|
Complementary Reflection, African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
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 and
have joy in it and in doing 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 and
consciousness 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.
We show the type of moral beings we are in the way we
confront these ambivalent 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 subject 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). 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). 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), 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 this is expressed in the
imperative of complementarity which states: allow the limitation of being to
be the cause of your joy. Furthermore, we affirm in the metaphysical
variant of the principle of complementary reflection: Anything that exists
serves a missing link of reality. Now, 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, which becomes evident in the Igbo aphorism
jide k’ iji i.e. hold firmly to the joy of being, always seek to retain it, now
and in all future cases. 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 in ethics 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 perfect, 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 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 transcendent
categories of unity of consciousness as existential categories of being in day-to-day encounter with
reality as missing links. These transcendent categories of unity of consciousness include
universality, totality, unity, comprehensiveness, wholeness and future
referentiality. The joy of being is therefore the capacity of the mind to give
meaning to all missing links of reality as moments within the existential
framework of the transcendent categories of unity of consciousness. 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, comprehensive, whole 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 for 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]
Taken, with little modification, from the book: Asouzu I. Innocent, The Method and Principles of Complementary
Reflection in and beyond African Philosophy, Calabar University Press, 2004,
367-380. Reprinted with permission of the author.