Vanishing Elephants

by Rucha Lim

the title is inspired by the Haruki Murakami novel


Imagine you’re off to a soiree, eager to meet new people. You cross the threshold to enter the living room when suddenly you see a huge grey, creature, flapping its ears and waving around its nose. It’s quite a shocking sight, right?

The other people in the room don’t seem to notice it, like an elephant somehow did belong in a living room, as if it was the most natural thing in the universe.

You glare at the elephant and think to yourself just what an elephant could be doing in a living room and why nobody seems to care. It’s such an affront to your reasoning and logic that you want to shout out and ask what the hell is wrong with everyone.

This is how most of us are when we encounter ways that we are unable to grasp.  It appears so strange to us that it just seems wrong.

When we see others doing that are beyond our comprehension, it’s uncanny. We see a fellow human being, someone of the same kind, doing things that run contrary with how we construct the world.

The thing is, we’re always viewing the world through some frame. We live in a world of images. We interact through the exchange and transformation of these images, as I’ve written before.

There will be times however that we cannot read each other’s symbols. We encounter roadblocks to true communication when images aren’t clear through the lens we see them with.

In such a situation, it is only appropriate to adjust one’s lens. Or when it’s your signs that aren’t being read properly, then you adjust your image.Just how do you explain to a 6-year-old where babies come from? You don’t talk to them about the reproductive process, but you don’t lie either, you give them a shorthand answer their young minds can understand.

It’s difficult to adjust though. It’s tough pretending the elephant in the middle of the room isn’t there. The thing is, you don’t really ignore it. What you do is to not mind the elephant but instead, be mindful of it.

What I mean is that you put differences in brackets.Recognize them as chasms to be leaped. Differences guide us in how we interact with each other. As Doctor Garcia once mentioned in class, recognition is the first step.

The abrasions caused by differences are usually our images and symbols sliding past each other, being misread. But we are more than the images we use. We can surpass, or if I may use the word, transcend them. Underneath all the layers of images and symbols we use to communicate is the human core; the being that desires communication with the Other.

Differences should help one be more sensitive to the Other but should never limit what is revealed in the encounter.In time, one learns to understand and accept these differences, seeing beyond them.One learns to adjust to people appropriately. Soon enough, the elephant vanishes.

Hate To Love

Redemption begins today.

At least that is what I want to think. I am still experiencing remnants of angst, but overall, I am quite relieved. A weight has been lifted off, and yes, I am exhaling loudly. Though my chest feels lighter, my brain is fried. Eyes were moist yet now they are dried. Even so, I want to write.

I want to share my experience of loving the Other. Yeah, I’m serious. That was what I had been reading about last night ‘til morning. We all know reading is helpful, truly helpful, but it is not enough. Sometimes, verbalizing what you read is inadequate. Actions do speak louder than words, after all.

I am not going to tell you what love is, no, I am so tired of definitions. Let me do phenomenology. I want to describe to you my experience, so that you just might catch a glimpse of love. Here I go: Today, I threw my usual indifference out of the window and lashed out at someone I hate to love.

Before you judge me, never mind, judge me all you want, you do not know who I am anyway. Even if you find out, oh well, it is all right, I guess.

This person is someone I see every single day, I wonder why, oh wait, is it because we live together? How could I forget!I do not know where to begin. Shall I start with the fact that he is so annoying?Ha, I sound like a stupid brat for saying that. Maybe I am.

It is not a he, is it? It is actually a she, isn’t it? Just stick with the idea that I am talking about a real human being, he or she, it does not matter. Forget about the gender.

He tells me when and what and HOW to eat. If you come over to my place, you would probably gush about how affectionate he is, and I would probably give you an abnormally large grin (not nose) and say,“I knowright?”

Eat with him every day and have him tell you that you need to heat the food, that he will eat less so that you will eat more, that if you are not hungry then he is not hungry, that you need to heat the food, really, do you know how to use the microwave? And by the way, this is chicken, that is fish, and here, have some veggies.

I want to tell him, please, let me decide on my own, I know what I want to eat, and do not worry, I know what a chicken looks like. Introducing the dishes is not necessary, because you did not cook them anyway. I thank you for your concern, but please eat even when I am not hungry.

I did tell him once, twice, or maybe thrice? Nah, I lost count. He does not understand. Never mind. This is nothing compared to the many times he ridiculed someone else in the house.And that someone else, though deaf, happens to be very dear to me, and having him point fingers and say vile things almost all the time is something very hard to tolerate.

He complains everyday. I no longer know when he is speaking the truth and when he is not, because of the lies he told me to make people look bad. I caught him in his lies!My anger was growing like a forest fire to the point that whenever I see him, I just run away to my room.

It became a habit, I do not know since when. Months ago?I gave up. My patience ran out, dry, rusty. I did not want to talk to him, listen to him, look at him, no.Why… no one in the house does anyway.However, he noticed, of course he noticed, and from time to time, I heard him ask, “Why don’t you talk to me anymore?”

It is so difficult. Love hurts. Indifference hurts, as well.

Today, he delivered a new complaint. People did not do what he wanted them to do. My mask cracked. I did not want to swear, but my head was so fuming hot when I asked, no, shouted, “Why can’t you, just for once, sing praise and say thank you? All you tell me are mistakes and faults. Can no good thing come out of your mouth?”

He got hurt and pointed fingers everywhere and decided to clam up. From an outsider’s point of view, you will accuse me of violence and feel compassion for the victim who accused me of siding with everyone else, everyone but not him.

And then I began to cool. He was right, you know.To accuse me. It has become my instinct to think that he is the culprit. I am no longer rational when I am around him. I lose my reason, my head to the anger that consumes me. Above all, I render myself…incapable of love.

Indifference is a poison. It is no better than hatred; it is worse.

My indifference caused me to desensitize, to crush my human emotions, and consequently, to lose grasp of my humanity. Let me insert some physics to lighten up the mood. You know about the law of action-reaction, right? When you sit on a hard chair for a long time, you or a specific part of you begin to feel sore, because the chair is pushing you back with the same amount of weight you are imposing on it.

And so when I, a human being, knowingly intentionally consciously hurt another human being, we share the pain, even when I say I do not care I do not care I do not care. That is how intimate the human relation is.The self-defense mechanism is not strong enough. It will not hold. It will break down.

In the end, the best would always becaring for the other person, even when that person hurts you.

Yet love is unexplainably and infinitely better than indifference. I cannot explain why, but is most certainly the reason why I am on the way to recovery. I am feeling like a human again.Throwing caution to the wind, I decided to open my mind and heart. I swallowed it all and said to him, “Let us reconcile. Please talk. And I will listen. Not a word from me.”

Time flew.An hour or two. He explained his side of things. I nodded and tried to maintain eye-contact which was so hard by the way. Little by little, I tried to join the conversation and invite him to look at the other side of things. It did not work, so I just, you know, I just listened to his misconceptions and lies about people (whose names he does not even know). And it was, well, bearable. Not so bad.

I survived. I listened just as I promised to listen, with an open and oddly fearless heart, and I tell you that it made all the difference in the world, because I was able to let go a part if not all of that is bitter and decaying within me.

I am ready. To take off my mask. I am ready. To break the silence.I am ready. To talk to him again. I am ready. To care.

As stupid as it might sound to you, (and to me):

Love has begun to set me free.

Love At First Sight

The question of the possibility of love at first sight was an interesting topic to ponder on and reflect, and to help you, I have taken excerpts from Bro. Patrick Nogoy, SJ's essay Love at First Sight. Brother Pat hopes that he will be able to publish his collection of works, together with a few other essays we can reflect on.


Posing the question:

The eyes are the windows of the soul. The popular cliché bears an intriguing philosophical problematic. There is an underlying double import: the eyes that reveal are the same apparatus that survey, capture, and comprehend an object. The eyes that open portals are the same swords that thrust open the heart of a stranger. The eyes that can unveil are the same cunning spies that trespass, transgress, and pin the target. The eyes are the windows of the soul; the eyes are the keys in unlocking the truth. 

xxx

The banality of eye contact is much pronounced in the Piraeus of everyday living— public transport, university walls, edifices of commerce, and herds of people going to and fro. How is it possible that these silent, (at times) sly, and sleek incidents of eye contact ferry the truth? Why does an instance, a moment that does not even last for minutes, a flash of eyes meeting from two anonymous individuals can become a cherished memory? How is love possible at first sight? 

On The Gaze:

In the spectacles of receiving, it is actually the Beloved that transgresses, transpierces, and trespasses the lover’s consciousness. Objects ordinarily pass by; the veil of anonymity is cast upon in everyday living—crowds walking to and fro, objects on display, nature on its usual rhythm of rising and resting. Yet, there are those moments that forever mark like tattoos, trespass the confines of consciousness, and awaken the lover from the dormancy of its loneliness. In a sudden flash of an instance, an object stands out (either a dress, meal, or gadget), the soft crisp air is noticed, or an anonymous person captivates. The richness or better yet, the soul of the object allows itself to be seen; it imposes itself in weight. The Beloved’s unique and infinite beauty creates a certain dis-stance—seismic quakes that awakens the lover out of its ordinary life. The distance is received in difference and weight. To receive is to open oneself to the beloved’s intimate exposition—a bursting and intruding revelation—her soul. The beauty in every object flames out, shining from shook foil (as Hopkins put it), even to the surprise of the object itself.  

xxx

In the crossing of gazes, the gaze does not call attention to itself and remains invisible since the lover gazes, guided by the aim to see, at the beloved, receiving all her glory. The opened eyes, the infrastructure that makes possible the crossing of each other’s richness leaving an indelible impression), hide in the shadows by simply allowing two souls to cross each other. The richness of the experience renders one mute since there is nothing objective nor even visible about it. All that remains to be told is that “our eyes crossed” and the rest is passed over to silence and happy memory. The crossing of gazes is everything there is for it remains a shared dreamed encounter which binds strangers into lovers. Jean-Luc Marion pens, “However, they see
their encounter, for they experience the weight of each impetus one against the other, a unique and common weight, balanced and shared. They see, with their always invisible gazes, the lived experience of their tensions…The crossed encounter is made to stand as lived experience of the invisible; however the  experienced vision of the lived experience never results in the visibility of an object…Neither the lover nor  the beloved encounter each other in passing, dreamily, each in the other. They experience one another in  the commonality of the lived experience of their unique tension—the weight of one gaze on the other, crushed by experiencing itself seen, crushing by seeing itself experienced.”

On The Wager at Love's Sight

Faith becomes an unceasing act of openness to another. The trace of the beloved that impresses upon the lover’s consciousness invites him to find ways to continuously engage the beloved that gazes back: get the name and phone number, invite her for dinner, scout her friends, dream of the first date, and the like. The relation is strengthened and incarnated through constant engagement, to a string of daily Yeses to that strange beloved that has become his Promise Land. Faith as constant openness binds the two parties and places them firmly into furnished identities of lover and beloved. The trace moves the lover to take another gaze—to see more clearly, in order to love more dearly, and follow the Beloved more nearly. Faith is a decision to come closer, to be taken in by the Beloved through one’s decision of openness.  

On The Presence and The Overcoming of Idolatry:

When the lover does not choose to gaze, his eyes are neutralized by the brilliance of the visible. He prowls instead of waits, ready to capture and consume whatever he sees. He chooses what to be seen, instead of letting himself be a vulnerable prey of the beloved’s beauty. In the same manner, the beloved can neutralize a lover’s gaze by avaoidance. She uses any available flesh in trying to hide her invisible soul, making her invulnerable against the lover. Idolatry strikes in its sensuous and sleek approach, releasing the dazzling beauty of objects’ flesh. The glitter of an idol captures one’s sight and imprisons it in the horizon of visibility. The idol provides a ready content for one to analyze, control, and consume. Whatever is visibly seen is  available for possession. Possessions provide an aim that can easily be manipulated and assimilated by consciousness in its objectification. Objectification leaves out the authentic infinite richness to be content with what is captured in the surface. Transcendence does not occur since possession deceives one to be content with flesh. 

 xxx

When the lover chooses to see, he becomes a conduit in reflecting the richness of his and the beloved’s own beauty. The lover’s beauty is exchanged with the beauty of the beloved that he receives. In crossing of the gazes, the beloved who chooses to return the gaze receives the transformed self of the lover. Thus, the compounded excess from the crossing of gazes is more than enough ground for a rational choice through an affirmative answer of further engagement. The infinite striving, as Kierkegaard proclaims, is realized in the decision to continuously engage, sustaining the first moment of the crossing of gazes. The crossing of gazes exposes the two parties to each other in their magnificent vulnerability, beginning from their very selves. Jean-Luc Marion writes, “Two gazes, definitely invisible, cross, and in this crossing, renounce their invisibility... To love would thus be defined as seeing the definitively invisible aim of my gaze nonetheless exposed by the aim of another invisible gaze…Loving no longer consists trivially in seeing or in being seen, nor in desiring or inciting desire, but in experiencing the crossing of the gazes within, first, the crossing of aims.”

 xxx

Engagement is the word utilized to refer to a couple waiting to be married. It is a reality that is the terra firma of the promise of marriage. Engagement pertains to the lover’s willingness to remain faithful in struggling with a chosen beloved. Engagement is the first instance of fidelity. It is the Beloved that rules and the Lover remains authentically as a subject—a sub-ject of the other. Ironically, it is only in being sub-ject to the Beloved (both the aim and the act) that the lover gains his true self. The lover becomes not only Beloved but also (and all the more), the act that he repeatedly does. That act is Love none other. Out of constant act, habit is weaved. Out of habit, character is forged. Out of character, destiny is realized. Fate finds its fulfillment in faith. Faith begins in the opening of one’s eyes. 

To read the whole essay, I guess we have to wait for the book to be released. We wish Brother Pat well, that he might find the time and resources to publish his work.

 

This Is How We Never Met

shared by Erika Tababa


This is a very interesting and light-hearted take on how we tend to give meanings to things instead of having them revealing themselves to us. I would really also like to connect this to my blog post about two weeks ago how we should have sometimes courage to just go up to another person and talk to them!

Really really recommend everyone to watch this to lighten up the hell-week vibes. :)

Le Visage de Dieu (The Face of God)

by Niko Pena


What is a face? Is it merely the front part of a person's head from the forehead to the chin? Is it the surface of a thing, esp. one that is presented to the viewer or has a particular function? Well, yes and no. Yes, because indeed these are correct definitions of the word “face”, but these are not the kinds of faces we are referring to when we mention the Face according to the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. In fact, in studying Levinas, we are faced with a synecdoche when he refers to the Face. A synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part may represent the whole or vise versa. Levinas uses the former version of a synecdoche, using the “face” to represent the whole of the reality that is the Other.

Why use the face, then? Why use something so small and seemingly insignificant to represent something so much more complex? I believe Levinas has used the word “face”, because it is something that is so relatable to us. It is something that is so universal and human that by using this as a visual cue, Levinas could then lead us to a more pressing point: the Face, that is, the reality of the Other.

But why is it that the face is vital and how does it relate to Levinas’ point? Through much reflection and by reviewing my notes from class, I was able to come up with two points that may guide us in making a better connection between the physical face and Levinas’ the Face.

The first point: the face easily identifies us and distinguishes us from each other. It is the same reason why people would wear masks or use make-up to hide and/or alter their faces, because without which, these people would be identified as who they really are.

The second point: the face has a power over us in such a way that it binds us to the Other. One might ask questions like “why is it that I cannot look someone in the eye when I’ve done something to harm or offend them?” or “why do I feel so self-conscious when I see strangers looking at me?” or even “why is it that it is so easy for me to do what I want when no one is looking?” There is just something in the face that makes us so self-aware and alert, something beyond the physical, something that belongs to the ethical and social realm that would always make us think twice of our actions.

So what do these two points have to do with Levinas’ the Face? The first point reminds us that the Other is external from us, something beyond us, ungraspable, uncontainable. The Other is someone whom we cannot integrate with because they are not us, being completely unique and different from us. Also, one person is quite different from another. The same principle would apply: we also cannot integrate one person with another because of their inherent uniqueness from each other.

The second point also notes that we are not alone in this world and, more importantly, that we are not only living for ourselves. Conversely, we are actually being called to live for the Other. And here we encounter a myriad of paradoxes that all stem from the very presence of the Other. For in encountering the Other, we receive demands that are not actually demands, have debts without actually incurring a debt and more strikingly, receiving resistance where there is no actual resistance. There is something in the Other that seems to say, “please don’t take advantage of me” or “please show me your mercy”. We feel these words bite into our hearts and embed themselves in our heads without the Other lifting a single finger. By being more keen to these “calls” and “demands”, we are taking steps to being more ethical and compassionate. We are taking steps to what it truly means to be human and cultured.

It is often said that we are all created in God’s image. But what does it really mean to be made as such? In the few years that I have been on this earth, I have learned that to be in God’s image is to be loving, merciful and compassionate. I have learned that to be God-like or Christ-like is really to live in such a way that caters to the Other.

I’ve recently watched a commentary by Fr. Robert Barron on YouTube. Fr. Robert Barron is a priest from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. He is also an author, scholar and Catholic evangelist. In his commentary entitled, “The God Who Doesn't Need Us”, he explains that the Christian God is very distinct from other gods, simply because, as the commentary’s title states, He doesn’t need us. He explains that other gods, particularly those from pagan cults, thrive on the sacrifices and praises they receive from humans. He further states that these gods would have the tendency to abuse us and manipulate us for their purposes because of their eternal need of our services. The Christian God is not like that. He doesn’t need any of us, our sacrifices or our praises. He didn’t need to create the world or the rest of the universe. He created everything for us.


This reminds me of a verse from Hosea regarding the sacrifices of the Israelites to the altar of God. The verse states: I want you to show love, not offer sacrifices. I want you to know me more than I want burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6).  Another verse says something similar: The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’ (Matthew 25:40). These verses and pretty much anything regarding compassion and ethics, brings us back to what the Other demands from us. How must we truly relate to the Other exactly? Shall we take advantage of them and manipulate and abuse them for our selfish purposes? Of course not! We must relate to the Other with compassion, understanding, acceptance and mercy. We must regard them with love. Obviously not the romantic kind of love, but the kind of love where we would want the good of the Other to be realized. The kind of love where the focus is the Other and not the self. The kind of love where one enters a “give-and-give” relationship rather than a “give-and-take” relationship. The kind of love that drives one to solely live for the Other. This I believe is the bottom line of Levinas’ philosophy. Everything is for the Other. Everything is for the sake of the Face.

I'm Not Sorry That I Hated You

by Agassi Adre

Disclaimer: I would like to apologize to my friends, acquaintances, and all the people who kinda know me beforehand, for this is quite a testy topic that involves them. To these people: though initially true, I had come to like you guys and enjoy your company. So for the sake of benefiting from this reflection, give this one to me. Also, I hope that this does not taint your image of me that much. And to people who do not yet know me: let this not be a hindrance to our future meetings, this is my coping mechanism to overcome my social anxiety, and I hope that this does not make you hate me.


I've got a confession to make: I hated you when I first met you. We may be friends now, but when we first met, I had an incredible dislike (because maybe 'hate' is such a strong and possibly toxic word) for you. It wasn't because of how you dressed, or how you looked, or how you spoke, or how you presented yourself, but because this is how I am. The default setting for my brain when meeting new people is to categorize them as someone I wouldn't want to spend any time with. I don't care if a mutual friend introduces us or if your reputation precedes you, when I first meet you, I detest you.

In a way, this initial reaction I have towards people helps me see the world in a 'category-less' way. I don't care if you're a beggar or a politician, I loathe you from the start if we ever meet face to face. We've talked so much about being 'social' and 'sosyal', and maybe - and forgive me for being pretentious - this method that I use is a good way to be social. See, I do away with all the flair in meeting anyone: I rarely am awed or shocked by the image anyone presents, be it powerful and influential or meek and humble. Simply put, I don't really care who you are (unless you're uber famous like Emma Watson or Barack Obama or anyone of their caliber), and this then forces me to get to know you so as to debunk my antagonism towards you.

And as I am forced to get to know anyone better, I slowly develop an understanding of people that has so much clarity. I don't put anyone up on a pedestal nor look down on them, and this allows me to see you according to how I see everyone else: a human being. Maybe at this point, I should add that not only do I hate people on the first meeting, I also hate human beings in general (and yes, that includes me), for we are such unfathomable creatures that is so mind-boggling-ly paradoxical that it irritates me (and yes, once again, this applies to myself too). See, since I only categorize people as human beings, and not due to their social status or any other categories, the people I meet become, first and foremost, subjects to me: something outside of me that I have to understand and grasp. Because though I hate human beings, I am awed by us. And from this, I love seeing how people exist and live. As such, I become aware that people have lives, separate from mine, that they live apart from me, and that's when other people become so much beautiful to me, due to the fact that they are not me, and that they can exist away from me.

So, when I initially meet a person, I feel so much abhorrence towards them. And in my mind, that puts them in a place wherein I need to know if my hatred for them is justified, and so I get to know them, and through familiarization with them, most of the times, fortunately, my hatred is not justified, and I grow to enjoy their presence, just as I hope they enjoy mine.

Learning who they are and debunking my initial impressions of them, I get to slowly know facets of their entirety. Dr. Garcia said that, and I paraphrase and condense, that it is through the encountering the Other that we understand that things do not necessarily come from us and that we can learn from them as well. Through this method, though it may seem cynical or pessimistic, I understand that I need others and others need me, because without either, we would each just assume that the world is made for us for our pleasure and that the Other is not important.

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.