top of page

The Journal of Hyojeong Academia

The 1st volume of the JHJA is published on May online.  

Forthcoming issue

Current issue

Latest Articles

Unification Thought as a Universal Science

by Jin, Sungbae

Journal of Hyojeong Academia 1 2023 

In order to examine the basis supporting the possibility of Unification Thought as a universal science, I will briefly go through a summary of the history of universal science, which is proposed as a scientific ideal. First of all, in Plato’s The Republic, a science or study is broadly classified into the level of rational perception through intuition (noesis) and the dimension of understanding through reasoning (dianoia). Plato proposed the notion of a study in a broad sense that embraces both philosophy and science.) Just as Whitehead stated that Western studies are simply Plato’s annotations, Plato is indeed the model for all studies. Plato premised the theory of the Idea as the source of all studies and all studies are deduced and converge from the theory of the Idea with a logical consistency. Plato found the ideal form of study in mathematics, which greatly influenced Descartes’ rationalism and the enlightenment’s view of nature. Unlike Plato, Aristotle classified studies into a philosophy that directly gains insight into axioms and principles themselves, and science that indirectly makes inferences based on axioms and laws, and treated them as such. Aristotle can be seen as the first philosopher who tried to establish a structural system of all studies centered on formal logic. He believed that positive science was a group of statements that were deductively laid out. Under this premise, deductive logic could be established as the basis of positive science and the path for the particular knowledge of positive science to be concluded by basing itself on inevitable truths. Formal logic was initially used as a tool until the rise of medieval Scholasticism when it was further developed into a logic of evidence that justified revelations. It was not until early modern times that such a scholastic method of cognition was replaced by Bacon’s inductive method. The reason for this replacement stemmed from the conclusion that induction possesses the logical nature suitable in the research of scientific theories. From the perspective of early modern times, it was Descartes who first tried to make the theory of a study into a universal science. Descartes believed that all studies are fundamentally one and that one universal academic method existed. He tried to develop a philosophy that embraced all studies. He set the pure self based on cogito, as his starting point for a universal science and believed that the realization of a universal science could be attained through mathematics. Inspired by the fact that geometric propositions could be proved through algebraic methods, he conceived the idea of making all studies equivalent to mathematics. The principle of philosophy that Descartes mentioned referred to a mathematical geometric method and it was through this method that he tried to achieve the perfect unity of all studies, including philosophy. The dual legacy of Descartes’ rationality of reason and mathematical methods was passed down to the Enlightenment and triggered the mathematization of nature and the sciences. Thanks to Galileo, natural mathematization as a method to explain the natural world mathematically became solidified. Though it did not exist in reality, he used the ideal condition, namely the correct and logical mathematical method, to explain inertial motion and falling motion. The Galilean mathematical method that substituted the why-approach with the how-approach for problems arising within nature became the motto of the Enlightenment, a turning point through which nature began to be perceived through stratagemical rationality, that is numbers that replaced rationality. Hence, mathematics was the most model science and the standard for all studies. This Enlightenment scientific ideology also permeated the modern scientific spirit. Hence, the movement to have physics, which is based on mathematics, as the standard of a universal science arose, and this movement was the Unified Science Movement of the Vienna Circle. Finally, another philosophy that cannot be overlooked when it comes to universal science as a scientific theory is Husserl’s phenomenology, which pointed to the crisis of modern scientific civilization and is a school of thought that greatly contributed to the formation of the foundation of a universal science. It is within bounds to say that the history of philosophy after Aristotle, who regarded the establishment of the first philosophy as the mission and purpose of philosophy, was one that researched the first philosophy as a universal science. So, did Hegel and Marx. Not being able to discuss all philosophies within the limited space of this dissertation, this study is limited to representative philosophical discussions regarding our present focus on philosophies that proposed the theory of a universal science. However, as a discussion considering the logical possibility of Unification Thought in becoming a universal science, the above historical reflection has great meaning as a preliminary consideration. Now, if we are to classify this preliminary consideration with the topic Kant advocated, we can broadly divide it into the problem regarding the epistemological foundation of universal science, the problem regarding the construction of a universal science based on sensory experience, and related problems of God and the objectivity of a universal science. From now on, we will contemplate the possibility of Unification Thought as a universal science according to the order of the topics suggested above. First of all, we will discuss this topic in connection with the epistemological basis of a universal science. The problem regarding the epistemological foundation of a universal science can be divided into rationalism found within subjectivity, and empiricism found within objectivity. However, the reason such a classification is non-satisfactory stems from cases where efforts to establish the foundation of a universal science tend to move to and fro between the two camps. Plato and Husserl are just two philosophers who clearly established the basis of their universal sciences in subjectivity, while on the other hand, Enlightenment scientists and the Unified Sciences Movement used objectivity as their basis. In the case of Descartes, who tried to establish universal science through a mathematical model of geometry, the basis of his universal science was the pure self that is able to think (cogito). This was the first principle of philosophy, which guaranteed clarification through evidence, the basis for studies. For Descartes, the principle of philosophy is a mathematical method through intuition and deduction; hence, he thought that these two methods together can provide definite and inevitable knowledge. His argument stemmed from the fact that once clear, distinct, and direct simple truths are obtained through intuition, they will then go through the necessary deductive inference process based on those truths, and thereby attain the truth. Descartes was able to arrive at the pure self through methodical doubt; however, he failed to harmonize this with the mechanistic world view; instead, he sympathized with the ideology of the objectivistic world view that was trying to mathematize nature. By doing so, the pure self became an isolated soul and thus simply became the starting point of reasoning based on the mechanistic law of causality. Regardless, Descartes’ reputation was embedded in history together with his “cogito” proposition and his efforts to establish a universal science from “the pure self” was passed down to later philosophers including Husserl and others, who viewed it critically. In Unification Thought, we can cite the functions of the intellect, emotion and will of the inner sungsang within the internal part of sungsang as the subjective condition of a universal science. In epistemology, this function corresponds to the spiritual apperception that perceives the object of cognition. Unlike Kant, Unification Thought’s spiritual apperception refers to the subjective function of the mind that intuits the form and content of epistemic materials coming from the combination of sensibility and understanding. This is precisely the intentive action of the consciousness in the pure self. In this manner, spiritual apperception does truly correspond to the intentionality of the consciousness in the self and works as the inner sungsang’s integrated function of the intellect, emotion and will. The intentionality of consciousness in the self through spiritual apperception works on securing the object within thinking; and that object of consciousness is none other than the inner hyungsang. In this manner, the subjective intentive action of the consciousness in sungsang and the objective inner hyungsang of consciousness that reacts to it, have give-and-receive action with one another, completing the internal structure of sungsang. The internal structure of sungsang is given priority as the basis that enables experience, prior to the experience. Our daily epistemic, logical actions are the unified process that combines the logical structure given priority in the mind, and the object of experience. In this manner, the logical structure of the priority of the mind in Unification Thought emerges as a theory of a universal science. All the fields of knowledge, including mathematical axioms, scientific theories, laws, moral laws, philosophy, art, the metaphysical objects of religion, etc., which appeared as noema (object of meaning) according to the intentionality of the consciousness through spiritual apperception, finally form the internal structure of sungsang through the metaphysical give-and-receive method. In addition, the evidence of these fields of knowledge are not based on deductive reasoning, but on the intuition of spiritual apperception. The intentionality of consciousness through spiritual apperception corresponds to the mind’s integrated function of the intellect, emotion and will; hence this intentionality is not only intentionality in regard to the factual world, but it possesses a value-oriented nature itself as well. In this way, clues to resolving the long dispute regarding the dichotomy of fact and value that Kant left behind can be found through a united perspective. In that sense, it is as though the somewhat questionable fact/value dichotomy left by Kant attains the function of spiritual apperception of evaluating value-oriented factual judgments, as explained within Unification Thought, and finally achieves integration. In this regard, Unification Thought once more supports Plato’s stance that regards fact and value as equal. Furthermore, Unification Thought agrees with Plato’s philosophy in that all values are ultimately based on the Idea of the Good and its meaning, because the value-orientation of spiritual apperception is always equal to Plato’s value-oriented Idea of the Good or universal value. The relative hierarchy of values in daily life can be established only when it is based on a universal value; Plato premised value itself, called the universal value or absolute value, on the basis of a value judgment. Plato’s universal value is the final basis of all value judgments and the foundation of the unification of values. According to Aristotle, Plato defined the Idea of the Good as unity, which is the fundamental basis of unity for all Ideas. In the same context, we can say that the proposal of absolute values as the theory for the unity of the sciences, which was suggested by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the leading figure of this movement, has opened the horizon of unity, where fields that were once irreconcilable, such as the dualism of fact and value, science and humanities, or science and religion, can now unite. Second, we will look at this topic in connection with the experiential construction problem of a universal science. Descartes set cogito, the first principle, as the foundation of a universal science and obtained the ideal of a universal science in geometry through the evidence of intuition. Unfortunately, the pure self based on cogito and geometry as a universal science could not be maintained with consistency within Descartes’ philosophy; this confusion, however, was fundamentally embedded within all rationalistic philosophies. If we diagnose the confusion in Descartes’ philosophy from the standpoint of Unification Thought, we come to the conclusion that the confusion stemmed from the inadequate understanding regarding subjectivity and objectivity that are the basis for establishing a universal science. The mathematical system that Descartes suggested as the ideal of a universal science is one typical example. Descartes regarded the geometric mathematical system to be an axiomatic system deduced from the rationality of the pure self, and thereby established mathematics as the ideal of universal science. However, he failed to revert the ideology of mathematics to the pure self, reverting it instead to nature and bringing about a reversal of subject and object. By joining with the mathematization of nature of the Enlightenment, he reverted nature into a geometric system, interpreted it in that light, and ended up believing in mechanism commensurate with this system. Descartes, who had proclaimed the subjectivity of cogito, locked up his soul in an isolated state, dependent on the rotation of a huge machine called nature. Descartes’ error was his attempt to establish the system of mathematics, an individual study, as the foundation of a universal science and this probably stemmed from his poor understanding of the phenomenal world containing the world in life. A universal science is a science that should be able to explain everything in the phenomenal world related to all beings and, therefore, this goal can only be attained through the analysis of experience, in which the phenomenal world is rooted. Hence, we can say that a universal science cannot depend on the evidence of Descartes’ pure self alone because that pure self corresponds to the subjective condition that can construct a universal science. In order to establish a universal science, subjective conditions and objective conditions are both required; the objective condition will appear as the object of consciousness reacting to the subjective intentionality of consciousness. This is the inner hyungsang that appears as an idea within the mind. As was explained above, the inner hyungsang mentioned here is an object of cognition that can only be grasped through the priority self0) of pure consciousness, which transcends the empirical self. When we typically refer to experience, it is usually explained with a sensory meaning. In reality, however, experience refers to experience that embraces both experiences of consciousness and sensory experiences. Rather, the object that we directly experience through our rational intuition is not an empirical object but an object of consciousness. Sensory experiences are actually secondary and indirect experiences in comparison to experiences of consciousness. Hence, our senses merely carry out their function of indirectly triggering awareness; the object that is directly perceived by consciousness is the object of consciousness that appears in the form of an idea. Descartes committed the mistake of trying to establish mathematics, an individual science, as the theory of a universal science by overlooking the ideological object of consciousness, the object of meaning of cogito, in his effort to logically found the empirical world. It was only in our modern times that Husserl favorably evaluated Descartes’ discovery of cogito, the pure consciousness; however, he also criticized it for not being able to explain the structure of pure consciousness and thus inherited the unfinished, half-victory of Descartes. Husserl pointed out that what must be discarded from a universal science is not Descartes’ rationality but the superstition of early modern natural science, which based itself on objective facts, and then took over the work of succeeding to the tradition of Descartes’ cogito. Husserl, who regarded the work of explaining the logical structure of pure consciousness as that of phenomenology, tried to establish the structure of pure consciousness through transcendental reduction, i.e., revealing the structure of noesis (intentionality of meaning) and noema (object of meaning), therefore trying to establish the foundation of a universal science on the subjectivity of pure consciousness. The logical structure of noesis and noema in relation to pure consciousness is a concept that accurately corresponds to the logical structure of inner sungsang and inner hyungsang, which is the internal structure of sungsang in Unification Thought. In addition, the concept corresponding to cogito in relation to Descartes is the spiritual apperception of sungsang mentioned within the epistemology of Unification Thought. This spiritual apperception corresponds to noesis (intentionality of meaning) to which Husserl referred. While contemplating the history of philosophy, I was able to discover two models that illustrate Unification Thought, from two philosophers, Plato and Husserl. They were particularly similar to the basis of Unification Thought’s universal science. One example is the way in which the three levels of particulars-universals-highest universal, referring to Plato’s ontology-analogy, are similar to the three stages of ontological structure-logical structure-original image structure, referring to the type of resemblance in Unification Thought. In addition, when the meaning of Husserl’s logical structure of the pure consciousness is freshly analyzed through Unification Thought’s logical structure of human cognition, we find the common horizon of thinking, which all great thoughts possess, and cannot but be surprised as we observe such commonalities. However, this resemblance between the path of Unification Thought and the other paths ends there. Unification Thought differs from phenomenology in the following ways: first of all, the noesis in Husserl’s pure consciousness possesses a nature that has a meaning of intentionality whereas Unification Thought replaces it with the intentionality of consciousness. This is because the action of human consciousness not only plays the role of a meaning-oriented rationality, but also has a unified consciousness of intentionality wherein the functions of the intellect, emotion and will are synthetically applied. An error within the history of philosophy is the way in which human consciousness was limited to rationality; this resulted in the emergence of anti-rationalistic philosophies and philosophies opposed to rationality, such as that proposed by Nietzsche. Second, the discovery of noema, the object of meaning, in pure consciousness through a phenomenological transcendental reduction of the world of life was indeed a great contribution; however, the fact that it did not attempt to strictly criticize experience leaves something to be desired. Within the logical structure of Unification Thought, the object of consciousness relative to the intentionality of consciousness is the inner hyungsang; hence, it possesses a more inclusive meaning than Husserl’s noema. Within phenomenology, noema is limited to a logical composition similar to that of the universal idea, which bases itself on the world of life. On the other hand, the inner hyungsang in Unification Thought is not only a logical composition that includes universal ideas or universal concepts, etc., but it is a logical composition that all experiences of the phenomenal world, including laws and principles, even mathematical principles, can base themselves on. The logical structure of Unification Thought is more inclusive and realistic than phenomenology because it begins from a thorough analysis and criticism of the empirical world. Phenomenology has value for establishing the logical basis of the world of life from the noema of pure consciousness, but Unification Thought possesses a system that includes not only noema, the logical basis that guarantees Husserl’s world of life, but also Descartes’ mathematical system and Kant’s scientific laws, and even moral laws, a system that can establish them as objects of consciousness. Having the apex of absolute values, the logical structure of Unification Thought has secured the logical foundation that can encompass moral laws and the mathematical system, the law of ideas, scientific laws and all individual sciences, and the entire world of life, giving it the countenance and qualities of a universal science. Close

Towards Religious Unity and Harmony in the 21st Century

by Andrew Wilson

Journal of Hyojeong Academia 1 2023 

Abstract This review article argues for the need for interfaith unity to create a spiritual civilization in the 21st century. It charts the historical trend towards interfaith unity that reached maturity in the United States and describes the manifold efforts of Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han to this end both in America and Korea. Full Article

Intelligent Design in Planetary Science as the First Step toward the Unification of Science and Religion 

by Takahiro Hiroi

Journal of Hyojeong Academia 1 2023 

Abstract Planetary science has been revealing more and more facts over the last half century how apparently chance events led to the ideal environment for life to evolve to humans and allowed them to develop science.  The theory of intelligent design implies that there was a causal being (creator) who designed and guided the universe so that intelligent life would emerge and reveal the secrets of the creation process and wanted them to know his motivation or purpose of creation.  Discoveries in planetary science provide some of the simplest and persuasive examples of intelligent design, which has a potential to unify science and religions through scientific methods. Full Article

Unification Medical-Psychological Approach to Family and World Peace from a Post-materialistic Perspective

by Shigehiro Suzuki

Journal of Hyojeong Academia 1 2023 

Abstract In medicine, based on the latest scientific evidence and creativity, we hope to realize a peaceful world and to protect people's health; however, there are still various conflicts among different nations, races, politics, and religions, and poverty and disease are still prevalent. To solve these problems, the Divine Character of God must dwell within the family. In other words, "parental love" must become the core of the "family relationship," and the family’s consciousness must become one, centering on the subconscious with spiritual awareness. I present the following three steps derived from the theory of treatment based on Unification medical and psychological science to build a parent–child relationship that meets the purpose of creation. Step 1 (Origin): Everyone within the family clarifies the goal of completing the family. Step 2 (Division): The couple realizes that men and women are not the same. Step 3 (Union): The couple becomes one and completes the image of God. Through the above process, the "Creation of a family environment" is established and becomes the foundation for world peace. Full Article

bottom of page