|
Complementary Reflection, African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
Introduction
Power disparity, and the attendant misuse of
power for personal interests are some of the major causes of the global paradox where those values which are the pride of
modernity, like freedom and human rights, are some of the very values that the
modern mind finds difficult to adhere to. Addressing issues accruing from the
paradoxes and inconsistencies associated with a tension-laden situation of this
nature constitutes
one of the central themes of the new complementary challenges of philosophy.
(Asouzu, The Method 44-51). Abuse of power almost always evokes fear of
domination and oppression. We can then understand the call today, in many
quarters, for alternatives to a universal form of totalitarian rationality in
matter concerning the validation of our claims in conflict situations. This is
the case with proponents of philosophy of culture who pursue a
domination-neutral interaction rooted in the acknowledgment of differences and
diversities among interlocutors of heterogeneous cultural backgrounds. Like many,
Kimmerle considers dialogue the very form of such a philosophy, which he
understandably sets against mere restrictive comparative analysis of cultural
heritages. (Kimmerle 97-117). Likewise,
the general science of culture, as worked out by Oswald Schwemmer and
erected on the logical propedeutic of Wilhelm Kamlah/Paul Lorenzen, foresees
the constructive method of rational arguments as a way of confronting such
excesses resulting from power inequalities. Within the framework of African
philosophy, Ekennia, speaks of practical rationality ((Ekennia, 215). In all, one of the greatest difficulties
facing theories that seeks to mediate
in situations of power imbalance remains that of outlining adequate validating
conditions for our claims and assertions. Complementary reflection does not
consider this an issue that has to do solely with the material and formal
logical character of arguments, claims and assertions. It sees matters of truth
and validation as one that has an inherently dispositional dimension that
cannot be ignored. Hence, for complementary reflection the issue centres more
on how human reason can be led to abide insightfully by its own laws
such that lawmakers can also be law
keepers and speak credibly over those rules, values and norms they think that
they have understood well but which they insist on subverting, often against
their own interests. It is an issue that revolves around the general
enlightenment of human reason concerning its interests which it can subvert in
apparent insight and willingly, yet ignorantly too. Issues relating to a
paradox of this nature constitute the central problematic of the challenges of
human ambivalent situation. It is therefore an inquiry into the structure of
human consciousness as to determine the reasons for the subject-object divide
such that the subject seeks its autonomy outside the foundation of its unity.
One must admit that a form of propedeutic is essential towards addressing this
issue but one that goes beyond claims about good and exact knowledge of facts
or claims about mastering the rules of rational arguments with the
inherent dangers of misuse of argument itself. As a broadly dispositional
issue, I wish to handle this delicate and intricate matter within the context
of a complementary type of reflection which explores the comprehensive
dimension of truth and validation. Validation and with it all manners of
ratiocination are complementary comprehensive acts that remain incomplete when
disengaged from the activity of a comprehensive totalising mind. Exploring such
acts from the point of view of the mind is the noetic complementary
comprehensive alternative. This approach may entail a revision of some of
the basic assumptions underlying our understanding of the nature of proof and
assertions. Certainly, any approach founded on the unimpeded trappings of a
one-dimensional absolute ideal reason would hardly suffice for this challenge.
Such methods lack credibility because they share traces of some of the main
difficulties inherent in the problem itself. These are the problems associated
with the misuse of power in asymmetrical situations that is characteristic of
all form of one-dimensional application of an ideal absolute and hegemonic type
of ratiocination.
This one-dimensional mindset is at the root
of most ethnophilosophic methods of philosophical investigation that continue
calling for diversities and differences in a way that ignores the inherent
totalising character of the mind. It does this also without due regard for the
yearnings of science for unity and comprehensiveness. One has to admit that
such approaches have the capacity to expose people to alternative ways of
viewing reality. However, their proponents pretend that the focus of
philosophical investigation should be the general worldview of a people with
the attendant documentation of such and sustained by formal dialogue between
diverse segments of human enclaves. Here, they forget that such worldviews are
thoughts of individuals or groups of individuals, within their given locations,
which have congealed to such collective contents. These congealed contents
again revert to the very foundation from which the ideas of their originators
are moulded and remoulded to new forms of insight (Asouzu, The Method 120-129). In other words, we are dealing here
with a typical instance of mutual complementary dependence between idea and its
referent and with a situation of the mind seeking universal, whole, and
comprehensive determination even in given locations. Understanding these
worldviews entails a complementary comprehensive consideration of their
ambience as the sum total of all the actors and factors that enter into their
excogitation. In a globalising world, the essential structure and form of these
factors and actors are, at times, so complex and endless that they can render a
pure ethnocentric orientation meaningless. It hardly also occurs to the
proponents of such exclusive approaches that they indirectly affirm fully
what they are inclined to gloss over, that is the inherent tendency of the mind
to seek harmony and unity and the universal, whole, comprehensive,
complementary and future referential structure of inquiry. Bearing this in
mind, one can say that such exclusive, restrictive, polarising methods would
ever remain curious because they have an intrinsic moment of self-negation and
self-delimitation and have all the potentials of unwarranted arbitrary
incursion into the dynamic structure of the mind reminiscent of the excesses of
a hegemonic totalitarian form of ratiocination. It is therefore not a question
if adherence to a universal, complementary, unified, whole, comprehensive and
future referential form of consciousness is desirable, but how to harness this
innate dynamic structure of human consciousness for the benefit of all
stakeholders.
What has been
said applies not only to Ethnophilosophy proper, but to similar thought systems
like some variants of Eurocentricism and Afrocentricism, and of recent, some
brands of Islamic fundamentalism that seek to erect blocks and fan the amber of
division among peoples. Therefore, the new complementary task of philosophy
today is and remains, to explore means towards overcoming all types of despotic
ideal reason and ideological fundamentalism both at the private, local and
international levels masquerading as localised rationality.
Contrary to the pretensions of
ethnophilosophic inspired methods of investigation that the essence of
philosophy lies solely on documentation of differences, all philosophies
resemble themselves in the point where the philosopher is a bridge
between reality, in its most sublime
form, and humanity, as this becomes evident even in given localities. This is why the philosopher,
strictly considered, is definitely different from say, an anthropologist, a
politician, a theologian, a sociologist, a physicist, a psychiatrist, a
logician, a mathematician etc. (Asouzu, The Method 46). He can be all these and
still remain a philosopher in his commitment to the demands of truth and authenticity criterion as pursued
by complementary reflection (Asouzu, The Method 318). Hence, in all serious
scientific undertakings there is always the need for clarity and credibility
and this is why science will always insist on a unity of subject matter and
here philosophy is not an exception. In the absence of a unified subject
matter, and in the absence of credible criteria for the validation of our
claims and assertions, it becomes difficult, even today, for philosophers to
speak with one mind, as scientists, in a way that transcends
geographical and ideological boundaries. Thus complementary reflection explores
the conditions for the validation of our claims and assertions which it
understands as being fundamentally noetic in the sense of the acquisition of a
complementary, unified, emancipated and transcendent mindset. This is
the dispositional precondition for ratiocination as it enables the philosopher
to attain the full consciousness of himself or herself as a typical instance of
being seeking full and comprehensive actualisation in history irrespective of
local constraints. At this point, philosophy is there to overcome all forms of
paradoxes occasioned by the inability of human reason to address positively the
ambivalence of its existential situations and thereby negate its own laws.
The task is therefore that of evolving the
conditions under which philosophers and peoples of diverse cultural
backgrounds can speak about the daunting problems of our age with one mind while upholding their individual identities.
This is an enormous undertaking that
centres on exploring those means most fitting for the harmonisation of
differences within the framework of the whole as this is the focal point of the
theory of complementary reflection. The substance of the theory rests on the
insight of anonymous traditional African philosophers of the complementary
system of thought (Asouzu, The Method 143). It suffices now to outline some of
their ideas to prepare the ground for understanding the theory itself.
Contrary
to the insinuations that there is a unified African worldview, complementary
reflection avers that traditional African societies are characterised by the
dominance of diversities of thought systems of which the complementary trend is
one of the most pronounced. Thus the idea that the universe is constituted of
units of mutual complementary interacting forces within the framework of the
whole and in a future referential dimension constitutes one of the central
insights of traditional Igbo (a Nigerian ethnic nationality) philosophers
of the complementary system of thought. The same
can be
said of many traditional African philosophers. These
philosophers maintain that the universe, in general, is constituted of units of
dynamic mutual interacting forces at all levels of determination. These units
relate to themselves in an infinite complementary harmonious mode. This is the
case with human experience and action in general and with regard to numerous issues of
general philosophical interest as can be articulated in such equivalent
concepts as: human personality, causality, freedom, necessity, truth, good and
evil, space and time, ethics and morality, religion and meaning, the idea of
living dead, reincarnation etc. The same is evident in their
approach to rites, symbols, myths and sacrifices and in their use of wise
sayings and indeed with regard to all areas of practical, theoretical and
speculative activities of these thinkers (Asouzu, The Method 111-129; 155-208).
Thus for Kaboha, “a
common characteristic of traditional African societies is that they did not
separate consciously the various aspects of life and social behaviour into
discrete compartments or treat them as possible areas of study or
contemplation. All areas of life were seen and treated as part of an integrated whole which also include all
nature. … In a traditional African mind this does not lead to confusion, but shows how the African
derives his ideas and way of life from the integration that he sees in the
diversity of nature around him.” (69-70).
For Kamalu,
Ancient Egyptian philosophers, as traditional African philosophers, make recourse to the
principle of reciprocity as a paradigm of philosophical speculation. According
to him, reality for these philosophers “is ordered in accordance with a
principle of how opposites co-exist and interact” (24), such that “the organization of
society and the cosmos are founded on the same principle. …In other words, the
moral agent always gets what he or she deserves; every deed, good and bad,
returns to the doer.” (7)
Writing about the
Igbos of Nigeria Nwala avers: “the Igbo world-view
implies two basic beliefs (1) the unity of all things and (2) an
ordered relationship among all beings in the
universe. Consequently, there is belief in the existence of order and interaction among all beings. … the gods and men live a symbiotic
life, one of mutual and
reciprocal relationship. Men fed the gods and the gods provide health,
fertility of soil and reproduction” (Nwala 54, 57).
The idea of
complementarity can be considered as the permeating unifying foundation or
principle of those concepts that have to do with communal living among Igbo
philosophers of the complementary system of thought and many traditional
African thinkers. Here, the inclination of this philosopher to view human
relationship in terms of solidarity, togetherness, and community-centeredness
stems from his general and fundamental feeling of insufficiency, experience of relativity and fragmentation of all
historical processes as aspects of his complementary conceptualisation of
reality. For these Igbo philosophers, the idea ibu ayi danda or
complementarity as a mode of conceptualisation of reality is more of a
concretely lived experience. It is thus a concretely sung and
breathed experience that is deeply characterised by a dynamic reciprocal
relationship which ranges beyond pure contemplation of essences. I call a
special type of experience that unifies these Igbo
philosophers to the world the experience
of transcendent complementary unity of consciousness. In this case, the faculty I call a
complementary totalising mind ((obi/mmuọ imaihe na eziokwu or
obi/mmuọ eziokwu) is the very seat
of this experience. It is the deepest experience of being as it actualises itself as missing links
in history. Besides, it is the deepest form of communal experience as shared
experience deriving from the evident insight that anything that exists serves a missing link of reality.
For these African
philosophers therefore, reality can only be articulated and understood, and
systematically too, if and only if it is viewed as complementarity of parts
within the framework of the whole in a future referential manner.
Besides, for them, the subject-object tension can be taken care of, and the
autonomy of the subject upheld, in the most natural way only
complementarily since reality in its deepest and most sublime constitution
evinces itself as a mutual dynamic complementation of parts. This infinite
mutual relationship takes the most concrete form in the relationship of human
beings to the world and most especially in interpersonal relationship were they
conceptualise the human person as a being that radiates concretely attributes
of the divine. This attribute becomes most evident in the act of mutual complementary services. Here, these
traditional Igbo philosophers state: mmadu bu chi ibeya (human beings are gods to other human
beings). Commenting on this view, Uchendu maintains: “human interdependence is a constant theme in the folklore of the
Igbo. It is the greatest of all values for them” (14).
Within this
ambience therefore, there is a striking form
of complementary relationship that has a thoroughgoing ontological
character. Here, complementarity is understood in the sense of dynamic complementation of services of all
units in mutual dependency. This is why, for example, human beings serve the
gods in the hope of their returning the same services, as Nwala noted. This
mutual dependence is deeply understood in the type of the existential
experience captured in the statements: aka nni kwọọ aka
ekpe aka ekpe akwọọ aka nni (the left hand washes the
right hand while the right hand washes the left) and njiko ka (human
interdependence or togetherness is the greatest of all values as Uchendu
noted). In its deepest ontological ramifications this means that all forms
of human action and cognition have
complementary consequences such that the meaning we attach to human actions
goes far beyond their immediate expression as to touch on wider networks of
relations.
One can therefore
say that, within the context of this philosophy, the idea of harmonious complementarity of
units within the framework of the whole belongs to the foundation of unity of
being and consciousness as a precondition for the validation of our claims and
assertions. It suffices now to
explicate the nature of complementary relationship within the confines of this
philosophy as to make it the foundation of complementary reflection as a
general theory.
Complementary determination,
- its structure and form
Proceeding
from its traditional African ambience, complementary reflection seeks to
explore the concept complementary as something that belongs to the
universal structure of being in history and to the basic constitution of human
consciousness itself. Here, it views all modes of finite beings and existence
as exhibiting one form of complementary relationship or the other even if these
are not immediately evident and even if indications appear to be pointing to
the contrary. This is the case with
such states that we designate as hybrid, eclectic, symbiotic, syncretistic,
static, and parallel. These instances upon closer examination reveal inherent
moments of complementarity as instances of being seeking unity in
differentiation. This structural constitution is characteristic of universal
human experience of reality, as relative subjects, everywhere and every time.
It is along this line that the mind always seeks to capture realities in
complementary contraries. This is the case with our experience of the world in
such categories as day and night, male and female, being and non-being, truth
and falsehood, good and evil, up and down etc.
This striving towards mutual complementation and reciprocity is deeply
entrenched in human fundamental feeling of insufficiency and dependency. This
feeling accompanies our perception of history and determines our actions,
interactions and interpretation of reality. In our own time, this mode of
complementary determination has not lost its attractions as can be attested to
in diverse areas of our cognitive experience of the world in society, commerce,
science and technology. Philosophy with a special accent on culture is an
evident attempt at capturing the close complementary relationship between the
diverse peoples of the world. The same thing can be said in the area of
religion, where the idea of a “Theology of religions” explores the mutual
complementary relationship among heterogeneous religious experiences (Asouzu,
Gedanken über die religiose Problematik). Furthermore, we speak today, in the
area of applied science and technology, of hybrid and complementary technology
and products. It is the same feeling of mutual dependence that carries the idea
of complementary, alternative or integrative medicine and therapy (Snyder, Mariah). Most especially the use of the term in the area of medicine gives us
an idea of how the term complementary can be misunderstood. Here complementary
medicine is often contrasted with school, classical or conventional
medicine. In this case, the idea complementary is often used in a
pejorative sense as to denote an exotic type of medicine which can be practiced
and tolerated along side orthodox medicine. In this way, the idea complementary
often also evokes the feeling concerning something that is fake, inauthentic,
strange and alien. Again the term complementary is used in the sense of
appendage or uneven relationship. This is the case, for example, when we talk
of complementary businesses in reference to an already well established one. In
other instances, complementary relationship is associated with a form of
levelling up mentality without due regard for differences or even of
inequalities. Due to biases of this nature, the idea complementary has,
at times, come to be associated generally with a state of uneven relationship
where one thing must be tolerated in relationship to the other. In this case,
one of the units in a complementary relationship can be likened to a state
where being has lost its essentiality or those characteristics that make it
what it is.
From
the standpoint of traditional African complementary ontology, I seek in
complementary reflection to regain the idea complementary insofar as it
belongs to the fundamental structure of being to find full expression in
history in the form of mutual interaction of units within the framework of the whole. It is in this form that being can
be conceptualised in its most dynamic constitution as that which enters into
the definition of all things and gives them their substance and determination.
When now I say that things are complementary to each other, it is not a matter
of a one sided complementation of two unequal units or a form of levelling up
without due regard for differences and inequalities of units. In complementary
reflection, the units uphold their individualities, differences and
independence in all areas of their existence and determination and not only
with regard to their essences but also with regard to their action. This
notwithstanding, they are necessarily and mutually related to themselves. They
can therefore be fully grasped and assessed in their differentiation and
diversity but within the framework of the whole in a nonexclusive but future
referential manner.
At the level of action, actors that find themselves in a complementary
relationship while upholding their
individualities and freedom, do nevertheless have mutual responsibilities and
rights that bind them even as autonomous and free ethical and moral actors and
subjects. This is why within this framework, all forms of human achievement are
thinkable, can be upheld and improved upon only indirectly, that is, in mutual
complementary relationship. In other words, actors are bound by series of
mutual complementary rights and obligations at all level of action, existence
and determination. In this way, complementary reflection seeks to supersede all
forms of levelling-up mentality and to affirm a philosophy of right and
obligation which emphasises mutual rights and obligations binding all finite
beings and modes of existence in a complementary harmonious form. With regard
to human beings, these rights and
obligations take a special form as the extended natural rights and
obligations in mutual service of each subject. These extended natural
rights and obligations ensue from the fact that each individual, as an
autonomous subject, always leaves behind peculiar and indelible impressions with his or her actions such that these
entitle actors to mutual rights and obligations (Asouzu, The Method 484-490). It is for this reason that mutual indebtedness and
interdependence in complementarity, in the sense of mutual service,
forms a fundamental axiom of
human interaction and in this sense makes such issues as who takes the credit
in a production line, for example, more manageable.
In all forms of complementary relationship, we are dealing with the
recognition and affirmation of unity in diversity as the essential moment of
all forms of relations insofar this belongs to the fundamental structure of
being in its complementary constitution and insofar insufficiency belongs
necessarily to the structure of being in its complementary essentiality. What
this means is that all finite beings are bound to each other complementarily in
a relationship of mutual service and dependence of units within the framework
of the totality of reality.
As a being
among others, the fundamental insufficiency in human essence is not a disadvantage.
On the contrary, it is a necessary condition for the attainment of full human
autonomy in history. In all situations of life, the question would ever remain
how to turn this apparent disadvantage to an advantage. In other words,
complementary reflection considers the positive affirmation and acceptance of
fundamental insufficiency and limitations characteristic of our being as a
necessary condition for harnessing the variety and multidimensionality
entrenched in nature. This again is an inescapable route to full actualisation
of human potentialities.
This insight does nothing other than to restate in other words the very
structure of human experience of the world itself. As historical individuals,
this is the structure of our being and experience of the world and not to
explore and exploit it to the full would amount to under-developing our being.
Thus, complementary reflection is nothing other than the exploration of human
nature, as it is, with a view to harnessing those conditions of human self-actualisation
that are best attuned to human search for meaningful existence and in view of
confronting all forms of tension-laden ambivalent situations that are
responsible for the subject-object divide. Generally, though, complementary
reflection seeks to capture the essence of
the complementary structure of all forms of finite existence and give a
rational justification why this is constitutive for all forms of relationship
in nature. This is mostly the case with regard to human interpersonal relationship
and in human relationship to the world in general. All finite beings regain
their true nature only when considered as complementary units within the
framework of the whole and here, they accomplish this only through the
affirmation of the fact that they are missing links of reality. For this
reason, the intrinsic constitution of
finite being lies in the fact of their complementary essentiality, that
is to say, in their potentiality as units to stay in relationship to other
beings. What this means is that anything that exists does so in view of a
complementary relationship and obtains its legitimacy and determination through
this relation in a future, whole and comprehensive manner.
We can now
understand why within the framework of the theory of complementary reflection I
assign a very preponderant place to the fact of mutual complementary dependency
of all finite modes of existence as is captured by the insight that anything
that exists serves a missing link of reality. However, due to unevenness of
opportunities, achievements and power distribution, the apodictic character of
complementary relationship can be put to serious doubt. Replying to such
doubts, one can say that the answer to the question how is it that the
different modes of existence serve and are dependent on each other necessary in
a mutual complementary harmonious way, is already contained in the question
itself since the structure of the
question has an intrinsic moment of external reference, which in itself is a
sign of complementarity. In other words, such a question proceeds from clear
intuition into the very structure of missing links as beings that can be
conceptualised only in complementary relationship. What this means is that
whoever attempts to pose a question of this nature or to raise a doubt about
its necessity, as a missing link himself within the framework of a whole, is
automatically committed to complementarity by reason of the relational and
anticipatory character of the answers he or she expects. In such mental
activities as questioning, denying, doubting, negating, affirming etc. human
reason is doing nothing other than seeking relationship to something outside of
itself. Thereby it reveals that it is committed to something on which it is dependent. This relationship
towards the external that becomes evident in all forms of questions, denials
and affirmation has an inherent moment of complementarity. For this reason, the
complementary structure of all missing links of reality ensues from the very
nature of all finite beings that in their limitation and insufficiency are
intimately related to each other.
What this shows is that anyone who has no access to this fundamental
insight or who denies it would also not have any insight into the ontological
character of the complementary mutuality of all missing links of reality. But
there is hardly anyone, even under the most sever form of false pretences, who
does not have such an insight that is very clear and evident to the mind. Where
one insists on doubting this fact, this person would immediately find himself
or herself in the way of self-contradiction because he cannot consummate his
reflection except in relations and in this case with reference to one form of
missing link of reality or the other. On this platform, we can state that the
variants of the principle of complementary reflection enjoy the same status as
the first principles in so far as they are very clear and evident to the mind.
It is for this reason that their negation carries with it the full weight of
self-negation. This consequence becomes obvious in the application of the
variants of the principle of complementary reflection in practical situations
of life where consequent self-interest is tantamount to anti-self-interest.
That is to say, all acts that are directed against the interest of others
invariably rebound on the actor. This is why this approach does nothing but to
widen our knowledge by exploring what should ordinarily be evident to the mind
since it eradicates all ambivalences that make pure knowledge of essence
impossible. This is the critical end of all philosophical quests, that is,
grasping of essences in their ultimate and most sublime constitution.
The inability of human reason to concede fully to the fact
of a fundamental complementary
constitution of reality can be considered as one of the greatest tragedies of
our experiences as human beings in history and this is also one of the main
reasons for many incidents of avoidable tension and paradoxes in society and in
human interpersonal relationship. Wherever and whenever this incapacity for
complementarity is present, human beings find themselves in artificial states of
parallel and even contradictory co-existence, which they paradoxically
prefer imagining that this is their destiny. This contradictory preference is
grounded on an illusion because all finite beings are destined to remain in
relationship of complementary reciprocity to attain full actualisation since to
be is the capacity of all finite beings to seek relation. Wherever complementarity
is negated, the entity concerned finds itself in an exclusive state of
self-imposed delimitation and en route to self-contradiction with all the
attendant consequences. In many situations of life, human beings find
themselves in this form of contradiction because they prefer to define their
interests outside of the legitimacy conferred by the totality, as is the case
with all unilateral hegemonic acts of segregation and exclusiveness that are at
the root of the global paradox. It is the same problem in all those cases where
each subject seeks its own circumscribed form of rationality disengaged from
the unity provided by a totalising comprehensive mind as is characteristic of
Ethno philosophic orientations. In this case, it becomes evident that the
limit my complementary capability is the limit of my world and vice versa.
The implications of this explication for the general theory of complementary
reflection should now be clearer and it remains to have it fully outlined.
One of the greatest difficulties that the
complementary system of thought faces in its traditional African ambience
is that of evolving credible criteria
for the harmonisation of differences within the framework of the whole. It is
the same issue as evolving a credible criterion for the validation of our
claims and assertions. This is a universal human problem that has lots of epistemological, logical and
ethical implications and how we address this issue can be decisive for our
general attitude to the world. This issue is central to the challenges of human
ambivalent situation whose actuality is fully reflected today in the excesses
of the global paradox. In complementary
reflection, I wish to address this issue through a general theory of being and
through outlining some of the key preconditions for the validation of our
claims and assertions. The principle of complementary reflection has two major
parts that address its metaphysical and practical dimensions. In this way, I speak of the
metaphysical and the practical variants of the principle of complementary
reflection.
I call the metaphysical variant the principle of integration and the practical variant the
principle of progressive transformation. Whereas the principle of
integration explicates the metaphysical implications of the theory, the
principle of progressive transformation takes care of the implications of the
theory for human action. This division is insofar important as the theory
concerns itself not only with the universal explanation and understanding of
reality but seeks to offer concrete guidelines towards the resolution of
conflicts in society. These are such conflicts that are occasioned through the
inability of human reason to come to terms with the ambivalence of human
existential situations. In such situations human reason seeks to violate its
own laws through negation of the principle of non-contradiction or the truth
and authenticity criterion. This
criterion disallows the elevation of relative world immanent realities or
experiences to absolute instances. Whenever this criterion is negated, human
reason finds itself in the way of contradiction and paradoxes. In this sense,
the truth and authenticity criterion, as an aspect of the principle of non-contradiction,
is what guarantees the unity of being and consciousness in all situations of
interaction and discourse.
The principle of integration as the metaphysical variant of the
principle of complementary reflection can be formulated thus: Anything that
exists serves a missing link of reality within the framework of the totality (
(Asouzu, Progress in Metaphysics 82-91). Similarly the practical variant of the
principle, as the principle of progressive transformation, states that all
forms of human action aim towards the joy of being. On its part, the
imperative of complementary reflection can be formulated thus. Allow the
limitations of being to be the cause of your joy. Here the concept being
refers strictly to finite beings in history.
It suffices now to elucidate, for a moment, some of the key concepts of
this theory. The first thing that is to be handled is the idea of missing
link of reality. Under missing links within the framework of the totality,
one refers to all conceivable modes of finite existence and relations insofar
these can be grasped spatio-temporally
and intuited as forming a complementary harmonious whole. Missing links within
the framework of the totality are therefore finite beings and their different
modes of expression in history insofar they are fragments that cannot be
conceptualised except in complementary relationship to each other. In a more
concrete way, one can say that missing links are finite beings in their diverse
modes of expression and the categories of such beings in complementary
relationship to each other. Hence, the mind can grasp and intuit as missing
links units and units of units, things and things of things, ideas and ideas of
ideas, thoughts and thoughts of thoughts. Similarly all spatio-temporal forms,
categories, relations, quantities and qualities are missing links.
As a philosophy that reflects the ideas of traditional African
philosophers of complementary direction, complementary reflection localises
missing links not necessarily in abstract modes of existence and essences but
more so also in those experiences that determine human existence concretely.
This is why missing links encompass a wide variety of modes of being as
concretely lived experiences. For our experiences today, such things fall under
the category of missing links: fate,
terrorism, disappointment, virtual realities, internet, trade, job, employment,
unemployment, Islam, religion, Christianity, ideas of God, racism,
discrimination, colonialisms, neo-colonialism, environmental degradation, multiculturalism,
skin heads, colour, sex, ethnicity, failure, success, poverty, affluence, first
world, third world, drugs, development, natural catastrophes, underdevelopment,
money, exploitation, multinational companies, war, peace, hatred, globalisation,
acceptance, rejection etc. They are missing links insofar they are fragments
that can be conceptualised only in relationship to other missing links to
attain full meaning and authenticity. Thus, missing links cover a wide range of
cognitive and non-cognitive relations insofar the mind can abstract their
fundamental complementary relatedness to other forms and modes of being and
existence. It is only in this form of complementary harmonious relationship, in
a future referential, whole and universal manner, that all modes of finite
beings, existence and action acquire the conditions necessary for their
explanation, understanding and ultimate determination. That is to say, even if
being communicates itself spatio-temporally in a fragmentary manner, as we experience
it in our diverse localities, reality can only be thematised and grasped
authentically in a complementary whole, unified, comprehensive and future
referential way. In this case, the mind grasps missing links but in view of the
whole and attains the whole only indirectly and in the experience of individual
subjects and objects that constitute missing links in a complementary harmonious relationship. The
implications of this is that no missing link can uphold its legitimacy solely
on its own. It can do this only with reference to the whole and in
complementary unity with other missing links whose legitimacy and determination
are necessarily dependent on the type of union that guarantees their being. The
consequences of this theory should now be clear for human interpersonal
relationship and action in society as a whole.
On its part, the imperative of complementary reflection, which demands
that we allow the limitations of being to be the cause of our joy, can be
explicated more precisely in this way: In all cases and in all existential
situations, we should allow the contingences and insufficiencies that determine
our being and existence to be the cause of our joy. Since finite being in its
expression in history can only be conceptualised, articulated and grasped as
missing links, which are obviously characterised by limitation and
insufficiency, the attainment of human happiness and contentment is necessarily
dependent on the ability of the mind to embrace missing links in their
limitation. This imperative therefore urges the mind to act in consciousness of
the fact that human happiness is dependent on recognition of limitations,
inadequacies, and multiplicity as necessary aspects of the actualisation of
being in history and most especially as this characterises our experiences as
dependent and vulnerable subjects. In other words, being in its most sublime
and authentic form becomes intuitively and evidently accessible to the subject
only as complementary missing links in differentiation, in diversity and multidimensionality.
This fact takes its most concrete form in encounter most especially as this is
the case by human beings in mutual services and in the experience of the world
around in its insufficiency and unpredictability.
Thus, the basic ideas of complementary reflection can be systematically
applied to all areas of human experience and knowledge both theoretically and
practically, in metaphysics, in ethics, in epistemology, logic, in politics, in
religion, in law etc as has been fully articulated in the work The Method
and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and beyond African Philosophy.
In all these areas, one is concerned with understanding being in its
essentiality as something fundamentally complementary in constitution. Such
understanding is the capacity of the mind to intuit missing links in
complementary harmonious relationship in view of the attainment of the joy
of being. Since all modes of finite beings and existence, in their
differentiation, variety and multidimensionality, are missing links of reality,
they are subject to authentication anytime and anywhere. The same is obtainable
with regard to claims and statements concerning being at all levels of
determination. Thus, all subjects need each other and are mutually dependent in
a future oriented way.
One of the greatest difficulties facing such
a theory is how to make it practicably insightful. To overcome this difficulty,
I wish now to probe the role which the mind plays in a complementary framework
as to determine the pre-dispositional preconditions for truth and validation of
our claims and assertions. It is the same thing as establishing the
pre-dispositional preconditions for harmony in differentiation. I have adopted
this approach cognisant of the heavy epistemological and logical burdens
associated with a one-dimensional recourse either to sense impression or pure
intellection as the foundation for legitimisation of our claims in ambivalent
existential situations. It is due to the central place of the mind in this
inquiry that I call it the complementary comprehensive noetic
approach as to distinguish it from
a one-dimensional form of ratiocination. In this sense, I have identified a
complementary totalising mind (obi/mmuọ imaihe na eziokwu or
obi/mmuọ eziokwu in Igbo language) as the unifying faculty
responsible for such important acts as reasoning and validation. On its part, a
one-dimensional absolute ideal reason (uche akolo in Igbo language) while
striving towards the same objective remains vulnerable to the trappings of
sense impression or pure intellection, if not guided by this form of totalising
mind in its capacity as the seat for the experience of transcendent complementary unity of consciousness.
Through this experience we capture being truly, insightfully and
authentically and can share or communicate the knowledge and experience of
missing links in their fragmentary relational essentiality devoid of
ambivalences. (Asouzu, The Method 411). In this case, we are dealing with the
inherent capacity of the mind for dynamic knowledge or experience of missing
links as true and pure essences. It is in this form that the mind is
capable of intuiting clearly the fact that all modes of finite existence are in
mutual complementary relationship as aspect of its innate natural instinct
for self-preservation. By reason of this capacity, the mind has all it
takes to address the subject-object tension and divide in full awareness of its
own inherent relativity and vulnerability. Thus this faculty always
calls to caution, in all situations of claims where an absolute ideal form of
hegemonic reason leads it towards exclusiveness and polarisation. Where the
complementary totalising mind is active, a negation of mutual complementary
structure of missing links is perceived as a form of self-negation. This
complementary totalising mind thus addresses the totality of the person and
draws its attention spontaneously to the limits of its possibilities as a
being, among others that are vulnerable and are in need of full authentication
(Asouzu, The Method 99).
A very crucial question now arises: How do we secure the reality of this
transcendent experience beyond all forms of arbitrariness. This again is like
asking for those means through which the complementary totalising mind (obi/mmuọ
imata eziokwu or obi/mmuọ eziokwu) performs its duties. Here,
complementary reflection aims at grasping the subject in its comprehensiveness
devoid of ambivalences and polarisation. In this case, we are thinking of the dispositional
ontological pre-condition for rational acts as this is represented by the
transcendent categories of unity of consciousness - unity, fragmentation, totality, universality, comprehensiveness, wholeness and future reference (Asouzu, The Method 298-303). On
account of the actuality of these categories the mind is capable of achieving
its complementary totalising function.
Although these categories belong naturally to the structure of the mind
and human consciousness, they can be rendered ineffective due to the challenge
of human ambivalence situations that is responsible for the subject-object
divide in all asymmetrical situations of life. In such situations, our best
intentions and efforts can be invalidated by a one-dimensional application of
reason in pure or absolute type of ratiocination. Hence, it is within the
context of a totalising comprehensive mind (obi/mmuọ eziokwu) operating under its natural
conditions that our claims can be validated. What pure hegemonic ideal reason
cannot accomplish, in situations of conflict, is possible through recourse to obi/mmuọ
eziokwu. This is the complementary comprehensive noetic alternative.
What this means is that whenever validation or ratiocination are consummated
without recourse to these complementary transcendent categories, human reason
is bound to remain blind and hegemonic even if it claims otherwise. This is why
it can violate its own laws and still imagine that it is doing the wisest
thing. In this case, a pure absolute reason can attain its objective only when
it is complemented by a totalising mind. In such situations, human reason
operates in full awareness of the applicability of the transcendent categories
of unity of consciousness as this is an aspect of the principle of
non-contradiction and the truth and authenticity criterion.
Due
to the challenges of human ambivalent situation, these transcendent categories
can be rendered ineffective. This is why they must be elevated to habitual
methodological principles in the process of existential conversion which
is the act of putting them into action concretely as lived complementary mutual
experience. Hence all forms of validation take the form of a continuous process of complementary
reawakening, complementary revitalisation, conscientisation or
re-habitualisation. (Asouzu, The Method 287; Effective
Leadership 38-42). In this process, the mind
experiences all missing links as being in history in the most sublime sense and
human beings in the sense of mmadu
bu chi ibeya
(human beings are gods to their fellow human beings). Through this process, the mind returns and remains true to its
transcendent nature such that any infringements on its own laws, by itself, is
immediately perceived as a contradiction and a transgression of the truth and
authenticity criterion. It learns to do this as the most natural thing to do
and not out of duty. Perceiving all missing links now in their fragmentation,
but in a comprehensive and whole reference to the ultimate foundation of all
forms of determination, the mind seeks balance in the tension between extreme
tendencies to absoluteness and relativity.
Actualising our actions imbued with a sense of these categories is the
same thing as acting human and heeding to demands of the principle and
imperative of complementary reflection
and acting for the joy of being. Hence, we cannot negate the applicability of
these categories in our actions and still communicate as human beings. One can
therefore say that these transcendent categories have a legitimising function
for all questions concerning the structure of logical discourse and for all
forms of methods that are interested in interpersonal or intercultural
encounters and dialogue. The reason for this is that they outline the minimum
condition that must be observed for the adequacy of such important acts. They
further outline the conditions under which laws, norm and values can be
validated and the condition for the harmony of differences. Complementary
reflection through recourse to these categories aims at overcoming one of the
major obstacles to dialog-based methods of validation of claims and resolution
of conflicts. By recourse to the complementary comprehensive noetic
alternative, subject aims at being itself through the habitualisation of those
categories belonging naturally to the mind such that in practical situations of
life, the mind remains itself by handling and admiring missing links complementarily
in their fragmentation, as necessary extension of itself. In such a state, the
mind is capable of overcoming ambivalences and excessive selfishness since it
now comes to see missing links of reality as pure or necessary means for
the attainment of its own personal joy and happiness. This is how it reacts to
the inherent tension between tendencies to extreme forms of absoluteness and
relativity. In this case, the mind grasps at the ultimate joy founding its
being but affirms it consciously as it is expressed concretely in missing
links. This commitment takes very concrete shape when it urges other subjects
that share the same horizon of being jede
ka iji (hold firmly to the joy of being, always seek to retain
it, now and in all future cases). This aphorism that is taken from the Igbo
language captures the moment of commitment to the ultimate joy that the subject
shares mutually with missing links of reality in their relativity. One of the
greatest transformation that the acquisition of this transcendent totalising
mindset can induce is the revelation to the subject that consequent
self-interest is anti-self interest. In other words, those acts of
self-interest that negate the interests of others are directed against the
interest of the subject itself because of the type of intimate unity that binds
missing links of reality and because units necessarily, inseparably, and
intricately share the same horizon of
being.
This is why complementary reflection underlines the fact that consequent
self-interest is anti-self-interest
as is evident in the statement egbe
bere ugo bere nke si ibeya ebena nku kwaa ya (let the kite perch let the eagle perch whichever denies the other the
same rights let its wings break). The same insight is
captured by the assertion: nwata si na nne na nna ya agaghi arahụ ura agaghi arahụ ụra). i.e. the
restive child that cries all night long with the intent of disturbing the
parents, would equally not sleep. Again: onye ji mmadụ na ana
ji onweya (whoever, e.g. in wrestling bout, holds another
person to the ground is not free himself).
What this implies is that human incapacity to
complementarity and the tendencies to absolutise personal interest are
consequent to self-delimitation, and self-negation. Likewise any forms of
impositions or restrictions of the rights of others outside of the legitimacy
provided by the whole, automatically rebounds on the actor. The converse is
also true: Anything undertaken to enhance the welfare of the whole invariably
leads to the betterment of the units. In keeping with this ontology therefore
the act always returns to the actor as is basic to Ancient traditional African Egyptian ontology as Kamalu pointed out.
Since acting and knowing have the same foundation in being, we can then
understand why for complementary reflection “no missing link of reality, in its
fragmentation, i.e. taken singly, can form adequate basis for authentic
knowledge” or action (Asouzu, The Method 413). For this reason, complementary
mutual dependence can only be understood as mutual service in complementation
and acting ethically reasonable and human entails acting, not out of compulsion
as is typical of a deontological ethical approach, but out of the natural
inclination for the joy of being. Here missing links in their fragmentation
and relativity are considered as pure means for the attainment of this
joy and not as pure ends. As a historical fragmentary being, the
complementary totalising mind is thus
always conscious of its relativity, fragility and vulnerability along with that
of other missing links that share the same fate. Hence, it learns to adhere to
its own laws naturally and without compulsion since this is the only guarantor
for its self-preservation, happiness and contentment.
Hence
by recourse to the transcendent categories of unity of consciousness the mind
fully identifies itself as a necessary aspect of the totality of relative
missing links which must be taken into account should its experience of the
world be complete and real. It is the same experience that makes it possible
for the mind to understand why the harmonisation of units supersedes the
advantages accruing from the tendencies for exclusiveness and polarisations.
Asouzu, Innocent “Progress in Metaphysics: The Phenomenon of “Missing
Link” and Interdisciplinary Communication”, in: Calabar Journal of Liberal Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2 December 1990.
---------------------
Gedanken
über die religiöse Problematik der Gegenwart im Licht der Theologie der
Religionen. Eine Reflexion im Anschluss an Wolfhart Pannenberg Peter Lang
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1986.
--------------------- Effective Leadership and the Ambivalence of Human Interest. The
Nigerian Paradox in a Complementary Perspective. Calabar University Press 2004
---------------------
The Method and Principles of
Complementary Reflection in and beyond African Philoosphy, Lit Verlag, Münster
2005.
Ekennia, Justin. African
Modernity Crisis. Barloz Publishers
Inc. Benin, Nigeria, 2000.
Kaboha, P. “African Metaphysical Heritage and Contemporary
Life. African Contributions to
Contemporary Life. The Foundations of Social Life” in: Uganda Philosophical Studies, I. Series II. Africa, Vol. 2, 1992.
Kamalu, Chukwunyere. Foundations of African Thought. A Worldview Grounded in the African Heritage
of Religion, Philosophy, Science and Art.
Karnak House, Great
Britain 1990.
Wilhelm Kamlah/Paul Lorenzen, Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule
des vernünftigen Redens, Mannheim 1973
Kimmerle, Heinz. Afrikanische
Philosophie im Kontext der Weltphilosophie. Traugott Bautz Nordhausen, 2005.
Nwala,
Uzodinma T. Igbo Philosophy. Lantern Books, Lagos 1985.
Schwemmer,
Oswald. Theorie der rationalen Erklärung. Zu den methodischen Grundlagen der
Kulturwissenschaften. C. H. .Beck, München 1976.
Snyder, Mariah/Ruth Lindquist. Issues in Complementary Therapies: How we
got where we are. http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic15/tpc15_1.htm
Uchendu, V. C. The Igbo of Southeast Nigeria. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York,
Chicago, San Francisco 1965.
*Innocent I. Asouzu is a Nigerian Igbo Philosopher who lectures at the University of Calabar Nigeria. He is the main proponent of complementary reflection as a philosophical movement in contemporary African philosophy. He has written extensively about this trend whose systematic teaching is outlined in his work “The Method and Principles of Complementary Philosophy in and beyond African Philosophy”.