Çѱ¹È­ÀÌÆ®ÇìµåÇÐȸ ȨÆäÀÌÁö¿¡ ¿À½Å °É ȯ¿µÇÕ´Ï´Ù.
Á¦   ¸ñ  
ÀßÃ÷ºÎ¸£Å© ±¹Á¦ È­ÀÌÆ®ÇìµåÇмú´ëȸ ¹ßÇ¥³í¹® (Àå¿Õ½Ä)
[ 2007-01-17 17:16:02 ]
±Û¾´ÀÌ  
¿î¿µÀÚ
Á¶È¸¼ö: 3677        
On Whitehead¡¯s Doctrine of the Ultimate: From An East Asian Perspective

Wang Shik Jang (Methodist Theological Seminary, Seoul)


Whitehead¡¯s doctrine of the ultimate is faced with a new kind of challenge today.  The challenge arises when it encounters East Asian process thoughts.  Especially, since today¡¯s Mahayana Buddhism has construed Emptiness or Nothingness to be ultimate reality, Whiteheadians have been confronted with two problems at least.
The first problem arises when it is said that Emptiness or Nothingness in Buddhist philosophy is similar to Creativity in Whitehead¡¯s philosophy.  I absolutely endorse the perception that there are many ways in which Emptiness or Nothingness can be identified with Creativity. However, my claim in this paper is that there are discrepancies between the Buddhist ultimate and the Whiteheadian ultimate.  In what follows, I will show why and how they differ from each other.
The second problem can be elaborated as follows.  If Emptiness or Nothingness can be regarded as an ultimate, then how is it possible for Whiteheadians to internalize the Buddhist ultimate into their philosophical framework without damaging Whitehead¡¯s own metaphysical system?  This is what I attempt to elaborate in the next sections.  I will argue that since there is a variety of the ultimate even in Whitehead¡¯s metaphysical system, it is not impossible for a Whiteheadian to incorporate such Buddhist ultimate into Whitehead¡¯s metaphysical system.  I will show how this argument can be made possible.

I. The Characteristics of Creativity as Ultimate Reality in Whitehead¡¯s Philosophy

It is well known that Creativity is ultimate reality in Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics.  Of course, Whitehead¡¯s philosophy is not the only philosophy that regards Creativity as ultimate reality.  For instance, Dao (Tao) has been regarded as an ultimate reality in East Asian religions for a long period.  Particularly, Dao in Confucianism and Daoism is the typical notion that functions as the ultimate reality which gives rise to everything in the universe.  It explains how everything in the universe arises and thereby becomes something new.  Chang Chung-yuan is, in this book Creativity and Taoism, an East Asian philosopher that attempts to show how Dao is identical with Whitehead¡¯s Creativity in many ways.
However, this is not to say that Dao can directly be identified with Whitehead¡¯s Creativity.  For it is obvious that there are some philosophical conditions in East Asian philosophies that cannot make Dao identified with Creativity.  A condition is associated with the concept of time.
East Asian philosophies of religion usually see time in terms of the cyclical structure of nature.  Especially, Daoism is so focused on the cyclical structure of nature that it is not concerned with the accumulation of time or the advancement of history.  Quite often, Daoist notion of time in East Asia makes human effort futile when human beings endeavor to make the advancement of civilization.  For a Daoist, the human effort to create civilization has been what is to be avoided most.  For him, an authentic civilization can be achieved only when human beings try to return to nature itself.
By contrast, Whitehead¡¯s philosophy assumes that time flows uni-directionally so that it is linear and cumulative.  This kind of process philosophy easily leads to the understanding that if human history is directed to an ideal goal, then human civilization will be advanced in a great deal.  The behind reason for such a philosophical assumption is that Whitehead¡¯s process philosophy is inclined to see the universe in terms of a single-ordered world.  In other words, when human beings attempt to understand their universe in a rational way, it is the human reason that mediates between the universe as an object and the human mind as a subject.  However, the human reason will be able to grasp the universe easily only insofar as a single-ordered world is assumed.  This is to say that if the universe is a multiple-ordered world, implying not so much a uni-verse as a pluri-verse, then human beings will not be able to grasp the world rationally.  
For Western thinkers including Whitehead, a multiple-ordered world allows the reversibility of time so that it is difficult for human beings to be able to assume a rational world that is dominated by the law of causality. Therefore, it goes without saying that a rational understanding of the world has been rooted in the assumption of a single-ordered universe posited by most Western thinkers.  It is easy to find out the fact that both the irreversible, cumulative, linear understanding of time and the teleological understanding of history are all the by-product of such an assumption.  Furthermore, the evolutionary understanding of history and civilization in the West has been in tune with this assumption too.  This is why a single-ordered universe is posited in almost all of Western philosophers including Whitehead.
Creativity as ultimate reality in Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics shows all the characteristics of the above assumption. For Whitehead, Creativity is the ultimate metaphysical principle by means of which every entity in the universe can be explained in terms of creative advance.  In other words, ¡°the creative advance is the application of this ultimate principle of creativity to each novel situation.¡±  Here, it is easy to discover for us how Whitehead connects the notion of creativity with a single-ordered universe.  Whitehead holds that the ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from ¡°disjunction to conjunction, creating a novel entity other than the entities given in disjunction.¡±  This means that creativity is an instrumental notion employed for the explanation of the metaphysical principle by which the world of conjunction, i.e., a single-ordered universe, is created.  To say that the ultimate metaphysical principle is the advance from disjunction to conjunction is nothing other than to say that Whitehead¡¯s philosophy often puts more attention to a single-ordered world than to a many-ordered world, or to cosmos than to chaos. Of course, this does not necessarily imply that for Whitehead, a many-ordered world is ignored.  It merely means that for Whitehead, a single-ordered world is sometimes more focused than a many-ordered world in order to see how creative advance occurs in the world of human beings.
A process philosophy based on the single-ordered world has some strength in bringing about the advancement of civilization. One of the strengths is that such a philosophy can be used to facilitate the great advancement of civilization.  This is possible, because such a philosophy emphasizes that the advancement of civilization will be achieved more easily when human beings can dream of things to come and enjoy the adventure of imagination.  Having a dream and enjoying such an adventure will be achieved more effectively if one possesses the irreversible, cumulative, and linear understanding of time.  In this way, the linear and irreversible understanding of time has had an advantage in the development of human civilization
Nonetheless, a philosophy based on the single-ordered world does not always lead to a total celebration of victory.  In a word, a weakness arises just because of the strength.  As we know, we are living in the pluralistic society.  Today, we are pushed to be aware of the continuing multiplicity and vitality of cultures and civilizations.  It is no longer true to say that there is one and only way for all.  Many people of contemporaries have come to believe that the structure of rationality, consciousness, and religion of their culture are merely one among many.  The linear understanding and a single ordered world-view are simply one among many perspectives.  The unshaken conviction that only a linear and teleological understanding of time can produce a better civilization has become a myth today.
Since the world-view based on the linear understanding and a single-ordered cosmos has been shaken, we are faced with the challenge of pluralism, as far as we regard creativity as the only ultimate reality.  Pluri-verse and chaos are not just a matter of fact but rather a matter of principle.  If we boil the many principles down to one principle, we would harm ourselves and maim the world.
 Then, our question is to be how Whitehead¡¯s notion of Creativity can cope with the problem of the ultimate in a pluralistic universe.   How is it possible for Whitehead¡¯s Creativity to be in ensemble with a variety of ultimate realities presupposed by other process philosophies?  Before dealing with this issue, however, let us first see in what follows how the doctrine of ultimate reality in East Asian religions has been developed.  


II. Creativity as the Ultimate in Whitehead vs. Emptiness as the Ultimate in Mahayana Buddhism.

As we know, Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics is not the only philosophy of process in our time.  East Asian philosophies and religions have developed their own type of process thought.
 Above all, with respect to the East Asian process concept of ultimate reality, one of the striking arguments has been that Emptiness or Nothingness in Mahayana Buddhism can be identified with Whitehead¡¯s Creativity.  So far, this argument has been made in two ways.
Firstly, it is said that Emptiness or Nothingness can be identified with Whitehead¡¯s Creativity in the sense that the Buddhist ultimate is the unrestricted dynamic universal, whereby everything in the universe is realized equally. It is also said to be the deepest ground of the universe, the ground by means of which everything in the world becomes novel. In this way, Emptiness in Mahayana Buddhism is described to be identical with Creativity in Whitehead¡¯s philosophy.
Secondly, just as Whitehead¡¯s Creativity, which is not actual but potential, is neither good nor evil, so Emptiness is depicted to go beyond the category of good and evil.  In Mahayana Buddhism, according to Masao Abe, good is not considered as having priority over evil.  While good and evil are antagonistic processes, negating one another, they are still inseparably connected with one another. (Abe 131)  In Buddhism, what is essential is not to overcome evil with good and to participate in the supreme Good, but to be emancipated from the existential antinomy of good and evil and to awaken to Emptiness prior to the opposition between good and evil.  Like this, thanks to this kind of neutrality in value, Emptiness is said to be similar to Creativity.
However, my contention is that there are great differences between Emptiness and Creativity too.  One of the most salient facts that make Creativity differ from Emptiness is that while the doctrine of Creativity posits a single-ordered universe, the doctrine of Emptiness does not.  Emptiness as the ultimate reality in Mahayana Buddhism does not allow any position that may cause an attachment.  As we know, for Buddhists, an attachment to something means substantializing that thing.  Therefore, Emptiness means the denial of all kinds of position including substantive thinking itself. For instance, Nagarjuna, who is the founder of the Madhiamika (Middle Path), rejects always two extremes and suggests the Way that transcends every possible duality including that of being and non-being, affirmation and negation.  Like this, Nagarjuna¡¯s Way is also based on the doctrine of Emptiness, utilizing the logic of neither-nor.  Nagarjuna once said that since Emptiness is realized not only by negating the eternalist view but also by negating the nihilistic view, it is not based on a mere negation but on a negation of the negation.  This double negation is of course not a relative negation but an absolute negation.  It is obvious that the logic of neither-nor naturally leads to the rejection of a single-ordered world.
A difference between Creativity and Emptiness can be pointed out from the concept of time.  To say that the doctrine of Emptiness denies a single-ordered universe is also to say that it denies the uni-directionality of time.  In Whitehead¡¯s philosophy, however, Creativity functions as the ultimate reality in the universe of uni-directional time.  Contrary to the uni-directional nature of time in Whitehead, the Buddhist notion of time is completely reciprocal by nature.  As Nishitani once said, time in Mahayana Buddhism is not so much horizontal or linear but rather vertical.  Abe expresses this in the following way.  That is, ¡°Buddhism is not closed to the possibility of a forward moving and irreversible historical time; further, it affirms anew every possible reality of history and time on the basis of the transtemporal depth of eternity.  Accordingly, it is said that the Buddhist time is neither linear nor cyclical.¡± (Abe 168).
It seems to me that one of the most salient differences between Creativity and Emptiness is rooted in the fact that while Whitehead¡¯s Creativity is the ultimate category whereby everything in the universe can be explained, the Buddhist¡¯s Emptiness cannot fully function as the ultimate category.  Of course, it is true to say that Emptiness has functioned as an ultimate category in the history of Buddhist philosophy.  However, it is fair to say that Buddhists definitely do not regard Emptiness as a positive principle.  This is because, strictly speaking, as soon as Emptiness or absolute Nothingness functions as a positive category, it cannot simply transcend and stand somewhat outside of the duality of being and non-being and thereby cannot be called true Emptiness or true absolute Nothingness.  In other words, Emptiness or Nothingness thus understood is merely something finite, not an ultimate Emptiness or Nothingness.
 Now, we are in a position to see how a Buddhist concept of the ultimate in an East Asian process philosophy can be contrasted with Whitehead¡¯s Creativity.  What has been clarified above is that some East Asian religions have characterized the doctrine of the ultimate in a totally different way from Whitehead¡¯s.  Then, our question is to be how Whitehead¡¯s notion of Creativity can cope with the problems caused by the doctrine of ultimate reality in other process philosophies.  Or, how is it possible for Whitehead¡¯s philosophy to embrace a variety of the ultimate realities presupposed by other process philosophies in the East Asia?


III. Ultimate Realities in Whitehead¡¯s Metaphysics

Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics as a process philosophy considers Creativity as the ultimate reality.  However, as we have seen above, some other process philosophies in East Asia consider Emptiness or Nothingness to be ultimate reality.  Here, an interesting issue is to see how a Whiteheadian can embrace such ultimate realities into Whitehead¡¯s philosophical system without damaging Whitehead¡¯s own metaphysical scheme.
It seems to me that a Whiteheadian can learn a new doctrine of the ultimate reality from the philosophy of East Asian religions.  The new doctrine is that there can be a variety of ultimate realities.  This doctrine has been pervasive in the East.  For instance, Dao as the ultimate reality in East Asian tradition has two aspects in its characteristics.  Laozi (or Lao Tzu) says in the opening sentences of Daodejing, ¡°the Dao that can be expressed in words is not the eternal Dao: the name that can be uttered is not its eternal name¡¦ Without a name, it is unknowable and nonexistent.
A Whiteheadian may also posit that Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics can presuppose the existence of many ultimates.  In fact, as we know, the category of the ultimate in Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics provides us with three notions of the ultimate: one, many, and creativity.  This is to say that Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics allows the standpoints that attempt to grasp and comprehend the world-processes in terms of both cosmos and chaos.  Whitehead says, ¡°the term ¡®one¡¯ is employed to refer to the ¡®universe conjunctively,¡¯ whereas the term ¡®many¡¯ refers to ¡®the universe disjunctively.¡¯¡±  In a word, the one refers to an ultimate in the world of cosmos.  By contrast, the many  refers to an ultimate in world of chaos.  This interpretation certainly shows that Whitehead¡¯s categoreal scheme does posit the world of chaos as well as the world of cosmos.  It also shows that Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics can incorporate a variety of ultimates into his own system.
This interpretation can be made possible also even when we consider Whitehead¡¯s doctrine of cosmic epoch.  Whitehead¡¯s epistemology is based on a linear, single-file successions of occasions, each successor prehending and thereby appropriating the aspects of the preceding members of the world.  The cosmic epoch is composed of a plurality of space-time systems.  According to Whitehead, ¡°Here the phrase ¡®cosmic epoch¡¯ is used to mean that widest society of actual entities whose immediate relevance to ourselves is traceable.¡± (PR 91)
 Whitehead even mentions, ¡°There is no necessity that temporal process¡¦should be constituted by one single series of linear succession.  Accordingly, in order to satisfy the present demands of scientific hypothesis, we introduce the metaphysical hypothesis that this is not the case.  We do assume¡¦that temporal process of realization can be analyzed into a group of linear serial processes.  Each of these linear series is a space-time system.¡± (SMW 181)  This obviously shows that Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics allows many kinds of space-time system and a variety of orders, including both the order of universe and the disorder of pluri-verse.
As we have seen, we can still continue to consider Creativity as the ultimate reality in the philosophical scheme of Whitehead without the denial of pluri-verse. As we saw above, Creativity is that ultimate principle by which the many, which are the universe disjunctively, becomes the one¡¦ which is the universe conjunctively. The fundamental inescapable fact is the creativity in virtue of which there can be no ¡®many things¡¯ which are not subordinated in a concrete unity.¡± (PR 211)  Creativity is the ultimate notion by means of which chaotic process of universe can become a cosmos.
Therefore, it needs to be pointed out that Creativity should function as the ultimate reality even amongst a variety of ultimate realities.  This means that of course, the list of ultimates in Whitehead¡¯s philosophy can be enumerated as one, many, God, and Beauty, according to one¡¯s position.  However, it seems to me that as far as we want to maintain the normal type of Whitehead¡¯s metaphysics, Creativity has to become the ultimate reality by means of which we can discuss the cosmic epoch that is directly relevant to our human reasoning.  Again, this is not to say that the doctrine of Creativity rules out the assumption of pluri-universe.  This is merely to say that the only reason for employing Creativity as the ultimate reality is to be concerned with the world of cosmos that easily fits to our rational reasoning, rather than to be concerned with the world of chaos.
Whitehead¡¯s doctrine of Beauty makes Whitehead open to this kind of interpretation too.  In Adventures of Ideas, Whiteheads writes that in our experience, the scope of Beauty is wider than the scope of Truth: ¡°Beauty is a wider, and more fundamental, notion than Truth¡± (AI 265).  This means that while, for Whitehead, the rational way of thinking is still stressed, Beauty is described as the highest good.  Of course, Truth is still said to be important for the development of human civilization, because the general importance of Truth for the promotion of Beauty is overwhelming¡± (AI 266).
However, we must be careful about this point.  In his metaphysical system, Creativity is depicted as the ultimate reality whose role is to give the ultimate explanation to all the phenomena in the universe.  This means that all the other ultimates, such as Emptiness, Absolute Nothingness, and even Beauty, are nothing other than the object of explanation in Whitehead¡¯s philosophical system.  For Whitehead, it is Creativity that is the ultimate principle of explanation.