I. Sam Keen in Chapter I of his book The Apology of Wonder, outlines the Anatomy of Wonder and illustrates how it is like or unlike awe, curiosity, reverence and other related experiences and its role towards authentic life.
The primal source of wonder is not the object but the fact that something exists rather than nothing. With considerable shock, the mind is sometimes jarred into the realization that there is no necessary reason for the existence of the world or anything in it. As Wittgenstein has said. “ it is not how things are in the world that is Mystical, but that it exists”.
It is this primal or ontologic wonder that philosophers have traditionally thought of as the wellspring of man’s quest for an explanation of his place under the sun. When the brute givenness of reality is experienced in wonder, certainties give way to the questions which, so long as wonder remains, Man can never receive final answer.
A second type of wonder which is elicited primarily by what a thing is rather than it existence (it is). In such encounters, the structures and meaning of the object rather than its bare existence are the occasions for wonder. There could be no adequate catalogue of the objects that produce such mundane wonder: a loved person, beautiful stone, a miraculous event, and so on…
Most frequently, mundane wonder is evoked by encountering something novel and sensational. If we take common linguistic usage that wonder had to do primarily with objects or events of a prodigious nature. We speak frequently of the “ wonders of nature” or the “ wonders of science “.
III. The Formal Characteristics of the objects of Wonder
The philosophical term “contingency “ most accurately describes one characteristic of objects as they are given to us in wonder. As used here, contingency means that in raw experience the object we apprehend in wonder comes to us without bearing its own explanation. Why it is, perhaps even what it is, is not immediately obvious. In less philosophical but more modern terminology, wonder-events are happenings, revelatory occurrences which appear, as if by chance, bearing some new meaning (value, promise ) which cannot immediately be integrated into the past pattern of understanding and explanation.
The more intimately known and ardently loved place, thing or person is, the more mysterious it is, because it is so homogenized into psychological fabric of the knower, that the knower and the known form one reality.
By understanding the positive relationship between mystery and knowledge, we see the fallacy of the romantic notion that an increase of knowledge leads to an eclipse of wonder. Knowledge destroys mystery and wonder only when it is used hostilely to reduce the dimensions of meaning in an object to those that can be manipulated and controlled.
The other, which we encounter in wonder, is a presence rather than an object. In a wondering encounter, the initiative is with the object. The manner in which we are grasped by something that strikes us as wonderful is very unlike the way in which we grasped an object by abstraction, analysis, and categorization. In the wondering encounter, the subject is primarily passive, while in the analytical relationship, he is active.
One of the chief characteristics of an encounter between persons is that significant meeting takes place only when each party gives of himself. Persons are, in our experience, are beings who can give and withhold knowledge of themselves. Some knowledge of “:objects” has the same quality of interchange. In wonder something gives itself to us…. in wonder we are presented with a gift of meaning.
IV. Subjective Aspects of the Experience of Wonder
The Stimulus as Experienced
Wonder begins with the element of surprise. The now almost obsolete word, “wonderstruck” suggests that wonder breaks into consciousness with dramatic suddenness that produces amazement or astonishment. Because of the suddenness with which it appears, wonder reduces us momentarily to silence… the language and categories we customarily use to deal with the experience are inadequate to the encounter, and hence we are initially immobilized and dumfounded. We are silent before some new dimension of meaning which is being revealed.
When something explodes into awareness and shatters our ordinary categories of understanding, it quite naturally creates mental and emotional dis-ease and puzzlement… at the same time a new meaning is revealed, new questions begin to emerge.
The ambivalence connected with wonder is structurally the same as that associated with the experience of the holy. The idea of the holy, Rodolf Otto showed that the holy is always experienced as once “Tremendum et Fascinosum” as awful, fearful, threateningly powerful, and at the same time fascinating, desirable, promising and compelling. Wonder partakes of this same ambiguity.
Insofar as it disrupts our proven ways of coping with the world, it is menacing; insofar as it offers the promise of renewing novelty, it is desirable and fascinating…we may describe the heart of the experience of wonder as an awful-promising surprise.
Reality as it is given to us in wonder, is not only a shock and surprise, but it is “a pleasant surprise”. It present itself to us as something having dignity, worth, meaning or value which calls for admiration and appreciation.
In wonder we experience the other as inexhaustible, as the locus of meanings which are only revealed as we cease to be dominated by the impulse to utilize and posses the other and learn to rejoice in its presence. To wonder is die to the self, to cease imposing categories and to surrender the self to the object. Such a risk is taken only because there is the promise of a resurrection of meaning.
The first response moves from puzzlement to curiosity to a search for explanation, although wonder begins in silence, it does not remain forever dumb. As the shock of astonishment wears away, the mind begins to search for some way to dispel the dis-ease. Puzzlement gives way to curiosity and the search for an explanation begins. This quest begins with the formation of questions.
There are continues line of development from puzzlement to curiosity to reasoning to scientific investigation… Kant said “ the essence of science was putting nature on the rack “ and forcing her to answer the questions we desire to have answered by designing experiments to yield knowledge that cannot be gained by observation or contemplation. The object of Scientific thought is not a presence, a thou or a mystery, but a problem to be solved… creative scientist, the abstractions and explanations which arise out of desire to understand and control the world do not prevent a return to the object in a spirit of wonder. Investigations need not to destroy respect for the object being studied. Indeed, for the creative thinker, wonder and humility grow in proportion to knowledge. Abstraction is used to deepen knowledge of the concrete, and thus there is a continuing dialectic between investigation and admiration.
Contemplation is no less a mode of thought or reason than scientific investigation. However, it does differ in both structure and intent. The chief characteristic of contemplation is its receptive passivity. This passivity is not to be confused with inertness or languor, but is, rather, the calm and disciplined effort of thought to be open to the uniqueness and novelty of its object.
This willingness to stand in a relaxed receptivity before an object involves a certain reverence, epistemological humility and willingness to appreciate… out of such admiration grows gratitude and the impulse to celebrate, or possibly even to worship.
“ Philosopher can be best described as one who loves truth in its deepest meaning. This is in keeping with the literal meaning of the word “Philosophy” as love of wisdom. The study of Philosophy is a continual encounter, a dialogue carried on in search of truth wherever it maybe found. Philosophy can be termed as an inquiry which seeks to encompass the whole of reality by understanding its most basic causes and principle in so far as these are acceptable to reason and experience. It is characterized as ‘beginning in wonder and ends in mystery” .
“ Philosophy of man is an overview on the nature, activities and destiny of man. It attempts to asses his place in and his relationship to the world. Through such an overview, an understanding of what man is and who he is will emerge. In some respect, Philosophy of man constitutes a metaphysics of man, for it is a probe of the deepest causes and meaning of man”.
2.2 I can analyze the insight., but if I am merely enjoying the joke, analysis can kill my enjoyment, but if I am to the joke to others, analysis can deepen and clarify the original insight and help in the effective delivery.
4.2 Abstraction is one of the tools for analysis of insights. An abstract thought is a concept. An analysis by abstraction is a conceptual analysis.
4.3 My insight into the generations of men can be analyzed conceptually, but note that conceptual analysis can desiccate an insight: the throbbing, tumultuous generations of men become an abstract fund of energy and high spirits. It is then necessary to return to the original insight.
4.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.
4.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self and the others, be it things, human being, the environment, the world grasped not objectively but from within.
4.2 Self is the “I” conscious of itself, present to itself.
4.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not “I”.
5.0 This relatedness of the self to the other is characterized by tension, disequilibrium, disharmony, incoherence.
6.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.
C. Beginnings of Philosophizing (When do we begin to Philosophize?)
1.0 Wonder: For Plato, the poet and the Philosopher are alike in that both begin from
2.0 Doubt can also impel man to ask Philosophical Questions. Descartes’ Philosophy started from doubting the existence of everything. Adolescents also doubt their identity.
3.0 Limit Situations are inescapable realities which cannot be change but only acknowledged e.g. failure, death of a beloved. We may not be able to control them but we can control our response to them through reflection. They provide opportunities and challenges for us to make life meaningful. (existentialists)
4.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is to be unsure of one’s center ( Gabriel Marcel) equivalent to Soren Keirkegaard’s “Angst”.
5.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is contrasted with Curiosity. To be curious is to start from a fixed external objects ( outside of me) which I have a vague idea of. Metaphysical Uneasiness is beyond the physical (external ) but more of internal.
6.0 Curiosity tends to become metaphysical uneasiness as the object becomes part of me.
7.0 Philosophizing here begins from the inner restlessness which is linked to the drive of fullness.
8.0 Philosophical Questions ultimately can be reduced to question of “WHO AM I?”
6.1 Philosophical Inquiry is inquiry into the Coherence, Sense of human life as totality, as a whole, Comprehensive reality and ultimate (final) value. E.g. I have a terminal case of stomach cancer; I am given only three months to live, so I ask “ What is the meaning of my Life?”
7.0 “Sens de la Vie”: “Sens” can mean the direction of a river, the texture of a cloth, the opening of a door, the meaning of a word. Likewise, my life can have a direction, texture, opening (possibilities), meaning.
D. Philosophical Approaches to the study of Man
1.0 Ancient Greek : Cosmocentric Approach
1.1 The Greek were concerned with the Nature and Order of the Universe.
1.2 Man was part of the cosmos, a microcosm. So like the Universe, Man is made up of Matter (body) and Form (soul).
1.3 Man must maintain the balance and unity with the cosmos.
2.0 Medieval ( Christian era: St. Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas ) Theocentric Approach
2.1 Man is understood as from the point of view of God, as a creature of God, made in His image and likeness, and therefore the apex of His creation.
3.0 Modern ( Descartes, Kant) Anthropocentric Approach
3.1 Man is now understood in his own terms, but basically on reason, thus rationalistic.
4.0 Contemporary Philosophies arose as a reaction against Hegel.
4.1 One reaction is Marx who criticized Hegel’s geist, spirit, mind and brought out his dialectical materialism.
4.2 Another reaction is Soren Kierkegaard who was against the system of Hegel and emphasized the individual and his direct relationship with God. Kierkegaard led the existentialist movement which became popular after the two world wars.
1.3 The aim of Kierkegaard is to awaken his people to the true meaning of Christianity.
1.4 Two ways to achieve his aim: a. the direct confrontation ( which is risky ) b. indirect: to start from where the people are and lead them to the truth.
1.4.1. example 1: two ways to help a friend who fell in a ditch.( a ) direct: pull him out from above which he may refuse or he may bring you down. ( b ) indirect: to jump into the ditch with him and lead him up.
1.4.2 example2 : two ways to help a jilted friend: a ) direct: tell him to forget the woman because there are other women, in which case he may avoid you. b ) indirect: sympathize and share the hurt with him and gradually lead him to the realization that it’s not the end of the world.
1.5. Kierkegaard chose the indirect way and saw himself as another Socrates: The indirect way is the Socratic Method.
1.8.2 What comes here is faith, the individual’s belief in God, going beyond reason.
1.8.3 The favorite example of Kierkegaard here is Abraham who was asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac (by his wife Sarah) to test his faith. The command was between God and Abraham alone, cannot be mediated by others (Sarah would not understand it), and to apply the ethical would be a murder .
2.2 In spite of their divergence, there are common features of existentialist philosophies to label them as existentialist.
2.3 First, existentialist emphasize man as an actor in contrast to man as spectator.
2..3.1 Many existentialists used literature like drama, novel, short story, to convey this idea.
2.4 Second, existentialists emphasize man as subject, in contrast to man as object.
2.4.1 Being as Object is not simply being-as-known but known in a certain way: conceptually, abstractly, scientifically, its content does not depend on the knower. It is the given, pure datum, impersonal, all surface, no depth, can be defined, circumscribed.
2.4.1 Being as Subject is the original center, source of initiative, inexhaustible. The “I” which transcends all determinations, unique, the self, in plenitude, attainable only in the very act by which it affirms itself.
2.4.2 Man is both Subject and Object, as can be shown in reflexive acts (e.g I brush myself, I wash myself, I slap myself) where there is the object-me(changing and divisible) and the subject-I (permanent and indivisible).
2.4.3 The existentialists, however, while not denying the reality of man as object, emphasize the Subjectivity of man, of man as unique, irreducible, irreplaceable, unrepeatable being. E.g. as a passenger in a crowded bus, I am treated like a baggage, but I am more than that.
4.2.1 Unlike Descartes, Husserl was dissatisfied with the sciences of his time because they start with a complex presuppositions.
4.3.2 In particular, he was reacting against the naturalistic psychology which treats mental activity as causally conditioned by events of nature, in terms of S-R relationship (stimulus-reaction). Presupposition here is that man is a mechanistic animal.
5. So, Husserl wanted philosophy to be “ science of ultimate grounds ” where the presuppositions are so basic and primary that they cannot be reduced further.
6. How does one arrive at Philosophy? By transcending the natural attitude.
9.2 The ultimate root of philosophy was not to be found in a concept, nor in a principle, not in Cogito.
9.3 Phenomenology attempts to go back to the phenomenon, to that which presents itself to man, to see things as they really are, independent of any prejudice. Thus phenomenology is the “ Logos of the Phenomenon”.
IMPORTANT STEPS IN THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD
Eidetic Reduction is one of the important reductions in the phenomenological method.
“ Reduction” is another mathematical term to refer to the procedure by which we are placed in the “transcendental sphere ” the sphere in which we can see things as they really are,independent of any prejudice.
“ Eidetic” is derived from “ eidos ” which means essence. In eidetic reduction I reduce the experience to its essence.
I arrive at the essence of the experience by starting out with an individual example, then finding out what changes can be made without ceasing to be what it is. That which I cannot change without making the object cease to be the thing it is, is the invariant, the eidos of the experience
For example, I am doing a phenomenology of Love. I start bracketing my biases on love. Then I reduce the object love to the phenomenon of love. In eidetic reduction, I begin with an example of a relationship of love between two people. I change their age, race, social status and all these do not matter in love. What is it that I cannot change? Perhaps, the unconditional giving of self to the other as he is. This then forms part of the essence of Love.
In our example of love, maybe I see the essence of love as giving of oneself to the other because of my perspective as a lover. If I take the perspective of the beloved, maybe the essence is more receiving than giving. If I take the perspective of a religious, maybe love is seen as activity of God.
It is the Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction that Edmund Husserl came up with the main insight of Phenomenology : “Intentionality of consciousness
Intentionality of consciousness means that consciousness is intentional, that consciousness is always consciousness of something other than consciousness itself. There is no object without a subject, and no subject without an object. The subject-of-the-object is called noesis ; the object-for-the-subject is called noema. There is no world without man, and no man without a world.
Gabriel Marcel uses a Phenomenological Method less technical than Husserl. He calls it Secondary Reflection
The kind of reflection in which I recognize that I am part of the thing I am investigating , and therefore , my discussion is ‘ sub-jective” (“thrown beneath” ). I have something to do with it and It has something to do with me. Because I participate in the thing, I cannot tear it apart into a clear and fixed ideas; I have to describe and bring to light its unique wholeness in my concrete experience.
“ I exist as “Sentio Ergo Sum” ( “I feel therefore I am ”) is the indubitable touchtone of one’s existence, it must be taken as indissoluble unity: the “I” cannot be separated from the “exist”, pertaining essentially to sense experience.
Marcel invokes an image, that of a child coming up to him with shining eyes, saying: “Here I am! What a Luck!. The statement of the child cannot be separated from its act of existing. This is in the word ‘exist’ or ‘existere’ which in Latin means “to stand out,” or “to manifest ”. The indubitable touchtone of one’s existence is linked to kind of exclamatory awareness of oneself, as in the expression of the child ( the leaps , the cries..etc.
The immediacy of self awareness in the case of the ADULTS maybe restrained, crusted over by habits, compartmentalized life: it is pretty certain, in fact, that we are are tending to become bureaucrats not only with our outward behaviors but in our relation with ourselves, and because of bureaucracy we interpose thicker and thicker screens between ourselves and existence .
This feeling that makes known my experience is what Marcel calls: “SYMPATHETIC MEDIATION”
The experience is what Marcel calls: “ NON-INTRUMENTAL COMMUNION”
If we want to be faithful to the experience, we need to use concept that points to this feeling: “DIRECTIONAL CONCEPTS”
The whole process can be fulfilled only if we inter into “ SECONDARY REFLECTION ” and humbly returned to the experienced reality of ordinary life.
Reflection is rooted inexperience, but there are two kinds: Primary and secondary. Primary Reflection breaks the unity of experience and is the foundation of scientific knowledge. This is equivalent to the Natural Attitude in Husserl. Secondary Reflection recuperates the unity of original experience. It does not go against the data of primary reflection but refuses to accept it as final.
Example#1: Who am I? Primary Reflection: I am so and so…,born on this day…, in such a place…, with height and weight…etc.. items on the I.D. card. Secondary Reflection: I am more than the items above.. I enter into my inner core. Example#2: My Body Primary Reflection: a body is like other bodies.., detached from the “I” , the body examined by a doctor, studied by medical students, or the body sold by the prostitute. Secondary Reflection : I am my body, I feel the pain when my dentist pulls my tooth. I feel a terrible feeling when I sell my body( prostitute).
Phenomenology as a Method is a method in which the relation between the investigator and the investigated object is considered to belong essentially to the object itself.
In cases where the object of investigation is Human Being , phenomenology becomes the Method in which all relevant items of research are exclusively considered only with regard to the totality of Human Being .
4. If the statement “man is absolutely determined” is true, then the statement is also determined, and the opposite “man is absolutely free” would also be determined, and so, there would be no truth value anymore to the statement.
5. If Human Beings are manipulable like machines, there would be no problem in making the society just.
Jean Paul Sartre, in His early stage, holds that man is absolutely Free.
In His essay “Existentialism is Humanism”, Sartre discusses his position by stating that with man, “Existence precedes essence” ( He develops absolute freedom in metaphysical terms in his book “Being and Nothingness)
Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his last chapter of the phenomenology of perception, criticizes Sartrean Absolute Freedom and holds the middle position of structure freedom.
For Merleau-Ponty, if freedom is absolute, always and everywhere present, then freedom is impossible and nowhere.
There would be no distinction between freedom and unfreedom. E.g. The slave in chains is just then as free as the one who revolts and breaks his chains. We are free when we control our situation as well as we are powerless.
HAVING pertains to things, external to me, and therefore autonomous (independent of me)
1. Things do not commune with me, are not capable of participation, closed and opaque, quantifiable and exhaustible.
2 . The life of Having therefore is a life of instrumental relationship.
3. Having is the realm of problem. A problem is something to be solved but apart of me, the subject.
4. Having is also applicable not only to things but also to ideas, fellowman, faith. I can have my ideas, posses other people, have my religion. Here I treat my ideas, other people, religion as my possessions, not open for sharing with others.
BEING, on the other hand, pertains to person, open to others, able to participate, creative, non-conceptualizable, a plenitude.
1. The life of BEING is the life of communion.
2. The realm of BEING is the realm of MYSTERY. A mystery is a problem that encroaches on the subject, that is part of me.
3. BEING is also applicable not only to persons but also to things (art), ideas, faith. I am my painting; I am my ideas, I am my faith. Here my art, ideas, religion are part of me which I can share to others.
FREEDOM for Marcel belongs to the realm of BEING, because freedom is not distinct from us, not a possession. Freedom is a mystery not a problem.
1. A thing possessed may be used or neglected by the owner without losing its character, but with freedom, when I deny, abused or betray it, it loses its character as freedom.
2. Freedom then, as belonging to the realm of Being, freedom breaks the confines of having to affirm my being which is essentially openness, participation, creative belonging with other beings and with fullness of BEING ITSELF.
1.1 Our first and commonly understood experience of freedom is the ability to choose, goods, e.g. I choose to study instead of watching a movie, I choose to buy a cheap pair of shoes instead of an expensive one, because I am supporting my siblings education.
But if we reflect deeper, our choice implies a prior or may lead to a preference of VALUES. When I choose to study instead of playing, I value learning more than pleasure. When I choose to buy a cheap pair of shoes, I value helping my sister/brother more than my comfort.
2.1 This Freedom is called FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS, because it is our general direction or orientation in life, it reflects our value in life.
2.2 It is called VERTICAL FREEDOM, because values form a hierarchy; some values are higher than others.
2.3 For the German Phenomenologist Max Scheler, preferring and realizing Higher Values is LOVE, and preferring and realizing lower values is hatred or egoism.
I am accountable for an action that is free, whose source is the “I”, I acted on my own, I decided on my own. I am free from external constraints.
Being Responsible, Accountable for my action, however, does not necessarily make me a responsible person. Here we encounter a second meaning of responsibility corresponding to the second type of freedom: RESPONSE-ABILITY.
But we are obliged to give only what we can give within the limited matrix of possibilities.
Freedom then conditions Justice, and Justice is a condition of Freedom.
Freedom conditions justice, because giving what is due to the other means allowing him to use his talents to fulfill his Humanity, giving him Freedom. So, to violate the Freedom of the other is to deny him Justice.
Justice is a condition of freedom, because I can only use my Freedom for the promotion of Justice, of what is due to the Human Being. In the exercise of my Freedom, I must observe Justice so that the resources of fellow Human Beings and the World of nature are not exhausted and totally lost, otherwise there will be no more goods to choose from.
The practical norm to follow for that ideal is : “ to each according to his needs
( Acts 2:45 )….. from each according to his means ( Acts 11:29 ).
In case of conflict between Freedom and Justice, the use of Violence must be avoided. Instead structure for deliberations are needed. People must be able to participate is Dialogue to settle their differences.
3.3.3 Unfolding, on the other hand, is finding in the other the disposition towards what I myself recognized as true good and beautiful. If it is true, good and beautiful, it must also be alive in the other person in his own unique way. All I have to do in dialogue is to bring him to see it for himself.
3.3.4 A typical example of imposition is the propagandist. The propagandist is not concerned with the unique person he wants to influence but with certain qualities of the person that he can manipulate and exploit to win the other to his side. He is concerned simply with more members, more followers. Political methods are mostly winning power over the other by depersonalizing him.
3.3.5 A Typical example of unfolding is the Educator. The Educator cares for his students as unique, singular, individual. He sees each as capable of freely actualizing himself. What is right is established in each as a seed in a unique personal way. He does not impose.
3.3.6 The educator trust in the efficacy of what is right. The propagandist does not believe in the efficacy of his cause, so he must use special methods like the media.
Dialogical Methods: the teacher teaches by learning from his students their unique situation, and from there, he unfolds what is right. Both the teacher and students are responsible to what is true, good and beautiful.
To summarize, genuine dialogue is turning to the partner in all truth.
4.3 Further, for genuine dialogue to arise, every participant must bring himself to it. He must be willing to say what is really in his mind about the subject matter.
4.3.1 This is different from unreserved speech, where I just talk and talk.
4.4.2 Silence can also be dialogue. Words sometimes are the source of misunderstanding (Zen Buddhism)
LOVE Introductory Note: There are many kinds of Love ( Love of Friendship, Marital Love..etc.). Our Phenomenology of Love here is not a description of a particular kind of Love but of love in general between persons
We begin our phenomenology of love by first using epoche, braketing the popular notion of Love as a pleasant sensation, as something one “ falls into “. 1. According to Erich Fromn in his book, “ The Art of Loving” , Love is an art that requires knowledge and effort. 2. Erich Fromn cites three reasons for this wrong popular notion of Love as “Falling in Love”.
3.The first reason is that now a days the problem is stressed on “being loved” rather than “on loving”. Note the proliferation of books on “how to win friends and influence people”, “how to be attractive”. 4.The second reason is that nowadays the problem is focused on the “object” rather than the “Faculty”. Nowadays people think that to love is easy but finding the right person to love or be loved is difficult. So love is reduced to sales and follow the fad of the times.
5.The third reason is the confusion between the initial state of “falling-in-love” and the “permanent state of being-in-love”.
6.The experience of love starts from the experience of “Loneliness” 6.1. Loneliness is one of the basic experience of the human being because of “self awareness”.
7. Thrown out of the situation which was definite and secure into a situation which is indefinite, uncertain, open, the human being experiences separation. 8. This experience of separation is painful and is the source of shame, guilt and anxiety. 9. There is then the deep need in man to overcome loneliness and to find “at-onement”.
9. Some answers to this problem are the following: A. Orgiastic States: trance induced by drugs, rituals, sexual orgasm, alcohol etc. The characteristic of this states are: violent, intense, involving the total personality, but transitory and periodical. They are addictive
B. Conformity with groups: joining a party or organization. The characteristics of these groups are calm, routine dictated. In our society today, we equate “equality” with sameness rather than “oneness” where differences are respected
C. Creative Activity: a productive work which I plan, produce and see the result, which is difficult nowadays.
10. All the above are not interpersonal. 11. Love is the answer of Loneliness, but Love can be immature. 12.Immature love is symbiotic union where the persons lose their individuality. The following are immature forms of Love: A. Biological: the pregnant mother and the fetus: both live together.
B. Psychic: two bodies are independent but the same attachment psychologically. C. Passive: masochism. The masochist submits himself to another. D. Active: sadism. The sadist is dependent on the submissiveness of the masochist.
13. Loneliness ends when the loving encounter begins, when the person finds or is found by another. 14. The loving encounter is a meeting of persons. 15. The meeting of persons involves an “I-Thou communication”. 16. This meeting of persons happens when two persons are free to be themselves yet choose to share themselves.
18. This meeting of persons is not simply a bumping into each other, nor an exchange of pleasant remarks, although this can be an embodiments of a deeper meaning. 19. This meeting of persons can happen in groups of common commitments although social groups can impose roles.
20. The loving encounter presupposes the appeal of the other to my subjectivity. 21. The appeal of the other is embodied in a word, gesture or glance. 22.The appeal of the other is an invitation to transcend myself, to break away from my occupation with the self.
23. I can ignore the causal remark of the other as a sign for the meeting. 24. My self-centeredness makes it difficult for me to understand the other’s appeal to me. 25. I need more than eyes to see the reality of the other, to see his goodness and value.
26. I need an attitude that has broken away from self –preoccupation. If I am absorbed in myself, I will not understand the other’s appeal but will just excuse myself. 27.I must get out of the role I am accustomed to play in my daily life to understand the other’s appeal.
28. What is the appeal of the other? It is not the corporeal or spiritual attractive qualities of the other.
29. Qualities can only give rise to enamoredness, a desire to be with the other, but love is the firm will to be for the other.
30. Once the qualities ceases to be attractive, then love ceases. 31. Also, the person is more than his facticity. 32. The appeal is not any explicit request, because the other may go away dissatisfied, because my heart was not in fulfillment of his request. 33. The other’s appeal is HIMSELF.
34. The call of the other is his subjectivity: “be with me, participate in my subjectivity”. The other person is himself a request. 35. The appeal of the other makes it possible for me to liberate myself from myself. 36. The appeal reveals to me an entirely new dimension of existence: that myself realization maybe a destiny-for-you. “ Because of you , I understand the meaninglessness of my egoism”.
37. What is my reply to the other’s appeal? It is not the outpouring of my qualities to the other. 38. Compatibility of Qualities is not necessary in love. 39. Neither is my reply the satisfaction of his request or desire. 40. Sometimes refusal to grant his request or desire maybe the way of loving him if granting it will do him harm.
41 . My reply of the other’s appeal is MYSELF. 42. As a subject, the other is free to give meaning and new dimension to his life. 43. His appeal then to me is an invitation to will his subjectivity, to consent to his freedom, to accept, support and share it.
44. My reply then is willing the other’s free self realization, his destiny, his happiness. It is like saying: “I want you become what you want to be . I want you to realize your happiness freely. 45. This reply is effective. 46. Love is not only saying but doing, since the other person is not a disembodied subject, to love him implies that I will his bodily being, that I care for his body, his world, his total well being.
47. Willing the happiness of the other implies I have an awareness, a personal knowledge of his destiny. 48.1 Love is not only saying but doing, since the other person is not a disembodied subject, to love him implies that I will his bodily being, that I care for his body, his world, his total well being.
49. My Love will open possibilities for him but also close others, those that will hamper his self realization. 50. I can be mistaken in what I think will make other happy or I may impose own concept of happiness so Love requires RESPECT for the OTHERNESS of the other. 51. This respect the other necessitates PATIENCE, because the rhythm of growth of the other maybe different from mine.
52. Patience is harmonizing my rhythm with the other’s, like melody or an orchestra. 53. Is love concerned only with the other and not at all myself? No, because in love I am concerned also with myself. 54. This does not mean to be loved but in the sense that in love, I place the limitless trust in the other, thus delivering myself to Him.
55. This TRUST, this defenselessness, is a CALL upon the love of the beloved, to accept my offer of myself. 56. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is not to will to draw advantage from the affection for the other. 57. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is not compelling, dominating or possessing the other. Love wants the other’s freedom in that the other himself choose this safe way and avoid that dangerous path.
58. There is indeed that element of SACRIFICE in loving the other which is often (mis)understood as loss of self. 59. I renounce motive of promoting myself, abandoning my egoism. 60. But this does not mean loss of self. On the contrary, in loving the other I need to love myself, and in loving the other I come to fulfill myself. 61. I need to love myself first in loving the other because in loving I offer myself as a GIFT to the other, so the gift has to be valuable to me first, otherwise I am giving a garbage to the other.
62. This loving myself takes the form of being-loved: I am loved by the other. 63. I come to fulfill myself in loving the other because when my gift of self is accepted, the value is confirmed by the beloved, and I experience the joy of giving in the process I also receive. 64. Thus, there exist in loving the other the desire to be loved in return. But this desire is never a motive in loving the other.
The primary motive in LOVE is the YOU-FOR-WHOM-I-CARE. 65. The “you” is not the “he” or “she” I talk about. 66. The “you” is not just another self. ( “not just a rose among the roses” Little Prince) 67. The you is discovered by the lover himself, not with the eyes nor with the mind but with the heart.(“It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eyes” Little Prince.) “I love you because you are beautiful and lovable, and you are beautiful and lovable because you are you”.
68. Since the you is another subjectivity, He is free to accept or reject my offer of self. Love is a risk. 69. What if the other does not reciprocate my love? 70. The rejection of the beloved can be a test of how authentic my love is. 71. If I persist in loving the other in spite of the pain, then my love is truly selfless. 72. The experience of rejection can be an opportunity for me to examine myself, for self-reparation, for emptying myself , allowing room for development.
73. when love is reciprocated, love becomes fruitful, Love becomes creative. 74. Loving although it presupposes knowing, it is different from knowing. 75. In knowing I let reality be, but in loving I will the other’s free self realization, I somehow “make” the other be. 76. In any encounter, there is a “making” of the other: e.g. the teacher makes the student a student; the student makes the teacher a teacher.
77. In loving encounter, the making of the other is not causalistic because love involves two freedoms. 78. To understand the creativity of love, let us do a phenomenology of being-loved. 79. When I am loved, I experience a feeling of joy and sense of security. 80. I feel joy because I am accepted as myself and a value to the lover. I feel free to be just myself and what I can become. 81. I feel secure because the other participates in my subjectivitry, I no longer walk alone in the world.
82. So, What is created in love is “we”. 83. Together with the “we” is also a “new-world”—our world, one world. “ My life is monotonous, he said, I hunt chickens; men hunt me. All chickens are just alike. And , in consequence, I am a little bored. But if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came to shine in my life. I shall know the sound of a step that will be different from all others. Other steps send me hurrying back underneath the ground
Yours will call me, like music, out of burrow. And then look: you see the grain-fields down yonder? I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use to me. The wheat-fields have nothing to say to me. And that is sad. But you have the hair that is the color of gold. Think how wonderful that will be when you have tamed me! The grain, which is also golden, will bring me back the thought of you. And I shall love to listen to the wind in the wheat….” The Fox to the Little Prince
84. Again, the creative influence of the lover is not causalistic because the beloved must freely accept the offer of the lover. 85. Only when the beloved says “yes” will the love becomes fruitful,: e.g. the teacher’s love is fruitful only when student accepts freely the education. 86. The “we” created in love is a union of persons and their worlds. Therefore, they do not lose their identities. 87. In the union of things, the elements lose their identities.
88. In love, a paradox exists: The “I” becomes more an “I” and the “YOU” becomes more of Himself. 89. We can clarify and deepen this paradox in love by describing the nature of love as a “Gift of Self”. 90. A gift is “something” I cause another to posses which hitherto I posses myself, a giver. 91. The other has no strict right to own the gift.
92. The giving is disinterested, unconditional: There is no “string attached” to the giving. I do not givein order to get something in return; otherwise the giving is an exchange or selling. 93. In love, the giving is not a giving up in the sense of being deprived of something because the self is not a thing that when given no longer belongs to the giver but to the given. 94 Nor the giving in love coming from a marketing character because I do not give in order to get something in return.
95. The giving in love is also not of the virtuous character. I dot give in order to feel good. 96. Why do I give myself in love? Because I expereince a certain bounty, richness, value in me. 97. I can express this disinterested giving of self to the other as other in the giving of sex, material things…. But when I do so, the thing becomes unique because it has become a concrete but limited embodiment of myself.
98. To give myself means to give my will, my ideas, my feelings, my experiences to the other--- all that is alive in me. 99. Why do I love this particular other? Because you are lovable, you are lovable because you are you. 100. The value of the other is his being unique self. Therefore, since every person is unique, everyone is lovable.
101. If I am capable of loving this particular person for what he is, I am also capable of loving the others for what they are. 102. From this nature of Love as disinterested giving of oneself to the other as other, we can derive other essential characteristics of love.
103. Love is Historical because the other is a concrete particular person with history. 104. I do not love abstract Humanity, but concrete persons. 105. I do not love ideal persons, nor do I love in order to change or improve the other. e.g the friends of Jesus, His Apostles, were not ideal people.
106. We always associate the person we love with concrete places, things, events: like songs, e.g. In the Gospel of St. John, The old St John recounts his first meeting with Jesus and ends that account with “It was about four o’clock in the afternoon”(John1:39)
When friendship is breaking down, we want to reconcile, we recall the the things we did together: “You are beautiful, but you are empty, he went on. One could not die for you. To be sure, an ordinary passer-by would think that my rose looked just you—the rose that belongs to me. But in herself alone she is more important than the hundrds of you other roses: because it is she that I have watered; Because it is she that I have sheltered behind the screen; because it is for her that I have killed the caterpillars(except the two or three that we saved to become butterflies); because it is she that I have listened to, when she grumbled, or boasted, or even sometimes when she said nothing. Because she is my rose….” The Little Prince in passing by a garden of roses.
107. In Love, I do not surrender my liberty to the other, I do not become a slave to the other. The wife’s submission to her husband is done in freedom in recognition of his position in the family. 108. Rather, in Love two freedoms become one and each becomes more free.
109. The union of several freedoms in love results in a community, which is different from a society. In community, persons are free to be themselves.
110. Persons are Equal in Love because persons are free.
111. The equality in love is the equality of being, not of having.
112. Love is Total because the person in love is indivisible. I do not say, “you are my friend only insofar as you are my colleague”. 113. Love is Eternal because love is not given only for a limited period of time. 114. Love is Sacred because persons in love are valuable in themselves.
O can fellow feel for a person we do not love e.g. one can fellow feel for a person’s joy over his or his rival’s misfortune but when one loves, one would see that this is not in line with one’s higher possibilities of being.
Love is not a feeling.
Feeling is passive-rweceptive and reactive.
Malebranche: we do not necessarily love a fruit that gives the feeling of pleasure?
Scheler says: “ Love itself in the course of its own movement, brings about the continuous emergence of ever higher values in the object- just as if it was streaming out from the object of its own accord, without any sort of exertion on the part of the lover.”
“ Love is that movement wherein every concrete individual object that possesses values achieves the highest value compatible to its nature and ideal vocation; or wherein it attains the ideal state of value intrinsic to its nature”