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 Ignatius of Loyola. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ignatius of Loyola. Show all posts
Friday, February 21, 2014
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
More Than The "I"
by Mara Cepeda
Last semester, we sought to answer the question, “Who am I?” We learned that we are embodied spirits, who exist not just because he is a cogito or a thinking “I,” but also because he has a body which physically manifests his existence in the world. We learned that our bodies are uniquely and intimately part of ourselves and that we cannot separate ourselves from it. At the same time, we learned that while we identify our bodily existence, we are more than our material body. This is because we have the capability to dream, to aspire, even to fight our own desires. We later on learned about being as in Being; our intentional awareness of our existence ultimately implies already that we exist and that we are trying to find our niche in the world.
I do not deny the importance of being aware of one’s existence. After all, it is but natural only for the human person to ask where he came from and what is the point of his life. Those kinds of questions make us human. However, like Levinas, I believe we cannot just stop there. Our quest to understand the reality of existence does and cannot end within ourselves. We cannot put ourselves in a corner by believing that the one I wrote above constitutes the whole of existence already. We have already gone past that kind of thinking.
I therefore think that Levinas wanted to change philosophy’s gears not because it was completely wrong, but because, as we have learned in class, it was leading us to another road block. It was leading us to think that existence is a journey taken alone. What’s worse is that it is leading us to believe that the world operates and is defined by the same terms as we see it to be. “This is how I see things. We can’t you do the same?” We were at risk of building a shell around ourselves and calling that the world, when in fact, what we should have been doing is continually breaking that shell and letting the world in, not blocking it out of ourselves.
“No man is an island,” says John Donne. And indeed, once you are aware that you are capable of asking “Who am I?” you will become aware that you are also capable of answering an even more fundamental question of “Who am I, and what does the Other demand from me?”
What I’m saying is, once you have started to understand one’s existence, you also become aware of the other beings doing the same thing around you – they are also existing like you, they are also finding their places in the world, they are also trying to find the point of their individual existence. But while you have that similarity with other beings, there is also the difference – they have different personal histories from you, they have perspectives separate from what you have. In the similarity, there is the difference; there is the difference in the similarity. With that awareness, therefore, we realize that it’s not enough to ask the point of our individual existence; we must also ask what we can and should do with that existence. When we do that, we allow ourselves to be driven out of the corner and towards the openness that is existence.
For example, it is not enough that we know as Ateneans the Ateneo’s philosophy of being men and women of others. It is not enough that we know we are made to serve others; rather, we literally must seek to serve others. We literally must become men and women for others. In my case, my being an Atenean is not just characterized by my ID number nor just by my utterances of “St. Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us.” My being an Atenean is also manifested whenever I become a neighbor, say for example to my sister, when I help her in her math homework even when I have to study for a theology quiz as well.
Levinas perhaps found the need to shift philosophy’s gears so that our individual existence will not be in vain, so that our individual existence will be more, so that our individual existence will be for the Other.
Last semester, we sought to answer the question, “Who am I?” We learned that we are embodied spirits, who exist not just because he is a cogito or a thinking “I,” but also because he has a body which physically manifests his existence in the world. We learned that our bodies are uniquely and intimately part of ourselves and that we cannot separate ourselves from it. At the same time, we learned that while we identify our bodily existence, we are more than our material body. This is because we have the capability to dream, to aspire, even to fight our own desires. We later on learned about being as in Being; our intentional awareness of our existence ultimately implies already that we exist and that we are trying to find our niche in the world.
I do not deny the importance of being aware of one’s existence. After all, it is but natural only for the human person to ask where he came from and what is the point of his life. Those kinds of questions make us human. However, like Levinas, I believe we cannot just stop there. Our quest to understand the reality of existence does and cannot end within ourselves. We cannot put ourselves in a corner by believing that the one I wrote above constitutes the whole of existence already. We have already gone past that kind of thinking.
I therefore think that Levinas wanted to change philosophy’s gears not because it was completely wrong, but because, as we have learned in class, it was leading us to another road block. It was leading us to think that existence is a journey taken alone. What’s worse is that it is leading us to believe that the world operates and is defined by the same terms as we see it to be. “This is how I see things. We can’t you do the same?” We were at risk of building a shell around ourselves and calling that the world, when in fact, what we should have been doing is continually breaking that shell and letting the world in, not blocking it out of ourselves.
“No man is an island,” says John Donne. And indeed, once you are aware that you are capable of asking “Who am I?” you will become aware that you are also capable of answering an even more fundamental question of “Who am I, and what does the Other demand from me?”
What I’m saying is, once you have started to understand one’s existence, you also become aware of the other beings doing the same thing around you – they are also existing like you, they are also finding their places in the world, they are also trying to find the point of their individual existence. But while you have that similarity with other beings, there is also the difference – they have different personal histories from you, they have perspectives separate from what you have. In the similarity, there is the difference; there is the difference in the similarity. With that awareness, therefore, we realize that it’s not enough to ask the point of our individual existence; we must also ask what we can and should do with that existence. When we do that, we allow ourselves to be driven out of the corner and towards the openness that is existence.
For example, it is not enough that we know as Ateneans the Ateneo’s philosophy of being men and women of others. It is not enough that we know we are made to serve others; rather, we literally must seek to serve others. We literally must become men and women for others. In my case, my being an Atenean is not just characterized by my ID number nor just by my utterances of “St. Ignatius of Loyola, pray for us.” My being an Atenean is also manifested whenever I become a neighbor, say for example to my sister, when I help her in her math homework even when I have to study for a theology quiz as well.
Levinas perhaps found the need to shift philosophy’s gears so that our individual existence will not be in vain, so that our individual existence will be more, so that our individual existence will be for the Other.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
The Burden of Being Responsible
by Christian Go
In class, we discussed the concept of responsibility towards others. This responsibility is both a begging and a demand from the other from us. Unfortunately in present day, we seem to have deemed to begin questioning the concept of helping others. There is a fear to step of out of our bounds to help others. We fear the extent of which we can no longer keep giving the support or keep providing the help on a consistent level. And because of this we seem to have blamed everything on the process. The government isn’t doing much and because of this I cannot choose to do anything. It is very much like my mindset that I do not choose to vote simply because I think that the system will simply be cheated. That my one vote will not matter nor will it count.
In terms of this class, I have realized it was the self simply refusing to leave its comfort zone. It’s very much like the concept of love. If we do not choose to risk, we cannot have anything to receive. High risk high return, low risk low return. Right now, I believe it is a question of leaving the il ya. We do not choose to stand out and therefore we choose to stand by the sides and not do anything. We can give and it can hurt, but it is simply painful because we still choose to expect. As ideal as it may sound, I think at some point we cannot choose to expect anything in return. It sounds very Ignatian, but in the development field it applies very much. The development field doesn’t provide much return for the self but rather for others. You constantly work in communities who refuse to listen and revert back to its old issues. At some level, you just choose to give up because the NGO’s themselves choose to fight with each other rather than help each other along.
As mentioned earlier, higher risk higher return. You cannot choose to provide a little of something and expect a lot and for that matter should be expecting nothing at all. I believe this is the take home lesson of responsibility and what it truly means to be one for the other and to be the other for the other.
In class, we discussed the concept of responsibility towards others. This responsibility is both a begging and a demand from the other from us. Unfortunately in present day, we seem to have deemed to begin questioning the concept of helping others. There is a fear to step of out of our bounds to help others. We fear the extent of which we can no longer keep giving the support or keep providing the help on a consistent level. And because of this we seem to have blamed everything on the process. The government isn’t doing much and because of this I cannot choose to do anything. It is very much like my mindset that I do not choose to vote simply because I think that the system will simply be cheated. That my one vote will not matter nor will it count.
In terms of this class, I have realized it was the self simply refusing to leave its comfort zone. It’s very much like the concept of love. If we do not choose to risk, we cannot have anything to receive. High risk high return, low risk low return. Right now, I believe it is a question of leaving the il ya. We do not choose to stand out and therefore we choose to stand by the sides and not do anything. We can give and it can hurt, but it is simply painful because we still choose to expect. As ideal as it may sound, I think at some point we cannot choose to expect anything in return. It sounds very Ignatian, but in the development field it applies very much. The development field doesn’t provide much return for the self but rather for others. You constantly work in communities who refuse to listen and revert back to its old issues. At some level, you just choose to give up because the NGO’s themselves choose to fight with each other rather than help each other along.
As mentioned earlier, higher risk higher return. You cannot choose to provide a little of something and expect a lot and for that matter should be expecting nothing at all. I believe this is the take home lesson of responsibility and what it truly means to be one for the other and to be the other for the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)