The Other Is Beyond The Law

I think we can all agree that the individual is, by nature, ego-tistical. He lives for his pleasure and happiness. He organizes the world to understand it and then eventually to manipulate it. As he gains mastery over the world, his individuality arises - that is, the 'me', 'myself', and 'I'. Feeding on the world is necessary for the 'anonymous' to become an individual.

The baby, unware of itself as an individual, has no sense of individual. Strictly speaking, it is anonymous, lacking independence. So, it feeds on the world. It gets its nourishment from the milk of its mother. As it grows, it becomes more independent. It requires gravity for it acquire balance. It depends on people to gain knowledge of his surroundings. Independence arises, gradually, from being dependent. This is all a natural development. The individual, by its very nature, is ego-tistical.

To make sense of the world, the individual has to comprehend it. It comprehends by disfiguring the world, to bring a sense of order out of chaos. Its sense of ordering is its way of comprehending, of making sense of the things that are, in themselves, in a state of chaos - as perceived by the individual.

Now, in comprehending, it orders, organizes. Through organization, the world is transfigured; or, rather disfigured. From the stance of things, they have been disfigured. From the perspective of the indivdual, the world has been figured, organized, has been imposed an order. The world arises in the light of the individual. Darkness has been dispersed. This is a necessary act of violence on the otherness of the other in order for individuality to rise up and to be counted.

So, what is it like to 'see' the other as an other? Since the other, when forced to fit into the self's understanding, is comprehensibly satisfying, then outside of the self's domain of comprehension, the other as an other appears to be ncomprehensibly irritating. To the self, the other as an other must be unnerving, annoying, powerful in that it has not been over powered. Or another way of putting it, the power of the other, as an other, lies in his powerlessness.

The self, has no choice, but to respond (his ability to respond, or response-ability) when face by the other in his otherness. I can either acknowledge his presence as an independent existence with all the right to exist as an other; or, I can respond to ignore him, or worse, make sense of him, that is, to force him to fit into my domain of comprhensions. In which case, I have responded negatively by 'murdering him', de-facing him, usurping him, robbing him of his full right to exist as an independent entity like me.

This immediate encounter with the other as an other is the beginning of ethics. In other words, my relationship with him is an ethical one that exists before the laws of the land, before the attempt and process of abstraction. Peter is Peter. But, when I categorized him, I kill him, murder him, silencing him as a result. I, in other words, responded to him irresponsibly, unethically. So, when I put him on categories with the rest, then I treat him like the rest.

Laws may be legal, but they're not necessarily ethical.

(This piece is inspired by the philosophy of Emmauel Levinas)

Why is the presence of the Other important?

Science, by its very nature, is involved in explanation. It is guided by the principle of cause and effect. It studies the effects and attempts to discover the cause. Sometimes the cause can't be verified through experience. So, many experiments are conducted and when there is a pattern that invariably occcurs, they attempt at an explanation that cannot be verified through experience. It takes on a theory status. The theory of evolution would be a perfect example which has a more explanatory power than the creation theory. Although a theory, the theory of evolution almost stands beyond reasonable doubt.

Philosophy, at least the conceptual type, dabbles with highly abstract concepts that cover a much broader scope than any science could conceive of. Philosophy is a level beyond science in that it investigates the undisclosed assumptions of all the sciences. For instance, science deals with being in particular like atoms, molecules, DNA, living organisms that scientists group into categories based on similar features. Philosophy, for its take, deals with metaphysics, the study of ultimate reality. Metaphysics studies Being in general, not any being in particular, but Being itself.

Whatever the case may be, both the conceptual type of philosophy and science focus their attention on concepts - an abstraction of beings.

While this approach towards reality has resulted in great discoveries (more so in science than in philosophy that has no way to verify its findings), this has led many educators and laypeople alike to believe that science, although imperfect, is the best approach in understanding the world in which we live. It would not only be treated as the best way, but also as the only way. This attitude is called scientism.

Scientism is not scientific. Its belief cannot be verified. But because it is a belief, a powerful belief that has taken hold of the minds of those in authority to make pronouncements about the nature of reality, it tends to overlook a very important aspect of reality - a reality of the Other, whose presence is in danger of being silenced.

The act of abstracting reality is older than scientism, but scientism has led people to believe that abstraction, meaning concepts do not just represent reality but are reality themselves.

In other words, we do not see Peter for who he is, but for what he is. The focus on Peter's whatness not only enables us to bundle him up with those with similarities; the focus on Peter's whatness blinds us to the fact that Peter is unique, a person, who, originally, is uncategorizable. An uncategorizable that is forced to fit into a category is silenced. It is murdering the who-ness of Peter. It flattens out the difference that makes Peter a very distinct presence. Categorizing Peter makes Peter invisible. The voice of the marginalized is nowhere to be heard. Since categorizing Peter is an act of abstraction, of thinking, and to view Peter only on that basis, abstraction is an act of violence. It de-faces the Other. It kills the Other. This is injustice.

I am not opposed to abstraction. Abstraction has been proven to be important in advancing our knowledge of reality.

But when we are dealing with persons, we should be ready to let go of concepts about Peter and encounter him for who he is. Abstraction is important in understanding Peter and the other for as long as we take into consider that Peter and the others are unique. When concepts do not serve Peter, then we should let go of those concepts. If law do not preserve Peter's otherness, his uniqueness, then those laws have to be re-evaluated.

There will always exist a dynamic struggle between conceptualization and the presence of the Other. Conceptualization is important, but they are deemed just for as long as it recognizes the Other, who exists beyond the law. Law, then exists to serve the Other. Not the other way around.

The Other Whom You Meet

It isn't easy to persuade people to see the other for what he or she is, and not stereotype. It would seem natural for anyone to label people according to one's likes and dislikes, according to sex, religion, race, and demographic features.

But, what would seem to be natural is not necessarily the moral thing to do.

Morality may not even be a natural thing.

Neither is humankind. True, our bodies and minds do follow some rules of nature. But, it would be a mistake, a case of reducing the human person to just being a natural product. If this were so then Hitler and his cohorts would be right in thinking that some persons are not worthy of rights enjoyed by those whom they deemed fit to enjoy those rights.

These days, people have been clamoring to be heard; people who belong to the 'gay group', the lesbian group, the invisible minorities. In other words, those groups that have been kept silent, now, demand to be heard.

Yet, people who are against them don't see them as persons; rather they see them as belonging to 'groups' that they see as being 'morally' offensive .

The problem with this is that peope still view other people as belonging to 'a group who happen to be homo sapiens'. They can't take away that label out of their hearts that affect their ways of thinking about other people, and even about themselves. Just thinking to change isn't going to change anything.

The only way out is to change their hearts. And, to do that is to actually go and meet and have an immediate encounter with the person who happens to belong to one of the groups.

Everyone knows that looking at a photo of a poor and malnourished child is no substitute for actually witnessing, holding, speaking with, caring for, a poor and malnourished child.

Self Control: The Source Of Happiness

Life’s problems seem insurmountable that some just throw in the towel, and live day by day without meaning. Or, some decide to end it all. It does not matter what the problems are. If you try to deal with them all by yourself, you will be eaten alive. Or, you’d feel as though you were being eaten alive.

Yet, others continue living with the promise of better things to come.

They pray.

Or, they have someone to live for. These things seem to motivate people to stand and move on.

Or, are they being pushed forward by the ancient instinct to survive?

If that were so, then no human would be depressed, despaired, panic, or simply surrender. It’s the human ability to look back at his life and to arrive at certain conclusions as to whether or not life is worth living. Surely, every living thing feels pain. But, to be able to step back and look at his life is, in my opinion, a human act. And this is why only humans are capable of experiencing mental pain. It is called suffering. Humans can suffer without experiencing physical pain. Suffering from a terrible loss of financial security is but one example. They could only suffer from that if they had decided beforehand to value financial security and to live in a society that values money. Another option would be to live far and away from money-centered society.

Many, however, decide to stay put.

Now, debt is a fact (if you decide to stay in that society). Unemployment is a real possibility. And, when that happens, how should one deal with it, especially when cash flow is severely cut off?

Rarely does one kill his family and his self.

But, almost all the time, we worry a lot. We worry sick. Then, our mental and physical health worsens. It’s easy to give up. Luckily, many of us don’t take that path. Yet, we worry ourselves sick.

Will we ever be happy?

Some of us even give up on that, calling it a mirage. Some of us don’t even want to talk about happiness. It would make them more depressed.

It would probably get them through the day with that attitude. But, they still worry themselves sick.

Now, some people take a different route. They pray to their God, wishing for a better life, requesting that they believe more in Him. When things don’t go their way, they pray some more and thank God. They leave everything to God. Does that mean that they wouldn’t lift a finger to make things work?

Not necessarily. But let’s look into the lives of those who see some funny times and smile, and find quality time with their friends and family.

How is this possible?

Some pray and let God carry their burden. Some see life as a cycle of ups and downs. Because nothing is permanent, then they have no reason to worry. What will be will be.

Now, some understand the nature of control.

I’m not referring to ‘control freaks’, the micromanagers, whose limited understanding of power and self control is based on controlling people’s behavior, Nature’s Ways, and the Will of God. They are stressed out, physically and emotional because Reality continually resists their intentions.

And, what about those who see some funny times in miserable situations and smile, and find quality time with their friends and family?

Benedict Spinoza, a philosopher, once defined freedom as the ‘recognition of necessity’. That is, when you recognize the plain and simple fact that certain things are beyond your control, you are relieved from emotional stress.

Emotional stress then is the result from trying to control what is beyond your will.

Worrying, then, is useless, unproductive, negative - a waste of good energy.

Does this mean that you should take things as they are, that is, passively? It is an option, but it would be like giving up. In their case, they summon their wills and strive to be the best they can be, while accepting the fact that certain things are beyond their reach. Staying within their kingdom where they reign supreme, they laugh and appreciate the company of others.

There lies their source of happiness.

An All Merciful God Gets His Revenge ...

I just received this in my mail from someone in the Philippines. Let me give you a brief background. The whole country was locked in a debate as to whether The RH Bill should be passed. In the end, Congress passed the bill. 

After it was passed, the most powerful typhoon and the worst flooding since 2009 hit the Philippines. The result? 100's and 1000's of people were evacuated; 19 believed to be dead: children and women among them. Now, this insensitive and vindictive person who sent me this email is blaming it on the Filipinos for passing the bill. He also believes that God, who is all merciful, takes vengeance on those who opposed Him. With unspeakable perversion, this person reasons that God kills people, innocent people, to make a point.

Below is his email

It may not be politically correct at this time but I can't help thinking: Where are the rains coming from?

The typhoon has supposedly left. It comes right after the RH bill session at Congress. Coincidence? Or not?

Many will find it awkward to pray for divine help  when just yesterday we ignored God. For those who believe, I think we just abandoned him yesterday.

 
Read In the name of the Jealous Gods

Selling By Not Selling

Don’t you detest sales people who shove their products right in your face? They believe you need it. But, they are perplexed as to why you don’t end up buying their product. And the reason why you don’t buy their product? Well, it’s very simple: either you don’t need it or you don’t like their approach. Their product may be the best thing since slice bread; but unless they change their sales pitch or approach, you are not going to buy even if you need the product.

Sales people are not the only ones scratching their heads. Believers, proselytizers, ideologues, and their likes can’t seem to get into their heads as to why people do not accept the truth of their beliefs and ideas. The more they push their ‘products’ in people’s faces, the more people resist. Naturally, they blame the people for being blind to their truth. They never once thought that it was ethically wrong to force and even to persuade people. Their tactics are psychologically abusive. They never stop to reflect that perhaps the whole approach is completely wrong. It’s hilarious that if the tables were to be turned on them, they too would naturally detest having someone else’s products shove right in their faces.

This is what happens when the religious, political and philosophical ‘sales people’ believe that their notion of truth is the one and only truth, the only correct path towards truth. If they had enough compassion and human understanding, they would not try to persuade people of their truth. Adopting a wider notion of truth, and open-mindedness, would naturally direct their attention away from imposing their notion of truth towards educating people to realize their own.

In order to make them realize their own truth, it would be necessary for them to wrestle with their biases. And this is where Socrates’ metaphor of a midwife comes in handy. Socrates was, from the perspective of his adversaries, a gadfly. But, a gadfly is very irritating. I don’t think that if our approach was to ‘annoy’ people, it would do no good for they would just clam up. I prefer the metaphor of a ‘mid wife’ who assists in the delivery of new born baby – in our case – new perspective about one’s self and life in general.

So, how does one, a caring and tender mid wife, bring about a new perspective? How does one show the way for the other to accept his weaknesses and the need to change? In other words, in sales talk, how do you get people to choose you so they may buy your product?

To answer that in detail would require more than a blog space. So, let me tell you of Chinese story about 2 wise men who wanted to teach the people of the village. Said the first wise man to the people:

“You need to change because your ways of life are immoral. Your ideas and beliefs are all wrong, and you need me to educate you.” No one wants to be told that he is wrong, that he’s been living a lie for the most part of his life. Because this ‘wise man’ confronted the people of the village head on (in the same manner as that of the presumptuous sales person), the people of the village resented him, and killed him.

The other wise man took a totally different approach in dealing with the people. He befriended them, ate with them, slept with them, worked with them, attended their social gatherings, told stories with them, cried when stories about their lives were told, dressed like them, obeyed their customs, and respected their values. Gradually, the people of the village learned to trust and love and respect the wise man. Now, as soon as they did, the wise man went to work to educate them, and the people of the village welcomed his teachings with open arms.

But, he did not teach them his truth. Instead, he brought out to light the limitations of their perspective, the goodness in them to want to change. For that, they changed. For the good.