AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

ISSN Print: 2156-1540, ISSN Online: 2151-1559, doi:10.5251/ajsms.2014.5.2.39.43

© 2014, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/AJSMS

Absolute certainty and asouzu’s transcendent unity of consciousness

Bisong, Peter Bisong and Udo, Inameti Lawrence
ABSTRACT

It is generally believed that epistemology grew out of the sceptic challenge of the sophists. The
sophists argued and taught that no knowledge is certain. These teachings woke up philosophers
who attempted to show why knowledge could be certain. Right from the days of Socrates and
Plato therefore, philosophers have battled strenuously to show that certain knowledge is possible
and attempted to provide the best route to arrive at such knowledge. It is however, unfortunate
that this quest has not yielded a satisfactory result. This has made a lot of philosophers to give up
the search in despair and has resulted in the postmodern thinking, where attacks are directed at
absolutes. Innocent Asouzu is one of the few philosophers who still believe in the possibility of
attaining absolute certainty. This work therefore, surveys Asouzu Ibuanyidanda philosophy with
the intent of unravelling his doctrine of absolute certainty. With this new insight into the way to
absolute certainty given by Asouzu, this research hopes to quench the despair philosophers are
presently enveloped in and thus, arouse anew the desire in them to theorize on absolute
certainty. The research through Asouzu ideas would show why the various theories of knowledge
failed in their attempt to reach absolute knowledge and thereby provide them with a better
method to go about their quest.

Keywords: Absolute certainty, transcendent unity of consciousness, truth and authenticity

criterion

INTRODUCTION future referentiality as authentic dimensions of

Innocent Asouzu is an African philosopher who is the
founder of the philosophical movement known as
ibuanyidandaism. Ibuanyidanda (which means no
load is insurmountable for danda the ant) is derived
from three Igbo words: ibu meaning load or task, anyi
meaning not insurmountable for and danda which
means a species of ants. This idea of Ibuanyidanda
connotes to the Igbo people the importance of mutual
dependence and interdependence in comple-
mentarity. As the ants when working in unison and
complementarity could lift loads that appear heavier
than them, the African philosophers believe that
humans could achieve or solve difficult tasks when
acting in complementarity. Thus they hold that, “for
anything to claim existence, it has to fulfil a minimum
condition, which subsists in its commitment to a
mutual complementary relationship between it and
the other units with which it shares a common
framework” (Asouzu, Ibuanyidanda 11-12).
The philosophy of Ibuanyidanda was therefore,
contrived based on Asouzu’s personal knowledge of
authentic African traditions in Igbo community. The
world view of the traditional Africans he claims,
shows to a large extent, “strong moments of the
transcendent ontological categories of unity, totality,
universality, comprehensiveness, wholeness and
thoroughgoing complementarity” (Heinz, A Reaction
to Innocent Asouzu 10). Based on this African
worldview therefore, Asouzu regards reality as an all-
embracing whole, where all missing links of reality
exist in complementarity. Being is not seen by this
philosophy in its old traditional clothing, but as “that
on account of which anything that exists serves a
missing link of reality” (Asouzu Ibuanyidanda 10).
Thus, a thing can be said to exist, it has the capacity
to be grasped within the framework of mutual
complementary relationship of all existent realities.
Failure to perceive being as missing links of realities
as many philosophers and thinkers are wont to do will
lead to polarization, fragmentation, bifurcation,
reduction, hegemonic tendencies and negative
wisdom.
This paper attempts an exposition of
ibuanyidandaism version of how to reach certainty in
knowledge through complementarity.
The quest for absolute certainty: Absolutely certain
knowledge is one that is indubitably true and as such
no scepticism can occur. It is knowledge that is
infinitely correct in every way and relates every idea
to every other idea. Philosophy generally seeks this
state of absolute certainty, and over the years has
been in its pursuit. It is to grasps this state that Plato

postulated the world of Forms as a place where
certitude could be found. It was in search of absolute
knowledge that Aristotle the disciple of Plato bifurcate
reality into two – substance and accidents.
Substance is “that which is not predicated of a
subject, but of which all else is predicated.” (1625).
Thus substance for Aristotle when grasped fully by
the mind produces absolute knowledge. The quest
for this absolute knowledge also led Rene Descartes
to the ‘cogito’ argument which ends up postulating
reason as the seat of absolute knowledge. Other
rationalists followed his lead in upholding absolute
knowledge to be a product of reason. On the other
hand, John Locke and other empiricists located
absolute knowledge in sense experience. The
pragmatists on their part claim that, what is
absolutely true is what works in practical life. The
traditional African philosophers believe that with
recourse to the supernatural, man could know with
certainty. Other strands of philosophy with their own
idea of how to attain absolute certainty abound.
In spite of the efforts by philosophers over the years,
the controversy as to absolute certainly and its mode
of attainment is still on and has led to a lot of people
giving up in despair. For instance, Voltaire exclaimed
in despair, “doubt is not a pleasant condition, but
certainty is absurd.”
(http://www.singularityweblog.com/the-importance-of-
doubt-asking-questions-and-not-knowing/). Carlo
Rovellli adds, “Certainty in real life is useless or often
damaging” (http://www.pearltrees.com/u/44507639-
sherlock-observation-deduction). According to
Ozumba, “to insist on absolute certainty is completely
outside the scope of human knowledge and will
doubtless make epistemology an unnatural enquiry
that is simply idealistic (100).
Innocent Asouzu is one of the philosophers that still
believe absolute certainty is possible and attainable.
But he believes this in a radically different way from
the way majority of thinkers believe this. To Plato and
Aristotle who bifurcated the world into two (for Plato,
the sensible and the intelligible, for Aristotle,
substance and accident), Asouzu would think of them
as having a mythological mindset which sees the
world in a divided mood. Asouzu calls this “the worst
form of superstition” (Ibuaru 101) and declares that
knowledge in terms of grasping the cause can only
occur in the ontological horizon of Ibuanyidanda. To
the traditional African philosophers who see the world
only in terms of the transcendental, Asouzu would
think of them as reductionists, which he describes as
‘supernaturalism’. To the empiricists and the
40
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 39-43
rationalists who see the world in terms of what is
experienced by the senses and what is grasped by
reason respectively, he accuses of a form of
reduction, he calls ‘scientism.’
Supernaturalism according to Asouzu is a form of
reduction that sees things only in the transcendental,
and dismisses all knowledge claims that cannot be
seen in this plane. In supernaturalistic reduction, “we
are dealing with that situation where the mind
submits to the existence of supernatural forces and
believes that the explanation of all complex situations
can be reduced only to ideas drawn from these
forces and allied phenomena” (Asouzu, Ibuaru 102-
103). This approach to reality for Asouzu, divides,
discriminates, conceals unduly, creates cognitive
barriers and most importantly creates special types of
laws and conditions needed to penetrate its claims.
Thus, only those in possession of these conditions
and laws could obtain knowledge. The other type of
reduction called scientism Asouzu claims is
“overburdened with the tendency towards extremism”
(Ibuaru 102). Empiricism and rationalism for him
negate the complementary nature of all missing links
in their mutual interrelatedness by their introducing
an artificial divide in their dealing with phenomena.
Scientism has that mindset he claims, “that makes
human person the ultimate arbiter in all matters of
inquiry, and which can always be called in to
intervene at very critical moments in the form of dues
ex machine” (Ibuaru 103).
Supernaturalism makes recourse to the
transcendental alone shunning the human reason
and other forms of acquisition of knowledge.
Scientism on the other hand, enthrones reason or
data gotten from sense experience as the only
authentic source of certitude shunning other possible
forms of knowing. The same is true of pragmatism,
which tends to divide reality into what works in
practical life and what does not. The former is
considered as truth and the later false. To divide
reality this way to Ibuanyidandaism is a crime that
has hindered the grasping of ‘being’ making
philosophy so abstruse and abstract devoid of life to
the common man.
To assume that insight based on pure reason or
sense experience is the only admissible credible
foundation for valid knowledge means that what
cannot be explained rationally or by reference to
some testable data, remains perpetually false. To
assume also that the plane for certain knowledge is
the supernatural means that any knowledge that
cannot be explained in this plane is nonexistent. And

also to assume that what works in practical life is
truth means that what cannot be proven to work is
false. Asouzu sees these forms of reduction which
many theories of knowledge are based on as limited
and could lead to hegemonic wisdom. He avers that
the
Mind could make true explanation of reality
impossible where it places falsehood to resources
unknown to it or where it unduly dismisses those
regions of reality not immediately accessible to it as
irrational, the mind find itself in a form of self imposed
delimitation, which can make true explanation of
reality impossible” (Ibuaru 103).
When this happen Asouzu claims, the mind is
restricted in operations to known causes alone, such
that explanation does not attain that level of
refinement arising from comprehensiveness similar to
the nature of reality. Reality is comprehensive, thus,
every explanation or claim to knowledge must be
comprehensive enough to capture it.
On the basis of this tendency to reductionism and
polarization of reality by philosophers and thinkers all
over the world Asouzu claim that certainty in
knowledge will continually elude us. Unlike these two
forms of reduction, Asouzu Ibuanyidanda recognizes
the fact that human consciousness is not
predetermined based on some sets of immutable
laws. For Ibuanyidanda, all missing links are windows
to reality and the way we manage them determines
the level of truth we arrive at. To attain certainty, he
introduced the concepts ‘transcendent categories of
the unity of consciousness.’ He therefore opines that,
if we allow “the mind to act in full harmony with the
dictates of the transcendent categories … it can
never err” (Ibuanyidanda 324). It is when the mind
performs its operation in keeping with the dictate of
these transcendent categories that it can never err.
Asouzu’s transcendent categories of unity of
consciousness: Asouzu believes that the mind can
only have a clear and evident intuition of being not
through reduction, but when it operates in keeping
with the transcendent categories of unity of
consciousness. When it operates in keeping with the
transcendent categories, it recognizes the
complementary relationship that exists in all beings.
This is why he claims that, “that mind is fit and
healthy in which the transcendent categories of the
unity of consciousness, acts as its active ingredient
or forms remain operative” (Ibuanyidanda 327). On
the contrary therefore, we could say that, that mind is
unhealthy which does not act according to the
41
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 39-43
dictates of the transcendent categories. Such minds
Asouzu believes, would not reach absolute certainty.
This is because it is the categories that aid the mind
to perceive all beings in their fragmentation and
relativity, and also in full consciousness of the
comprehensive, whole future reference dimension of
their determination – it is when being is captured this
way that the subject grasps it real nature.
The transcendent categories according to Asouzu are
the forms of the mind through which the harmonising
faculty (Obi/mmuo eziokwu) secures the
transcendent experience of the mind, so that its
action is beyond all forms of arbitrariness and
divisiveness. There are the natural forms or windows
through which the mind perceives reality. But
sometimes these forms are concealed, so that the
mind no longer sees reality through them, thereby
leading it to error. These transcendent categories, the
mind operates with include: “fragmentation (relativity),
unity, totality, universality, comprehensiveness,
wholeness and future reference” (Asouzu,
Ibuanyidanda 323). Whenever the mind grasps a
thing with the full applicability of this, it can never err;
in order words, the knowledge acquired would be
certain. When the categories are totally active in an
individual, Asouzu believes such an individual would
capture being in its totality, relativity,
comprehensiveness and future reference. When all
the categories are not active, an individual could
capture being only in fragmentation or universality
and not in all its essential determination, thereby
leading to error. This is the case with the empiricists,
rationalists, pragmatists, supernaturalists, etc would
capture being from one determination, in total neglect
of others. One whose transcendent categories are
fully active, would capture being in its fragmentation
(relativity), unity, totality, universality,
comprehensiveness, wholeness and future reference.
However, for a subject to be able to grasps a given
reality in keeping with all the transcendent categories,
what Asouzu calls, the harmonizing faculty must be in
charge. The harmonizing faculty is the faculty that
harmonises all forces that tends toward divisiveness,
bifurcation, polarization and exclusiveness – it
regulates our ambivalent tension laden existential
situation and thereby bringing it in control (Asouzu,
Ibuanyidanda 316). The harmonising faculty is the
seat of equilibration, which regulates our ambivalent
tension and brings it in control. This ambivalent
tension has the capacity to lead the mind astray so
that it becomes hegemonic and run towards
polarization and bifurcation. But when the

harmonising faculty is in control, it regulates our
ambivalent tensions and makes the mind able to
grasp reality through the transcendent categories.
Most people are not able to operate in keeping with
the transcendent categories, because their minds
have been led astray by the ambivalent existential
conditions and the phenomenon of concealment.
Reality presents itself to us in ambivalences: good –
bad, superior – inferior, powerful – weak, rich – poor,
et cetera. The phenomenon of concealment often
conceals the mind from these ambivalences of life,
and thus making it to pursue and affirm one side of
these ambivalences in total negation of the other side
of the ambivalence that is also important. For
instance, the mind concealed by the phenomenon of
concealment could tend to affirm and uphold the
existence of those closest to it, negating those who
are not so close (the other side of the ambivalence).
It is also the case where the poor are negated and
the rich affirmed in all aspect of societal life including
religious houses. The harmonising faculty works on
the phenomenon of concealment, bringing them in
control, so as the divide we often encounter in our
daily lives would be bridged. When the harmonising
faculty is at work therefore, the rich and the poor, the
strong and the weak, members of one’s ethnic closet
and non members would all be captured and equally
affirmed as members of the same complementary
horizon. When the harmonising faculty is functional in
individuals, exaltation and upholding of one’s
perspective, idea or opinion in total negation of the
others’ would give way to the affirmation of the others
viewpoints as units that add up to the complementary
whole – which becomes absolute certainty.
The harmonising faculty in its capacity as the seat of
mediation and equilibration of all existential tensions,
harmonizes all differences in reality to a
complementary absolute whole. Asouzu avers:
it is when we are imbued with this type of mindset
that we have better chances of capturing being in its
dynamic essentiality, truly, insightfully and
authentically, and can share or communicate it
content in the knowledge and experience of missing
links in their fragmentary relational essentially devoid
of ambivalences (Ibuanyidanda 321).
It is therefore from this transcendent mindset that we
are capable of encountering the opposite other in its
otherness and embrace the otherness as an
extension of ego without discrimination.
Truth and authenticity criterion as the regulatior
of the transcendent categories: Truth and
42
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 39-43
authenticity criterion according to Asouzu is “the
measure by which we can state if a thing conforms to
demands of the principles, method and imperative of
complementarity as far as these are founded on the
principle of non-contradiction.” (Complementary
Reflection 310). The demand of this criterion is that
we “never elevate a world immanent missing link to
an absolute instance” (Ibuaru 197). It urges us to
always “concede to the type of unity existing between
world immanent realities and the foundation of all
existing realities (Ibuanyidanda, 320). This means
that all truth and knowledge claims must relate to the
totality and comprehensiveness of being as the
foundation of all existent realities. When this is so, we
could claim certainty.
Getting at truth and authenticity is a transcendent act
according to Asouzu, whereby the mind seeks to go
beyond the immediacy. Therefore in all matters of
truth and authenticity, the mind seeks the best
possible way to comprehend and explain facts totally
and comprehensively – this is its natural propensity.
This is why all experiences that are not directed to
the universal, total and comprehensive dimension of
what is expected to be explained, would hardly give
us an authentic and true insight into what we want.
And when we do not have authentic and true insight
into being, we cannot claim certainty. Therefore any
“truth claim that ignores the relativity of human
existential situation as to state apriori and apodictally
what the case would be in all situations and fails to
acknowledge the fragmentary and referential nature
of all missing links of reality is bound to err”
(complementary Reflection 315). The truth and
authenticity of all modes of reality depends on how
far the mind recognizes the total, comprehensive and
ultimate foundation, which gives legitimacy to their
existence.
Truth and authenticity criterion also “serves as a
regulative mechanism which checks against misuse
and helps to minimize error of judgement in all
contentious and difficult existential situations of life”
(Complementary Reflection 317). Therefore all
actions and claims to knowledge that concur to the
demands of truth and authenticity criterion cannot err,
since this criterion binds internally and externally.
Thus, those statements, decisions, actions, claims to
knowledge are authentic which conform to demands
of truth and authenticity criteria –“you must not
elevate a world immanent missing link to an absolute
mode” (Ibuaru 197). This implies that any knowledge
claim or theory of knowledge that raises itself to an
absolute mode cannot be certain. Empiricism,

rationalism, pragmatisms and other reductionist’s
theories of knowledge that see themselves as
absolute, bridge the truth and authenticity criterion of
Asouzu.
All knowledge claims according to Asouzu, agree
with the truth and authenticity criterion if it does not
breach the harmonious unity existing in realities –
that is, when it captures being “in a comprehensive,
total and future referential and proleptic manner”
(Complementary Reflection 316). All experiences and
knowledge claims that do not encompass the
universal, total and comprehensive dimension of
what is expected to be explained would rarely give us
any authentic insight into the actual nature of that
thing we inquire after.
CONCLUSION
Ibuanyidanda philosophy as propounded by Asouzu
is, against bifurcating and reductionist tendencies of
some theories and asserts that in all modes of
explanation, there is always something left
unexplained and unattended to. This could be
explained using the story of the four blind men that
experienced the elephant. One touched the tail of the
elephant and exclaimed that the elephant is like a
snake. Another touched the leg and explained that
the elephant is like a trunk of tree. Another touched
the stomach and explained that the elephant is like a
wall. The fourth touch the ear and explained that
elephant is like mushroom.
Ibuanyidanda philosophy recognizes that, the ideas
of the four blind men with respect to the elephant
have some degree of truth. But when one blind man
attempts to make his position absolute, negating the
view of the others, it leads to error in knowledge. This
is exactly what the empiricists, rationalists,
pragmatists, supernaturalist and other claims to
knowledge that see their position as absolute falls
into. Absolute knowledge of the elephant according to
Ochulor “is all that the blind men defined it to be and
much more.” (Logical Thinking). Similarly, absolute
knowledge or certainty to Ibuanyidanda philosophy
goes beyond all that the empiricists, rationalists,
pragmatists, supernaturalists individually believe.
Because no single experience, taken on its own is
sufficient as a guarantor for truth. Thus, “all
43
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2014, 5(2): 39-43
experiences that are not directed to the universal,
total and comprehensive dimension of what is
expected to be explained would hardly give us an
authentic and true insight into what we want”
(Complementary Reflection 314). Not seeing reality
this way according to Asouzu, would lead to error in
judgement and knowledge.
To capture being truly, one must operate with a
global mindset. Any attempt to capture being in its
absolute mode of existence leads to error of
judgement as is the case with the blind men that tried
to capture the whole elephant through part of it. To
capture being in a global mindset means grasping
being through the transcendent categories of unity of
consciousness – which are fragmentation, unity,
totality, universality, comprehensiveness, wholeness
and future reference. These concepts are held into
place the harmonising faculty, without which the
transcendent categories cannot be operative.
REFERENCES
Aristotle (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle. Ed. J.
Barnes. Princeton University Press.
Asouzu, I. (2007). Ibuanyidanda; New Complementary
Ontology beyond World-Immanetism, Ethnocentric
Reduction and Impositions. Zweigniederlassung
Zurich; Litverlag GmBh & Co. KG Wien.
Asouzu, I (2007). Ibuaru; The Heavy Burden of Philosophy
beyond African Philosophy. Zweigniederlassung
Zurich; Litverlag GmBh & Co. KG Wien.
Asouzu, I. (2004). The Method and Principles of
Contemporary Reflection in and beyond African
Philosophy. Calabar: University of Calabar Press.
Ochulor, C. (2009). The Logical Thinking and Strategic
Planning. Calabar: Focus Prints & Publishers.
Ozumba G. (2001). A Concise Introduction to
Epistemology. Calabar: Jochrisam publishers.
Rovelli, C. (2013). How to Develop Sherlock Holmes-Like
Powers of Observation and Deduction
http://www.pearltrees.com/u/44507639-sherlock-
observation-deduction. Retrieved April 21, 2013.
Voltaire. The Importance of Doubt, Asking Questions and
Not Knowing.” http://www.singularityweblog.com/the-
importance-of-doubt-asking-questions-and-not-
knowing/