Thinking About the Other (Person)
On November 14, 2006, I wrote in my journal:
The trace is othered when the trace places the solitude of the self in contact with the knowledge of the other. The other does violence to the solitude of the self in the sense that the other creates a break, a tear in the condition of solitude, the only experience of the trace. The tear disrupts the hegemony of the self by offering up a knowledge that there is something external to the trace which is otherwise a self-contained existent.
The notion that the trace is a remembrance isolated, belonging only to the self, that is capable of being torn from the self by the appearance of the other is an important way of thinking of the difference between the encapsulation of the self in isolation and the efference of the self experiencing the other as other.
I cannot share the trace I have constructed from this very moment with any other human being. My trace belongs exclusively to me. To share trace as a record of a lived-experience is quite impossible for two important reasons. First, because trace is something akin to embedded memory and because memory is an unreliable source for recalling a past event in a lived-experience, whatever I share can only be something of a partial exposure of that lived experience. Memory tends to disgorge that which is unpleasant, uncomfortable, or is damaging to one’s projected image. Time softens memory so that we forget that which was forgettable and enhance that which can be recalled safely. Secondly, even if one could share a trace as a true recording, the time it would take to retell would be equal to the time it took to record the trace in the first instance. Reliving a lifetime would take a lifetime to retell.
Once the other tears the hegemony of the self by making itself present to the self, once the self becomes aware of the other as a fully formed existent, the potential for shared experience is open and on the table. This does not, however, include the idea that a shared trace is possible. No, even when two or more people experience the very same event, when they witness something, their individual perspective will not accommodate a shared trace. The event will be viewed from different perceptual points, even when the witnesses are standing right next to one another. Next to is not the same as the position of the self. In addition, cultural and linguistic differences will cause each self watching an event to see the event through a lens of cultural and linguistic taken-for-granteds that, while appearing to the individual as perfectly normal, will appear to the other as unusual, different, out of touch.
The truth of being-in-the-world is that we are all self and we are all other! The distinction is that each self is uniquely different from every other and each other is uniquely different from each isolated self. This, then, leaves open two distinct possibilities: first, that the self reduce the other to the same, that the self create categories or cubby-holes to effectively isolate the other as a stereotype, of belonging to a particular class (e.g., teachers, union members, thieves, blacks, Jews, Mexicans, and so on) in which a conversation about, say, teachers begins with “all” as in all teachers are (fill in the blank). Secondly, one may choose to look at the other as unique and embrace the differences that each and every other encountered brings to the social encounter. Rather than lumping into a hegemonic category, this approach embraces the diversity each of us brings to the encounter allowing one to take away something positive rather than encapsulate one’s taken-for-granteds about any single group as an excuse for hate, rage and violence.
So what, if anything, does this have to do with the fact that this blog is about my surviving prostate cancer in this very moment? Simply this, I have cancer but I am not governed by the fact that I contracted this disease. Oh at times I am absolutely required to respond to something or other because of the disease but I am not ruled by nor do I identify myself as only a cancer patient. Quite the contrary. I am more than my disease. In fact, I am made of many facets, each of which are part of my lived-experience. Only one small part of that lived-experience has anything to do with my personal struggle with disease. So, yes, sometimes I ramble on about things that interest me because it provides an opportunity for me to present myself to the other in such a way as to embrace the Levinasian fundamental ethical obligation without reservation. As a self I announce my responsibility through any number of means and then I wait to hear the demand of the other.
- Being In The World (rogerpassman.wordpress.com)
- In Those Days . . . At This Time (rogerpassman.wordpress.com)
- Solitude: The Irreplaceable “I” (rogerpassman.wordpress.com)
- In Every Sorrow There Is Profit (rogerpassman.wordpress.com)
- Some Additional Thoughts about Text (rogerpassman.wordpress.com)
- The Evidence for Being is Being (rogerpassman.wordpress.com)
- Who is the Author of this Text (rogerpassman.wordpress.com)