In Unification Thought, “the reciprocal relationships of the dual characteristics" is an extremely important concept, and the “relationships of things" are commonly recognized in general. If the reciprocal relationship is regarded as one of the general relationships, logic follows that the reciprocal relationship may be considered as just common sense or just one of many theories. However, the essence of the “reciprocal relationship" is completely different from the concept of relationships generally talked about. This paper discusses the reciprocal relationship in comparison with the coincidence and inevitability to elucidate its essence.
Coincidence, Inevitability and Reciprocal Relationships
It is a generally accepted view in the scientific field to regard the natural phenomena to be dominated by coincidence and inevitability. The phenomenon, which cannot be explained as an inevitable result of a certain cause, is interpreted as a phenomenon which took place by coincidence. When you look at the real world, however, I would like to elucidate that this view cannot explain all phenomena. Modern science uses an observed fact as a base to establish a hypothesis, and attempts to explain observed facts by the hypothesis, and by doing so, it tries to verify the hypothesis and clarify the cause of the observed facts. Material to establish a hypothesis maybe classified into either coincidence or inevitability, and therefore, the consequential explanation naturally comes to either coincidence or inevitable result.Even though the explanation may remain imperfect, scientists tend to feel no contradiction since they explain things to their maximum ability, so they will never realize a different way of looking at the possibility.
Then, let us ponder on coincidence and inevitability here once more.
“Inevitable means things cannot help but become so without fail, and a natural inevitability means the natural phenomena is under the control of a cause and effect relationship. On the other hand, coincidence means there is no co-relationship of cause and effect, so that an unexpected thing can happen."
(Definition by Kojien, a Japanese dictionary)
Coincidence does not require any explanation, and whatever cannot be explained well has been altogether treated as “coincidence." But even a coincident matter requires some possibility for the matter to take place, probability for the coincident matter is to be discussed.
Going back to the original theme, if there is an event, which is not an inevitable matter, and if it is without any probability, it is neither inevitable nor a coincidence. Then almost everyone will say, nothing can happen if there is no probability, but a probability comes into existence under a certain condition. In other words, a probability means that one of the phenomena, which are anticipated in advance with a possibility to take place, takes place. If you cast a dice and hit “1" 100 million times consecutively, it is still feasible in terms of the probability, there is no problem that such a thing may be interpreted as coincidence. A case such as a base sequence of a gene becoming a different base sequence as a result of mutation so that a differently appearing organic body is born, is feasible in terms of probability, so that whatever shape a living organism is generated to be may be explained as coincidence.
If, on the other hand, a living organism which has another base sequence corresponding to the organic body is born, there is a condition of matching, which cannot be explained as coincidence.
This example can be best illustrated in the example of generative organs. A water flea (daphnia pulex) normally repeats parthenogenesis and only the female water flea increases, but when they face a crisis for survival, male water fleas are born, and fertilized eggs with durability are made through the sexual intercourse of male and female. It is easy to assume that the survival rate improved because the fertilized eggs have more durability. But the question is why the male genetic organ has a shape enabling it to have a copulative relationship with a female water flea. If you assume that the water flea is a relatively advanced creature, and a copulative relationship was feasible before the water flea, we can trace back to the first living organism which does both parthenogenesis and forms a copulative relationship of male and female. Prior to that first living organism, there was no copulative relationship of male and female, so reproduction was conducted by female creatures alone.
There may be a chance that the creature was very close to being able to have a copulative relationship. Such a creature might have become extinct already. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the First creature, which had a reproduction system of male and female, existed, as it had been realized in the case of the water flea. Otherwise, the reproductive system of the water flea could not come into being. But there is no difference to the fact that they could not make a copulative relationship.
Therefore, the only conceivable explanation making a copulative relationship feasible is that by mutation, the female changed its shape to be able to match the shape of the female. Moreover, when we recall that coincidence means that one of many possibilities, which are available from given conditions, just happens to take place, then, the original female shape did not have any prior condition to be able to have a copulative relationship, so there was a prior possibility for a male to possess a shape enabling the male to have a copulative relationship. In other words, it was not a coincidence.
Nevertheless, it was not a matter of inevitability. The shape did not derive itself from any prior cause. Whether the survival rate will become higher or not can be discussed only after a copulative relationship is made and a fertilized egg is formed. You cannot discuss the survival rate change at the stage of not having found yet a matching shape for the copulative relationship.
Consequently, the copulative shape in this case is neither a result of coincidence nor inevitability.
In this manner, there are things in the existing mode in nature that neither coincidence not inevitability can explain. It contains a factor of matching, which allows two objects to possess complimentary conditions to face each other. Matching means there is no alternative. It has an absolute relationship. This is what the Unification Thought calls, “Reciprocal relationship." Moreover, coincidence and inevitability are the mode of how certain phenomena take place, and phenomena are the result of certain reciprocal relationships. Then, the reciprocal relationship is the premise of mutual interaction, so that it can be regarded as the basic premise of all coincidence and inevitability. You cannot explain the establishment of the existing world without this reciprocal relationship, so that the reciprocal relationship is the fundamental principle of the existing world, and it is the universal principle which entirely penetrates all phenomena in the universe.
The “reciprocal relationship" is outside of the subject of research in modern science, and yet without it, none of the phenomena can be explained. It contains a factor of matching, which assumes the existence of a designer, that the reciprocal relationship was intended, designed and given by the designer of the existing world, namely, an absolute being, which makes it the inevitable relationship by having the absolute being the cause.
The fundamental difference between relationships spoken of in general and the reciprocal relationship discussed here is that the former is a result brought about by either coincidence or inevitability in the natural field, and the latter is not brought about by coincidence or inevitability in the natural world, nor it is included within the explanation of coincidence or inevitability. We have now recognized that reciprocal relationships must preexist prior to any phenomena either by coincidence or inevitability. In other words, the reciprocal relationship is an undeniable principle. The existence of reciprocal relationship proves the existence of the causal being of this, namely, the absolute being.