You are here

Meditation X: God as Self-Conscious Subject

Various Conceptions of God as “The Absolute”. The doctrine of these Meditations. God as Dialectic is Personality—Pantheism—The Relation of God and the Finite.

Various Conceptions of God.

Mind, we are sometimes told, is self-consciousness: God is Absolute Mind, therefore God is Absolute Self-Consciousness or Spirit. This appears to me to be a short and easy way of settling a difficult question. It is more scientific to try to know God step by step and experientially as He reveals Himself in the correlated growth of object-subject. God we have found is Infinite Being and Dialectic and the Feeling as well as the Thought of the World. Is He a Being, that is to say, infinite conscious Subject? and further, Is He a self-conscious Being, in other words, infinite Ego? Let us consider this question—a grave one for us: for if God be in no sense Personality, He is then, at best and highest, a sentient Process, if indeed we can predicate even sentience of Him.

The ground-moment in the Notion, God, viz., Absolute Unconditioned Being, presents itself as Potentiality only; not in any way as personality. If I indulged the pictorial imagination, I might, however, speak of Potential-Being as a kind of seething active dim sentience in which there slowly generates itself the Will-nisus of the creative activity. It is wiser, I think, to keep to the pure thought-conception which gives us Potentiality as first moment of Actuality.

As we have seen, the ground-moment is not the whole of God. He is Absolute Being immanent in conditioned things and, as Will-Dialectic, creative and formative of things. And the question in terms of my argument is this: Is Absolute Being, as creative, self-conscious? In considering this question we continue to bear in mind our method: it is in, not by, finite mind as sentience, and in mind as reason and not by reason, that the concept of God can alone arise in us. In past pages I have not been attempting to analyse the concept, God; but rather to ascertain how it is that the mind of man reaches the supreme Notion which he names God, and to exhibit the various elements in that notion as revealed by the method of investigation pursued.

The Christian theologian represents God as a self-conscious Spirit infinite and eternal to whom, as to a God of love as well as of moral judgment, all things are necessarily present—even the cares and griefs and trivial activities of the humblest worshipper. Such a conception admits of a Pantheistic interpretation; but only by some straining of the argument. The popular conception is perhaps nearer the truth than that of the professed theologian. This represents God as an infinite and eternal Being outside the world which He has created, and as consciously related to every part of it because He so wills; and His willing is essentially and ultimately beneficent. It also assigns to Him all the characteristics of the human spirit, but on an infinite scale—eminenter to use the scholastic expression. “His ways are not as man's ways, His thoughts are not as man's, thoughts,” is merely an expression for the mystery that envelops His Being and His purposes generally.

The philosopher, on the other hand, has, for the most part, leant to a monistic pantheism; and this it is difficult to distinguish from an infinite Process in which will and purpose have no meaning, and in which man is no more an object of the Divine concern than the inorganic world. The infinite Process, however it may be described—whether in mystic terms, material terms, or as attributes and modes or as a Dialectic—is God; and there is no other. In brief, all is Emanation. The most recent form of what seems to me to be Pantheism is that by God is meant the “Absolute Experience” (which is an inadequate, if not misleading, way of naming an “infinite sentient Subject”) to whom every part of the totality of things is present, and, by being present, is sustained as an existent reality. In this infinite conscious Subject all the differences and contradictions and inadequacies of the universe are conciliated in a Whole that is presumed to be consistent with itself. Nothing is said about creative activity; and knowledge in this strange Being, as man understands knowledge, is ignored, if not denied; the eternal Subject being rather an infinite Sensorium in whom conciliations of the different are not effected by an act of Will, but merely dynamically effect themselves somehow. Differences in this Absolute exist apparently for the mere purpose of being reconciled, and whether “The Absolute” is conscious or not conscious of the whole operation seems to me to matter nothing. The teleological conception can find here no place. God is merely a big sentient Being helplessly and eternally generating things which He has a difficulty in dealing with in the interest of His own equilibrium.

Self-consciousness, and “knowledge” implied in this, cannot be thus lightly set aside however, and we have had offered to us the conception of an Absolute which in its necessary and eternal activity pours itself out in formal categories in derivation from each other—which categories constitute the Form (and also, according to my understanding of the position, the Reality) of the existent world and are ever returning into their source. This conception allows for difference; but the necessariness of the total evolution seems to me to abolish personality and freedom in man, and to lose all reality in Logic. It approaches very closely to the Spinozistic conception; “Subject” taking the place of “Substance”. There is, I might venture to say, more regard for God than for man in this system of thought—man to explain whom and for whom all speculative thought is undertaken. It is possible, however, that this theory of the Absolute might be put in such a way as to satisfy, more than any other can, the vague, but ever-present, rational and spiritual needs of thinking men. One difficulty, however, appears to me to be insuperable, if I rightly understand Hegel: God does not realise Himself as Spirit or Absolute Ego save through the sublating of the “Other” which has emanated from Him. The self-consciousness of God (Spirit) is thus made logically dependent on the “Other,” and there is nothing to justify us in saying that prior to the “Other” there is Absolute Ego. Now, there is a sense in which my more hesitating attempt at interpretation is in accord with this view; for I say that it is only as creative, i.e., as Will-Dialectic, that God can be said to be self-conscious Personality. There is, however, no Will or Purpose visible or possible in the necessary unfolding of a dialectic of categories.

Again: The Absolute, as distinguishable from the differentiations that constitute it, has been inaptly called a spiritual “unity”. This gives an infinite pluralism with a centre of activity which suggests, to my mind, only an electric-power central station. It is the “Absolute Experience” over again. We naturally ask, Is this mechanical “unity” also unifying, and whence does it come, and what is its nature? Is it Will? To call it by the name “spirit” reveals, it seems to me, some intellectual confusion. Spirit, as all the world understands it, is not only mind but self-affirming mind, and affirmer and master, moreover, of all experience as subsumed into itself as Ego. A uniting bond of individua, if it be uniting and no more, may as well be an ingenious machine as anything else, so far as man cares. To call it a mind—machine, while leaving out mind, would be to purloin the word “mind”. In short, if the Absolute Totality be simply Being and its differentiations held together sufficiently to secure their permanence, there is no “God”. Nay more, there is no “Unity” even, in any sense save this, that the differentiations are by their primal nature, or by fortuity, in a reciprocity which secures a kind of balance or equilibrium. Things simply are statically and dynamically as we find them. Beings of reason are then merely the highest products of a sweltering, blind mass of conflicting atoms or xes. The word “Absolute,” even, is on this theory not used in the sense of “Absolute Being” ground and sustainer of the Whole; but merely as a synonym of “Totality”—a totality in the main coherent in its parts, but, the higher we rise in the scale of nature, more and more evil and chaotic as all experience tells us. If this be all we have found, we have not found anything which we can call, or care to call, God. True, there may exist, for aught we know, some natural products of the seething blind aggregate of things which are superior to man, and these, as more powerful and more in harmony with the system, may be called, relatively to the weakness of man, “gods”. That is possible. But that is all. We are evidently back to the whirl of atoms casually colliding to effect a world, but now in some central unity of quasi-sentience; including in that world the minds which put questions that can be met only with silence. If the word “Absolute” can give us no more than this, it ought to be summarily removed as a pretender. If, again, we substitute “blind Will” for the “fortuitous,” we must be careful not to abstract this and give it a kind of entity; for it exists only in individual things: and, moreover, it is not Will as we know it in ourselves, but merely persistent undirected Force. Like the misleading word “Absolute,” it may delude men, but only for a second, into thinking that they have in this anything which can be called God.

Further, if the Absolute Total is a coherent system, as all admit, it is impossible to conceive a unity which shall maintain the coherence of the parts and the whole unless it be more than mere Being—a static fact at best. The uniting agency must be a something that is in touch with every part in a re-active fashion and embraces the whole. In other words, it must be Being that is conscious—feeling or intuiting all, and with an activity to be likened to a mind—mechanism, maintaining, correlating and adjusting all, through a reflexive movement, as an infinite synthesis. This stupendous universe would seem to need this at least to bear the weight of it. We have in this conception, presented to us as God, an eternal Consciousness—feeling the Whole: a One of reflexive Feeling infinitely diffused.1 So far good: for we now have at least Mind-universal on which to repose, and we can even draw a certain life and strength for ourselves out of that which is the mysterious indweller and bearer and conciliator of all. With such a God, however, all knowledge, all life for man, is summed up in the one word “empirical”. For the inadequacy of the conception lies here that it gives us an infinite Subject which has reached the stage of sentient consciousness alone, and also a world that is an unpurposed emanation which the Eternal Consciousness almost passively contemplates as Object, inasmuch as the activity of emanation is necessary and undesigned. The relation of the emanation of differentiations as Object to Subject is here manifestly a relation of reflexive activity alone. The eternal Subject contemplates the fruit of its womb ever-issuing, ever-returning, while holding a quasi-mechanical relation to all the parts, which relation maintains them in their efflux and reflux. I do not deny that in contemplation of this great thought—an Eternal Consciousness—the mind of finite man may lose itself and experience that union with the Universal which is of the essence of religious emotion. But he cannot look and be raised: he can only look around him and below him, for he himself occupies a higher stage of mind-evolution than belongs to the source of his own being; for, such a conception if not, like Being, wholly static, is dynamic (as I have indicated) in the sense of reflex activity only. It is, at best, Mind on the attuitional plane. It cannot order or dispose the emanation; it cannot regulate that which, in some unexplained and necessary way, has emerged out of it and is held in it. It cannot propose ends to itself; and ideas and ideals consequently vanish from the life of God, and exist for us as only man-created illusions. The universal Subject is doubtless aware of all, and, in a dim way, is alive to man and his ideals as it is alive to all else;—but it is wholly indifferent to all alike. In short, at best and highest, this doctrine gives only a Soul of the Universe. The notion of God which we have been endeavouring to set forth in past meditations contains this Feeling and Consciousness (the Object being “Other” of Subject); but by itself this cannot satisfy either the heart or reason of Man. He demands more than such a God can give him: nay, he may fitly shed a pitying tear over the Eternal Consciousness, bewailing its restricted life and its helpless contemplation of its own inevitable and purposeless emanations. Man may wonder in presence of this as the final thought of reason on things; but he cannot worship. Nay, this eternal consciousness must look to man for the completion of its own half-born being. An “Eternal Conscious Subject” can be the God we seek only if we surround it with a halo of our own creating, and insinuate into the conception attributes which a strict logic must repudiate. It is not, however, the God we seek; nor is it the God which our analysis of Knowing and of experience has thus far revealed. If The Absolute be Conscious Being, even if we call it Eternal Consciousness, it is, I repeat, Mind only in the second stage—the attuitional plane: there is nothing but emanation of differences and of the total manifestation, along with unceasing reflex-activity and inner reciprocity whereby the Whole is kept in a kind of working relation and preserved from dissolution.

Nor, to continue, can we content ourselves with that attempt to define God which identifies Him merely with Moral Tendency in the system of things. A “Power not ourselves that makes for righteousness” says too little, unless it fairly faces the implications of the phrase and converts the Power from being an indefinite “somewhat” into a living actuality. The words carry with them the notion of an almighty (not necessarily infinite) Being working towards an End which is The Good, and they present to us a world which is not merely an ethical process as a dynamic blind fact, but a purposed ethical process. If this be so, then assuredly the eternal Being “Wills”; and the conception which the words sum up is brought (so far, at least) into line with that to which our epistemological analysis has led us.

The Doctrine of these Meditations.

These theories of God are all speculative; by which I mean that they do not rest on an epistemological foundation nor follow a method of investigation. Nay, I would go further, and say that with many of the greatest thinkers personality is not yielded by their systems but is merely thrown in to save the situation. It is an obiter dictum only.

What has our experiential method revealed? Objective Being unconditioned and transcendental, as unfathomable Potential and Source—the implicit of the explicated actual, and this Being as immanent in the conditioning of itself, i.e., the universe of finites. But this is far from being all. For we found that Negation was that fact within the Absolute Whole without which a world could not exist. Then, as we rose to the Dialectic plane of mind, we found this confirmed, and saw each and all as determined Being, that is to say, as the issue of Universal-Will-Dialectic that gave us a teleologico-causal Absolute. The Negation is the “Not” within God and alone makes possible an Object or “Other” to Absolute Being; and The Dialectic, as Will containing End, affirms differentiations through that which is not God, and yet is God, viz., the phenomenal Negation. The differentiations we saw to be determinations of Being—essences, and not helpless effluxes. The world, in short, is a “creation” and not merely an idle and casual “emanation” for the disturbed or complacent contemplation of an Absolute Sentience. It is determined in each, and in the whole through each, towards ends. Wherever the differentiations are, they carry with them Being-Absolute as now immanent; the differentiations are within and of Absolute Being. What we have before us in the universe, accordingly, is God affirming Himself as outer or Object to Himself, while the Object is yet always necessarily Himself—Himself, however, under the conditions of the inevitable moment of negation.

A big machine of process, even if we call it Mind, need not now content us: nor yet a system of self-evolving Logic with a dubious right even to the attribute of Being. Objectivity is Subjectivity externalised: and the Universal Subject is Absolute Being, as immanent, purposely determining itself—a Will—Dialectic. If so, then “It” has not only the vague sense of subjectivity that is inherent in attuent consciousness, but it is evolved into the “I AM THAT I AM” of self-conscious Mind. It is, in short, Mind in its full signification as we finite minds can alone conceive it. We cannot now look down from our Ego heights on God as if we made Him, and then proceed to assign to Him His limits. He is not a subjective construction, still less a Postulate: we find Him in things as Spirit, and worship Him as veritable Object, as sole Actuality,—as the last word of our Reason-energy in its struggle with the mystery of things.

I say we find God: for the God I have endeavoured to reveal is nothing save the metaphysic latent in the universal presentation of things to the human self-conscious subject. The Object builds God up in us; or rather the Object is God building Himself up in us—the necessary universals revealed on the evolving planes of finite mind which, as a concrete whole, constitute the mind of man.

God as Dialectic is Personality.

Of the first moment of the Notion God—Being-Absolute, we can say nothing save that, as womb of all, it contains all possible forms and essences and modes. We feel It. The God whom we “know” is Absolute Being as Becoming, and He (no longer It) is in the form of Ego. I say in the form of Ego; for Being that generates Will-Dialectic is the very form of the finite ego; and this Will-Dialectic we have found to be objective fact. The God who, as Act, is known by us and in us is, in brief, to be called God the Logos, if we desire to bring ourselves into line with metaphysical theology. The Holy Spirit, again, is not God as Emotion, but as rationalised Emotion—the Ideal.2

I think I am justified by the whole course of my argument in putting the matter thus: Being-Absolute, in revealing itself as a Dialectic in and through the Negation of itself, is Absolute Ego or Spirit. For what is the Dialectic? Will; Mediating Ground, Formal and Formative; and End or the Good—all resting in and emerging out of eternal Being. If we were asked to define self-conscious Spirit, we should do so in those very terms. God, therefore, as Act, is self-conscious Spirit. Our epistemological analysis yields this, while leaving God as Being-Absolute outside our ken. It is the creative aspect of God—God manifested and immanent that I “know”: Absolute Being in relatione ad res creatas; what else there is I only feel, and affirm, as fact.

The self-constituted object or “other” of the Divine creative consciousness, is the determination of His Being in and through the negating phenomenon, viz., Quantity, Motion, Quality, Degree, etc. The self-determining Divine Spirit contemplates this as at once vehicle and resistant of His “absolute idea” (by which I mean the one comprehensive creative Thought) and so recovers it. Herein is the very form of self-consciousness. But this act is impossible in God, as in man, save as grounded in the logical prius “I am I,” in which self-distinguishing act the Subject is Object to itself. Man, then, is not required to adore a mere Process or find religion in a cosmic emotion or in a Universal Sentience or a System of Relations, or in an Unknowable.

When we say that God as creative Act is Spirit or Ego, or self-conscious Subject, it is in an infinite sense, or eminenter, that He is so. By this we do not mean that He is so in a sense we cannot comprehend; but only in a sense that we cannot adequately comprehend. Infinite Ego must have infinite relations and be infinite in His activities and relations. If a finite mind were to compass the Infinite it would eo actu cancel it. Again, Man is self-determining; but he is also determined as well as self-determining, and is, consequently, subject to conditions of spiritual life that bar his free activity. God, on the contrary, is self-determining and determines all else: He is in His self-determination infinite, because the only limit is the Other, which also is Him. There must, manifestly, be a vast difference between a conditioning and a conditioned Ego—much that is beyond the understanding of a conditioned finite being. These considerations justify my qualifying the affirmation of “God is Ego” by the words “in an infinite sense”. Our business, then, is not so much to know God as Absolute Infinite Ego as to apprehend the fact of Absolute Infinite Ego; not to regard Him as a personality, but as “Personality”; and there leave the question.

Contrast Ego finite and infinite: Keeping always to the results of our past argument, we would say, God is objective universal Being; Man is a determined unit of Being with countless fixed relations. Man determines for himself that which is “given” to him: God determines the universe including man and is self-conscious by being conscious of what He gives as content to Himself. Man is a subject awaiting its content, while God is Subject and Object. Man reduces things to self-consciousness by a series of finite judgments and inductively: God as creative, determining and infinite, recovers His determinations into Himself in one percipient flash—percipient, not sentient. Man is in a body which, at best, is a limited and weak organ of the spirit; the body of God is the Universe which He Himself initiates and animates. When, then, we say that God is Ego or Spirit as spirit is known to us, but this in an “infinite sense,” what I have said explains the qualification.

In short, our epistemological analysis compels us to subsume all actual and possible experience as Being and Dialectic; but Being and Dialectic is precisely the Form of self-conscious spirit as known to us in ourselves. The finite man-mind is the infinite Mind as finite and reveals to us that, whatever else God may be, He is, on this plane of the Divine Evolution, Personality. At the same time we do wisely not to give too definite a form to this in our thought: whereever the Infinite is present, Feeling must eke out knowing, and feeling is itself inchoate thought.

Meanwhile, let me again emphasise that it is only God as creative and immanent that we “know”—i.e., as Absolute Synthesis of Experience: to affect more than this would be to affect a synthesis of the Absolute; and this is quite beyond man's powers. That very Absolute Synthesis, however, contains the fact of Absolute Being Unconditioned. Of God as Absolute Being I can say nothing definite, after I have named the Attributes mediated through the finite; of God in His creative movement, I can legitimately speak and say much. The “Becoming” of Absolute Being as the “other” of its own content is not a helpless movement, but the nisus of Will whose end is The Good, as the Dialectic insists on telling us.

But even into what I have ventured to say of God, there ever enters the consciousness of the Infinite which proclaims, with no uncertain voice, “Such knowledge as you have is bounded by your finitude, and such personality as you are justified in attributing to God as creative, is a personality that sublates your finite conception of personality into the highest level of Being. Consequently, God's personality is as like to yours as the Infinite is to the Finite; as the Conditioning to the Conditioned. His thoughts, which are His purposes, you know only in so far as you know the externalisation of Himself in nature and man.” And, accordingly, I dare not say that Personality or Ego is the highest term of Absolute Mind. But I find it on this plane; and on this plane it is very God, because it is the Form of Absolute Being as creative.

Relation of God and the Finite.

We have been speaking of the Absolute Synthesis. This Absolute Synthesis, we have said, is God. Nothing can be outside God; and, consequently, it might be said that the doctrine of the Absolute Synthesis is Pantheism. This would be a hasty criticism; for an essential and inevitable moment within the Absolute is Negation, whereby the “other” and the individual are constituted and conserved within the Whole. The method of the universe is through an infinite series of finite individuations. And yet, nothing in all the ascending scale of the created manifestation can liberate itself from God—the affirmation and idea in each; and, as things ascend in the scale, they have more and more of God in them till, in the self-conscious creature Man, standing at the top of the scale, we find a free return to God and a vision and proclamation of Him as All in All.

Although nothing can liberate itself from God, the moment of Negation, I say, saves us from Pantheism. Personally (I may interpose) I have no objection to Pantheism save that it is false. In an early meditation, we found that the phenomenon “is” and “is not”: this is the fundamental contradiction in our system. In Being and the Dialectic is the ultimate reality and continuity of things. In their abstractness as predicates “things” are not. They are, as abstracts, the bare moment of Negation in the absolute synthesis, without which there could be no universe. To identify God-immanent in all things with things is a doctrine of emanation and pantheism; whereas we find that Primal Being passes into its externalisation as dialectic act. It Wills the world; and that willing involves mediating Ground and End.

Primordial Actuals are, we said, the dialectic determination or affirmation in and of Absolute Being passing into a finite world. As containing the Negation of the One of Being and Dialectic, they are individuates. The “determination-so” is the mediating moment of the Dialectic: it is formative and is the “idea” of the resultant concrete actual or determinate. The “idea” determines the positive activities and ends of each actual; the negation gives individuation. Like the Absolute Totality itself, each individuate is thus a synthesis of Yes-No. By virtue of the negation and individuation each actual is set free to fulfil its own nature in and for the whole through conflict. Consequently, its actings are not fatefully determined but are a question for the individual itself in relation to its finite environment, and are contingent. God virtually says, “Fulfil the idea for yourself; sublate it into your individuality: you must do so in a system of finites through effort and strife; but notwithstanding, the ‘idea’ in you which is ME will maintain a definite line of positive and affirmative activity of relations which will, through the fulfilment of each actual, effect a Whole as a system; and I am always immanent as that ‘idea’. You are in Time, and the Whole can effect itself only as an evolution of ME in a Time-series. Meanwhile, I am in each as ‘idea,’ and thus make possible for each the fulfilment of itself through the Whole, spite of those deflections, retardations and retroversions arising out of the assertion of individuality and without which the Whole would be a blank system of mechanical necessity.” In the lowest grades of actuals the individuation is so weak and blind, that the system is virtually mechanical and necessary, but as higher grades of Being evolve there is ever more spontaneity.

When we come to Man, this relation of God to His creatures as each acting from its own individual centre is accentuated. For the free Will-dialectic is the “idea” in and of man, and there is thus imposed on him the fulfilment of himself by himself as an individual ego, as a member of a Community, and as a searcher after truth and the guidance which it alone can afford. Hence error and evil through which, as part of the inevitable method of an externalisation of Absolute Being, man has to fulfil himself. This is a hard lot for man. But the hardest part of his lot is that God would almost seem to have left him. And yet, it is in a special sense that God is ever present. On every plane of finite mind as organised into man He reveals Himself. He is ever inviting the individual to become universal: to force Himself on man would be to cancel man's finitude and personality, thereby contradicting the whole method of creation. He is always in us; but He must be taken. Man must achieve for himself his privileges. Consciously to realise God is to claim Him for ourselves. This is meditative prayer and God must answer; for in prayer we are striving to identify our wills with His eternal Will. Such is the spiritual order, known of all men who seek God. We cannot, by asking, deflect for our special behoof the purposes of God as embodied in the system of things. The answer to particular prayer must always be a universal answer; but just because it is a universal answer, it is an answer to each individual who asks. And the answer is just God Himself—God the Helper, the Pardoner, the Consoler, the Deliverer. He will not relieve a man of his particular burden, but He will transform it and enable him to realise its true significance for the moulding of his spirit. God's Peace will always be given. It cannot be otherwise.

It follows, then, from our whole argument that man's normal relation to God in this suffering and struggling world is a virile relation and far from servile. He is a co-operator with God Himself in the effecting of His idea. God needs man. For individuation, which may be called cosmic sin, man is not responsible: for his avoidable defections from the ethical ideal, however, he prostrates himself and prays that the link between the finite and infinite thereby broken may be forged anew. In thus praying to God, he claims his birthright, and he will get what he ought to ask.

The relation of God to the finite which is of deepest significance is that he is immanent not only as “idea” but as the ideal. Were it not for the content we have found in the Dialectic, we should not be entitled to say so. The Dialectic in its initial Will-movement propounds completed End which is the Good; and attains it so far as the Negation in the system permits. And the Good is the harmony of parts as governed by the “idea”—in other words it is The Ideal. Consequently we say that God immanent as the idea of finite things is immanent as a striving towards the ideal. This means much for us. Even in inanimate things we see the ideal immanent; and when we contemplate the evolution of Infinite Mind as finite mind, we see the inner movement towards the realisation of the projected ideal. The Universal Dialectic reflected into man as “idea” of Man is subjective dialectic which is the possibility and source of ideals. The dialectic as a free movement in us propounds ideals and ever moves towards ideals; and ideals are the harmonised Truth of experience, cognitive, ethical and æsthetic.

If in each existence the ideal is always immanent, so in the Absolute Totality is it immanent. The Absolute Idea is (in terms of the Dialectic) immanent as the Absolute Ideal towards which the whole creation moves—must move. And finite beings which can project ideals which they cannot achieve here are God's failures, if this earthly life sum them up. The Negation in the individual (popularly called the Devil) has been too potent for man; and for God also, it would seem, on this plane of His Evolution of Himself.3

  • 1.

    I am not criticising Green, with whom I have a deep intellectual and ethical sympathy. Moreover, Green reaches an eternal self-conscious subject.

  • 2.

    And is accordingly the issue of Absolute Being and the Dialectic—the Father and the Son, as the metaphysical theologian would say.

  • 3.

    See Appendix, Note 6.