Our task is to look at the world and see it whole.
We see what our ancestors have always seen: a great Chain of Being which seems to divide naturally into four sections--four "kingdoms," as they used to be called: mineral, plant, animal, and human. This "was, in fact, until not much more than a century ago, probably the most widely familiar conception of the general scheme of things, of the constitutive pattern of the universe." The Chain of Being can be seen as extending downward from the Highest to the lowest, or it can be seen as extending upward from the lowest to the Highest. The ancient view begins with the Divine and sees the downward Chain of Being as moving an ever-increasing distance from the Center, with a progressive loss of qualities. The modern view, largely influenced by the doctrine of evolution, tends to start with inanimate matter and to consider man the last link of the chain, as having evolved the widest range of useful qualities. For our purposes here, the direction of looking--upward or downward--is unimportant, and, in line with modern habits of thought, we shall start at the lowest level, the mineral kingdom, and consider the successive gain of qualities or powers as we move to the higher levels.
No one has any difficulty recognizing the astonishing and mysterious difference between a living plant and one that has died and has thus fallen to the lowest Level of Being, inanimate matter. What is this power that has been lost? We call it "life." Scientists tell us that we must not talk of a "life force" because no such force has ever been found to exist. Yet the difference between alive and dead exists. We could call it "x" to indicate something that is there to be noticed and studied but that cannot be explained. If we call the mineral level "m," we can call the plant level m+x. This factor x is obviously worthy of our closest attention, particularly since we are able to destroy it, although it is completely outside our ability to create it. Even if somebody could provide us with a recipe, a set of instructions, for creating life out of lifeless matter, the mysterious character of x would remain, and we would never cease to marvel that something that could do nothing is now able to extract nourishment from its environment, grow, and reproduce itself, "true to form," as it were. There is nothing in the laws, concepts, and formulae of physics and chemistry to explain or even to describe such powers. X is something quite new and additional, and the more deeply we contemplate it, the clearer it becomes that we are faced here with what might be called an ontological discontinuity or, more simply, a jump in the Level of Being.
From plant to animal there is a similar jump, a similar addition of powers, which enable the typical, fully developed animal to do things that are totally outside the range of possibilities of the typical, fully developed plant. These powers, again, are mysterious and, strictly speaking, nameless. We can refer to them by the letter "y", which will be the safest course, because any word label we might attach to them could lead people to think that such a designation was not merely a hint as to their nature but an adequate description. However, since we cannot talk without words, I shall attach to these mysterious powers the label consciousness. It is easy to recognize consciousness in a dog, a cat, or a horse, if only because they can be knocked unconscious: the processes of life continue as in a plant, although the animal has lost its peculiar powers.
If the plant, in our terminology, can be called m+x, the animal has to be described as m+x+y. Again, the new factor "y" is worthy of our closest attention; we are able to destroy but not to create it. Anything that we can destroy but are unable to make is, in a sense, sacred, and all our "explanations" of it do not really explain anything. Again we can say that y is something quite new and additional when compared with the level "plant"--another ontological discontinuity, another jump in the Level of Being.
Moving from the animal to the human level, who would seriously deny the addition, again, of new powers? What precisely they are has become a matter of controversy in modern times, but the fact that man is able to do--and is doing--innumerable things which lie totally outside the range of possibilities of even the most highly developed animals cannot be disputed and has never been denied. Man has powers of life like the plant, powers of consciousness like the animal, and evidently something more: the mysterious power "z". What is it? How can it be defined? What can it be called? This power z has undoubtedly a great deal to do with the fact that man is not only able to think but is also able to be aware of his thinking. Consciousness and intelligence, as it were, recoil upon themselves. There is not merely a conscious being, but a being capable of being conscious of its consciousness; not merely a thinker, but a thinker capable of watching and studying his own thinking. There is something able to say "I" and direct consciousness in accordance with its own purposes, a master or controller, a power at a higher level than consciousness itself. This power z, consciousness recoiling on itself, opens up unlimited possibilities of purposeful learning, investigating, exploring, and of formulating and accumulating knowledge. What shall we call it? As it is necessary to have word labels, i shall call it self-awareness. We must, however, take great care always to remember that such a word label is merely (to use a Buddhist phrase) "a finger pointing to the moon." The "moon" itself remains highly mysterious and needs to be studied with the greatest patience and perseverance if we want to understand anything about man's position in the Universe.
Our initial review of the four great Levels of Being can be summed up as follows:
Man can be written m+x+y+z
Animal can be written m+x+y
Plant can be written m+x
Mineral can be written m
Only m is visible. x, y, and z are invisible, and they are extremely difficult to grasp, although their effects are matters of everyday experience.
If, instead of taking "minerals" as our base line and reaching the higher Levels of Being by the addition of powers, we start with the highest level directly known to us--man--we can reach the lower Levels of Being by the progressive subtraction of powers. We can thus say:
Man can be written M
Animal can be written M-z
Plant can be written M-z-y
Mineral can be written M-z-y-x
Such a downward scheme is easier for us to understand than the upward one, simply because it is closer to our practical experience. We know that all three factors--x,y, and z--can weaken and die away; we can in fact deliberately destroy them. Self-awareness can disappear while consciousness continues; consciousness can disappear while life continues; and life can disappear leaving an inanimate body behind. We can observe, and in a sense feel, the process of diminution to the point of the apparently total disappearance of self-awareness, consciousness, and life. But it is outside our power to give life to inanimate matter, to give consciousness to living matter, and finally to add the power of self-awareness to conscious beings.
What we can do ourselves, we can, in a sense, understand; what we cannot do at all, we cannot understand--not even "in a sense." Evolution as a process of the spontaneous, accidental emergence of the powers of life, consciousness, and self-awareness, out of inanimate matter, is totally incomprehensible.
For our purposes, however, there is no need to enter into such speculations at this stage. We hold fast to what we can see and experience: the Universe is as a great hierarchic structure of four markedly different Levels of Being. Each level is obviously a broad band, allowing for higher and lower beings within each band, and the precise determination of where a lower band ends and a higher band begins may sometimes be a matter of difficulty and dispute. The existence of the four kingdoms, however, is not put into question by the fact that some of the frontiers are occasionally disputed.
Physics and chemistry deal with the lowest level, "minerals." At this level, x, y, and z--life, consciousness, and self-awareness--do not exist (or, in any case, are totally inoperative and therefore cannot be noticed). Physics and chemistry can tell us nothing, absolutely nothing, about them. These sciences posses no concepts relating to such powers and are incapable of describing their effects. Where there is life, there is form, Gestalt, which reproduces itself over and over again from seed or similar beginnings which do not posses this Gestalt but develop it in the process of growth. Nothing comparable is to be found in physics or chemistry.
To say that life is nothing but a property of certain peculiar combinations of atoms is like saying that Shakespeare's Hamlet is nothing but a property of a peculiar combination of letters. The truth is that the peculiar combination of letters is nothing but a property of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The French or German versions of the play "own" different combinations of letters.
The extraordinary thing about the modern "life sciences" is that they hardly ever deal with life as such, the factor x, but devote infinite attention to the study and analysis of that physicochemical body that is life's carrier. It may well be that modern science has no method for coming to grips with life as such. If this is so, let it be frankly admitted; there is no excuse for the pretense that life is nothing but physics and chemistry.
Nor is there any excuse for the pretense that consciousness is nothing but a property of life. To describe an animal as a physiochemical system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct, except that it misses out on the "animalness" of the animal. Some zoologists, at least, have advanced beyond this level of erudite absurdity and have developed and ability to see in animals more than complex machines. Their influence, however, is as yet deplorably small, and with the increasing "rationalization" of the modern life-style, more and more animals are being treated as if they really were nothing but "animal machines." (This is a very telling example of how philosophical theories, no matter how absurd and offensive to common sense, tend to become, after a while, "normal practice" in everyday life.)
All the "humanities," as distinct from the natural sciences, deal in one way or another with factor y--consciousness. But a distinction between consciousness (y) and self-awareness (z) is seldom drawn. As a result, modern thinking has become increasingly uncertain whether or not there is any "real" difference between animal and man. A great deal of study of the behavior of animals is being undertaken for the purpose of understanding the nature of man. This is analogous to studying physics with the hope of learning something about life (x). Naturally, since man, as it were, contains the three lower Levels of Being, certain things about him can be elucidated by studying minerals, plants, and animals--in fact, everything can be learned about him except that which makes him human All the four constituent elements of the human person--m, x, y and z--deserve study, but there can be little doubt about their relative importance in terms of knowledge for the conduct of our lives.
This importance increases in the order given above, and so do the difficulty and uncertainty experienced by modern humanity. Is there really anything beyond the world of matter, of molecules and atoms and electrons and innumerable other small particles, the ever more complex combinations of which allegedly account for simply everything, from the crudest to the most sublime? Why talk about fundamental differences, "jumps" in the Chain of Being, or "ontological discontinuities" when all we can be really sure of are differences in degree? It is not necessary for us to battle over the question whether the palpable and overwhelmingly obvious differences between the four great Levels of Being are better seen as differences in kind or differences in degree. What has to be fully understood is that there are differences in kind, and not simply in degree, between the powers of life, consciousness, and self-awareness. Traces of these powers may already exist at the lower levels, although not noticeable (or not yet noticed) by man. Or maybe they are infused, so to speak, on appropriate occasions from "another world." It is not essential for us to have theories about their origin, provided we recognize their quality and, in so doing, never fail to remember that they are beyond anything our own intelligence enables us to create.
It it not unduly difficult to appreciate the difference between what is alive and what is lifeless; it is more difficult to distinguish consciousness from life; and to realize, experience, and appreciate the difference between self-awareness and consciousness (that is, between z and y) is hard indeed. The reason for the difficulty is not far to seek: While the higher comprises and therefore in a sense understands the lower, no being can understand anything higher than itself. A human being can indeed strain and stretch toward the higher and induce a process of growth through adoration, awe, wonder, admiration, and imitation, and by attaining a higher level expand its understanding (and this is a subject that will occupy us extensively later on). But people within whom the power of self-awareness (z) is poorly developed cannot grasp it as a separate power and tend to take it as nothing but a slight extension of consciousness (y). Hence we are given a large number of definitions of man which make him out to be nothing but an exceptionally intelligent animal with a measurably larger brain, or a tool-making animal, or a political animal, or an unfinished animal, or simply a naked ape.
No doubt, people who use these terms cheerfully include themselves in their definitions--and may have some reason for doing so. For others, they sound merely inane, like defining a dog as a barking plant or a running cabbage Nothing is more conducive to the brutalization of the modern world than the launching, in the name of science, of wrongful and degrading definitions of man, such as "the naked ape." What could one expect of such a creature, of other "naked apes," or indeed, of oneself? When people speak of animals as "animal machines," they soon start treating them accordingly, and when they think of people as naked apes, all doors are opened to the free entry of bestiality.
"What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! now infinite in faculty!" Because of the power of self-awareness (z), his faculties are indeed infinite; they are not narrowly determined, confined, or "programmed" as one says today. Werner Jaeger expressed a profound truth in the statement that once a human potentiality is realized, it exists. It is the greatest human achievements that define man, not any average behavior or performance, and certainly not anything that can be derived from the observation of animals. "All men cannot be outstanding," says Catherine Roberts. "Yet all men, through knowledge of superior humanness, could know what it means to be a human being and that, as such, they too have a contribution to make. It is magnificent to become as human as one is able. And it requires no help from science. In addition, the very act of realizing one's potentialities might constitute an advance over what has gone before."
This "open-endedness" is the wonderful result of the specifically human powers of self-awareness (z), which, as distinct from the powers of life and consciousness, have nothing automatic or mechanical about them. The powers of self-awareness are essentially a limitless potentiality rather than an actuality. They have to be developed and "realized' by each human individual if he is to become truly human, that is to say, a person.
I said earlier on that man can be written
Matter (m), life (x), consciousness (y), self-awareness (z)--these four elements are ontologically--that is, in their fundamental nature--different, incomparable, incommensurable, and discontinuous. Only one of them is directly accessible to objective, scientific observation by means of our five senses. The other three are none the less known to us because we ourselves, every one of us, can verify their existence from our own inner experience.
We never find life except as living matter; we never find consciousness except as conscious living matter; and we never find self-awareness except as self-aware, conscious, living matter. The ontological differences between these four elements are analogous to the discontinuity of dimensions. A line is one-dimensional, and no elaboration of a line, no subtlety in its construction, and no complexity can ever turn it into a surface. Equally, no elaboration of a two-dimensional surface, no increase in complexity, subtlety, or size, can ever turn it into a solid. Existence in the physical world we know is attained only by three-dimensional beings. One- or two-dimensional things exist only in our minds. Analogically speaking, it might be said that only man has "real" existence in this world insofar as he alone possesses the "three dimensions" of life, consciousness, and self-awareness. In this sense, animals, with only two dimension--life and consciousness--have but a shadowy existence, and plants, lacking the dimensions of self-awareness and consciousness, relate to a human being as a line relates to a solid. In terms of this analogy, matter, lacking the three "invisible dimensions," has no more reality than a geometrical point.
This analogy, which may seem farfetched from a logical point of view, points to an inescapable existential truth: The most "real" world we live in is that of our fellow human beings. Without them we should experience a sense of enormous emptiness; we could hardly be human ourselves, for we are made or marred by our relations with other people. The company of animals could console us only because, and to the extent which, they were reminders, even caricatures, of human beings. A world without fellow human beings would be an eerie and unreal place of banishment; with neither fellow humans nor animals the world would be a dreadful wasteland, no matter how luscious its vegetation. To call it one-dimensional would not seem to be an exaggeration. Human existence in a totally inanimate environment, if it were possible, would be total emptiness, total despair. It may seem absurd to pursue such a line of thought, but it is surely not so absurd as a view which counts as "real" only inanimate matter and treats as "unreal," subjective," and therefore scientifically nonexistent the invisible dimensions of life, consciousness, and self-awareness.
A simple inspection of the four great Levels of Being has led us to the recognition of their four "elements"--matter, life, consciousness, and self-awareness. It is this recognition that matters, not the precise association of the four elements with the four Levels of Being. If the natural scientists should come and tell us that there are some beings they call animals in whom no trace of consciousness can be detected, it would not be for us to argue with them. Recognition is one thing; identification quite another. For us, only recognition is important, and we are entitled to choose for our purposes typical and fully-developed specimens from each Level of Being. If they manifest and demonstrate most clearly the "invisible dimensions" of life, consciousness, and self-awareness, this demonstration is not nullified or invalidated by any difficulty of classification in other cases.
Once we have recognized the ontological gaps and discontinuities that separate the four "elements"--m,x,y,z--from one another, we know also that there can exist no "links' or "transitional forms": Life is either present or absent; there cannot be a half-presence; and the same goes for consciousness and self-awareness. Difficulties of identification and are often increased by the fact that the lower level appears to present a kind of mimicry or counterfeit of the higher, just as an animated puppet can at times be mistaken for a living person, or a two-dimensional picture can look like three-dimensional reality. But neither difficulties of identification and demarcation nor possibilities of deception and error cna be used as arguments against the existence of the four great Levels of Being, exhibiting the four "elements" we have called matter, Life, Consciousness, and Self-awareness. These four "elements" are four irreducible mysteries, which need to be most carefully observed and studied, but which cannot be explained, let alone "explained away."
In a heirarchic structure, the higher does not merely
possess powers that are additional to and exceed those possessed by the
lower; it also has power over the lower: it has the power to organize
the lower and use it for its own purpses. Liveing beings can organize
and utilize inanimate matter, conscious beings can utilize life, and self-aware
beings can utilize consciousness. Are ther powers that are higher
than self-awareness? Are there Levels of Being above the human? At
this stage in our investigation we need do no more than register the fact
that the great majority of mankind throughout its known history, until
very recently, has been unshakenly convinced that the Chain of Being extends
upward beyond man. This universal conviction of mankind is impressive
for both its duration and its intensity. Those individuals of the
past whom we still consider the wisest and greatest not only shared this
belief but considered it of all truths the most important and the most
profound.
1 On Philosophical maps
2 Levels of Being
3 Progressions
4 "Adaequatio": I
5 "Adaequatio": II
6 The Four Fields of Knowledge: 1
7 The Four Fields of Knowledge: 2
8 The Four Fields of Knowledge: 3
9 The Four Fields of Knowledge: 4
10 Two Types of Problems
Epilogue
Notes