Religious Revolution and Principle of Creation (3)

Yoon Hyuk Kwon
July 1971
(Professor, Donggook University, Korea)

4. The Essential Structure of Principle of Creation

Trying to develop Sein (Nichts), the original Unity prior to the division of mind and matter, subject and object for standing above the metaphysics Platon to Nietsche based on the existential oblivion, Heidegger was hard to be practical in his realization of Nichts.

Had his one been practically realized, it would have been sure for his philosophy to be much higher dimensional. However, in view of his metaphysical atmosphere under the influence of western philosophy fatally, it could be hardly expected for it to be practical one which can be accomplished only through the medium of the oriental thoughts and this kept his philosophy from being the creative one as the new cultural basis of the world.

Nichts which is not mere curtain of Sein and both is the same as existence and quite different one from it, is not only the basis of uneasiness and denial but also of destined destruction and decline of all the beings.

Thus Sein, the same as Nichts and the different being from it, can be realized as the creative life leading to the creation as well as to the destruction. Therefore there may be no creation without development of nichts, and showdown and struggle of the being can be its motive. An existent being relatively confronted with based on nichts and such 'a showdown and struggle of the relative being is indispensable in creation. Realizing the role of naught in the activity of creative life, it may be possible for the Principle of Creation to be formulated. The struggle of relative being confronted with in the two poles based on the creative life develops naught through which the both show-downers are to ruin and when they decease, there comes to appear a newly unified being as the manifested form of original creative life.

The newly created being as manifestation of creative life is a newly unified form of the perished extremes. Accordingly creation seems to manifest a new being rapidly quite different in quality from bi-polar antagonist. If the principal category of creation be so, it can be looked as the same as the harmonious unity of the positive and negative poles in the science of divination. However, in realization of the origin and based on the practical consciousness of naught, the Principle of Creation came to be conscious of creative life quite different from Taeguk' having no creative activity and quite different from the natural harmonious thoughts of the positive and negative poles short of the motive of struggle and confrontation, the Principle of Creation came to be creative and promising one. Now comparison of the Principle with the dialectical category. In dialectic of Hegel, one of the two poles is regarded as spirit and the other as material or nature, and the spirit is attached importance to as the originator whereas material is despised and only as a negative motive in the dialectical. When all comes to all, Hegel's dialectic could be no other continuous developing process of spirit, and contradiction and sublation, the dialectical category came to be more supposition. Finally since the dialectic is conversed to monorolar logic, it can hardly be expected for it to take hold of the reality of creation progress. Likewise, materialistic by Marx aroused of antagonism of Hegel's one could also hardly be out of monopolar logic which is impossible to take hold of the creative reality in spite of putting emphasis on the struggle and confrontation. The creative life based on the Principle of Creation is the original unity prior to the division of materialism and idealism and it is realized as a new source of the world to keep aloof from the metaphysics based on existential oblivion and the division and confrontation.

Now let me have its comparison with philosophy of 'Energy' and 'life'. The creative life should be distinguished from energy in the monism named 'energy' by Friedlich Wilhelm Ostwald (1853-1932). Eneygy Ostwal means is objectively taken hold one and is nothing but one recognized in the phenomenal dimension. In other words, the creative life we mean is one that enables us to recognize and not the recognized one itself. Life in 'Life' philosophy by William Dilthey (1833-1911) is subjective and noesistic one which can be grasped only in interpretation, and though it is more concrete and realistic than objectively recognized one, after all, it is life of an imminent being in subject and far from the creative life standing aloof from relative life of the existent being.

For Henri Bergson (1859--1941), his intuitive philosophy has most profoundly been conscious of the fundamental life, judging from `elan vital' and `L' Evolution 'Creatrice'. But like he means is lack of realization of naught and is far beyond non- successive, rapid and creative life. In conclude the Principle of Creation based on the realization of creative life has been made through the mutual supplementary, unity of both Orientalism and Occidentalism and aims at the foundation of new world culture and spiritual cornerstone of unification.