Big Words For A Little Man

By: Jonathan Seidel

Surface level conversations, DMCs and the preservation of privacy (Fromm, Being, 22-23)

Conversations revolve around the mundane. Rarely piercing the nexus of one’s true nature. The same questions receive the same answers. How was your week? Good. Awkward silence following for a brief moment until a similar question is asked. What have you been up to today? Not much just work. There isn’t much to go by and a sense of responsibility to interact without ever delving deeper. 

There are two sides to every conversation. Dialogue means two speakers as opposed to a monologue found in plays. The encounter between the two is lopsided. It is an attempt to make conversation without really feeling a need to. Whether it is seeing a friend passing by or calling a parent. To some degree the nature of the relationship is irrelevant. Even deep connections may only warrant a bland conversation depending on the situation. A parent and child may have meaningful conversations but those are regulated to the in-person situations. Calling over the phone is merely a way of checking in. Though it has no purpose other than hearing the voice on the other line affirming their existence. The lackadaisical dialogue is more from the demented intent than an inability. Given the connection, a parent and a child can have a moment but that is reserved for its allocated time. Ironically, the call meets its awkward stage because both sides know there is more to say. There is more feeling in the heart but it isn’t the time. The conversation is flushed out or ended abruptly to avoid emotional havoc. 

A similar situation is running into a friend on the way to work. Despite the obligation of arriving at work, the friend takes priority. A sense of urgency tells the employee to stop for a few seconds. The friend deserves a moment of your time. Strong responsibility surges through his veins. It wouldn’t be all that bad to ignore him or wave but a desire to speak overwhelms the employee. He stops and plays it off like he’s not in a rush. There is no destination waiting on him. The friend may be slightly annoyed if the employee brushed him off but letting him know he has to get to work wouldn’t bother him too greatly and yet the employee many a time stops nonetheless. This friend is in my path I must say something to him. This happens generally when the friend calls out to him. If the employee sees the friend from afar he keeps on his merry way but if the friend calls out to him, he feels the need to respond. The friend is acknowledging him, he must reciprocate. So he comes over and yip yaps for some time. Caught up in the conversation, he loses track of time before realising he abruptly apologises and runs off to work. 

The intended conversation is surface level. He may ask some penetrating questions about work and home life but it is just to get the simple things out of the way. There isn’t a deeper layer because there isn’t time for it. Yet a need to speak blandly sufficiently checks off the satisfied discussion list. The same goes for a parent. So the conversation wasn’t extensive or life changing but it was still a conversation. Due diligence of contacting a parent to display concern for them is enough. To an extent that is what people want. They do not care for the substance as long as they are being acknowledged. Children calling their parents showing they care and vice versa. While the friend situation acknowledges their friendship. In both cases one can afford especially in our day to call them back but there is an instinctive obligation to those we know. Walking through city traffic will not strike up a conversation with random pedestrians but running into someone special fills one with an urgency to say something. It is generally reactive. Doing it out of obligation when they make the first move. They’ve acknowledged me now I must be polite and do the same back. 

These surface level conversations mobilise in average discussions amongst guests. Growing up it was sports and girls. Now alcohol and work has been added to the mix. Many times gossip is the strengthening cause to heightening the desire to continue. Talking about who won the ballgame fades quickly but then moving onto players who bad poor performances debating their lack of skill with some teasing elongates a seemingly unimportant and useless conversation. This happens all the time. Gossip laced with conversations only makes them more interesting. It attacks the taboo nature of enjoyment. The desire to escalate to the private mannerisms of the category deepens interest. Though gossip is construed as negative it is the unconfirmed private talk that is the correct definition. There is a certain level of pondering the worst that gathers intrigued listeners. Yet malice need not be the downright conclusion of gossip. It is the juicy news, the potential possibilities that raise interest and social unity. A once bland item spiced up.

There is an urge to socialise. To attract others in an effort to be a part of something bigger. Sometimes that something bigger is just two friends but that still is more than the self. Finding completion in the addition of another. Feeling belonging and acknowledgement. This person likes me and wishes to spend their time with me. The content of events is irrelevant to the events happening. To being involved in the events. Even if the duo loses at the park or has a lacklustre lunch, the experience together is charming. Much of the conversation is bland. Yet the conversation is laced with joy of togetherness. There isn’t a need for a deeper discussion of the origin of the universe or other philosophical quandaries. Such questions involving identity and beliefs open up the heart to another. Yet hanging out together is itself an expression of opening oneself up. There is a power to silence. There is a power to blandness as long as the encounter is enjoyed. As long as their mutual desire to be together. Conversation doesn’t need to exist in forced activity but in periodic insulation.

Surface conversation can be seen as a way of avoiding certain topics. Prioritising extraverted nature to avoid harsher inquiries. Deflecting in order to have fun. In a sense ruling from a problem. Those who have experienced traumatic moments deflect to avoid discussing the hurtful past. In many instances this is done regularly. Not out of spite or fear but out of protection. The protection is more subconscious. Actions are more verifiable but they miss the deeper layer to a person. Playing in the park with someone is a game of enjoyment but there is no sit down dialogue. It is simply business. The same goes for office workers. There is a sense of order that rejects any deeper connection. Formalism is placed and injecting a privatised mode of conversation is off-putting. Privacy is held quite tightly by people. While certain topics are seen as off-limits, even regular questions receive simple answers. Walking into the office and asking how everyone is doing will get short bursts of similar responses. While the asker may not expect more, the replies do reflect a desire to keep the private discreet. Blab but be careful of what you blab. It could be embarrassing. What if it is ignored? What if people react negatively? Why bother informing when others aren’t necessarily interested.

Privacy is private because as much as people are curious they’d rather keep it mysterious. People would rather guess than know for sure. It is more enjoyable to speculate than know the truth. To know enough to entertain the possibility but to be ignorant enough to estimate the possibility. People generally do not want to hear sob stories. They don’t want to get mixed up in private affairs. Yet they will stir their gossiping. If an employee enters the office with a broken arm, many will say feel better, others may ask hoping she’ll just give a one word answer. If the employee says, I fell, good moving on but if the employee goes into a long winded story well that could spell annoyance for everyone. In the former both sides accept the surface level conditions. In the latter, the deeper region is exposed but it may not be acknowledged as highly. It is a risk to open the flood gates. There is a time and place to do so. This doesn’t mean that people do not gossip extensively. It is generally standard procedure in order to get through the interaction and carry on with the day. It depends on the relationship with the co-worker but the divulgence of personal experiences with others must be met with a trustful belonging.

Surface level discussions always begin the interaction. A polite way of introducing the encounter. It is a way to slowly move deeper. Most people will hesitate if you quickly begin asking them the origin of the universe or challenge them on their political leanings. To induce a deeper conversation, trust must be formed. A sense of belonging must be acknowledged. The experience must be mutual and understanding. It takes time. For some, it is a special place for certain people. Private information which generally is the ideological side not only secrets, is selective. To expose oneself is to be honest. Amongst friends is easier than strangers. Say you go on a date, the early awkwardness is mitigated by the breeze of fresh air or by playing to the classic twenty questions. Learning more about the simple things that being job, pets, siblings slowly translates to elaborating on those elements. Such as why did you choose that job, would you ever consider buying your own pet, is your relationship with your siblings amicable. Delving deeper whether by asking why or adding a second element to the question is entering private territory. One’s job, pets or siblings can be found on the internet but how one feels about these aspects is personal. A technique that uses bland questions to gradually find the person’s personal take on the issue. Once they open up personally, other personal questions can be unlocked.

There is a question game designed to develop a more intimate connection. As guessed, they begin bland and gradually become more personal. The intensity rises but the mellow shift of simple conversation veils the intrusive nature of these questions. The encounter is engulfed in this frenzy decreasing the bind around these private manners. The joyride of mutual expression alleviates much of the stress of opening up. Since both are doing it, there is a sense of comfort in the other’s willingness to dilute their own privacy. The goal is to get to know one another and is accomplished by selfless interaction. While dates have this point, it applies everywhere. In order to be comfortable opening up, others must demonstrate their own vulnerability. Since most people cover up their wounds others do the same. A broken arm can’t hide the wound but redirection is an effective tool of voiding the deeper layer. At times, it isn’t so much people do not wish to talk insofar as there is no reciprocation. Opening up requires mutuality. If only one side is vulnerable then why do it. Trust be deep in order for the deplorable to honestly say to others that which he desires to say. Everyone has that someone they go to when the going gets tough because that person has either shared their vulnerability with you or has shown their care and tenderness in the past.   

Society is a lost art of conversation. People level with the rare impactful stuff. Running around in circles about dubious ideas that affect no one. When emotions do breech they are contested. Ideologies place people at odds and cause strife. So tied to the emotional overhaul that the private is solely one’s own. Afraid to share their opinion and be crucified. Surface conversation hides this by compiling a general narrative that fills the void. An escape that everyone uses. A societal shield that allows belonging without division. A sneaky but ingenuous model of acknowledgement. Belonging to the dubious abstract instead of exclusion of opinion. Comfort is more with the impersonal aspects. Most pass other citizens in the street without knowing who they are. The world is bigger and concentration on family and work take us away from building connections. Many friends are those who gossip with. We discuss a third party to deflect from our own insecurities about ourselves. Only for a select few are our insecurities highlighted. We lament earnestly knowing the response will be well received. Whether praise or criticism, the other is honest and trustworthy. He can be DMCed with. Only those who have gained the faith level can be trusted with sensitive information. 

It isn’t that society is at a sad state in its evolution. While locals in the past or even in rural areas may have more knowledge of a situation, it doesn’t mean they are any more trusting with sensitive information. Sometimes more knowledge doesn’t mean deeper knowledge. Though the modern swing and isolation tendencies have concealed even more secrets. Things that weren’t so well known are in the air. Social media forums publicise these scandalous points to discredit. Sometimes it is a big hit and other times it is only reflective of societal concealment. Relatively exploitative to the magnitude societal revelation but considerably negligible to other areas of the world. Though the crux of private divulging is the spirit faith. In a Kierkegaardian sense, it a leap of faith. Yet the leap is mitigated given the consistent nature of reciprocation. If God saves at every turn then faith isn’t so incredible, if anything it would be devilish to not believe. Human trust may begin with a step of hope but it is backed by recognisable mutuality. A desire for unified expression. 

Interlocking Machinery

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

A system of objects: belonging before being and undignified existence

The other is projected as a substance of objectification. The other is manifested in complete peculiarity. Stunned and confused by the other's rampant differences. Even the simplicity of a parent is an other. One need not utilize a mirror to recognize difference. The fact that you are not me is intuitively a division from oneself. I cannot understand your prerogative nor control your actions. The realization baffles but routinely comforts the soul. Otherness is a starstruck moment but one that is easily overcome in the futility of youth. Before the other can even be comprehended the self desires the other. Instinctively, rejecting the grasp of another until comforted. The other needs but a moment of engagement to be accepted by the infant. Serenity shrouds the emotional distress. Otherness is an embrace of concern. 

Infants are less capable of defining otherness. Selfish in their desire to be cared for. Their attention seeking mania can be upheld by anyone. Comfort is normalized in the routine of the cared other. The awakened infant may intuitively deny a cousin holding her given this irregular feeling. The instinctive rejection is not malicious but a stranger danger reaction. A fight or flight syndrome. Her way of fighting is calling for help. A mini damsel in distress. Yet if the cousin routinely soothes her or a consistent babysitter will slowly become accustomed to this change. Otherness is recognized by a sense shift. Appearance is younger, voice is higher, weight is lighter. It is these changes that alarm the infant. Even if she cannot explain verbally why, there is a cognitive swift response. Bells ring and the infant yelps for help. The cousin of babysitter must explain who she is and her role. Demonstrating via comforting action that she is not a threat but a caregiver. 

As the brain develops so does the child’s understanding of otherness. A child lost in the mall will cry for her mother. Scared and alone, she does not know what to do instead of express her fear in tears. The tears alarm those around her and enable bystanders to come to her aid. Children are gullible. The lost child will resist the stranger’s approach. Yet his calming words will embrace her sorrow. Asking her where her mommy is and assisting her in returning is a steady step in the correct direction. The rational brain has developed overpowering the instinctive skepticism. He is not my mommy but he is promising to return me to her. Understanding his intent and scared pushes her to make a desperate act. The stranger is no longer someone passing by but a helper. He will personify himself to assist her. He is no longer an object but a subject. Someone who has unveiled the otherness stonewalling any prior connection. Once she returns to her mother so caught up in her fear she hugs her mother and forgets to thank the man. The man returns to an object finished with his task.

Children are self-centered. Everything revolves around them. Otherness is a pact against them. The story of life is theirs. A Truman Show type mentality. Whereby the protagonist of this world is the child’s journey with actors aiding in her development. The troubling event traumatizes but aids in the child’s development. The individual is honored to assist the lonely child. Yet her mission ends with the conclusion of the play. The daughter is returned to her mother and they live happily ever after. Life is just a sequence of continuous storylines. The man’s objectification is the child’s lack of interaction. The child knows by routine engagement. She may forget his name upon leaving the mall. Her memory is not engraving this event nor her helper at the forefront of her mind. It is not consciously selfish but subconsciously irrelevant to her plot. 

Even in youth, there is little that resembles otherness beyond action. Children in the park care quite little for appearance. Children are simple. Playing in park with different races or genders is normal. As long as the other accepts your entertainment. Sharing passions for children is the highlight of friendship. It has much to do with getting one another. Living close and playing often emboldens that situation but long term friendships are those that mark significant energy on the child’s part. Friends from the park are park friends. There is little engagement beyond this. This does happen in adulthood as well. People do have their ball or bar friends. Yet in youth there is less categorization. The other is quickly embraced as someone like-minded. Children who do not enjoy your passions will be ignored or cast aside. Sometimes even bullied for their difference. Many of these friends are conditioned by the event encountered. The child enjoys his friend on the playground but if far away or different communities that little engagement leads nowhere as the child grows up. Consistency is necessary beyond the playground especially when fun at the playground is outdated.

Teenagers incorporate complexity into their deduction. The other again does not fit into mold of the teenager’s identity. The more recognition of the self imbued, the more projected. If one is more religious then those who are not may be considered outsiders. At times teenagers are less interested in individualistic passions and more group values. “Classist” models become well apparent and a hierarchy of popularity is acquainted. Where these values emerge from is irrelevant, the niche is the interests placed to fit in. What is cool and not cool becomes a desire to be accepted. From infants to teenagers, each wish to receive attention. Wishing it from people one’s own age. Family has suffocated attention, it is time to spread out. Aware of this notion, this competition and aura. Its the non-athletic teenagers eventually from their own group to share that comforting spirit of belonging. The soloist is not a bully mongering scheme but a friendless weirdo association. A stigma for attention seeking popularity and a personal urge to be liked combines for fitting in. Whatever group that may be. 

Otherness slowly gentrifies in the remoteness of an individual. A transfer student may excel or fail in a new school. The awkward nature of the new kid inquires of his place in the school. Categorization has been destined and completed. Even if this may be freshman year, it is the superficial nature of the other. Teenagers are in between childhood and adulthood. Seeking independence from their parents but yet not independent enough to be alone. The solution is a middle-ground of friend group independence. Higher awareness of otherness whether that be appearance or speech meets its match in befriending others. It is easier to befriend a single person but the group requires not only quantitive acceptance but also qualitative acceptance to vibe with the group. In a group, fitting in means altering projection to comply. It is a shrewd representation of the self. The self is subjected and yet an object to those outside the group who recognize the apparent hypocrisy. 

The new kid fears to make the first move. He is the reflected object. Friendless and alone with little knowledge. His mystique may arouse interest or isolate him. Yet his confidence verbally or actionably tests his worth. To which group will he fall to. What is his fate. An athlete may aid his stock but also may hurt him. If he is good for the team without hurting someone else’s spot will congratulate him but if he is messing with an established vision that may tease his burden. Yet consistency with players on the team will unveil his distance. Hanging out more than just during practice will bring him closer to the group. Friendship will grow the more revealed in time. There are many variables. His success may invite condemnation. If the new kid steals one of his teammate’s girl that may spell disaster. Every move is observed. Hawk eyes judging each step if he is fit for their crew. Walking on thin ice even if he aligns completely with the crowd. 

Staying with the new kid example. If he is a foreign exchange student. An immigrant with little knowledge of the layout. Barely speaks the language misunderstands the culture and thus left alone. Athletic capability will help his stock and finding those passionate. Basketball is its own form of communication. There is a poetic license to masterful play. He is objectified as the weird new kid until that barrier is breached by a niche level of communication. The otherness is cleansed in the compatibility with the subjects. He is no longer some random individual but a part of the basketball group. Finding a crew is necessary for his being to be pronounced. His barrier is his belonging. The foreign kid is a testament to his outsider agenda. He alone unless he can overcome.

A crush follows the same formula but instead of the group dynamic it is a sole individual. Though there are group variables in peer pressure but I digress. The crush is an object of imagination. Emotional feelings pair up minutely against the logical meshing of personality. This is certainly the case, pondering of any friendship with another but even more so when feelings for the other usurp logic. Fantasies may emerge but cannot do justice to the realistic portrayal. Asking a crush out is a personal unveiling with a simultaneous transformation. No longer is she an object of indirect thinking but a threaded message. When she says yes and the relationship begins the awkwardness of infatuation struggles to voice conversation. Frequent conversation reduces the distance to embracing otherness as a reflection of the self.

There is a melting pot theme that is muddled by a priori propaganda. Surface differences whether in appearance voice or smell. These differences may halt advancement. Peculiarity has immediate shock effect not long term distance. Only as the mind advances does clarity of cultural discrepancies divide. The mature mind weighs differences and backs accustomed outlook. Propaganda becomes enmeshed in the circuit of representation. It is the group polarity that constitutes membership. Membership excludes the outsider. Individuals can push past differences but groups entitle themselves away from others. Stronger group identity may turn former subjects into objects. Whether that be a former friend entering a group or outside the group. The dynamic changes perception of the other. 

Though at times, the objectification has little to do with preconceived notions and more with pure ignorance. An old friend may transition to an object. Thinking about their life after moving away is not in the dignified conversation. It is necessarily wrong but a recognition of change. People change and an old buddy may be a stranger to you. He is an object gazing at his shift and alterations. What may be is not what is conceived in the mind. The other is a stranger to the self. Confidence aids in unveiling that masked objectification but it does not cancel it out. The experience following the initial shock encounter subjects them to personalization. Otherness is no more. It is breached with brazen action. Deductions are concocted lacking real data. Internal argumentation with little value beyond the alienated intent. 

Wanderers are small outliers. Most people find a relative camaraderie to belong somewhere. Their essence wound up with their connections. People walk in groups compromising their individuality for the whole. Existence is weary in its fundamental relation to itself. Human variance consults value alignment. There is a desire to connecting with others. Yet the other changes over time. The youthful liberal becomes an aging conservative. Children find their group niches and stick to the plural mindset as they develop. While friends may change the community exclusivity is an inevitable part of progression. Otherness is erased quite quickly in youth but in adulthood is carefully monitored. The mature mind surrounds with like-mindedness. Stubbornness sinks in and little advancement is done to alter the echo chamber. Objects remain on the periphery uninvolved and disengaged. 

Ew Otherness

By: Jonathan Seidel

Otherness as a symptom of chaotic disorder

Humans have a history of hunting one another. Unable to deal with the grave difference emerging from varying opinions. While the human nature argument is usually defined in this sense as ethnocentric certainty, it also possible there is more a tangible merit than an abstract generalisation. Control is manipulated for order more than superiority complexes.

Routine brings comfort. Consistency habituates the self to the accumulated norm. The routine offers orderly fashion and the correct method of expression. Falling in line under the code of social acceptance. The master ethic acknowledges the hierarchical system. In order to maintain tranquility, uniformity is required. No room for otherness. That which does not appeal to the accepted norm misfires as a threat to the sacred peace. Hierarchy establishes a top-down refined matrix. Bottlenecking the public into a monolithic outlook that is necessary to thrive. This top-down organismic construction is not necessarily an oppressive intent but an ideological preservation. Those may go hand in hand but the order is sought for all the people even at the bottom half. Fearful tactics are promoted to ensure this and passive routine culminates in the sheep aimlessly wandering after the shepherd. 

While the hierarchy generates inequality it is to maintain social stature and control. The selfish ideological push creates an in-group and an out-group. An out-group is a priorly invested group with unaligned beliefs. Much at peace with their status, their difference is marked as dangerous. A threat to the order. Their difference may spark questioning and rebellion. They must be ousted to preserve the current order. Hierarchical establishments through ideological or practical means seek to ensure control that becomes routine. In time, the unilateral inequality is seen as normal. The questioners, the ponderers are rebels. Seeking to do away with the peace of the system. Order must be maintained without others present demystifying the classical system.

Control is manifested from top till bottom. The ability to retain a systematic operation must be honed by participation. Groups must accept their place in the pecking order. They must position themselves in the organic layout under representation. Yet the system can only operate smoothly if all are in line. There are no exceptions to their organismic framework. Openly masquerading against the grain is an offence to the hierarchical peace. The master ethic is exposed to insurgents. These insurgents are violently urging the disavowal of the system. The state must take charge to eradicate this poison before it affects anyone else. The poison is an ideological difference manifesting in a divergent reaction. This is a weak effort to poke the bear. Yet, with enough exposure will topple the mighty beast. These individuals hold to these beliefs ever so tightly. They cannot be swayed and their exile is imminent. Their cancerous influence is voided by the state’s security policy. 

Objects are identified as manageable ticketed. Objects can be controlled in their right. While they may emerge from varied areas of the world. This otherness is minute to the sentient spatiality. Inventions even diseases can be conquered and mixed to personal ability. The lack of mindfulness of the object magnifies the capability to consume as much object otherness in the world. Playing with these forces as they cannot wilfully object to experimentation or sale. They are the possession of the the owner. Their lack of intelligence and discord forcibly undercut their difference. It is obvious to us but remains a controlled substance. An early reluctance to the newfound substance is quickly conquered when its maximum capability is realised and amassed. 

Concerning sentient beings whether animals or children, there is resistance but domestication is a motor of control. The otherness of habitation is bringing animals or raising children in a privatised environment. A hierarchical society whereby the continued living of these organisms is dependent on their allegiance. Dogs who act out are put down and children who shout back at their parents are put in timeout. In the home, there is a hierarchy where the parent demands action from the child or the pet and they must oblige. The intimacy created from extensive  experiences unravels with a mistake. The house rules are obligatory. A child who breaks curfew will be punished and forgiven in the long run. As an extension of the parents there is an empathy passing on but not the same for students and teachers. The hierarchy does not contain the natural biological intimacy. Empathy is neither built nor a given. More time is spent apart so a few wrong moves and patience is gone with a suspension looming for the distraught student. 

Wrestling with considerable care is consequently avoiding competent callousness. Those differing will become bugs in the overall array of disgruntling youths aiming to undermine the hierarchical mastery. The impending danger arising from the conflicting visions impairs the looking glass. Sheer clarity is muddled with grease and stains. No longer the shiny cup. Cleansing the grease is the sole way to reuse the glass in its finest aura. The cleaner grabs the glass with his hands and with a soapy sponge pecks away at the grease erasing it from existence. The grease is unable to evade the cleansing and disappears. There is little resistance. Absolute control and force applied with zero reluctance. Though people cannot be silenced so easily. Those making a ruckus must be exiled to maintain the social peace. Their voices must be drowned out. Yet shutting them up is easier said than done. Removing them from the spatial equation removes the threat from exposing the issue and the hierarchy retains its hold.

Even passivity calls into question. The voice is not necessarily a verbal assault but an external supplication. Crossdressing is a fashion choice but a public statement nonetheless. Demonstrating the crude appearance exposes the public to a rude awakening. Words are not the sole violent attack on the public forum. A presentation halts its unique enterprise. Actions are varied whether by clothing, marching or striking. Retorts come in all shapes and sizes. Yet it is less the direct assault and more the insidious indirect action that stirs the most mischievous conflict. Acting differently to the norm is an unintentional unharmed expression. Yet it marks the master ethic with abuse. Contrary to the hierarchical institutionalism is an affront to the orderly framework. It is a matter of great hostility by the perceiver. Outlandish actions can be mimicked and lead to disarray. Children can be influenced into such futile behaviour. An ingenious though insidious proposal. 

Unable to control such persons, their actions deemed unwarranted and corruptible are removed from the equation. Seen as a threat they are induced to another region. Extermination by means of exile or death. They cannot be controlled nor monitored sufficiently. Permitting their private correspondence may leak into the public circle. Catching a whiff of this stretch may cause the poison to spread and create newly embodied zombies. The extermination squad is called to remove this skank. The state takes responsibility to ensure the protection its citizens. Pests cannot be reasoned with. Their beliefs are central to their identity. This identity is foreign to the foretold framework. Placing the citizenry in a frenzy of apocalyptic level destruction. A rallying cry against the satanic invasion of lustful insurgency. An uncontrollable substance passing through the air with intangible cessation. 

Disconcerting uncontrollable aspects are fearfully eerie. Incapable of meshing with the monistic framework constructed extinguishment becomes a necessary evil. The foreigner cannot be compelled beyond reasonable doubt. Various tactics have attempted to subdue otherness. Enslavement, exile and extermination are the most effective. Yet each had their flaws. Enslavement marks the other as inferior to control their difference as futile. Yet long term can backfire either through a revolt, sympathy or mere influence. Exile rids the issue but their absence does not mean their influence is gone. Tales of their heroics or returning as traders empowers their status. Extermination seemingly is the chief of eliminating entirely. There is no return from death nor real sympathy after death. Yet the hastening of said extreme measure raises self doubt and internal revolt. Rebels emerge from within the system. While slavery and exile are moral ills, genocide his different. Ridding an other must be highly specific strategised and cunningly executed. 

An otherness plague may compel national self interest but the other rallies itself so long as it internally exposes its will. The other martyred continuity is criminally inspirational. While the state wishes to quash disorder, overreaction can lead to pushback. The state acting for the people’s interest may not be interpreted along the same lines. The inability to control otherness sparks mayhem, its ferocious reaction undermines its goal. Unsung heroes emerge from the shadows. Providing safe haven for the other. The excess is too much to bear and they act against the order as well. Cracking the battered walls. The hierarchical order itself is no longer impenetrable. Unable to control its own citizenry otherness prevails even in death. Defiance and guilt overwhelm the system’s credibility.         

Noble as it may to maintain a specific aura, it does not hold up in the longing fortitude. Control is a measuring ideal. Desiring singularity is a hope not a reality. Otherness will march forth and repulsion will erupt. An incidental yet intentional correspondence. A method of deep entrenchment. Otherness is inevitable, response is not uniform. Phobia will exhibit chaotic overtones. Disallowing any further variance.  

Destined Others

By: Jonathan Seidel

Zizek critique of the Levinasian ethic: enduring inhuman otherness/no facial otherness

Levinas’ ethical push post-WWII caught on in the French continental project. Ethical stabilisation was a necessary asset to purging any future holocaust. While Levinas’ ideas are monumental and revolutionary, Zizek finds them to be incomplete. 

Levinas’ ethics as first philosophy topples Heidegger’s being as first philosophy. Placing the other before the self is a method of dignifying the other before the self. Before I know myself I know you and then through knowing you I know myself. While the theoretical basis is compelling, realistically it runs into a few problems. In his face to face ideal, there is a connective maturity in recognising the other as a human beyond the cultural tides. Ridding the stereotypical mischief clouding one’s judgement. Peeling back the humanity over the difference separating the particularity between the dual encounter. It is the automatic signification that precedes any malice.

Sympathising with Levinas’ attempt is critical for adolescents. It is the hyper racial and normative discrimination that belies any proper continuation beyond youth. I personally recall playing in the park by Shop Rite in Englewood with a black kid who was a year or so older than me though I was taller than him. It did not even occur to me who he was or what he looked like. He was fun to play with. Years later, I broke my foot on the last day of school, an hour before Shabbat. That summer I was unable to attend sleep away camp and went to “summer school”. I made friends who were unlike me. While I was happy to befriend them I was aware of my difference. My own ability to befriend non-Jews is parentally educational and personally enjoyable as an extroverted outgoing individual. Not staying in touch with either kid is of little concern as I was young and we were heading in different directions. It had nothing to do with my feelings towards them and more to do with our divergent lives. 

While there is something to be said of the situational event. I was only friends with these kids in either the playground or at camp. Once I left in the evening, there was little connection or concern to do so. We were circumstantial friends. This was not a conscious attempt to salvage loneliness but because our busy lives and environmental factors distanced us. Varying priorities isolated us. If I saw them again I would be happy to speak to them. The event itself was a meeting place to display our friendship. This is unlike a Romeo and Juliet love affair meeting in secret as not to sound any alarm bells. This was not a sacrilege but simply an enjoyable moment. Yet it does say something about the congregation of diversity. I even recall my mother speaking casually with the playground friend's mother. I have never asked if she remembers, while she may say the women was a sweet lady, it does not take away from our different lifestyles. Particularities do officially divide people though without malice. 

It is crucial to note that in my adolescence, I was unaware of the difference. By the time I reached that summer I was cognisant of differences I personally did not care that I was Jewish and did not attempt to hide my religiosity. My own diversion into special needs was a similar step in questionably unforeseen circles. In a humble moment, my personality is openly exposed to otherness. Others are not. There may be shy individuals, though this occurs in adolescence, it isn’t usually because of cultural differences. The youth are energetic and cease to see otherness. They see friendship. Calling an older sister evil while hugging his black friend on the playground. Children do not recognise the multitude of difference. Yet the difference is heightened by our own social slogans. While inevitably consciousness will recognise the racial and religious variance it does not need to quell the friendship. I owe a lot to my parents who fervently taught to treat all with respect. 

Levinasian ethics for me sounds perfect but my educational upbringing imprinted this ideal. For adults to be taught this motif is not easy, grounded in their stereotypical makeup. Levinas’ goal operates in the theoretical. If I see the other I should reflect my identity through theirs. The ontological primary cannot hold up to the pragmatic faculty. While Levinasian ethics does produce an exalted result following the encounter. The recognition of the other before making any other deductions. When the stereotypical inquiries come to mind denounce them. There is a sacred moment that is quickly come and gone tarnished by the fast pass routine. A radical mental shift is necessary. Heidegger’s being as first philosophy extends all the way back to Aristotle. Levinas is searching for an entirely new modality in ethics as first philosophy. A psychological attack on the ontological stake. The ontological is still theoretical and thus indefensibly counteracting. 

Ethics as first philosophy is the ultimate goal. Yet it comes at a radical revolution in history. Levinas’ theory is one that must be educated and habituated. One usurping western philosophy. Altering the core of the western canon is a fireable offence in the philosophical world. There is not enough influence to change the perspective. For now, the solution is to mess with the mechanics. The runaway train will advance but a lever must be pulled to shift the train to a different track. On a different track with a different destiny. While the runaway train is on course for its cyclical attitude, there is human engagement to make minimal changes that may have an incredible effect. The parental guide either will teach to love or to hate the stranger. Some parents may not let their children engage with foreigners. Without exposure the values never arise. The youngster mentality is heavily influenced by their surrounding experiences. If not now then when?

This is where university comes in. For me it was the armed forces. In my situation I was forced to coexist and befriend. We needed one another to accomplish the trials and tribulations. Put our fate in each other’s hands. While we never spoke of politics, such points were irrelevant. The ability to advance and build meaning seeking relationships that transcend the stereotypical makeup given the dire circumstances. While the racial-ethnic barrier can be surpassed, can the political side? This point rings true in universities as well. Exposed to diverse ethnicities produces friendships in the same game. A classmate of varying origin is another student. One who can be approached. Their skin colour or cultural garb may be intimidating from the unknown but not out of malice. This can be overcome in routine procedure. Even beyond the autonomous move, placed in class with such individuals can be heteronomously imposed to garner connection. 

Ethnicity can be veiled to some extent but it is usually shines in its own right. Nor should one feel the need to hide it out of fear of vicious attack. Many Jews do not cover their heads in public in fear of backlash. While racial aspects cannot be hidden, it is clear that these aspects can surely be triggered and overcome. These are not topics of conversation but of perception. Racism is prudently manifested. My mother once argued that Americans need a national service since university is not the cultural hub it used to be. The collegiate dialogical adventure has become a breeding ground for monistic echo chambers. Yet despite the young moralists already at the peak of social justice and racial equality, they are not always at the head of ethnic defence. Still their hyper moralised mentality is a product for futuristic hope. Assimilation amidst maturity fools the prevailing ethnic monism. 

Stereotypes only exist insofar as they remain in the abstract. They exist in the sphere of speculation and accusations. The little evidence nor factual support is the devilish kind of insecure testimony. The ideas can only be quashed with conversation. Stereotypes are not reoccurring issues but embellished narratives. Generalisations are concocted to despair the potential acquaintance. See a news story ferment it into an epidemic. This attitude precedes the conversation. Facial recognition alarms the brain to advance quickly. Alarm bells racing to reach a sanctuary. Humanity is found in dialogue. Conversation pronounces the similarities that compel identification. Avoiding engagement will only permit more isolating negativity. It is the impassioned disassociation prompting its perpetuity.   

Conversation may quell the ethnic divide. Realising the humanity in one another. The meta-narrativising is brought to a halt in the exclusive encounter. All those prior conceptions become misconceptions. Conversation thought may reach the humanity of the other yet breaching the ethnic gap still remains in the sphere of the philosophical. Where people stand on issues can not be breached to the humane capsule. Ideology mixed with ethnicity forges stalemate dialogue. The hot button issues unable to communicate efficiently becomes a stereotypical assailant. The political sphere is corrupted of conversation. The engaged encounter between two racially congruent individuals. Yet when the political banter raises eyebrows on the divergent opinions the smile fades into a scowl. The expectation shattered in the ideological foot.

Precautionary divestment is a sincerely tracked attempt. Wishing to live in a sacred echo chamber. Protected from otherness. Wishing to live alongside friends. Only the deepened friendship can surpass the betrayal of political adversary. Convoluted narratives conjoin the friend with other problematic factors. He is one of them. Yet they’re humanity, love for golf and charismatic personality is worthwhile to keep around. It becomes a semi-pragmatic endeavour. The ontological perception is still how bring the greatest conformity to the self. To be living right with those alike. Seeming disagreements need not end the friendship as long as there is a desire to maintain it. It is a dual desire. Unfortunately, the political adversary loses much of his humanity if the foundation is loose. Stereotypical attitudes against otherness conveys its harsh polemic directly. Beliefs are central to value systems.

Otherness is the unknown and scary. A guest at a party out of town. Visions of the night’s events send shivers down the spine. Anxiety corrals preventing ease and potential advancement. Confidence sheds the fearful armour. Stereotypes arise to encounter and those after encounter. Otherness is thus the discomforting public sphere. Walking in and chatting people up lessens the unknown to recognisable. At times it takes a leap of faith beyond conventional wisdom. A deep breath and a step forward. They collapse with each advance. Chatting up someone feeling a spark but the difference of opinion becomes a swift turn off. Instead of walking away, take pride in the ability to possess opposing opinions. Finding a compromise on the issue. Opinions are convictions while some may be dubious or outlandish, they are strongly held beliefs. Making a good impression is resolving the tension between both opinions. Respectfully disagreeing and proposing the felt position. It is not about discarding theirs but respecting it with a principled challenge. 

Politics polarises people. It is not simply a  governmental approach but a valuational merit. Humanity can be dignified in the conversational discussion. Bordering on unsolicited radioactive inquiries. Reaching dire territory will raise emotional levels. The dialogical humanity regresses into inhumanity. The switch is flipped to antagonising deceit. The blazing attempt to be friends has fondled into madness. From encouraging gestures to finger pointing. Passing the first test of confronting the other can abruptly falter in a matter of minutes. A wrong word, misconstrued position is all it takes. Our beliefs are canonised in the halos of a metaphysical order incapable of mistranslation. Perfect at every angle and avenue. Any attempt to purge that perfection is a violent attack. Quickly cutting ties deserting to preserve its sanctity. While these conversations hit the heart of an individual’s being it is voided to save face. Salvation comes in open disagreement without offence. Contending the possibility of another’s legitimacy.