Part II of this work will examine a number of contemporary issues in the light of Nicholas of Cusa's understanding of unity. The subtle insights he developed promise to make important contributions in helping resolve the complex problems facing our pluralistic culture. It is of course impossible to state with certainty precisely what a thinker of Cusa's complexity and originality would say regarding issues which arise several centuries after his death. What this part intends to do, however, is to draw upon his insights and make the author's own application. Cusa's ideas on unity can illumine contemporary issues and, hopefully, provide new perspectives which can contribute to their resolution.

Outline of Part II

Within each of the following chapters the role of the principles of individuality and community will be examined. These chapters will discuss how the inherent interrelation between these two principles creates a vision of unity consistent with both diversity and dynamism, the distinctive elements which must be articulated by any truly Cusan interpretation of unity. For Cusa the term dynamism refers not merely to action but to interaction. The difference between these concepts would be analogous to the difference between a single actor performance and a play with a more conventional cast. In the first case one is free to perform without regard to anyone else. In the latter one must be aware of the rest of the cast and engage with them in the performance.

For Cusa the term diversity refers not merely to difference, but to variety. The distinction between these two concepts is analogous to that between two translations of one book and that between two distinct literary works. In the first case the distinction is based upon a simple lack of identity (i.e. one is not the other), while in the second case the distinction is based upon the separate truths articulated by each work. One can see easily that Cusa's understanding of diversity is in accord the principle of community which allows for a multiplicity of entities in order to better proclaim the Divine, while his understanding of dynamism is in accord with the principle of individuality which allows for the interaction of existing entities. Likewise, the relationship between dynamism and diversity is analogous to that between the principles of community and individuality: without diversity no dynamism is possible, while dynamism itself contributes to the enrichment of diversity through the new possibilities produced by interaction.

Three main sources of division within the human community are religious differences, differences in what broadly may be defined as cultural background (i.e. ethnic conflicts, gender disputes, etc.), and differences in economic status. The purpose of this part of the work is to show how Cusa's understanding of a unity consistent with diversity can help us deal with these differences in a way which alleviates the tension they create, yet, does not impoverish the diversity of the community. The first chapter of this part will deal with religious unity. Since this issue was closest to Cusa's heart, and the one he directly addressed, it provides the clearest access to Cusa's views on the matter. Furthermore, because Cusa's understanding of unity is anchored in his vision of the Divine, its application to the new challenges to contemporary society presented by religious diversity can open new possibilities for understanding one's relationship to God.

The second chapter of this part will examine the consequences of a Cusan conception of unity within the broad social context and discuss how a variety of social groups can coexist harmoniously within a cohesive unit. It is impossible to deny that social harmony has become a particularly vexing problem in modern life. The increasing cultural interaction made possible in the modern world only adds to the importance of this issue. Because Cusa's vision of religious unity had obvious implications for social harmony, which he in fact recognized, his understanding of unity can again be productively applied so that the benefits of cultural diversity may be reaped while its destabilizing elements may be neutralized. Thus one can enjoy full participation in the greater social organism without sacrificing those distinct cultural elements from which one may in some manner derive one's identity.

A third chapter will examine the economic implications of Cusa's ideas on unity. Another source of contemporary divisiveness is the economic sphere where the gap between rich and poor often has put people of differing classes at odds with tragic consequences. Though much Marxist thought has fallen into disrepute, it would be foolish to assume that all of the conditions which called it into existence and made it so appealing to so many for so long have, likewise, passed away. The divisions which exist between economic classes remain a serious obstacle to the creation of the harmonious community. Though Cusa does not specifically address this issue, nonetheless, because his philosophy attempts to articulate the nature of unity itself and is applied by him in the context of the human community one can examine how this concept of unity might be applied productively to resolving many of the divisions within the social organism, including those that were fully recognized only centuries after Cusa's death.

The Role of Love in Cusa's Thought

Cusa's distinctive notion of unity as consistent with diversity illumines a new understanding of love which enables the resolution of the divisions within society. Broadly speaking, love may be defined as an affective union with what is in some way regarded as good. This definition is admittedly excessively general, however, it expresses the dynamic and relational character of love. From a Christian perspective love must be founded on an openness to, and an appreciation for, being which directs itself toward the continual enhancement of the finite in the light of the infinite.¹

Christianity sees God's substance as a living community of three divine persons. God the Father creates the world out of love, and out of love sends God the Son to redeem humankind. The Son is love incarnate and calls humans made in God's image, to share His life. Thus, one's vocation is to promote God's Kingdom on earth, and personal happiness can authentically be obtained only through devotion to God.²

This creates something of a problem with respect to disinterested love. If genuinely disinterested love is not possible then human selfishness becomes infinite, since God Himself is reduced to being a mere means to human happiness. If disinterested love is possible, then the question becomes, how can one ever begin to understand it since it seems to imply that a being can seek union with something with which it is in no way connected. Some mystics have sought to preserve selfless love by doing away with the self. This is an inadequate response since, as has been said, love is by its very nature relational, thereby requiring a lover and a beloved. On the other hand, if the self is made primary and has no ground beyond itself then all love again becomes a transference of the love of the self.³

One can easily see how profoundly Cusa's philosophy speaks to these issues. Cusa sees reality as a unified whole which unfolds into a diverse variety of individual beings, each of which expresses this whole in a unique way and attempts to return to its source. Because of this there is no separation between self-realization and genuine devotion to the Absolute through the service of others. One need not, and in fact cannot, sacrifice others to personal fulfillment or personal fulfillment to the service of others. This is because personal fulfillment is identified with generous service through which the individual can more closely approximate and proclaim the Divine which is the very purpose of existence.

From the Cusan perspective any notion of self-realization which regards the beloved as a mere means is mistaken. Such a notion requires that the self be conceived apart from being as a whole in order to use the beloved to one's own advantage. But for Cusa the self can only exist in relationship to being itself; apart from this relationship it is nothing at all. Thus, Cusa's metaphysical insights provide a framework in which the problematic distinction between love of self and love of neighbor can be overcome.

This resolution enables one to see that love is a responsiveness to the excellence of being, which calls one to promote that excellence in others, and through doing so to promote it in oneself. This insight allows for a new interpretation of the various divisions within society, permitting them to integrate into a mutually beneficial and harmonious union of a variety of beings, each possessing a unique identity.

1. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, p. 1039.

2. Ibid., 1040.

3. Ibid., 1042.