This text was extracted from an image and needs proofreading.
Publications:
- Lucifer, vol. 2, no. 8, April 1888, pp. 136-141
Read:
Download:
DATA
Title for references: Courtney H.L. - Ultimate Philosophy
Short description:
136
Ultimate Philosophy
Those interested in the philosophy which, for lack of a better name, we style Hylo-Ideaism (or for sake of euphony Hylo-Idealism), as connoting the continuity of Ancient and Modern Thought, certainly owe a debt of gratitude to Lucifer, for the generous manner in which its columns have been opened for the consideration of this most vital, but at present unpopular and grossly misunderstood question; [2] and, if I may be allowed to trespass yet a little further on your valuable space, I will endeavour to finally clear the matter of all misunderstanding.
Now I must at the outset allow in the fullest manner possible that in this argument absolute consistency of expression cannot be expected from us, in view of the great difficulties with which we have to cope. To begin with, we must, to be understood, address prospective converts in their own language, and this does not at all fit. For when for the moment we take their special ground, and, attempting to reach our position from theirs, make use for the moment of their language and ideas, we constantly have these make-shift and afterwards repudiated concessions mistaken for our own position (!), as for instance when your reviewer [3] cuts my argument in the middle, and, disregarding my hedging on the next page, blames me for my temporary and accidental use of the word “light-wave.” Another difficulty consists in a general mistake regarding the aim and scope of our argument; our hearers not only persistently attempting to grasp by comprehension that which can only be touched by apprehension, but thinking that this is what we wish them to do. For, be it marked, we cannot directly address one another’s apprehension (which is simple non-understood perception), but only through the medium of comprehension (understanding), to which all our arguments must be addressed, and it is therefore exceedingly difficult to show that we are not really attempting to solve or concentrate the problem in that sphere at all, but, in a word, to simply persuade each to apprehend that the whole matter entirely passes comprehension. Then again there is the misunderstanding that consolidation in the ego means destruction of something that was beyond, instead of simply being the realization of the fact that this “something” never was beyond – hence still remains what it always was, and is to be treated accordingly. Because, for instance, an idea is only an idea, it is no reason for its abandonment as idea.[4]
Misconceptions of this character blight all argument, and obviously render the satisfactory conveyance of thought from one mind to another a task difficult in the extreme. I must therefore crave the utmost indulgence when I appear ot be trying to out-think my own ego in order to prove that it cannot be so out-thought.
137
For the issue between us is in brief as to what can be reasonably assumed or proved beyond the “I am,” viz. the conscious existence of the ego. This is the issue, the only issue, and the whole issue at stake. To grant the ego is to assume
existence, the possibility of which assumption necessitates consciousness (sensation). And it needs but to grasp the full signification of the word consciousness, to see at a glance the drift of the whole argument. I am bound to play upon some word, and I have my choice of several – in this instance let me use the word consciousness. Now is there (to me)[5] aught beyond consciousness?[6] If there is, give me a larger name, good critic, and let me use that instead – I wish a word which shall include the whole sum of personal existence. I need but one simple equation for the sake of argument. Let “I am”=consciousness – or “sensation” or any other word you please, so that it includes all thought, feeling, desire, or fancy, in short all connected with the ego in itself.[7]
It needs now but to state the question, in order to prove the validity of the Hylo-Ideaistic position. Can I in myself be conscious beyond myself? That is to say, can thought out-think the thinker, feeling out-feel the feeler, or dream out-dream the dreamer? To be conscious beyond myself is to exist beyond myself, that is to say “I am”= “I am not!” Ego=I am: non-ego=I am not: – and to suppose that there can be the slightest relationship between the two, between the “I am” of reasonable apprehension and the mere meaningless absurdity (“I am not”!) is to suppose an idea worthy only of Bedlam.[8] Self cannot transcend self, and the ego conceiving a “beyond” only through its own medium and according to its own measure does not go “beyond” at all. That which is conceived by me is part of me – if not, by what means have I transcended my own consciousness? How can I be self and yet not self at the same time?[9] How have I reached the “beyond” – how, yes, how? The
line may not be taken up in the imaginary beyond and traced inwards, for this is assuming the point in question; but, to disprove my position, the oparation of consciousness must be fairly taken at its beginning, within consciousness and traced outwards – i.e., outside itself!
For expressions such as “self being but dim reflection of the universal soul
138
of the Kosmos” [10] are to my mind entirely meaningless. How on earth or in heaven do, or can I, know anything about this “Kosmos”? All that I know, or think, or fancy, or conceive (if multiplicity of terms can make the matter clear), is part of myself, because (if, again, repetition can make the matter clear), if it be not so, I must have out-thought or out-conceived myself, &c.[11] Beyond consciousness all is (to me) a blank, and all that enters consciousness becomes part of myself thereby;[12] – nor beyond myself can any origin be traced, for if it can be, then has consciousness gone beyond itself and then would “I am”= “I am not.” Therefore my slightest apprehension of any “beyond” makes that just beyond, so far as it is in any way apprehended, part of me and not me part of it.
Take any sub-division of consciousness (of the “I am”) that you please and the analytical result is the same. You speak of “knowledge” for example. Now all knowledge must be in self, for since existence precedes knowledge,
therefore to know outside myself is to exist outside myself, that is again “I am” = “I am not.” Therefore knowledge is not outside self, i. e. it is in self and that which is in self is part of self, and existing only in relation to the whole. [13] Being able in like manner to exhaust every possible analysis, let us now proceed to synthesis and sum up each and every part in one all-embracing whole. And let it be marked that in attempting such generalization we entirely quit the sphere of analytical reason, i. e. failing in comprehension I only vaguely apprehend. Where now shall this generalization be save in the “I am”? Suppose for example there were an actually existing “I am not” (!) – can “I” generalize therein or thereon? How suicidally absurd is that reasoning which attempts to treat non-egoism, “I am not,” nothingness as actuality, i. e. as though nothing=something after all![14] With non-egoism or nothingness I have naught to do. I and my universe are one and other universe there is none and never can be – because my universe is all. If not all, show me what it is not; and realize, O, short-sighted reasoner, that this would be impossible, for the fact of my seeing it (or in any way representing it in consciousness) would make it part of me thereby, else I should have out-seen, or out-thought, or out-fancied myself, which is absurd. To cut the matter short, that which exists not to the
139
ego is non-existent. And since “I” equals only itself, it is absurd to try and occupy some impossible stand-point outside myself, and therefore I can dispense with the needless idea of relationship (the existence to me) introduced as though I existed in the not-I. I am that I am, and that “am” is all in all; therefore instead of I=my universe, let me say, which is the exact equivalent, I=the universe.
And now in conclusion of the argument let me call particular attention to, which is the crucial point, the difference between the apprehension and comprehension of reason, between synthesis and analysis. Note that apprehension (as the word is here used) does not precede comprehension but follows it, taking up the running where comprehension leaves off; – it is the generalization following after analysis. Hence there can be no question of apprehension “outside” self because there has been no comprehension, i. e. no synthesis is reachable without preceding analysis. Now the result of each and all analysis has been to prove that in no one particular way can the ego establish the slightest relation with the non-ego, the result of each separate analysis proving that no such relationship exists. And then proceeding beyond analysis the further truth dawns upon me that no such relationship can exist, but that self is all in all both actually and potentially. But this I cannot prove,[15] for I should have to get into the non-existent non-ego in order to do it; that is to say reasonable analysis entirely breaks down, obviously must break down, when it attempts to analyse its own origin, for this is simply chasing its own shadow.
Upon the fact of its own existence the ego cannot reason.[16] Yet of all facts this is to me the one indisputably true, the one fortress that no analysis can touch, but which is unfolded in its true extent by a grand synthesis summing up all individual analysis.
In my search therefore for the origin and centre of existence, I find the former to be totally unknowable and incomprehensible, nor can I imagine any process by which it could in the vaguest manner be guessed at, and the only way in which I can treat the question is by throwing both beginning and ending out of court by reducing all time and all existence to one indefinable and yet eternal Present – which ever entirely passes comprehension and defies analysis.[17] As regards the centre of existence I can sustain naught save the apprehension of the “I am.” Both roads therefore lead me to the same conclusion. In searching for an “origin” I can find naught save the “am” of the present, and in searching for a centre I reduce all existence to the ego, the I – to which the “am” naturally and necessarily belongs.
Granted therefore the apprehension of the “I am,” as the synthetical outcome of all analysis. The whole problem of existence is thus focussed and centred in a Unity, and this is “Hylo-Ideaism,” the one centre into which the myriad lines of all possible analysis converge as to one fountain head. Hylo-Ideaism therefore is the focussing and centreing of all existence into the “I am,” but has nothing to do with any impossible “explanation.” The
140
“I am” can only be resolved into exactly equivalent terms and therefore admits of no comprehensible definition – any attempt to define being an attempt to comprehend, which, in this case, is an attempt on the part of self to change the very nature of its own existence; that is to say, to reasonable comprehension the fact of existence ( = “I am”) ever remains the algebraical x, the unknowable, the Incomprehensible and Infinite Absolute. Nevertheless, in the recognition, of this truth of absolute and genuine Self-centricism, we have reached a generalization surpassing all generalizations yet formulated. Nay, I make bold to say, surpassing all that can be formulated, for how can we go further than to reduce all existence to the idea of a point, mathematically undefinable and unknowable because the limit of possible divisibility can never be reached; whilst equally on the other hand to the existence of the Ego or to the range of consciousness, no bounds are assignable, and we therefore have a Unity of Existence in which is combined both ideas equally of infinite contraction as of infinite extension – and this as regards both Space and Time.
And now I think the apparent contradictions in Dr. Lewins’ pamphlet are fully explained.[18] Hylo-Idealism is not, as your reviewer seems to take it, a mere réchauffé of Idealism. Unless idea can outstrip ideation, the “I am,” does not admit of being styled idea, since of it no idea can be formed save that it passes idea. How indeed can that be styled mere idea which not only includes all idea, but is the source of ideation? Hylo-Ideaism is therefore no more committed to the latter part of its nomenclature than to the former; it transcends, includes and unifies both Idealism and Materialism, each of which taken separately is but a mere one-sided attempt to divide the indivisible and define the indefinable. The Idealist query, How can we know matter save in and by idea? is counterbalanced by the materialistic position, How can there be idea save in and by matter? Each taken separately involves an attempt on the part of the Ego to escape beyond itself in defining its own composition. But in the double-faced unity of Hylo-Ideaism, where the ego includes in itself every possibility, both positions are equally accepted and admitted and each counterbalances the other.[19] For if in the “I am” is summed up all existence in one absolute Unity without distinction or difference, as in one indefinable point transcending all distinctive comprehension – then, not only, as the Idealists express their half of the truth, is matter comprehended in idea, nor as the Materialists insist on the other half, is idea comprehended in matter; but with regard to the ultimate composition of existence, all=all. Matter is comprehended in idea and idea is comprehended in matter, both propositions being equally valid, i. e., each assumable for momentary purposes of argument and neither having the slightest precedence over the other. Therefore – All hail the One Unity of All Existence.
And now, thanking you for your kind courtesy in sparing me this space, I quit a subject on which I could think and write for ever and a day, – and yet not free myself from the painful feeling that I have not really accomplished
141
that which I attempted, for in so far as I attempt to express in words (in symbols of comprehension) that which is and can be only apprehension above all possible comprehension – to this extent I must partially fail of my purpose. I can only communicate particular analysis, the crowning synthesis must grow up for itself. In the concluding words of my poor little makeshift pamphlet and expressed in popular parlance, How to a congenitally blind man can we adequately convey any idea of light? O, light divine, thy reproduction is impossible.[20] I cannot picture thee to others, yet I know thee in myself. Would others know thee, they must see thee. So with all truth. Thyself, O hearer, must win the battle, none other can do it for thee.
P.S. – As you mention it, I ought to add that I am unable to take to myself the credit attaching par excellence to C. N., a “girl-graduate,” at present pilgriming in the East, including the sacred land of India.
Footnotes
- ↑ The “last,” however, are not always the first – on this plane of existence, whatever may be the case in “Heaven.” [Ed.]
- ↑ Mr. Carlyle, e.g. (see Journal for January 1870), after gross abuse of its founder, brands it “the jubilant howl of the hyæna on finding the universe to be actually carrion.”
- ↑ See review of pamphlet, “The New Gospel of Hylo-Idealism,” in December Number of Lucifer.
- ↑ Ex. g. Because “you” is merged in “I,” does not alter the fact of the idea, and therefore “you” is still consistently incorporated in argument, and the seeming paradox of attempting to convert a repudiated “you” thereby explained.
- ↑ For the moment I use the phrase “to me,” afterwards shown to be quite superfluous.
- ↑ Most decidedly not. “There is naught beyond consciousness,” a Vedantin and a Theosophist would say, because Absolute Consciousness is infinite and limitless, and there is nothing that can be said to be “beyond” that which is all, the self-container, containing all. But the Hylo-Idealists deny the Vedantic idea of non-separateness, they deny that we are but parts of the whole; deny, in common parlance, “God,” Soul and Spirit, and yet they will talk of “apprehension” and intuition – the function and attribute of man’s immortal Ego, and make of it a function of matter. Thus they vitiate every one of their arguments. – [Ed.]
- ↑ In this paragraph we find the old crux of philosophy – the question as to whether there is any “external reality” in nature – cropping up again. The solution offered is a pure assumption, reached by ignoring one of the fundamental facts of human consciousness, the feeling that the cause of sensation, &c., lies outside the limited, human self. Mr. Courtney, we believe, aims at expressing a conception identical with that of the Adwaita Vedantins of India. But his language is inaccurate and misleading to those who understand his words in their usual sense, e.g., when he speaks of the “I am” outside of which nothing can exist, he is stating a purely Vedantin tenet; but then the “I” in question is not the “I” which acts, feels or thinks, but that absolute consciousness which is no consciousness. It is this confusion between the various ideas represented by “I” which lies at the root of the difficulty – the only philosophical explanation of which rests in the esoteric Vedantin doctrine of “Maya,” or Illusion. [Ed.]
- ↑ From the standpoint of a materialist, most decidedly; not from that of a Vedantin. – [Ed.]
- ↑ Very easily. You have only to postulate that self is one, eternal and infinite the only Reality; and your little self a transient illusion, a reflected ray of the Self, therefore a not-Self. If the Vedantin idea is “meaningless” to the writer, his theory is still more so – to us. – [Ed.]
- ↑ I avoid the absurdity of saying “selves” (!). “You” is both necessary and fairly to be assumed in controversial argument, but absurd when we proceed to real philosophical analysis – it would be in fact assuming the very point at question.
- ↑ This is dwarfing human consciousness and bringing it to the level of animal instinct and no more. – [Ed.]
- ↑ “All that enters consciousness becomes part of myself thereby.” This phrase is an admirable illustration in proof of the remarks made in the last foot-note. “Things enter consciousness,” says Mr. Courtney, and it is no word-splitting to point out to him, that not only is it impossible for him to speak without these words or others equivalent to them, but further that he cannot think at all except in terms of these conceptions. It follows that, since he is not talking nonsense, he is trying to express in terms of the mind, what properly transcends mind – in other words we are brought back to the ancient doctrine of “Maya” again. Daily experience shows him that things do enter consciousness and, in some sense, become part of himself – but where and what were they, before entering his consciousness? Let him study the doctrine of limitation and “reflected” centres of consciousness, and he will understand himself more clearly. [Ed.]
- ↑ Corollary – All and any existence can only know (or be conscious) in itself – neither know or be known beyond.
- ↑ Had Mr. Courtney studied, even superficially, Eastern metaphysics, and known something of the definition of Ensoph in the Kabala, let alone the Vedantin Parabrahm, he would not call so rashly the philosophy of a long series of sages “suicidal absurdity.” There really were “thinking” minds and brains before the day of Hylo-Idealism. – [Ed.]
- ↑ Just so. A self evident truth. – [Ed.]
- ↑ A Mystic would take exception to this statement, at least if the word “reason” is used by Mr. Courtney in the sense of “know”: – for his great achievement is “Self”-knowledge, meaning not only the analytical knowledge of his own limited personality, but the synthetical knowledge of the “one” ego from which that passing personality sprang. – [Ed.]
- ↑ And, if so, why talk of it? – [Ed.]
- ↑ Why, by the way, does your reviewer pass over the explanation given in this connection in my previous letter – where I style matter and idea as but different sides of the same shield?
- ↑ This controversy is similar to the equally useless and interminable controversy on “Free-will,” equally solved in Hylo-Ideaistic philosophy; where both Voluntarianism and Necessitarianism find equally valid expression in ultimate unity.
- ↑ How are we to understand “light divine,” in the thought of a Hylo-Idealist, who limits the whole universe to the phantasms of the grey matter of the brain – that matter and its productions being alike illusions? In our humble opinion this philosophy is twin sister to the cosmogony of the orthodox Brahmins, who teach that the world is supported by an elephant, which stands upon a tortoise, the tortoise wagging its tail in absolute Void. We beg our friends, the Hylo-Idealists, pardon; but, so long as such evident contradictions are not more satisfactorily explained, we can hardly take them seriously, or give them henceforth so much space. – [Ed.]