The purpose of this chapter is to show the way in which Cusa's understanding of reality enriches more traditional concepts of metaphysics, and in doing so opens new approaches to resolving a variety of contemporary societal problems. In order to do this, the chapter is divided into three sections. The first will show how the idea of unity occupied a central position in Cusa's thought and played a fundamentally important role in shaping his insight into the nature of reality. The second section evaluates some specific ways in which Cusa altered the more traditional understanding of reality. The final section of this chapter will discuss the ethical implications of Cusa's thought in both the public and private realms. The principles of individuality and community will once again play key roles in interpreting Cusa's thought. The diagram outlines the way Cusa integrates his concern for the individual with that of the community as a whole.

UNITY AS THE SHAPING FORCE IN CUSA'S THOUGHT

For Cusa the idea of unity is the central pillar around which the whole of his philosophy is constructed. This has great significance because in making unity the central theme of his thought he does not denigrate the role of the individual or encourage a static conception of reality as may have been the case for Parmenides. Cusa can do this because his concept of unity does not demand uniformity. In fact, within the Cusan scheme, unity is not antithetical to diversity, but is enhanced thereby.

Being Itself

Contraction

Principle of Individuality< >Principle of Community

Each individual contraction Contraction of being makes

uniquely imparts to each each thing to be everything

each entity an inherent in a contracted sense. This

value which makes it creates a community of

indispensable to the whole. being relating all entities

on an ontological level.

The Role Each being is a unity Emphasizes the unity

of in itself which of the whole which

Unity for differentiates it transcends all finite

Cusa from every other opposition and is

pp. 334-343 being, making this expressed in each

entity and giving individual entity.

it an inherent value

for the whole.

Cusa's Provides a Provides

Insight Into foundation for the cohesiveness for

Reality dynamic interaction reality, a goal for

pp. 343-349 of individual beings the dynamic

and for interaction of

relationships individual entities,

between them. and regulates the

relationships between

them.

Ethical Emphasizes the Emphasizes that each

Implications uniqueness and entity is related to

of inherent value of every other one, and

Unity each entity which is both influenced

pp. 349-356 possesses an by others as well as

autonomy and a exerting influence

dignity that belongs upon others.

to it alone.

The Metaphysical Implications of a Cusan Interpretation of Unity

Cusa sees unity as a fundamental characteristic of being. Furthermore, it is this unity which all being shares that allows reality to exist in so fundamentally a dynamic manner. Each individual entity is itself a contraction of the whole of reality. Hence, the rigidly stratified hierarchy of being which dominated most of the Middle Ages was modified by Cusa. Though Cusa retains the same essential structure which qualitatively grades reality as do most medieval thinkers, his understanding of it is far less rigidly compartmentalized. Within Cusa's hierarchy each entity relates not merely to those entities which are directly above and directly below it, but in accord with the principle of community, to the whole of being. Also, in accord with the principle of individuality each being can retain its own separate and distinctive nature and not become engulfed in an existence of undifferentiated oneness. Thus, for Cusa unity is not solely the possession of Being Itself but is given to each and every existing entity.

One can see also the importance of unity in Cusa's philosophy by the fact that absolute unity becomes, in Cusa's writing, a term virtually synonymous with the Divine. Since the Divine is the hub around which all of Cusa's thinking ultimately revolves, the importance of unity cannot be denied. Because the Absolute reconciles all the oppositions of finite reality, the human intellect is incapable of comprehending it. This is because, according to Cusa, the human intellect can come to know an entity only by comparing it to some other entity already known. There is, however, no entity to which the Absolute is comparable.

Thus, one is forced to fall back upon metaphors and paradoxes in order to explicate the nature of the Divine. These can give no exact knowledge of the divine nature, but they can communicate an awareness of the Divine. The reason it is possible for one to construct such symbols to express the divine nature is because the unity of reality, in accord with the principle of community, insures that finite reality is not entirely excluded from the Absolute. In fact, not only is finite reality not opposed to the Absolute, but it serves as the end, archetype and source of finite existence. Because of the unity of reality, the Divine is not considered by Cusa as alien to the finite but as the Not-Other.

This idea of the Divine as Not-Other is derived from Cusa's understanding of finite reality as being unfolded from divine unity. As finite being is a dynamic emanation from the Divine, every quality found in finite being is derived from that source. Thus finite reality neither contradicts nor opposes the Divine, but is its limited expression in the same sense that a self-portrait is a limited expression of its artist. Because finite reality consists of a great variety of limited beings, and each being expresses the Divine in its own unique fashion, a diversity of beings enhances the way in which finite reality reflects the Divine.

Moreover, since the Divine is absolute unity, then, as far as finite being is concerned, the more diverse it is the more approximately it expresses the unity of the infinite. Furthermore, as these limited beings interact and, thereby create new beings and/or fulfill their own divinely ordained ends, they themselves contribute to the way in which finite reality approximates the Divine and enhances it. Thus, finite reality's approximation of the Absolute is a dynamic and open ended approximation. For Cusa, the created world is an image of the Divine which it reflects to a greater or lesser degree.

Ethical Implications of a Cusan Conception of Unity

The importance of the idea of unity in Cusa's thought is not, however, confined to the metaphysical realm but extends into the field of ethics. One's relationship with the physical world is not that of opposition but of harmony. The physical world is not something which one must subjugate and upon which one must capriciously impose one's will. Likewise, one should not make the mistake of regarding oneself as nothing more than a part of the natural world of non-rational things. In accord with the principles of individuality and community one must recognize that nature is neither one's equal nor one's enemy, but one's ward. Nature is as much an image of the Absolute as are humans, but it is an image distinctly inferior in quality. Therefore, one's interaction with nature should take this relationship into account. In short, one should work with nature in a manner which will enable both to fulfill their divinely appointed ends.

Cusa's concept of unity as an harmonious diversity also sheds light upon the relationship between the person and the community. For Cusa, the relationship between these two is not adversarial, but complementary. The person cannot flourish without the benefits of a nurturing community, nor can the community prosper by either imposing lock-step conformity upon its members or by ignoring the potential of some of its constituents. The integration of unity and diversity which applies in the metaphysical world in respect to finite being applies equally well to human society. Only by encouraging the expression and cultivation of personal uniqueness can the community fulfill its potential. Likewise, only by promoting the interests of the community can the individual ultimately prosper. Thus, for Cusa the pinnacle of personal fulfillment is achieved in service to others, and the greatest service one can render another is to enable that person likewise to be of service. All social systems must be evaluated in the light of there ability to do this, and all social problems must be responded to in a manner which is consistent with this insight.

This relationship has important ramifications for determining the necessary requirements of freedom and when the use of compulsion within society is justifiable. Because Cusa's thought does not place unity and diversity in opposition to each other, the relationship between the community and the person is not one of antagonism or hostility. Likewise, the relationship between freedom and compulsion is also one of complementarity. One does not have genuine freedom within a state of anarchy because where there is no order, one cannot calculate the likely consequences of one's actions or have any basis for rational expectations and choice.

Thus, freedom requires a social order which inevitably forbids certain actions and compels others. However, if the social order should try to regulate society completely and extinguish freedom it will succeed only in provoking the very disorder it had sought to prevent. Any attempt to regulate each and every aspect of life inevitably will produce whole classes of criminals who must either be punished or tactfully ignored. If punished, they will react to being penalized for transgressing laws which they find unjust. If transgressions are ignored, however, it will only encourage disrespect for the law in general. In either case, the final result will be the very disorder which society had sought to prevent. Cusa's vision of society is one in which compulsion is used to enhance individual freedom, rather than to inhibit it. Since personal fulfillment requires service to others, Cusa's philosophy resolves the apparently fundamental opposition between the person and the community. Similarly, Cusa's philosophy resolves the apparent opposition between personal liberty and social order in that personal freedom can be actualized only within a social order which is conducive to this. Likewise, social order requires personal liberty if ultimately it is to prosper. In short, personal liberty and social order are mutually implicative.

The link between one's understanding of unity and one's ethical thought is clear. The subject of ethics is greatly concerned with the proper ordering of human relationships. Unity also looks into the nature of relationships and, therefore, has much to say when one considers how these relationships should be ordered. For Cusa, who sees a fundamental unity between all being, the nature of relationships is characterized not by antagonism but by complementarity. Thus, beings do not exist at the expense of one another; rather each being exists in order to enhance the whole. Cusa's understanding of unity is not one which encourages the elimination of all differences, but rather mutual respect and an understanding of differences which will itself serve as a foundation for mutual concern.

Perhaps no one described the pervasive character of unity in Cusa's thought better than Henry Bett.

He was the advocate of unity in the political system of Europe; he was the apostle of unity amid the ecclesiastical dissensions of Christendom; and he was the philosopher of unity also, who consistently sought to see the beginning and end of all things, the real essence and the real significance of all existence, as hidden in the superessential Unity of God.¹

Quite clearly Cusa seeks to overcome the apparent opposition of finite reality and to reveal the deeper unity it contains. Thus, the fact that human diversity has so often led to conflict was tragically unnecessary and destructive. For Cusa, diversity within the community should be celebrated as an expression of the inexhaustible and inexpressible perfection of the Absolute. One should focus not solely upon the distinctions between various individuals and groups, but also upon the deeper unity toward which all reality points.

Cusa's conception of unity as an harmonious diversity is dependent upon his integration of the principles of community and individuality. The principle of individuality relates to the unity of individual entities which makes them different from other entities and thereby unique. This uniqueness establishes the inherent and distinctive value which Cusa sees in every individual being. The principle of community relates to the unity of being as a whole. It is the principle of community which reconciles all the distinctions of individual entities. This is because each individual being is a particular contraction of the Absolute and through this participation in the Absolute all of the diverse finite individuals are united. Thus, the principle of community harmonizes the diversity of unique beings which the principle of individuality establishes, and personal fulfillment is best achieved through service to the community.

CUSA'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY

The purpose of this section is to discuss the contributions which Cusa's unique understanding of unity have made to the more traditional views of reality. In order to do this, it will address four different aspects of reality, namely, the directedness of reality, the dynamism of being, the cohesiveness of being, and the nature of relationships within reality.

The Directedness of Reality

Reality within traditional medieval metaphysics has always been in some sense oriented toward the Divine. However, drawing upon the mystical tradition Cusa incorporates a new dimension to this directedness. Within the Platonic scheme there is fundamental opposition between the One and physical reality. Even from the Christian perspective which makes the Absolute the creator of all finite reality, this sense of otherness is retained. Cusa, however, couples this sense of otherness with a sense of identity. He sees finite reality as a limited expression of the Divine which, though distinct therefrom, nonetheless, reflects it. Hence, there is no fundamental opposition between the finite and the Absolute. This is because for Cusa finite reality is not merely the product of the Absolute, but its expression. Finite reality is an image of the Absolute and possesses no qualities independent of it. In this sense, all finite reality is entirely at home with the Divine, for as a contraction of the Absolute finite being cannot exist apart from the Absolute and finds only there its true end.

The Dynamism of Being

Cusa's perspective on dynamism is also rather unique and is derived from his understanding of unity. Because finite reality is distinct from the Divine, but not opposed to it Cusa can account for its existence by asserting that it is unfolded from the Divine. Likewise, there is an enfolding process in which the opposition of finite reality is reconciled within Absolute unity. This idea of finite reality moving away from the Absolute and then returning to it is of Platonic origin. Cusa, however, adds something new to this which is related to his concept of unity. For Cusa it is not merely each individual entity which seeks to fulfill its potential and return to the Divine, but reality as a whole, where each entity is a unique and indispensable contraction of being. Individual entities do not act in isolation ignoring all other entities around them. As far as Cusa is concerned, the return to the one is achieved by individual entities interacting with one another. Only by interacting with things outside of itself is it possible for an individual entity fully to achieve its own true potential. Thus, the dynamism of Cusa's thought is produced by his vision of finite reality as a true community of being. This holds true also for the human community in that only by serving others can a person realize his true potential.

The Cohesiveness of Being

This dynamism of being is intimately related to the cohesiveness of being which exists within Cusa's metaphysics. As has previously been shown, Cusa realized that individuals could exist only in community with other beings, rather than as isolated atoms unrelated to any other entity, or as mere links in a great collectivist chain. The community of being which Cusa articulates is one in which each individual being is related to every other being, just as each part of the body relates to the body as a whole. The needs, purposes, and functions of every being require other beings in order to be fulfilled. Thus, just as the hand requires the eye to operate efficiently, the predator requires prey, the plant requires soil, and the soil requires rain. Each individual entity performs a vital function for the whole, whose main purpose is to proclaim the Divine. Thus, no individual can be dismissed as unimportant or peripheral.

Cusa, however, takes this a step further. Not only is each part necessary for the whole, but each part is a contraction of the whole. An example of this can be seen in the human body which requires various types of cells in order to function; yet, each individual cell contains the DNA pattern of the entire body and, in this sense, may be regarded as a contraction of the whole. For Cusa, the community of being is so tightly interwoven that in order for anything to be that which it is it must also be in a certain sense everything which exists.

The Nature of Relationships Within Reality

This cohesiveness of reality sheds new light upon the nature of relationships within reality. In this context, relationships are based not upon opposition or accidental similarities, but upon an ontological complementarity. Thus, a gain made by one does not inevitably entail a loss to others. In fact, quite the reverse is true. An authentic gain by one entity enhances not only its own perfection, but the perfection of the whole. Likewise, a dimunition in the perfection of one entity represents a dimunition of the perfection of the whole. Just as an entire team is improved if the performance of one player improves, the more a single part of reality fulfills its potential the more the perfection of the whole is enhanced. Further should the performance of a single player slip the whole team suffers. Likewise, should a single object of reality be diminished the whole universe is diminished. The nature of relationships in both of these cases is such that the individual cannot prosper apart from the community in which it exists or at the expense of that community.

The Roles of the Principles of Individuality and Community

The new insights which Cusa has for metaphysics are based upon the relationship he articulates between the principles of community and individuality. The directedness of reality comes from the orientation toward the Divine of all finite being. This is the case for individual beings which, as unique contractions of being reflect the Absolute according to the principle of individuality. Likewise, the universe itself is a contraction of being and, as a whole is reflective of the Absolute according to the principle of community. It is similar for dynamism. The principle of individuality establishes a variety of beings which interact with each other. The principle of community relates these beings to each other and allows them to influence each other.

The cohesiveness of being is also related to the principles of individuality and community. The principle of individuality correlates to the distinctness of individual beings based upon the finite unity of those beings. The principle of community transcends the distinctions of finite reality in that each particular being is a contraction of the whole. In this manner, Cusa established the unity of the whole of reality. This cohesiveness of being has important implications for the nature of relationships within reality. In accord with the principle of individuality each being has an inherent value which is to be respected. Similarly, in accord with the principle of community all being is related to every other being and is part of the whole.

These four aspects of reality dramatically condition the way in which human beings relate to each other. In terms of the directedness of being, all of reality must seek to approximate the Divine. Thus, just as the Divine endows all reality with whatever excellence it possesses through an act of selfless charity, every human being must act in a way which will promote excellence in others, and in so doing enhances one's own excellence. Furthermore, just as the creativity of the Divine is dynamic, the person can only approximate the Divine by interacting with one's fellow human beings in order to unleash their own creative capacities. The cohesiveness of being overcomes all the apparent distinctions of finite reality and enables one to assert that the notion of service to others as the pinnacle of personal fulfillment is in no way contradictory. Thus, the paradigm for all relationships becomes complementary unification which approximates the Absolute, and in so doing makes each being most authentically itself. In brief, the goal of every entity is to become harmoniously integrated into the whole of being and thereby to achieve the fullest development of its own unique nature.

THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CUSA'S THOUGHT

This section will outline the ethical implications of Cusa's thought in both the public and the private realms. It will attend to the way in which Cusa's understanding of unity as an harmonious diversity effects the way in which one understands one's environment. It is this understanding of reality which conditions all deliberations about what is, and what is not ethical behavior.

Humanity and the Natural Environment

The first question to be addressed is the relationship between human beings and their physical environment. Because both humans and nature are contractions of the Absolute, humans cannot treat nature in a fashion that does not recognize the community which exists with nature. Likewise, however, it would be a mistake to regard oneself merely as another object of the natural world with no special dignity. This is because even though humans and nature are both contractions of the Absolute, the human is a distinctly superior contraction. Hence, people should treat nature in accord with the principles of individuality and community. In accord with the principle of community, one is linked to nature and should seek to preserve its integrity. However, human responsibility does not end there, for in accord with the principle of individuality humanity is superior to nature and as such has stewardship over it. The persons proper role is to interact with nature and through this interaction create new entities to enhance the diversity of reality and further proclaim the Divine. One must work to actualize in nature potentialities which, without human effort would never have come to be. In short, persons must integrate a respect for nature as it is in itself with a willingness to make the effort necessary to unlock its latent potentialities.

The Social Context of Persons

Much the same thing can be said of relationships to one's fellow humans. The main difference is that non-rational natures are categorically inferior as images of the Divine, while among persons no such categorical distinctions apply. Thus, Cusa's thought establishes an equality among people in accord with the principle of community. The principle of individuality, however, keeps this sense of equality from developing into a rigid egalitarianism, where all differences would be assimilated in favor of social uniformity. Cusa is not only aware of the differences between individuals, but sees them as fundamentally important in that they are the basis for a diversity that makes humankind a closer approximation of the Divine. For Cusa, diversity and individuality should be not eliminated, but celebrated.

It is important to note that the celebration of individuality is not tantamount to indifference. Because Cusa's thought seeks to integrate the principle of community with that of individuality his view is hardly compatible with the type of Libertarianism according to which each person is left to pursue one's own goals so long as no one else is hurt. The anti-Libertarian implication of Cusa's thought comes out most clearly when one considers one's relationship to oneself. For Cusa, no individual can exist in isolation without constantly influencing and being influenced by everyone and even everything else. This does not mean that Cusa eliminates the distinction between the public and the private. In fact, Cusa is willing to allow the individual a significant amount of latitude in choosing how to live so long as one does not jeopardize the public order.

Perhaps the main difference between the Cusan perspective and that of the Libertarians is that Cusa sees society itself as a unity and not as a mere conglomeration of individuals. The Libertarian perspective tends to view society as a means to obtain individual fulfillment, whereas, the Cusan perspective sees society as the necessary context through which personal fulfillment takes place. Therefore, order consists not only in regulating the way individuals interact among themselves, but also how they interact with society as a whole. Since Cusa resolves the distinction between personal fulfillment and service to others, the needs of the person do not compete against the needs of the community, but both are integrated in an harmonious whole. Thus, according to the principle of individuality, Cusa seeks to provide every individual with its own inherent autonomy, while simultaneously ontologically relating each of these individuals to every other in accord with the principle of community. For Cusa, the individual is possessed of its own value, yet also is inherently related to the community of being. This is the heart of his philosophy which enables his thought to keep from embracing excessive individualism or rejecting the value of the individual entirely. In brief, Cusa integrates the individual within the whole without compromising either and thus bringing both to fulfillment.

THE NEW POSSIBILITIES PRESENTED BY A CUSAN PARADIGM

The purpose of Part II of this work was to examine Cusa's philosophy in the hope of revealing some underlying principles which could be productively applied to some of the contemporary social dilemmas. As valuable and important as Cusa's insights are they cannot serve as a simple formula mechanically to producing automatic solutions to very complex problems. What Cusa's philosophy does, and does quite successfully, is to open up new perspectives on the understanding of various relationships which can enable new solutions to age-old problems. A prime example of this is the new insights presented by a Cusan notion of unity.

In much contemporary thought, unity and diversity are considered to be essentially antithetical. This is because the paradigm for the notion of oneness is the finite individual, so the fundamental characteristic of unity conceived along such lines is the distinct separation of everything in existence. Cusa, however, offers his readers an alternate paradigm of oneness which is an infinite and absolute unity. The fundamental characteristic of this notion of oneness is not its distinctness, but its all-encompassing transcendent nature. The individualized version of unity fosters a Hobbesian view of society where each person exists in a state of fundamental opposition to one another and society is created to promote individual advancement. Thus conflict, either between individuals or between the individual and society as a whole, becomes a natural condition of human existence. The only way such conflicts can be dealt with is for the opposing parties to make compromises which entail the sacrifice of things they may well have every right to possess. Thus, the only way for one to enter society is to abdicate some of one's natural rights.

The Cusan vision of transcendent unity encourages a society which emphasizes and, in fact, requires the formation of relationships between persons founded upon mutual concern. Thus conflict, though it remains a possibility since the whole is not a simple homogeneous mass, is seen to be an aberration. Furthermore, conflict resolution is not primarily a matter of compromise, but of integration which consists in highlighting and enhancing natural social relationships. Thus, disputes are not merely terminated in a manner which may leave both parties feeling wronged and looking for another opportunity to achieve their desires, but are eliminated by the new ties the parties form with each other.

This alternative vision of unity has profound importance for the modern world. With every passing day the world becomes a smaller place as people are constantly brought into closer contact with each other. If this contact is not to produce conflict, one must not focus exclusively on what makes people distinct, which emphasizes the separateness of all human beings. Instead this separateness must be viewed in the context of an over-arching unity which links all people together in a single human family.

The positions I have presented in the final three chapters of this work are by no means intended to be regarded as the only, or even the best, methods of practical application of Cusa's insights. They are, however, intended to provide concrete examples of how such applications can be made, and to point out the goals these applications are intended to achieve. In short, any social policy which claims to be founded on the philosophical insights of Nicholas of Cusa must recognize the unique value of each and every individual, and preserve the freedom necessary so that each can discover and realize the authentic and unique nature which lies at the core of one's being. However, it must also promote a supportive environment within which, and only within which, people can develop their own natures.

This becomes possible only because Cusa sees each existing being as a contraction of the whole. Thus, personal fulfillment and service to others are not antithetical, but complementary concepts. Concern for the community is consistent with self-realization and promotes this, while self-fulfillment is epitomized by promoting the good of the commuinity. Neither concept is subjected to the other; both are seen as complementary components of the whole and mutually implicate each other.

Such policies cannot pursue static repetitive solutions which fail to recognize the unique nature of those effected or the unique resources at their disposal. They can, however, acknowledge the common human nature in which all human beings share and which endows them with an inherent dignity which must be respected. All human beings possess also a common end which they can achieve only in the context of a community.

Indeed, because Cusa's insights are so metaphysically rooted, I would assert human endeavors can be successful only to the extent that they achieve this integration whereby the isolation of the lone individual is overcome by social participation and the emptiness of alienation is transformed by unifying love into an active and liberating communal existence. This work is intended to promote discussion of what policies can, in fact, best achieve these ends and help remedy the problems which so fundamentally challenge our world.

1. Henry Bett, Nicholas of Cusa (London: Meuthen and Company, Ltd., 1921), p. 204.