|
Complementary Reflection, African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Logic
Human Rights
Anthropology
Education
Religion
Social Dynamics
Etc.
This
essay is taken from the book
“The Method and Principles of
Complementary Reflection in and Beyond African Philosophy”
by
One of the central
ideas of complementary reflection is that ethics and morality do not concern themselves solely with
right and wrong actions or with good and bad conducts but primarily also with
the joy and sadness of human action. It is therefore not enough to state that an
action is good or right. Such an action
must also be a source of joy for the actor.
Hence, a morally good act is one, which is performed in the
consciousness that it has a comprehensive and total outreach and with a view of
being a source of joy to the actor and is capable of radiating such a joy in a
dynamic complementary future referential manner. To act is to act for the joy of being and to act is to have the
imperative of complementarism fully realised in all existential
situations. It is under this condition
that missing links of reality function as modes of expression of being in
history.
Therefore, an action is
performed not only because of the goodness that sustains it but more so for the
authentic joy that animates and upholds it. A joy is authentic if it offers the actor
reasons to believe that the criterion of truth and authenticity is upheld in
his action. In this way, acting out of
joy and acting out of goodness find one indivisible and total legitimacy in the
one ultimate foundation of being. It is
only in this way that this joy gives special character to ethical conduct. It does this in a manner that enhances and
sustains authentic existence such that individuals and social institutions
attain their autonomy fully and completely by acting under the
impelling force of the joy of being. In acting, therefore, the mind is not only
drawn by the good that sustains it but also in evident insight of the joy, that
drives it.
This fact
notwithstanding, we notice that human beings do not always act in response to
those things that bring joy to their lives but often insist on doing those
things that leave them sad and broke. One of the most difficult tasks of ethics is to unravel the root cause of this
paradox. This
is the paradox of the ambivalence of human interest. This paradox subsists in the fact that a person, in given
existential life situations, insists on doing those things that he would
ordinarily not like to do believing this to be the wisest thing to do. If in performing an act a person experiences
sadness instead of the joy of being, this is indicative of the fact that such
an action is not comprehensive enough in its conceptualisation and execution.
The duty of ethics and morality then is to show that for an action to be
considered human it must be comprehensive enough. Hence, one of the necessary conditions for
considering something an authentic human action is its ability to be
articulated within a wider framework of meaning as to be as universal as
possible. Where our knowledge and
volition are not comprehensive and universal enough, the dangers are always
given that we choose in apparent clear and full insight those things that
invariably bring sadness into our lives.
In this way, ethics
seeks to show how and why we should replace our fragmented and world immanent
structured interests with those that have their legitimacy in the
authenticating foundation of all missing links of reality in a non-contradictory future oriented
manner.
Similarly, it seeks to show how those ethical and moral laws that bind
the ego unconditionally must be made evident in a way that provides us clear
insight into the nature of our authentic interests.
Whereas ordinarily we
approach the issue of morality and ethics from the point of view of the aim
establishing human action, complementary reflection achieves the same thing by
pointing out the implications of erecting our actions on contradictory non-complementary
foundation.
Instead of asking the question what is the good in its ultimate and
universal form, complementary reflection asks the question what would be the
case if what we claim as the interest guiding our action turns out to be
false. It is the same question
concerning what would be the case if an actor insists living in a contradictory
manner. The answer is clear: The actor
automatically ceases to make claims that he is actually acting because his
claims obviously do not tally with his action.
This is the moment where a person chooses non-being to being in this process of self-negation.
Now, living entails
commitment to existence in the most joyous comprehensive, total, and
complementary manner.
It further entails comprehensive commitment to all those things that
help this joy materialise and enable it be sustained. If it turns out that we are committed to existence and do those
things that negate this existence, it means that we wish to live and not to
live at the same time. This is a
contradiction.
Contradictory existence
subsists in the negation of the ontological imperative establishing our action. It also means a negation of
the joy of being in a way that one affirms and negates existence at the same
time. To be entails those measures we
take concretely to show the joy of being in our action. A situation where we negate consciously and
willingly, but in implicit ignorance, the legitimacy conveyed by the principle
of contradiction to our action and the truth and authenticity criterion, we run
the risk also of depriving our action of the foundation on which it is erected
even if only erroneously. This is the
moment when we commit ourselves to the dictates of the ego in a way that makes
the ego absolute in total negation of its relative constitution. A person, who lives in a contradictory way,
as to negate the relativity of his existence does so only in the illusion that
he is living authentically.
A person shows
therefore that he is human, the moment this person seeks to be conscious of the
forcefulness of ethical and moral laws as these find expression in the
imperative of the principle of complementarity. To act ethically reasonable therefore, is to
uphold the imperative establishing our actions. This imperative subsists in the harmonisation of our actions, in joy, with the authentic
objective establishing them. It is the consciousness that all fragmented moments of our
existence are moments of missing link of reality that seek unity in the
foundation of our being. A
deontological ethics, as has been pointed out, overlooks this fact and seeks this
imperative in a way that negates the important role, which fragmented relative
moments of historical experiences play in the execution of human action. These fragmented relative
dimensions of history are aspects of the totality of the joy
that gives meaning and justification to human action. Hence, to act in consideration of the
authentic joy we derive from our action is equivalent to acting in accordance
to the dictates of the being that is the cause of our joy. This is why to act from duty must take seriously
the joy we derive from acting from the joy of being to be ethically
meaningful. In this way, the fragmented
moments of historical existence show themselves as the only condition for
ethical conduct.
Now, an issue deserves particular attention
within the context of complementary reflection. Every human action is subject to the
dictates of human ambivalent situation.
To act ethically or morally responsible entails acting in view of
overcoming this ambivalence. To
overcome this ambivalence means choosing the positive side of our ambivalent
situation. If one states that human
actions are under the dictate of our ambivalent situation, does this leave the
individual with the freedom to choose?
That is to say, a person might argue that a person who is acting under
the dictates of his ambivalent situation is under no obligations since the
individual is not free after all.
Replying to this objection, I would say that the contrary is the case
because the fact speaks for itself. Our
ambivalent situations are situations of choice, where a person is free to
choose or not to choose the negative side of this ambivalent interest. What is decisive is his manner of
choice. In most cases, it is a choice
made in very clear and evident insight of what is required of him but a choice
made in error. The error is with regard
to what one genuinely desires and wills insightfully. We can illustrate the damages resulting from such free choices by
reference to the following four examples that give us insight into the nature
and level of culpability that is involved.
A. A person can suffer injury
unintentionally and here we say that this person is not directly the cause of
his misfortune.
This is the case where the requisite knowledge concerning a type of
agent that can cause some effects is not in place. Example is when a person does not know that germs cause sickness
and does not take the necessary precautions to protect himself from damages
resulting from exposure to contamination with dangerous viruses. Due to his type of ignorance of the cause,
his culpability is conditional.
B. Another case is the situation where a
person suffers injury out of his desire to take possession of something, which
he willingly and insightfully identified as good. However, this thing is
injurious to his health. His knowledge notwithstanding, he insightfully and willingly
chooses the agent as to suffer some damage.
Here he knows the cause of his problems and choose it.
C. Another case is similar to the second,
this is where the person, insightfully, willingly identifies something as good,
but is ignorant of the fact that he as the actor is the cause of his problems.
While A may be blamed conditionally for his
problem, B and C should be blamed grievously for their problems because of the
level of insight and freedom involved in their choices. In the case of C, something peculiar is
involved, here although the actor chooses his problems freely and insightfully,
he is not aware of the fact that he is the cause of his problem. For this reason, he may not understand why
he should be blamed for his action.
This is why he would complain and blame external factors for his
predicament and problems.
C is the type of
situation we are dealing with in most ambivalent situations. Here, the agent suffers so
much illusion due to his inability to come to terms with this ambivalence that
he can be the cause of his predicaments without knowing it. In such situations, a person chooses a thing
insightfully and willingly but is ignorant of the fact that his choice is the
cause of his problem.
The fact that his
choice and the object of his cognition turns out later on to be the wrong thing
does not matter much.
This is where the error reverts to culpability because he has not taken
the necessary precautions to forestall a problem that he would have been in a
position to avert. This is why this
person starts to regret his choice and action but may not be fully aware that
he was the one who caused the problem due to his inability to be conscious of
the ambivalence of his situation. The
tragedy of his situation becomes very evident when this person imagines that
his problems are caused by an external agent other than himself. In this case, he starts looking for
scapegoats and for sacrificial lambs.
That is to say, a
person desires the wrong thing insightfully and wilfully believing it to be the
correct thing to do.
At the initial stage of his action, his intention is clear, that is, he
wishes to take possession of something he identifies as desirable, but which
turns out to be wrong. The problem is
that one exercises an act of the will in full insight of what one wants but his
choice is directed towards the wrong side of what he wants. Whether he desires the correct thing or the
wrong thing afterwards does not actually matter, the issue is that he initially
desires it wilfully and insightfully.
We are witnesses to
those situations where people act wrongly in apparent insight into what they
know and will.
What this shows is that individuals can be committed wilfully and insightfully
to those things that can undermine their interests believing this to be
right. It does not show that in full
insight and volition they do actually follow their inauthentic interests.
Complementary
reflection aims at creating awareness concerning such wrong choices that can be
averted through creating consciousness concerning the ambivalent nature of our
interests in all existential situations. It further calls attention to the phenomenon
of concealment, which can render all good will null and void. The main objective of such critical
awareness is to be able to recognise our interests for what they stand for in
their capacity as the motor driving our actions.
Knowing a priori the
authentic nature of our ambivalent interests is not easy but it can be achieved
through the rigorous process of learning that makes conversion of ontological
categories of comprehensiveness, totality, and universality a habitual
assumption in all our actions. The mind converts the transcendent
categories of being into existential categories through this
process. In
this process, the mind is enabled to act within the confines of its legitimacy
in a habitual manner.
Inability of the mind
to act under this form of habitual assumption can result not only in its
getting entangled in all manners of ambivalence, but worst still is the fact
that the actor easily suffers a double tragedy
which subsists in
the fact of his being both culpable and a loser. An example suffices: A person sees a piece
of land and believes that it contains gold.
Now, in his greed, he sells everything he has and takes possession of
the land. If the land actually contains
gold, and if this gold is comprehensive enough to give him the satisfaction he
wants he is a winner.
If it contains less
precious minerals than he had earlier on anticipated he is a loser. Now, if due to his greed,
he has not given full thought of the possibility of the land containing lesser
minerals and he commits all his resources, both human and material, acquiring
the piece of land, he may be very disappointed if his expectations do not
materialise. The fact that his expectations
did not materialise has nothing to do with the fact that he committed himself
to this act insightfully and willingly.
Furthermore, whether the land contains gold or not does not invalidate
his greed. If now he had known that the
land could have contained less precious minerals from the outset, he would be
more cautions in his action. That is to
say, he would be more careful in making his choice. In this case, this person would definitely harmonise his desire with
the content of his expectations. This
care and awareness concerning the content of our desires and the object of our
knowledge is what is often lacking in our relationship with the world that is
often ambivalent. In most cases, we
approach our interests in a non-comprehensive absolute manner that they make us
losers and culpable at the same time.
In most cases, we are
not circumspect enough such that we are caught off guard in the wrong side of
what we desire.
We often have a one-way approach to the world and this is why we often
make ourselves appear strange to the world and victims of our ambivalent
interests. This is the paradox of
ambivalent existence. Thus,
ambivalent existence entails an existential ignorance of enormous proportion
and consequences where a person acts in limited insight into his possibilities
and thereby negates the comprehensiveness, totality, and universality that gives authenticity to human life. This is one of the highest
forms of ignorance. The reason is that
a person thereby employs his energies in those fragmented and relative moments
of existence that turn out to be complete waste of energies and resources. It is like learning the wrong stuff all your
life. A person puts all his energies
learning the wrong thing. If he later
finds out what the case is, we know how frustrating the experience can be. The person knows and wills the outcome
indirectly. It is the error implicitly
resulting from this insightful, wilful, but wrong choice that attracts our
attention. One can say that the actor
wills his interest wrongly and knows it negatively and it is this wrong and
negative knowledge and act of volition that is disturbing in all
situations. If the being of a man of
goodwill is the ability to do good, bad-will is a sign of negative ambivalent existence.
Hence, we can say that
the inability to manage the ambivalence of human interest well is a fundamental sign of bad-will. Where there is goodwill there is a way and where there is
bad-will, human existence turns to excruciating torment and there is virtually
no way at all.
The most concrete form of expression of bad-will as negative existence
is in contradictory actions. Therefore,
contradictions and inconsistencies are the endemic forms of bad-will. When complementary reflection seeks to
create awareness in this regard, it does this with the intent of calling our
attention to the fact that bad-will does not pay. Hence, it targets the illusion or fallacy that a person can gain from negating the
legitimising foundation of his action. That is to say, all moral and ethical bad
conducts are self-defeating actions because they are fundamentally
contradictory and as such negate indirectly what the actor intends. In the final analysis, all attempts at
gearing ourselves towards the positive side of our ambivalent interest brings
with it double dividend. First, it
guarantees our ethical autonomy and responsibility in a positive sense. Second, it guarantees that
we get what we want, that is to say, it helps us to choose correctly the
positive side of our ambivalent interests and thereby be winners at the same
time. …
Nature of authentic human action: The joy of being – jide
ka iji
The question that is to be handled here is
to state under what conditions human actions are true and authentic. We can state that a human
action is authentic if by acting a subject rejects its absoluteness and
concedes to its relativity. A person is
in a position to act in this way, if the actor is able to acquire a mindset
that knows no other alternative than that conferred by the principle of
non-contradiction as the legitimising foundation of all human actions and
desires. Where this type of mind-set is
operational, it is then possible for an individual to state categorically, in
all given situations, that something is evil or that something is good. It is a question of "either or". Here, there is no alternative. The mind can achieve this because this is
the point where complementarity gives place to absolute convergence in a way
that gives forcefulness to the idea of transcendent complementary unity of
consciousness. Here the mind sees very
clearly between alternatives and can make categorical distinctions between
states of affairs. It is only under
such a condition that we can identify something as good and stand by it. In this case, we can affirm its goodness
categorically in a way that does not leave anyone in doubt and in a way that
does not admit of an alternative because its negation would imply a negation of
the foundation on which the reality of our being is erected. In the same way, if we
identify something as evil, we reject it in its entirety since it is incompatible
with the foundation on which the unity of our being is erected in a
non-contradictory manner. When this
happens, evil takes the form of absolute non-reciprocity or non-being, which in its rejection is the affirmation
of absolute reality. In the same manner, we affirm goodness in
its totality as absolute reciprocity or being.
It is in the unequivocal affirmation of the good and the negation of
evil, for example, that we concretely witness the bridging of the
subject-object dichotomy in a way that gives legitimacy to transcendent
complementary unity of consciousness underlying all authentic human
actions. This is the moment where
complementary reflection turns to metaphysical commitment.
Due to the limitations that characterise
our being, we are not always in a position to respond and concede to this
critical demand.
These are those ambivalent moments when we tend to overstep, to
overreact, or when we fail to meet certain expectations directed towards us
because we have the natural inclination to protect our interests. In such situations, we may also be inclined
to use all means at our disposal to get what we want. Such situations present themselves as very critical moments of
decision between being and non-being, between the authentic and the
inauthentic, between morality and immorality, between law and disorder,
between good and evil etc. These are the ambivalent existential moments
of our lives that must be confronted with all the awareness, energy, and
insight we can afford.
We show who we are in the way we confront
these situations and the type of measures we adopt in addressing them. In all those situations where
we seek to define our interests referentially within the ambit of the common
good, we seek to respond positively to the
demands of the criterion establishing our action. On the other hand, we fail the test of this
criterion of truth and authenticity in all those situations where we substitute
the ego as the absolute norm of our action. This is the case in those conditions where
we seek to define the rules of human co-habitation arbitrarily such that those
who have the advantages over others can always exploit such.
Typical examples of this type of situation
abound in all human societies were what it takes to uphold ones interest is
commensurate to those measures needed to subvert it. This subversion is most pronounced in those
measures the subjects embarks upon towards eliminating competitors arbitrarily
in the erroneous belief that he can secure his interests without taking the
interests of others into account. The
tension between the ego and the world reaches its peak in those circumstances
where we equate what it takes to conserve private interest erroneously, and in
some cases, unequivocally with the common good. This misidentification does not legitimise an action positively
but highlights that we can in the best intentions err.
Hence, all those measures needed towards
self-preservation, even if they are performed for the common good, have no legitimacy if they are exclusive of the
interests of others and seek their legitimacy on their own terms.
Hence, the conditions that favour personal
autonomy are the same conditions that are necessary towards upholding
complementary harmonious existence in society. The imperative guiding both actions belong to
the same sphere. Hence, all laws that
appear to guarantee personal autonomy to individuals and societies in utter
disregard of the universal outreach of such autonomy are overhaul worthy. Since the line of
demarcation between the laws originating from within the self and the
legitimacy conferred by the absolute future foundation of all missing links of
reality is not always easy to draw, due to the type of close
relationship between the self and foundation of our being, individuals and
groups can easily indulge in excesses believing them to be legitimate. When we seek to act from
this background of selfishness and in our eagerness to preserve ourselves, we
can unwittingly even embark on those things that lead to our destruction.
Hence, the unification of all missing links
becomes a challenge that we carry into all spheres of life. This becomes most evident
in the type of services we render to people in the areas of management of
resources, in the production and distribution of goods and services, in the
harnessing of talents, in the ordering of peoples’ lives, in the administration
and control of people etc. Within this
context therefore, one can say that the goodwill to excel in the face of our diversities is
a visible expression of our commitment to the ultimate absolute foundation of
all missing links of reality. This is at the same time the surest step
towards overcome the ambivalence of our situation as human beings. This goodwill subsists in that urge, in all
circumstance and at all times, always to seek the highest forms of
legitimacy. It subsists in the urge, in
all circumstances, to expunge all that would compromise those values on which
human life, healthy interpersonal relations, social institutions, and indeed
all common goods are erected. It is the
urge to replicate nature in its beauty and to conserve it while exploring it.
Where this type of goodwill is cultivated, it sees all relative values
as means to an ultimate end of all missing links of reality. This not withstanding, it considers these
relative values as moments of joy that must be upheld in the most sacred and
comprehensive manner. This approach is
quite in consonance with the idea of anonymous traditional African thinkers who
conceptualise the experience of transcendent complementary unity of
consciousness as service in complementarity.
This is why where there is no goodwill,
most especially goodwill in service, all resources remain a waste; all laws
have no focus, all rules ineffective; all meanings become distorted and ambiguous. It is because of the
possession of a goodwill that we can find the good side of our ambivalent
interests and employ it ultimately to its desired end. The reason for this is that the same law,
which establishes the goodwill, is the same law that controls the fragmented
and relative moments of all missing links of reality. Where the will is bad, it seeks to establish
its own laws such that its own laws contradict the law on which all missing
links of reality are founded. By so
doing, it easily negates also the raison d'ętre that establishes all relative
values. Since the law that gives the
goodwill its legitimacy is the same law that sustains all missing links of
reality, any conflict between both laws has untold consequences since it throws
individuals and societies into irreconcilable differences and confusion.
Deviation from this law is possible because
individuals have the natural capacity to enthrone themselves as supreme
arbiters in all matters relating to their interests. This is one of the gravest dangers to any
human institution and human societies in general. It is that moment where individuals and societies confuse their
relativity with absoluteness. Since
man’s destiny is good, any individual is capable of
choosing and discovering those things that would enable a person attain this
destiny. In
this connection therefore, the goodwill is something that has its foundation in
goodness per se, it is something that is within reach of anyone who earnestly
seeks it. It is
because of the goodwill that a person can, in anticipation and in the proleptic actualisation of his future hopes, experience
contentment, and happiness in his actions. Since the ultimate common good, the unconditioned basis of human happiness is not
identical with any world immanent value, the ability, therefore, to desire it
as an end in itself, can only be the property of something that has the
unconditioned character belonging to the imperative establishing this end. Here the postulation of an
absolute goodwill, as an integral part of our
finitude in anticipation of the foundation of our
being, becomes a practical meaningful and necessary assumption.
If an ultimate transcendent foundation of
all missing links of reality is any thing to go by, it must have the
same character as impels me to take possession of it; this character is its
fundamental absoluteness and goodness. The will is naturally impelled by this
goodness and has a premonition of it in anticipation. Hence, it is only on the condition of our upholding, in all
circumstances, a fundamentally goodwill that we can desire that which is the
legitimising foundation of society. This fundamental goodwill is natural to our
being in anticipation and characterises us in our finitude.
Kant devoted a greater part of his work
“Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals” to investigate the nature of the will. He insightfully came to the
conclusion that “ nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out
of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will”
(Kant, 166).[1][1][1] He thus identified an absolute goodwill as belonging to the law, which conditions
it in a way that it absolutely acts without any form of inclination. For Kant therefore the
absolute goodwill belongs to the law which demands “I am never to act otherwise
than so that I could also will that my maxim should become universal law (Kant,
172).[1][1][2] For Kant, real human happiness subsists in
possessing an absolute good will that concurs to the demands of this absolute
law unconditionally and without any form of inclination whatsoever. In this case, it is something that must be
attained through duty and duty alone.
If by inclination Kant means renunciation of personal interest as
opposed to the common good as the foundation of human action, Kant’s approach
would have consonance with the demands of the principle and imperative of complementarity. Kant’s understanding of
inclination gives the impression that missing links are not constitutive of the
processes needed to attain human happiness.
For this reason, the method he advocates in arriving at the imperative
establishing the goodwill is not totally in harmony with the objective pursued
by complementary reflection.
For complementary reflection, every
proclivity of duty is intricately related to the joy that gives legitimacy to
all human actions.
What this means is that for complementary reflection their is need to
act due to inclination as opposed to Kant’s deontological ethics which dispenses with inclinations as a
part of ethical good conduct. This is important because complementary reflection lays much
emphasis on the need to take all missing links of reality into our equation of
action. What this means is that for
human action to be moral or ethical it must take into account the comprehensive
outreach of any action we perform. That
is to say, duties are no longer performed for their own sake but are tied to
human interests in a way that defines
their realisation within a more universal, total and comprehensive
framework. Here, our interests and all
missing links of reality are seen as opportunities for a higher
form of legitimisation and for the joy of being. This is duty in complementarity and any
duties we perform in a complementary sense is duty performed, directly or
indirectly, for the common good and for the well being of the actor. For this reason therefore, we may not be
doing what we want to do for duty’s sake or from duty as Immanuel Kant
advocates (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, 168-175),[1][1][3] but we do so because we know that this is
the natural joyous human way of doing things.
That is to say, whereas Kant sought human happiness through duty and
renunciation of all forms of inclination, the principle of harmonious
complementarity does not consider it a disadvantage for one to act out of
inclination in the process of seeking human happiness. The reason for this is that complementary
reflection considers inclination a necessary condition for allowing the
limitations of being to be the cause of our joy. As long as anything that exists serves a missing link of reality,
all missing links of reality are integral parts of the goodwill in its
attempt to attain the joy of being. We cannot say hold firmly to the joy of
being, always seek to retain it, now and in all future cases (jide k’ iji)
- if we do not make all missing links of reality the realm of our action. Hence, all missing links of reality are very
important moments and dimensions of our overall quest for happiness. For this reason, acting out of inclination
is an expression of serving a missing link of reality. In service for example, we experience
concretely the transcendent complementary unity of consciousness, as this
constitutes the foundation of our joy, which we must seek consciously,
conscientiously and energetically. The
task is to establish how acting out of inclination as a missing link of reality can become a meaningful source of our joy.
To start with, in spite of all our efforts
to maintain a goodwill, and an absolute goodwill for that matter,
we are still subject to the constraints and limitations, which the realities of
human existence impose. We can never wish this fact away and we have to accept it as an
integral part of our finite existence in future referentiality. We must carry this burden of our finitude with all the dignity, honesty, and courage
we can afford.
It is in surmounting these difficulties with wisdom that we can hold tenaciously to that which
gives meaning to our life and as such, we can mutually affirm in a future
referential manner: hold firmly to the joy of being, always seek to retain it,
now and in all future cases (jide ka iji).
The insinuations that our limitations are
merely handicaps would immediately change, if we see ourselves as subjects of
the transforming insight of the imperative of complementarity. This is the case when this
imperative demands that we allow the limitations of being to be the cause of
our joy. Here we discover our mutual
involvement in the experience of this joy in our mutual joyous affirmation of jide
ka iji. The imperative of
complementarity imbues our actions with an inbuilt regulative mechanism that seeks to confer a more positive
meaning to our limitations; insofar it considers these limitations as deriving
their meaning from the proleptic source of all meanings. In view of this proleptic source of their
being, our limitations do not discourage and hold us back in our efforts to
maintain a perfect goodwill. On the contrary, they give us a positive
inspirations, since we see them as possibilities for the joy embedded in the
anticipated end of our desire. In
difficult human situations therefore, in situations of challenges and even of
failure, for example, we are not discouraged, by the momentary setback, we
rather know that there is always the possibility for a new beginning in view of
the future referential source of our being.
In this case, we would always see failures and success, good and evil, hardship and joy as different sides of the same coin
that seek authentic complementarity. In this case, they become veritable
opportunities always to excel and to seek better alternatives.
It is this imperative that makes it
possible to know that there are diverse and inexhaustible possibilities at our
disposal towards arriving at the authenticating foundation of our desires and
actions. Within
this context, it is not the negative side of failure that is decisive, neither
is it the limitations of our mistakes that are crucial, it is rather the
natural insight into the nature of the ultimate good, which energises and
sustains us whenever it matters most.
The stringent perfectionist Kantian approach
to the issue of goodwill appears to overlook, not only the
limitation of human existence, but also the dynamic dimension of imperative of
complementarity, which is invigorating, therapeutic, cathartic and cleansing.
The liberating nature of any theory of action that seeks to use the will to establish
true human happiness subsists in the dynamic constitution of this faculty. Since all things
constituting the missing link of reality have their completion in the joy of
the being that removes all ambivalences, the will owes its existence to this
being. The will is ever attuned and
dependent on this being for its direction.
Where the will is attuned to this all-determining reality, it can never err, since what appears as
error is legitimised in an intention that is pure. Where the intention is pure, it is capable
of acting according to the dictates of this all-determining being. When one is acting from purity of intention
sustained in the reality of this absolute foundation of all missing links of
reality, what we call error in such contexts would be nothing other than a
moment of missing link of reality that seeks completion in the foundation of
its being.
Even in such cases, our goodwill remains the source of inspiration, our
mistakes, and failings notwithstanding. Even if the goodwill can be misused, the
decision about its origin can never be an affair of the limited individual
subjective consciousness. Such goodwill
can only be something received and sustained by a higher principle of the character of the principle of
non-contradiction.
This is the only principle that can give legitimacy to all expressions
of goodwill. It is only as received
goodwill that any form of pure goodwill, as the basis of our action as
individuals, makes any sense. It is
received in as much as we are dependent on the all-good, absolute, and infinite
being to do good. This absolute
infinite being can confer a goodwill whose operations are characterised by the
purity of intention. We can consider
the reality of this absolute being the necessary assumption of any philosophy that
sees complementarity as a foundation of human joy and happiness. In such a situation the
fact of a being that confers a goodwill, on which the actions of all
individuals, in a complementary relationship rest, is something that has to be
taken for granted. The reason for this
is obvious. The condition for
complementarity is the inescapable common bond, the common good, which sustains such a relationship. The reality of this bond is
tacitly implied both practically and theoretically in all human actions both
positive and negative and we intuit it as that force that impels us in all
situations of life to ask questions in a transcendent manner and seek ultimate
answers. This being that gives all
missing links of reality their legitimacy sustains this unending questioning
and search for ultimate answers in future referentiality. Where goodwill in future referentiality is
lacking nothing can substitute for its absence. Not even religion, for example, can fill up its place. In this way, one can even
shed some light to the ubiquitous avoidable failures in human society in spite
of human passionate religious commitment.
As received goodwill, the goodwill can become a common property and bond
for all who seek to do good in whatsoever capacity they find themselves.
A life style borne by this consciousness is
characterised by the unified expression of actions and meaning as they seek to
realise the absolute in the most authentic and clear manner. In a situation of this
nature, a universe of discourse and meaning is achieved which authenticates the
convergence of all experiences and action in all fundamental issues, most
especially those that guarantee a higher we-consciousness. Where this level of consciousness is
achieved, one can hardly differentiate the feelings and aspirations of
individual subjects from their foundation of legitimacy in moments of intimate
relationship. It is this ability to
objectify and conceptualise reality as mutually shared meaning in a
comprehensive, universal, total, and future referential manner that makes
authentic mutual participation and experience of a transcendent complementary
unity of consciousness possible. This
objectification has as its dynamic moment in the goodwill we bring to bear on concrete situations of
life. A natural
intuition into the idea of an absolute in a future
referential manner sustains such goodwill. This type of goodwill enables individuals
and societies to eradicate all forms of contradictions in a manner that enables
them to transform the limitations of being to the cause of their joy. One can then say that the level of
humanity and civility within any given society depends on the level of goodwill
in complementarity that is present. It
further depends on the ability of all concerned to transcend themselves in the
experience of transcendent complementary unity of consciousness in a universal,
total, comprehensive, and future referential manner.
This goodwill has its natural expression in
service, in the spirit of mutual dependence and care, in the spirit of fairness
and justice, in the spirit of give and take and in the unflinching desire to
excel and to goodness.
It subsists in recognising that the varieties obtainable in nature are
not purely accidental but are necessary conditions for the attainment of our
ultimate joy and destiny. This realisation is the foundation of
civilised societies wherever this is practices authentically. This is still the case even if the aim
sustaining this practice is not immediately evident to every individual in all
circumstances.
Generally, one can say that the aim driving
all ethically and morally good conducts is the joy of being as the ultimate
legitimising foundation of all missing links of reality. We are provided with an
instance of the experience of this joy of being in the content driving the Igbo
aphorism hold firmly to the joy of being, always seek to retain it, now and
in all future cases (jide k’ iji), as the mutual
experience, in joy, of tasks well accomplished. In the mutual experience of jide k’ iji human action shows
its tendency towards the highest form of legitimacy. In this experience, within the contexts of mutual interaction,
the actors intuiting the foundation, which gives
completion to all human actions, urge themselves mutually to hold firmly to
this foundation now and in all future cases. In this way they enthuse mutually jide k’
iji i.e. hold firmly to the joy of being, always seek to retain it,
now and in all future cases. They do
this in the evident insight that this goodness, worth adhering to, is the
source of their being and joy. This is
an instance where we come to the insight that being is communicable only in
authentic mutual action and in service as this is possible between individuals
and communities. In the mutual
affirmation and grasping into the foundation of all missing links of reality, as is made evident in this mutual
experience, the mind is challenged to hold tenaciously to the goodness that is
the authentication foundation of all missing links of reality, now, and in all future occurrences in a
certain, absolute, universal and comprehensive manner. In response to the insight arising from
intuition of goodness in this mutual act, the mind
experiences being authentically in those legitimising moments of authentic action
in history.
Since such actions are subject to spatio-temporal vicissitudes, the mind
anchors its hope in the veracity of the content expressed and held firmly in
this aphorism as future experience. The
certitude thereby derived, becomes evident in the
joy accompanying human action in anticipation of this content.
In the authentic experience of being
implicit in its joyous expression in jide ka iji, therefore, the mind,
in anticipation, grasps at the fullness that makes this experience possible and
for this reason can share it with others as lived experience. In the mutual experience of
the determining content of jide ka iji, no one is left in doubt as to
the certainty of the being that gives authenticity to human action in the past,
in present and in all future occurrences.
Whenever human beings live from the mutual
imperative driving the experience of jide ka iji their actions are
geared towards the future in a joyous proleptic manner since they live from the certitude of the being that gives completion to
their action.
In this way, their present state anticipates the future in joyous
expectation of its actual realisation.
This joyous hope energises and sustains their efforts and impels them to
prove that they are right in view of the totality that gives them hope about
their present joyous state. Here the
anonymous traditional Igbo philosopher has a premonition into the
nature of this ultimate content as something positive, hence, he affirms and
urges in all successful and positive situations of life jide ka iji i.e.
- hold firmly to the good, to the joy that gives completion to all human actions
in a future referential manner. This
is why when the Igbo says to a person jide k’ iji no one is left in doubt that the person is doing well
and everyone wishes this person to hold firmly to it i.e. to the being that
gives ultimate meaning and joy to a person’s existence.
Even if the content that impels us in our
experience of jide ka iji is not completely evident to us here and now,
we, nonetheless, anticipate it as the fullness of all fullness, the goodness of
goodness, the truth of all truths in a universal, total, and comprehensive
manner. It is
for this reason that in the spirit of jide ka iji the content of the
future in referentiality must be transcendent but complementarily communicated
to have any meaning at all.
The joy of being in the experience of jide k’ iji subsists in the experience of the existential
categories of being in day-to-day encounter with
reality as missing links. It is the capacity of the mind to give meaning to all missing
links of reality as moments of expression of being. Here, the mind seeks to
place all fragmented moments of existence in their authentic contexts as
aspects of the joy that is constitutive of the authenticating foundation of all
existent things. In other word, in the
experience of the joy of being, the mind seeks full realisation of fragmented
missing links of reality in a universal, total, absolute, unified,
and future referential manner. This experience of joy of being becomes a
complementary reality the moment we can communicate it mutually
in action. In
this way, the content expressed in the aphorism jide k’ iji recasts the transcendent complementary unity of
consciousness as the mutual conscious experience of being as the authentic
foundation of human action.
Whenever the mind is not able to transcend
fragmented existence in a universal, total, and future referential perspective,
it negates the joy of being as the foundation of the transcendent complementary
unity of consciousness. At this moment, it gets itself entangled in all forms of
low-level comprehensiveness in view of its determination. At such moments, we would hardly say jide
k’ iji and mean it, this is the moment of mismanaged ambivalence.
For this reason, complementary reflection
does not consider the fragmentation of historical existence a big disadvantage
to our self-actualisation and authentication. On the contrary, it views it as the
condition of possibility of all forms of human self-authentication and
actualisation. It is only due to and in
the fragmentation of our existence that we can meaningfully and joyously affirm
“jide ka iji.” Hence, this
fragmentation is the condition for our encounter with the world and as such,
the only condition for the realisation of ultimate joy that is characteristic
of being. In this fragmentation, we
experience being in the most natural and yet authentic way.
The principle of harmonious complementarity enables us
therefore to come to the insight that although we are finite, we are not
condemned to our finitude but we are beings aiming towards ultimate
completion in joy.
This joy is not something that we can identify with the diverse moments
of missing link of reality but is the property of a being that transcends the
fragmented moments of historical existence and gives legitimacy to this. For this reason, complementarism makes recourse to truth and authenticity criterion as
that criterion which grants autonomy to all missing links of reality in a manner that guarantees the
authenticity of their being.
We can then understand why those human societies,
which see the fragmentary moments of all missing links of reality as
opportunities for authentic joy, are more likely to meet this criterion than
those others who view the historical moments of existence as absolute
constitutive determinants. Hence, the traditional African society, for example, in its
fundamental complementary orientation, is more likely to meet this criterion
more than the paradoxical individualism of the contemporary African society. In the same way, all forms of authentic
conjunctive reasoning are more likely to satisfy its demands
more than all forms of disjunctive articulation of world immanent realities. A philosophy is in a
position to meet the postulations of complementarism as it concedes to the fact
that anything that exists serves a missing link of reality and seeks to
conceptualise all existing realities in a manner that leads them to their
joyous, common absolute future referential determination. It is in the pairing-up, in categorisation and harmonisation of all compatible missing links of realities, in view of an
absolute synthesis of all relative world immanent
realities that our positively shared experiences can be conceptualised as
reinforcing themselves mutually and joyously.
In seeking this legitimisation in this absolute
foundation of our being, we reject all those conditions that are opposed to the
authentic nature of our being. In this way, one can say that exclusivities
have their legitimacy only in the affirmation of the totality that gives
meaning to them. That is to say, it is
only in view of this absolute foundation of the transcendent complementary
unity of consciousness that any form of distinction or exclusive claim we make can
have any meaning. Where this condition
is not met, such exclusivities revert to arbitrariness and a negative
infringement into the will seeking autonomy. Where such exclusiveness occurs, in view of
the totality of all missing links of reality, the individual can never regain his
autonomy since he is committed to the negation of the foundation of his
existence. Positive commitment to that
transcendent, ultimate foundation of our action should always constitute a
major focus of ethics and morality insofar as they concern themselves with
human action and insofar they seek to establish the conditions for those
insightful actions that lead to the joy of being.
[1][1][1] Kant Immanuel, “The Metaphysics of Morals” in: Basic Problems of
Philosophy.
Ed.
by Daniel J. Bronstein et al. New Jersey, 1972, 166
[1][1][2] ebd.
172
[1][1][3] ebd. 168-175.