The Holy Grail fervently sought by philosophers since the early Greeks is a unitary source that would resolve the dichotomy of mind and matter.  An all-encompassing primary source would afford a ground of knowledge beyond speculation, because it would be accessible and therefore verifiable to immediate awareness.  In addition, it would account for the entire range of human experience, so that an existential and philosophical grounding in proprietary awareness might offer not only inspiration for a new paradigm, but intellectual resources for a more profound understanding of reality and a broader framework for scientific investigation.

Ironically, the most natural and pre-intellectual concept of reality is subjective.  Every child is immanently aware of the subjectivity of his or her experience, as were the Platonists of pre-Byzantine Rome.  That conscious awareness is man's confirmation of reality is an empirical truth that only intellectual constructs by the "most evolved" creature presume to challenge.  But because contrariety is the nature of our reality, where there is subjectivity there is also objectivity; and we must all accept the fact that everything we identify as "the real world" exists apart from our awareness of it.  This is the dilemma that has challenged philosophers for over 2000 years.

At some time near the dawn of what historians now call the "Age of Enlightenment", humans surmised that the physical world was a different sort of "being" than their personal experience of it.  Thenceforth reality would be regarded as an inexplicable congruence of two "essences": subjective and objective.  The objects of this duality were less ephemeral than the subjects, hence far easier to explore and validate.  This empirical convenience led to an epistemology of "beingness" that would later be called Objectivism, and from which would come theories of reality that would virtually repeal subjectivity.

Following in the wake of the existentialists Heidegger, Hegel and Sartre, the most influential proponent of Objectivism in the twentieth century was the celebrated novelist Ayn Rand, who coined the term for her philosophy.  In an essay titled "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made", Rand introduced the idea of metaphysical primacy as the fundamental principle which guides all philosophy:

"… the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence  or the primacy of consciousness….  The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.  The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists---------------and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward."

The term 'primacy' in this context means the state of ranking first.  Dr. Leonard Peikoff, in his book Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, explains the logic behind the primacy of existence over consciousness:

"The primacy of existence is not an independent principle.  It is an elaboration, a further corollary, of the basic axioms.  Existence precedes consciousness because consciousness is consciousness of an object.  Nor can consciousness create or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity is something and acts accordingly [i.e., according to its identity, not according to the desires of consciousness].  Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness.  It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is.  It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects."

In fairness to Ayn Rand, we would be remiss in failing to note her staunch support of the autonomous individual as the driving force of material existence.  It was Rand who wrote: "There is no such thing as a collective brain.  There is no such thing as a collective thought. ...we can divide a meal among many men.  We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. ...no man can use his brain to think for another.  All the functions of body and spirit are private.  They cannot be shared or transferred."

But what the logical positivists overlook is that their epistemology only works if the objective existence (beingness) that constitutes the source of their knowledge is the true or essential  reality.  The positivists invariably scorn Descartes' Cogito as an unenlightened, solipsistic notion of reality.  Yet, they cannot deny that without the "I am" there can be no "that is".  The idea of a subjective universe persists in Eastern culture where the Brahmans have resisted the mythos of theism, and several contemporary philosophers have yielded to mysticism in frustration.  This is not mere coincidence.  It is well known that the mystics of the East have been able to account for man's subjectivity in a way that materialistic Science can not.  And every philosopher worth his intellectual salt has at some point in his life considered the possibility of a subjective reality before throwing it out in the wash of scientific empiricism.

One contemporary philosopher who has refused to buckle to the empiricists is Franklin Merrill-Wolff.  Wolff actually rejects both objectivity and subjectivity in the sense that they refer to a material world.  He uses the term "Consciousness" to define that which is the primordial ground and essential nature of all modes and forms of experience, both subjective and objective.  As Wolff himself asserts:

"The One, nonderivative Reality, is THAT which I have symbolized by 'Consciousness-without-an-object.'  This is Root Consciousness, per se, to be distinguished from consciousness as content or as state, on the one hand, and from consciousness as an attribute of a Self or Atman, in any sense whatsoever.  It is Consciousness of which nothing can be predicated in the privative sense save abstract Being.  Upon It all else depends, while It remains self-existent."

For Wolff, consciousness is primary ------------ that is, first, prior to everything.  Not before or first in the sense of time or temporal sequence, but prior in the sense of not being secondary to or derivative from anything else.  Hence, consciousness is self-existent; it does not depend upon anything else for its being and is entirely self-sufficient and complete.  In particular, consciousness does not depend upon, nor is it derived from, matter, energy, or any other substance.  Wolff also maintained that anything that can be experienced or thought exists through contrast with its opposite. Otherwise it couldn't be isolated from the totality of all consciousness.  Thus, if A stands for any such object, state, etc., then the universe of possible experience or thought is either A or not-A.  But ultimate Reality lies in neither of these compartments------------ and we say it is neither A nor not-A.   "To the pure thinker, THAT which is neither A nor not-A is Voidness.  But through the Door of Dhyana IT is found to be substantial Fullness."

Now, although Wolff appears to have caused duality to disappear by substituting Consciousness for Subjectivity, there is a problem with such verbal sleight-of-hand.  The common definition of consciousness is descriptive of proprietary awareness. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, for example, defines Consciousness as "a: the quality or state of being aware of something within oneself; b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object or event."  Clearly, if consciousness is understood as cognizant awareness, it infers an object.  Inasmuch as the contents of awareness------------whether thoughts, feelings, or images--------------are its objects, Wolff's vanishing act can be seen as an illusion.

The problem is not resolved by attempting to make a monism of existence but, rather, by acknowledging that subjectivity is the finite perspective of an essential reality that knows no differences.  Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century theorized that there had to be a "first principle" from which all otherness is derived.  The first principle was Cusa's logical approach to defining the ineffable primary source.  He reasoned that the uncreated source transcends contrariety, and he expressed that concept as the "coincidence of opposition".  The significance of this logical expression is that it afforded philosophers a descriptive definition that could be applied to what had previously been thought indefinable.  Since existence is diversified and contradictory, its undifferentiated source occupies a unique relationship to man's otherness: Cusa's Source is the absolute not other of all finite existents.  If we apply Cusan logic to Wolff's metaphysical construct, we can see beyond the subject/object contradictions and appreciate the wisdom of his thesis.

I maintain that a philosophy founded on Essence is not only capable of encompassing the subject/object dichotomy but can shed new light on how this perspective completes the Essential ontology.  While, as Piekoff said, consciousness "is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects," it is the power to create, transform and manipulate objects, because the subject and its objects have Essence in common.  Moreover, the fact that our intellectualized, pluralistic world is an "other" to "self" is a necessary condition for making autonomy possible in a causally determined environment.

Human beings are distinguished from other creatures in that we are free to act on the basis of our innate intelligence and prioritized values rather than being driven by our biological instincts.  But at the same time, the consequences of our choices are hidden from us; otherwise we would not be free to decide on them.  This autonomy enables man to improve his world and change the course of history, while also imposing on him the burden of personal responsibility for his decisions.  As psychologist Barry Schwartz put it in his The Paradox of Choice: "We are free to be the authors of our lives, but we don’t know exactly what kind of lives we want to 'write'."

James Fletcher Baxter has characterized man's autonomy in a dynamic world as the role of choicemaker.  "Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables the present reality.  Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly developed, and sensitive perception of diversity.  Thus aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enacting internal mental and external physical selectivity.  Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence."

Only when the nature of awareness is realized as proprietary can one understand that the universe is anthropocentric; that is to say, man is uniquely positioned at the valuistic center of his relational world.  We stand at the crossroads of harmony and dissonance, goodness and evil, joy and sorrow, light and darkness.  As the "autonomous agent" facing a full range of options, the individual is free to evaluate the objects and events of his experience and to proceed independently of their natural course, unbiased by absolute knowledge of their essential reality.  This is the teleological premise of Essence from which the appearance of contradictions--------------including the duality of subject and object-------------is the exclusive property of individual awareness.  It is the premise, in fact, on which the philosophy of Essentialism is based.

Baxter eloquently sums up the morality of Essentialism in The Human Paradigm:

"Man is earth's Choicemaker.  The sublime and significant act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean fulcrum upon which man levers and redirects the forces of cause and effect to an elected level of quality and diversity.  Further, it orients him toward a natural environmental opportunity, freedom, and bestows earth's title, The Choicemaker, on his singular and plural brow.

"Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker, inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based system of measuring human value.  Blunting an awareness of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the selective creative process, they are self-relegated to a passive and circular regression."

The cardinal principle of Essentialism is that Essence is absolute and immutable, that there is a "clean break" between the unity of Essence and the differentiated world of cognizant awareness.  Intellectualized precepts like Being and Nothing, Subject and Object, Before and After, Here and There, Static and Dynamic, Good and Bad are specific to finite experience and are not directly transferable to Absolute Essence.  Philosophies that are founded on an existential attribute or property as opposed to a primary, undifferentiated source cannot claim metaphysical transcendence.

I've pointed out in my thesis that immutability is a two-edged sword.  For just as the identity of Essence cannot be transferred to another entity, neither can individual self-awareness.  Despite the "universality" of empirical knowledge and the fact that we are all human beings, reality is unique to each individual.  Existential reality begins and ends with individual awareness.  The only way I can share my proprietary world with someone else is by verbal description.

We are all observers of an ordered system that is objective in the sense that it is an other to us, and we are the "empirical nothing" within it; but the fact that we respond to its values suggests our connection to a greater reality--------a first principle or cause unlimited by finite boundaries and divisions.  While "subjective" may not adequately designate this valuistic identity, it does convey the proprietary nature of sensible awareness.  From the existential perspective, the primary source can be understood as the uncreated 'Oneness' to which all created things are not-other.

Freedom has no meaning if it is not autonomous, and the universe is designed to ensure that autonomy.  The valuistic sensibility of man is the subjective essence of his primary source.  This is not solipsism: it is the absolute autonomy that makes Freedom possible in a relational world whose values are the very essence of man.  And because the values with which we freely identify in this singular journey through life are ours alone, so are the choices by which what we become in existence expresses the value of what we are in Essence.

--HP

RETURN TO VALUES PAGE