This document discusses intersubjectivity and the relationship between self and other. It argues that we should avoid totalizing or reducing others according to our own categories and expectations. We must recognize others' infinite difference and transcendence. True understanding requires listening without judgment, not imposing our perspectives but learning from others. We can never fully know another's experiences. Genuine dialogue demands admitting we do not totally know others, being open to learning from them, and receiving them as persons beyond labels or social categories.

1. INTERSUBJECTIVITY
AN INTERSUBJECTIVITY RELATIONSHIP
ACROSS DIFFERENCES

2. LESSON 2: AN INTERSUBJECTIVITY
RELATIONSHIP ACROSS DIFFRENCES
LEVINAS: My Fellow Subject,
Who resists totalization

3. TOTALIZATION OF THE OTHER
TOTALIZATION is a denial of the other’s
difference, “the denial of the otherness of the
other”
- Totalization occurs whenever I limit the other
to a set of rational categories, be they racial,
sexual, or otherwise. I totalize the other when I
claim I already know who he is before he can
even speak to us.

4. A genuine encounter with another
person is an invitation to go beyond
what you see, what is given. To claim
that there is nothing beyond what you
see and what you know of other is to
force them into your self-made prison
of expectations. It is to confine them
within what is familiar to you.

5. THE POWER OF THE FACE OF A
PERSON
Power over another person can
never be absolute because of
the capacity of a person to
resist it.
-levina

6. The FACE is not just like any part of a person’s
body, it plays a very important role. Our faces
are what give us an identity, what marks our
difference from others.
The face is not an object that one can detach
from one person to another, nor a fixed entity
that is simply superimposed on one’s head.

7. The face “speaks” as it discloses
the person that bears it.
The face may have similar faces,
but each face reveals a different
person, with a life story
distinctively her own.

8. The face is the most powerful part of a person’s body that
reminds us of its spirituality. When we see the face of
another person, we do not see an object, or sum of flesh
before us. It is like when a person faces us, our tendency to
objectify is weakened. The face of another person issues a
power of resistance against our tendency for violence.
When we face another person, we are reminded that there
will always be something unknowable about them. We can
never be complacent. The other person always has the
capacity to astonish us beyond calculation to get rid of this
fear of uncertainty some people resort to violence.

9. That is why for Totalitarian government the only
way to ensure rulers stay in power is through the
use of violence. Violence is what takes place when
in the face of the other, we refuse to see the
person that bears it and force the other to fit into
the box of our expectations. Violence is what
happened when we remain blind to the difference
of the other from us by pretending that they are
faceless.

10. BEING A NEIGHBOR TO THE OTHER
A subtle form of “violence” we
do to other people is when we
reduce them into social
category.

11. A category is, a pre-conception amounting to a
pre-judgement.
Example of these categories we apply to others
would be the category of social classes (elitista,
jologs, conyo, jejemon) or the labels we use to
classify others (labels on race-tisoy, negro; twisted
use of medical conditions-retard, OC, addict; labels
on derogtive look on gender or sexuality – bakla
malandi; labels on place of origin –promdi,
barbariotic, taga-bundok)

12. for Reinhold Neibur, a category serves as a
barrier that prevents us from, having a real
personal encounter with another person. It
makes us difficult to see the person behind
the label, and hear the message coming
from the other, like a silent cry for help.

14. The parable of the Good Samaritan provides an
important counter example for this. In this
parable, we learn that the priest and the Levite
refused to touch and help the fallen man in the
street because they were too caught up within
their social category.

15. The priest and Levite in the Jewish community are
expected to be “pure and clean”. Touching a bloody
body would mean defiling themselves. Beyond their
social categories, however, they were persons facing
another in need of help. Yet because they were too
caught up within their social category, they choose
to turn a blind eye to the man in need of help.

16. The Samaritan in the parable, one who is
categorized as an outcast, there are no
expectations on him, and by some grace,
this became a strength for him. He did not
think twice about helping the man,
brought him to an inn and assumed the
care for the victim’s recovery and shelter
(Ricouer, 1965)

17. There is a similar story shared by a social
experiment conducted in the noontime sho, Eat
Bulaga. One of the hosts, Maine Mendoza, dressed
herself up as a dirt-poor loitering in the streets of
Quiapo and UN Ave. No one from the people in
the streets recognized her. She walked as taong
grasa and people ignored her. To the show’s
surprise, the persons who stopped to help her by
giving her food were not the well-dressed, or what
you have categorize in society as the “HAVE’s”.

18. The ones who helped her Were those
whom we usually categorize as the
“have nots” those described as “isang
kahig-isang tuka”. A taho vendor
gave her a cup of Taho without asking
her to pay for it. A man who sells
Mani gave her a pouch of peanuts for
free.

19. Such a social experiment revealed a very
important truth about our society.
Many of those viewed as nobody, as outcasts
in the society seem to be more open, more
welcoming of others. This could be because
they are not trapped within their categories.
Hence, they are more available and freer to
lend their assistance to those in need.

20. The task of a Philosophy student is to remind
herself and others that one of the most
important uncertainties that we need to
reconcile with is the mystery of the other
person. No matter how much we say that we
as human beings have many things in
common, there will always be something
about the other person we related that will
escape our grasp.

21. The human response to this
otherness is to respect it and
honor the invitation to care for the
other by being open to their
needs.

22. LESSON 3:GENUINE COMMUNICATION
AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY
MORAL HUMILITY
If we can never fully know the other person
because they are infinitely transcendent, how can
we possibly understand them?
The common answer we always get is we should
try “to put ourselves in the shoes of another
person”

23. this refers to the invitation to
imagine ourselves in the situation
of others. By doing so we would
understand them more.

24. Iris Marion Young, however argues that this
common suggestion is problematic and
can be dangerous. It is problematic
because no one can really claim to have
access to the mind of another person. No
matter how familiar person has become,
you will never be able to fully know what is
in his mind.

25. just take a quick look at your relationships.
Isn’t it that many your quarrels with your
family or your friends stem from
misundertandings-that you assumed that this
is what he think or feels, and you react based
on that assumption or vice versa? Isn’t it that
most of these quarrels only get fixed when
both parties sit down and have a calm
conversation about what happened?

26. Misunderstanding mostly come from our
hasty judgements and generalizations. Put
in another way, it comes from arrogant
thinking that other see things in the same
way as we view them.

27. Individuals are shaped by their histories
and social context, no two persons share a
completely the same position and
individual history. As such, no two persons
can have the exact some experiences and
form the same perspective.

28. Genuine understanding begins with the
silence that is essential to listening. We
cannot really hear what the other is saying
unless we hold our tongue and tame our
tendency to speak for them. Such a silence
entails Moral Humility.

29. This humility is exercised through the
admission that we do not know the other
person fully. With this admission we open
ourselves to the possibility that we will learn
something different from them. Therefore,
understanding those who are different from
us cannot happen by simply imagining
ourselves in their situation. We must listen to
what they have to say.

30. To many us, the act of listening
seems to be an easy matter.
Genuine listening, however,
entails great effort.

31. Here are some of the things we
should avoid saying if we want
people to truly open up to us.
(Faber and Mazlish, 1980)

32. Do not say that their feelings are
invalid. There are no right or wrong
feeling. Let them express how they
feel. They should not be judged for
emotions that they cannot help.

33. 2. Do not give advice if they are not
asking for any. What they need is a
friend who can be with them, not
some expert who can look at them in
a detach way.

34. 3. Do not philosophize about their
situation as if you are above them
and you truly know what happened.
(ex. Saying to a friend whose father
died, “that is God’s will.”)

35. 4. Do not say “I know how you feel.”
sometimes this can really be offensive
to the other person because no one
can really know how she feels unless
you become her.

36. 5. Do not say “if I were you..,” unless she
asks what you would do if you were in her
shoes. Without her consent, saying “if I
were you..,” would turn the conversation
into something about you, and not the
person who needed listening to.

37. For the authentic
dialogue to take place,
the following are
necessary:

38. 1. I will not claim to know my
fellow subject totally. I will never
be able to know him/her entirely
for he/she remains “infinitely
transcendent, infinitely foreign.”

39. 2. I will “be a neighbor to the
other.” I will go “beyond their
social categories,” move beyond
the labels and constantly
recognize the person behind the
label.

40. 3. I will admit that I do not
know the other fully. I open
myself to the possibility that I
will learn something different
from him/her.

41. 4. A genuine encounter, an authentic dialogue with
another person is an encounter in which we tame
our tendency to overcome the other and imprison
him/her within our demands and expectations. It is
an encounter in which we receive the other despite
his/her strangeness and difference. It is an
encounter in which we accept that the other will
never be fully the same as we are and yet still be a
person.

42. Thank you!!!!!