"You understand now where silent marches come from, don't you?
" "Yes. I understand now what mysticism is in dialogue. I understand what dialogue is."
"I'm glad you understand what I've produced so far, but that's not all," the sunny smile returned to my aunt. "Buber hasn't said his last word yet!"
"Indeed, yet a third area!" Filip beamed.
"The third area is the so-called 'masked monologue.' It was very difficult for him to prove what dialogue actually is, so he approached it from the perspective of what it shouldn't be. A person has the right to maintain their own identity, or lie to themselves and think they are someone else. When they present themselves as an imaginary character, they don't reveal themselves in dialogue. If someone you want to dialogue with, "You," also lies, dialogue is absolutely impossible. If you designate someone as "You," they must be themselves in an a priori sense. Nor can "I" treat "You" as "It," that is, as an object. But when "You" transforms into "I"—it's a monologue. We treat our partner as an aspect of ourselves. When you were with the class, you experienced them first, and then you were in dialogue. Experiencing and dialogue are opposing concepts.
" "How so?"
"Well, when you were their authority, when they calmed down under your influence, you experienced each other. You were the observer, you influenced them, you were the object of moral experiences. Of course, in another case, you could have been, for example, the object of aesthetic experiences, or the object of desire.
" "Auntie!
" "What? You're an attractive boy, not the kind no girl would look at! In any case, when they fell silent, you joined in a "silent dialogue," but a dialogue. Because dialogue, if it is to be true, must be direct. Such a specific dialogue and experience doesn't necessarily have to take place only between people. You can enter into a dialogue with everything that exists, an "I-Thou" relationship! You can contemplate the wind as a poet, the sun as a painter. Everyone can contemplate everything in their own way!" The sun, for example, will be contemplated by a physicist as a place where thermonuclear reactions are constantly occurring, by a geographer as an object causing the tides in the ocean, and so on. It's one thing to turn an "I-It" relationship into an "I-Thou" relationship and start complaining to the wind. You'll treat it as a companion, someone to whom you can tell anything. But remember, you still retain your consciousness. This being doesn't "exist" or "happen," but is a partner in dialogue with the "I." This view is commonly called pansemiotism. Let's return to people. Communication between people is necessary. However, this doesn't automatically mean dialogue. There is such a concept as "We." It is a community based on certain bonds, for example, religion. If people enter into dialogue with each other, the "I" reaches out to another "You." Then, simultaneously, the "I" discovers the eternal "You." This happens when people are united in some community.
- A minute of silence?
"No. The deliberate pursuit of community precludes, as Buber called it, the formation of a "commune." That is, a creation that within an existing group leads to numerous "I-Thou" relationships, creating a multiple community called a "commune." The common ground for social and religious life is dialogue.
(To learn more, study: Buber 's The Problem of Men )
- Sure.
- Every person has their own reason, logos. It can only be perceived among us; only then does it become true. In the same way, logos reigns between God and man. It is the unity of word and life – Holy Scripture."
- Oh, please!
- See? Logos is also a specific Heraclitean harmony of opposites. Speaking of Heraclitus, give him some food. Only he didn't get dinner today..." Philip immediately jumped to the aquarium and offered the fish some dried worms.
"Done.
" - Good, you talked to me and I forgot!
- Don't blame me!
"Okay, okay. Be a little stoic.
" "Isn't that a hint that Zeno didn't get the fly…?
" "No!" Auntie burst out laughing. "No, he'll catch his own prey.
" "That's good…
" We return to the conversation, there was a moment's pause. Let's summarize: "You" achieves full perfection in nothing other than silence, and speech is the premise for the realization of silence. Only if you can speak can you be silent.
" "Strange…
" "A person discovers the world in words. I mentioned the Holy Scriptures. Buber evokes the magical power and meaning that Jews give to names. I should have mentioned that the philosophy of dialogue is considered "Jewish philosophy." Why? Because their religion, Judaism, is primarily based on listening. Knowing with the ear. Other religions lean more towards miracles, that is, knowing with the eye. The naming ceremony is a dialogical act. It is, as it were, an imitation of God. Then the word actually inhabits the space of "It" and takes on an ontic character.
(M. Buber, Antwort )
The realization of dialogics is therefore the contact of the human "I" with the divine "You," and the basic condition for "I-You" contact is objectlessness, partnership, and directness. Now that we have the appropriate tools, we can begin to build the current meaning of the philosophy of dialogue.
- In fact, we've already begun, at least from the individual's perspective.
- Yes. But you see, the philosophy of dialogue is a much broader concept. In my opinion, its current meaning has not changed for centuries. It has always been the same, just as Newton's Theory of Gravity, although refined by Einstein, is still relevant.
- Einstein, not so modestly, aunt, changed the concept of gravity...
"Perhaps not modestly, but space probes and other artificial satellites, as well as space explorers, still adhere to Newtonian principles. They are good and valid.
" "You're right... if they were bad, I wouldn't be doing so many exercises based on Newton's formula in physics.
" "Exactly! It's the same with the philosophy of dialogue. It's particularly based on the individual, that "I" and "You," which we debated for so long that Arche dozed off. I dare to hypothesize, because the last footnotes were rather sluggish and seemed to be mumbling in his sleep. They were surprisingly short..."
(That was probably directed at me! What? What did I forget again? Sorry, I dozed off...)
"Auntie, is Arche a woman or a man?"
"Hmm... Both a man and a woman. He certainly contains all the elements within himself. But enough with questions like "how loud was the big bang," because I think your question and mine can be put in the same box." If you want to try it yourself…" My aunt bit her tongue—"ask her…" She and Filip burst out laughing. After wiping tears from her cheeks and catching her breath, she continued. "Getting back to the topic. Linguists, sociologists, psychologists, and other scholars, even many philosophers, believe dialogue is simply conversation. The only requirement is knowledge of the common meanings of words, so-called intentionality. However, the fundamental issue of the philosophy of dialogue, currently, is reflection on the clashes and encounters of cultures, civilizations, and religions. It involves delving into the thicket of questions about universalism, cultural identities, multiculturalism, ethnocentrism, transculturalism, and other "isms." Here, we can invent and debate together. Nothing concrete has been established; perhaps from time to time I will just cite some statements by Panikkar, Eliade, or other authorities. We should simply distinguish three types of dialogue, which we will or will not use. They are similar to Buber's, but differ in details:
1. "Apparent dialogue" is the kind we must avoid. It involves "I" meeting with "You," each of us exchanging our views on a given topic, and failing to reach a consensus. We will part ways, and that's it. Nothing will change in me or you, whatever worldview you came with or left with. We will never see each other again.
2. Dialogical dialogue, the goal of which is not merely to learn other people's views, to attempt conversion, or anything like that, but to open ourselves existentially to another person in order to discover our own metaphysical world, as Panikkar called it: Myth. Myth defined prejudices, our personal experiences. Take, for example, an ordinary fishing rod. In my opinion, the point is that in someone else's mind, it's just an ordinary stick with a hook on a string, while in yours, for example, it's a sign of adventure. You don't realize it's an adventure for you until someone reveals that for them it's just an ordinary thing. This dialogue is mutual. Someone who tells you that, in their opinion, it's just an ordinary thing may be unaware of it until you tell them that for you it's something more. They learn their myth through you.
3. Dialectical dialogue involves seeking truth in confiding in another person. It places trust in the order of things, the value of reason, and strong arguments. The goal of such a dialogue is to penetrate the logos, to reach the truth hidden behind it.
"So where do we begin?" Filip was already a bit tired and resigned. "I'd like to know what Wilk was really talking about."
"So, Wilk, under the name of the philosophy of dialogue, spoke about wearing masks, the loss of the individual, the search for love, and good and evil. He talked about how everything he tries to convey through his work, probably in the theater, is important to the entire society.
" "Wearing masks? Sounds enigmatic and interesting...
" "Wearing masks, if you want to learn a lot about it, I suggest you read Gombrowicz. He loved each other in masks. But I'll briefly explain what both he and Wilk meant.
" "Although, if I remember correctly, Wilk probably didn't mean that, but the fairy tale itself...
" "Yes. But you surely don't believe that the person who spoke to you today in the mushroom picking area actually existed as a wolf!"
"You've already given proof – he loves!
" "He loves, but as a 'human being.' He's not an animal. He's put on a mask, or as Gombrowicz prefers, one has been put on him. People have always worn masks to express their attitudes towards the world. People gave him the wolf mask, because at least in European culture, the wolf is a symbol of transcendental evil. His a priori task, in fairy tales, was to show bad behavior, to teach children what not to do. Do you understand?
" "Now you do.
" "People often put on, or have their masks put on, to be more distinctive. I don't know if you've noticed, but in my opinion, everyone wants to be 'someone.' They want to be remembered and valued. They want to be an authority. Sometimes it comes down to adopting different attitudes, donning the masks of characters we are not. Any examples? Look around and think for yourself. I know one example: the Wolf."
"A wolf? He's evil!
" "No! You see for yourself that he may be a bit slovenly and vulgar outside of work, but deep down he's as docile as a lamb. He's a wolf trapped. Trapped in love. He wants to change, he's realized he exists, he wants to be free. He himself admitted to you that he committed some "sins" in the passion of love. That gives him a human face, but he himself refuses to take off his mask. I pity such people. Have you read Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita?"
"I have.
" "Then remember how Yeshua explained to Pontius Pilate that there are no evil people, only the lost?
" "I remember...
" "That 'lostness' is precisely putting on a mask. We are born innocent; it's the situation that forces us to act against the "universal law." I wasn't going to mention Kant, but I hope you're familiar with the subject."
(And I hope, reader, that you also know what I'm talking about. If not, I suggest you read some books about Kant, because it's a really long story and your aunt doesn't really want to discuss it now, although it's an interesting one.)
"Yes, go on.
" "By the way, where did Immanuel go?
" "Oh, Auntie, he's a grown man, he can handle himself, besides, he has Eureka with him. No "wolf" can threaten him."
"You're partly right, but it's already dark outside. He's really just a big kid... Sigh... I hope he'll be back soon," my aunt said sadly.
"Don't worry, he's probably found some interesting, antique piece again and hasn't returned yet.
" "Perhaps.
" "So how? Will you continue?
" "Fine." She smiled, but there was a twinkle of concern in her eye. "So you see, dialogue is also about getting rid of stereotypes. Describing someone negatively based solely on their behavior can end up offending someone.
" "You're right." Once, when I was on a school exchange with Germany, Poles were described as "drunkards." Personally, I felt offended because I don't drink myself. But surely it's not just the negative aspects that are stereotypical?
- No, there are positive ones too. But sometimes you can't just attribute them to someone. Sorry, but not every German is organized...
- Heh, heh, heh, you're right!
- Do you understand Wilk?
- I see. Thanks.
- You're welcome. Now I'll tell you about the philosophy of dialogue from this, um, current topic. That is, about universalism and everything I mentioned recently.
- Can we talk another time? It's late, we have to get home.
- Oh, don't complain! You'll stay the night with us. If I remember correctly, you have school at ten tomorrow. You'll make it. Besides, we can't finish this another time because Arche is helping the author of this whole mess write a paper for the Philosophy Olympiad.The idea of that last conversation was partially taken from the book: The Philosophy of Drama by J. Tischner.
(Arche whispering to the Author)
Arche:
Master! It's out! She saw through us!
Author:
It doesn't matter. That's the way of things. I created these characters myself. The work saw through the master. Not he, but it will be remembered...
Reader:
...)
- If so... Are you suggesting he'll let me sleep in before school? - Filip persisted.
- I know that if you want, he can create a day in this work that lasts up to twenty-five hours, so don't worry. I'll talk to him, and he'll let you sleep in. Right? - Zofia looked sternly at the Reader, Arche, and the Author.
(True - the latter two replied in unison.)
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz