by Gayle Ching
\’nōd\
Noun. Origin: Middle English, from Latin nodus knot, node; akin to Middle Irish naidm bond.
Some of its meanings: 1: a pathological swelling or enlargement (as of a rheumatic joint) 2: an entangling complication (as in a drama) 3: a discrete mass of one kind of tissue enclosed in tissue of a different kind
Thank you, Merriam-Webster, for providing this writer with plentiful meanings of a single word. Kudos to those wonderful, hardworking people for making dictionaries possible!
It is amazing to see how a four-letter world has such a diverse set of meanings. Similarly, the word, love, also spelled with four letters, has a vast and colorful variety of meanings, yet, at the same time, has been overused, abused, and perverted to suit the thoughts, goals, and deeds of the ever grasping, control-hungry and thoughtless I.
As stated repeatedly in class – perhaps a bit too much, for it might be quite tedious to hear the same concept almost every classroom discussion – Levinas places emphasis on ethics. Ethics is not merely a set of rules or a list of dos and don’ts, because the driving force comes from the inside, in stark contrast to moralism where the driving force is from the outside. To be ethical, therefore, is to be Other-centered, constantly approaching the Other face-to-face, interested in the overall development and growth of the Other for the Other, wherein the experiences of thoughtfulness, responsibility, and I daresay, love, coaxes and urges the imperial I to be decentered and drawn toward the Other, for the Other.
Levinas sees the word, love, somewhat disdainfully, for, as mentioned earlier, it has been perverted, overused, and abused over a span of long centuries. It is not surprising how the true meaning of the word itself has been added to and subtracted from. Be as it may, perhaps the word, love, itself is indescribably complex and misunderstood he dare not use it. Due to this, he, instead, prefers the word, responsibility.
Being ethical is being responsible. Responsibility is innate in all human beings. As a matter of fact, it is primarily fundamental of a person, the subject, to be responsible, for responsibility is not a supplement, rather it is a node, instilled in one’s being fundamentally. Notice the origins of the word, node: knot and bond. From the words themselves, having a node of responsibility, therefore, is being intertwined with Others and several Others.
“No man is an island, entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” These words written by John Donne, expresses the concept of the node as bond perfectly. The concept of the node, however, does not stop here.
The node as a pathological swelling may be regarded as the I’s uncomfortable swelling that could only be healed and soothed by decentering oneself. On another note, the node may also be identified with an entangling and dramatic complication, a trauma, wherein the I meets the Other and several Others, and causes him sheer trauma and astonishment that he will never live the same way again. Finally,
the node, being a discrete mass of one kind of tissue enclosed in tissue of a different kind, may pertain to the relation of the Finite and Infinite. The I is the Finite, one who can only see the externalities, the outer layer of tissue. The true Face of the Other is seemingly invisible; due to this, the Finite tends to reduce the Other as a non-I. The Infinite cannot and must not be reduced, for the Finite has not yet even seen the second layer of tissue underneath the first. Think of this analogy: humankind is likened to fruits. One is an apple; the Other is a banana, and the several Others are different fruits. The apple cannot say to the other fruits, “You are all non-apples!” Rather, the apple must respect the banana-ness and fruity-ness of the other fruits. The Other must be taken care of and to be thought about.
Nevertheless, it is not only the proximal Other to be pampered and sheltered; but, also to take notice of the presence of several distal Others present. Society is held bondage by the claws of a vicious cycle of structural injustice: the injustice of omission. Simply knowing one’s Other and several Others is never enough. The relation to the Other is not of knowledge, but of proximity; to be always on the Other’s and Others’ side. Moreover, it is an asymmetrical relation of non-reciprocity. Justice of charity must be done for all.
I do recall watching the recent adaption of Les Miserables and utterly caused a raw swelling and trauma in me. The protagonist, Jean Valjean, was caught red-handed stealing the silverware displayed in the priest’s humble abode. Policemen dragged him before the priest for questioning. The priest replied with a smile and told the officers that the man did not steal; rather he was giving him all his silverware. To boot, the priest took more of his precious silverware and gave it to Jean in the presence of the police. Ever since, I was never the same.
“Me voici! (Me here for you!) Pues sus heme aqui! (Here I am; send me!)” I would like to believe that those words have become the humble priest’s battle cry. He undertook this task with much audacity, because stepping out of one’s comfort zone is arduous. It requires willpower, for the imperial I is dethroned. Jean Valjean unknowingly made an appeal, an ordaining call to the priest. And the priest wholeheartedly answered the call.
With all honesty, I myself, is incapable of this feat. With no second thoughts and without battering an eyelid, if I were in the priest’s place and situation, I would tell the police who caught the blasted thief to get him out of my sight immediately. However, no one said that being ethical is impossible. If we would just start with responding to the call of the small, we would eventually adjust, as our ego boundaries would break. Granted, it will really hurt. But in the end, it will no longer be painful, as there would only be room for more love. This shift would gradually enable us to respond to the call of the greater. In the end, this requires us to extend our hand and turn an ear to those Others and several Others that are calling. Because the Other demands and begs at the same time, it is up to us yet also not up to us to preserve the integrity of our relation, the node, knot, and bond, with the Other and Others
Man is not essentially for himself; he is involved in all humankind. He is an island, but a piece of a larger mainland.
Showing posts with label I. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I. Show all posts
Friday, February 21, 2014
Friday, July 12, 2013
i
by Christian Gallardo
Words are of grave importance in our everyday lives. They constitute the basic foundation of our communication. They are what set us apart from other beings, for through words we can communicate with accuracy, thus making us more rational than the others. Even Martin Heidegger impliedly assents to this when he stated that the way in discovering philosophy is tracing down the root of the word itself. But since there are myriad of words, and analyzing each would render me lost in all its complexity, I would rather examine the basic blocks that form a word- letters. And to be more specific, I would like to examine the letter “i”.
Why I?
I would like to uncover the mysteries of the letter due to the fact that from the very start, we were taught to capitalize it when it stands alone as a word. But why is it that the letter “a” is not capitalized? Nor the letter “y” in Spanish?
Perhaps, the most logical answer would be: Because “I” refers to us. But then again I ask, why not all the pronouns referring to us capitalized? Perhaps the logical answer is that: Because those pronouns refer to the others, but not to the speaker itself. From the above argument, can we presume that the speaker acknowledges the importance of itself rather than the importance of others? Or is it that, that the “i” represents something more than the speaker itself.
I would like to assume that the rules of writing and speaking are derived from an existing reality, rather than a purely imagined nothingness. Why? For in my philosophy class, I have learned that words are actually derived from reality. Through its onomatopoeic sound, it, in actuality, is trying to describe realities. If this would hold true, what then does the form of writing “i” connotes?
Another observation is that the “i” closely resembles the form of an arrow- as if it is pointing to something. And looking at it as if it is an arrow pointing upward, it is actually pointing to a dot if it is not capitalized. Now what does a dot signify? Does that only signify an end- like the dot that ends a sentence? Or an unnoticed, since small dots come usually unnoticed to us, be it accidental or not? Or a continuous act since ellipses signifies constancy? Or does the dot signify a perfect circle- a circle, due to its stalwart size, is capable of perfection in symmetry? If it is the latter, what then could it imply? Perhaps if it is pointing to a perfect circle, it is symbolically pointing to a perfect order- since actual perfection is, in one definition, a proportionality in alignment- in placing things up.
With regards to placing things up in an order, it is also amazing how “i” looks like the number “1”. And this is actually signifying a pathway between words and numbers. If it is, indeed, a pathway, what is the connection of words and numbers, aside from them both being abstract and their job in describing the concrete? And a more vital and deep question, what is the connection of “i” and the “1”?
From this I can remember our discussion in philosophy about “One is All”. And transforming this into another form, we can say that “1” is “All”. But since “1” is “i”, can we say that “i” is “All”. If so, is it the reason why the “i” is spelled as “I”.
There are many paths in interpreting the complexity of words and one can get easily lost in it. Indeed, a lifetime may not be enough to study and decipher it. But the goal here is not to interpret and derive a certain truth, but rather, to arrive into new possibilities that can provide as paths in interpreting things.
Words are of grave importance in our everyday lives. They constitute the basic foundation of our communication. They are what set us apart from other beings, for through words we can communicate with accuracy, thus making us more rational than the others. Even Martin Heidegger impliedly assents to this when he stated that the way in discovering philosophy is tracing down the root of the word itself. But since there are myriad of words, and analyzing each would render me lost in all its complexity, I would rather examine the basic blocks that form a word- letters. And to be more specific, I would like to examine the letter “i”.
Why I?
I would like to uncover the mysteries of the letter due to the fact that from the very start, we were taught to capitalize it when it stands alone as a word. But why is it that the letter “a” is not capitalized? Nor the letter “y” in Spanish?
Perhaps, the most logical answer would be: Because “I” refers to us. But then again I ask, why not all the pronouns referring to us capitalized? Perhaps the logical answer is that: Because those pronouns refer to the others, but not to the speaker itself. From the above argument, can we presume that the speaker acknowledges the importance of itself rather than the importance of others? Or is it that, that the “i” represents something more than the speaker itself.
I would like to assume that the rules of writing and speaking are derived from an existing reality, rather than a purely imagined nothingness. Why? For in my philosophy class, I have learned that words are actually derived from reality. Through its onomatopoeic sound, it, in actuality, is trying to describe realities. If this would hold true, what then does the form of writing “i” connotes?
Another observation is that the “i” closely resembles the form of an arrow- as if it is pointing to something. And looking at it as if it is an arrow pointing upward, it is actually pointing to a dot if it is not capitalized. Now what does a dot signify? Does that only signify an end- like the dot that ends a sentence? Or an unnoticed, since small dots come usually unnoticed to us, be it accidental or not? Or a continuous act since ellipses signifies constancy? Or does the dot signify a perfect circle- a circle, due to its stalwart size, is capable of perfection in symmetry? If it is the latter, what then could it imply? Perhaps if it is pointing to a perfect circle, it is symbolically pointing to a perfect order- since actual perfection is, in one definition, a proportionality in alignment- in placing things up.
With regards to placing things up in an order, it is also amazing how “i” looks like the number “1”. And this is actually signifying a pathway between words and numbers. If it is, indeed, a pathway, what is the connection of words and numbers, aside from them both being abstract and their job in describing the concrete? And a more vital and deep question, what is the connection of “i” and the “1”?
From this I can remember our discussion in philosophy about “One is All”. And transforming this into another form, we can say that “1” is “All”. But since “1” is “i”, can we say that “i” is “All”. If so, is it the reason why the “i” is spelled as “I”.
There are many paths in interpreting the complexity of words and one can get easily lost in it. Indeed, a lifetime may not be enough to study and decipher it. But the goal here is not to interpret and derive a certain truth, but rather, to arrive into new possibilities that can provide as paths in interpreting things.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Behind the "I"
by Sophie Villasfer
14 August 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Right after children learn writing isolated letters, they learn to write their names. From there, sentence structures usually revolve around the self as encouraged by the teachers. "I am (insert full name here). I live in (insert full address here). I am (age) years old. I (insert hobby)..." And so on and so forth. From there, we are taught more challenging topics -- those that go more and more beyond ourselves. We start writing about our families, friends, events, and even the imaginary. However, most of the time, this progress is just limited to scholastic write-ups. Many become adults but are still stuck with the basic sentences that begin with "I", strung one after another. These are not literal essays of course, but more like scripted identities carried around (almost like resumes at hand, prepared for those who might be interested).
During the lecture last Tuesday, I agree that "it is a dangerous attitude to think of yourself as a totally self-made person." Society is littered with accolades and articles for the "successful", and descriptions as to how they became the way they are. Some of these have the rags-to-riches theme that credit success to some formula. Some have the more Disney-like themes wherein people are born to these certain families and instantly it is seen how their lives will surely end happily ever after. One does not need to look far, just grab a magazine or look at the featured stories in the Yahoo homepage. Disclaimer: I am not against these people, okay? However, I am against how writers oversimplify their subjects.
In the book of Malcolm Gladwell entitled "Outliers", he describes how successful people like Bill Gates or the Beatles were not successful overnight; they did only after practicing their trade for 10,000 hours. While this principle of hard work makes sense, Gladwell also describes how other than hard work, these people were born of a certain time that favors their interests. These people were born to a time of opportunity. Or it could be something more subtle, like how entering school or Little League (American Baseball) at a certain age can give someone an edge. On the other hand, someone can have all the talent and the genes, but no opportunity.
In other words, the "I" that was born into the world can have many different fates, but why that particular historical era, family, or environment? Thinking about this, I realized that such questions does not end during birth. Fortunes and misfortunes add up, but most of the time when life is observed in retrospect, there is this arc of grace. It can be as small as studying only partially for a test, but the test was either cancelled or for some reason, only the things you studied appeared. Or better, it can be as beautiful as falling in love with a particular person who also falls in love with you. When we are honest with ourselves, our lives are more than what we made it to be. Most of the time what we do is so small compared to how life is unfolding in front of us. It is difficult to comprehend, difficult to articulate, difficult to see. But it is still a concrete reality; if we had enough motivation, maybe we can even do the math and prove how reality is greater than the sum of its parts.
Behind the "I" are people along the way who shaped him mostly by helping him either materially (or financially) and even spiritually. These can be sincere friends who are also good influences, or that aunt who lent (or gave) you money even when you did not ask. Behind the "I" are many circumstances, that seem to be connected that sometimes one suspects, is there Somebody orchestrating all of this? Behind the "I" that is present, is a wealth of opportunity and resources. Behind the "I" is a long list of answered prayers, and surprising blessings. And also, behind the "I" is someone is vulnerable enough to be hurt by others or by events. But behind that same "I" is at least one other person who understands.
Pardon me if this essay is not as fluid as it should be. The main point I really want to make is that there should be a certain wariness to oversimplifying how we look at other people, but more than that, there should be a certain wariness as to how we look at ourselves. Maybe it helps to start looking at the self in the proper context, in order to hopefully avoid the delusion that "the world revolves around me". Because the world does not revolve around you, or me, or him, or her. The world revolves as it does, and we are all together in it.
14 August 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Right after children learn writing isolated letters, they learn to write their names. From there, sentence structures usually revolve around the self as encouraged by the teachers. "I am (insert full name here). I live in (insert full address here). I am (age) years old. I (insert hobby)..." And so on and so forth. From there, we are taught more challenging topics -- those that go more and more beyond ourselves. We start writing about our families, friends, events, and even the imaginary. However, most of the time, this progress is just limited to scholastic write-ups. Many become adults but are still stuck with the basic sentences that begin with "I", strung one after another. These are not literal essays of course, but more like scripted identities carried around (almost like resumes at hand, prepared for those who might be interested).
During the lecture last Tuesday, I agree that "it is a dangerous attitude to think of yourself as a totally self-made person." Society is littered with accolades and articles for the "successful", and descriptions as to how they became the way they are. Some of these have the rags-to-riches theme that credit success to some formula. Some have the more Disney-like themes wherein people are born to these certain families and instantly it is seen how their lives will surely end happily ever after. One does not need to look far, just grab a magazine or look at the featured stories in the Yahoo homepage. Disclaimer: I am not against these people, okay? However, I am against how writers oversimplify their subjects.
In the book of Malcolm Gladwell entitled "Outliers", he describes how successful people like Bill Gates or the Beatles were not successful overnight; they did only after practicing their trade for 10,000 hours. While this principle of hard work makes sense, Gladwell also describes how other than hard work, these people were born of a certain time that favors their interests. These people were born to a time of opportunity. Or it could be something more subtle, like how entering school or Little League (American Baseball) at a certain age can give someone an edge. On the other hand, someone can have all the talent and the genes, but no opportunity.
In other words, the "I" that was born into the world can have many different fates, but why that particular historical era, family, or environment? Thinking about this, I realized that such questions does not end during birth. Fortunes and misfortunes add up, but most of the time when life is observed in retrospect, there is this arc of grace. It can be as small as studying only partially for a test, but the test was either cancelled or for some reason, only the things you studied appeared. Or better, it can be as beautiful as falling in love with a particular person who also falls in love with you. When we are honest with ourselves, our lives are more than what we made it to be. Most of the time what we do is so small compared to how life is unfolding in front of us. It is difficult to comprehend, difficult to articulate, difficult to see. But it is still a concrete reality; if we had enough motivation, maybe we can even do the math and prove how reality is greater than the sum of its parts.
Behind the "I" are people along the way who shaped him mostly by helping him either materially (or financially) and even spiritually. These can be sincere friends who are also good influences, or that aunt who lent (or gave) you money even when you did not ask. Behind the "I" are many circumstances, that seem to be connected that sometimes one suspects, is there Somebody orchestrating all of this? Behind the "I" that is present, is a wealth of opportunity and resources. Behind the "I" is a long list of answered prayers, and surprising blessings. And also, behind the "I" is someone is vulnerable enough to be hurt by others or by events. But behind that same "I" is at least one other person who understands.
Pardon me if this essay is not as fluid as it should be. The main point I really want to make is that there should be a certain wariness to oversimplifying how we look at other people, but more than that, there should be a certain wariness as to how we look at ourselves. Maybe it helps to start looking at the self in the proper context, in order to hopefully avoid the delusion that "the world revolves around me". Because the world does not revolve around you, or me, or him, or her. The world revolves as it does, and we are all together in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)