Node

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.

To See The Face of God

by Ralph Dalusung

17 January 2013
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Secrecy and Freedom," Ethics and Infinity


'm sure many of the people who will read this (if there will be any) have already watched one of the most popular movies out in theaters at the moment - Les Miserables. I'm sure some will find my decision to use the film/musical slightly corny or uninspired, but I would be lying to myself if I said the film didn't pull me out of my seat and entice me to ponder on some of our recent lessons. The funny thing is, the movie didn't "move me" until one of the last lines which went, "To love another person is to see the face of God." Just like that, a fast-rewind of the movie clicked in my mind and I began to see just how that line encompassed the movie. In fact, it encompasses a lot more than just the movie.

In class recently, we've discussed the idea of totality vs. infinity. We described God as "an infinite substance, omniscient and all powerful". God is Infinite, and thus we mortals cannot fully grasp nor comprehend Him or His nature. In fact, it's somewhat popularly known among many Christians that if we were to witness God in His "full glory", we would die. The Finite cannot contain the Infinite. How then are we supposed to see the face of God? How do we finite beings deal with the Infinite?

In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean's life is a testament to how loving the Other can enable one to see the face of God. As an escaped criminal on parole, Jean Valjean returned an old Bishop's kindness by stealing the silver valuables in the Church. When he was caught, the Bishop still saved his life and even let him have keep the silver valuables. He only asked that Jean use the silver to "become a better man". Jean, being a disillusioned slave and prisoner for 19 years, was so moved by the gesture that he promised to change his ways from then on. In contrast to the other people, the Bishop didn't see him as a poor criminal. Instead, he chose to see Jean as what he really was - a human being. And, being such, he had the capacity to do good.
In the same way, Jean chose not to see Fantine as a prostitute but as a desperate and loving mother. He chose to see Cosette not as a burden but as his own daughter. Even with his enemy, Javert, he chose not to see him as the man who had dealt him so much pain but as a man simply set on doing his job. In fact, there were a number of times wherein Jean could have exacted revenge on Javert, but he chose not to. In all these, he chose to love. He chose not to judge them for what they may have seemed, but to see that they were human beings with their own desires, own dreams and own motivations that he probably may never ever grasp fully.

We can contrast this to Javert who never stopped seeing Jean as an escaped criminal even when Jean had built a new life for himself. He stubbornly clung to his beliefs that Jean broke the law and that he deserved to die. In other words, he succumbed to totality. He was so consumed by this that when Jean spared his life once more, he could not connect Jean's kindness to Jean's identity as a human being. He couldn't cope with Jean's "ungraspability" as a human being and ended up taking his life.

The movie/musical illustrates how respecting the Other as one that we cannot fully grasp, one that we cannot contain in a labelled box, and accepting the Other's "otherness" without prejudice is to bask in the infinite that we, as Creatura, can partly receive from one another. To allow ourselves to reach out to the Other to caress, accepting all of the Other's unfathomable being, and not attempting to simply grasp, leads us to look at the Other as one whom we can love.

Les Miserables means "the miserable ones" or "the victims". In the movie, we see who les miserables are: from the poor and the starving to the even the wealthier people like Javert. The poor were les miserables because they were looked upon as trash and not human beings. The wealthy people like Javert were restless and unsatisfied with their lives as they were the ones who viewed things in black and white, or rich and poor. Jean was the one who chose not to totalize anyone and to instead do good for the Other no matter who the Other was.

Beyond the book, there are also "miserable ones" or "victims". The indigenous people from Casiguran were victimized by APECO as their livelihood and their identity as a people were disregarded in the name of economic growth. Many of the poor are viewed upon as paying the consequence for their own laziness and inadequacies rather than as victims of various other things. These victims were disregarded, ignored, judged and abandoned to suffering.

The best part of looking at the Other as one we can never fully grasp, or one that is infinite to us the same we that we may be infinite to the Other, is that we will always be surprised. Life will always hold more meaning for us, and thus accepting the Other for all that the Other is will lead us to show the Other acts of love. Thus, these acts will hold meaning in themselves and we as human beings in need of purpose will find something that can satisfy that need. So, to love another person is to see God, who is infinite, through that person. To choose to break the barriers of prejudices and to simply love the Other as a human being is to see infinity through the Other.