“If there are no concepts, what then is that as which I conceive
myself?” In plain words, we are now confronted by that pivot and pole
of all thinking--What is self-consciousness?
On the problem of self-consciousness, a teaching is compelled to show
whether it is actual or not. For nothing in the world has sense and
meaning in itself, but acquires such only through its relation to me,
only from out of self-consciousness.
To the question, “What is self-consciousness?” the answer given is,
“Consciousness of oneself.” That, however, is an answer which in
subtlety and ambiguity outdoes every utterance of the Pythian oracle.
For it may just as well mean, “The consciousness of a self in me”--the
expression of a pure absolute--as, “The consciousness conscious of
itself”--the expression of a pure relative. Self-consciousness is the
oracle of nature. Faith interprets this oracle in the former sense;
science in the latter.
Therewith, however, both are at odds with themselves. For a pure
absolute that becomes conscious of itself, that enters into relation
with itself, is an absolute no longer. And a pure relative that enters
into relations with itself is equally no longer a pure relative.
“Transcending these two opposites the Tathāgata points out the Truth in
the Mean.”
Is there any mean here betwixt these opposites?