But both this formulation and this solution of the riddle presuppose the very concept of "objective reality"; The composition of this concept includes not only the attribute of being outside of me, but also the much more essential attribute of being independent of me: "objectively" is that which is there and when I do not perceive it, and my consciousness is not at all directed towards it. But how do I know this, and how is such an idea possible at all? If to know is to perceive, to see, to have through the medium of consciousness directed towards an object, or, in other words, to be objectively is to open oneself to the cognitive eye, then this idea presupposes something impossible: to know that there is something there and when where and when I do not perceive it, one would have to have some magical faculty of seeing without looking.

How and how do I know, for example, that what is behind me, behind the back of my head, continues to exist when I do not see it? Where does our certainty come from in the first place that objective reality is that coherent, lawful, stable whole, which we never see as such, because what we really see are only fragmentary shapeless parts of it, changing with every turn of the eye or head? It would be easy to show, and Hume did, that we cannot arrive at this idea of an objective reality independent of us by any indirect inferences, for they all presuppose it and rely on it. If "objective reality" were a primary, irreducible self-affirmed being, if we had no other connection with it than the cognitive gaze directed at it, then it would be an idea not only unprovable, but simply inaccessible to us.

But we have just such a connection. This is not an indirect connection through the medium of knowing, outwardly directed consciousness, but a completely direct connection through participation in primary being, in the all-embracing and all-pervading unity of primary reality outlined above. Since I have my own inner being from the very beginning as a part and element of all-embracing being in general, I know with primary evidence of the existence of that which I do not perceive, that which is beyond the (spatial and temporal) limits of what I perceive. I do not know what exactly is there and when, where and when I do not see it, but I know with certainty that there and then there is something at all, something unknown to me. I have with absolute certainty what is not given to me, what is not revealed to me in perceiving experience. The very possibility of "objective reality" as something existing independent of me (i.e., of my cognitive eye) is constituted by its belonging to that all-embracing primary reality which permeates my own being and constitutes its being. We are united with this objective reality through the subterranean layer of this primary reality. And only through the medium of this primordial ontological connection does our derivative cognitive relation to the objective reality external to us become possible. [15]

We can easily grasp the source of this unifying, binding function of primary reality, by virtue of which the knowing subject can reach his object at all (or know that what he has achieved and perceived has a truly objective being independent of the subject). This source is the supertemporal unity of reality. If being in time were the only form of being available to us at all, then we could have no guarantee that something exists at the moment when we do not perceive it, i.e., that the being of an object can last beyond its perception, which means that we would not have the very concept of objective being. We have it only because we know that every temporal being, both ours and what is external to us, takes place against the background of the all-embracing super-temporal unity of being. By virtue of the self-evident existence of this super-temporal unity of being, the concept of "emptiness" and "non-being" in the absolute sense becomes impossible; beyond everything that our cognitive gaze reaches at any given moment, there is an unshakably eternal fullness of positive content; Therefore, if any particular content has disappeared in time, it is possible only in the form that it has been replaced by some other positive content.

But what is before us as objective reality is in itself subject to time, takes place in time, and consists of temporal processes. If, as we have just seen, we are conscious of it against the background of a super-temporal unity, outside of which the very concept of objective being in general would be inaccessible and unrealizable to us, then this super-temporality, so to speak, is granted to it by the primary reality from which it grows. This coincides with the correlation explained above (1) that beyond objective reality, that which exists, i.e., exists in time, there is also ideal being, that which is super-temporal, once and for all, regardless of whether it occurs in objective reality and when and where it occurs in it. This ideal being is, at the same time, as has been pointed out, a being in which thought and thought coincide. In other words, it is precisely the unity of reality that unites the subject with the object. Ideal being is not simply a self-sufficient being of abstract, timeless contents, it is not a separate "world of ideas"; As has already been pointed out, it is conceivable only as if it were as part of an all-embracing consciousness or thought. This super-temporal unity is not an abstraction or an impersonal, dead storehouse of contents that enter into the composition of objective reality; it is the concrete fullness of living reality, the unity of the subject and the object of thought – the living source from which our "I" and everything that confronts it and surrounds it as "not-I", as objective reality, is drawn. And it is in this capacity that reality forms an indissoluble link between my "I" and reality. As such a unity between subject and object, knower and known, a unity that transcends both, reality is that which reveals to us the very concept of being in its primary sense. Reality is that primary general atmosphere, immersion in which and belonging to which makes any content existing, gives it the character of objectivity (in the broad sense of the word). Objectivity is nothing but rootedness in reality. And on the other hand, the "I" as the subject of cognition is itself only a particular manifestation of that moment of all-embracing reality by virtue of which it knows itself—a particular revelation of a certain all-embracing universal spiritual "eye."

From what has been said, it is clear how wrong is the basic idea of any individualism (represented, for example, in Heidegger's existentialism) –

As for the first attitude, it is comparable in its absurdity to the statement that "to stand on your own feet" means to have ground for your feet "on which" you stand. Just as to stand on one's own feet means to lean with them on the ground that is outside of them, so to have an "inner being" means to have through it the support of one's being in that primordial reality which transcends only the inner being and connects me from within with all that exists. To be conscious of oneself as a reality distinct from the world of external, objective reality is nothing else than to be aware of one's immediate, inner rootedness in the all-embracing primary reality.

But this also shows the inconsistency of the opposite spiritual attitude, which fears the path into the depths as an escape from the objective reality common to all into the closed sphere of individual subjectivity. The opposite is true. Only through delving into this primary reality do we find for the first time our true, inner connection with objective reality. The path into the depths, into oneself, is not a path to some dark, enclosed dungeon – it is, on the contrary, a path that connects us with the boundless expanse of all that exists – just as the descent into the underground railway is a way of reaching the remote parts of a huge city as quickly and directly as possible. This analogy, however, is incomplete: the "metro" has as its sole purpose the acceleration and simplification of our connection with the remote parts of the urban surface; And the deepening into the primary reality, uniting us with the whole expanse of objective reality, has, in addition to this utilitarian and derivative purpose, another, more primary, self-sufficient, and immeasurably more important value in our life: it reveals to us our connection with the supermundane basis of being, thus infinitely expanding our spiritual horizon, freeing us from the deceptive appearance of our unconditional subordination to "objective reality" as something that oppresses us. to the almighty in relation to us fait accompli. [16] An inner connection with the primary reality gives us both freedom from the power of the world over us and the opportunity to be its creative participant.

This achieves an understanding (so far only preliminary) of the fundamental duality of human existence, which follows from its connection with objective reality and with primary reality.

Through his body and carnal life, through the outer, external layer of his psychic life, determined by his connection with the body, man is himself a part of "objective reality", a part – and moreover an insignificant and subordinate part – of the "world" in which and from which he is born and in which he dwells, partly passively determined by heredity, upbringing, environment and all the processes and events of this world around him. partly actively, in turn, building and modifying it. Through its depths – through the core or root of its being, and in this sense through its true being – it belongs to the composition of the supermundane primary reality (in which, as we have seen, the world itself, "objective reality", is rooted and from which the "objective reality" itself ultimately derives). Man is thus a two-nature being, and any doctrine of life which does not take into account these two aspects of human existence at the same time would be inadequate to his true being. But this duality is not pure dualism, a simple coexistence or even a confrontation of two heterogeneous principles. Man is not just a dual, but a dual being: the coexistence and confrontation of these two natures is combined with a certain harmony of them, with a certain intimate unity of them, and this unity must be taken into account in the same way as duality. Participation in objective reality, belonging to the "world," which is directly determined by our "carnal," mental-bodily nature, flows simultaneously from our supra-worldly, spiritual life, and therefore is or can at least be under its control and guidance, and in this sense be the self-expression of our super-worldly being. The structure of our being is complex, antinomic, and any artificial simplification and schematization of it distorts it. In order to avoid this, we must now understand in more detail the uniqueness of the deepest layer of being which has been revealed to us in the face of the primordial reality.

CHAPTER II

REALITY AND ITS COGNITION

1. COGNITION OF REALITY AS A CONCRETE DESCRIPTION AND SOPHISTICATED IGNORANCE

But how can we understand more precisely what we mean by reality? And is it possible to define this idea at all in the same way as we define any other concept?