular movement is
indispensable for maintaining eternal existence; why isn't physical action enough to
maintain the eternity of existence? Why is it necessary to multiply offspring, a whole
new stage of development? Why is a spiral movement required in addition to circular
movement (physiological action)? Atoms and heavenly bodies maintain their eternity
of existence through circular movement alone. Why can plants and animals not do
the same?
It is because atoms and heavenly bodies are mere physical matter, while plants and
animals are vital beings. Physical beings have only space while vital beings have
both time and space. Since, in principle, time and space are inseparable, physical
beings can not disregard time, but because the same forms are repeated in physical
change, time may be comparatively ignored. The time for the earth to revolve around
the sun now is 365 days, and this period was the same a hundred years ago, a
thousand years ago; the seasonal changes in these 365 days have always been the
same. In other words, there are no real changing aspects involved. Therefore just
one period of the circular movement can be regarded as the eternal movement of the
earth, if one disregards time. However the movement of vital beings, such as plants
and animals, is quite different. A vital being has a time limit (life span) because of the
necessity of multiplication given to living things at the creation. In other words, vital
beings must have succeeding generations and multiply posterity according to the law
of vital creation. "Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). "And God
blessed them, saying 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let
birds multiply on the earth.'" (Ibid., 1:22). Accordingly, for a limited, vital being to
multiply, another circular movement is required. Needless to say, because vital
beings also have material Hyung Sang aspects, they develop specific circular
movements (physiological action). But these are only the functions for maintaining
existence during a life span, not for multiplication.
Furthermore, the time aspect of multiplication (new generations) should be a new
period whose contents are different from the previous one, because succeeding
generations means a numerical increase through multiplication and also a
diversification of features. For example, in the period of the parents, there are only
two persons (beings): male and female; but in their children's period, there are more
than two beings in number and a variety of features of these persons appears.
Because of this numerical multiplication of lives and the diversification of features,
vital beings can not but have a succession of generations and eternity of existence.
Therefore vital beings do need another circular movement. Thus unlike mere physical
beings such as inorganic matter, vital beings are required to perform circular
movement both in time and space, and this circular movement, in relation to the
lapse of time, is the so-called spiral movement of development.
It should be added here that the vertical G-T action between the subject and object
(the replacement of the former generation by another) appears in spiral movement as
the G-T action between the positivity and negativity in development. This doesn't
mean that the object revolves around the subject. Rather, to put it concretely, when a
mother animal (subject) gives birth to her children (object), the children become new
subjects and give birth to new children (objects). This is the vertical G-T action of
development and spiral movement manifests aspects of this vertical G-T action.
(iii) Direction of Developing Movement
Why does developing movement have direction? As already mentioned, to say
movement has direction, means that the movement is heading toward a definite goal.
Development occurs through the dynamic Chung-Boon-Hap action and this action
occurs centering on a definite purpose. The goal toward which development heads is
established by this purpose. Actually, the purpose itself is a goal. The purpose of a
fertilized egg is to be a chicken, and with this as a common purpose, G-T action
occurs between the embryo and the white and yellow, which results in a chicken.
That is, the purpose that the egg contained was the very goal it reached after
development.
Then what established the purpose? In an egg, the purpose was established by the
life within the embryo. In other words, the life within the embryo which was to become
a chicken established the goal and direction of its movement.
Life, which is called a gene in genetics, means the consciousness latent in material,
and it has different aspects according to each individual. Thus, the gene should be
regarded as an individual truth body, and it should have both the aspects of Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang. The Sung Sang aspect is life in the true sense and the gene
(DNA) dealt with in science is a bearer of life and not life itself. The DNA is nothing
but the Hyung Sang aspect of life. In other words, the actual structure of DNA should
be regarded as the Hyung Sang in relation to the Sung Sang which is life. Thus since
life is consciousness, it is no wonder that it establishes a definite purpose and goal.
In the Unification Principle, such life is called the autonomy and dominion of the
Principle itself. There are no existing beings which are not based on the Principle,
because the Principle means rules, Logos, reason, law and mathematical reason.
Accordingly, the Logos gives an individual being a larger or smaller amount of
intellectual elements, and when a being is given mostly mathematical law and less
intellectual elements, the individual becomes quite passive, ruled by physicochernical
law. When a being is given more intellectual elements, it becomes active and
autonomous, because the intellectual elements are nothing other than reason.
Since reason is part of consciousness as well as part of intellect, the autonomy of the
Principle is conscious and purposeful. Thus the principle acting upon inorganic matter
is merely physicochemical law, but when acting upon living things, like organic
matter, the Principle is autonomous, conscious, and purposeful. Life is the very
autonomy of the Principle. Therefore not only physicochernical laws but also
autonomous functions act together within the physical body of a living thing.
Therefore the G-T actions within living beings display developing movement with
direction.
To the contrary, since the movement of inorganic matter is controlled by simple law,
this movement becomes repetitious or circular. Needless to say, since inorganic
matter is also a created being, it is true that it has both the purposes of the individual
and the whole. But since its purpose is only given to it from outside, inorganic matter
itself is never conscious of it. The earth revolves around the sun only because of the
purpose given it from outside, and not because the earth is conscious of it.
Communist philosophy regards conflict between inner contradictory elements as the
cause of all movement, including development. It considers even reversible
repetitious movements like chemical reactions as contradictions. Communists can
not clarify the difference between developing and repetitious movements. Because
they look upon life as being only a peculiar form of mere physicochernical action
rather than regarding it as consciousness latent in material, it is inherently impossible
for them to distinguish between the two movements. Marx took the phenomenon of
water boiling at 100'C as an example to explain the abruptness of revolution in social
development. However, this example is not related to development, but only to
repetition. This foolish act of Marx originated in his lack of discrimination between
development and repetition.
(iv) Purpose, Law, and Necessity in Development
Here let me touch on the purpose, law, and necessity in development, for they have
often been dealt with in philosophy.
Jumping to a conclusion, the Unification Principle maintains, as could be known from
previous sections, that there is purpose in development. It is the natural conclusion of
a creation view of the universe. But materialism, and communist materialism in
particular, strictly denies any purpose in development, and judging from their atheistic
theory, it is no wonder.
Which is the more valid and rational view? The followers of communism recognize
both law and direction in development but not goal or purpose. Is this a true view? Is
the establishment of direction possible without a goal? Communists say that direction
appears from the necessity of principle (law). As the law of causality acts upon the
natural world, cause A always gives rise only to effect B and not to effect C.
Therefore if a cause as well as the law of causality can be known exactly, the effect
can also be foreseen exactly. When a fire is lit in the fireplace, smoke necessarily
rises up out of the chimney. The sprouting of plants in spring and bearing of fruit in
fall are the necessary outcomes of natural law. They are caused by the weather
conditions and the attributes of the plants, and there is no need to recognize any
mysterious purpose or plan in it. If any mystery were admitted, natural phenomena
would lose their laws and an unscientific and mythological view of nature would be
established. However, this is a groundless assertion in philosophy. The acceptance
of necessity and law in nature is only a scientific standpoint, not a philosophical one.
Since natural science deals only with phenomena and keeps a neutral attitude toward
all philosophy, natural science transferred the issue of purpose in the explanation of
natural phenomena to philosophy in order to maintain the purity of science. For
example, the cause of smoke in the case of a fire is in the realm of science, but the
reason and motive for one to light a fire is out of the scientific realm. The
phenomenon that a union of a bull and cow gives birth to new life is a scientific
phenomenon, but the reason for a man to raise cattle belongs to the purpose of man.
In this way, the scientific and philosophical realms do not necessarily coincide when
dealing with natural phenomena. Of course, the contents of philosophy should not
contradict scientific truth, but philosophy should establish a farther reaching universal
truth which includes scientific truth. If it is not only a scientific assertion but also a
philosophical assertion that necessity is part of development only due to the laws
present in natural phenomena, the following question should be answered. Why does
every natural thing have law? Materialism recognizes the cosmic essence as matter,
and mind as its product. Then the laws should originally be contained within the
matter itself without any regard to mind. Yet matter itself should originally be
undetermined material. If that is true, then how is it possible for matter as an
undetermined and unrestricted material to become determined? Communist
philosophy can offer no solution to this problem. Communist philosophers say that
law is the attribute of matter itself. This is mere dogma and conjecture. A true man of
science may only say, "Judging from the current scientific knowledge, legality can not
but be regarded as an attribute of material. But there is room for possible change in
this concept as science develops further." Frankly speaking, communist philosophy is
controlled by science so it is far from being a true philosophy which can lead science.
Since Unification Thought maintains that the universe was created, it strongly
maintains that development has purpose, and regards all the laws as necessity, as
preparation for realizing the purpose of cosmic creation. Acceptance of God's
existence will not destroy purpose and necessity but rather further assure and stress
their existence by the logic which shows that purpose and necessity originate in the
Logos.
Thus Unification Thought looks upon all the laws of the natural world as necessary,
because they were prepared beforehand for the realization of a definite purpose.
Chapter II - Ontology Based on the Unification Principle (Part 6)
Section F - Existing Form of Being
From the standpoint of the Unification Principle, every existing being has a definite
Yang Sang and form in order to maintain its existence. Then, what is the difference
between Yang Sang and form, and their actual concepts? As already explained, the
Yang Sang refers to circular movement and it is a concept which deals with the co-
existence aspect of the subject and object elements. Circular movement is a
necessary aspect and condition for both the subject and object to co-exist. There can
be neither the rotation of an object without a subject nor the existence of a subject
without an object revolving around it.
On the contrary, the existing form means the form or condition which the subject and
object respectively have as individual truth bodies. Prior to G-T action, the subject
and object have to possess conditions and forms as individual truth bodies and
existing beings. Considering man, before marriage a man has to prepare the
conditions of being a male person and bridegroom such as education, health, age, a
means of living, virility, and so on; and a woman has to prepare the conditions of
being a bride such as education, health, age, posture, fecundity, countenance and
the like. All these conditions are necessary forms for the male and the female to exist
as bridegroom and bride. After these conditions are fulfilled, the man (subject) and
woman (object) marry and carry on family life by maintaining a harmonious G-T
action. This G-T action is the very living Yang Sang of the couple. Through this
example, the difference between the concepts of the Yang Sang and form should
surely have been clarified. In the long run, the existing Yang Sang means the co-
existing form which consists of both of them (subject and object) existing together,
whereas the existing form means the self-existing form with which each individual is
endowed. There are the ten following existing forms:
(1) Self-Existence and Prime Force
All existing beings tend to constantly maintain their identity. But in order to maintain
one's identity, there must be a certain force which is always active. This force is the
very Universal Prime Force. Human beings never become animals or plants. Even
after death man lives eternally as a human being. It is due to the ability of self-
existence endowed by God that man maintains himself for eternity. All other beings
are the same. But since living things have a specific duration of life, their self-
existence has significance only during that duration. The force to maintain such self-
existence is called Universal Prime Force.
(2) Sung Sang and Hyung Sang
As an individual is an individual truth body, it has both the aspects of inner, invisible
character (Sung Sang) and outer, visible form (Hyung Sang). In this case the fact that
it has both natures means it has the existing form, and when this individual performs
circular movement through G-T action with other individuals, this is its Yang Sang.
(3) Positively and Negativity
For an existing being to exist, it must manifest positive or negative aspects both in
time and space. In this case when an existing being with positivity performs the G-T
action with any other being with negativity, this is the Yang Sang.
(4) Subjectivity and Objectivity
Every being has the aspect of existing in the two positions of either a subject or an
object to another being.
(5) Locality and Location
Every being necessarily has a position; namely, an individual can exist only by taking
a definite position. In other words, all existing beings have a quality which requires
them to have a definite place to exist. Each and every being, from atoms to heavenly
bodies, has a certain position. There are countless positions in the universe, and all
these positions without exception are to be occupied by certain individuals. The place
itself is called "locality" while the taking of a place is called "location."
(6) Relativity and Bond
As the G-T action was presupposed at the creation, it is every individual's nature to
have relations with others and to find it a necessity to be connected with one
particular being.
This necessity is called a "bond." For example, when Mr. Park and Miss Kim marry,
since they are opposite sexes, it is in their natures to relate to each other as the
opposite sex. This aspect of their nature is "relativity." But for Mr. Park to marry Miss
Kim out of many women was due to some indispensable, necessary condition. This
aspect is the bond.
(7) Action and Multiplicativity
Every individual has a tendency to exercise his influence over others. This is "action."
It is also in every individual's nature to change or develop due to influence from
others. This is "multiplicativity." The original meaning of the concept multiplication or
multiplicativity is to make a new individual, but in Unification Thought multiplicativity
means not only bringing forth a new individual, but also means the appearance of a
new form or new nature. As change and development may be considered
manifestations of new forms or new natures, these phenomena are also looked upon
as multiplicativity.
(8) Time and Space
Every being necessarily occupies a definite space because it has form, namely a
material aspect, and it also has a time aspect since it is to preserve itself (identity-
maintenance) throughout the change processes, such as development, growth,
perfection, decline, movement (motion), and the like.
(9) Mathematical Reason and Principle
Every being is a created being and thus necessarily contains the Logos. Logos is a
complex of reason and principle, and simple reason is both intellect and
mathematical reason. Mathematical reason is also contained in every individual. Here
mathematical reason does not refer to a number itself but rather to the reason which
deals with numbers, and to the principles which act upon individuals as basic laws.
This requires a definite number and system. For example, in a spherical body, it is a
matter of course that it has such existing forms as mentioned above because it is an
existing being. Besides these forms, there is also a content which pertains to a
definite number. Namely, the mathematical formula 4π r2 is formed by measuring the
sphere and defining the sphere's surface area. This formula shows that four times the
circumference-diameter ratio multiplied by the squared radius (4π * r2 ) is the
numerical value of the spherical surface. The ratio of the circumference to the
diameter (2r) is known to be 3.1416:1. This means that every sphere is endowed with
a definite law which is able to express such a numerical value. And since this law
contains the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (π ), the formula 4π
r2 is a unified system which consists of several elements (laws). Such a system of
laws is called "principle" in Unification Thought. Yet a principle (system of laws) is
considered to contain a kind of reason. It is well known that the discovery of natural
laws requires rational speculation, namely research. But even laws discovered
through such research have sometimes proved to be wrong. Thus rational
speculation is considered necessary to discover laws. This means that reason
(intelligence) was very much required in creation. Because laws have this
mathematical aspect, the reason required to set up these laws (principles) is called
mathematical reason.
(10) Infinity and Finiteness
As every being is a concrete individual and not the whole, so each being may be
regarded as having finiteness. If any being has an infinite size, nature or capability, it
will no longer be an individual nor a creature. However finite the individual may be,
there can be no finiteness apart from infinity. For example, although man's physical
mind in his Sung Sang has a finite feature, it is connected with God's Sung Sang in
the spirit mind, and man's heart originates in God.
In other words, the infinite Sung Sang (God's Sung Sang) is contained in the finite
Sung Sang, and man's physical body, his Hyung Sang, is connected with God's
Hyung Sang (hyle, matter). The search for the cause of all beings, from the physical
body to cells, molecules and atoms, is clarified in the understanding that man's
physical body is connected to the infinite hyle (matter) of God. Particularly, since the
whole creation was created with eternity as its standard in principle, inorganic matter
is to maintain the eternity of its Universal Image and a part of its Individual Image
through circular movement, whereas living beings maintain their eternity through
multiplication. In other words, all beings contain even infinity of time (eternity). This
then, is what constitutes the infinity and finiteness of the existing form of being. [Note:
It should be noted that this infinity and finiteness are not the game sort of relative
concepts as Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. Infinity and finiteness do not correspond to
Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. Infinity exists in both the character (Sung Sang) and
form (Hyung Sang). Finiteness does too. Besides, they exist in the other existing
forms such as action, multiplicativity, positivity and negativity, and the like.
Accordingly, infinity and finiteness should be dealt with as another existing form.]
There may be other aspects to the existing form, but judging from the Unification
Principle, since the existing Yang Sang should be presupposed, the existing form
should be expressed in terms of the basic concepts concerning the quadruple, and
the ten mentioned above are regarded as the basic existing forms.
Chapter III - Critique of Major Traditional Viewpoints of Substance
Through the above explanation, the ontological view of the Unification Principle, and
the basic differences (of standpoint) between the Unification Principle and traditional
philosophies should be clear. Now for reference, the traditional views of substance
(essence) will be criticized and compared with that of the Unification Principle.
(i) Plato (427-347 B. C)
Plato regarded "idea" and khora as separate from one another. Calling the cosmic
essence "idea", Plato recognized khora (hyle) as another element which existed with
idea. This resulted in dualism. He further recognized Demiurgos as the maker (God)
of individual beings, constructing them out of the khora (hyle), material). But he did
not clarify the relations of causality, and of order (prior and posterior) among them.
Thus his view may be said to be pluralistic because it is obvious from his assertions
that idea and khora are not attributes of Demiurgos. Accordingly, in Plato, the source
of idea and khora is left unclarified. He set up a teleological cosmology in that
Demiurgos created the universe for goodness' sake, but the reason that creation was
necessary was not clarified.
His ontology is equivalent to the theory of the Original Image in the Unification
Principle, in that idea corresponds to Sung Sang (strictly speaking, Inner Sung Sang),
and khora to Hyung Sang. In Plato's view Demiurgos is God, but his God can hardly
be looked upon as a personal being, so it is unlike the personal God of Heart of the
Unification Principle. If we do have to make a comparison to the theory of the Original
Image, Demiurgos is equivalent to the Inner Sung Sang of the Original Image,
particularly its will part. But as already clarified in the section on the Original Image,
the Inner Sung Sang did not mold the Hyung Sang using the Inner Hyung Sang as
Demiurgos molded khora using the idea as the pattern. That is, the Logos was
formed through the give-and-take action between the Inner Sung Sang and Inner
Hyung Sang (concept, idea, law, etc.) and creation was brought about through the
give-and-take action between the Logos and the Original Hyung Sang (hyle). This is
God's process of creation.
(ii) Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
The ontological viewpoint of Aristotle is also dualistic. According to him, his eidos is
equivalent to Plato's idea and his hyle to Plato's khora. Idea transcends the actual
world but eidos is imminent in individual matter, where it is manifested as the
structure, shape and function of the individual. Khora is pure undetermined material,
but hyle is determined material with a definite actual shape. Aristotle thought the
eidos and hyle, which composed a concrete individual, each had their own causes.
He called the cause of eidos, causa prima (prote aitia) or eidos of eidos, and he
called the cause of hyle, materia prima (prote hyle). The former means first (final)
cause, the latter first material. Thus there are some differences of concepts between
Plato and Aristotle, but they are the same in that they regard these two elements as
the ultimate substance. Thus Aristotle's ontological view is also dualistic.
But in dealing with God, Aristotle did not establish God as separated from eidos and
hyle as Plato had, but rather regarded the causa prima itself as God. He said the
eidos of eidos was the causa prima (pro te aitia) or forma prima (prote eidos) and
called it nous or God. So according to him, God is nous or thinking or mind, and hyle
(prote hyle) is another being separated from God. Finally, however, the source of
hyle was left unclarified. Now let us criticize these concepts of eidos and hyle in
relation to the theory of the Original Image. Seemingly eidos and hyle are equivalent
to the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang of the Universal Image of an individual truth body,
but this is not true. The eidos of Aristotle means shape, structure, function and the
like, of a mere individual and the hyle means only its material.
But the Sung Sang in the Unification Principle means the invisible aspect of an
individual, so only the function aspect of eidos is equivalent to Sung Sang. For
example, the physicochernical action in inorganic matter, the life in plants, the instinct
and physical mind in animals, the physical mind and spirit man in human beings all
correspond to Sung Sang.
The shape, structure, and size in eidos, including the material (hyle), belong to the
Hyung Sang of the Unification Principle. In the Principle, the invisible is Sung Sang
and the visible is Hyung Sang, yet the ultimate causes of the Sung Sang and Hyung
Sang in the individual truth body are the Original Sung Sang and Original Hyung
Sang of the Original Image. The Original Sung Sang and Original Hyung Sang seem
to correspond to causa prima and materia prima of Aristotle. However the Original
Sung Sang and Original Hyung Sang in the Principle, are God's attributes, and
neither of them can be God Himself. Thinking (mind) and material (hyle) are His
attributes. Especially since thought and matter are not truly totally disparate, they can
not but be God's attributes. Thus the dualism of Aristotle is discredited and monism is
suggested by the Unification Principle.
(iii) Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Thomas Aquinas, the most prominent theologian and philosopher of the Middle Ages,
adapted the above-mentioned concepts (eidos and hyle) of Aristotle to theology,
setting up a theory that the causa prima was God, and hyle was made by God from
nothing. Accordingly, his concept of God is also as a pure spiritual being with no
material content (hyle). This sort of view of God seems to have been typical in
Christianity. But it is impossible to clarify how God can create material from nothing.
In other words, Aquinas left the question of how material can be made from spirit
unsolved, just as materialism left the question of how spirit can be produced from
material unsolved. This question can easily be answered through Unification
Thought. As already mentioned, mind, and matter are not the basic substances
(essence) of the world of cause, but rather are attributes of the Absolute Being.
Therefore, they are not totally disparate in nature. Material (hyle), in the world of the
Original Image, is a Logos-bearing force, and mind (spirit) in the world of the Original
Image, means a force-bearing Logos or force-bearing mind. In other words, in the
world of cause, mind has force (power) and force has mind. The difference between
both the attributes is not radical and essential but only a difference of degree; the
difference is only that between subject and object, motion and stillness, activity and
passivity, and the like. If there were a true and essential difference between them
there could be no give-and-take action between them. Consequently, mind and
material (matter, hyle) were not created by God but were originally attributes of the
Original Being (God) in the world of the ultimate cause.
(iv) Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes also set up a dualism by regarding matter and mind as quite different. He
arrived at the proposition "cogito, ergo sum" through methodical doubt (doute
mkhodique). He was convinced of the originality and independence of mind and
looked upon the essentiality of mind as thinking (speculation). He asserted the
following: "Mind is so clear and distinct [clair et distinct] that it can not be questioned.
And it is also obvious that mind perceives objective matter and that objective matter
exists as the object of sense." Recognizing the certainty of the existence of matter
besides the existence of mind, he called its attribute extension, because he thought
that all matter occupied a definite space. Although thinking and extension are
substance (essence), according to him they are not the ultimate substance. He
considered the true substance to be God, and thinking and extension rely on God.
Although mind and matter rely on God, they are original elements each separate from
the other; and, since his view was that thinking and extension (mind and matter) are
independent of each other and quite different in nature, his ontological view is also
dualistic. Such a dualism of mind and matter brings about the following difficult
problem. Since mind and matter are two quite independent substances, there can be
no direct interaction between them. And as they are two completely different
elements, a partition wall lies between them.
To solve this problem, Descartes' successors such as Arnold Geulincx (1624-1669)
and Nicole de Malebranche (1638-1715) proposed occasionalism. This is the theory
that mind and matter are unable to interact directly except that the Almighty God is
able to connect the two.
For example, when any movement develops in either the mind or matter, making this
movement the occasional cause (cause occationalls) God will give rise to another
movement in the other side. This occasionalism was eventually applied even to
epistemology, in order to solve the question of how a mind with no spatial area can
recognize matter which has space. Thus God was interposed to solve the mind and
matter issue. The fault of this theory which is unacceptable nowadays originates in
Descartes' dualism.
In the Unification Principle, the difference between the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang,
mind and matter, is not considered an essential difference. Since the difference is
only one of degree in the world of cause, matter can act upon mind and mind act
upon matter. There can be a direct give-and-take action between them and
recognition can also occur.
(v) George Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831)
Next I will mention the substance of Hegel's philosophy. Hegel expressed God as
Absolute Spirit, Reason, Logos, Absolute Intellect, Being (Sein), Thesis, etc. All these
are known to be equivalent to the eidos of Aristotle.
If Logos corresponds to eidos, then what is the relationship between Logos and
matter (hyle, Materie)? As is widely known, his philosophical system consists of
Logic, Philosophy of Nature, and Philosophy of Spirit, and his system deals with the
dialectical process of the self-realization of God. The dialectical process means that
God has development in Himself and then develops into nature and finally returns to
the Absolute Spirit (Himself). Yet Hegel explains God in his Logics in a dialectical
way. God is reason and mind and is equivalent to "Being" in his dialectics: Being
(Sein)-Not Being (Nich ts) -Becoming (Werden); and to "Essence" (Wesen) in the
dialectical method of Being (Sein)-Essence (Wesen)-ldea (Begriff). But the concept of
matter (Materie, hyle) is not contained in either Being or Essentiality. [Note: In the
triad of Being-Not Being-Becoming, and Being-Essence-Idea, when the actual
process (natural world) is dealt with (in other words, when the triad of his dialectics is
applied to actual processes), "Being" means an undetermined, mere finite being, that
is, anything that is merely existing itself; but, in the case where these dialectics are
applied to the world of God before creation, "Being" means pure Logos as
indeterminability.]
His dialectical structure has been known as thesis-antithesis-synthesis, affirmation-
negation-negation of the negation, etc. So not only Being-Not Being-Becoming, and
Being-Essence-Idea, but also the three stages of the process of Logic-Nature-Spirit,
in his Enzyklopedie, coincide with the principle of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis.
Therefore, though he did not touch on the relationship between God and matter in the
world of God prior to creation, the relationship may be guessed according to his
theory of dialectical development. He said that the outer development of the Logos
was nature, but this brings up the question of how Logos, a spiritual and rational
being, can develop into material nature. Since Hegel never dealt with this directly, we
have to guess what his viewpoint would have been. According to his dialectics, since
the thesis contains its antithesis in itself, and the affirmation connotes negation, the
motions from thesis to antithesis, and from affirmation to negation come to occur.
According to his Enzyklopedie, nature is the outwardly developed Logos. Namely
Logos developed outwardly to become nature. In other words, in creation the
movement from Logos to nature occurred. So we can not but consider that nature
(matter) was contained in the Logos as its antithesis or negation and as such it was
possible for nature to exist. It may have been the dialectical viewpoint of Hegel that
God Himself was a unity of Logos and matter. Because Hegel regarded God as pure
spirit or reason, even though God contains matter within Him, matter must be a
different element (Anders) from God, not part of God. In other words, though matter
is contained in God as His antithesis, its source should be somewhere other than
God. Then where is its source? Hegel couldn't clarify this point. Because Hegel
regarded God as pure spirit, reason, or Logos, such a question came about.
As already mentioned, the Logos is not God Himself but one of His attributes
(Original Image) along with reason and matter. Furthermore reason and matter are
not completely different but rather relative elements with common features. So the
natural world did not come about by the thesis-antithesis-synthesis process; that is,
not by the negation or antithesis, but rather by the Chung-Boon-Hap process, or in
other words by the G-T action between the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. However,
Hegel also raised another question. Why would the motion to antithesis develop and
the development from the affirmation to the negation appear when the thesis
(affirmation) contains an antithesis (negation)? It is groundless and irrational that a
developing movement would appear when the thesis is denied by an antithesis.
According to the Unification Principle, all developing movement in the objective
(Outer) and subjective (Inner) worlds comes from the dynamic Chung-Boon-Hap
action centering on Purpose (Heart). Therefore, the development of concepts also
comes from a dynamic C-B-H action centering on the Purpose (desire) to attain a
better concept (knowledge). [Note: In the book Logic, regarding Being in the dialectic
of Being-Not Being-Becoming as Logos, Hegel looked upon "Not Being" as complete
erpptiness (Vollkommene Leerheit), indeterminability (Bestimmungslosigkeit) and
contentlessness (Ingaltlosigkeit). This view does not mean that "Not Being" denies
matter, but rather means that matter is indeterminability, and contentless void.
Accordingly this "Not Being" can be regarded as the other being (Sein Anders) of
Logos (essentiality), non-being (Nichtsein) or nature prior to being determined by the
Logos. Edward Erdmann, Kuns Fischer and Tatchito Takechi agreed with these
concepts. (See Dialectical Problems by Takechi, p. 61-62. and Logical System of
Hegel by Takechi, p. 119-150]
(vi) Karl Marx (1818- 1883)
It is widely known that Karl Marx regarded matter as being the basic substance, while
Hegel looked upon spirit (thinking, concept) as that substance. To Marx, spirit (mind)
is the secondary element derived from matter. Succeeding Hegel's dialectic, Marx set
up the materialistic dialectics or dialectical materialism. He maintained that the world
(nature) developed not by means of the dialectic of the Logos or concept but rather
by means of the dialectics of material itself. To the best of Marx's knowledge, actual
nature (determined nature) never appeared through the action of Logos upon
undetermined nature, but nature itself or material itself originally contained the
physicochernical laws and the law of contradiction. Therefore, he opposed the
concept of anything like reason or Logos acting upon nature.
But such a viewpoint of matter raises a further serious question. In the first place,
what is the accurate view of material? In the second place, to say that matter itself
originally has laws is the same as saying that matter itself originally has Logos. Then
why isn't matter itself indeterminable from the beginning rather than determined? The
recent scientific viewpoint of matter has come to contradict that of Marx. In the age of
Marx, matter was considered as an objective being with a definite mass occupying a
definite space. According to the current scientific view of material, however, the atom
which was considered the smallest unit of matter is no longer the ultimate unit, and
the basic cause of material is energy having aspects both of waves and particles with
neither space nor mass. From this view of an incorporeal element with no mass,
matter and spirit (mind) are all the same. Accordingly, to say that matter has
determinability (law) from the beginning means that reason (Logos) was originally in
such an incorporeal element. In the Unification Principle, the cause of matter (hyle) is
regarded as the Hyung Sang of the Original Image. But Hyung Sang is not a solitary
being but rather is involved in a give-and-take action with the Sung Sang (Logos).
Thereby mass originally has determinability. To put it more accurately, the Original
Image of the Original Being is formed through the perfect unity between the Original
Sung Sang and Original Hyung Sang. Therefore, in the actual world the Sung Sang
element (heart, mind) is contained in matter and a kind of energy, the Hyung Sang
element, is contained in Sung Sang (mind).
(vii) Oriental Philosophy-Sung-Ih Hak
Finally I would like to touch upon the Ih-Kih Theory of Sung-Ih Hak, a kind of oriental
philosophy. Sung-Ih Hak was founded by Chu-tsu (1130-1200) who was a famous
Confucianist of the Song-dynasty of China. His philosophy (Sung-Ih Hak) is known as
the dualism of Ih and Kih. Ih and Kih are the substance of the universe. They co-exist
and can not exist independently of each other. According to Chu-tsu, Ih is the
principle of the cosmos which exists within all things, and is a kind of reason and law
which makes Kih act. Kih is the Yang Yin, positivity and negativity, and matter ,which
causes all things to be formed. Accordingly Ih is invisible, while Kih is visible in the
world of phenomena.
According to Yuk (the oldest oriental philosophy) the ultimate cause of the universe is
the Taegeuk. The Taegeuk gave rise to both Euil (Eum and Yang); both Eui gave rise
to the four Sang (elements); the four Sang produced the eight Kwai (factors), and the
eight Kwai gave birth to all things. Therefore the Taegeuk is the unified body of Eum
Yang (the negative and positive). But Chu-tsu regarded the Taegeuk as mere Ih, so
to him, the Taegeuk and the Eum Yang (negative and positive) are different from
each other (dualism). The Ih-Kih Theory seems to be similar to Aristotle's theory of
eidos and hyle and the Ih seems to correspond especially to Hegel's Logos. This fact
means that Sung-lh Hak had the same difficulties as the philosophies of Aristotle and
Hegel. That is to say, if Ih (reason) is regarded as the Taegeuk (ultimate cause), and
the Taegeuk is different from Kih, the origin of Kih is not clarified, and the reason all
things should come into being from Ih Kih (reason and force) is not made clear.
By the Ih-Kih theory, the formation of the cosmos is only inevitable by law, and not
purposeful by any definite motive. In the universe, particularly in the world of living
things, there are many purposeful phenomena. Such phenomena can not be
understood without recognizing a purposeful motive. Though Chu-tsu added an
ethical element to Ih (reason) and clarified that Ih was not only law but also virtue, it
is still difficult to explain the purposefulness of movement in the universe merely by
such a method of explanation.
In order to recognize the purposeful movement (development) of the universe, the
necessity for Ih and Kih to combine should be explained by a certain purposeful
motive. If this problem can be solved through purposefulness, then the cosmos
should be regarded not as having been generated, but as having been created.
These weak points of Oriental thought would be completed by recognizing an
emotional element (Heart) in the Taegeuk, and by regarding Ih and Kih as the
attributes of the Taegeuk. That is, when the Taegeuk is dealt with not as reason
itself, but as substance (essence) having Heart, and Ih and Kih as its attributes, all
the insufficiencies of Sung-lh Hak are completely resolved. Because Ih corresponds
to Sung Sang and Kih to the Hyung Sang of the Unification Principle, and because
the interaction between Ih and Kih is carried out centering on Heart (Purpose), the
view that the universe is formed in a direction where the Purpose can be realized is
established.

Chapter 1 - Theory of the Original Human Nature (part 1)

The theory of the "Original Human Nature" is a field of philosophy unique to
Unification Thought and until now no other philosophy has taken up this issue as an
independent field. In this chapter, the differences among the Original Nature, the
Second Nature and Existence are explained. Particularly, the limits of the Original
Nature are clarified through a critique of the existentialist view of the human being.
Then the standpoint of Unification Thought concerning the Original Human Nature is
propounded.
Section A - Meaning and Necessity of the Theory of the Original Human Nature
(i) Necessity of the Original Human Nature
The theory of Original Nature discusses what the original nature of different beings,
especially that of human beings, is like. It is a philosophical field established for the
first time by Unification Thought.
There are two reasons we take up the Theory of Original Nature regarding it as a
special philosophical field.
One is that the philosophies of the past did not always clarify the qualitative
difference between human beings and other natural things. According to Hellenistic
thought, which originated in Greece, human beings are regarded as part of nature
and are placed within nature. On the other hand in Hebraism, the basis of the Judeo-
Christian tradition, human beings are considered different in value from nature;
however, even here the difference was not explained satisfactorily.
According to the Unification Principle, there is a clear difference in position between
human beings and nature (things). This is the first reason the Theory of the Original
Nature is necessary.
(ii) Original Nature and Fallen Nature
Secondly, we think that although human beings were originally created in the "image
of God" (Genesis 1:24), man has lost his Original Nature through the fall. If this is
true, without clarification of the Original Human Nature in some way or other, we will
not be able to know how great the gap between our present selves or society and the
Original Nature is, and how this gap can be closed. Thus we will have to eternally
continue our incomplete and unhappy lives which have deviated from the original
state.
We are of the opinion that the theory of the Original Nature must exist so that we may
know our original state, and so that we may come back to the state from which we
fell.
Section B - The Original Nature
The Original (Human) Nature is the true character of man as created by God. Human
beings have fallen and deformed their Original Nature. Thus, in order to come back to
the Original Nature man must know what it is like.
a. The Original Nature and Essence
'Essence" is the specific quality of a thing (being) which makes the thing uniquely
itself, and generally is the inner invisible universal aspect. On the other hand, the
outer aspect appearing out of the thing is called a "phenomenon." Essence and
phenomenon are usually used as relative concepts,
Unlike essence, the Original Nature does not refer to the inside as opposed to the
outside, but rather expresses the originality of both the inner and outer aspects. That
is to say, both the original essence and original phenomenon, or the original content
and original form are together called the Original Nature. This then, is the basic
difference between the concept of essence and that of the Original Nature.
b. The Original Nature and Existence
The concept of existence (Existenz) came about in reaction to the rationalistic
philosophies of Descartes and Hegel who saw human existence only from an
abstract, universal viewpoint, and ignored the individual, concrete phase of an actual
living man. It is said that Kierkagaard was the first to use the word existence to
characterize his own philosophical standpoint.
According to Kierkegaard and Heidegger, who deepened the former's thought from
the standpoint of ontology, existence is not the mere fact of the existence of general
things, but rather the peculiar fact of the life of an historical, subjective human being,
or the fact of existence most fundamental for a human being. Among these
philosophers, a sincere search for the meaning of life is usually seen. They ask,
"What is original nature of man?" or "What is man fundamentally?", or say "I must
seek for my true nature and maintain it to the end."
Thus we can say that the concepts of existence and that of Original Nature are
closely related. At the same time, however, there are various differences between the
two concepts. The word existence comes from the Latin "existentia. - At first it meant
to exist (sistere) out of something (ex), that is, it meant more to happen rather than to
exist. Then in scholastic philosophy it came to be used as the word showing the
actual existence or movement of a thing to distinguish it from the essence or true
nature of the thing. Thus the word was generally used throughout history as the
concept opposite to essence or true nature, and, as will be stated in the next section,
today's existentialists also use the word as the concept opposite to essence.
Especially Sartre says, "Existence precedes essence." He asserts that man
appeared not from essence (God or an idea) but rather from nothing and then
defined himself and gave essence to himself. Viewed from this standpoint, there is no
basis on which to define man before his appearance; essence or Original Nature is
nothing but what man freely creates according to his responsibility, and thus a
discussion about an Original Human Nature is meaningless.
It is difficult to claim therefore, that that which is sought after through the word
existence is not the same in its content as that which is sought after through the
words Original Nature, even though their attitudes of pursuit are not common to each
other. Thus we shall criticize and examine the concept of Existence advocated by the
existentialists, and then explain our theory of the Original Nature.
Section C - The Original Human Nature Pursued by Existentialism
It may be said that the representatives of existentialism are Kierkegaard, Jaspers,
Heidegger and Sartre, and there is also Nietzsche who influenced Heidegger and
Sartre. We are going to explain and criticize these five philosophers' theories on
existence and man.
First, taking a bird's eye view of the mutual relationships of these five men's thoughts,
Kierkegaard's and Jaspers' are basically Christian, while Nietzsche's, Heidegger's
and Sartre's are atheistic. The philosophies of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are ethical,
while those of Jaspers and Heidegger are ontological, and that of Sartre
behavioralistic.
1. The Existentialists' Views On Existence And Man
(i) Kierkegaard's "Individual"
Kierkegaard (1812-1855) was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, and given a strict
Christian education by his father. When he was 26 years old, however, he found out
that when his father was young, he had cursed God. This struck him very much and
deepened his consciousness of sin and fundamentally changed his view on life. He
called the experience a "great earthquake." Later Kierkegaard fell in love with and
became ' engaged to Legiene Olsen, but to his great regret the engagement was
broken, creating another experience to further deepen his thought.
According to Kierkegaard, man is a spirit which is the self, and the self is a relation
which relates to its own self. Who in the world lets him have this relation with his self?
It can not be his self, and so it must be a third person other than his self. Actually it is
God who lets him have this relation. Thus man's self has a basic construction which
makes him always face God.
In spite of this fact, man often wrongly thinks that his freedom or independence does
not depend on God but rather on himself, and he tends to go away from the
fundamental rule (God). That self which originally had a close relation with God and
left the relation, is in a state in which the self is alienated from true self, that is, in sin.
Since an individual who is in sin has lost his original ground (God), he can not help
but wander in a world of nothing, and because of this, man has anxiety and despair.
However, this consciousness of emptiness allows man to decide to recover his true
self and to return to his original self. The process of the effort to regain the original
self, which starts from this consciousness of self-loss and from the subjective
decision to have faith in God, and the growing process through which self becomes
the original self-this process is "to exist."
Actually, however, there is a strong power which makes a man stay in emptiness.
That is to say, by this power, the concrete unique and individual being is "leveled" to
be a part of "a group of abstract, unindividual beings." This manifestation of
nothingness (leveled group) is called "public" (crowd).
The public (crowd) is not a nation, nor a generation, nor an age, nor a group, nor a
community, nor a certain human being. Because all of these exist just as they are,
only by their concreteness ... The public is something gigantic or abstract, an
emptiness which is all men and at the same time nothing. (Criticism on the Modern
Age)
Kierkegaard advocates the concept of the "Individual" to truly sublate (auffieben) the
public which is itself nothingness. Man can truly "exist" only when he is an individual.
Only then can he be a concrete being and no longer an abstract being such as the
public. As an individual, man truly stands before God. This is Kierkegaard's basic
view on existence.
He classified the process of the return to the original self, that is, existence, into three
stages. They are the aesthetic, ethical and religious stages.
(1) The Aesthetic Stage-This stage is formed by the aesthetic attitude which solely
seeks after pleasure to satisfy desires. The satisfaction of one desire only brings
about dissatisfaction soon after, and a man wanders around seeking after his next
satisfaction. Thus, in the aesthetic stage, there is a constant alternating repetition of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Some pleasures are noble and others vulgar, but
they are all common in their lack of seriousness toward life. However attractive it may
appear, a life of seeking after pleasures is a life of despair because it brings about a
vicious circle.
(2) The Ethical Stage-A man enjoying the aesthetic stage will finally fall into deep
melancholy. In order to escape from its vicious circle, he must regain a seriousness
toward life and leap to the ethical stage. Here he takes into consideration the
standpoint of other people as well as himself. In this stage he finds meaning in life
through performing his duties and responsibilities. He may occupy a responsible
position in his community and therefore does not fear the monotonous repetition of
daily living. While the aesthetic person lives in moments, the ethical person lives in
time and history. For the aesthetic person, pleasure and displeasure, and beauty and
ugliness, are the standards of judgment; while for the ethical person good and evil
become the standard of subjective decisions and deeds. But in this case, he comes
to find that he can not do good however eagerly he may try. That is, he finds sin
latent within himself and thus falls into serious ethical self-contradiction.
(3) The Religious Stage-With this moment of the self-consciousness of sin, man
comes to be conscious of his true self through the medium of God who is the source
of man's self. Man's life in this world can be carried out only when it is connected with
the eternal life, and his central life is faith or hope which is not outer but inner in
character. The aesthetic person lives in moments, the ethical person in time and the
religious person in the expectation of eternity. The third mentioned person is not
satisfied with human sincerity and seeks after more internal seriousness than that.
According to Kierkegaard, these three stages of existence do not develop by
themselves naturally or necessarily; they can be crossed only through decisions and
a leap of faith. At the time of the leap of faith from the ethical to the religious stage,
paradoxical faith emerges through which men should believe what they can not
understand with reason.
For instance, in discussing the faith of Abraham who was ordered by God to offer his
only son Isaac, Kierkegaard says: "Abraham was great ... by the power in which
powerlessness was strength, by the wisdom in which stupidity was the secret and by
the hope in which madness was its figure." (Fear and Trembling). Since faith includes
strife such as this, he called the process for overcoming sin by this strife the
paradoxical dialectic.
Within Kierkegaard's theory of existence, various questions are left unsolved. Did
God create man only as an individual who must continue to repent of his sin before
God? What is the full meaning of the dialectical process of existence by which man is
gradually elevated from the aesthetic to the ethical and then the religious stage? Why
does the so-called paradox of faith occur?
(ii) Nietzsche's Superman Thought
Kierkegaard tried to regain the lost self by striving against sin and by self-extinction
before God. On the contrary, Nietzsche (1884-1900) thought God was dead and tried
to escape from the "leveling" of human beings by accepting destiny and fate
subjectively and positively.
He was born in Germany, the son of a Protestant Minister, and was given a Christian
education in his early youth. But when he grew up, he deplored the "miniaturization of
human beings that was intensifying more and more in Europe." He regarded it as his
task to reject this bad tendency and create a "great" type of human being. While
Kierkegaard thought that the "leveling" or "miniaturization" resulted from the fact that
people were not yet true Christians, Nietzsche thought that the Christian view on life
itself brought about this miniaturization. Thus he came to think that it was his life-long
philosophical mission to criticize and overcome Christianity.
According to Nietzsche, the characteristic of the Christian view of man is that it
regards man as the intermediate being between God and animals. Christians think
that God, who is in the highest position in the order of God-man-animal (nature), is
absolute and infinite. Christians think that the differences between men are mere
trifles, and they reach the conclusion that everyone is "equal before God." But
Nietzsche asserts that not the "common people" but only excellent, intellectually
powerful men create the culture of mankind.
The Christian ethic advocating "equality before God" was given its driving power by
the revolt against the strong by the weak who try to "destroy the strong." Since the
Christian principles of world order make human beings common and featureless, we
must proclaim that the God who is at the top of this order is dead.
Thus he declares that God is dead. After the death of God, the world for the first time
loses transcendental principles and is totally governed by its own intrinsic principles.
This loss of the transcendental principles brings about a loss of meaning and purpose
in this world, and results in a loss of ground, or nothingness (nihilism).
There is no longer a God who teaches us what we should do., so "there is nothing
true and anything is allowed." Only the desire "I wish" remains. From here starts
Nietzsche's philosophy of "will to power" (Wille zur Macht).
If God is removed from His position at the top of the Christian order, it is natural that
the position of nature (animals) which was at the bottom of the order is also changed.
According to the Christian moral view, with its order of God-man-animals, whatever is
near to God is regarded as good and whatever is near to animals e.g. selfish desire,
sexual desire and appetite are regarded as evil; while whatever is farther from
animals or nearer to selflessness or generosity are regarded as morally high.
Nietzsche asserts that the Christian moral view is against nature, and that the three
human desires follow the natural direction of humanity and life itself.
Such an unnatural moral view was established because it regards nature as the
bottom of the order. Now that God is dead, however, it is not necessary to deny
nature or to regard it as evil. Thus Nietzsche says that what is useful for the
enlargement and development of life is the true morality and advocates "morality as
nature" in place of Christian morals. But he does not recommend licentiousness to
us, for instance, because unlimited licentiousness does not always contribute to the
development of life. On the contrary, talented artists and scholars remain chaste
because it is more economical and hygienic, but we should not remain chaste from
an ascetic standpoint. In the case of Nietzsche, life (Leben) serves as substitute for
God.
Thus God who was on top of the order God-man-animal is completely cut off. Then
what must happen to recover order? Since God is lost, man himself must stand at the
summit. Thus Nietzsche develops the concept of a "superman" (ubermensch)
standing at the top of the order.
According to Nietzsche, men are classified as "superman" and "the last man" (der
letszte Mensch) by their basic differences of values and abilities. The superman is
the ideal being, who elevates himself continuously and eternally; he is beyond good
and evil. Like God, he gives orders to the people, and the latter should follow him.
However, today's human being is an intermediate being between the ideal superman
and animals. Without denying or escaping reality, man must heartily try to transcend
himself to become superman. By asserting this theory, Nietzsche wished to
overcome the crisis of human miniaturization.
Moreover, he says, showing the ground supporting the world without God,
"Everything goes, everything comes back; eternally rolls the wheel of being." (Also
Sprach Zarathustra). That is, he develops the doctrine of eternal recurrence (ewige
Wiederkunft), that there is no future life nor world after death; there is only
momentary fulfillment in this world (earthly world).
He asserts that man must look at reality as it is, without escaping from it. He should
"affirm without deducting, finding exceptions or selecting." In short, Nietzsche
advocated an absolute affirmation of life, that is, love of fate (amor fati). His thought
came to be used later as the theoretical ground for Nazism, though this was quite
against his intention.
Nietzsche's thought has some significance, but some of his assertions are very
problematic. For instance, he asserted that the desires of life should be the center of
morality, and that we should ignore God and the Sung Sang desires for truth, good
and beauty. He asserted the love of fate and this leads to the conclusion that reality
should indiscriminately be affirmed. These assertions can not but be a great problem.
(iii) Jaspers' Limit Situation
Jaspers (1893-1969) was influenced by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and yet
established his own unique philosophical system making use of his experiences in
the fields of psychiatry and psychology which had been his major fields of study.
Jaspers thought of man as a possible existence which is always linked to the
situations around him. These situations mean, in short, the realities in which man
(subject) takes a broad interest. When a situation has grown as bad as it can,
Jaspers calls this situation a limit situation.
Take the examples of death (Tod), trouble (Lerden), strife (Kamph), the guilt of sin
(Schuld), etc. These are like walls against which man as a possible existence will
inevitably collide. Man can change or avoid other situations but these situations are
the basic realms which man can not avoid nor escape in the least. The self which is
clarified in such limit situations is Jaspers' existence. "To experience the limit
situations and to exist are one and the same." (Philosophy)
He further asserts that the limit situations can not be objectively grasped from
outside; they can only be known through self-consciousness from the inside. The
existence of self is deeply understood not by avoiding the limit situations but rather by
deciding to patiently remain in the situations. In these limit situations, intelligence,
rational thinking or proof are of no use. Man feels as if the ground on which he stands
has gone out from under him, and he feels giddy. At that moment, a comprehensive
Absolute is perceived in this limit where all thinking has been deadlocked. The
Transcendental expresses itself in the "cipher (chiffre) of frustration." When what can
be thought of (objective world being and subjective self being) is transcended
heading toward what can not be thought of, the tie of the Existence with the
Transcendental (God) is suddenly seen and understood.
At that point, the Transcendental appears only as a cipher. According to Jaspers, the
most serious experience of mankind is written in cipher letters in metaphysics and in
the history of religion. Metaphysics is the "deciphering" (chiffrelesen) of the
manifestation of the Transcendental being. This cipher can not be read by ordinary
people. Only those who have sought after standards with great resolution and who
have experienced true frustration can read it.
(iv) "Ex-sistence" of Heidegger
Heidegger (1889- ) who is as great a philosopher as Jaspers, was born in a village
named Meskirch in southern Germany. He took a deep interest in the spiritual history
of the Middle Ages when he was Catholic and later thought that the basic problem of
philosophy was to clarify the meaning of "Being." He made this his central issue.
According to Heidegger, Being is beyond an ens (one who is being) and we can not
grasp Being by seeking after an ens externally through rational categories. However,
men have thought that they could grasp Being by that method, and have controlled
nature externally through natural science. As a result, man has lost his home. Thus
Heidegger's criticism of modern rationalism is very sharp.
Then, how can we grasp Being? We can grasp it in the same way we interpret a
book; by interpreting it from the inside of the experience (phenomenon) of an ens
called man (Heidegger calls this Dasein). It is in a Dasein that the Sein (Being) of an
ens (one who is being) can be understood, from the inside. However, it is not
ordinary man (Das Mann) who is only interested in superficial things, but it is Dasein
who clarifies Being by seeking after death and decision.
This Dasein is generally within Alltaglichkett (the everyday world) and can spend his
daily life without being conscious of the problem of thoroughly examining his own
essence. Into such an everydayness, Dasein is fatally thrown out (Gewofenheit)
against his will like a die as In-der-Weltsein (being-in- the- world) and he falls to
become an ordinary man. According to Heidegger, Das Mann is an anonymous one,
who is totally conformed to the public, and has no self. When he has become man,
Dasein succumbs and is alienated from himself. In other words, he is left floating
without a root.
To be thrown out like a die (Geworfenheit) is not the original form of Dasein; if we
become conscious of Geworfenheit, we come to feel anxiety (Angst) or dread at
having lost ourselves. However, this anxiety gives, at the same time, the possibility to
come back to one's original self.
Thus Dasein is not only in a state of having been thrown out (Geworfenhel't) to
become a being-in-the-world but he is also in a state of projecting his self to become
his original self again (Entwerfenheit). The double character of Dasein is called by
Heidegger concern (Sorge). Being (Sein) expresses itself as concern in Dasein.
How is Entwerfenheit, the projection of one's self toward the original self, possible?
At first Dasein exists as what was thrown out. Therefore, his being lies in the
throwing. The fact that Da (there) appears, means that Being sends its self. Human
beings accept Da where the light of truth sent by Being shines, in the form of care
(Besorge) or concern (Sorge).
In this context, a human being is one who expresses Da (there) where the light of
Being shines, one who watches Being, or the shepherd-boy of Being. So long as
human being does not watch the light of Da, Being leaves him though it stands near
him. Thus Heidegger thinks that Being is what emits light in Dasein or what
addresses man. However, it shines, gives and addresses only as long as human
being has interest. Otherwise, it keeps silent. "Being gives itself and at the same time
refuses to give itself. Being talks about itself and at the same time does not talk about
itself."
The address of Dasein itself, which tries to move man toward the light of Being is
called conscience (Gewissen) by Heidegger. The voice of conscience is the voice
without a voice which can be heard only by oneself, and it is the voice of the original
self which awakens the everyday average self buried within man to the proper self.
By listening to the voice of conscience, human being moves out of man to stand in
the light of Being. This is Ex-sistence.
Heidegger tries to solve the human distress in this Ex-sistence (to stand in the light of
Being or to start toward the truth of Being) and also tries to give this the same
significance as the existence Kierkegaard and Jaspers advocate.
(v) Subjectivity of Sartre
Sartre (1905- ), established his unique, thoroughly atheistic philosophical theory of
"engagement" by adding his experience of the fight against Nazism during the
Second World War to the traditional concepts of existentialism created by Jaspers
and Heidegger.
Dostoevski once said: "If God does not exist, anything is possible." It is said that here
lies the starting point of Sartre's philosophy. While his forerunner, Heidegger, only
ignored the existence of God, like Nietzsche, Sartre thoroughly denies God, and has
established his existentialism on the premise that God does not exist.
With atheism as his premise, he characterizes existence in the following two ways:
First, existence precedes essence. This is not true in relation to ordinary artificial
products, such as a knife for instance. Before the actual product named knife (the
existence) is produced, it must have an aim such as "it is to be used for cutting."
Otherwise, it would not have appeared on the market. The aim shows what the knife
is to be, and in philosophy it is this that is called essence. In these cases it is clear
that essence precedes existence.
Essence precedes existence in the case of man too, if God has created human
beings by His aim of creation. But what happens if there is no God, nor any world of
ideas? Then before the existence of the human being there is no essence to decide
his nature. It becomes impossible to define what man is. If this is true, we must think
that man is originally nothing, that he has come or appeared from nothing, and he
has defined himself and given essence to himself, by himself: " . . . at first he is
nothing. Only afterwards will he be something, but he himself will have made what he
will be."
Second, existence is subjective. This is directly introduced in the thesis that " . . . he
himself will have made what he will be." That is, man plans and selects his own way.
Whether he becomes A or B, communist or liberalist, politician or minister of religion,
all these depend on his free determination. According to Sartre, this determination,
namely subjectivity, is the very essence of existence.
Thus man can freely choose himself. But once he has chosen, he must be
responsible for his choice. He is responsible for the way or individuality he has
selected. Moreover, in choosing the way peculiar to himself, a man is also choosing it
as the way suitable for other people too. Thus, he must be responsible to all of
mankind in his choice. But this is beyond human ability, so he experiences anxiety,
forlornness and despair.
Nevertheless man is nothing but what he has made of himself and there is no
existence except in action. So a man must decide his actions in spite of his anxiety,
forlornness and despair. Sartre asserts that only when man acts through such
despair, can freedom come to him.
(vi) Summary
For the convenience of the readers, we are now going to summarize these five
thinkers' assertions. Kierkegaard's existence is the developmental process from the
consciousness of self-loss to the recovery of original self by a subjective
determination of faith. For this purpose, he says that man must give up being
unspecific "public" and stand before God as an individual.
Neitzsche thought it was the Christian view of the order of God-man-animal (nature)
and also the view of the average man, which regards everyone as equal before God,
that was gradually miniaturizing people in Europe. In order to overcome this bad
tendency, Neitzsche asserts that we must declare the death of God, establish the
view of natural morality which regards whatever develops life as good, and set up the
superman in place of God.
Jaspers' existence is the self facing the Transcendental (God) which is understood
from within the experience of frustration when man, ready to accept destruction,
courageously faces the limit situations such as death, trouble, strife and guilt, which
no one can avoid.
In the case of Heidegger, human being (Dasein) usually exists within the everyday
world and was thrown into this world as a being-in-the-world (In-der-Welt-sein).
Consciousness of this brings about anxiety and the voice of conscience shouting
"you must return to the original self." It is Ex-sistence (same as existence in meaning)
to listen to the voice of conscience in order to escape from unspecific man and to
come before the light of Being.
Lastly, in the case of Sartre's writings, there is no essence or God that decides man
beforehand, so man appears as existence, but from nothing; and after he has
appeared, he decides his essence himself. Therefore, man can freely plan and select
his own way by his own responsibility. However, as he does not have the strength to
bear this responsibility, he has to carry out these decisions through his anxiety and
despair. The subjectivity which carries out these decisions is existence itself.
2. The Critique Of Each Existentialist Philosophy And View Of Humanity
(i) Critique of Kierkegaard
First, why have human beings been dealt with as abstract, unindividual "public"? Why
must man be an individual to truly stand before God? Is it good that the non-
individual, universal aspect of human beings be ignored? These problems remain
unsolved by Kierkegaard.
From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, human beings have frequently been dealt
with as "public" because man's Divinity was lost by the Fall; man's Individual Images
have been ignored, and only man's biological aspects and twisted original Sung Sang
aspects have been considered. Actually it was in order to restore man to the position
of God's substantial object as an individual truth body that Kierkegaard tried to
advance man toward God by man himself, as an individual. But, since the Individual
Image or substantial object can not exist without the Universal Image. and since the
whole of history is the history to restore the individual person, a man can advance
toward God through gradually inheriting the baton of efforts of self-restoration from
respective predecessors through history. So he who advances toward God is a
cooperator in the restoration and thereby possesses a universal aspect, and he is
thus not a mere individual.
Next, why does man come to God through the aesthetic, ethical and then religious
stages? Because the providence of God's salvation is the providence of restoration
through indemnity (Tang gam), that is, to let man, who has lost his value through the
fall, regain it through a course which reverses that of the fall.
The fall occurred due to the fact that man did not fulfill his responsibility for growth. It
is necessary, therefore, to fulfill this responsibility by subjective determination in order
to return to the original self through indemnity. Throughout this course, man must be
exposed to uneasiness, despair or suffering. Also, since the fall occurred due to lack
of faith in God's word, man is asked to compensate for this by believing
unconditionally. But this belief must not be a superstition. It is for this reason that the
paradox of faith or paradoxical dialectic appears. But such a paradoxical faith is
requested only until the Second Advent. Starting from the Second Advent, faith
stands on the base of the new words of God; therefore it is no longer paradoxical,
because the absolute truth is revealed by the new words. Thus faith until eternity is
not necessary. After having restored the original self and the world completely,
through the Second Advent, we will not need faith nor prayer.
Finally, why does a man like Kierkegaard who wants to live with true faith always
suffer from sin and why must he continuously repent of sin? It is because Christ's
salvation through the crucifixion is only a spiritual one and the salvation of our bodies
has not yet been carried out. However, when Christ appears again (Second Advent)
to accomplish both the spiritual and physical salvation, man will be able to return to
his complete personality. Then we will not need to repent, and Heaven on Earth or
the Heaven of the after-life where there is only great joy, will appear, 64 ... and death
shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain . . . "
(Revelation 21:4).
(ii) Critique of Nietzsche
According to Nietzsche, the Christian view of the order of God-man-animal, and its
view that everyone is equal before God brings about the miniaturization of the human
being.
Viewed from Unification Thought, however, the main reasons for the miniaturization
of man are that, as already stated, the true fulfillment of individuality has not yet been
realized due to the fall of man, and that man has not yet awakened to his Original
Nature. To escape from the present miserable situation, there is no other way than to
come to God through the principle of restoration through indemnity and finally to have
faith in and accept the Messiah.
However, the Christian view of "equality before God" is apt to ignore the order of
positions necessary to realize family love. The view ignores differences of
individuality, and even the differences of contributions toward the community, and
thus falls into an anarchic, mobocratic blind equality. Also, Christian ethics make so
much of the spirit that they one-sidedly regard physical desires as evil, and thus think
that the farther a man is from bodily desires, the more moral he is; in short,
Christianity is apt to fall into agnostic despise of the body or Stoicism. Nietzsche
sharply criticized these two points, and his criticisms are worth listening to.
As to the first, true equality does not mean to ignore all the individual differences,
because these differences come from the Individual Images in the Original Being.
Equality should be considered from the standpoint of Divinity such as equality in
Heart, value, personality, loving and being loved. If the order of the positions in the
Four Position Base were not maintained, it would be impossible to love. Individuality
should be respected and should not be leveled. In the fallen world, however, the
Divinity is usually so twisted or ignored, that the miniaturization and leveling of human
beings are apt to appear. Accordingly the miniaturization is not due to belief in God
but rather due to a lack of belief in the true God. The God denied by Nietzsche was
not the true God, but a false god.
As to the second point, the Sung Sang (spiritual aspect) and Hyung Sang (physical
aspect) perform give-and-take with each other, centering on God, with the Sung
Sang as subject; then the individual is fulfilled. Therefore, as long as the Sung Sang
aspect is subject and can control the Hyung Sang, the physical desires, such as
appetite and sexual desire, can be as large as possible. It is by these bodily desires
that God's purposes of creation (the three great blessings [". . . Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. . . " -Gen. 1: 281 ) are accomplished,
and heaven and earth become full of joy. However, if the physical desires become so
large that the spiritual desires wither, spiritual communication (the give-and-take
relation of love and beauty) will be destroyed, and the growth of the spiritual body,
which is the raison detre of the physical body, will not occur. It is only for this reason
that we are advised to restrict our bodily desires.
Thus Nietzsche's criticism is constructive in some points. But his ideas-that just
because Christian morals are apt to bring about a leveling or miniaturization of man
we should oppose the positioning of God, man, and things (animals, nature); that we
should declare the death of God, and establish "nature as morality"; that we should
"regard the development of natural life as good", and should set up superman in
place of God-are all wrong ideas and quite contrary to the true solution.
First, the positioning of God, man and things is the basis of order necessary to
establish the one united world centering on the love of God. Without order neither
peace nor freedom can exist, and without the relative positions of subject and object,
love can not exist. Moreover, if the existence of God who is the center of love and life
is denied, there will be no providence of salvation, and man must suffer forever due
to this lack of a center and the exhaustion of love which will necessarily take place.
The worship of natural life as the necessary conclusion of such ideas (Nietzsche
respects animality rather than moderate virtue, passion rather than reason, the will to
power rather than ideas, and he asserts that man should sacrifice God for nothing),
and the establishment of the superman shows that, since there was nothing which
could be depended on after the denial of God, Nietzsche was compelled to worship
man's physical body, beautified and sanctified, in place of God.
Such being Nietzsche's assertion, the spiritual (Sung Sang) values of truth, goodness
and beauty were subjugated by the will to power and animality, and the existence of
the spiritual body which was the basis of man's eternal life was also denied. As a
result, the way of salvation leading to eternal life was completely closed, and man
was left to suffer eternally in a mere animalistic life. We must say that in ridding
himself of God, the price Nietzsche paid to escape human miniaturization is too large.
Despair and contradiction are exposed in his doctrines of eternal recurrence (ewige
Wiedevkunft) and love of fate (amor fati). Man wishes to elevate himself infinitely but
can not help admitting that this is impossible in a world without God. Thus while
seeing his expectations always disappointed, man must accept the situation as it is.
He can resolve his fate only by loving fate subjectively. This is really miserable.
In reality, the Original Nature of man is that he is a being with the Divine Image in
which the spirit body and physical body or spirit and body perform G-T action
centering around the love of God. In spite of this, Nietzsche denies the existence of
God and the spiritual body, and regards man as his physical body alone and
sanctifies this as superman, ignoring the fact that man consists of both spiritual and
physical bodies. He thinks that superman is the final goal for us to reach, with the
result that everything becomes empty and results in frustration, because in reality the
superman is a pseudoman and a false image. This is the critique of Nietzsche's
thought by Unification Thought.
(iii) Critique of Jaspers
Jaspers' statement concerning the process of the clarification of existence
(Existenzerhellung) in the limit situation seems to be almost correct. However, why is
man pushed into such limit situations and why does he meet the Transcendental after
suffering and frustration? The fundamental reasons for these occurrences are not
clarified by Jaspers.
Viewed from the Unification Principle, Jaspers' "limit situations" are the "indemnity
conditions" necessary to restore the original state. God kindly gives them to fallen
man in order to give him a chance to atone for his own sins or those of his relatives,
and in this way to restore his lost value. Man's sudden encounter with "God after
going through such a trial" means that he has approached, in proportion to his
atonement, his original seat, namely his position as the child of God.
The "cipher of frustration" is the aspect of God which is recorded in such things as
history, mythology, philosophy, literature, music, etc. Nature is also part of the cipher
and to decipher it (Chiffrelesen) means to see the Divine Image manifesting in the
appearance. To see this is to connect with God. Yet one's true self can not be
restored in this stage. With this experience as a clue, we must further approach
God's inner seat guided by His holy words, inherit the Heart of God and become true
children of God. For this purpose we must find a good guide who can make this
possible for us. It is very important to know who such a guide can be. This is the view
of Unification Thought concerning Jaspers' philosophy.
(iv) Critique of Heidegger
Heidegger made a distinction between Being and an ens (one who is being). He dealt
with the Being (status of existence) of the an ens (Sein des Seiendes). This can be
said to be an advancement in ontology, because his concept of Being almost
corresponds to that of the Yang Sang (Status Image) of the existing being of
Unification Thought. But according to Heidegger, Being can never be grasped by
externally analyzing one who is being (an ens) through the rational category. Then
what is Being?
Heidegger did not clarify the Being (sein) of all things, including all human beings. He
dealt mainly with the Being (sein) of the special human being namely Dasein.
Furthermore he dealt only with Being as "being-in-the-world" (In-der-Welt-sein), and
not the basic principle of being of general man.
He considered man's state of being as anxiety (Angst) and concern (Sorge). But the
cause of anxiety and the essence of concern are not clarified enough. He said that
there is no cause for anxiety, man just exists in it. From the view of Unification
Principle human beings are anxious due to the loss of their original position by the
fall. Therefore men are uneasy either consciously or unconsciously. But according to
Heidegger, anxiety stems from concern (Sorge). Human beings have their concern
not only for others and nature but also for the past, present and future. Then what is
the essence of concern? It seems to have not yet been clarified. He also says that
having been thrown into the world (In-der-Welt-sein), human beings try to project
(entwerfen) toward the future. Here, however, the relation between concern and the
project do not seem to be made clear. According to the Unification Principle all things
including society are the objects of recognition and dominion of human beings. Since
human beings are connected bodies as well as individual truth bodies, originally man
can not but be the "being-in-the-world."
Accordingly, in order to have cognition, he has to have concern for nature and
society, and in order to have dominion he has to act (practice). The project (Entwurf)
of Heidegger corresponds to this very practice. But because of the fall of man the
"being-in-the-world" (In-der-Welt-sein) has become anxious, and due to losing his
purpose of creation by the fall, his practice has changed into projects for his own
sake.
Next, Heidegger explains about the historicity of time (historic time) from the fact of
concern and project, but he also does not make it clear why historic time is necessary
for man, while animals have only biological time. According to the Unification
Thought, since the position of man and that of animals are quite different, in other
words, since man is the subject of dominion and the substantial object of God, while
animals are only the objects of man, the ideal of man is to establish the Heavenly
Kingdom on Earth, after achieving the three blessings of God. This time required to
realize the ideal is historical time. On account of the fall, the historical time has been
formed by the providence of restoration and the efforts of human beings to realize a
society of prosperity.
Finally, he talked about the relation of conscience (Gewissen) and Being. According
to him, when a man follows his inner voice of conscience, he can return to his original
self from the daily self (Ex-sistence) and can stand in the light of Being. But within
Heidegger's philosophy it has not been clarified what the standard of conscience is.
We know well that the standard of conscience of communists and of liberalists are
quite different.
With this ambiguity around the concept of conscience, we can not expect to prevent
the confusion of the world, and the suffering of human beings can not help but
remain. According to the Unification Principle, however, there is another part of the
mind called the Original Mind which is more fundamental than conscience. Its
standard is God; so this standard is common to all people. Accordingly, if the
direction of conscience coincides with that of the Original Mind, God becomes the
subject of conscience, and all people can stand together in the light of Being without
contradicting each other. Thus, we can see that though Heidegger tries to establish
his ontology without any relation to God, it is impossible to understand the true
meaning of his Being if the existence of God is ignored.
(v) Critique of Sartre
Sartre says that man appears from nothing and that there is no God to decide man's
existence. However, how can such complicated organic structures as the human
mind and body grow from nothing, with no plan?
We think Sartre's view that man freely plans and selects his way of living has some
truth in it, but it is a rather one-sided view. The Unification Principle teaches us;
However, man is created to attain his perfection not only through the dominion and
autonomy of the Principle itself, but also by accomplishing his own portion of
responsibility in passing through this period. (Divine Principle, p. 55)
In other words, man is originally the "Image of God", or child of God so that, unlike
things, man's existence is not entirely decided beforehand, and he can freely create
himself toward perfection using his God-given natures or qualities, so long as he
does not violate the Principle.
In relation to this point, it seems to us that Sartre misunderstands the true intention of
God. It seems that he advocates atheism because if God exists and if man lives only
in accordance with God's will, man will have no freedom and will accordingly lose his
uniqueness or subjectivity, that is, his existence. According to our understanding,
however, God originally created man as a free being similar to God himself and
ordered man to follow the Principle, which is the very basis of freedom. He ordered
man to maintain his freedom just as the Bible says, "You may freely eat of every tree
of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for
in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 3:16-17) (The result in case of a
violation of the Principle was a warning of the loss of freedom.) If this is true, it is
God's intention that man freely plan and select his ways within the Principle by his
own responsibility; originally there was no contradiction between following God's will
and subjectivity, and living freely. At present, however, it is also true that man has no
such freedom as this. Why does he not have freedom? Because he has lost the
absolute center of Heart and Logos called God, and thus does not have a broad or
deep enough heart to love everyone equally. There is also no true creativity, nor
norm to give direction to man's heart. However, man has the desire (true mind) to
perfect himself, to establish a home full of love, and to have dominion over all things.
These desires are based on his Original Nature. Thus he naturally seeks after
freedom and subjectivity as the premises to fulfill the desires. But it is impossible to
find such freedom and subjectivity by casting oneself (projecting) toward a denial of
God, as Sartre does. To do so is to oppose man's own subjective nature (plus) to
God's subjective nature (plus). The two pluses repel each other so that a give-and-
take action can not take place there. As a result, man is left alone, alienated from
God; all that he can then do is to express a subjectivity which is only comparatively
higher than what animals have. In addition, since men can not help repelling each
other in order to guard their own subjectivity, struggles would continue forever in
society. True subjectivity can be established not by opposing one's self to God but by
making oneself a complete object (minus) to God. If we seek after God and follow
God quite faithfully, we can communicate with God completely and become one with
God. As a result, we can fully express our subjectivity toward things. Before man
becomes a subject, he should be an object to God. True subjectivity can be obtained
by true objectivity. We must be able to become objects willingly, not only in relation to
God, but also in relation to others, if necessary. This is the view of the Unification
Principle.
Such being the case, the "subjectivity" which Sartre defines as the essence of
existence is nothing but lifeless, groundless, fallen subjectivity; as Sartre himself
notices, man necessarily falls into anxiety, forlornness or despair and can never find
true freedom or liberty. When we give up such a small subjectivity and become
nothing or a complete object before God, our true subjectivity will appear for the first
time.
These previous sections are the critique of Existentialism from the standpoint of the
Unification Principle.
Chapter II - Epistemology (part 1)
Epistemology is one of the greatest philosophical problems even in modern
philosophy. In this chapter, I will suggest the basic ground for the formation of
recognition through the critique of the main theories of epistemology of the past, and
give answers, from the standpoint of Unification Thought, to various problems of
epistemology such as the process of recognition and the causes of its development.
Section A - The Meaning of Epistemology and the Process of its Formation
(i) The Origin of Epistemology
As we have already explained in the chapter on ontology, through a long history of
more than several thousand years, many philosophers have taken an interest in the
various phenomena of the cosmos and eagerly studied ontological problems such as
the origins, meanings, and purposes of these phenomena.
In modern times, however, the following questions, which are usually called the
problems of epistemology, have come to be considered as the central philosophical
questions. That is, can the method of cognition, which is adopted at present, correctly
catch the essence or true meaning of the object which is being studied? Can we say
that we have enough ability of cognition to catch the true meaning of the world
correctly? If not, what is the limit of our cognition? In what cases and on what
grounds or rights can we judge that a certain assertion or proposition is true?
The reason for this new philosophical tendency is as follows. In the Middle Ages, the
Christian theology, originated by Jesus Christ and completed by the Apostles and
Fathers, and the philosophies of ancient Greece, made by Plato and Aristotle, were
unified by Scholastic philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). This
unified theory was believed to be an eternal, absolute authority so much that hardly
any worthy thoughts have been developed since then.
Influenced by the solid, traditional thought of those days, men saw things with strong
preconceptions and did not bring forward new problems from free and creative
standpoints. Dissatisfaction with and reconsideration of such theories came suddenly
with the dawn of the modern age.
For instance in the Middle Ages men would always think about nature in relation to
God or it was regarded as the result of an act of God. Thus, in those times, Aristotle's
metaphysics, which asserted that the cosmos consists of substance (hyle) and forms
(eidos), was respected and esteemed. Following the pattern of this metaphysical
philosophy, scholars applied their Scholastic method only to unchangeable
substances, the meaning or aim of things; they did not try to pay attention to the
concrete movements of nature. It was epistemology that appeared as the criticism or
reaction against such a fixed, conventional way of thinking.
In short, we may say that the reconsideration of ontology brought about
epistemology.
(ii) Novum Organum of Francis Bacon
It was Novum Organum (1620) written by Francis Bacon of Britain that typically
represented the new way of thinking. In this book he summarized as four idols the old
traditional prejudices or preconceptions which prevented the acquisition of true
knowledge.
(1) The Idols of the Tribe ... This is a prejudice common to the race of mankind. For
instance, man's intellect is apt to think that nature has more regularities than it really
has and that heavenly bodies and their orbits are completely round. These are idols
or prejudices.
(2) The Idols of the Cave . . . Prejudices brought about by the tastes or inclinations
peculiar to the individual persons. For instance, those who are good at learning often
ignore physical education or the arts without correctly evaluating their merits. Or
those who are sensitive to economic interests are apt to think that all other people
are also sensitive in this way.
(3) The Idols of the Market Place ... Idols or prejudices which result from the
misusage and the confusion caused either by words which are names of things which
do not exist or by words which are names of things that exist but which are vague
and confused in their meanings. For instance the concepts such as Fortune, Prime
Mover and Element of Fire, were created by false theories and even though they do
not actually exist, many people believe them as if they really do. Bacon asserted that
in order to avoid these prejudices, words should be confined to those showing the
concrete individual things.
(4) The Idols of Theater . just as people wrongly think that the stories performed on
stage really took place in history, they will hold prejudices by blindly believing various
philosophical systems, wrong ethical principles, history, traditions or doctrines. Bacon
suggests that one should not be deceived by tricks on the stage but should observe
things for oneself without believing other people's words.
Thus, the characteristic of modern epistemology in recent philosophical circles is that
in order to obtain the right knowledge, people must face the truth directly by rejecting
the conventional way of thinking and by observing and experimenting for themselves.
Section B - Traditional Epistemology Viewed from the Contents of Cognition
Recognition is only possible when there is a subject and object of cognition. In
epistemology, in the past however, there was a tendency to place emphasis on either
the subject or the object. So let us classify the epistemology of the past according to
the viewpoints which more greatly stressed either the subject or the object.
1. Epistemology Emphasizing The Object Only
a. From the Viewpoint of the Source of Cognition-Empiricism
The Source of Recognition is Experience
There is a theory in which the source of cognition is thought to lie solely in the object,
that is, in experience. This philosophical view is called empiricism. This way of
thinking can be found even in ancient times, but it was Francis Bacon who asserted
the theory consciously and clearly. After Bacon, Locke (1632-1704) established this
theory of cognition in very clear form.
Before Locke, according to the Scholastic philosophy of the Middle Ages, the
concepts of God, moral law and the axioms of mathematics were thought to be innate
ideas (idea innata) or naturally carved in the mind of human beings, and even
Descartes, who was a founder of epistemology together with Francis Bacon,
accepted this way of thinking. But Locke criticized this theory sharply through his
psychological and anthropological studies and asserted that man's mind by nature is
like a tabula rasa (blank tablet) on which nothing is marked until the first idea is
marked on it from the outside.
Then from where do such concepts come? They come from man's experience, which
may be classified into two groups, that is, sensation and reflection. Sensation is the
perception of external things brought to the mind through the five senses, while
reflection is perception by the action of man's own mind (in this meaning, this is
called internal sense, too). Reflection happens after the sensation since it is based on
another intellectual action.
Thus Locke asserted that all concepts held by human beings come from experience,
that is, from sensation and internal sense, and he did not admit that elements of
cognition on the side of subject, which are called idea innata, reasoning power or the
like, are sources of cognition.
His opinion was succeeded by Berkeley and Hume (1711-1776), and the great
school of British empiricism was formed. Roughly speaking, the logical positivism and
pragmatism of today also follow this school.
This theory has contributed to the popularization of scientific thought since it denied
as groundless the past system of knowledge composed of revelation and speculation
and asserted that only knowledge obtained by experience, observation and
experimentation is true.
b. From the Viewpoint of What Is the Essence of Cognition-Realism
In relation to the problem of finding the source of cognition, another important
problem is whether the object of cognition, which we see or hear daily, is
independent of us, existing objectively, or whether it exists within the subject
(sensation, etc.)
Some accept that the object of our cognition exists objectively and independently
without any relation to our mind's (the subject of cognition) having cognition of it, and
our mind also has cognition of the object which is independent of mind. They think
that it is possible to grasp the existence of such an independent reality by cognition.
This standpoint in epistemology is called realism.
According to this theory, cognition corresponds to the object and means the copying
of reality (object), in some meaning and to some extent. Within realism, there are the
two separate standpoints of idealistic realism and materialism.
Plato's "idea" is an example of idealistic realism. He conceived of an immaterial
eternal reality which exists without any relationship to human beings (subject) and
which transcends time and space. Therefore it is clear that his viewpoint is realism.
Hegel also says that the Absolute Spirit, which is the essence of this world, changes
into nature through its self-development and lastly reaches self-consciousness or
self-cognition in man to become spirit. Here, both the Absolute Spirit and nature,
which appears in the process of the self-development of the spirit, are so
independent of man that such a view is also a kind of idealistic realism. The
philosophies asserting such standpoints as Plato's or Hegel's are generally called
objective idealism.
Materialism, a typical example of it being Marxism, is of course realism because of its
philosophical character. Besides these philosophies, there is the new realism
advocated by Moor, Whitehead and Russell, which regards even the spirit as a part
of nature.
2. Epistemology Emphasizing The Subject Only
a. From the Viewpoint of the Source of Cognition-Rationalism
Rationalism, founded by Descartes (1596-1650), stands on an extremely different
footing than the above-mentioned empiricism when it deals with the source of
cognition. Descartes was born into an aristocratic family and educated at the Jesuit
College of La Fleche, one of the most famous schools in Europe. However, he
thought that apart from mathematics, he could trust nothing that he had been taught.
He wanted to make all learning as accurate as mathematics and in order to achieve
this solid ground, tried to doubt everything as much as he could (methodical doubt).
He did not believe the senses since they may often deceive us. Even if a thing seems
to be true when judged from man's reason, some deceitful evil demon might deceive
even the reason itself. Continuing his doubt further and further, he at last noticed that;
I doubt that I exist begs the question: Who is doing the doubting? Obviously the
doubter must exist to do any doubting whatsoever. At least, the doubting doubter
must exist: Since I am the doubter, then it follows that I must exist. Doubting is an
aspect of thinking, and thinking is a phase of existence; therefore to doubt is to think,
and to think is to be. (Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy)
He expressed this as Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) and decided "that all
the things which we very clearly and distinctly conceive are true . . ." [Note: "Clear" is
the clear appearance of things to the mind. "Distinct" is the distinction of these things
from others without any confusion.]
Comparing Descartes' way of thinking with Locke's, we find that the former does not
believe in the senses which the latter admits without any doubt, as the source of all
ideas. On the other hand, Descartes regards the activity of the rational mind as being
the most trustworthy and primary, that is, as being clear and distinct intuition.
According to Locke, on the other hand, the activity of reason corresponds to the
complex idea which is produced secondarily (reflections), using, as materials, the
simple ideas which are directly obtained from the senses (sensation).
As stated before, it is a characteristic of Cartesian rationalism that the reason of the
subject is trusted more than the sensation and experience coming from the object.
Only those things that are derived logically, and are clear and distinct (self-evident,
basic principles) are accepted as sure cognition. This school of thought then was
founded by Descartes, continued by Spinoza (1632-1677) and Leibniz (1646-1716)
and took the lead for German idealism which was started by Kant.
Rationalism contributed much to the establishment of mathematical logic which was
an important pillar of natural science together with the positive sides of observation
and experiment. It- was after Kant that the positiveness of empiricism and the logic of
rationalism were philosophically unified.
b. From the Viewpoint of the Essence of Cognition-Subjective Idealism
Next, there is the problem of what is the essence of the object. While realism
explains it as objective reality independent of the subject of cognition, there is also
subjective idealism which asserts that all things in the world are the contents of the
individual's consciousness and that they are nothing but collections of sensations in
the mind of the subject.
It was Berkeley (1685-1753) who asserted this theory quite clearly. He said that
although it seems that we can usually know at once the distance between two things
or their size with our eyes, actually it is only the sense of color that directly reaches
us in vision. The distance and size are judged merely by the association by habit of
our subjective experiences such as vision, movement of the eyes, touch, and our
movement toward the object. It is the combination of vision and the sense of touch
(sensation of movement), that gives us cognition.
He applied this theory to the solidness, extension, form and movement of a material
which Locke regarded as the "primary qualities" belonging to the material itself; he
said that all these are nothing but quite subjective conditions (for instance, solidness
is only the feeling of resistance which takes place when we touch the material).
Material is nothing but a bunch of sensations, and existing is the same as being
sensed (Esse est percipl). He said that the so-called matter or corporeal substance,
which according to Locke is independent of the subject, is only a falsehood; it is only
the idea that actually exists. There is no other philosopher whose opinion is so
extreme as Berkeley; however, similar tendencies are seen in the theories of Fichte
(1762-1814) and Schopenhauer (1788-1860).
Section C - Traditional Epistemology Viewed from the Cognition Method
1. The Transcendental Method Of Kant
(i) The Unification of Empiricism and Rationalism
The British empiricism founded by Bacon asserts that our mind is by nature a pure
tabula rasa (blank tablet) and that all of our ideas come only from the sensations
caused by objects. On the other hand, continental rationalism, founded by Descartes,
explains that universally valid and true cognition can be obtained only through
rational cognition independent of experience; in other words, only what is conducted
logically from self-evident basic principles can be called sure knowledge.
Because of its character, empiricism not only denied metaphysics, but also came to
doubt the sureness of the cognition of natural science. Thus empiricism fell into the
sterile skepticism that there is no sureness in the reason of a human being. On the
other hand, because of its closed logical nature, rationalism made it impossible for
anyone to increase his knowledge and it became dogmatic since it asserted that
things could be known by reason alone.
It was Kant (1724-1804) who, using the knowledge of science which was then
making great advances, tried to reconcile the differences between empiricism and
rationalism, which had fallen into an unfruitful stalemate by both becoming extreme.
(ii) Matter and Form
Philosophers before Kant were apt to think that cognition took place either by what
came into us from the outside or by what existed within us from the beginning, but
Kant tried to unify the two ways of thinking by showing that cognition could be
composed of both views.
Then, exactly what comes from outside? According to Kant, it is the "matter"
(content) of cognition. What is it that man has within himself from the beginning? It is
the "form" of cognition. The object of cognition is the "matter" which is synthesized
and unified by the form.
In this case, the "matter" (content) is that which is given as a sensation when we
perceive a thing with our five senses. For instance, in the case of a flower, the
"matter" are color, pattern and smell. On the other hand, however, when we see the
flower, we always grasp it as a thing existing at a particular place (space), and we
think about when it bloomed and will wither (time). We also grasp it mathematically;
for instance, it has four or five petals. We may wonder whether or not it is an artificial
flower, even though it looks like a real one. These elements (frames) of space, time,
number and quantity he calls forms. We find that the objects which we recognize are
not merely the element of "matter" but are always joined and organized by the above-
mentioned forms.
From the conventional viewpoint, we may say that both "matter" (content) and form
exist in the outer world originally and that we directly see, hear or feel the "matter"
which has already been organized by the form in the outer world. However, Kant
does not agree with this; he says that only the matter comes from outside while the
form exists previously within ourselves and joins the matter to give it some
organization. [Note: Kant does not deny the possibility that the matter itself has some
unity. But he asserts that for us to think of this unity is meaningless because we can
not know in what way it exists since it is beyond our cognition.]
That is to say, according to his theory, the already formalized object does not appear
before us but we ourselves actively formalize the matter of the phenomena which
comes from the outside and thus compose the object of cognition.
Then, where has the form of cognition come from, if it does not come from
experience? This ability which existed within us before experience manifests itself at
the time of experience. Thinking in this way, Kant called that which must have existed
in principle before experience "a priori."
That which is given as sensation from outside (matter) is synthesized and unified by
the a priori form and then, for the first time, it becomes an object of cognition and
man becomes conscious of the object. This is the epistemology of Kant.
(iii) Ding an Sich ("Thing-in-Itself')
If all this is true, then we recognize not the objective world outside of us itself, but
rather the unification of the sensation matter from the outside and the a priori form
belonging to ourselves (subject).
Then what is the source or true body of the matter (content) sent from the outside as
sensation? Does such an objective source exist or not? Fichte said that it was not
necessary to think of the existence of such a source, but Kant thought that it really
existed and called it Ding an Sich ("thing-in-itself").
The natural result of Kant's way of thinking which is stated above, is that the Ding an
Sich is the "Thing that can be thought of but cannot be recognized." Thus his theory
is agnosticism. Since this way of thinking is fundamentally different from ours, we are
going to criticize it thoroughly later. [Note: For instance, according to Kant, we can
imagine space in which nothing exists, but it is impossible to imagine a being without
space. We can say in principle, therefore, that the intuition form called space exists
before any experience, and that the experience of a thing can be possible only by the
utilization of this form. This is called transcendental or a priori; by a priori Kant meant
that which is before experience. For instance, the intuitive form of the above
mentioned "space" does not exist in ourselves as a thing, perfect from the beginning,
but according to Kant, there is, from the beginning, the latent ability of having such
an intuition, and it is gradually trained into a perfect ability as experiences are
accumulated.]
(iv) Cognition Form
According to Kant, the process of cognition, which is the unification of outer matter
and inner form, is further classified into the two stages of sensibility (sensibilitat) and
understanding (Verstand).
Man's cognition is composed by the cooperation of sensibility, as the ability of
perception, and understanding, as the ability of thinking. If either of them is absent,
right cognition can not be obtained. "Thoughts without content are empty;
perceptions without concepts are blind." (The Critique of Pure Reason) This is the
standpoint of Kant, who tried to unify empiricism and rationalism.
Sensibility is the ability to receive ideas through being stimulated by the object. Thus
sensation occurs. At this time the forms, that is, time and space which receive the
sensation as their raw material, already exist a priori within an apparatus of
perception (sensibility). In other words, if we see a thing, without thinking about it at
all, we already grasp it in terms of simultaneity, sequence, succession, coexistence,
or difference of place. These determinations have meaning only when the intuitions
such as time and space exist before them. It is never true that experiences such as
sequence and co-existence exist first, and then the concepts of time and space are
abstracted later. Thus, the concepts of time and space are said to be a priori. Kant
called the forms "intuition forms."
By these intuition forms, the sensation matter (content) can obtain a certain
composition; however, it is not yet organized into one object (e.g. an apple), but only
a mere "variety in intuition." For instance, when we open our hand holding an apple
and the apple falls onto the floor, we receive the intuitional idea that the phenomena
happened successively, but can not yet judge whether or not there is a causal
relation between the two phenomena. Accordingly, we can not yet reach complete
cognition of the object.
Object cognition can be composed only by using the a priori concepts of the
understanding (Verstand). Thinking in this way, Kant called them "categories."
Generally speaking, they can also be called thinking forms (understanding forms).
These categories Kant systemized into four sets of three making twelve all together.
1. Quantity Unity - Plurality - Totality
2. Quality Reality - Negation - Limitation
3. Relation Substance-and-Accident - Cause-and-Effect - Reciprocity
4. Modality Possibility - Actuality - Necessity
For instance, suppose there is a tree; this is the objective cognition obtained by the
category of unity. It is not a plum tree but a cherry tree; this is relating to negation and
reality. In the future it will produce fruit; this is the combined use of time which is an
intuition form and possibility which is a category. Thus, according to Kant, we
recognize things, one after another by applying to the objects the intuition forms and
categories, which we hold beforehand.
In addition, he admitted the existence of reason (Vernunft) which is a higher thinking
ability, relating to ideas. This is a higher faculty than sensibility (Sinnlechkeit) and
understanding (Verstand). Thus Kant's classification of man's ability of cognition into
three stages was succeeded by Hegel, who developed this view further. This then is
the outline of Kant's epistemology.
2. The Dialectical Method Of Marx
(i) The Theory of Reflection
In order to reconcile the unfruitful stalemate between British empiricism and
continental rationalism, Kant established the theory that cognition can be achieved by
synthesizing and unifying the sensation matter coming from the outside (assertion of
empiricism) by using a priori forms belonging to the subject (rationalism). As a result,
the "thing-in-itself" (Ding an Sich) which is independent of the subject could not be
recognized and the flexibility needed to comprehend and change the historically
developing objective world was lost. Then, protesting against this unifying method of
the idealistic school, Marx and Lenin tried to unify the two theories from the viewpoint
of materialism.
Kant thought that the world (phenomena) appearing in our consciousness is not the
outer world itself, but we subjectively compose it by giving a frame to the sensation
matter coming from the outside. Marx, on the other hand, admits the reality of a
material world independent of the subject and thinks that our cognition (sensation,
idea, concept) is the reflection (copy, image) of the objective being. But unlike that of
the British empiricists, his reflection is not passive but active and is obtained by
working upon the objective world with subjective action (practice). Man can know the
state of the world more exactly by such active cognition, that is, through the process
of change.
(ii) Sensitivity, Reason and Practice
Then, how does the process of reflection progress? Marx and his followers say that it
progresses through the spiral repetition of the three stages of sensuous cognition,
reasoned recognition and practice.
For instance, let us take the cause of a lightning bolt. It may rain heavily, thunder may
sound and lightning may flash. The sensuous stage is to sense the lightning bolt and
other things as they are. But it is not enough for us to merely sense the lightning
clearly. Using our reasoning power, we must try to discover the natural shape of the
lightning or collect many examples of a lightning bolt or compare it to other similar
phenomena. This is the rational recognition stage containing factors such as concept,
judgment and inference.
Yet to do all this is still not enough to decide whether or not our cognition is the
correct reflection of the objective world. To decide this we must, according to Marx,
make and demonstrate the same phenomenon as the lightning bolt for ourselves. We
can show that the discharge of high voltage electricity is the same phenomenon as a
lightning bolt, and make it quite clear that a lightning bolt is a kind of electricity. This
is the practice and the cognition of the higher stage obtained through practice.
By this practice, it can be ascertained whether the reflection of the objective world
formed within us through the action of the senses and reason, is right or not, and at
the same time, through practice, a more accurate reflection can be obtained at one
higher stage. Thus the form of "practice, cognition, re-practice, recognition" is
repeated infinitely in rotation, and after each rotation, the contents of practice and
cognition reach a higher stage. (Mao Tse-tung, Theory of Practice)
(iii) Absolute Truth and Relative Truth
Marxists believe that the objective world is independent of the subject and is
governed by absolute truth which has some inevitability. Accordingly, they hold that
the infinite circulation of practice, cognition, re-practice is the infinite approach to the
absolute truth.
Viewed from Marxism, the limit of our approach to the objective, absolute truth is
historically conditioned. However, the existence of this truth is unconditional, and our
approach to it is also unconditional. (Lenin, Materialism and Critique of Experience)
The approach can be performed by the unity of struggle and opposition, that is, by
subjectively working on the object and changing it (practice).
This has been the outline of epistemology based on the dialectical method of
Marxism whose basic principle is the "unity of struggle and opposition."
Section D - The Basis of Epistemology by the Unification Principle
Against the background of the various epistemologies mentioned above which were
advocated in the past, we suggest an epistemology by the law of give-and-take
based on the Unification Principle. Before stating it, we shall state the basic
standpoint of the Unification Principle in relation to epistemology.
1. Everything Is The Object Of Man's Pleasure
According to the Unification Principle, God created everything to be man's substantial
object. The reason for this is that God wants to give us pleasure, and He thus created
everything to be the objects of man's pleasure in order to make man happy. This in a
nutshell, is the basic standpoint of the Unification Principle in relation to
epistemology.
For all things to give pleasure to man means, in other words, that they satisfy man's
desire. Then what is man's desire concerning cognition? It is his desire which seeks
after value. Accordingly, in order to explain cognition, it is necessary to first clarify the
true nature of this desire of man that seeks after value.
In order to understand the above-mentioned desire, from the standpoint of the
Unification Principle, let us first classify the various desires of man.
Sung Sang Desire and Hyung Sang Desire -According to the Unification Principle,
human beings consist of two parts, the physical man and the spirit man. (See Divine
Principle, pp. 60-64). Accordingly there are two desires, that is, the desire of the
physical man and the desire of the spirit man. The former is classified as the desire to
maintain one's individual life, the desire for multiplication (sex) in order to maintain
the family, and the desire to enjoy life through the five senses. These are, in short,
the Hyung Sang desires. As for the desire of the spirit man, there is the desire to
seek after values such as truth, goodness and beauty, and there is the desire for
love. These latter are the Sung Sang desires.
While the Hyung Sang desires are for the maintenance and multiplication of the
physical man, which is the basis for the growth of the spirit man, the Sung Sang
desire is to become perfect in love (Heart) through the realization of the three great
blessings (perfection of the individual, multiplication of children, and dominion over
the creation) through the creation of the Four Position Foundation. The Sung Sang
desire is also to live eternally in the spirit world, and to enjoy the fullness of God's
love even after the death of the physical body. The desire concerning cognition is a
Sung Sang desire.
Desire to Seek After Value and Desire to Realize Value-The Sung Sang desires are
divided into the desire to seek after values such as truth, goodness and beauty and
the desire to realize these values for others. These two desires come from the fact
that man is in the position of being an object to God and in the position of subject to
all things. Being in the position of object means that a human being should realize the
values of truth, goodness and beauty, and by demonstrating them, please God or a
higher level than just himself, e.g. family or nation (we refer to this as the whole). In
other words from this creative purpose to bring joy to God or to the whole, comes the
desire to realize value. On the other hand, for man to be in the position of subject
toward all things means that a human being has the desire to demand the values of
truth, goodness and beauty from all things. This is the desire to seek after value.
It is this desire that concerns cognition. We can not say that the desire to realize
value has nothing to do with cognition. Because we need to act often in order to have
cognition, or even to have joy (cognition) we sometimes try to realize values to serve
the whole and to serve the individual.
The Purpose for the Whole and the Purpose for the Individual-Since human beings
are connected bodies they not only have their own lives but also have a purpose to
serve the whole (e.g. family, country and world). These two purposes have an
inseparable relationship between them.
Therefore, there cannot be any purpose of the individual apart from the purpose of
the whole, nor any purpose of the whole that does not include the purpose of the
individual. (Divine Principle, p. 42)
Moreover, the purpose for the whole has a close relationship to the Sung Sang desire
mentioned above and also to the desire to realize values; while the purpose for the
individual has a close relationship to the Hyung Sang desire, and to the desire for
seeking after value (See Section B of "Axiology").
Although man's cognition concerns all these human desires, it has an especially
close relationship to the Sung Sang desire concerning truth, goodness and beauty.
Furthermore, man's cognition is most important in relation to the value-seeking
desires. These desires come from the fact that man is in the position of being the
subject toward all things.
Pleasure in the Cognition of Value
Since man has this value-seeking desire, he feels pleasure and satisfaction in
seeking all things and wants to see and know them further. It is because of this
desire that cognition develops.
Then, what are the contents of this pleasure like? According to the Unification
Principle, it is beauty that brings pleasure to the subject. (See Divine Principle, p. 42).
As the essential quality of man is feeling (emotion), in order to express the content of
pleasure very concisely we say that the "emotional force (stimuli) returned to the
subject by the object", is beauty. (See Ibid., p. 48) However, truth which is an
intellectual value, and goodness, which is a volitional value, can also give pleasure to
the subject, just as beauty does.
For instance, human beings have a desire to know things simply for the sake of
knowing them, not as the means for the satisfaction of any other desire. Man just
wants to know, and feels pleasure if he knows successfully. We can refer to Socrates
as a typical example of such a man. He loved (philos) to acquire wisdom (sophia),
and felt the greatest pleasure in acting just as he knew. Thus the word of philosophy
(philosophia) was born. Likewise, human beings also have the desire to feel pure
pleasure by being good, and minds are moved and satisfied by the simple fact that
man's act is good.
Thus man feels pleasure by realizing the values of truth, goodness and beauty and
by having cognition of them. Such being the case, the real contents of the pleasure
which he feels in all things are the values of truth, goodness and beauty, and his
pleasure lies purely in his cognition of these values.
Thus, we arrive at the following conclusion. God created all things as objects to give
pleasure to man; that is, as objects to make man feel or know the values of truth,
goodness and beauty. This means that all things are objects of his cognition. But
value composes the core of the contents of cognition, and the significance of value is
that it brings pleasure to the subject. This is a fundamental aspect of the
epistemological theory of the Unification Principle and the most important one for the
establishment of Unification epistemology.
2. All Things Are Objects Of Man's Dominion (Control)
Dominion and Practice
Although it is a great pleasure for man to know all things or to receive the contents of
truth, goodness and beauty, his pleasure is not confined to them alone. Marx says:
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is
to change it." (Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German
Philosophy.) Thus it pleases man further to come into direct contact with all things, to
love them or to realize his ideal in them.
According to the Unification Principle, this is called "dominion." just as the Bible
reads, "And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and
fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the
birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (Genesis 1: 2
8)
We believe that God created all things not only in order to let man feel pleasure in
seeing them but also to let him have dominion over them.
What does dominion mean? It may also be called "control" or "subdual." Dominion
relates to the will of the subject. It means that the subject moves and rules the object
just as it wishes. Thus, to control, or in some cases, to change or manufacture the
object-this is the meaning of dominion.
Then it seems that dominion has the same meaning that "Practice" does in Marxism.
Practice means that the subject works on the object to change it in form or quality
and to utilize it for the benefit of man (subject). If this is so, then to say that all things
are objects of man's control, means that they are objects of practice. The only
difference between control and practice is that the word "control" expresses the idea
of subjectivity more clearly than "practice." Here then, is the fundamental ground for
treating the problem of "practice" which is in an inseparable relationship with
cognition.
Cognition and Practice
There is not practice without cognition. In the human body, the hands and legs are,
as it were, the organs for practice, while the eyes and ears are used for cognition.
Can our hands and legs work without the help of our eyes and ears? If we close our
eyes and do not listen, then we can do nothing at all.
Likewise, cognition and practice can not be separated from each other. Practice is
carried out while having feeling, sense or cognition, and cognition occurs while doing,
moving or practicing. Always in cooperation with each other, cognition and practice
form one inseparable circuit. It is necessary for us to grasp this fact clearly and firmly.
3. There Is Give-And-Take Action Between The Subject And Object
Lastly, let me touch on the give-and-take action between the subject and object. As
mentioned above, this action is a very important movement in cognition, because
cognition always concerns both the subject and object of cognition. Furthermore,
cognition is just one special example of the many give-and-take actions between
subjects and objects to which the Unification Principle refers.
Based on the above-mentioned three facts -- (1) all things are objects to man, the
subject, (2) they are also objects of the dominion of man, and (3) there is always G-T
action between the subject and object of cognition-the epistemology of the Unification
Principle is established.
Chapter II - Epistemology (part 2)
Section E - Unification Epistemology (Epistemology Based on the Give-and-
Take Law)
Using the above-mentioned studies as our basis, first we are going to criticize the
defects of the traditional epistemologies stated in Sections 2 and 3 and then reveal
our epistemology which covers the defects of the others.
1. Critique Of Traditional Epistemologies
(i) Why Subject and Object Exist
The problem common to all traditional epistemologies is that the basic question of
why the subject and object of cognition exist is not answered.
All epistemologists treat the object as though it were a mere given datum and seem
to think man is born and just happens to notice the existence of the world; they think
that the things around us are nothing but the results of mere chance. They are
unconscious of the relationship between man and the world around him. Accordingly,
the relationship between the subject and object becomes hard to clarify and
philosophical chaos has prevailed since they could not judge whether the object
exists outside of us objectively or whether it exists within the subject.
Viewed from the standpoint of the Unification Principle, the subject and object of
cognition exist because of the Creator, who created this world in order to make co-
existence possible and who furthermore regarded the co-existence as good.
And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the
face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for
food." (Genesis 1:29)
Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him
a helper fit for him." (Genesis 2:18)
The object is not an accidentally given datum, but must be necessary to us. The
object must exist for the subject and the subject must exist for the object. However
large this cosmos may be, it has significance only when man exists. Accordingly, the
existence of the cosmos means the existence of man, while the existence of man
means the existence of the cosmos. Without one, the other will lose the significance
of its existence. This is the viewpoint of the Unification Principle toward the
relationship between the subject and object of cognition.
(ii) The Object Must Exist Outside
Why must the object exist? Because it must give pleasure to the subject. What is
pleasure? It is to find the things that are similar to us in the outer world and to see
them correspond to our own Sung Sang and Hyung Sang as if we were seeing
ourselves in a mirror. Accordingly, the object is not within the subject; it would be
meaningless if it did not actually exist outside of the subject. If it does not reflect the
subject's Sung Sang and Hyung Sang outside of the subject, or if it does not
stimulate the subject's sensations from outside, it will not bring pleasure to man. (By
the same reason, this created world as a whole and also individual elements must
exist outside of God.)
Thus as to the problem of the position of the object, we deny the standpoint of
subjective idealism and affirm realism. However we do not think that the object exists
apart from us by chance, but think that it has an inevitable relationship with our
existence, and that without it, the significance of our existence would be lost.
Therefore, the subject, man, and the object can not but co-exist.
(iii) Is the "Thing-in-Itself" (Ding an Sich) Unknowable?
Kant holds that the sensation matter (content), the raw elements composing our
cognition, are sent from the outside but asserts that the Ding an Sich, or the source
of the sensation, is eternally unknowable to man. We think that the opinion of Kant is
immature because he does not understand that the subject and object are
inseparable.
The object exists for the subject. The object has significance of existence only when
all the elements within the object totally appear before the subject. If so, it is utterly
meaningless to say that Ding an Szch is unknowable to man. We would have to say
that God's creation is a failure.
We do not believe that the object has been created in order to exist as a world which
has no relation with us and which keeps its independent existence eternally. We
believe that it has been created in order to make it possible for the object, as a whole,
to completely appear before our senses and reason. We do not think that the object
has been formed without any relation to us at all, nor that our senses and abilities
have been created without any relation to the object. We think that this cosmos,
which exists outside of us, was created with the premise that our senses would be
able to know the world so that we may feel joy. In other words, all things were
created to give us pleasure and our senses and abilities were provided for us in order
that we may feel full satisfaction from the objective world.
It is not true that the object, having no relation with our eyes and ears is reflected to
them. The wave lengths of light and sound from the object have already been
determined so that all things are fully recognized by man. We believe that the
objective world has been created in order to let man feel pleasure in colors, sounds
and the like.
If so, speaking in terms of the Principle, what is recognized is just what God has
created. Of course man's cognition is sometimes or often deformed or immature, so
that we can not say that what is recognized in such a way is the being itself. But
when perfect cognition is achieved the being itself is known. God has not created the
objective world apart from, or without any relation to the cognition of human beings.
God has created the world such that it could not become complete by itself, but could
become complete only in a relationship with man through his cognition. We are of the
opinion that through man's cognition the will of God is manifested in actual form.
Ding an Sich appears to the subject because the intention of God is to have man
know all things perfectly. Accordingly, Ding an Sich is just Ding fur Uns (thing for us).
The appearance of Ding an Sich within ourselves is a complete, total and true
manifestation which is better than any other appearance. In other words, there is no
Ding an Sich that we can not know and that is out of our cognition eternally. The
object itself which we see (though some of us see deeply while others see shallowly)
is a thing itself, the totality of a thing, the actualization of the true nature of a thing
and is just what God has tried to create. From these reasons, we deny agnosticism
and regard things of this world, both visible and invisible, as completely knowable.
Such being the case, we deny subjective idealism and agnosticism and, just as the
Marxists do, affirm realism and the theory that we can know all things. However our
standpoint is different from theirs.
2. The Give-And-Take Relation Between The Subject And Object And The Activity Of
Cognition
Difference of Position between Things and Human Beings
Another big problem concerning cognition is to decide whether the subject or object
plays the leading role in the formation of cognition. That is, is it human beings or the
objective world that plays the leading role?
Empiricism regards the mind of the subject as tabula rasa and thinks that the object
alone constitutes the contents of cognition. On the other hand, rationalism asserts
that we can not get the necessary scientific knowledge from the contents coming
from the object, and tries to depend solely on the clear, distinct intuition of the subject
and on the inferences deduced from intuition. It is clear from the studies in Section B
that these two theories are both one-sided.
Therefore, after Kant unified the two assertions, most scholars tried to understand the
relationship of the subject and object with a method that justified the two views.
Among those attempting to unify the two views, Kant, Fichte and Hegel placed
importance on the subject, while Marx stressed the object.
How will the Unification Principle see this problem? Human beings are the subject
while all things are the object. The latter gives pleasure to the former, while the
former has dominion over the latter. That man is the subject toward all things means
that he is not passive toward all things (circumstance) but active and positive toward
them.
Man, unlike a mirror, does not receive the stimulus from outside passively. In order to
recognize the outer world, he must pay attention to it. Without paying attention either
consciously or unconsciously, he can not have any cognition even if he sees the
object with his eyes.
For instance, we are sometimes absorbed in thought while looking at the sky.
Nevertheless, we do not "see" the sky even though our sight is in the direction of the
sky, because our interest is not in the sky but in thinking. Thus in order to know the
object, it is necessary not only to set our sense organs toward the object but also to
actively pay attention to it. Of course we may sometimes pay unconscious attention
toward the object. For instance, we are often surprised when we hear an unexpected
and loud voice even when we are absorbed in reading a book. This is because we
were unconsciously paying attention to the outside, even when we were reading.
Therefore, cognition can not occur without the activity or positivity of the subject. We
do not face the object by accident but pay active attention to it and sometimes even
select the object of cognition for ourselves. Thus the object can not be known by
accident, but rather the subject recognizes it positively.
This is a natural conclusion when the phenomenon is viewed from the action of give-
and-take. There can not be unification with only what comes from the object without
anything coming from the subject. The unified action of cognition develops only when
give-and-take action occurs between the subject and object. At that time, it is the
human being that acts as the subject.
From their standpoint of wanting to "change the world", Marxists recognize the
activity of the subject in cognition. At the same time, however, they cling to the
standpoint of materialism saying, "... it is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but on the contrary their social being that deter mines their
consciousness." (Marx, Preface to the Critique of Political Economy)
They deny man's positivity or activity toward circumstances (things) in cognition.
They admit man's activity only in practice which inspects (verifies) the already
obtained cognition.
We hold that cognition develops by the G-T action in which man is the subject and
outside things are the object. Even though the object exists for itself, independent of
the subject, it is man, not the object, that takes the initiative in cognition. However,
unlike Kant we do not think that man gives form to the sensuous content coming from
outside; nor do we think as Hegel, that the Absolute Spirit develops into nature which
is the form of expression of the spirit itself, and develops furthermore to reach the
stage of the human mind in which the Absolute Spirit recognizes itself, and finally
returns to itself. We shall explain in detail our opinion about cognition in part 4 of this
section.
3. The Development Of Cognition
The Cause of the Development of Cognition
Organically combined with practice, cognition develops infinitely repeating "practice,
cognition, re-practice and recognition." This is what Marxists assert and on this point
we agree.
However, why in the world does cognition develop so infinitely? According to
Marxism, cognition develops in society when practice is necessary or is happening.
According to communism, practice means not only deeds such as verification,
observation, experimentation, and so on, but also strife, strikes, revolution, etc.
Therefore, when the socialist system based on the proletarian dictatorship is
established, the contradiction between the productivity and productive relation is
resolved and the class strife disappears. Then is there no remaining room for the
development of cognition concerning society? Marxists are silent about this problem.
Our opinion about this problem is as follows. The reason cognition develops
continuously is that man has the desire for cognition, which is a kind of value-seeking
desire. Then what is the desire for cognition? In a word, as stated in Section D-1, it is
pleasure. Man has Sung Sang desire and feels pleasure in finding out truth
intellectually, beauty emotionally, and goodness in action.
Speaking from the viewpoint of quantity, the pleasure and desire of man are infinite.
However, even if a stimulus gives a great satisfaction to him, he may well become
tired of it and feel no more pleasure when the same stimulus is repeated again and
again. Something must be done in order to renew, enlarge and deepen the pleasure.
So, using his controlling ability (ability of dominion) and creativity, man tries to
change the object, find some new variation, or seek for a new object.
Speaking from the viewpoint of quality, even if man recognizes something, he will
sometimes feel no pleasure in it when some doubt remains. For instance, suppose
you see a lightning bolt with your own eyes. You will not feel pleasure in it if you can
not understand the true nature of the lightning bolt. What is a lightning bolt, and why
does it fall to the ground? When you solve these questions, you will then feel
pleasure. Such a tendency as this can also be seen in the nature of all men.
Thus in order to enlarge his pleasure or create new pleasure, man uses his creativity
to change or reconstruct the object and ascertain it by practice, such as in
experiments. In this way he always tries to get more appealing and more accurate
knowledge, and thus feel greater satisfaction.
Marx, however, sees the development of cognition only as the means for carrying out
practice effectively (in the case of social problems, for carrying out production or
class strife). However, he does not notice the fact that cognition itself, or practice
itself, gives pleasure to man, and that men always try to enlarge their pleasure which
comes from the desire for cognition or desire for seeking after value itself. As a result,
Marx speaks of the development of cognition but can not explain why the
development occurs.
This is the limit of Marxism and at this point the new viewpoint of the Unification
Principle appears, to overcome the limitation.
4. The Ground And Method Of Cognition
We have so far examined the main problematic and debatable points concerning
cognition. finally, we wish to examine the following most basic problems from the
standpoint of the Unification Principle. How is it possible to recognize things? What is
the phenomenon of cognition? What should we do to carry out cognition effectively
and correctly?
a. Appraisal an d Correspondence
(i) Is the Mind a Tabula Rasa (Blank Tablet) by Nature?
How is cognition effected and how is it possible? Locke, Hume and Kant regarded
this question as most important and examined it minutely. We too must clarify the
true nature of cognition.
Is our mind a tabula rasa (blank tablet) by nature? Is experience from the outside
added to the tabula rasa mind to engrave various ideas on it?
From the standpoint of the Unification Principle, we can not admit such a way of
thinking. It is difficult to agree with the tabula rasa theory when we judge it according
to the essence of cognition stated in Section D.
What is cognition? Its final nature or purpose is pleasure. What is pleasure then? It is
to find out what is similar to us in the object which is outside of us.
So if our mind is a tabula rasa by nature, it is quite impossible to see ourselves
corresponding to the object and accordingly there can be no pleasure there. It is not
possible that a thing which gives us no pleasure can keep the attention of our mind
for long. Even a baby several months old feels a strong interest in the things around
him and cries with joy to see things move and to see beautiful colors, forms, or
persons. Thus it seems that already in his infant childhood, man holds within his mind
something which we call the prototype of truth, beauty and goodness, and comparing
the sensations of the objects coming from the outside with the prototypes, man
judges whether a thing is right or wrong, beautiful or ugly.
According to the Unification Principle, the process of cognition is as follows.
Cognition is to unify the subject and object. The unification results when the subject
and object are similar to each other. That is to say, a similarity of image (idea)
between the subject and object is necessary for cognition. For instance, suppose we
see a flower. Is the image of flower reflected in our tabula rasa mind like a mirror so
that the idea of the flower is marked in the mind? The Unification Principle does not
regard the process of cognition as occurring in this way. At first, there is an original
prototype (idea) of a flower within our mind (subject). Then the image of the actual
flower (object) is projected onto our mind and coincides with the prototype already
there, because the two flowers are similar to each other. At this moment, the two
images carry out the G-T action between them giving rise to a new result. This is
cognition itself.
(ii) There Must Be An Appraisal of Correspondence
Let us think of the action of our mind in the action of cognition. We shall surely notice
that the action of judgment is always present during the process.
When we see a thing and can not know at all what it is, the action of cognition does
not take place. There is only the feeling of doubt there; moreover the feeling of
beauty is also absent. Only when we feel something similar to us, do we come to
open our mind and ascertain more clearly what it is. This is judgment.
What is judgment? It is to compare what comes from outside with what we already
have in our mind and to see whether the two correspond with each other.
Accordingly, judgment may be also called an "Appraisal of Correspondence."
Cognition can be classified into intellectual, emotional and volitional types. These can
all be achieved when there are intellectual, emotional and volitional judgments
respectively. The purpose of cognition is pleasure but there must be judgment before
we obtain pleasure. We judge that this is beautiful or that- this is a kind person and
through such a judgment, pleasure can be obtained.
If judgment is, as stated above, to compare what comes from outside with what we
hold in our mind beforehand and to see whether or not the two of them correspond
with each other, has our mind known the things that are outside of us already, before
cognition? No, of course not. Then why does man hold such universal judgment
standards inside of him by nature? In order to clarify this, it is necessary to explain a
core theory of the Unification Principle.
(iii) Man Has the Prototypes of All Things Within Him
The Unification Principle says, "That is, man is God's substantial object with His dual
characteristics manifested as "direct image" while all things of the universe are the
substantial objects of God with His dual characteristics manifested as "indirect
image" (symbol). (Divine Principle, p. 26)
Direct image is the philosophical expression of the idea of God's image as expressed
in Genesis (1:27) (though, according to the Unification Principle, God's image
includes not only Hyung Sang but also Sung Sang) and means that God's Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang are directly and totally embodied. On the other hand, symbolic
means that God's Sung Sang and Hyung Sang are indirectly and partially embodied
just as an artist expresses what is in him symbolically through his works.
Therefore, man is the expression of the whole of God while individual things are
expressions of parts of God. The whole (human beings) must include all the parts
(things), and thus can correspond with any part (anything) and can discover what is
similar to him in the universe. This is what the Unification Principle shows about the
relation between man and things.
Let us take man's body as an example. His characteristics are almost the same as
those of other higher animals, and hence he is said to be a Primate. Also, his
functions are similar to those of machines. Accordingly, some scholars even
advocate that man is a machine. However the similarities do not stop here. Man's
lungs are similar to the leaves of plants, his stomach to the roots, and blood vessels
to the xylem and phloem. In this sense, man may be a plant. In the human body
structure . the skin is covered with hair, blood vessels exist in the musculature, and
still deeper lies the marrow within the skeleton." (Ibid., p. 45) In the case of the earth
too, "The earth's crust is covered with plants, under ground waterways exist in the
substrata, and beneath all this lies molten lava surrounded by rocks." (Ibid., p. 45)
Here too we see the similarity between the human body and the earth. Thus man can
see himself even in the gigantic earth. More over, man's hands and mouth are, unlike
those of other animals, not specialized too narrowly. Using his hands, man can dig a
hole, swim, or hold or catch various tools, and using his mouth, he can imitate the
voice of any animal. Man's naked body is regarded as beauty itself; all the elements
of beauty are contained in it. It is said, therefore, that when an artist masters
sketching the human body, he can draw any form. Though small, the human eyes
can see the whole universe. Though small, the human brain can think deeply of the
whole universe. It is not too much to say that man is the "encapsulation of all things"
(Ibid., p. 44) (a microcosm or synthesized substantial body of the whole cosmos).
(iv) The Prototypes Exist Deep in the Latent Consciousness
Thus all the elements of the universe are included in the human body and the
prototypes of all ideas and the representations of all these elements are formed
beforehand and kept in the back of man's mind. That is to say, in the latent
consciousness of the deepest part of the mind, the prototypes of the ideas of all
things in the universe have already been formed before the action of cognition starts.
The mechanism is as follows. Living things consist of cells and organs, the action of
which comes from the "dominion and autonomy of the Principle itself." (Ibid., p. 55).
The "Autonomy of the Principle" means consciousness (latent consciousness) and
this consciousness within the cells and organs already carries the image of the cells.
This is called "original consciousness." In the case of an animal, the mind of the
animal (physical mind) has a give-and-take relation with the original consciousness of
the cells and organs of the animal, and communication is established between the
mind and the original consciousness. In this way the physical mind already contains
the various images of the cells and organs which are the prototypes of the ideas
corresponding to all things in the outside world. (However, the prototypes of the ideas
can not be realized as actual ideas without the action of cognition, that is,
coincidence with the outside world.)
This is the same as in the case of the physical mind of man; subconsciously it has
the prototype of the idea corresponding to each cell and organ. The spiritual mind of
the spiritual body has a give-and-take relationship with the physical mind and,
together with this, forms the natural mind as a whole (human mind in the usual
meaning). As a result, the natural mind already subconsciously has the direct images
of spiritual and physical elements.
For instance, in the original consciousness of a cell there are images of size .. circles,
globes, movement, and so on which are reflections of the physical part of the cell
onto the original consciousness and thus are called "original reflections." These are
connected to the physical mind where they are recorded deep in it through the G-T
action between the original consciousness and the physical mind. Furthermore, they
are transmitted to, and marked in, the depths of the subconsciousness of the natural
mind (the mind of man as a whole including his spiritual body) through the G-T action
between the physical mind and the spiritual mind. [Note: This kind of give-and-take
action is necessarily accompanied by that of the physiological system. All of the
processes in living things, especially in the human body, have the two (paired)
aspects of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang. Since the G-T action of original
consciousness and mind is the Sung Sang action, it is necessarily accompanied by
the Hyung Sang action which is the G-T action between the peripheral nervous
system including cells (and organs) and the central nervous system.]
Thus, in the mind, there are already the prototypes of the images of all the things of
the objective world. So, if an image of a flower comes from the outside, and this
image and a prototype within sub-consciousness correspond with each other, the two
are connected and unified and come to the surface of the consciousness. As a result,
one can judge that the unified image is a flower. This is cognition itself. In other
words, cognition is an appraisal of correspondence.
(v) Cognition is the Unification of the Outside and Inside
Let us reach the conclusion as quickly as possible. The advocators of empiricism
assert that cognition grows as some impression from the outside and is marked in
our mind, which at first is empty like a tabula rasa. This is not true.
If it were true, there could be no pleasure, nor excitement, nor sympathy. Besides,
the empiricists can not explain why man has such a strong and continuous curiosity.
Moreover, the stimulus from the outside itself is scattered and dispersed. For
instance, suppose we are looking at a singing bird. The figure of the bird and the
sound of singing come to our mind through different sense organs; that is, the figure
comes through the eyes and the sound comes through the ears. If the human mind
were empty as a mere blank tablet, these stimuli would always be separated and not
unified. But we recognize the united totality, the singing bird. Something must act to
unify the sensations.
It is the mind, including the subconscious, as stated above, that unifies these
scattered stimuli. [Note: In the case of the mind unifying scattered stimuli, it is also
necessary for a physiological process to be involved, because, as mentioned above,
a Sung Sang process must run parallel to a Hyung Sang process. Therefore the
unifying action of the mind requires the interactions of many associated fibers and
nerve cells in the brain. Without both processes, cognition can not occur.]
Before we actually receive some stimuli from the outside, we already have the
contents and forms of various latent images or the autonomy of the Principle deep in
the mind as our subconscious. The prototypes, not yet embodied, and the reflection
(image) of actual things from outside, are connected and unified by the G-T action.
As a result, the cognition which can be called surface consciousness, appears. This
is knowledge itself.
The image existing deep in the subconsciousness is buried and unknown until the
operation of cognition begins to act. Until then, we can not know about the image
even though it exists within us. We know it subconsciously but not as a concrete
thing, just like in the seed of a cherry tree, the cherry exists as life but is not yet an
embodied form. A stimulus corresponding with the prototype comes in, and the
correspondence between the stimulus (image) and prototype suddenly makes us
grasp an idea, because the prototype (idea) is actualized at the moment of cognition.
Therefore, cognition never develops one-sidedly. The subconsciousness, or
prototype latent beforehand, corresponds with the actual image which comes from
the outside. The G-T action between them brings about cognition and there is a
thrilling feeling, excitement and sympathy there. Seeking after such feeling and
excitement, we become eager to know the natural world to the last detail.
With the prototype as the standard, we reunify the stimuli, which come in dispersed,
and recreate the natural world in our mind.
b. The Similarity of Content and Form
The Content and Form of Both the Outside and the Inside.
Kant also admits that cognition is the unification of the inner and outer worlds, but he
thinks that only content (matter) comes from the outside, and only form exists within,
and that these two are unified. Thus the world of " things-in- themselves" (Ding an
Sich) has been regarded as impossible for our cognition to reach; the forms through
which we perceive the object are fixed. It thus became difficult to grasp the dynamic
changes of the objective world. In short, various contradictions and problematic
points have appeared.
On the other hand, we think that not only content, but also the form supporting it,
exists in the outer objective world (independent of the cognition of the subject) and
that the content itself, as well as the form of cognition, exists latent within us. The
objective world which has both content and form and which is unified independently
of the subject comes into the subject as scattered and dispersed stimuli. These
stimuli are then united by the latent content and form which we hold beforehand, and
the subject and object are reconstructed and reunified within ourselves.
For example, let us take the forms of time and space. As stated in "Ontology", all
beings maintain their existence by forming the outer Four Position Base (Outer
Quadruple Base) through the G-T action, and producing the forces for action, growth,
and multiplication. Accordingly, there must be some distinction between the positions
of the subject and object. This is space. The G-T action produces movement and
carries out the three-stage development of Chung-Boon-Hap. This is time.
Accordingly, the forms of time and space must exist, not only within the cognition of
the subject, but also within the object.
At the same time, if we consider the inside of man, there is the flow of blood, the
operation of the nerves and various physiological phenomena taking place in the
cells and organs. These are all results of the formation of the Four Position Base by
the G-T action. Accordingly, there are things concerning time and space already
within us, and they are transmitted physically to nerve centers through the nerve
action and to the mind (physical and spiritual mind) through the subconsciousness by
give-and-take action. With these as the grounds of sensibility, the "intuition forms of
time and space" of Kant appear.
Thus the forms of time and space exist in both the object and subject. We think that
they are both existence forms and also cognition forms. It will not be necessary to
explain the correspondence of inner and outer worlds concerning content since we
studied it minutely in subsection (1) of this section.
In short, content and form exist in both the inside and outside. Cognition occurs when
and where they correspond to each other. This is our epistemology. Here it is
necessary to note that the nerve system is always active in cognition. In other words,
the actions of both Sung Sang and Hyung Sang are necessary in the process of
cognition.
c. Transcendence and Priority
(i) The Priority of the Prototype
Lastly, we are going to examine Kant's "transcendence" from the standpoint of the
Unification Principle.
Kant found various cognition forms in man which must exist in principle before
experience and he called them a priori (transcendental). That is to say, according to
Kant, it is only forms that exist before experience, and in order to make his theory
consistent, the forms must already be basically completed before experience.
According to the Unification Principle, however, not only the form but also the content
of cognition already exists in the human being as a subconscious prototype, though
these forms and contents are not yet completed, not consciously known by us, and
are not systematized clearly before experience.
As soon as the stimulus corresponding to the prototype comes in from the outside,
the image (reflection) and prototype are unified, so that the form and content of
cognition are both actualized. By repeating such unification (experience), both the
content and form of the prototype within the subconscious are clarified and
completed to become the premise (a priori condition) of the next cognition. In this
sense, we call the content and form existing within us subconsciously before
experience "priority", which is different from Kant's a priori or transcendence.
(ii) The Development of the Prototype
Man has the prototypes of the objects of cognition within himself before cognition.
Only when he successfully finds the stimuli from the outside which coincide with the
prototypes, can he understand the objects, and cognition is composed. He can know
the object since he has the prototype of the object within him. If he did not, cognition
could not occur.
But this does not mean that the prototype is clear from the beginning, nor does it
deny that the contents of cognition, including the prototypes, are various and will be
developed fully later.
Especially when we are babies, the prototypes within us are very ambiguous.
Gradually, however, as new experience is added which can settle in our mind as
cognition through being compared with the prototype, the experience is accumulated
within the subconsciousness, and then acts as a new prototype for the next cognition
when we face another new experience. Thus, the prototypes within us are
successively deepened, enriched and diversified.
For instance, a young child already has a prototype of a flower within himself. But
even when he sees a flower, he can not yet tell what flower it is unless he is taught
the name of the flower. When we tell him that it is, say, a cherry blossom, the idea of
a cherry blossom is formed and then enters his subconsciousness. When he sees a
cherry blossom again, he immediately understands that it is a cherry blossom. That is
to say, the ambiguous pattern (prototype) of a flower is specialized into that of a
cherry blossom, which will become a new prototype at the time of his next
experience.
Thus the concept of priority (prototype) is always required because the prototype of
the object of cognition must exist within us before the establishment of cognition. This
means that the prototypes must be prior to the establishment of cognition, but does
not mean that all the prototypes exist in complete forms inherently. At first there only
may be something like an ambiguous presentiment and it may be so ambiguous that
sometimes we first notice the prototype corresponding with the image from outside
only when we come across it. With each cognition, the content and form of the
cognition, which is clarified according to the quality of the cognition, are accumulated
within us, and these become the new prototypes for the next experience, that is, the
prior prototypes for establishing the next cognition.
Such being the case, we can define cognition as the combination or unification of the
prototype, which the subject (human being) contains beforehand, and the image
coming from the object, through the give-and-take action between the two. [Note: Not
only things, but also man, and even God, can be the objects of cognition. In status
(position), God is the subject of man. But so far as cognition is concerned, since the
one who recognizes is regarded as the subject, God becomes the object. However,
one can not see God as a concrete image; God can only be known spiritually through
Heart.]
d. Spiritual Cognition
Besides all these, there are the spiritual cognitions belonging to the senses of the
spirit man such as spiritual intuition, inspiration and ESP (extrasensory perception).
In order to clarify the meaning of cognition perfectly we must enter these fields. (In
fact, there have been many cases in which inventions, discoveries, and the creation
of new theories depended on spiritual cognition.) However, there are so few people
who have conscious spiritual experiences that we omit the explanation of this
problem at this time to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding.
5. Summary And Conclusion
Finally, let us summarize what we have discussed until now, and then reach the
conclusion.
As to the problem of how cognition is composed, Kant asserts that one can reach
cognition through the intuition forms and understanding categories belonging to the
subject, while Marx and Lenin advocate the theory of reflection, stressing the
objective existence form one-sidedly and wrongly making light of the rich contents,
subjectivity, selectivity and individuality on the side of the subject.
On the other hand, we think, with the principle of the give-and-take action (the Four
Position Base) as the standard, that the objective world independently of the subject
must have the forms of existence as well as the contents. (This means the affirmation
of realism.) We also hold, as Kant did, that man has the prototypes of the forms of
cognition within himself as a precondition for the formation of cognition before the
experience. Unlike Kant, however, we think that the form is not originally complete,
but that it is gradually clarified as it finds correspondence with the images coming
from the outside. Also, we think that before experience, man, within himself, has not
only form but also the prototype of the contents of cognition.
Cognition is the G-T action between the subject and object, and this action combines
and unifies the prototype held by the subject beforehand with the image coming from
the object. (Accordingly, cognition is a kind of confirmation or appraisal.) The
knowledge gained once can be clarified more by practice, and practice can be
advanced by new knowledge (cognition). Thus cognition and practice develop spirally
in a close relationship. Content, image and form accumulate in the subconscious and
become new prior prototypes for the next cognition. (Therefore, the more experience
is accumulated, the richer becomes the contents or prototypes in the subconscious.)
Between the subject and object (objective world) or between form and content exists
the give-and-take relationship in which combination or unification is accomplished.
Epistemology based on this standpoint may be called "Epistemology by the Give-
And-Take Law" if viewed in terms of method, and "Unification Epistemology", if
viewed in terms of purpose.
Chapter III - Axiology
Some consistent idea of value should exist at the basis of each aspect of culture,
such as politics and economy, for example. This theory of axiology, built on the
foundation of "Ontology", tries to clarify the existence of the purpose of creation and
the essence of value created through the give-and-take action between relative
elements. Thus this theory's goal is to define the structure of value as fundamental
principles of standard ethics as well as individual morals. This theory may also offer a
great deal to counter the variety and confusion of the present-day view of value.
Section A - The Significance of Axiology
Axiology is the philosophical field that deals generally with the problems of value:
how to judge, evaluate and recognize value.
Descartes and Locke systematically pursued the study of epistemology and finally
formed one of the most fundamental fields of philosophy. Later, Kant discriminated
between the field of theory (Sein, being) and that of value (Sollen, duty), and axiology
thus became one of the basic fields of the modern philosophical world.
Kant's theory, however, dealt more directly with determining which things are
valuable, while the value that is dealt with here, has more to do with ethics, since we
consider value as that which decides the goals of man's activities.
In the history of philosophy, axiology occupies a very important position. It is
interesting that it takes a place in history similar to the place it takes in the process of
man's growth from childhood. Children ask the axiological questions such as, "Why
do we do this?" or "Why must we do that?" soon after their ontological questions such
as, "What is this?" or "How does it happen?"
Let us examine both purpose and value according to the Principle.
Section B - The Theoretical Foundation of Axiology
(i) Dual Being
What is value then? Can we expect to find a constant concept or standard of value
regardless of the time, place or persons that we encounter? How do material value or
personal value come to take concrete shape?
Truth is unique, eternal, unchanging and absolute, regardless of time or
circumstances. Thus our first step is to theoretically consider the true meaning of the
existence of human beings and, based upon this consideration, deal with the true
significance of value.
We can readily note that man has two sides, both an internal (spiritual) and external
(material) side, that is, his Sung Sang and Hyung Sang aspects.
Hence, man has two different kinds of desires: the desire to seek after spiritual
values such as truth, goodness, beauty and love; and the desire to seek for material
values such as the desire for the sensory joys found in food, clothing, shelter and
sex. The former desire is called Sung Sang desire, and the latter Hyung Sang desire.
[Note: In the Unification Principle view, man not only has the two aspects of Sung
Sang and Hyung Sang, but also the dual body of spirit man and physical man.
Resulting from the action of give-and-take between these two, various kinds of
mental phenomena are known to take place.]
(ii) Dual Purposes
As stated in detail in "Ontology", man exists in a dual position both as God's
substantial object, and as the subject of the whole creation.
To be God's substantial object means that man is in a position to offer joy to God. In
other words, exhibiting his own God-given values, man offers truth, goodness and
beauty to God in order to give Him joy and comfort. Since God is such that He
contains every being, visible and invisible, He can be considered to be the complete
whole, and to serve Him may be called the purpose for the whole.
Deep in his mind, man desires to do something or feels he must do something for his
greater, wider and higher whole, namely, for his home, his nation and the world in
which he lives. From this desire a sense of duty naturally arises which corresponds to
"must be thus", "wish to be such" or "must act thus", "wish to act in such a way." The
sense of duty or "Categorical Imperative" (Kant) generally comes from this purpose
for the whole.
The fact that man is the subject of the whole creation means that he influences the
creation (has dominion over the whole creation) with love and also he receives from it
values such as truth, goodness and beauty which give him joy.
This receiving of value corresponds to the purpose for the individual which is
indispensable to man as is the purpose for the whole already mentioned.
(iii) Dual Desires
The dual desires exist in relation to both the purposes for the whole and for the
individual. One is the desire to realize value, to exhibit one's value toward God, and
the other is the desire to seek after value in order to obtain joy through receiving
truth, goodness and beauty from all things. These dual desires form an actual basis
for feeling values and for a consciousness or a view of value.
What is the nature and basis of these desires according to the Principle? We can not
help but think that the creation of man must have some reason or purpose, because
man was created by God. However long this purpose may exist, however, it has no
significance unless it is realized.
God gave man everything necessary to fulfill his purpose of creation, but this
fulfillment was entrusted to man's free will. This purpose of creation can not be
achieved if man remains in the state in which he was created. In other words, in order
to achieve his purpose, man must grow by himself. This means that man has to be
given the ability and impulse to fulfill his purpose. The impulse to fulfill his purpose of
creation is the desire for value (both the value-realizing and value-pursuing desires).
All the other created beings besides man are also given purposes of creation by God.
Even inorganic matter has usefulness and law, and this usefulness and law both can
be said to be realizations of the purpose of creation. That is, inorganic matter
becomes useful by its law. On the other hand living creatures possess an
autonomous nature (plants) and an instinctive nature (animals). By these they grow
automatically or instinctively to perfection and realize the purpose of their creation.
Besides these laws, autonomy and instinct, man possesses creativity (dominating
ability), namely the desire to create values (Sung Sang and Hyung Sang) by which
God's purpose of creation is to be consciously realized.
The basic factor of the desire to realize and pursue value is the impulse to achieve
the purpose of creation. Here we find what the Principle considers the basis of the
whole system of axiology.
Section C - The Kinds of Value
(i) Truth, Goodness and Beauty
In order to survive individually man must fulfill his Hyung Sang desires such as his
desire for food, clothing, and shelter and he must fulfill his sexual desire in order to
preserve his own kind. These desires, however, provide only the groundwork for the
achievement of man's purpose of creation and are not enough to completely fulfill the
original purpose planned by God.
Let us consider, then, the desires (Sung Sang desires) which are directly concerned
with God's purpose for creating man on earth.
Three kinds of value are usually mentioned first. They are truth, goodness, and
beauty. These three forms of value (truth, goodness and beauty) are equivalent to
the three functions of man's mind (intellect, emotion, and will). Furthermore they are
both what man wants to realize in himself to give joy (spiritual), and what he searches
for in others in order to find his own spiritual joy.
Truth
Man wants to live a true life, not a false one. In other words, according to his purpose
of creation, man has a desire to be true, not false. If we live a false life, our
conscience begins to bother us. This is evidence that man has the desire to realize
truth. Furthermore, man wants to see true things, persons or lives. Man tends to
dislike anything false, whatever it may be, even when he just happens to see it.
Moreover, man attempts to obtain truth (knowledge) from objects such as nature,
social circumstances, history, etc. This is the desire to seek after truth.
Goodness
Man hopes to dedicate himself to God and the whole around himself so that he may
be of value and may lead a good life according to God's purpose for creation. Man
has a desire to realize goodness, and he is always eager to see and know good
things, attitudes, behavior and to hear good language in the beings around him. This
is the desire to pursue goodness.
Beauty
Man has the desire to realize beauty through his deeds and life by offering beauty to
the whole such as family, neighbors, society, nation, mankind and God for their
enjoyment. And he wishes to gain joy from seeing or hearing about beautiful
countenances or beautiful deeds. This is the desire of seeking after beauty, and the
former desire is to realize beauty. This is why there can be both creation and
appreciation in art. An artist's creation comes about due to the desire to realize
beauty, and appreciation comes about due to the desire to pursue it. [Note: From the
standpoint of communism, only deeds which are useful to achieve the purpose of
accomplishing revolution and which are useful to the victory of class strife for the side
of the proletarian class are considered to be the true, good and beautiful. Thus the
communists are limited to a very narrow, one-sided view of value.]
(ii) Love
Love itself can not be called value in the exact meaning of the word, but love is
inseparably related to the already mentioned values of truth, goodness and beauty.
These three values are the values offered to the subject from the object as objective
value. Love is an emotional force (force of Heart) given to the object by the subject
(man or God). For example, God, as the subject, gives man (the object) his purpose
of life, and parents as subjects give (teach) their children standards (Principles) of
life. This purpose and these standards come from the love of the subject (God or
parents). This purpose and these principles then become goals to be realized in
order to realize the above stated three values, and thus this purpose and these
principles serve as the measuring standards for these values. If the object displays
"value" following these goals, the subject is pleased to see it and loves the object all
the more. When man, as the object, offers value (beauty, goodness, etc.) to the
subject, it is necessary that his heart or his love becomes the basis of the deed,
because, for example, beauty is a kind of emotional stimulation to the subject from
the object.
Suppose that we acted and lived with only love in mind, without any sense of the
values of truth, goodness and beauty; nevertheless the subject, observing the deeds
done before him would accept the deeds as the three values. In this sense, it may
follow that love is both the source of, or motive for realizing truth, goodness and
beauty, and yet it is also the base from which the appreciation of these same values
comes. In other words, love is the beginning and end of value.
If we see people with loving hearts, their deeds appear much more true, good, and
beautiful even though their deeds are not consciously done for value and are
extremely ordinary. In this sense, love may be called the union of truth, goodness
and beauty. In other words, the reason the three kinds of value (truth, goodness and
beauty) are all increased by one thing, love, is that love is the union of all values, just
as a lake is the union of the rivers.
Axiology can not be separated from ethics since the principle of deeds done through
love is ethics.
(iii) Holiness
"Holiness" is often considered as a value along with the other common values like
truth, goodness and beauty. The reason for this is that man became separated from
God's love and fell into a narrow-minded egoism, and thus came to express nothing
that originated from God; that is, nothing holy.
In the holy world (the world created by God) all was united with God as one body and
the three values were all sacred. It is meaningless, therefore, to emphasize the value
"holiness", as only truth, goodness and beauty are dealt with as values in the original
world.
Section D - The Essence of Value
(i) The Essence of Value
What is the essence of value? What is the ultimate substance which creates value
and makes something valuable?
Value includes two aspects: the actual and the essential. The essence of value
consists of the factors which fulfill the desire for the values truth, goodness, and
beauty (the desire which seeks after value). The actuality of value (actual value)
signifies the joy expressed by the subject when it comes in contact with concrete
things or actions with such factors.
The essence of value consists of the following two factors.
(ii) The Purpose of Creation
The first factor is the purpose of creation.
All objects created by God have purposes. In the case of all the created beings, other
than man, God's purpose of creation is straightforwardly expressed. Man, on the
other hand, can find this purpose of creation (mission or responsibility) with his free
will and must fulfill it himself. Thus, God's true purpose of creation is not always
realized by every individual. The same thing can be said about man's actions and the
works (products) made by human hands. Thus, behind all existing beings, we find
God's purpose for making them.
These purposes, however, should not remain hidden or as mere potential but should
actually appear as definite purposes of individuals (purposes for the whole and for
the individual) so that they might be achieved. Any existing being without a purpose
is regarded as worthless.
(iii) The Give-and-Take Action of Relative Elements and Harmony
The second factor is the G-T action (harmony). Centering on the purpose, the relative
elements which are Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, positive and negative, movement
and quiescence, large and small, strong and weak, and so on, should remain in
harmony through their mutual G-T action. Whether natural or artificial, all things
necessarily have a purpose of creation and should be in harmony through the give-
and-take action between the two elements within each being. This harmony through
the give-and-take law is another essence of value.
For example, man's highest purpose is to act for the whole or God and to offer joy to
the whole (God). When man, centering on this purpose, creates harmony through the
G-T action between his spiritual mind (Sung Sang) and physical mind (Hyung Sang),
or when he carries on a life of harmony through the give-and-take action with others
(for example, brothers or friends), in Unification Thought this harmony is regarded as
the essence of value of human beings. In such cases, the man who forms such
harmony, even though he is a man, is dealt with as the object, not as the subject of
the judgment of value. In other words, the man who is fulfilling his purpose and
maintaining harmony must be an object to the subject which is needed to accept the
value.
Considering the blooming flowers of the natural world, we find that they too have a
purpose to fulfill beauty so that they may please human beings. Here again a smooth
give-and-take action can be seen between the external relative elements centering
on this purpose. This smooth action, in short, is harmony. This harmony occurs, for
instance, among a flower's colors, shapes, sizes, positions and so on which are all
external elements of flowers. In other words, the relative elements of things' Hyung
Sang aspects express differences. Harmony comes from the differences of these
external elements. Seeing the external forms of objects, various differences are
noticed in their width, size, movements, height, length, color and so forth. When the
differences of these relative elements are united into one by a mutual action (union of
variety) then truth, goodness, and beauty appear. White clouds against a blue sky,
and butterflies or bees flying around flowers are good examples of such beauty
(harmony).
In these examples the former things show movement and the latter quiescence, and
all the differences of color, size and shape including movement present a harmonious
state. Beauty is not perceived strikingly in the monotonous but rather in stirring
variety and difference, because harmony appears only among variety and
differences. Nature is beautiful by itself, but if man, the subject, appears in it, he
makes it more beautiful; he makes the harmony even more striking, because by
man's presence, more variety (difference) has been added.
However, when existing beings fulfill their actual purpose of creation and also
produce harmony through the give-and-take action between relative elements, this
does not yet mean that they have created actual value. Actual value appears to the
subject as a judgment while the give-and-take action between the subject and object
occurs. A judgment is a subjective view. To realize a value, therefore, a subject must
exist as the active judge of the value.
Section E - The Decision of Actual Value and the Standard of Value
(i) The Decision of Actual Value
How is value realized and actually decided? Generally, it is decided by the mutual
action (give-and-take) conducted between the "objective conditions" and "subjective
conditions." Objective conditions are the essence of the above-mentioned value, that
is, the purpose of creation and the harmony brought about through the give-and-take
action of the relative elements in the object. (This harmony corresponds to that
created by the law of give-and-take of the relative elements in the subject.)
The subjective conditions are mainly the subject's internal conditions- thoughts or
conceptions, views of life or of the world, his God-given personality and so forth.
For example, man feels joy as a creator only when he has an object; that is, when he
sees the product of his work, whether it be painting or sculpture, in which his plan is
substantiated. In this way, he is able to feel his own character and form objectively
through the stimulation derived from the product of his work. (Divine Principle, p. 42)
In this way the three values-truth, goodness and beauty-all come to be perceived and
the subject, above all, can feel his own Sung Sang in the object. Then, what is the
Sung Sang of the subject in this case? While perceiving value, the Sung Sang
consists of the thoughts, conceptions and views of the world based on the thoughts,
individual character, feelings and so forth of the subject. Namely all these compose
the Sung Sang (conditions) of the subject. Value is decided by the give-and-take
action between these conditions of the subject and the objective conditions (the
purpose of creation and the harmony of the Sung Sang elements). For instance, the
actual value (e.g. beauty) of flowers is decided by the reciprocal relationship between
the objective conditions such as the purpose of creation of the flower (the harmony of
colors and size, etc.), and the subjective conditions (such as the thoughts, tastes,
artistic feelings and the view of nature and so forth).
(ii) Subjective Action
The fact that the subjective conditions are important in the decision of value means
that the subject sometimes projects his own thoughts, conceptions, feelings, views
and so on onto the object. Such a projecting action of the subject is called
"Subjective Action." When poets view flowers or the moon, for instance, they add a
variety of imaginations and ideas to it and put forth new meanings, different from
those of scientists. Thus the flowers and the moon are seen differently by poets and
scientists. When one has a sorrowful heart, the moon often looks lonely. Even the
same flowers, according to our different feelings, whether we feel good or uneasy,
display different beauties. Thus, the subjective elements greatly influence the
decision of value. In deciding beauty (appreciating beauty) this projection of
subjectivity onto the object is called subjective action. At any rate, attention should be
paid to the fact that the process of the realization of value is not a passive reflecting
of the objective world to the subject but is the active recognition and pursuing activity
of the subject.
(iii) The Importance of the Subjective Conditions
The importance of the subjective conditions can be clearly understood when we see
historical remains, cultural assets or other relics of the past. As we gain wider
knowledge about these historical things, they take on new meaning and display
deeper beauty. Likewise in the case of art, for example, through special knowledge of
music and sculpture, we can perceive more value (beauty) in them.
Thus it is by forming a correlation, namely it is by the give-and-take action between
the subjective condition and the objective condition, that the actual value is decided.
The decision of goodness is the same as that of beauty. Since "the kingdom of God
is in the midst of you." (Luke 17:21) when love fills in our spirit, we can honestly
tolerate all the faults of others. Thus if the thought and feeling of the subject were
reformed, the object would acquire new meaning, the dark side of him would be
hidden, and new value revealed.
To state the above briefly, both the objective and subjective conditions are involved in
the decision of value, but the subjective factor is more decisive.
(iv) The Standard of Value
What is the standard for the decision of value?
As already stated the subject factor plays an important role in the decision of value.
So the "self" (subject) becomes very important. Self and others both have common
objective elements (elements separate from the subject) like thoughts. The purpose
of creation and the relative elements which the object includes, are also considered
objective elements.
But even though there are a number of common, universal, objective elements in the
conditions of both the subject and object, they can not become the complete
standard of value. Each person is a unique individual truth body expressing an
Individual Image of God. Individuals, therefore, have their own peculiar ways of
accepting value, which is quite natural for men. The standard for the decision of value
is the union of both the universally common, objective side and the peculiar,
individual side. Neither of these two sides should be ignored.
(v) Relative Elements and Absolute Elements
Thus, the value of the object is decided by the relationships between the object,
which has established a harmony through give-and-take action of relative elements
centering on the purpose of creation, and man's desire to seek after value. The value
of these relationships [may be] merely temporary and of a relative nature [or eternal
and absolute, depending on the degree to which the purpose of creation is fulfilled.]
Then how can we acquire eternal absolute value? The purpose for which God
created this world was to be filled with joy at seeing created beings (namely men)
express values of truth, goodness and beauty and exchange love among themselves.
God's purpose of creation is absolute. Accordingly, the purpose of existence of each
created being is also absolute. The created beings are all individual truth bodies, so
they contain God's Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, or positive and negative elements
(relative elements). These polarities of God are absolute, too. Therefore, if man
completely perceives the purpose of creation of the object (all things) and the relative
elements of the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang, and if he fully understands God's
purpose of creation for himself (mission) and completes the give-and-take action with
others, then the values which he seeks and realizes become absolute. Embracing the
whole creation, Christ fell into great grief and sorrow but yet perfectly fulfilled the
mission given to him (purpose of creation) and conducted the give-and-take action
(love) with his neighbors most completely. He did his best for the salvation of
mankind even when he was crucified on the cross. So the value realized by Christ is
absolute. To live in such a way is man's absolute standard of value. Every man has
such a standard of value as a possibility (dynamis). As his purpose of creation is
absolute, and as man is created as the substantial object of God (the absolute), his
standard of value can not but be absolute.
Section F - Present Day Life and Value
(i) The View of Purpose and Value
Finally, let us consider the relation between present-day life and value in view of
today's serious mental and material crisis. Today, we live in material plenty, but, on
the other hand, the true purpose of our life is not clear at all.
Since value is decided by purpose, once a clear view of purpose is lost then value
also naturally loses the foundation on which it stands. Then all of life becomes
worthless and hollow. Without purpose, creativity and duty (the standard of ethics)
will also vanish.
Kant explains that it is by practical reason (reason used for practical action) that the
will to do good is grounded and decided. By practical reason the duty (standard of
our actions) is established and man is directed toward this obligation by good will.
This is ethics and morality.
In this case, the purpose is set up by practical reason. Thus practical reason
becomes the lawmaker of man's will. But Kant regarded the law as an inevitable,
unconditional order and soundly refused to regard it as a means of realizing some
purpose.
But is there meaning in deeds merely done by "duty" without a purpose? Even if
there is some meaning, it would be difficult to perceive the deeds as valuable and to
feel joy without a sense of purpose.
Why did Kant say that there is no sense of purpose guiding man toward ethics and
morals? Is it not because he did not have a clear understanding of God's purpose for
creating man? Today, people are not clear about the purpose of creation. As a result,
they have many various views of purpose, all different from one another-this is the
cause of the present collapse of the view of value.
(ii) The Necessity of a New View of Value
This problem of value has been dealt with simply by traditional religions. Buddhism,
for instance, starting from the study of human suffering, tries to develop the inner
human spiritual powers and by individual practice, accomplish the true human nature,
which is the highest ideal of their doctrine. It preaches that to reach this goal (ideal),
man must have mercy on all living creatures as well as on other human beings, and,
founded on this merciful heart, moral practices and meditation are required. But in
relation to Buddhism's attitudes toward society, it just generally refers to an
individual's success in life, and does not clearly indicate the way that families, nations
and the world ought to be.
Christianity also has a basic teaching in its doctrine, that one must love God and his
neighbors. But within this doctrine, individual morals are emphasized too, and the
purpose for the creation of the whole world, this purpose which links the world,
nations, families and individuals together, is not clearly explained. Traditional
Christianity can not give a distinct answer to the complicated social problems such as
how a nation should be and how struggle should be solved.
For this reason people today can not completely depend on the existing religions,
philosophies and thought systems. They are, therefore, remarkably inclined to be
skeptical about these ideologies and a disuse of ideology appears. In spite of this
men are desperately groping for the real view of value, a unified and dependable
view, since they find their lives worthless because of this loss of their mental support
and this collapse of value. The life led by hippies is a good example of this.
In the fields of politics or economy, as they are also based on human relationships,
the establishment of a view of value naturally becomes necessary.
In conclusion, we consider that since this world was created by God, there is no other
way to find the true view of value than to perceive exactly what God's purpose for
creation is.
Chapter IV - Ethics
In the future, the establishment of an unshakable ethical system will be of paramount
importance. Unification Thought holds that the ethics of the family is the basis of all
ethics. In this Chapter the basic questions of the establishment of a view of ethics will
be answered, and the defects of traditional ethical theories such as those of
Bentham, Kant, and Moore will be pointed out.
Section A - The Necessity of Unification Ethics and its Origin in the Unification
Principle
a. The Necessity of Ethics
The ideal of the Unification Principle in the future is to found an ethical society
centering on God's love. Accordingly, the problem of ethics is sure to be one of the
most important social questions of the future society, just as it is already considered a
great problem in the present society. judging from the present tendencies of the
weakening of community consciousness and the collapse of the perception of value,
nothing is more urgently required than the establishment of a new ethical viewpoint
and system.
In this situation, Unification Thought will try to establish a new ethics, namely an
ethics that reveals the goal for the future and satisfies the urgent need of the present
society.
b. The Basis of Ethics in the Unification Principle
The following are the ethical bases which are closely related to the establishment of a
new ethics according to the Unification Principle.
God -- God, whose essence is love (Heart), is the ultimate subject of love and
goodness from the viewpoint of value and practice. Therefore God should be the
ultimate basis of ethics.
Family -- God's love is actualized through the Four Position Base of the family
centering on God's love (God, father, mother, and children). In other words, the
family is the base for the realization of the love of God. Consequently ethics should
be established on the basis of the relations of Heart among family members.
Love -- The source of the values truth, goodness, and beauty is love, so love is the
core of ethics.
The Purposes of the Triple Objects and Triple Subjects-Every position of the Family
Four Position Base has both the purpose of triple objects and triple subjects. In other
words, as both subject and object, the children have relationships with God, their
father, and mother; the father with God, his wife, and children; and the mother with
God, her husband and children; and of course, God relates to the father, mother and
children. Unification ethics will be established on the basis of these four factors
mentioned above.
Section B - The Definition of Ethics
What does ethics mean? According to Unification Thought, it is referred to as the
norm for human conduct based on the family. Ethics, in Principle, is the ethics of the
family which is the basis of all ethics. Though there may be social, national, business,
and world ethics, the basis and core of all of them is family ethics. In other words, all
of these ethics are expanded forms of family ethics.
Social ethics is the social expansion of family ethics, and national ethics is their
national expansion. Ultimately, all ethics originate from family ethics. Therefore where
there is ignorance of family ethics, there can be no hope of establishing any social
ethics. This is the definition of ethics based on the Unification Principle.
Section C - Ethics and Morality
Here the difference between the concepts of ethics (Sittlichkeit) on the one hand and
morality (Mortalitat) on the other, will be made clear. They generally seem to be
considered as having the same meaning, but a strict distinction is made between
them in Unification Thought. Viewed through the Unification Principle, ethics is the
standard of conduct of a family member based on the family, whereas morality is the
standard of conduct based on the internal "duty" (Sollen). Accordingly, ethics is the
objective standard, whereas morality is the subjective one. To express this in
ontological terms, ethics is the standard which a connected body observes, while
morality is the standard which an individual truth body follows. Man forms an Outer
Quadruple Base as a connected body with a family, and the standard of action which
mutually connected bodies observe is ethics. Morality is the living standard of action
which individual truth bodies maintain, according to "duty" (Sollen), through forming
the eternal Inner Quadruple Base. Thus ethics is objective (norm) and morality is
subjective (volition). However, they are not completely separated. Though morality is
subjective, its form is ruled by ethics, the objective norm.
Section D - Family Four Position Base and Ethics
a. God's Ideal of Creation and the Family Four Position Base
According to the Unification Principle God is the subject of love and His ideal of
creation is the fulfillment of love. For God's love to be actualized, the family Four
Position Base, the base of love, should be established. Since the Four Position Base
is a relationship of position, God's love comes to appear through positions. The love
that appears through each position is called "Divisional Love", namely parental love,
conjugal love, and children's love. God's love itself is unified and absolute, but His
love is actualized divisionally and relatively through the family base. Love is divided
because man was created to be the heir of God's Heart, and this succession of heart
is possible only through physical life. Therefore throughout their lives as children,
husband and wife, and parents, man and woman practice love in order to experience
God's love.
b. The Actualizing Process of Love
As love is emotional, it is necessary to establish its purpose by emotion and its
direction by will. Namely, first the direction and goal of love are decided, and then
mind moves toward the goal. That is will itself. It is emotion that moves the will.
Where there is will, there is naturally emotion. Purpose is also set up by this emotion.
Thus for God's love to be manifested in the divided expressions of man's love in the
family means to manifest love directing toward a definite goal. For instance, a son
loves his father, a husband his wife, and a mother her son. Thus there is direction in
love; without direction, actual love can not appear. This is a necessary factor in the
establishment of ethics.
Concretely speaking, every position of the Four Position Base actualizes love in three
directions, that is, as a triple subject and as a triple object. Children face God, their
father and mother; the father faces God, his wife and children; and the mother faces
God, her husband and children. Every position of the Four Position Base has the
purpose of realizing love toward three objects as a subject. Therefore, love becomes
will which has a direction and moves toward three objects. This direction of will is the
very form of will. Accordingly, in actualizing love, form is required. The standard of
conduct that regulates this form of will is ethics. In this respect, there is an indivisible
relationship between the family Four Position Base and ethics.
Next, each position of the Four Position Base also loves the other three positions
from the standpoint of being an object. This is referred to as the purpose of triple
subjects. The loving action which the object returns to its subject is beauty, and in the
manifestation of this beauty, three forms are needed. According to these three forms
of will, the basic forms of three actions are formed. These basic forms are nothing but
the norms of conduct and also ethics. From the basic forms mentioned above appear
loyalty, filial piety, and obedience, which are the traditional oriental ideas of morality.
Filial piety is the form of action denoting the beauty which children return to their
parents; obedience is the manifestation of beauty which the wife offers to her
husband; and loyalty is filial piety expanded to a social and national scale. Loyalty is
the form of the love of the people for their nation, of a servant for his master, and of a
subject for the king. Thus all ethics are standards (norms) of action which fulfill the
purposes of the triple objects and triple subjects. Thus there can be no doubt that
family ethics is the basis of the ethics required in social life.*
All the love that man manifests is applied, changed or combined family love, and all
the beauty that man feels is also the applied, changed, or combined beauty of the
family. It may also be mentioned that all ethics, or standards of goodness, are
applied, changed, and mixed family ethics: the expanded value systems of the family.
The regulations (norm) of the family are called family rules and these family rules
alone become the basis of all rules (laws). [Note: There are two kinds of concepts in
the purpose of triple objects; one is the broad meaning and the other is the narrow
meaning. The relationships mentioned above are the purpose of triple objects in the
narrow meaning. The broad meaning of the purpose of triple objects contains both
the relationships of the narrow meaning and the purpose of triple subjects. In the
Unification Thought, only the purpose of triple objects in the broad meaning is
recorded.]
Family rules are the ultimate standard for the basis of national or constitutional law.
There are also norms and laws in the spiritual world, and these are also based on the
family rules. Consequently he who maintains a harmonious family through household
regulations can also observe national law or heavenly law.
c. The Principle of Order in Ethics
Since ethics is based on the family Four Position Base, this Four Position Base is a
manifestation of the basic mutual relationships of the different positions. Therefore
ethics also has a principle of order, for order means the arrangement of positions,
and is the norm of the clear arrangement of the positions of God, father, mother,
children, brothers and sisters. The Unification Principle contains the principles of
order and love. Their basis lies in the manifested norm and principles of family life.
There can not be a norm without order, and where there is no order, no principle of
love can be actualized.
The peculiar feature of modern society can be said to be its loss of order which has
resulted in the present state of chaos. The positions of upper and lower, before and
after, and left and right have all been broken down. This collapse of the ideas of
value and ethics is due to the loss of the arrangement of positions, that is to say,
order. In families today, the parents, husband and wife, children, brothers and sisters
do not keep their proper positions. There is an increasing tendency for children and
wives to treat their parents and husbands as strangers. All this comes from leaving
their own positions, and it has finally brought about a lack of ethics. Accordingly, in
order to reform the collapsed idea of value and ethics, order must first be established.
For that purpose, it is first necessary that the family Four Position Base be
established in one's place of work, to say nothing of the home. For example, the
teachers of a school should teach the students from the standpoint of parents, the
young students should face their teachers as they do their parents, and should face
the older students as they do their elder brothers. From ancient times, family ethics
were formed in the Orient under Confucian influence, and because of this
background, students have been respectful to their teachers, in the same way that
children are respectful to their parents, and teachers have assumed the leadership of
the students as though they were their own children. But now this ethical system is
falling down everywhere causing modern society to be thrown into confusion. The
establishment of the ethical system based on the family Four Position Base is the
most urgent question in the present day society. Then how shall the family Four
Position Base be established? We need to remember that the ancient traditional
family ethics were based on the Confucian religion. In other words, a sort of "modern
Confucianism" is indeed needed in order to establish family ethics, since ethics can
not be established without a religion. This "modern Confucianism" need not be like
the traditional Confucianism, but a religion which can set up family ethics is
necessary in order to try to rectify the value system which is collapsing. In this
meaning, as far as its relationship to the establishment of family ethics, the
Unification Principle may be likened to a sort of "modern Confucianism."
d. Order and Equality
The word "equality" is so charming that everyone likes it. But in the strict sense of the
word, there can be no equality. Equality originally means no discrimination, but there
can not but be the discrimination between ages, sexes, and occupations. Also since
the capabilities, characters, and hobbies of people are different, there can hardly be
an expectation of equality in economic life. Furthermore, as every person in charge of
certain levels of posts, organizations, nations, or the world is to be given appropriate
rights, neither can there be equality of rights. Thus equality can not exist in the
realms of biology, occupations, economy, and rights.
Man is only equal before the law. Though man is equal before the law, this is far from
complete equality. Nowadays, many people in the democratic societies feel inequality
even though they are supposedly equal before the law. In a certain sense, the
capitalist contradictions and defects may be said to have been aggravated under the
shadow of "equality before the law."
Then is equality eternally unrealizable? No, it can and should be realized. How can it
possibly be done? It is possible only within order. Genuine equality is in love; there is
true equality only in God's love, and God's love is manifested only through order.
Where there is no order, God's love can not appear. Love is the flow of heart and
where an orderly system centering on God is established, heart flows and love is
realized. This creates equality.
Equality is an equality of the effect of satisfaction and joy. In other words, it does not
mean a mere equality of economy and rights, but an equality of "feelings" by which all
people are thoroughly pleased-feelings of freedom, value, and happiness. Therefore,
without heart and love, equality can not exist. When order centering on God is
established, true equality can be expected because love, the flow of heart, is fully
realized. Consequently true equality is not realized in the external world through an
atheistic destruction of order, but in the internal world through a theistic established
order. Yet this does not mean one should ignore the external world.
According to the Unification Principle, Sung Sang is accompanied by Hyung Sang.
Thus as inner equality is externally developed a reduction of material differences is
automatically realized. That is economic equality in a genuine sense.
Thus equality is realized only within order and love, and the basis of order and love is
the family. Therefore when the family order, namely the family Four Position Base is
formed and family ethics are established, the basis will also be formed on which
complete equality can be realized.
Section E - Critique of the Traditional Theories of Goodness
a. Critique of the Modern Viewpoints of Goodness
(i) Bentham's Utilitarianism
With the sudden rise of the economy-centered modern culture based on
individualism, which followed the collapse of the religious social order of the
ecclesiastical medieval world, the viewpoints of ethics and goodness have changed
considerably.
Bentham is one of the typical new ethical thinkers.
He advocated the principle of utility as the basic principle for judging the right and
wrong of public and private actions. This means that whatever promotes pleasure is
good, whereas whatever promotes pain is evil. Finally, Bentham considers, the
greatest happiness of the greatest number as the ultimate standard of good and evil.
He attempted a mathematical calculation of the quantity of pleasure and pain.
The Unification Principle has no objection to putting the basis of good and evil as the
quantity of happiness, because, according to the Unification Principle the ultimate
purpose of this world is the joy of God and man. The question is, however, what are
the contents of this happiness?
Happiness does not mean a mechanically totaled amount of pleasure. True
happiness is far beyond the passive pleasure which comes from material conditions.
The feelings of freedom, worth and satisfaction which come when a man has realized
truth, goodness and beauty and is living within God's love; these are happiness.
For men to live within God's love, means they convey God's love to others. Therefore
the man who lives within God's love feels joy and loves others even amidst
persecution. Many martyrs lived happy lives, loving all people as their own. This
however does not mean one should disregard material conditions in relation to
happiness. A more exact view according to the Unification Principle is to say that
original happiness is realized only through the combined conditions of Sung Sang
and Hyung Sang. However, since the subject element of the two is the Sung Sang,
where nothing is made of the Sung Sang love there can be no realization of
happiness. Accordingly there can be no happiness without God who is the source of
love.
Bentham's scheme to disregard the relationship with God and seek happiness not in
the love of God and ethics, but in material pleasure, is an inadmissible and anti-
ethical thought according to the viewpoint of Unification Thought. Reacting to these
defects of Bentham, J. S. Mill said, "I would be a dissatisfied man rather than
satisfied swine. I would be a discontented Socrates rather than a contented dunce."
Emphasizing the conscience and moral feeling of man, John Stuart Mill tried to
complement the defects of Bentham's Theory.
(ii) The Categorical Imperative of Kant
Thus Bentham tried to make "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" the
standard of good and evil. But Kant advocated that it can not be moral in the genuine
sense of the word to regard the means to accomplish a purpose as a moral act.
If a man is honest in order to be popular, this can lead to the conclusion that a man
who does not want to win popularity need not be honest, and it also leads to the
conclusion that once a man had gained popular favor, then he could lie. Then
honesty itself can not become an absolute law for everyone to observe. If it is right to
be honest, it should be right regardless of popular favor. Namely what is right should
be absolute. Kant meant that morality was absolute. To give absoluteness to moral
rules, Kant said that morality should not be an action done by the hypothetical
imperative of gaining popular favor, but there should be a form of categorical
imperative which can instruct one to be honest unconditionally. Kant, furthermore,
advocated that everyone must act such that his "maxim" of will may be true to the
universal legislative principle. Kant maintained that when one governs his actions in
relation to a moral principle such as to "be honest" rather than as the means to
accomplish worldly profit, this is a genuine moral act.
Kant's assertion seems to have appeared in order to counter the potential selfishness
of the utilitarian moral viewpoint, and to establish an absolute norm of human conduct
which is impartial to individual gain. It is just like Jewish legalism to treat only the form
of conduct as absolute, disregarding the purpose and usefulness of the act. These
aspects become an issue in the viewpoint of the Unification Principle. Can anything
which is not a means to any purpose be valid as the universal legislative principle?
How can there be action without a purpose?
There are no human actions which do not try to accomplish some definite purpose.
Both active and passive actions have some purpose. This can be seen to be true just
by common sense, but how much more evident it is when one recognizes God's
purpose of creation.
No matter how absolutely and universally valid a moral action may be, there is
without fail some purpose to it. It is a suicide of action to exclude purpose from moral
principles.
In order to have moral action not be meaningless, the purpose of action should first
be established, for purpose alone can be the standard for the universal validity of
moral action. Kant considered that pure reason, which recognizes the principles of
the objective world (sensory, phenomenal world), is quite different from practical
reason which gives moral principles to man. Here a question arises. According to
Kant, human moral action itself is "duty" and purpose, and this purpose is established
only through practical reason. If this occurs without involving pure reason, the
purpose (motive) established before the deed may, in a sense, attain universality by
obtaining the consent of all people; but after the deed is done following that particular
purpose, there can Be no guarantee that those people who didn't know of the
purpose beforehand will objectively perceive and agree that the deed was just. If
there is no assurance of objectivity and actuality in the purpose, there is no
assurance of objectivity in the norm of conduct (maxim in Kant's conception). This
norm of conduct comes to have significance only through its relation with purpose. To
put it in plain terms, Kant's categorical imperative may have ideological coherence
and validity, but there is no way to identify any actual contradictions in or the
continuity of actions while using his theory.
However, in the Unification Principle, the purpose of ethical actions, or the norm
deductively derived from the purpose, is concrete, objective and actual. In the first
place, ethical actions have the purpose of the triple objects and triple subjects. These
purposes are to establish love relationships with concrete beings in the phenomenal
world, such as one's father, mother, brother, sister, spouse and children as well as
the actual love-relation with God. Since this purpose is objective and concrete, the
norm of loving one's parents, brothers, spouse and children can also be objectively
and concretely determined. The Unification Principle does not ignore the particular
positions within the Four Position Base and does not present vain and abstract
standards such as maxims for everybody to observe, regardless of time and place.
Even in the love one person gives, differences exist in the manner of loving according
to the object being loved. For example, one expresses love to his parents, spouse
and children in different manners. Different attitudes are also required according to
each position and standpoint. Even the same action may be regarded as evil if its
direction, time and quantity break away from the purpose.
Thus the purpose is established first; and the good and evil of one's actions are
determined in relation to the purpose, and one's conduct norm differs according to his
position. If this is all true, then where can the universal and absolute assurance of the
moral principles be found?
Here an important question arises. Is the standard God or man? If man becomes the
standard of moral action, no matter how honest and sincere his actions may be, he
may find himself unhappy, because if he does not act to gain popular favor, people
may not be able to understand his actions as moral actions. But when God, the
Absolute Being, becomes the moral standard, there can never be this kind of
misjudgment of human value. Also, even though man may ignore God's purpose of
creation, the purpose never disappears, and each man will be rewarded or have to
pay indemnity according to his actions.
Therefore, if the evaluation of the good and evil of human actions is made according
to the degree of fulfillment of the purpose which was set up by man's own free will,
this evaluation will become relative, as Kant pointed out. But when God's own
purpose of creation becomes the standard, the evaluation will not be relative. The
moral principle loses its absoluteness not because it becomes merely the means to
accomplish a particular purpose, but because it becomes the means to fulfill only
human purposes which oppose (or have no regard for) God's purpose of creation. If a
moral principle is for the realization of God's own purpose of creation, it does not lose
absoluteness, but rather it will be guaranteed absoluteness.
The second question which arises here is that of the misunderstanding which occurs
due to confusing the Sung Sang purpose with the Hyung Sang purpose. According to
the Unification Principle man is God's substantial object as a direct image created by
the development of God's duality. Thus man has both Sung Sang and Hung Sang
purposes. "To give love to the triple objects" is the Sung Sang purpose (purpose for
the whole) of man, so it is eternal, unchangeable, absolute. Meanwhile "making
money" and "becoming the divisional chief" are Hyung Sang purposes (purposes for
the individual). The purpose for the whole is fulfilled only through the purpose for the
individual, and the significance and value of the purpose for the individual are
determined only through the purpose for the whole. Yet, because God bestowed
freedom on man, He gave man only the purposes for the whole and the individual
and left the methods and forms for fulfilling the purposes up to man himself. For
example, though the purpose to give love to the triple objects is absolute and
unchangeable, the way and process of doing this are left up to man's free will.
Therefore if we separate a method or means from the absolute purpose, and if we
judge the good or evil of any action only by this separated method or means, our
judgment can only be relative. The means or form itself, separated from the purpose,
can not be the standard for judging good and evil.
Accordingly, from the limited viewpoint that "the standard of moral judgment should
be laid on the action as a means or method regardless of purpose", Kant's assertion
may be right, but if the action is connected to a purpose (especially the purpose for
the whole) Kant's assertion must be wrong. After all, to judge morality by actions
which fulfill the purpose for the individual regardless of the purpose for the whole, or
by actions as mere means in themselves is wrong, and to determine good and evil in
relation to the purpose for the whole (Sung Sang purpose) is right.
There is another point of Kant's assertion which should be criticized. He said that the
determining factor of good will is neither God's purpose nor His command, but one's
own practical reason which regulates moral principles with the categorical imperative.
According to Kant it is practical reason which gives direction to the will.
We regard Heart, namely love, as the ultimate incentive to moral action. Love moves
will through a norm and then determines the form of good will. Although one comes
to have the will to act due to reason, what moves reason itself is love, for love is
Heart. Purpose itself comes about through the Heart (desire), and it brings about the
voluntary action which brings about moral action. Therefore, good will does not really
come about to actualize reason, but to realize love's purpose.
Of course, reason is needed to concretely form and examine the purpose, but the
motive itself and purpose itself of ethical behavior is not reason but love. Only in this
case does true joy appear. Thus, the norm necessary for realizing purpose is not felt
as a restraint but rather as an assurance of actualizing the purpose which is to feel
joyful and thankful. Though a world consisting only of duty, as Kant contends, may
exist, it would be a mechanical world where only inhumane cold principles would rule.
Because this kind of world is one of inconvenience and restraint, where duty alone is
forcibly required, there is no room for joy in it.
The world created by God is not one based on restraint like the army, but one of
harmony which is maintained through the order of family love based on desire and
purpose.
b. Critique of the Current Viewpoints of Goodness
Reflecting on, and reacting against, the medieval ethical viewpoint established by
Scholasticism, new ethical theories such as utilitarianism (Bentham) and the
categorical imperative (Kant) appeared in the modern age. These modern
rationalistic ethical theories reached their zenith in the German idealism from Kant to
Hegel. After that, due to the class struggle which arose in capitalistic society, and the
brilliant progress of science, optimistic modern rationalism has come under severe
criticism. As a result, current philosophies such as Marxism, existentialism, vitalism,
analytical philosophy (logical positivism), pragmatism and the like have appeared.
Communism, A Critique and Counterproposal criticizes Marxism in detail, and "The
Original Human Nature," in this book criticizes existentialism. Here only the ethical
theories (theories of goodness) of logical positivism and pragmatism will be criticized.
(i) The Intuitionism of Moore (1873-1958)
Analytical philosophy developed in connection with the progress of natural science at
the beginning of the 20th century. It tried to make philosophy a scientific study by
expelling all the unscientific concepts not verifiable by experience. This was
accomplished by logically analyzing philosophical terminology. Moore, one of the
advocates of this school of thought, said that ultimate good in itself can not be
derived from a scientific judgment of the fact, but rather by moral intuition. He
contended that, in principle, the judgment of a fact should be distinguished from the
judgment of value. This is called Intuitionism.
According to Moore, the concept of good is simple and indistinguishable just ' like the
concept of "yellow." Accordingly a general definition can not be given through
language but only through intuition. He contends that good, as meaning bringing
about good, can be objectively known only by reducing it to an intuition of the good
through the medium of scientific cognition. But this way of thinking can not be
sustained from the viewpoint of the Unification Principle. Goodness is never
undefinable. In goodness, there are the precise purposes of the triple objects and the
triple subjects, and a clear standard (norm) can be defined corresponding to purpose.
By means of this norm the forms of good will and good action are settled, and the
entire process of action becomes the object of logical and positive cognition.
(ii) The Emotive Theory of Logical Positivism
What made Intuitionism even more radical is the emotive theory of Schlick (1882-
1936) and Ayer (1910- )
According to Ayer, an ethical proposition, such as "to steal money is bad", is nothing
but the speaker's own feelings and mood of moral disapproval. Thus it is a pseudo
proposition, and is neither true nor false. Accordingly, no objective character of good
can be intuited or expressed, and finally no study of ethics can be formed. From the
viewpoint of the Unification Principle such a theory of ethics is absurd. The concept of
good has a clear basis of existence, namely the family Four Position Base, and the
clear purposes of the triple subjects and triple objects. This is a scientifically definable
concept.
To steal money is bad because it breaks one's heart relation with the person from
whom the money was stolen and thus makes the love-relation between brothers
hard. Goodness is a clear and objective concept, which originates from God's
purpose of creation. It is not merely one's feelings or mood. The critique of the rest of
this theory is the same as that given to Moore's theory.
(iii) The Instrumentalism Theory of Pragmatism
Pragmatism appeared in America right after the Civil War (1861-1865). The changes
in traditional Christian thought due to the technical progress of science was its main
motive. Instrumentalism is the outcome of a harmonization of the conflict between
Christianity and science. This theory was advocated by Pierce (1839-1914) and
clarified by James (1842-1910) and developed to Instrumentalism by Dewey (1859-
1952).
The fundamental thought of the theory was to apply the scientific experimental
method to the analysis of ideas and concepts. According to this theory, the
significance of an idea or concept is determined by the practical results derived from
the idea or concept. For example, the meaning of "something is heavy" is that
"without a force to support the matter, it will fall." Pierce, the advocator of this
standpoint, called it Operationalism. He contended that the meaning of an idea is
nothing but the contents of the actions which result from the idea.
Making this assertion more radical, Dewey said that general concepts are
hypotheses and experimental plans developed in order to interpret each situation.
The authenticity of these concepts is determined by the effectiveness of the result of
the actions based on them. Accordingly all the laws and the intelligence guiding them
are merely the means, methods and instruments needed in order to deal with things
effectively. Consequently, reality can be recognized only through the means of
natural science. Dewey denied the existence of anything transcendental; in this,
however, his standpoint is quite different from that of William James who recognized
the religious view of the world and tried to give appropriate coordinates to it.
Is pragmatism right? Before criticizing it, let us explain the relationship between
purpose and means in view of the Unification Principle. It goes without saying that a
purpose needs a means. We know that there was a purpose for creation when God
created the universe. Accordingly there is no need to say that means are necessary
in order to fulfill the purpose. Yet there are purposes for the whole and the individual
in the purpose of creation. To fulfill the purpose for the whole, the realization of value
is required, whereas to realize the purpose for the individual, values are sought after.
There are Sung Sang values such as truth, goodness and beauty, and Hyung Sang
values such as treasures or commodities. All of these values are the means
necessary to fulfill the purpose mentioned above. Accordingly, Sung Sang values can
be called the Sung Sang means for the fulfillment of purpose, and Hyung Sang
values can be called the Hyung Sang means for the fulfillment of purpose. Strictly
speaking, even natural laws may be seen as the means to achieve the purpose of
creation, while the spiritual laws such as the law of indemnity can also be regarded
as such means. In this case, the spiritual laws can be called Sung Sang laws
whereas the natural laws can be called Hyung Sang laws. The natural world is ruled
over by the Hyung Sang principles, and spirit world is ruled by the Sung Sang
principles such as those of indemnity and restitution. There can be no doubt that
these principles are also the means to realize purposes.
Thus we can see that there are both Sung Sang means (Sung Sang values and laws)
and Hyung Sang means (Hyung Sang values and laws) for accomplishing purpose.
But the means (tools) for "dealing with things" which Dewey advocated are Hyung
Sang means, and to him these means alone can be the means for "dealing with
things." (This dealing may relate to the purpose for the whole or the purpose for the
individual.) Dewey's mistake is that he considered even the Sung Sang means (truth,
good, and beauty, morality, justice, ethics, love, etc.) merely as Hyung Sang means
for "dealing with things." This mistake originates in his overlooking the existence of
the everlasting spirit man, the spirit world, and the existence of purpose which
contains Sung Sang contents such as truth, goodness, and beauty in human life.
[Note: In the above, even law and value were dealt with as "means" ("Hyung Sang
means" and "Sung Sang means"), but only to effectively criticize pragmatism by the
Principle. To avoid confusion, law, value and the like should not be regarded as
means in the common sense.]
Chapter V - Theory of History (Part 1)
Human history is the history of re-creation and restoration. We may say that most
historians in the past have not been successful in grasping the essence of history
even though they have come close to it. In this chapter the basic standpoints and the
principles of the Unification view of history are briefly explained.
Section A - The View of History by the Unification Principle
How should we grasp the meaning of history? First, let us think about the
significance, character and direction of history.
(i) The History of Sin
As to the origin of history, the Unification Principle holds a clear viewpoint. We think
that because of the fall of man a sinful history began. This is the basic premise and
starting point of our historical philosophy. No problem can be solved until the basic
question about man's sin is answered.
In history, there have been many statesmen and people who were called righteous
men, sages or saints, men who tried to make people as happy and free as possible.
But without clarifying the essence of sin, why sin has spread, or, in short, without a
systematic solution to various social problems through the clarification and
ascertainment of the origin and content of sin, there can never be a fundamental
settlement to history. This is the viewpoint of the Unification Principle concerning
history.
(ii) The History of Re-creation and Restoration
Viewed from another standpoint, the human fall means that God's creation is not yet
completed. If so, we may say that God has to re-create fallen men and accomplish
the original purpose of creation. Accordingly, human history is also the history of re-
creation. If, throughout human history, men have to come back to their original
positions, the history of re-creation may, in other words, be called the history of
restoration.
Thus the Unification Principle regards human history to be the history of sin, the
history of re-creation and the history of restoration. This is the basic way of thinking
contained in the Unification Principle concerning history.
Section B - The Character of History According to the Unification Principle
1. Re-Creation By The Logos
"In the beginning was the Word (Logos)." John 1: 1) After man fell, since God's word
(Logos) was lost, people fell into ignorance. Accordingly, the re-creation of man must
be started by recovering the lost Word.
Then what was the process of the re-creation of the Word? The prophets, sages, and
the Messiah were providential people who were entrusted with God's Word so that
the Providence of re-creation was realized through them.
Although, viewed from the standpoint of the Unification Principle, the value of the
prophets, sages, the Messiah and other righteous men in the development of history
is very great, most historians are apt to ignore the raison detre of these people. But
we greatly appreciate these men, because they are the very men who have re-
created history.
2. The Goal And Direction Of History
As mentioned above, we regard human history as the history of re-creation. Re-
creation being a kind of creation, it must have a goal like any other creation, and
where there is a goal, there is naturally a direction. Accordingly, we think that human
history has always been marching toward a certain goal. This continues today.
The view that the goal and direction of history are fixed from the beginning may be a
kind of determinism. But this determinism is a little different from that of Hegel or
Marx. When history is viewed from the standpoint of determinism, there are two
aspects: the goal or direction toward which history is marching and the process
through which history is marching. The Unification Principle adopts determinism in
reference to the goal or direction of history but thinks that the process of history is not
always predetermined. In other words, we adopt the view of indeterminism in that we
say the course toward the final goal of history depends upon the will of man, and
setbacks take place along the way. It seems that many people are concerned about
and discuss this problem, so let us further examine the determinism and
indeterminism of history.
(i) Hegel's View of History
Hegel (1770-1831) held the following view of history. The substance of history is
"Spirit" or "Reason" and the goal of history is the realization of freedom. In other
words, the goal of history is that the spirit of freedom manifest itself through the
subjective spirit in the spirit of the nation or the times, thus being elevated more and
more. Therefore, in Hegel's theory, world history may be called the process in which
the spirit (Absolute Spirit) seeks for self-cognition. According to Hegel, the spirit is
shown especially in the history of the nation.
Then, what is an individual's role in this history? How can the individual concern
himself in this process in which the Absolute Spirit realizes itself? Hegel says that the
individual takes part in the direction of reason through his interest, passion and
absorption. When he is absorbed in something, he becomes endowed with a spirit
higher than himself. That is to say, he becomes one with the spirit of the nation or of
the times; his actions and the manifestation of his character take part in the
development of history. In the meantime, irrational men, having no relation with the
spirit of the times, are weeded out through war and strife. Hegel calls this the "Trick
of Reason" (List der Vernunft).
Though Hegel does not deny the role of the individual in history, he emphasizes the
Absolute Spirit which is the master of history and regards the individual as a mere
tool for the realization of the goal of history. Moreover, he thinks that not only the
direction of the spirit, but also the process is fixed beforehand. This process is the
dialectical logic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. In this sense, we may say that Hegel's
historical philosophy is deterministic.
(ii) Marx's View of History
Marx (1818-1883) held a view of history very similar to that of Hegel; he merely
adapted Hegel's dialectic view of history to materialism.
According to Marx, the development of history is caused by the contradiction
between the productive forces and the production relations of society.
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society
come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or-what is but a legal
expression for the same thing-with the property relations within which they have been
at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations
turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. (Marx, Karl Marx
and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, p. 182)
That is to say, the contradiction between the productive forces and production
relations necessarily brings about class struggle. The struggle develops into
revolution, and after the revolution, the communistic society will take over without fail.
Thus, like Hegel, Marx thinks that each individual is a mere tool for the development
of history and that both the goal and process of history are fixed by the logic of the
dialectic. In this sense, Marx's view of history is also deterministic.
(iii) Spengler's View of History
Spengler (1880-1936) denied the historical view of progress asserted by Hegel and
Marx, and advocated a cyclical view of history. However, his way of thinking is also
deterministic.
According to Spengler, the various civilizations in the world rise and come to an end,
like living beings which have a cycle of four rhythms, namely birth, development,
maturity and decline. Western civilization is no exception; he asserts that this
civilization has entered the period of decline or downfall. (Der Unterdang der
Aberlandes, The Decline of the West)
(iv) Toynbee's View of History
Stimulated by the pioneering achievements of Spengler, Toynbee (1889- ) doubted
Spengler's historical determinism and tried to grasp the meaning of world history as a
whole from the viewpoint of civilizations.
He regards the history of civilizations as a process of challenge and response.
Placed in a difficult situation, man tries to respond to and overcome the challenge
without yielding to it. Thus a civilization begins to grow and develop. If man fails in his
response, decline and dissolution take place.
A group of people called creative individuals or the creative minority play decisive
roles in the history of civilizations. These people shoulder responsibilities, try to solve
all the problems of their age, and educate other men to enable them to also respond
to the difficulties. By doing so, they overcome the challenge.
Therefore, growth or decline does not come necessarily; both depend upon the
appearance of creative individuals or minorities who hold a "self-deciding ability"
even under difficult conditions. The fate of world history depends on whether these
people perform their responsibilities or not. Thus, Toynbee's view of history is
indeterministic.
But, according to the Unification Principle, the aim and direction of history are already
determined absolutely due to reasons that will be stated in detail in the next section.
The processes through which the goal of history is realized are varied however, and
are not determined beforehand. In other words, the process of history depends upon
the fulfillment of responsibility by a providential person. Such a view of history is
called the "Theory of Responsibility" ("Responsibilitism").
3. The Laws Of History
If human history is the history of re-creation by God as stated already, there should
be laws of history as well as a goal and direction.
We look at the history of mankind from a Christian viewpoint. In the past, Christianity
successfully took a wide view of history by declaring that human history is the history
of the Providence of God. This Providence began by the fall of our ancestors and
comes to an end by the appearance of the Messiah. However, this theory has not yet
defined the objective laws that are at work in every nook and cranny of history. As a
result, communism has held a certain superiority over Christianity by attacking the
latter's weak points.
The Driving Power of Historical Development
Communists regard the development of history to be the same as the development of
nature and treat the two in the same way. Thus, the history of mankind is developed
by natural forces alone, namely by the contradiction between the productive forces
and the production relations. There is no room in Communist theory for the working
of supernatural powers such as God or any spiritual power. So long as history is
grasped merely as a social science, unscientific concepts whose existence can not
be clearly ascertained, such as the Providence, should all be neglected. This is what
communists asserted, and they widely attacked Christianity with science as their
shield.
They attacked so violently that Christianity could not resist. However, we want to
counterattack and overcome the philosophy and historical view held by Marxists by
presenting the rules of God's re-creation and Providence more scientifically than they
propound their historical philosophy. Then, what are the laws of re-creation? We are
going to explain them briefly.
Section C - The Laws of Re-Creation in History
1. The Laws Of Creation
Since the re-creation of history is naturally a process of creation, it must be carried
out following the principles of God's creation. If so, what are the principles of God's
creation on which the movements of history should be based? We have already
studied these in detail in the chapter on ontology; however, let us explain the
principles which have an especially close relationship with historical laws, referring to
their connections with actual developments in history.
(1) The Law of Relativity
One of the most important laws of creation is that of relativity. This law concerns the
fact that all things in the cosmos are created in relativity. That is, nothing can exist by
itself; all things are created so that they can exist only by forming some relationships
with others. Examples of this are man and woman; male and female animals; the
stamen and pistil of plants; the positive and negative ions of molecules; the proton
(nucleus) and electron of atoms; the spirit man and physical man or mind and body of
individuals; the land and sea, mountains and plains, sky and ground, and sun and
earth of the natural world; the governor and the governed; the society and the family;
city and village of a country; the parents and children; husband and wife, and there
are countless other examples.
In these examples the former are subjects and the latter objects. Such relationships
are not confined to created things alone. Relativity is also seen in the position and
status of individuals, e.g. upper and lower, front and behind, left and right, high and
low, strong and weak, long and short, large and small, wide and narrow, etc. Thus
created things and the created world are all relative. That is, all things can exist only
by connecting the relative positions of subject and object with each other. This law of
creation is called the "Law of Relativity." This is because the creation is one of
similarity. That is to say, all things have been created in polarity (Sung Sang and
Hyung Sang, positivity and negativity). These are God's relative attributes, and thus
all things have similar relationships with each other.
(2) The Law of Give-and-Take
If an individual forms a correlative standard with another individual by the Universal
Prime Force, through this base made by the subject and object, a phenomenon of
giving and receiving occurs. This phenomenon is called the give-and-take action and
by this action, the subject and object become inseparable and united. This relation or
condition is called the correlative base and only when there is a correlative base can
these individuals maintain their existence. Accordingly, the correlative base is the
existence base for each individual. If the subject and object form the correlative base
by a harmonious G-T action, they become similar to God as a harmonized body of
polarity. When there is an ideal union, all the various phenomena of life, multiplication
(growth, development, etc.) and the various operations (movement, change, etc.)
occur. All phenomena such as growth, movement, development, change and
extinction happen in the natural world as a result of the G-T action between
numberless individuals. [Note: All things come from the ultimate source which is
common to them all, so that all things are involved in the process in which subject
and object combine with each other or carry out multiplication by the give-and-take
action, namely, the Four Position Base (origin, subject, object, and multiplied body),
and the three stages [cause (origin) - subject and object (division)-multiplied body
(union)]. If the progress of time is especially taken into consideration, the G-T action
may be called the action of Chung-Boon-Hap (origin-division-union).]
Now let us look at some examples of the G-T action. By the G-T action between the
sun and the earth, the phenomena of the rotation and the revolution of the earth
occur, and by G-T action, the multiplication of creatures on the earth is carried out.
By the G-T action between husband and wife, their home is maintained and they
produce offspring. In the human body, the physiological functions are maintained by
the G-T actions between the arteries and veins and the sympathetic nervous system
and parasympathetic nervous system. The functions of plants are maintained by the
G-T action between the xylem and phloem. In the case of molecules, the necessary
chemical reactions occur by the G-T action between positive ions and negative Ions.
In atoms, movement occurs through the G-T action between the proton (nucleus) and
the electron.
By a smooth give-and-take action between the government and people, industry is
developed and the country prospers. In school too, ideal education is achieved and
the school will develop by good G-T action between the teachers and pupils. In the
case of business companies, they will become prosperous, bringing about common
welfare, if the G-T action is carried out smoothly between the employers and
employees. Moreover, animals and plants maintain their lives by receiving and
exchanging carbon dioxide and oxygen. Flowers and bees co-exist and propagate by
their mutual G-T action. Such examples of G-T action are countless.
When this law works in the development of history, relationships between leading
persons and the social, material conditions are formed in one age or society (nation,
state). At the same time, history develops by social G-T action. In the formation of the
action, the will (desire) of the leading person is the subject factor while the public,
representing the social and material conditions, is the object factor. By the G-T action
or its opposite operation (opposition and strife caused by different interests) between
these two factors, progress or retrogression have been repeated, thus forming
history.
What we must also explain here is that not only the above-mentioned mutually
harmonious G-T action, but also the phenomenon of mutual repulsion appears in the
natural world. For instance, positive electricity and positive electricity (or negative
electricity and negative electricity) repel each other; also water and fire repel each
other. At first sight, such a mutually repulsive phenomenon appears to oppose G-T
action. Actually, however, it is an additional phenomenon which strengthens the G-T
action between the subject and object. In other words, by the mutual repulsion
between positive electricity and positive electricity (subject and subject), the G-T
action between positive electricity and negative electricity (subject and object) is
further strengthened.
Fire and water have their respective purposes, but they are the same in the fact that
they are indispensable to man and other things. However, if they are present in
excessive quantities, they will cause damage to man and other things. This damage
done by fire or water can be prevented or at least minimized by utilizing their mutually
repulsive natures. That is, if there is too much water, we dry it up with fire (heat); or if
a fire is burning things up, we pour water on the fire to extinguish it. By doing this, the
G-T actions between all things can be correctly maintained. The repulsion
phenomenon does not violate the law of the give-and-take action; instead, it is an
additional and accessory phenomenon for supporting or completing G-T action.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that man, who is the ruler of all things, can better
his living environment by utilizing these mutually repelling phenomena. Thus in the
natural world there are mutually responsive G-T actions, and to help these actions
there are mutually repelling phenomena too. This accompaniment of the mutually
responding phenomena with repelling phenomena is called the "Law of Response
and Repulsion" or concisely the "Law of Response."
(3) The Law of Dominion of the Center
All things have centers. For instance, the center of an atom is the proton (nucleus);
the center of a cell, the nucleus; the center of the solar system, the sun; and the
center of the cosmos, man. The center is also the subject. That is, the proton which is
the center of an atom is the subject of the electron; the nucleus which is the center of
a cell is the subject of the protoplasm which in turn is the object; parents, who are the
center of a home, are the subjects of the children who are the objects; the sun is the
subject of the earth and other planets. Moreover, man, who is the center of the
created world, is the subject over the created things which are the objects.
Thus the center is the subject and is created to control the object. In other words, the
object, which belongs to the center, is controlled by the center. In some cases, the
object revolves around the subject. In this case also the object is controlled by the
subject. This is the "Law of Dominion of the Center."
If man, who was the center of the cosmos, had not fallen he would have had
dominion over the whole cosmos. However, he has fallen and can not take dominion.
Accordingly, the Providence of Restoration is to make man regain his right over all
things which he lost by his fall. Therefore, if the ideal world of creation is recovered
by the Providence of Restoration, man will be able to execute complete dominion
over all things.
Marx says that if the communist society comes, man will become the ruler of nature
for the first time and control and remodel it at last. But he does not clarify why man
can become the ruler of nature. While his materialistic view of history underestimates
the roles of special persons, the Unification view of history emphasizes their roles
because among them there are many leading providential persons set up by the law
of dominion of the center. Society has developed by the G-T action with these
persons as the subject and the public as the object. Nevertheless Marx did not ignore
the roles of such unique persons in the development of society. He admitted that the
direction of historical events depended on the guiding ability of the leaders of that
time. But he denied the decisive roles of these persons, saying that the basic
direction of historical development is determined not by the individual's ability but by
class movement (class struggle) and that the specified persons only play their roles
as leaders or representatives of one social class. Needless to say, we can not agree
with his view.
In the creation, God created things first and man last. Similarly, in the Providence of
Restoration, which is recreation, God first formed the social environment at a certain
stage of historical development, and then He established a center of control, the
subject, who could take control over the circumstances. By the law of relativity of the
subject and object, there can be no environment without a central person nor a
central person without an environment in which he acts. The leading person is not a
by-product of social conditions but a providential person who was set up by the
desire of the people and by the Providence. When there are suitable social and
material conditions at a certain stage of historical development, God sets up a central
person to arrange the circumstances according to the law of the dominion of. the
center. Moreover, only people who have specific qualifications or competence can
become such leading persons.
(4) The Law of Shared Responsibility
The growth and development of all things is carried out by the autonomy and self-
control of the Principle itself. In the case of the growth of man, however, his
spontaneous, creative effort or share of responsibility is demanded besides the
autonomy. That is, man becomes completed only when both God and man share
their respective responsibilities. This is the "Law of Shared Responsibility."
Needless to say, man's sharing of responsibility is demanded in not only his growth,
but also in the Providence of Restoration. In other words, the Providence of
Restoration is accomplished by the combination of both God's and man's share of
responsibility. Accordingly, in case man does not carry out his own responsibility, the
restoration will necessarily be delayed. It is for this reason that the history of sin has
been prolonged until today. Carrying out his responsibility, God supplies the
providential time and place and then a providential central person of that time
appears as the subject to deal with the circumstantial conditions. Historically
speaking, however, many central persons standing on the side of good (Abel) were
not able to correctly fulfill their responsibilities.
(5) The Law of Completion (Development) Through Three Stages
Nothing is created perfect from the start, but everything reaches completion only
through a gradual growth process which is carried out through three stages. This is
the "Law of Completion Through Three Stages." This law, of course, also applies to
the providential restoration of re-creation. As recorded in Divine Principle, or in the
Bible, which is the record of the Providence up to the days of Jesus Christ, there are
many examples of the providence of the number three, such as the three sons in
Adam's and Noah's families, three kinds of offerings of Abraham, Jacob's three
periods of toil, Moses' three courses of 40 years, the three temptations of Christ and
his three disciples, etc. After Christ too, the number three providence has continued.
The representative examples are the Renaissance movement and the movement of
the religious Reformation.
As is widely known, the Renaissance was a humanistic movement while the religious
Reformation was a theological movement. These two movements both passed
through the developmental process of three stages. The first stage of the humanistic
movement was the Renaissance mentioned above; the second stage, the
Enlightenment; and the third stage, the communist movement, based on materialistic
thought. The first stage of the theological movement was the religious Reformation
started by Martin Luther and John Calvin; the second stage, the new movements of
religious reformation which took place in the 17th-18th centuries. The movement of
Pietism started by Spener of Germany, Methodism by the Wesley Brothers of Britain,
The Quakers (Society of Friends) by George Fox, the spiritual movement of
Swedenborg, the New Light School of Jonathan Edwards of the United Stages, and
the idealistic philosophy of Germany at that time-these are all the second stage of the
theological movement. However, the third stage has not yet developed. The
movement of this stage will develop soon on a world-wide scale. This will and must
happen. (The humanistic movement is the Cain-type movement or Hellenistic
movement of Greek thought, while the theological movement is the Abel-type
movement originating in Hebraism.) In the future, by the theological movement of the
third stage, or the new religious reformation, the Cain-type thought will be absorbed
into the Abel-type thought and all religions and thoughts will be completely unified.
The World Wars are also good examples of the number three providence. World
wars are the wars between the powers on the side of Abel and the powers on the
side of Cain; they inevitably happen in order to make the human history of sin come
to an end. Here too we can see the process of three stages, that is, three world wars.
Mankind has experienced the first and second world wars but the third one has not
yet occurred. World war does not necessarily mean that there will be a bloody war on
a world-wide scale. After all, the important thing is to make the Cain or evil powers
yield to the powers on the side of Abel or good. Therefore the third world war need
not be a hot war but could be a cold war or local war.
(6) The Law of the Period of the Number "Six
It took a period of the number "six" for God to create the. cosmos. That is to say, in
order to create Adam, God began by establishing six periods beforehand. Therefore,
in the Providence of Restoration or re-creation, God also established six periods
beforehand. That is, God's Providence of Restoration entered a new stage at the
start of the number six period before the advent of Christ or the Second Adam. This
Providence will be completely fulfilled at the advent of the Third Adam, who comes
after the establishment of another number six period. Concretely speaking, this
happens as follows. Six centuries before the advent of the Second Adam (Christ)
God led the Israelites into exile in Babylonia in order to give them many trials. At the
same time, He developed Greek civilization to restore the environment, and made
Confucianism and Buddhism appear in the East in order to form the foundation for
man's restoration (foundation of conscience) on a world-wide scale. If the foundation
of restoration of the environment and the foundation of the restoration of man had
actually been established, mankind would have been completely saved by the advent
of the Messiah. Six centuries before the Third Adam (Lord of the Second Advent) the
Pope became a prisoner, thus forcing Christianity to be renewed. Meanwhile the
Renaissance took place to restore the environment, and the religious Reformation
also began in order to form the foundation of the restoration of man. It was about the
14th century that the movement for religious Reformation started. This is the "Law of
the Period of the Number 'Six'."
Among these rules of creation, it is the law of shared responsibility that seems to be
the most important in thinking about the character of history, especially in examining
whether history is deterministic or indeterministic.
The progress of history depends upon the extent of the achievements of a
comparatively small number of leading people who stand at the center of the
Providence and who take on their share of responsibility. If they successfully perform
their responsibilities just as God expects them to, history continues smoothly along
the program which God has planned and it moves toward a new stage of Providence.
If they are not successful in performing their duties, the duties must be taken over by
the next generation and thus history is delayed.
In other words, the aim and direction of history are absolute and decided since they
are fixed by God, but the concrete developmental process of history is shortened or
extended depending on whether the providential people leading it perform their duties
perfectly or not. The process depends on human acts. In this sense, we think that the
process of history is indeterministic.
Such being the case, our view on the development of history is not fully deterministic
nor completely indeterministic. That is, the goal of history is predetermined while the
process of history is not. In order to emphasize that history is not based on mere
determinism nor mere indeterminism, we may call this view the theory of shared
responsibility, or concisely, "Theory of Responsibility." It may also be expressed as
"Responsibilitism."
2. The Laws Of Restoration
The re-creation of history is indeed a kind of creation, but the process of re-creation
can not be the same as that of creation since it involves the process of the restoration
of fallen man.
Suppose we have overeaten and become sick. If the stomach is still functioning, the
sick stomach is still governed by the general physiological laws similar to those of a
healthy stomach. However, another process which can restore the damaged part to
the original state must be added to the general rules and functions. Since the
stomach problem was caused by an abnormal force which went beyond the normal
strength (quantity) due to overeating, the normal force of the stomach alone is not
enough to restore the stomach to its original, healthy state; an abnormal force (e.g.
fasting or medicine) must be added to help in the restoration.
In the case of history also, since man fell by an abnormal force which went beyond
the normal strength and against the normal direction, an ordinary force is not enough
to accomplish the restoration; it is necessary to have a special force (power of good)
beyond the common standard. This is expressed in Divine Principle by the words
"Restoration by Indemnity" (Tang-gam-Bokkwi [Korean] ). Let us state the general
laws concerning restoration by indemnity.
(1) The Law of Indemnity
The fall was when man lost his original position and state, and the restoration is the
regaining of this original position and state. Since the loss of the original position and
state had a certain motive (reason) and process, in the case of restoration as well,
there must also be a certain reason and process. Thus to set some condition for the
restoration to the original position is called indemnity (Tangam). The condition is
called an "Indemnity Condition", the process through which the condition is set is
named "Process of Indemnity", and the restoration of the lost original position is
called "Restoration by Indemnity."
Man fell because (1) he did not keep faith in God's commandment which was an
indispensable condition for him to fulfill, and (2) he yielded to the temptation of Satan.
He fell both spiritually and physically. Therefore, the indemnity conditions which must
be set by fallen people are (1) to form the "Foundation of Faith" spiritually by
dedicating offerings (things in place of God's words), and (2) to set up the
"Foundation of Substance" by obediently following the words of the prophets and
saints in the daily life of the physical body. If these conditions are fulfilled, the
"Foundation for the Messiah" is established.
However, ordinary people belong to the satanic society and do not listen obediently
to the teachings of the leaders on the side of good (prophets, sages). Instead they
usually persecute them. Therefore strife was necessary to awaken the people to what
was good. Thus by the law of separation (which will be stated next) God has
separated persons of good from the world of sin in order to let them confront the
powers of sin (powers of Satan guiding the public to the side of evil).
Thus the way of suffering is inevitable for righteous or chosen people, and up to
today many saints and righteous persons have suffered from hardship, persecution
and have sacrificed themselves. This is because the way established before them is
that of restoration by indemnity. This suffering becomes an offering and a condition
by which the people in the satanic world can be led to the side of God. God has
successively repeated this kind of providence in order to make people leave the
world of sin.
Because of the unbelief of the Israelites, to our great regret, Christ was crucified.
However, with this as a condition of indemnity, many people have come to believe in
Christianity. The Christians under the Roman Empire were also persecuted
miserably, but with this as an indemnity condition even the Roman Empire could not
help yielding to Christianity. Thus, without knowledge of the law of indemnity, we can
not understand history correctly.
(2) The Law of Separation
Since God is the only Creator, man should have maintained a relationship with God
alone. By the fall, however, he has come into contact with Satan too; thus he has had
relations with two masters. As a result, if God tries to communicate with a man, Satan
also tries. But the Providence can never be realized with such human beings. God
could not help but separate out men whom He could contact from those whom Satan
could contact. Cain and Abel were examples of this separation. Cain was a person
whom Satan could contact while Abel was a person with whom God could
communicate. At the starting point of history, Cain was the representative of evil and
Abel the representative of good. But Cain killed Abel and human history started as
the history of sin. Therefore, in order to develop the Providence of Restoration, God
could not help but separate out Abel-type persons from the world of evil, and He has
carried on the Providence through these persons.
This law of Providence is called the "Law of Separation" and it was through this law
that the many prophets, righteous men and sages who appeared in history were
people on the Abel side. If people in the world of sin had faithfully followed the
teachings of these Abel-type men, the foundations of faith and substance would have
been laid; the Messiah would have come to earth, and mankind would have already
returned to its original position.
Here an additional fact should be mentioned. That is, in the process of the
Providence of Restoration, the powers on the Abel side have been separated out on
various social levels. In the days of the Old Testament, individuals, families, tribes
and nations were separated out (Noah, Abraham, Jacob's family, the twelve tribes of
Israel centered on Moses, the Israeli nation before the advent of the Messiah, etc.).
In the days of the New Testament, nations and a world on the Abel side .have been
separated out (Christian nations in Middle Ages and today's free nations centering
around Christianity). These separations have been made in order to weaken Satan's
powers in the satanic world in preparation for the time of the Second Advent of the
Messiah, and to widen the foundation of faith. The communist bloc and free bloc
today are also in the positions of the Cain and Abel sides respectively.
All the advanced free nations were at first Christian countries (England, the United
States, France, etc.). In spite of Marx's prophecy, no proletarian revolutions have
occurred in these countries; instead, because they were countries established on the
Abel side by the law of separation, they have become more prosperous. Today,
however, we see the Providence changing from a bipolar separation to a multipolar
separation. We think that this is God's way of decisively weakening the powers of evil
which govern the world of sin. It may be a providential occurrence which foretells the
coming of the Messiah.
(3) The Law of the Number Four Restoration
When we consider the already-mentioned G-T action from beginning to end, it is
called the Chung-Boon-Hap action. Since all things have a purpose of creation, the
process through which the united bodies or multiplied bodies are produced by the
give-and-take action between the subject and object centering on the purpose comes
to have four positions and three stages. All individuals must occupy one of these four
positions in order to exist or grow. Thus the Four Position Base (Quadruple Base) is
not only the base for things to be united or multiplied, but is also the base necessary
for things to exist.
The most important of all these Four Position Bases is the family one. It is the
standard of all Four Position Bases and the ideal of creation. It is the ethical system
composed by the parents and their children centering on the purpose of creation of
God. It is the base of life on which human morals centering on God's love are
established and carried out. The love of parents, between couples, and the love of
children can be realized only within this Four Position Base as the base of life. Thus
the ideal home can be formed and at the same time the ideal society based on such
homes, that is the heavenly kingdom, can be realized. To our great regret, however,
this family Four Position Base has been stolen by Satan through the fall of man. As a
result, all created things entered the sphere of Satanic dominion. Therefore, the
central aim of God's Providence of Restoration is to restore this family Four Position
Base.
Since God's Providence has to go through the symbolic and conditional process first
(see "Law of Conditional Providence" to be stated later), God carries out the
providence to restore the number four (40 or 400, etc.) which can be restored by
setting up periods of time. According to the Unification view of history, the number
four period is called the "Period of Separation from Satan."
Thus many number-four periods such as 40 days, 40 years and 400 years have
appeared in history. On the other hand, Satan has done everything in his power not
to be deprived of those number-four periods by God's side. Throughout history, God's
providence to restore the number four and Satan's anti-providence to break the
providence have continuously repeated. That is, when the powers on God's side
restored the number four, Satan again invaded and broke it. Thus in the history of
God's Providence, the numbers such as 40 and 400 appear very often. The historian
Arnold Toynbee also admits the existence of such periods in the development of
history, saying that surprisingly, the period of the breakdown of a culture is often 400
years. Toynbee, A. J., The World and the West) Forty years after the establishment
of Russian Communism (1919), an ideological dispute took place between the Soviet
Union and Communist China so that a fissure grew in the communist bloc. In 1945,
forty years after Japan annexed Korea in 1905, the Korean people were liberated.
These may also be examples of the number-four restoration providence.
(4) The Law of Conditional Providence
As stated already in the law of indemnity, a certain condition of indemnity must be set
up for fallen man to restore his Original Nature. In other words, God does not make
fallen man restore his original position immediately, but makes him set a certain
symbolic condition to achieve God's will gradually. When Adam fell, God did not save
him immediately, but separated Abel from Cain and, with their offerings as a
condition, intended to send the Messiah. In the case of Noah, God had him make a
condition by building an ark, which was the symbol of the whole cosmos. In the case
of Abraham, God had him make offerings of a dove, sheep, and cow as a condition.
In the process of the Providence of Restoration there are many more examples of the
conditional providence than the ones mentioned above. In carrying out the affairs of
the conditional providence, some providential leaders have without fail, been set up
to take charge. Had these men performed their responsibilities and fulfilled the
conditional providence just as God wished them to, the Providence would have
moved on to the next stage. To our great regret and sorrow, however, they did not
perform their duties and fulfill all the respective affairs correctly. As a result, the
Providence of Restoration has been delayed time and time again.
For instance, Moses should have struck the rock once but instead struck it twice. The
realization of God's will was delayed, and Moses could not enter Canaan. The
providential conditions always correspond to the respective times but there were
many conditions foreshadowing the events that were to happen at the time of the
advent of the Messiah. For instance, Moses struck the rock because in his actual
situation he had to bring forth water, but his action also had fatal consequences on
the providence at the time of the advent of Christ. That is, by striking the rock twice, a
condition was made by which it was possible for Satan to strike Christ who was the
second Adam. When Christ did appear, the infidelity of the Israelites and the betrayal
of Judas Iscariot were thus possible and they directly brought about the sorrowful
event of the crucifixion.
Marx says that human history necessarily developed from the primitive communal
society, to the socialistic, communistic society passing through the stages of the
slave, feudal and capitalistic societies. If Christ had not been crucified but had
completed his mission as Messiah, the Roman society of that time (what Marx called
the "slave society") would have directly become the earthly Kingdom of Heaven. To
our great sorrow, however, Christ was killed and the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth
was not realized.
Thus the conditional providence has had such a great influence on the development
of history that we can not correctly understand history without knowledge of its
contents.
(5) The Law of the False Preceding the True
In human history, many nations have prospered and then declined. Among them
were those that for a time realized great unity and brought about peace and
wonderful culture. Examples of these are the Roman Empire, the kingdom of Egypt,
and the Han and Tang dynasties in China. The emperors, kings and other leaders
who established these great countries were all unique and uncommon, and without
their above average activities, the unification and creation of cultures would have
been very difficult. What significance do these facts have? The Unification view of
history sees them in relation to the "Law of the False Preceding the True." This is the
rule that, in the development of history, false men appear before true men. The false
men are the satanic or Cain-type people who are on the side of evil, while true men
are those on the side of God, Abel or the good. The final aim of the Providence of
Restoration is to realize a great and unified country in which the ideal of creation is
realized. Centering on God, the whole world would be unified into one country. This is
the Divine Country whose sovereign is God, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth which
can be created only by the advent of the Messiah. However, since Satan knows the
providence of God well, he has tried to establish his country before the advent or re-
advent of the Messiah. He set up leaders, whom we call antichrists, to have them
establish unified countries. However, as such persons and countries belonged to the
world of sin, they prospered for a time but then declined. The law of the false
preceding the true appears very clearly just before the advent of the Messiah. An
example is the Roman Empire. Around the time of the birth of the Messiah, a
peaceful, prosperous and great empire was established, maintaining great territory
centering on its emperors. Satan imitated the realization of a unified world full of love,
peace and prosperity before the advent of the Messiah.
Even in the modern world there are such examples. One of them was the unified
communist world centering on Stalin. Before the Second Advent of the Messiah,
Satan tried to have Stalin realize his ideal world. That is to say, the false ideal world.
Stalin was a false-Messiah-type person (antichrist). Thus by the appearance of this
phenomena we can feel the approach of the Second Advent of the Messiah. Also the
present situation in which the providence is changing from a bipolar separation to a
multipolar separation gives us an especially strong impression of the approach of the
Second Advent.
(6) The Law of the "Horizontal" Reappearance of the "Vertical"
This is the law which lets something "vertical" develop itself "horizontally ... .. Vertical"
means the flow of time while "horizontal" means the breadth of space. In other words,
"vertical" refers to the actual world. Accordingly, the "horizontal reappearance of the
vertical" means the reappearance of all the providential events and persons of history
in the present age, in order to realize the providence. For instance, the offering of
Adam's family, the loyalty of Noah, the belief of Abraham, the 21 years hard work of
Jacob, the guidance of people by Moses; all these persons and events in the
providential history reappear at certain times.
Why does God do this? He is trying to finish the whole Providence of Restoration at
one time at the terminal stage by simultaneously resolving all the providential events,
which were not resolved at various points in history. It is certain that the history of any
nation is God's providential history. It is especially the history of Israel, however, that
composes the center of the Providence. "Israel" originally meant the Jewish nation
but according to the Divine Providence, after the crucifixion of Jesus, it has referred
to the Christians. In history, God selected many persons through many generations
to develop many providential events. However, almost every time, trouble occurred
and in many cases these events were not resolved. This is because human beings
have not faithfully observed the rules of the Providence of Restoration (re-creation).
Such being the case, God lets these historical events and persons reappear at the
terminal stage, on a world-wide scale, and tries, at one time, to completely rectify all
the failures of history. The method in this case is the "Law of the Horizontal
Reappearance of the Vertical."
Such a providential law as this was applied in the days of -Christ, and will again be
applied at the time of the Second Advent of Christ. In other words, God lets the whole
past providential history reappear in the latter days and tries to complete the
Providence of Restoration by simultaneously indemnifying all of it on the level of the
whole. As a result, at the terminal stage of history, unexpected and complicated
incidents appear one after another and make people fall into great chaos. The nearer
one comes to the present days, the less Marx's prophecy concerning social
development hits the mark. This is because the above-mentioned law has begun to
work gradually and broadly, bringing a different effect from what Marx predicted.
However, there are other reasons too.
(7) The Law of the Providence of Parallel Periods
This law means that in case the realization of God's Providence of Restoration is
delayed by men neglecting their duty, a providence similar in character and type to
that of the past generation is repeated in the new generation. just as the four seasons
of spring, summer, autumn and winter are repeated in the same forms every year, so,
if the realization of the Providence is delayed, God's Providence is repeated in forms
similar in period, persons, events and contents, to those of before. For instance, the
2000 years from Adam to Abraham, the 2000 years from Abraham to Christ, and the
2000 years from Christ to the present are similar ages from the viewpoint not only of
period but also of contents of providence and similarity of persons. [Note: Among
these kinds of similarity, the most important one is the period. If we compare the New
Testament age with the Old Testament age, we can perceive similar parallel periods.
So the providence of this similarity of periods is called "the Providence of Parallel
Periods" or "the Parallel Providence."]
For example, Noah's ark, Moses' stone tablets and the Arc of the Covenant, and
Augustine's "City of God" are similar to each other. The revelation of Malachi, which
took place about 1600 years after Abraham, and the religious Reformation of Martin
Luther, which developed about 1600 years after the Messiah, are also examples of
the providence of parallel periods. Also, the Greek civilization, which began six
centuries before the advent of the Messiah, and the Renaissance, which began six
centuries before the second advent of the Messiah, are similar. Furthermore, the
lives of the Israeli people in exile in Babylonia and the life of the Pope as a prisoner in
France also show the providence of parallel periods.
Because the providence of parallel periods is at work in human history, we can
foresee the contents of the parallel providence which will occur in the next stage by
drawing analogies from the parallel providence of the last stage.
Chapter V - Theory of History (Part 2)
Section D - The Unity, Individuality and Difference of Historical Development
In what form has history, with these laws of creation and restoration as the bases,
been developing as a whole? To answer this question, let us state the view based on
the Unification Principle.
(i) The Unity of Historical Development
If man had not fallen and history had not started with sin, history would have
continuously developed with unity. However, it is now broken into pieces.
Jaspers says, "Since Adam is the ancestor of mankind, we human beings have all
come from the hands of God and have been created in the form similar to that of
God." (Jaspers, Origin and Goal of History) What he says is true. If human beings, at
the first formation of a family, had established an ethical system with the Four
Position Base as the center, and the system had further been applied to the tribe and
nation or state, there would have been no disruption or opposition at all.
If man had not fallen, he surely would have established an organic hierarchical
system, similar to the human body. This system, formed through the principles of
creation, especially the laws of the dominion of the center and of similarity, would
have had leaders, such as the head of family in the "Age of the Family" and chief of
tribe in the "Age of the Tribe"; and people would have had an inseparable relationship
of Heart, that is, an ethical relationship with the center of every respective society.
Thus a great family-type state would have been established with a leader, appointed
by God, at the center; and when the number of human beings had greatly increased,
the state would have been further enlarged to a world-wide scale.
Because of the fall, however, the emotionally harmonized relationship was broken.
Due to the shortage of love and many egoistic motives, a center different from what
God had intended was established, the norm of love (Heart) was broken and
contradictions, disruptions and quarrels appeared.
(ii) The Individuality of Historical Development
In order to save mankind from such a hopeless chaos, God tries to separate an Abel-
type person from the chaos, and centering on him creates a group of people who
believe in and love God. They are the so-called chosen people. In the meantime,
God breaks into pieces the arrogant groups who reject Him and act as if they
themselves were God.
Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us
make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole
earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men
had built. And the Lord said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one
language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they
propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there
confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the
Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off
building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel. (Genesis 11:4-9) (Note: Babel
means "stain" or "soil." Its meaning is the same as that of Babylon.)
As a result, the unity of historical development was lost and individuality appeared.
This is the reason that individual histories, such as national histories have come to
appear. [Note: Even if man had not fallen, individuality might have appeared in
different tribes, nations and states because man is the manifestation of God's
individuality. However, this individuality would have been based on unity, not
individuality separate from unity which is full of contradictions, oppositions and
quarrels.]
Yet we do not say that unity in history disappeared altogether. For instance, the
history of the United States of America has a relationship with that of Britain, the
history of Britain has a relationship with that of Western Europe, which in turn has a
relationship with that of ancient Greece and Rome. Although the countries are now
separated from each other, there are some historical contents common to them all.
We think, therefore, that history has individuality as well as unity. This is the
application to history of the ontological standpoint by which we regard all phenomena
as the unification of universality and individuality by the give-and-take law.
The traditional views of history were apt to emphasize the individuality of the units of
the nation or state (dynasty). On the other hand, modern views have come to regard
history as a world history with unity. Especially those historians like Toynbee, who in
trying to see world history from the perspective of culture, regarding history as
cultural history, are rather apt to ignore the individual aspect of history by paying too
much attention to its universal aspect. However, we look at history from the viewpoint
of the unification of these two aspects by the G-T action law.
(iii) Differentiation of Historical Development
There is also a differential aspect in the development of history, because human
history is the history of the providence of salvation or re-creation.
In all cases, creation starts from one. According to the Unification view of history, one
human being named Adam was created at first, and if he had not fallen, he and his
spouse would have formed one family, which would have developed gradually into a
nation and then a state.
Since the providence of re-creation after the fall of man is also a kind of creation, one
man, one family, one tribe, one nation and one state have been separated in turn
from the world of evil, and then the providence has been carried out centering on this
nation or state.
According to Christianity, the people of the nation so set as the center, are called the
chosen people. The providence for these chosen people is called the "Central
Providence", while the providence for other peoples or states is called the "Peripheral
Providence." Concretely speaking, the Central Providence before Christ was the
providence for the Israeli people, and the providence after Christ was that for
Christianity (or the Occident).
The words "central" and "Peripheral" may sound discriminatory in value; however, as
the Bible says, "And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our
father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham."
(Matthew 3:9) According to the Principle of Creation a "center" must be set up
somewhere in order to completely save all mankind and to create the innocent new
world at the end of history. In short, this discrimination is only a means to an end.
Because of this differentiation in the Providence, the differences between the history
of the center and the history of the periphery come about.
The laws of historical development (laws of creation, laws of restoration) are applied
very precisely to the center but not as precisely to the periphery (See Section F, "The
Pattern of Historical Development"). This is what differentiation in the development of
history means. The differentiation can be said to refer to the degree of application of
the historical laws.
The reason such differentiation appears in history is that history is fundamentally the
history of creation (re-creation) or the providence of the salvation of mankind, which
begins from one person. For salvation, the Messiah is needed, and the nation to
which the Messiah is sent naturally can not help but become the chosen people. The
Israeli people were chosen as the center for the Providence; however, since they did
not accept Christ as the Messiah, the Providence was transferred from them to the
Western peoples, and the history of these peoples became the central history for the
acceptance of the Second Advent of the Messiah.
In the meantime, the histories of other countries have become peripheral histories to
which only sages have been sent. Thus beliefs have been established centering on
each of these sages to wait for the final salvation which will come from the Central
Providence.
Section E - The Laws of Historical Development and the Method of Studying
History
(i) The Basic Laws of History
We have previously stated the various laws and factors which influence history. Here
let us think about the most fundamental laws that are applied to the whole of history.
We take the standpoint that the laws of existence are similar to the laws of cognition.
Accordingly, the basic laws that are applied to history are not only the base for
various objective laws of historical development but also the grounds for the method
of our historical study (cognition).
As stated above, various laws have influenced the development of history, and of
them, the most important are the G-T action, the repulsion action and the action of
will (see below).
(ii) History and the Give-and-Take Law (G-T Laws)
First, we are going to explain G-T action. In both the natural world and human
society, it is necessary to carry out G-T action between the subject and object beings
to bring about development.
In the development, which is the content of history, the G-T action between man and
his material conditions and the G-T action between the countless people who
compose societies, have of course stimulated the development of society. But the
most important factor for development is the G-T action between the leaders
(subject) and the public (object). If the leaders, including the sovereign, govern
correctly and the public heartily follows all their policies, the society will without fail
become prosperous. It is because of this G-T action between the subject and object
(leaders and ordinary people) that the culture of mankind has made such remarkable
progress during the past several thousand years.
We can not ignore the fact that the development of productivity was also a great
factor in the development of society. Since the development of productivity is also a
kind of development, we think that there must be a G-T action between a subject and
object in its development. Concretely speaking, this is the mutual G-T action between
human desires and the material conditions. This is regarded as the cause of the
development of productivity (Communism: A Critique and Counterproposal, published
by the International Federation for Victory Over Communism).
These are all give-and-take actions. It is the law of G-T action, then, that lies at the
base of historical development. According to the Unification Principle, this law is
called the "Law of Give-and-Take Action."
Another important law closely related to the G-T action law is the repulsion law. This
phenomenon of repulsion between the subject and subject or object and object is
also a very important factor for the understanding of history. (We shall deal with this
issue in detail in the "Historic View of Struggle Between Good and Evil.")
(iii) The Law of Will-Action
Human desires are also very important for our understanding of the laws of history.
After all, man's basic motives in social life result from desire. We have many desires
in social life, but the basis of our desires (we call them basic desires) are classified
into two kinds; that is, material desires seeking for food, clothing and housing, and
spiritual desires seeking after truth, goodness and beauty. According to Unification
Thought, the former are called Hyung Sang desires and the latter Sung Sang desires.
Based on these basic desires, countless actual desires have developed (See
Communism: A Critique and Counterproposal), and in order to satisfy these desires,
man acts with a concrete will. Designing, planning, determination, decision, invention,
etc. are all concrete expressions of the will-action.
Thus, if we analyze the flow of history, we find that the above-mentioned G-T action
and repulsion laws come from the mutual action or repulsion action between the
mutual wills of man (desires). The mutual co-action between the will of the subject
(desire) and the will of the object (desire) is G-T action, while the mutual repulsion
between the will of a subject and the will of another subject is repulsion action. (See
"Historic View of Struggle between Good and Evil")
Communists regard the part of will in social development as secondary or derivative,
and assert that the primary factor of development is the material conditions such as
the "contradiction between productive forces and the production relation." However,
there would be no development of the productive forces or of the production relations
if man had no original desire. Social development has not been brought about by
material conditions alone; it is correct to think that the resultant of the G-T action
between human will (desire) and the material conditions has brought about
development.
For example, the invention of the steam engine (productive forces) was the product
of the give-and-take between Watt's desire for invention and the social and material
conditions in England at that time. Watt's desire and knowledge were the subject
conditions, whereas the social and material conditions in England, where capitalism
was growing, were the object conditions; that is, the G-T action, brought the invention
of the steam engine.
Thus the will of the subject is the decisive factor when the G-T law and repulsion law
work in the development of history, and the combination of this will factor and the
object factors produces development. This "Law of Will Action" we sometimes
concisely call "Will Law."
(iv) The Historic View of the Struggle between Good and Evil Repulsion Law
Communists say that the history of man is the history of class struggle. We do not
contradict their assertion that history has been a history of struggle, but we do not
think that the struggle has been between classes alone. We can not deny the fact
that struggles of non-class character such as those between individuals, nations,
states, alliances and religions were even more numerous than those between
classes. (See Communism: A Critique and Counterproposal)
What is the universal element common to all the struggles of man? It is the struggle
between good and evil.
As stated in the Section on the Law of G-T action, all beings can maintain their
existence only by carrying out a mutual give-and-take action between the position of
subject "+" and object and their growth, development and multiplication only become
possible by this. In order to further strengthen the G-T relation between "+" and there
is the phenomenon of repulsion. This seems to be quite opposite to the G-T action.
For instance, positive electricity "+" and positive electricity "+" repel each other.
However, this repulsion itself is not the aim of nature, but the true aim is to strengthen
the G-T action between the subject and object through this repulsion. Thus, harmony
by the G-T law is the foundation of the natural world with the exception of man.
In the case of man, the repulsion phenomenon which should be only an additional
means for strengthening the G-T action, has come to suppress the true G-T action.
This is the struggle of man, which comes from man's evil mind brought about by his
fall. For example, two men centering on one woman often fight with each other; and
two women centering on one man are apt to hate each other. In the society where
there is no sin, people would not quarrel with each other over one person of the other
sex, since single people would regard their companions as their own brothers or
sisters. (The original society is a great family in which all members are brothers and
sisters to each other, regarding God as their parents.) Many struggles in history
which have disrupted true G-T action have been struggles between two subjects, in
other words between men of power. Struggles are the expression of the repulsion
phenomenon, which should be an accessory to G-T action, but which has changed to
become a hindrance to the G-T action. The struggles themselves have no power of
development; instead, they rather disturb true development.
(v) Development by the G- T Action or by Struggle?
Here the following objection may be raised. Is it not because of war, the wildest of all
struggles, that science and technology have rapidly progressed and atomic power
developed?
Actually, the results of scientific research have been obtained by the G-T action
between the desire of scientists for study, their objects of study, and the social
conditions which make the study possible.
Successful results would not have been obtained if these elements repelled each
other. Even though the purpose of the invention of the atomic bomb and H-bomb may
have been for its use in war or defense, the process of the invention or manufacture
is not struggle but close cooperation; it is the process of the G-T action.
The weapons so produced are used for struggle or destruction. Of course struggle
can become the stimuli for a certain series of G-T actions (e.g. special study in
science such as in the case of the atomic bomb). Even though this may be so, the
assertion that we need war in order to stimulate the development of science does not
have a leg to stand on, because we can find as much impetus for scientific
development as we want, even aside from war. War does not promote progress and
development but thoroughly disturbs them. Mankind has made progress not by wars,
but regardless of wars. If there had not been the disruption and opposition of emotion
and will, much more remarkable progress would have been brought about.
(vi) The Essence of Struggle
Why does a relation which should only express the G-T action change into struggle?
Originally God made all human beings for the giving and receiving of love and beauty
between each other in the relative positions of subject and object. This was in order
to bring about harmony based on the Four Position Base. However, if the subject
becomes arrogant and does not love or persecutes the object while the former and
the latter interact with each other, there grows an emotional disagreement and
opposition between the two; then another subject will appear, because the object
comes to need a new subject. In the phenomenon of electricity, if complete electrical
negativity appears, then complete electrical positivity will surely appear. Likewise, if
the people who are in the object position come to hold a certain condition (rejection of
an old leader or governor and wish for a new leader), a new leader will surely appear
and come to oppose the old leader, with the support of the people. Since these two
subjects have different respective purposes, or their interests differ, repulsion and
struggle take place. (However, a challenge by violence is always initiated by the
power of evil, while power of good responds to the challenge.)
Thus those on the side of good (we call them Abel-type persons or the Abel-type
groups) and those on the side of evil (Cain-type persons, or Cain-type groups)
develop historical struggles. This is the repulsion phenomenon or the struggle
between good and evil. However, men are fallen and there are no people who have
completely good characters, so that if we consider man alone, the "good" and "evil" in
the struggle are only relative concepts. But God himself wishes to realize final,
complete salvation through struggle. Viewed from the side of God, therefore, the
difference between the side of good (God) and that of evil is very clear. [Note: Of
course there have been neutral standpoints belonging neither to the good side nor to
the evil side. (See Communism: A Critique and Counterproposal)]
Who is the subject set up by God? This question can not be answered by looking at
who is in power. God does not select a person by his position, but selects him as the
center on the merits of the deeds of his ancestors and his faith. Examples of this are
Joshua who was selected as the successor to Moses, and David who was selected
as the successor to Saul.
Moreover, even if a person was selected to become the center, he is rejected if his
acts are against God's will. Examples of this are Saul who was destroyed, and the
Israeli people who were destroyed by Babylonia and sent into exile. As minutely
stated in detail in Sub-Section (2) of Section B ("The Goal and Direction of History")
God's goal to complete the Providence is absolute, but the position of the central
person of Providence selected by Heaven for the completion of the aim is not
absolute.
If he performs his given duty perfectly, he is given the predestined position, but if he
does not do so, the predestination is changed and another person takes his position.
The reason revolution sometimes takes place is that the central person does not
completely fulfill his duty so that God allows a revolution by another central person to
occur in order to promote the providence of salvation. On the other hand, if the
existing person performs his share of responsibility no revolution will take place.
In short, human history is not the history of class struggle but of the struggle between
good and evil. This is the Unification view of history.
Let us summarize what we have stated so far. The development of history results
from the G-T action between the subject (sovereign) and object (public).
Development does not occur through material necessity, but occurs by the G-T action
between the will of the subject and the will of the ordinary people who respond to the
former, or by the resultant (G-T action) between human will and the material social
conditions (action of will). Lastly, generally speaking, struggles in history happen by
the repulsion action between the subject on the side of good and the subject on the
side of evil (Repulsion law-The Historic View of the Struggle between Good and Evil).
These three are the basic viewpoints and methods for understanding history by the
Unification Thought.
Chapter V - Theory of History (Part 3)
Section F - The Pattern of Historical Development
Using the methods of history stated clearly in Section E, let us examine in what
pattern human history has developed. However, in order to make for easy
understanding, we shall only explain the central history of the Central Providence to
which the typical historic laws have applied.
1. From The Providential Viewpoint
(i) The History of God's Words
As stated in Section B, human history is the history of restoration and re-creation.
Creation occurs through God's words. Therefore history can not but be a history
created through words.
"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceeds from the mouth of God." ' " (Matthew 4:4). What is it that conveys
God's words of truth to the public? It is religion. Accordingly, we who regard human
history as the history of re-creation, think that it is most important to look at history
from the standpoint of religion.
(ii) The Providence of Parallel Periods
What is the pattern of history if we analyze history from a religious viewpoint?

Period of the Providence of Restoration The Period of the Prolongation of the

Providence of Restoration

Period of Slavery in Egypt (400 years) Period of Persecution under the Roman Empire
(400 years)

Period of Judges (400 years) Period of Church Patriarchs (400 years)

Period of the United Kingdom (120 years) Period of Christian Kingdom (120 years)

Period of the Divided Kingdoms of North Period of Divided Kingdoms of East and West
and South (400 years) (400 years)

Period of Jewish Captivity (70 years) Period of Papal Captivity (70 years)

Period of Return (140 years) Period of Return (140 years)

Period of Preparation for the Advent of Period of Preparation for the Second Advent of
the Messiah (400 years) the Messiah (400 years)

If we take the Judeo-Christian history as the example, we find, as already stated in

Section C, Subsection (2)-7, "The Law of Parallel Providence", that special features
of the division of the time periods, characters, and roles of central persons of the
Providence, correspond with each other in 2000-year cycles. The following are
examples of this. We can compare Moses, who appeared at the end of the 400 years
of the Israelites' slavery in Egypt with Augustine, who appeared after the Christians
were terribly persecuted by the Roman Empire for four hundred years. Saul became
king when judge Samuel anointed him with oil. This was after the 400 years of the
judges (chiefs of the tribes who were prophets, officiating priests and kings). Saul can
be compared with Emperor Charlemagne who was given the crown of the Roman
Empire by Pope Leo III the Patriarch, after the age of the Patriarchs. Like the judges,
the Patriarchs had held the "three positions" and had lasted for the four hundred
years since Christianity was authorized as the state religion of Rome. The prophet
Malachi, who renewed the Israelite faith after the Israeli people, having been
prisoners in Babylon for 70 years and then liberated by Persian King Cyrus, may be
compared to Martin Luther. Luther started the religious Reformation after the Pope,
who had been imprisoned at Avignon in southern France for a similar 70 years (from
1309-1377), returned to Rome but failed to stop the corruption. These people's
missions in their respective times were like two peas in a pod.
Comparing these facts, we classify the Judeo-Christian history into the following
three stages:
(1) The Period for the Foundation of the Providence of Restoration (from Adam to
Abraham).
(2) The Period of the Providence of Restoration (from Abraham to Jesus).
(3) The Period of the Prolongation of the Providence of Restoration (from Jesus to
today).
Comparing (2) with (3), that is, the Israelite history after Abraham with the Christian
history after Christ, we find that they show very similar periods which are parallel to
each other. The numbers written in the parentheses in this table are the theoretical
number of years deduced from the Principle of Restoration (See Divine Principle, p.
392). The theoretical years in the age of the Providence of Restoration do not always
correspond with the number of years adopted by common opinion in historical
science but generally correspond with the number of years written in the Bible. In the
case of the age of the Period of the Prolongation of the Providence of Restoration,
the actual historical number of years and the theoretical values by the Unification
Principle generally correspond with each other very well.
This is another basic attitude of the Unification Thought; that to establish an historical
view one must look at the history of mankind from a religious viewpoint, as the
"Providence of Restoration."
2. From The Viewpoint Of Religion And Politics
(i) The Law of Dominion of the Center
However demoralized human society may become, there always exists a leader who
manages the people by the law of the dominion of the center mentioned in Section C.
Particularly in the Divine Providence, God sets up a leader as the center and lets him
rule his society directly and lets him influence the various surrounding societies. This
aspect of the domination of the center is politics. We therefore think that we should,
as a next step, also observe history from the religious and political perspectives.
(ii) The Four Types of Society
It should be thought, from the viewpoint of politics, that human society has passed
through the following four types: clan society, feudal society, monarchic society and
democratic society. (It should actually be five types, including the society of co-life,
co-prosperity and cojustice, that is the "tricoistic" society [Sam-Kong-Chui], which we
believe will come about in the future). Taking the Judeo-Christian history as an
example, during their period of hard toil in Egypt, the Israeli people lived in tribes,
which came from the 12 children of their ancestor Jacob. They thus formed one of
the typical clan societies.
The Christian society, during the period of persecution under the Roman Empire, was
formed as a family-like group of believers with the 12 Apostles and 70 disciples of
Jesus as the central figures. This is also regarded as a clan society (Christian clan
society).
Next in the Jewish history, Moses, the liberator, escaped from Egypt leading 600,000
Israelites who formed a society in Canaan with the judges as central figures. This
was a feudal society. When Christianity was the national religion of Rome, they
accomplished a Christian society administrated by the Patriarchs. This was also a
feudal society.
After the period of judges, Saul was crowned and the United Kingdom of Israel came
into existence. In Christian society also, after the period of the Church Patriarchs, the
Roman Empire was revived by Charlemagne with Christianity as its central spirit,
forming a Christian monarchical society.
The United Kingdom of Israel was divided into two, due to the impiety of the kings,
and was successively annexed by Babylonia, Persia, Syria and Rome. Thus during
this period they had no king of their own. However, looking at this society from the
viewpoint of religion and politics, it can be said to have been a kind of democratic
society in that there were no prophets or kings.
In the Middle Ages, the hierarchical Catholic society was demoralized, and this
brought about the religious Reformation in the Modern Age. Accordingly,
Protestantism was propagated widely, bringing a democratic tendency into religious
life. In those circumstances, after several revolutions in Europe, parliamentary
democratic order came to take a major part in the political field, largely replacing
monarchy. We understand that all these things happened by the same providence as
that in the period of the Old Testament.
(iii) The Reasons for the Formation of the Four Societies
What reasons did these four societies, which can be distinguished religiously and
politically, have for coming into existence?
Generally speaking, these four societies were due to the struggle between God's
Providence and the power opposing it (the struggle between good and evil mentioned
in Section E). The Providence seeks to establish God's sovereignty and enlarge His
dominion in order to bring man back to God and relieve the miserable lives of those
living in immorality and in separation from God.
The reasons for these changes of social forms will be mentioned in terms of the
direct providence of God, the Central Providence.
(1) Clan Society
This society came about due to the providence to increase beyond a certain number
those people who would be the basis for establishing the sovereignty of heaven. God
always appoints a central figure by the law of dominion of the center whenever He
carries out the providence of salvation. In the period of the Old Testament, this
central figure was Abraham, and then his grandson Jacob whose descendants then
increased in Egypt. God intended to make 12 tribes from Jacob's 12 children and to
let Jacob's descendants become the foundation of the future state. Accordingly, this
period can be said to be the period of preparation for the establishment of the
sovereignty of God. The reason for the establishment of the Christian clan society
centering on Jesus' twelve Apostles, is the same as this providence.
(2) Feudal Society
This society was formed, on the basis of the numbers (tribes) in the clan society, in
order to establish the foundation of faith and the foundation of substance (i.e.
complete obedience in heart to the prophets and judges), by centering on these
prophets who brought God's words. During the period of the clan society, because
faith was the main concern, land had not been provided. However, in this feudal
society land was allotted as their base of living, and each tribe held its own
decentralized area of land independently. The judges and parish priests, the central
figures, took on the three duties of heaven: the duty of prophets, the duty of priests,
and the duty of kings.
(3) Monarchical Society
This society came at the last stage of the foundation to receive the Messiah which
was formed on the base of the foundation of faith formed during the period of the
feudal society. It was a unified society of all or several tribes under one king. This
society was in the last stage of God's providence of salvation. This type of society is
evident in the United Kingdom and the society of the Northern and Southern
Kingdoms in the days of the Old Testament; and in the period of the New Testament,
this period corresponds to the Christian Kingdom (religiously) and the monarchical
society (politically) of the modern age. However the kings, the leaders, were not
completely dedicated to God and turning their power to fulfill their own will, they
turned to Satan. Therefore this society had to be abandoned. Accordingly, the
democratic society came next. (However, in the New Testament period, the religious
monarchical society does not occur simultaneously with that of politics-we will
discuss this later.)
(4) Democratic Society
The Christian monarchic society was provided by God as His last step in preparing
for the Messiah. However, when the leaders lost their faith and became selfish and
greedy for power, their societies obstructed the way to God. When this happened,
God destroyed the kingdoms and then prepared the way for all people to seek after
the Messiah by their own subjectivity (original mind) and responsibility. This is the
democratic society. In respect to religion, Protestantism, which can be called
democratic faith, was brought about by the Reformation. In respect to politics,
parliamentary democracy came about through the opportunity created by the civil
revolutions. (However, in this case also, the times of these two forms of democracy
are different ... this is to be dealt with later.)
Summarizing the above, religiously and politically, in the days of the Old Testament
the four types of society consecutively appeared-the clan society, the feudal society,
the monarchical society and the democratic society-and at the final stage they
received Jesus Christ. However, because the Israelites did not accept Jesus as the
Messiah, the Kingdom of God was not realized on the earth but only a spiritual
kingdom was left.
Therefore, since then, the history of Christianity has progressed centered on Jesus,
with the purpose of the realization of the Kingdom of God spiritually. As a result of
that, very unfortunately, they repeated the same failures that the Israeli people had
made. Accordingly the four types of society-clan, feudal, monarchical and democratic
society have again appeared in the history since Jesus.
3. From The Viewpoint Of Economy
(i) Mutual Relationships of Religion, Politics and Economy
Since the history of mankind is the history of recreation, the words of God are
naturally of utmost importance as well as the development of the spirit such as heart,
personality and individuality, which are raised by words of God. However, it is not
reasonable to say that the problem of bread, i.e. the problem of economy, can be
ignored.
Man is the union of Sung Sang and Hyung Sang; therefore the problems of the spirit
are never independent of the physical or material problems. A state, which is an
assembly of human beings, is just the same. The spiritual source of a state is
religion, but at the same time the economy can not be ignored as the source of state
power.
Looking at history, we can see that politics is what combines and harmonizes these
two important factors, neither of which can be ignored, i.e. religion-the life of the Sung
Sang of man, and economy-the life of the Hyung Sang of man. In the Unification view
of history, we understand history from the three perspectives of religion, politics and
economy.
(ii) The Developmental Steps of Economy
How can we understand history from the perspective of economy?
Economical developments are also explained in relation to the providence of God.
(1) Slavery Society
This society is the economic aspect of the clan society, which was the first form of
society to be separated out for God's side. Economy can not be of importance in this
stage, because at that time, the situation was entirely occupied by the power
standing in opposition to God. The clans on God's side were slaves during the
Egyptian period, and in the period of the New Testament age, they were also very
poor people who were persecuted terribly by the Romans.
This was the economic situation of the slave society, the primitive age when God's
side had no power in this world and people were ignorant of the words of God and
did not know the real value of man.
(2) The Economic Aspect of Feudalism
However, as time passed, the people on God's side escaped from the domination of
the Egyptians and Romans and became independent. Land was distributed as the
basis of the economy. Accordingly, they came to have land (the manors) under the
lords and parish priests, and they made it their base of living. This is the economic
society of feudalism.
After this period the mutual relationships of economy, religion and politics were rather
complicated, so this point should be clarified before explaining the next step of
economic development.
(iii) The Inequality of the Development of Religion, Politics and Economy in the
Period of the New Testament
In the period of the Old Testament, the economy depended entirely on the land due
to the fact that industry had not yet developed. Therefore the field of economy had
never stood out independently from politics. In relation to the economy, the
monarchical society of the Old Testament days was only an enlarged feudal society
with the monarchs replacing the position of the feudal lords which had been
previously occupied by the judges. In the period during the Babylonian Exile and also
in the period after Malachi when Israel was under the dominion of other countries, the
people on God's side were again living in a slave economic society.
On the other hand, the relation between the monarchical society and the economy in
the age of the New Testament is fairly complicated.
(iv) The Development Stages of the Economy in the New Testament Age
(1) Co-existence of the Christian Monarchical Society, the Feudal Society and the
Feudal Economic System (Manor System)
With the establishment of the Empire of the Franks by Charlemagne (the restoration
of the West Roman Empire), Western Europe entered a monarchical social system in
the religious field. This also happened with the establishment of papal power.
However, in the political field the Emperor could not establish the absolute power and
after his death his state was soon divided into three parts (or two, roughly speaking).
The feudal social system could not be dissolved and the manor system also
remained unchanged. Accordingly, from the coronation of Charlemagne (800) to the
religious Reformation of Luther (1517), monarchical society in the religious field and
feudal society in the political or economic field co-existed. In other words, the social
development was disproportionate.
(2) Co-existence of the Religious Democratic Society, the Political Monarchical
Society, and the Economic System of Capitalism
With the corruption of Catholicism, a religious monarchy, the way to God was
obstructed. Thus the religious Reformation was started by Luther and Calvin, and
Protestantism, which is religious democracy, became the main stream of history.
However in the political field, the religious Reformation stimulated national
consciousness and as a result, the kings of the nationalistic states destroyed the
feudal system and established absolute monarchies. They cooperated with the
owners of industries who had become economically rich and powerful because of the
development of the productive forces. In other words, the change in the political field
came one step later than the change in the religious field. It should be noted that the
initial stage of capitalism, in which the new bourgeois personally increased their
private possession of capital, is the phenomenon which corresponds with the feudal
age in which the lords similarly increased their private possession of land. In other
words, the capitalism of the initial stages, can be called a "feudalism of capital.
(3) Co-existence of Political Democracy and Economic Monarchy (Imperialism)
Following the period explained above, the monarchs became so rigid that freedom of
belief and the development of the economy were disturbed. Thus democratic
revolutions (bourgeoisie revolutions) took place here and there. Accordingly, the
monarchical system changed to the democratic system in the political field. However
in the economic field, monopolies developed so remarkably that the capitalistic
economy changed rapidly to become an imperialistic, that is, monarchy-like system of
economy. This follows the law of historic development that a monarchical society
always comes after a feudal society. Since early capitalism was "a feudalism of
capital", the "monarchy of capital", or imperialism, which was the monopolistic stage
of capital, came as the next stage.
(4) From Economic Monarchy (Imperialism) to Economic Democracy (Socialism)
However, imperialism collapsed because of the World Wars and the world economy
began to move toward economic democracy, that is, the socialistic system. Thus not
only communistic socialism but also democratic socialism, Catholic socialism,
Protestant socialism, neo-capitalism, nationalistic capitalism and the welfare-state,
came to occupy the mainstream of economy as well as economic thought. These
phenomena also show that history followed the order of social development, that is, it
went from feudal society to monarchical society to democratic society.
In other words, socialism, which is a "democracy of capital" came after imperialism
which was a "monarchy of capital." (We should note however, that here socialism
refers to an economic democracy which is completely incompatible with communism
which is a dictatorship.)
Since the foundation to accept the Messiah at the time of Charlemagne failed to be
established, it became impossible to integrate society. It is interesting that the change
in the religious society was followed by the change in the political society one step
later, and the change in the political society was followed by that in the economic
society one step later too, and each change in society was similar to the other
changes in the characteristics of each stage. (See Figure 20, "Historical Changes in
the Christian Cultural Sphere") The first reason for this is that in the days of the New
Testament, unlike those of the Old Testament, the scope of the Central Providence
had been enlarged to the whole of western Europe so that it was difficult for the
providential central person to control the whole area. (This was the co-existence of
the religious monarchical society and the political and economic feudal society.) The
second reason is that although there is no nationalism in religion, politics and
economy have been greatly influenced by national consciousness. (This is the co-
existence of religious democracy and political monarchism.) The third reason is that
the great development of the productive forces made capital (money and machines)
more important than land. (This is the co-existence of political democracy and
economic imperialism.)
Standing on the mutual relations of religion, politics and economy mentioned above,
let us explain the latter half of the stages of economic development.
Capitalistic Society ("Feudalism of Capital")
This is the economic basis for the period of political transition from the feudal society
to the monarchical society. The reason this kind of economic system developed is
that, as mentioned above, the main property of individuals changed from land to
capital due to the development of the productive forces and the private possession of
capital. In other words, this feudalism of capital developed due to the development of
individualism. The feudalism based on land ownership changed to a feudalism based
on capital ownership.
 Fig. 20 Historical Changes in the Christian Cultural Sphere
Imperialistic Society ("Monarchy of Capital")
This is a further developed stage of the above-mentioned capitalistic economy; as the
private possession of land was monopolized and unified by the monarchs, so the
private possession of capital was monopolized by a few financial capitalists to bring
about the stage of monarchy of capital. At this stage, struggles for colonies took
place among the imperialistic powers. It should be noted here that Western European
society is composed of the countries of the Central Providence, which have the great
mission of the propagation of Christianity. Thus when we view economy, it should not
be separated from the developments in politics and religion. The political and
economic struggles for the colonies were evil in the sense that they brought about
monopolies of capital and the undeveloped countries were victims of aggression and
exploitation. However at the same time, it is also possible to think that through these
struggles, God has propagated Christianity all over the world and unified a large area
of the world into the Christian cultural sphere. In this way, the struggles for the
colonies have providential significance.
Socialism ("Democracy of Capital")
However, since contributing to the propagation of Christianity, imperialism has not
contributed to the Providence at all. Furthermore, because it continued to exploit the
people and smaller nations, God finally destroyed this economic system
(imperialism). We think that the appearance of various social systems and the
emancipation of colonies after World War II are expressions of God's will.
What kind of economic society will appear after the present socialistic society
(including Keyne's revised capitalism)? Is it the communistic society that communists
assert? Absolutely not. Soviet communism, which is the most developed one today,
shows on the one hand many evils and is gradually retreating from economic
liberalism, and on the other hand it adopts a political dictatorship. Then what will the
future economic society be like? At least one point is sure. The future society will be
a society brought about by God's Providence, a society of good and a society which
is harmonized politically and economically based on peaceful order and equality.
Such a society is the "Heavenly Familial Society", which is also the society of co-life,
co-prosperity and co-justice. In other words, it is the familial society expanded to a
world-wide scale. As to the concrete details of this society, we plan to write
supplementary volumes on its political and economic aspects after further studies
have been completed,
Section G - History and Culture
History is the history of culture. Man must first construct a culture in order to form a
society. Accordingly, to live a social life means to construct a culture. The process of
the change of this culture is history. So finally, let us discuss the relationship between
history and culture.
1. The Central Providence And Peripheral Providence In Cultural History
(i) The Central Providence of Cultural History
All the creation is governed by the law of dominion of the center and the law of
creation from one. Therefore, cultural history is also divided into central and
peripheral cultural histories.
Viewed from the Principle of Restoration, the center of history is the cultural history of
the Israeli people.
The Israeli cultural history, which starts from Abraham, is the so-called Hebrew
culture or Hebraism. This culture moved to Rome to become Christian culture.
Geographically, the Christian culture is the culture of Western Europe which as a
result, we believe to be the center of world cultural history.
(ii) Peripheral Providence
On the other hand, the Oriental and Islamic cultures are regarded as peripheral
providence. Therefore, the changes of history in those areas are not as regular as
those in the Judeo-Christian cultural area.
However, although they are peripheral, the Oriental and Islamic cultures are the
same as the Judeo-Christian culture in the fact that history is the history of re-
creation by the Word. Hence, various sages, wise men and righteous persons have
appeared to show the way to the people.
In the peripheral providence also, the laws of creation are working just as in the
Central Providence in the West. Also, though not as strictly as in the Central
Providence, the law of indemnity and the law of separation can be seen to be in
operation. Since culture centers around the Word (thought and religion), we can say
that cultural history corresponds with religious history (history of thought)
2. Sung Sang Culture And Hyung Sang Culture
Like any other phenomena, history has two sides: Sung Sang and Hyung Sang.
Originally the two aspects should have been unified, but by the fall of man, the two
were controlled by different subjects (different peoples or states) which often were
opposed to each other.
(i) Hebraism and Hellenism
In the Central Providence, the Hebrew culture (Hebraism) is the Sung Sang culture
and Greek culture (Hellenism) is the Hyung Sang culture.
Why so? Because Greek mythology is based on polytheism which does not admit the
one and only God and as such is almost the same as atheism. Moreover, the Hyung
Sang aspects of culture such as science, art and mathematics concerning natural
circumstances were developed greatly in Hellenism. On the other hand, these were
not as developed in Israel, but the Israeli people have the Sung Sang culture
centering on the religion of and literature about the sole creator, God.
Originally these two cultures should have been complementary to each other, and
eventually a complete culture will finally be developed through the G-T action of the
two. Even though on the one hand, these two cultures have interacted and depended
on each other, on the other hand, because of the fall, they have struggled with each
other until today.
Christian culture based on the Hebrew culture moved to Rome, where it interacted
and unified with Greek culture to become Roman culture.
In the Middle Ages, the culture stemming from Israel became powerful in western
Europe and formed Christian culture, while the traditional culture of Greece, which
lost favor in Western Europe, was propagated in the Islamic world and greatly
influenced the life there.
In modern times, the Renaissance emerged out of the culture stemming from
Hellenism and the Reformation came out of the culture stemming from Hebraism.
Today, the tradition of Greek culture (Hellenism) has led to the communistic culture
via the Enlightenment, while the Hebraic culture has flowered into the Christian
culture. At present, these two cultures are opposed to each other.
(ii) The Sources of the Two Cultures
As stated above, if we seek for the source of western culture, which is the Central
Providence, we will reach the two cultures of Hebraism and Hellenism. Why then
were these cultures born, and why do they still oppose each other without
harmonization?
In order to clarify this, let us go back further to the origins of these two cultures.
Before Greek civilization, there was Aegean civilization and before this, the Egyptian
and Syrian civilizations. Between these two, the Egyptian civilization had greater
influence on the Aegean and Greek civilizations. When we investigate who was
leading the civilization of Egypt, we find that it was the Hamitic people who had
created it.
On the other hand, before the Hebrew civilization there was the Syrian civilization in
which Abraham lived. Pushing further back chronologically, before the Syrian
civilization there was the Accadian civilization, and before that, the civilization of
Babylonia which was preceded by that of Sumer. It is not too clear where the Sumer
people came from but it seems however, that the Semitic people contributed to their
development.
If so, it becomes clear that it was the Hamitic and Semitic peoples respectively that
were closely connected with the creation and advancement of these two civilizations.
According to the Bible, both the Hamitic and Semitic peoples are descendants of
Noah, namely of Ham and Shem, who were the sons of Noah.
Thus in our search we have unexpectedly entered the world of Genesis in the Old
Testament. The Unification view of history based on the Unification Principle starts its
work by clarifying the historic laws hidden in the Old Testament. The key for clarifying
the problem of opposing cultures lies in the theory of the fall of man, but there is not
time now for introducing this theory philosophically. In later publications however, the
studies for which will soon be completed, we shall explain this question in detail. Here
we only suggest the whereabouts of the source of the problem.
(iii) The Termination of History is a Unified Culture
To conclude then, history is divided into Sung Sang and Hyung Sang cultures. These
two cultures are generally opposed to each other though there is some interaction or
interchange between the two. How can we reson the opposition? For this purpose,
religion and science must be unified to become a unified culture by the combination
of both truths, namely religious truth and scientific truth (see Divine Principle). The
Unification Principle and Unification Thought have been established to solve this
problem. Since human culture is based on thought, it will be possible to form a unified
culture, in which both the Sung Sang and Hyung Sang are combined, only when a
unification of thought is established.
History has now advanced to the point where it is possible to realize this unified
culture. We now face a wonderful new cultural age which is beyond our imagination.
We firmly believe that the two opposing trends which have not been able to
cooperate with each other for several thousand years will be united with each other in
the new age and form the reality of this culture. Furthermore, not only the cultures
stemming from Greece and Israel, but also the Oriental and Occidental cultures will
surely be united. There will, without fail, in the not too distant future appear a
movement which will unify those cultures, namely the movement of the "New
Renaissance" or "Unification Renaissance."