THE METAPHYSICAL NOTION OF FREEDOM
To prove freedom metaphysically, without encumbering oneself with all the usual philosophical arguments, it is sufficient to establish that it is a possibility, since the possible and the real are metaphysically identical. To this end we may first define freedom as the absence of constraint, a definition negative in form but, here again, fundamentally positive, for it is constraint that is a limitation, that is to say a veritable negation. Now, as we said above, when one envisages universal Possibility beyond Being, that is, as NonBeing, one cannot speak of unity, since NonBeing is metaphysical Zero, but at least one can speak of 'non-duality' ([1]), to continue to use a negative form. Where there is no duality, there is necessarily no constraint, and this suffices to prove that freedom is a possibility insofar as it results immediately from 'non-duality', which is obviously exempt from every contradiction.
Now, one can add also that freedom is not only a possibility in the most universal sense, but also a possibility of being or of manifestation; here, in order to pass from NonBeing to Being, it suffices to pass from 'non-duality' to unity: Being is 'one' (the One being Zero affirmed), or, rather, it is metaphysical Unity itself—the first affirmation, but also by that very token the first determination. [2] That which is one is manifestly exempt from all constraint, so that the absence of constraint, that is, freedom, is again in the domain of Being, where unity presents itself in a way as a specification of the
principial 'non-duality' of NonBeing; in other words, freedom also belongs to Being, which amounts to saying that it is a possibility of being, or, following our previous explanations, a possibility of manifestation, since Being is preeminently the principle of manifestation. Furthermore, to say that this possibility is essentially inherent in Being as an immediate consequence of its unity is to say that it will be manifested in some degree, in all that proceeds from Being, that is to say in all particular beings insofar as they belong to the domain of universal manifestation. However, as soon as there is multiplicity, as is the case in the order of particular existences, it is evident that there can no longer be a question of any but relative freedom; and in this respect one may envisage either the multiplicity of particular beings themselves or that of the elements constituting each one of them. As concerns the multiplicity of beings, each is limited by the others in its states of manifestation, and this limitation can be expressed as a restriction on its freedom; but to say that some being is not free to any degree would be to say that it is not itself, that it is 'the others', or that it does not bear even its immediate raison d'être within itself, which would amount to saying that it is in no way a real being. [3] Furthermore, since the unity of Being is the principle of freedom in particular beings as well as in universal Being, a being will be free to the extent that it participates in this unity; in other words, it will be the more free as it has more unity in itself, or as it is more 'one'; [4] but, as we have already said, individual beings are never such except in a relative way. [5] In this regard moreover it is important to note that it is not exactly the greater or lesser
complexity of the constitution of the being that makes it more or less free, but it is rather the character of that complexity that determines to what degree it is more or less effectively unified, and this follows from what we have explained previously regarding the relationships between unity and multiplicity. [6]
Freedom thus envisaged is then a possibility which, to varying degrees, is an attribute of all beings, whatever they are and in whatever state they are situated, and not only of man; thus human freedom, which is all that is considered in philosophical discussions, no longer appears as anything but the particular case that it really is. [7] What matters most metaphysically is not the relative freedom of manifested beings, any more than the special and limited domains in which it may be exercised, but freedom understood in the universal sense, which properly resides in the metaphysical instant of passage from cause to effect, the causal relation moreover having to be transposed analogically in such a way as to be applicable to all
orders of possibilities. Since this causal relation is not and cannot be one of succession, its accomplishment must be viewed here essentially under the extra-temporal aspect, and this all the more so in that the temporal point of view, being particular to a determined state of manifested existence, or, even more precisely, to certain modalities of that state, is in no way susceptible of universalization. [8] Consequently, this metaphysical instant, which seems so elusive because there is no break in continuity between the cause and the effect, is in reality unlimited, and thus, as we established at the outset, surpasses Being and is coextensive with total Possibility itself; it constitutes what one may call figuratively a 'state of universal consciousness,' [9] participating in the 'permanent actuality' inherent in the 'first cause' itself. [10]
In NonBeing, the absence of constraint can only lie in 'nonaction' (the wu-wei of the Far-Eastern tradition); [11] in Being, or, more exactly, in manifestation, freedom operates in differentiated activity, which in the individual human state takes the form of action in the usual sense of this word. Moreover, in the domain of action, and even in the whole of universal manifestation, the 'freedom of indifference' is impossible, since it is the mode of freedom belonging properly to the nonmanifested (which, strictly speaking, is in no way a special mode), [12] that is to say, it is not freedom as a possibility of being, nor yet the freedom that belongs to Being (or to
God conceived as Being in its relation to the world understood as the totality of universal manifestation) and consequently, to the manifested beings that occupy its domain and participate in its nature and attributes according to the measure of their own respective possibilities. The realization of the possibilities of manifestation which constitute all beings in all their manifested states, including all the modifications, whether of action or otherwise, that belong to these states, therefore cannot rest upon a pure indifference (or upon an arbitrary decree of the divine Will, after the well-known Cartesian theory that would moreover apply this conception of indifference both to God and to man), [13] but this realization is determined by the order of the universal possibility of manifestation, which is Being itself, so that Being determines itself, not only in itself (insofar as it is Being, the first of all determinations), but also in all its modalities, which are all the particular possibilities of manifestation. It is only in these latter, considered 'distinctively' and even under the aspect of 'separativity', that there can be determination by 'another than itself'; put another way, particular beings can both determine themselves (to the extent that each one of them possesses a certain unity, hence a certain freedom, as participating in Being) and be determined by other beings (by reason of the multiplicity of particular beings, which, insofar as they are envisaged from the point of view of the states of manifested existence, are not brought together into a unity). Universal Being cannot be determined, but determines itself; as for NonBeing, it can neither be determined nor determine itself, since, being beyond all determination, it admits of none.
One sees from the preceding that absolute freedom can be realized only through complete universalization; this will be 'self-determination' insofar as it is co-extensive with Being, and 'indetermination' beyond Being. Whereas a relative freedom belongs to every being under any condition whatsoever, this absolute freedom can only belong to the being that, liberated from the conditions of manifested existence, whether individual or even supra-individual,
has become absolutely 'one', at the degree of pure Being, or 'without duality', if its realization surpasses Being. [14] It is then, but then only, that one can speak of a being 'that is a law unto itself,' [15] because this being is then entirely identical with its sufficient reason, which is both its principial origin and its final destiny.