Subject and Object

Juche wa Daesang · 주체와 대상 · 主體와 對象 · Subject Partner and Object Partner

What Is Subject and Object?

In Unification theology and Unification Thought, subject (주체, juche) and object (대상, daesang) are not grammatical roles but the two essential poles of every existing relationship in the universe.

Every being — from God to an atom — exists only in relational polarity: one aspect or partner initiates and gives (subject), another receives and reflects (object). Without this polarity, existence itself is impossible.

This relational ontology is the structural foundation beneath all of Unification Thought's major doctrines: the Four Position Foundation, Give and Take Action, the Principle of Creation, the Three Great Blessings, and the ideal of True Love.

Where Western philosophy from Descartes onward has tended to locate reality in the isolated subject — the thinking “I” — Rev. Sun Myung Moon's teaching relocates reality in the relating partnership.

Unification Thought is based on the concept of subject and object. Without subject and object, existence itself cannot be formed. These two must become one — only then does something complete come into being.

— Sun Myung Moon (067-051, 05/19/1973) Cheon Seong Gyeong

This opening statement locates the subject-object polarity at the very heart of Unification ontology. Existence is not a solitary fact; it is always a relational achievement.

Section I — Etymology and Korean Terminology

The Korean term 주체 (juche, 主體) combines the characters for “master” or “host” (主) and “body” or “substance” (體). The theological meaning is the pole of initiative, of giving, of purposeful direction. It does not mean “superior” in any hierarchical sense, but “initiating partner.”

대상 (daesang, 對象) combines “facing” or “responding” (對) with “form” or “figure” (象). The daesang is the receiving, responding, and reflecting partner — the one who completes the subject by enabling the flow of give and take. Without an object, a subject has no context in which to act; without a subject, an object has nothing to receive and reflect.

Later Unification theological usage, particularly after the early 2000s, increasingly prefers the translation “subject partner” and “object partner” to make explicit that the relationship is one of mutual dignity and reciprocal service, not of domination and submission. Both the subject partner and the object partner give for the sake of the other.

The related technical term 수수작용 (su-su jakyang, 授受作用) — “give and take action” — names the dynamic process that arises when subject and object enter into a harmonious relationship.

The characters 授 (give) and 受 (receive) capture the bilateral flow: the subject gives and the object receives, and then the object returns a response to the subject.

Section II — Ontological Foundations in the Exposition of the Divine Principle

The Exposition of the Divine Principle, (원리강론) locates the subject-object structure in the very nature of God. God's dual characteristics — internal character (내성, naesong) and external form (외형, oehyong), and the positivity (양성) and negativity (음성) of these — are themselves in a subject-object relationship. God's internal character is in a subject relationship to God's external form; God's positivity stands in a subject relationship to God's negativity within the dual-purpose principle.

The Exposition of the Divine Principle states clearly: “God is the harmonious union of dual characteristics, and the positivity and negativity in God are in a subject-object relationship.” This internal subject-object dynamic within God is the first and supreme instance of the pattern that runs through all creation.

When God creates, God does not create arbitrary entities. God creates objects of love — beings structured to reflect the divine dual characteristics outward into embodied, relational form.

All created beings, therefore, carry within themselves the same subject-object polarity: every creature has an internal character (sungsang) as subject and an external form (hyungsang) as object, and a positive and negative polarity. This is why the subject-object structure appears at every level of reality: atomic, molecular, biological, personal, familial, social, and cosmic.

The subject and the object within each entity engage in give and take action. Through this action, they become one body. The resultant union generates force, and this force in turn becomes the origin of all the actions performed by that entity, including its harmonious union with God and with others.

— Exposition of the Divine Principle, Sun Myung Moon

This passage from the Principle of Creation establishes that the subject-object dynamic is not just a metaphysical abstraction. It is the engine of all actual existence — physical, emotional, and spiritual.

Section III — Give and Take Action: The Dynamic of Subject and Object

The subject-object structure is not a static polarity. It becomes real and fruitful only through give and take action (수수작용). The Exposition of the Divine Principle describes this process in three stages.

First, the subject initiates an action — an outflow of energy, love, or initiative — toward the object. Second, the object receives this and responds, returning something. Third, this circulation generates a new force — a “resultant force” — that is greater than what either partner possessed alone. This new force enables growth, multiplication, and the manifestation of the Four Position Foundation.

Rev. Moon describes this in terms of spiritual mathematics: when a subject gives fully and completely, and when the object receives and responds fully, the product is not merely two persons in dialogue but a new entity — a unit of love, a family, a tribe, a nation — that transcends and includes both.

This is why the Unification teaching declares that living for the sake of others is not sacrifice but the pathway to abundance: give and take action multiplied through the universe returns to the giver enriched.

When the relationship between subject and object is established, give and take action must take place. Only when give and take action is one hundred percent fulfilled does God come to dwell there. Without it, God does not come.

— Sun Myung Moon (033-175, 08/11/1970) Cheon Seong Gyeong

This is a decisive theological claim: God's presence itself is conditioned on the quality of the subject-object relationship. Where give and take action is complete, God dwells. Where it is incomplete or distorted — as it is in fallen human relationships — God cannot fully dwell. The restoration of authentic subject-object relationships is therefore inseparable from the restoration of God's dwelling in human life.

Section IV — God as Eternal Subject Partner

A central contribution of Unification theology to philosophical theology is the teaching that God is the Eternal Subject Partner of True Love. This phrase, which appears repeatedly in Rev. Moon's sermons and in the Cheon Seong Gyeong, reframes the classical doctrine of God's sovereignty.

In classical Western theism, God's sovereignty tends to be framed in terms of unilateral power: God commands, creatures obey. In Unification Thought, God's sovereignty is relational and heartistic. God is the ultimate Subject because God initiates from the deepest motivation of love, not to exercise power over creation, but to pour out true love into the object partner and receive love in return. God longs for an object partner who can freely receive and freely return divine love.

This means that God's omnipotence is expressed not in coercion but in the infinite capacity to give and in the longing to be received. God's heart (shimjeong) is the internal character of God as subject, reaching perpetually toward humanity as God's intended object partner. The Fall was, from God's perspective, the devastation of this subject-object relationship — the moment when humanity, created to be God's supreme object partner of love, turned away and entered into a false subject-object relationship centered on Satan rather than on God.

Originally God did not create heaven and earth for His own sake. Before thinking of Himself, God made all creation for the sake of His partner. After giving everything completely to the partner, all that belongs to the partner returns to God — and when it returns, it returns multiplied, all the way to Adam and Eve. Thus God becomes a billionaire. When you give completely, you come to possess everything.

— Sun Myung Moon (060-291, 08/18/1972) Cheon Seong Gyeong

This passage overturns every economy of self-interest. The subject does not accumulate by taking; the subject accumulates by giving. This is the economic logic of the Kingdom of Heaven — and it flows directly from the subject-object structure of true love.

Section V — The Four Position Foundation: Subject-Object Structure Multiplied

The doctrine of the Four Position Foundation (사위기대, sawui gidae) is the structural elaboration of the subject-object principle at the level of family and community.

The four positions are God, a subject (husband/father), an object (wife/mother), and their offspring — the union of subject and object. Each of the four positions exists in a subject-object relationship with the others.

The Four Position Foundation is the basic unit through which God's love circulates in the created world. God stands as the central subject; Adam and Eve (or husband and wife) take the positions of subject and object in relation to each other and in relation to God; children emerge as the object partners of both parents. When all four positions are properly aligned — centered on God and animated by true love — the foundation is “complete,” and God can dwell fully in that family.

Rev. Moon described the Four Position Foundation as “the basic unit of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Every healthy societal structure — tribe, nation, world — is built from the multiplication of these four-position units, each expressing in its own sphere the same subject-object dynamic of give and take centered on God.

Section VI — Subject and Object Within the Individual: Mind and Body

The subject-object principle is not only relational between persons; it operates within the individual human being. The mind (마음, maeum) is in a subject relationship to the body (몸, mom). In the original creation, the mind was to govern the body as its object, in the same way that God governs creation: not by force but by the attraction of true love.

Rev. Moon taught that the root of all human suffering and societal dysfunction is the reversal of this internal subject-object relationship. Because of the Fall, the body (with its physical desires oriented toward self-interest) has come to struggle against the mind (with its original yearning for God and for good).

The result is the “civil war” within the individual — the experience every honest person knows of wanting to do what is right but finding the body pulling in the opposite direction.

The path of restoration, therefore, involves the individual re-establishing the correct subject-object relationship within themselves — placing the mind, guided by God's Word and True Love, back in its proper subject position over the body.

This is what spiritual discipline, prayer, and Hoon Dok Hae practice are designed to accomplish. Rev. Moon's maxim — “Before you seek to govern the universe, first govern yourself” (우주주관 바라기 전에 자아주관 완성하라) — is a direct expression of this internal subject-object principle.

Before you hope to govern the universe, you must first complete self-governance. The mind should be the subject and the body the object. The mind should have governed the body completely, just as God governs creation. Because of the Fall, this relationship was reversed: the body acts as subject and the mind as object. This is the source of all human conflict.

— Cheon Seong Gyeong, Sun Myung Moon

Section VII — Unification Thought: Ontological and Political Significance

Unification Thought (통일사상) developed the subject-object principle into a comprehensive philosophy of being. The systematic exposition, produced under Rev. Moon's direction, articulates several key claims.

Every being is structured in subject-object polarity

This is the internal subject-object structure: sungsang (internal character) as subject, hyungsang (external form) as object; positivity as subject, negativity as object within each pole. No being exists as a pure undifferentiated unity; every existent has this internal differentiation that is the prerequisite for relationship.

All existence is teleological

The subject-object structure is always oriented toward a purpose — toward the realization of good, love, and beauty. The Unification Thought critique of Marxist dialectical materialism is pointed here: Marx's dialectic posits conflict (thesis versus antithesis) as the engine of progress, and has no telos beyond the material resolution of contradictions.

The Unification subject-object dynamic posits harmony through give and take for a shared purpose as the engine of all true development. The Marxist dialectic, therefore, describes not original reality but fallen reality — the distortion of the true subject-object relationship into competitive struggle.

The subject exists for the sake of the object

This is one of Rev. Moon's most repeated and radical claims. In fallen human understanding, the subject (“the important one,” “the one in charge”) exists to be served by the object.

In original creation, the reverse is the intention: the subject pours out and gives for the sake of the object. God, as the supreme Subject, does not demand that creation exist for God's benefit; God creates to benefit creation.

In order to move the world, one must stand on the throne of thought. Unification Thought is that thought — it proceeds from God's heart. To establish the realm of the object world before the principled subject: this is what I have worked to accomplish alone until now.

— Sun Myung Moon (135-095, 09/30/1985) Cheon Seong Gyeong

Section VIII — Contrast with Hegelian Dialectics and Marxist Materialism

One of the most philosophically significant aspects of the subject-object teaching is its confrontation with the Hegelian and Marxist dialectical traditions.

Hegel's dialectic posits that reality advances through the collision of opposites — thesis and antithesis — synthesized into a new unity, which in turn becomes the thesis for a new conflict. Marx materialized this logic: history advances through class struggle. In both versions, conflict is the generative engine.

Unification Thought argues that this describes fallen reality — the reality of subject-object relationships corrupted by the Fall — not original reality. In original creation, subject and object do not collide; they engage in give and take for the sake of each other toward a shared purpose. They do not contradict each other; they complement each other. The resultant force they generate is not the synthesis of a destroyed thesis and antithesis but the new fruit of a harmonious union.

When you introduce the concept of subject and object, the idea of purpose arises naturally — and the Marxist dialectic completely collapses. The dialectic does not recognize purpose. Without subject and object, existence cannot be formed. Subject and object must become one — only then is something complete.

— Sun Myung Moon (067-051, 05/19/1973) Cheon Seong Gyeong

This is why Rev. Moon could say that Unification Thought “breaks the dialectic” — not by denying that thesis and antithesis exist in the fallen world, but by showing that conflict is not the original or necessary structure of reality.

Section IX — Providential Context

In the providential sweep of Unification theology, the subject-object structure plays a role at every stage.

In the Old Testament Age, the subject-object relationship operated primarily at the level of God and a chosen people mediated through conditions and offerings. God was the Subject; the chosen people were the object partner in a relatively external relationship, managed through law, sacrifice, and providential figures.

In the New Testament Age, Jesus came as the subject partner of a new covenant. The Christian church became the object partner. But because Jesus' mission was not completed through the establishment of True Parents and a True Family, the subject-object relationship between heaven and humanity remained externalized — operating through faith and forgiveness rather than through the transformation of lineage.

In the Completed Testament Age, True Parents come as the supreme subject partners of God's love on earth, enabling all humanity — through the Blessing — to enter into a restored subject-object relationship with God at the level of heart and lineage.

The Blessing ceremony is, in this framework, the sacramental restoration of the correct subject-object relationship within the family: husband and wife in a proper subject-object polarity centered on God; parents and children in the same polarity; families and the world community in expanding circles of the same structure.

Section X — Comparative Religious Perspective

Christianity has resonances with the subject-object principle. The doctrine of the Trinity posits three persons in eternal relationship — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — in a perichoretic (mutually indwelling) communion that some theologians describe in terms close to give and take action.

The classical distinction between agape (self-giving love) and eros (acquisitive love) maps broadly onto the contrast between the Unification subject-who-gives and the fallen subject-who-takes.

Neo-Confucianism offers perhaps the closest structural parallel in the East Asian philosophical tradition. The concepts of li (principle) and qi (vital force), and the cosmological pairing of yin and yang, express a relational ontology in which complementary poles constitute every reality.

Rev. Moon's subject-object teaching can be seen as a theistic radicalization of this insight: the yin-yang polarity is real and pervasive, but its ultimate ground and purpose is the God of true love who created it.

Buddhism approaches the question differently. The teaching of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent co-arising) is one of the most radical relational ontologies in world philosophy: nothing exists independently; everything arises in dependence on conditions.

The Unification subject-object principle shares the anti-substantialist intuition that existence is irreducibly relational. However, Buddhism tends to dissolve the self into a web of conditions, without a personal God as the originating Subject; Unification Thought retains a personal God as the absolute Subject who initiates and longs for a relationship.

Taoism speaks of the dynamic interplay of yin and yang as the source of the “ten thousand things.” The Taoist concept of wu wei — effortless, non-coercive action — parallels the Unification teaching that the subject partner does not dominate but gives freely for the sake of the object.

However, Taoism's ultimate ground is an impersonal principle (Tao) rather than a personal God.

Islam emphasizes the absolute unity and sovereignty of Allah (tawhid), with creation as the radically dependent partner. The Qur'anic vision of God as al-Wadud (the Loving) and of human beings as khalifa (stewards) of God on earth has resonance with the Unification subject-object structure: human beings are entrusted with the object role in God's creation.

Classical Islamic theology tends to locate this relationship in obedience and service more than in the mutual give and take of love.

Section XI — Practical Dimension for Blessed Families

For Blessed Families, the subject-object teaching is not a theoretical matter; it is a daily discipline of relationship.

In a husband and wife relationship, the traditional religious tendency has often been to assign the husband the permanent position of subject and the wife the permanent position of object, and to interpret this hierarchically. Unification Thought resists this. While the teaching acknowledges differentiated roles — connected to the positivity/negativity polarity — it insists that the husband's subject position means he exists for the sake of the wife, and the wife's object position means she receives and reflects and responds for the sake of the husband. The measure of a healthy subject is not how much is demanded of the object, but how much the subject gives for the object's sake.

In a parent-child relationship, parents hold the subject position in relation to their children. This means parents carry the primary responsibility of initiating love, creating conditions for the children's flourishing, and modeling the subject-object dynamic in their own marriage. Children in the object position are shaped by the love they receive, and eventually become subjects in their own right as they form their own families.

In community and leadership, the subject-object awareness functions as a practical rule: leaders are subject partners, members are object partners. But leaders who exploit this position — demanding service rather than giving for members' sake — have inverted the Unification ideal. The model is always God: the supreme Subject who gives everything.

It is important to hold the concept of subject and object within ourselves. The subject-object relationship is a vertical relationship. Who becomes the subject? The one who is warmest in heart becomes the subject. Among the three in a trinity group, the person who, when one of them faces the most difficult situation, responds with the warmest heart — that person holds the subject position.

— Sun Myung Moon (033-176, 08/11/1970) Cheon Seong Gyeong

This is a profoundly practical criterion. Subjects are not determined by rank, wealth, or intellect. They are determined by the depth of their heart and the warmth of their love. This is the Unification Movement's revolution of the very concept of leadership.

Section XII — Academic Note

In New Religious Movements scholarship, the subject-object framework of Unification Thought has received attention primarily in the context of comparative philosophy and Unification Thought's critique of Marxism. George Chryssides (in The Advent of Sun Myung Moon) and Michael Breen have noted that the philosophical apparatus of Unification Thought represents a serious attempt to construct a systematic worldview capable of engaging both Western analytic philosophy and Asian cosmology.

Massimo Introvigne, examining Unification Thought's anti-communist dimension, has noted that the subject-object critique of Marxist dialectics was intellectually rigorous and had a genuine impact in academic circles during the 1970s and 1980s through organizations such as the International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS) and the Professors World Peace Academy (PWPA).

Eileen Barker and others working in the sociology of new religious movements have observed that the subject-object teaching, while philosophically distinctive, draws on pervasive East Asian philosophical traditions (particularly Confucian and Neo-Confucian relational ontology) and represents a creative synthesis making Unification Thought comprehensible across several cultural traditions simultaneously.

The theological dimension — particularly the claim that God is a personal Subject longing for an object partner of love — has been analyzed by scholars in dialogue with Unification theology, including contributors to the Journal of Unification Studies and participants in interfaith dialogues organized through the Interreligious and International Federation for World Peace (IIFWP).

Key Texts on tplegacy.net

Exposition of the Divine Principle — Principle of Creation, chapters on Dual Characteristics and Give and Take Action
Cheon Seong Gyeong — sermons on creation, love, and Unification Thought
Pyeong Hwa Gyeong — speeches on Godism and world peace philosophy
Cham Bumo Gyeong — True Parents' life and teaching on family relationships