Page 60 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 21
P. 60

(7) a community where I could truly be myself.         accordance with their two-fold a�tude.” (12)
        This has caused me to be a conflicted believer.        That is: there are two basic ways of being in the
        Afraid to come out into the open space of              world:
        complete honesty. Psychologically agorapho-            1. A way that par�cipates, encounters and
        bic, I think. But I have ventured out into more            acts as a subject.
        overt honesty over the various stages of my            2. A way that detaches, experiences and ob-
        matura�on.                                                 jec�fies the world.
        Richard Rohr has wri�en about these ‘Stages in
        Life’. He talks about the stage where we create        The ‘I-Thou’ rela�onship:
        our ego, and the stage where we begin to ‘un-          The first rela�onship is the ‘I –Thou’ rela�ons-
        create’ our ego. Rohr writes:                          hip. It is only by par�cipa�ng in the lives of one
                                                               another that people mature morally. (NB:
            Crea�on of the ego is a necessary crea�vity.       Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning
            However, it is also about the crea�on of a         'humanity to others'. It is o�en described as re-
            separa�on. It’s taking myself as central! We       minding us that 'I am what I am because of who
            probably need to do this un�l we reach             we all are'. We cannot be truly human, fully
            middle age (which, at 67 I have passed) (8).       moral, in isola�on). Buber notes that we don’t
            But then we need to allow what we’ve crea-         relate to people as a ‘loose bundle of quali�es’.
            ted to be uncreated. Maybe I was a great           We stand in rela�on to other persons, not
            footballer but that’s gone now. Maybe I was        other objects.
            good looking, but that’s gone now too.
            When we can say “yes” to that uncrea�on            The ‘I- It rela�onship:
            and s�ll be happy, we’ve done our work. My         In this approach to communica�on, ironically
            true self is in God and not what I’ve created.     the subject is truly alone. They see others as
            My self-created self isn’t really me (9).          objects to be experienced and manipulated.
            Rohr calls this uncrea�ng, “coming home to         (13) The ‘Self’ is detached from others, it refu-
            myself.” It means being all ‘at home’ with all     ses par�cipa�on in the lives of others. This lack
            God really created me to be. And I think all       of connec�vity results in the barrenness of mo-
            God wants me to be is who I really am. (10)        ral solipsism – a world that has just one self-
                                                               contained individual (Me, Myself and I). Other
        I am just now able to start ‘being me’ me in           people are reduced simply to an object of one’s
        terms of communica�on. Recognizing that I am           experience without having one’s own individu-
        of intrinsic value rather than instrumental va-        ality as the subject of one’s own experience.
        lue. And so I now can begin to communicate             The other person ‘it’ becomes a thing, a com-
        with less fear and greater confidence.                 modity!
                                                               Buber believes that we can also apply these
        Mar�n Buber (1887 -1965) ‘I-Thou’                      two kinds of rela�onships to our interac�on
        It was ironic that Werner men�ons the Jewish           with God. Here, God can be categorized in hu-
        philosopher Mar�n Buber (11). I was recently           man terms. God can related to as an ‘alien’ i.e.
        teaching a MA module in Ethics and Buber’s ‘I –        the God of the Philosophers and Deism. This is
        Thou’ approach gave us considerable help in            not a rela�onship at all, the rela�onship and
        having ethical trac�on. His work on ‘I –thou’          communica�on is depersonalized and God is
        rather than ‘I –it’ rela�onships is an extended        commodified. There is no genuine two way par-
        medita�on on what it means to treat others as          �cipa�on. Buber suggest, “By its very nature….
        another self who is worthy of love and respect.        ‘The eternal You’ cannot ‘become the eternal
        Our use of language - the way we situate our-          ‘it’.” God cannot be grasped as a sum of quali-
        selves in the world – the way we consider              �es. God and the individual rela�onship to God
        others as ‘I’ ‘Thou’ or ‘I’ ‘It’. Buber’s founda�o-    cannot be reduced to mere linguis�c catego-
        nal thinking is that we ‘always find ourselves in      ries.” (14) In God, a person encounters God wi-
        rela�on’. “The world is two-fold for a person in       thout the media�on of language and its labels.




                                                           60
   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65