For this is guilt, if it is anything:
to fail to increase the freedom of a love
by all the freedom we can raise within ourselves.
When we love, we have, at most, this:
to let each other go; for holding on
comes easily, we don't have to learn it.
- Rainer Maria Rilke
From Requiem for a Friend
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Eclipse of God
Martin Buber - Eclipse of God
“Religion and Ethics” pp. 95-111
The whole meaning of reciprocity, indeed, lies in just this, that it does not wish to impose itself but to be freely apprehended. It gives us something to apprehend but it does not give use the apprehension. (98-99)
The presupposition for this connection between the ethical and the religious, however, is the basic view that man, while created by God, was established by Him in an independence which has since remained undiminished. In this independence he stands over and against God. So man takes part with full freedom and spontaneity in the dialogue between the two which forms the essence of existence. That this is so despite God’s unlimited power and knowledge is just that which constitutes the mystery of man’s creation. In this is founded the lasting reality of the distinction and decision which man consummates in his soul. (105)
In the teachings of the correspondence between heaven and earth, found in the great Asiatic cultures, the normative principle is not yet differentiated at all from the theological (theology being understood as religion’s reflection on itself). There only exists a normative side of truth turned toward man. […] In Christianity, which gives the character of exclusiveness to the Israelite belief in the indispensable grace of God, the norm, even if it steps forth as the “new law,” can no longer occupy a central place. It is thus made easy for the secular norm to gain ever more ground at its expense. In its political form, to be sure, the secular norm seeks to secure an absolute religious basis through the concept of the divine right of kings and other means. The true binding of the ethical to the Absolute, however, is her ever less present.” (107)
This decline will end in nihilism, which he himself professes. This means that “the highest values lose their value” so that now a goal for existence is wanting. Nihilism shall now, however, be overcome through creating a goal “which will remain poised above mankind and above the individual.” This means that a new goal, a new meaning of existence and a new value, are set by Nietzsche’s teaching of the Superman. He has not noticed, to be sure, that all this is already basically abrogated through his other teaching, that of the eternal return of the same, which he himself calls “the extremest form of nihilism” and the eternalization of the meaningless. (110)
And again Nietzsche does not notice that all the ambiguity that has ever attached itself to the values good-evil is fatally surpassed by the intrinsic ambiguity of the values strong-weak. “The Sophists,” says Nietzsche, “have the courage common to all strong spirits of knowing their immorality. The Sophists were Greek; when Socrates and Plato took the part of virtue and righteousness, they were Jews or I know not what.” Nietzsche himself wanted to conquer the nihilism which he himself had consummated; as a result he came to grief. This is not meant in the sense in which one could say of Plato that he came to grief because he had no success in the historical course of events. What is meant, rather, is that in contradistinction to the doctrine of Ideas, the “teaching of the Superman” is no teaching at all and that in contradistinction to the value-scale defined by the idea of the Good, the value-scale strong-weak is no value-scale at all. (110-11)
The situation in which we find ourselves is partially conditioned by this abortive undertaking of nihilism both to fulfill and to overcome itself at the same time. But there is one thing that we may learn from nihilism. A purely moral structure of authority will not lead us out of this situation into a different one. (111)
“On the Suspension of the Ethical” pp. 115-120
False absolutes rule over the soul, which is no longer able to put them to flight through the image of the true. Everywhere, over the whole surface of the human world - in the East and in the West, from the left and from the right, they pierce the unhindered through the level of the ethical and demand of you “the sacrifice.” Time and again, when I ask well-conditioned young souls, “Why do you give up your dearest possession, your personal integrity?” they answer me, “Even this, this most difficult sacrifice, is the thing that is needed in order that…” It makes no difference, “in order that equality may come” or “in order that freedom may come,” it makes no difference! And they bring the sacrifice faithfully. In the realm of Moloch honest men lie and compassionate men torture. And they really and truly believe that brother-murder will prepare the way for brotherhood! There appears to be no escape from the most evil of all idolatry. (119-20)
“Religion and Ethics” pp. 95-111
The whole meaning of reciprocity, indeed, lies in just this, that it does not wish to impose itself but to be freely apprehended. It gives us something to apprehend but it does not give use the apprehension. (98-99)
The presupposition for this connection between the ethical and the religious, however, is the basic view that man, while created by God, was established by Him in an independence which has since remained undiminished. In this independence he stands over and against God. So man takes part with full freedom and spontaneity in the dialogue between the two which forms the essence of existence. That this is so despite God’s unlimited power and knowledge is just that which constitutes the mystery of man’s creation. In this is founded the lasting reality of the distinction and decision which man consummates in his soul. (105)
In the teachings of the correspondence between heaven and earth, found in the great Asiatic cultures, the normative principle is not yet differentiated at all from the theological (theology being understood as religion’s reflection on itself). There only exists a normative side of truth turned toward man. […] In Christianity, which gives the character of exclusiveness to the Israelite belief in the indispensable grace of God, the norm, even if it steps forth as the “new law,” can no longer occupy a central place. It is thus made easy for the secular norm to gain ever more ground at its expense. In its political form, to be sure, the secular norm seeks to secure an absolute religious basis through the concept of the divine right of kings and other means. The true binding of the ethical to the Absolute, however, is her ever less present.” (107)
This decline will end in nihilism, which he himself professes. This means that “the highest values lose their value” so that now a goal for existence is wanting. Nihilism shall now, however, be overcome through creating a goal “which will remain poised above mankind and above the individual.” This means that a new goal, a new meaning of existence and a new value, are set by Nietzsche’s teaching of the Superman. He has not noticed, to be sure, that all this is already basically abrogated through his other teaching, that of the eternal return of the same, which he himself calls “the extremest form of nihilism” and the eternalization of the meaningless. (110)
And again Nietzsche does not notice that all the ambiguity that has ever attached itself to the values good-evil is fatally surpassed by the intrinsic ambiguity of the values strong-weak. “The Sophists,” says Nietzsche, “have the courage common to all strong spirits of knowing their immorality. The Sophists were Greek; when Socrates and Plato took the part of virtue and righteousness, they were Jews or I know not what.” Nietzsche himself wanted to conquer the nihilism which he himself had consummated; as a result he came to grief. This is not meant in the sense in which one could say of Plato that he came to grief because he had no success in the historical course of events. What is meant, rather, is that in contradistinction to the doctrine of Ideas, the “teaching of the Superman” is no teaching at all and that in contradistinction to the value-scale defined by the idea of the Good, the value-scale strong-weak is no value-scale at all. (110-11)
The situation in which we find ourselves is partially conditioned by this abortive undertaking of nihilism both to fulfill and to overcome itself at the same time. But there is one thing that we may learn from nihilism. A purely moral structure of authority will not lead us out of this situation into a different one. (111)
“On the Suspension of the Ethical” pp. 115-120
False absolutes rule over the soul, which is no longer able to put them to flight through the image of the true. Everywhere, over the whole surface of the human world - in the East and in the West, from the left and from the right, they pierce the unhindered through the level of the ethical and demand of you “the sacrifice.” Time and again, when I ask well-conditioned young souls, “Why do you give up your dearest possession, your personal integrity?” they answer me, “Even this, this most difficult sacrifice, is the thing that is needed in order that…” It makes no difference, “in order that equality may come” or “in order that freedom may come,” it makes no difference! And they bring the sacrifice faithfully. In the realm of Moloch honest men lie and compassionate men torture. And they really and truly believe that brother-murder will prepare the way for brotherhood! There appears to be no escape from the most evil of all idolatry. (119-20)
Saturday, February 25, 2006
The written word verges on the absurd
The written word verges on the absurd. It attempts to express the inexpressible; the imperfect murmurs of the soul. Through the pen, a fiend ennobles himself; the coward pilfers accolades reserved for the brave. Words deceive. Words enrapture. They tempt and seduce - beautifying lies and falsehood for the solipsist's ear. "I'll tell you what you want," the sycophant says. Don't you sense it? Can you not sense the venom bubbling below spineless toadying? This reflects the duplicitous nature of the word. Much like anything else in a "modern" world, appearances seduce and intoxicate. But without the word, there is no communication. Without the word, there is no encounter. Without the word, relationship is impossible. By stepping out of the cocoon of the individual soul, I invariably encounter duplicity masked as "authenticity". That is the risk of turning to the other. But without trust, we are deprived of our humanity. Without trust, we remain objects, employed in the pursuit of abstract Ends or fodder exhausted for parochial machinations. In order to hold back the growth of techno-bureaucratic mechanisms over the actual life between human beings, we ought to recover our mutual subjectivity; subjectivity made present in turning to and encountering others. Hence, the word - for it to be genuine - remains invariably exposed to the risk of falsehood. The word makes claim to purity, however, remains most hazardous to humanity. And when we approach others with persistent cynicism, falsehood reigns. But in turning to others in a spirit of trust, we understand and work towards the genuine word - spoken between I and Thou.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)