– Dr. Hans-Joachim Rudolph, Microvita Research e.V.
Regarding the ‘Four Chamber Model’ (1), one might ask whether its components stand for four different entities (comparable to the elements of Empedocles (495-435 BC)), for the various stages of a process (comparable to those in the model of Johannes Scottus Eriugenas (815-877)) (2), or for different aspects of one and the same thing. Like Johannes Scottus Eriugenas, P.R. Sarkar (1921-1990) also created a scheme, i.e. the Brahma Chakra, wherein the innumerable many emerge from the One. In its second half (Pratisaincara) individual entities strive to reunite with the Great One (3). This processual view has often been applied to the ‘Four Chamber Model’. Accordingly, ‘(A) subjective’ was interpreted as the beginning and ‘(B) objective’ as the end of the first semi-circular movement.
In contrast, Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) had proposed a holistic scheme: in its version of 1949, he contrasted the duality of earth and sky with a second one of mortals and divinities. Together they make up his famous fourfold of the Concealed (divinities and earth) and the Revealed (sky and mortals) as well as the Single (mortals and earth) and the Many (divinities and sky), where the whole always results from an overlapping of interrelated but divergent fields of meaning (4).
In an earlier version (1919), he had placed the duality of the Single and the Many not on a large scale, but in the heart of each individual entity, namely in such a way that the General and the Specific is highlighted (5). On that basis, Graham Harman (born 1968) developed an object-oriented ontology (OOO) (6). In a slightly modified form, it shows astonishing analogies to P.R. Sarkar’s ‘Four Chamber Model’, whereby
P.R. Sarkar’s ‘(A) subjective’ corresponds to G. Harman’s real object,
P.R. Sarkar’s ‘(B) subjective’ corresponds to G. Harman’s real qualities,
P.R. Sarkar’s ‘(A) objective’ corresponds G. Harman’s sensual object,
P.R. Sarkar’s ‘(B) objective’ corresponds G. Harman’s sensual qualities.
Thus, P.R. Sarkar’s duality of the Subjective and the Objective resembles Harman’s opposition of the Real (inner) and the Sensual (outer). And on the second axis, the duality of the Complemented (A) and the Reduced (B) relates to that of the core of each object and its surface, endowed with multiple qualities.
Figure 40: Schemes of M. Heidegger 1919 & 1949 (l) as well as of P.R. Sarkar 1989 & G. Harman 2011 (r)
Figure 40 shows the schemes of M. Heidegger 1919 and 1949 as well as those of P.R. Sarkar 1989 and G. Harman 2011. In each case, the first lines contain the united (complemented) and the second the divided (reduced) pairs of terms.
In the columns, the concealed terms are on the left and the revealed ones on the right. On comparison, it is noticeable that Heidegger’s 1949 scheme does not quite fit into this series. Neither ‘the earth’, nor ‘the sky’ can be meaningfully assigned to the corresponding terms of the other schemes, which affirms Harman’s assessment that Heidegger’s second version might represent a conceptual regression.
In contrast, comparisons between Harman’s and Sarkar’s scheme are quite productive. In my earlier writings I had identified ‘(B) objective’ (planes of universal macrocosmic inferences and their reflected or refracted inferences) with the ‘Anna Maya Kosha’. Accordingly, Harman writes about sensual qualities (♦︎):
Since there are two basic axes of the fourfold, there are generally also two ways of rejecting it. The first consists in the usual manoeuvre of denying the existence of anything outside thought…. No counterpoint exists here between light and shadow, because only that which is given is called real. The second consists in the empiricist assertion that the object is nothing beyond its qualities, so that everything is reduced to a bundle of immediately given characteristics. If we combine these two possibilities, as is usually done, we end up with a world in which only one of the four poles exists: that of sensuous qualities. Meanwhile, scientific naturalists despise the alleged qualia in consciousness and try to expose the delusions of wretched human consciousness as such by pointing to a real substrate. And this substratum turns out to be something that consists exclusively of qualities, not also in a oneness that transcends them (6).
This description perfectly meets what is usually understood by the ‘Anna Maya Kosha’.
The comparison of Harman’s ‘real object’ (♠︎) and Sarkar’s ‚(A) subjective’ (knowing principle) is more difficult. Harman likens this pole “to a dark crystal veiled in a private vacuum: irreducible to its own pieces, and equally irreducible to its outward relations with other things“ (6). Insofar, his real object (♠︎) resembles Sarkar’s ‚(A) subjective’ in its cryptic seclusion.
At several points, however, Harman points out that the fourfold is less illumined by grasping its poles than by understanding the interactions and tensions between them. And in this respect, the tension between its real qualities (♥︎) and the sensual object (♣︎) is of particular importance. Harman calls it eidos (εἶδος). The term is translated in Plato (427-347 BC) as idea, in Aristotle (384-322 BC) as form, and in Husserl (1859-1938) as essence. Beyond doubt, it is the key concept of all realist and idealist philosophies. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that P.R. Sarkar’s Microvita are placed exactly in the same position as Harman’s eidos: in the ‘Four Chamber Model’ they mediate between ‘(B) subjective’ (doing principle) and ‘(A) objective’ (planes of microcosmic and macrocosmic propensities).*
Finally, an explanation of my use of the terms ‘complemented’ and ‚reduced’ for (A) and (B) in Microvita and Cosmology, where P.R. Sarkar explains:
Positive and negative microvita maintain equilibrium in the (B) subjective chamber of the Supreme Attributional Principle. That is why during the bifurcation, the unitary strength remains the same — the subjective and objective having equal value in strength during the phase of reduction (1).
This means, in my understanding, that reductions occur within the event space described by the ‘Four Chamber Model’; however, they don’t have any influence on the balance of positive and negative microvita (the unitary strength remains the same).
According to the motto of Niels Bohr (1885-1962), the co-founder of quantum physics
Contraria non contradictoria, sed complementa sunt. Opposites do not contradict, but complement each other,
I interpret these reductions as the collapse of a formerly existing oneness. Pairs of opposites are thus united in ‘(A) subjective’ and ‘(A) objective’, but separated in ‘(B) subjective’ and ‘(B) objective’. Consequently, reductions result in multiplicities, while the reverse results in oneness, consisting of opposites that complement each other – hence the term ‚complemented‘ (7).
Incidentally, Harman states in this context that the tensions between the poles of the quadruple object can only be dynamised through permanent splits and fusions. So in this respect, too, there is an astonishing similarity between his and P.R. Sarkar’s ‘Four Chamber’ model.
- In Heidegger’s scheme of 1949, the relation between the divinities and the mortals is arranged by hints (Winke) that the former give to the latter! Thereby, he means allusions or clues addressed to the mortals in order to set them on their path or to strengthen them in their being. This involves a kind of understanding that is beyond language and aims at a direct experience and encounter.
References:
- P.R. Sarkar: Microvita and Cosmology. In Microvitum in a Nutshell (1988)
- J.S. Eriugenas: Über die Einteilung der Natur (1870)
- P.R. Sarkar: Idea and Ideology (1959)
- M. Heidegger: Die Frage nach der Technik und weitere Aufsätze.[Text Wrapping Break]Gesamtausgabe, Band 7 (2000)
- M. Heidegger: Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie (1919/20). Hsg. H.-H. Gander (2010)
- G. Harman: The Quadruple Object (2011)
- H.-J. Rudolph: Microvita – Exploring a New Science of Reality (2017)
