3. Origin, Division, and Union Action

3.1. What Is Origin, Division, and Union Action?

As already explained, give and receive action takes place on the basis of the four position foundation. In other words, in order for give and receive action to take place, the four positions of center, subject, object and result should necessarily be established. Every phenomenon takes place in time and space. Give and receive action seen from the viewpoint of space is the four position foundation. Give and receive action can also be seen from the viewpoint of time, and the temporal perception of give and receive action is “origin, division, and union action” (or Chung-Boon-Hap action). In other words, give and receive action as the process of the formation of the four position foundation is origin, division, and union action. First, the center is established, next, subject and object are established, and finally, the result is established. Thus, give and receive action in terms of three stages is the origin, division, and union action (see fig. 1.12).

In the Divine Principle, it is written that “the four position foundation is realized by God, husband and wife, and children; they complete the three stages of origin, division, and union action. Hence, the four position foundation is the root of the principle of three stages” (DP, 25). This passage indicates that the four position foundation is give and receive action when seen from the viewpoint of space, and origin, division, and union action when seen from the viewpoint of time. ³⁷ Hence, the content of origin, division, and union action is entirely the same as that of give and receive action. That is, centering on the purpose based on Heart, subject and object engage in harmonious give and receive action thereby forming a union or a new being. Therefore, the types of origin, division, and union action correspond with those of give and receive action. Hence, there are four kinds of origin, division, and union action: inner identity-maintaining origin, division, and union action, outer identity-maintaining origin, division, and union action, inner developmental origin, division, and union action, and outer developmental origin, division, and union action.

3.2. Origin-Division-Union and Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis

The temporal concept of origin, division, and union action has special significance when compared with the Communist materialistic dialectic. Communism is based on the materialistic dialectic, which is a theory of the development of nature that consists of the following three laws: the law of contradiction (or the law of the unity and struggle of opposites), the law of transformation from quantity to quality, and the law of the negation of the negation. It is well-known that Marx inherited the concept of the dialectic from Hegel’s idealistic dialectic, and that he connected it to materialism. Hegel introduced the basic form of dialectic development: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, or affirmation, negation, and negation of negation.

Marxism critically inherited this dialectical form from Hegel, and made use of it in explaining the development of nature and history. According to the materialist dialectic, in development, a thing (affirmation, or thesis) necessarily comes to have an element within itself (antithesis) that negates the thing, and they come to oppose each other (this state is called opposition or contradiction). This opposition (contradiction) is negated again (negation of negation), and is transcended to a higher stage (synthesis). This is the three-stage dialectical form of development. Here, transcendence refers to the fact that when a thing is negated (and again negated), the affirmative elements within the thing are retained and the thing is elevated to a new stage. Let us consider the process of the hatching of a chicken egg. An egg (thesis) contains within itself an embryo (antithesis), which negates the egg and, as the embryo grows, the opposition or contradiction between them becomes greater, and finally this contradiction is transcended, and the egg is negated. At this time, the yolk and the white, which are the affirmative elements, are absorbed (in other words, preserved) as nutrition into the embryo, bringing about a chick.

Marxism also applied this form of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis to its explanation of social development. For example, the development of capitalist society into socialist society is explained as follows: Capitalist society (thesis) necessarily has within itself the proletarian class (antithesis), which negates the capitalist society. With the growth of the proletarian class, the class struggle intensifies, and finally the capitalist society collapses. At this time, the affirmative elements of the capitalist society―economic development, technical development, etc―are preserved and they are inherited by socialist society, which is a higher stage of society (synthesis).

3.3. Critique of the Theory of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis

Here, I will discuss the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and clarify whether it is correct or incorrect. Its correctness depends on whether development in nature and society are actually in accordance with the process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, or not. In other words, what should be clarified is whether or not the dialectic form of development is in accordance with actual processes. This must be analyzed, since Marxism has claimed that the materialist dialectic is science, and that Marxism is a philosophy which has appeared in order to solve actual problems―the structural problems and ills of capitalism. In fact, neither the materialist dialectic nor the dialectic form of development is in accordance with actuality, and neither has been successful in solving actual problems. The materialist dialectic and the dialectic form of development are false. Let me analyze them more concretely to support this contention.

Let me first critique the dialectic form of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, taking the hatching of an egg as an example. First, the embryo within an egg is not something which appeared afterwards as a negative element whereby hatching is accomplished, but rather it was a part of the egg from the very beginning, together with the shell, white and yolk. The embryo, which is part of an egg, can not negate the egg. If the embryo were to negate the egg, it would have to have been something that did not originally exist within the egg, but would have to have appeared as a negation within the egg sometime afterwards. This is in accordance with the process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In reality, however, the embryo existed as a part of the egg from the very beginning.

Second, it is unreasonable to say that the yolk and white are negated in the hatching, since they are simply absorbed as nutrients by the embryo. This is actually an affirmation. Third, it is not true that the embryo becomes a chick, a new being, when the shell is broken, whereby the egg is negated. The fact is that the chick, which has already developed into a chick (a new being), comes out by pecking the shell open. Thus, the hatching of an egg does not follow the dialectic form of development―thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Next, I will critique the dialectic development of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis as it is applied to social development. According to this theory, capitalist society (thesis) is negated by the proletarian class (antithesis) existing within itself, whereby it is changed into a socialist society (synthesis), which is a society at a higher stage, and the achievements of capitalist society are preserved in the socialist society. However, this scenario was not the case in reality. It was to be expected that the advanced capitalist countries, such as Great Britain, the United States, France, and Japan would first be changed into socialist countries. But this was not the case. On the contrary, socialism was established in the underdeveloped countries, to which this formula could not be applied.
Second, when socialism was established in the underdeveloped countries, the early capitalistic achievements in their countries prior to revolution were not preserved, but were rather damaged, and the economy actually regressed to a still earlier stage. That is why Lenin had to carry out the New Economy Policy (NEP) after the revolution, and Deng Xiaoping, after the Cultural Revolution, acknowledged the failure of the Chinese economy. Thus, the dialectic form of development, or thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which was applied to social development, proved discordant with actual historical facts. The former Eastern European socialist countries, along with the former Soviet Union, the suzerain socialist country, which were supposed to be economically more developed than capitalist countries, came to an economic deadlock, and as a result, they finally collapsed. This fact proves beyond any doubt the falseness of the materialist dialectic form of development: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Thus, the materialist dialectic theory of development totally failed in solving actual problems, since it was not in accordance with natural phenomena or with historical facts.