The perception of every object is also the experience of the subject who experiences that object. The object is known as a form while the subject is known in its activity of perceiving that form. Hence, the object is experienced as a noun while the subject is experienced as a verb—in and through its activity. Because the subject is the agent and cause of this activity, the subject knows, and is itself known, together with the object in every act of knowing.
The cognition is non-dual for the same reason that the sun does not light itself: to wit, the knowing is also a doing and also a being.
When a violinist touches the strings of his instrument, the sound that issues from the contact is a function of the violinist’s will as it is inflected by the bow and the violin and as it is informed by his knowledge and skill. Thus, what discursive reason and language may construe as separate, analytic elements are in fact moments to a single event. A similar unity subtends all perception.*
Every number (i.e. positive integer) is divisible by one and thus one is present simultaneously in every value as its primary factor. Similarly, the I is the factor that is correlative to every fact.
If someone asks “is it Tuesday today?” he doesn’t have to then ask “do you think it is Tuesday today?” This demonstrates the subtle non-duality inherent in every moment of perception: all objective knowledge is also knowledge of the subject. These two things are not two things. Nevertheless, they seem that way because we fail to notice the presence of the I in all perception. The presence of the I in perception leads to the experience that, any object, in being known, is known non-dually.
* Philosophers including Kant and Husserl have indicated a similar unity under the rubric of “the transcendental unity of apperception.” Their operative paradigmata led them to divergent conclusions as to the significance of this observation.
5 Comments Add yours
Nice, well said, short, and to the point.
Reading Barfield’s StA, can you shed some light on “More than a thousand years had to pass before the Western Church reached even that premonitory inkling of final participation which it expressed by adding the Filioque to the Creed… ““Given the split this caused and still violent rejection of it by the EO I am at a loss to ken it. Your thoughts?
I see it as a theological intimation of Final Participation. When the Spirit proceeds only from God the Father, then participation is natural and original. When it proceeds from God but also from God become man (i.e. in Christ), then the participation is “Final,” in Barfield’s terms. Put another way, the power responsible for the majesty of Creation also works through our souls as our souls now provided that our orientation is correct and our hearts are pure etc. What do you think about this?
My auto correct Replaced Barfield with Barstow. Ouch!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Took care of it.