The driving force of human progress has been the desire to know our world since the birth of humankind itself. Languages developed through the desire to name and categorize the things we have found ourselves surrounded with throughout all of history, and our knowledge of the world is built on the language we use to describe it. Once one can call a thing by a name, one can know that thing and remember it; and communicate its existence to others. Because of this, our languages have evolved in a fundamentally objective direction. Their most basic use is the identifying of objects in order to change the chaotic sensations that we experience into concrete things that can be examined and manipulated.
Buber uses a description of the development of a child’s worldview to examine a similar phenomenon. He says that first a child must reach out for a connection with another being before he can know it as a thing. The language of things comes just after. First one recognizes other humans as separate from the background of sensation. Our mothers nurse us when we cry and touch us when we reach for them. In this way, we develop an understanding for them as a separate, responsive aspect of reality. Only then can we begin to discern other things and to recognize them as distinct and separate objects as well, instead of one ‘backdrop’ of experience. Then, as we continue to interact with other beings, eventually we reach a point at which we feel the need to refer to something outside of our self (and so transform it into an ‘It’) and the use of language is born.
Language in this way, combined with memory, begets knowledge; and so our knowledge has its roots embedded fore-mostly in the world of objects. We know our world as material systems that break down in to smaller systems (and combine into larger ones). The realm of science was born out of the desire to reduce all systems to fundamental ‘things’ and so to truly understand what exactly is the basic object that composes reality. In order to do this, the method of science attempts to create a position outside of the system under inquiry by adopting the standpoint of an ‘objective observer.’ Unfortunately, this position assumes that systems remain closed and that one can avoid affecting the system in question while examining it, which is never the case. As long as one observes a real thing, that is, something in the present; one cannot help but to become part of that which is being observed and vice versa. Then, the real knowing of that thing can only come later when one has a chance to name and categorize it; once the actual thing is gone into the past. At this point, all that is left for us to name is the part which we took as part of our self; the memory of the thing. Because of this, what we take for objective knowledge remains purely a subjective translation of what had been experienced that remains irreversibly changed by individual perspective. Buber explains that we learn of our self by identifying what we are not, but Albert Camus goes further by saying, “Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to the human, stamping it with his seal” meaning just this; we learn of the state of selfhood only through what we are as discrete selves.
It is possible to develop a solipsistic outlook from this line of reasoning, which can be dangerous. I don’t mean to suggest that reality is created by the individual. What I mean to say is that no truth is universal, the past is constructed solely of personal truths, and the present remains true only for those involved in the relation or context in question. One can go through life believing that his experiences are merely constructs of his own psyche but it is much easier to identify with and thus gain an understanding of others’ whole selves through relations with them as real and individual beings.
Indeed, it is only through engaging oneself with the present that one can experience what is real and by doing so become truly human. This is what Buber refers to when he speaks of actualization. We can only talk of the past as having existed and the future as something that will or may exist. The present is all that exists and as a part of a system instead of an outside observer, we exist with it only in the eternal now. Real existence boils down to an infinite action.
It is in this way that Kozinski offers us one possible way to successfully approach certain aspects of life through Chance the Gardener. Chance cultivates a certain honesty regarding that-which-is with himself and this is evident in his lack of understanding of others need for proof, those that have lived in a world filled with falsehoods. In the film version of Being There, Benjamin Rand alludes to this quality among a list of evidence as to why he believes he has lead a good life by saying, “I have remained honest to myself.”
It is by not submitting oneself absolutely to the authority of popular opinion that James refers to but by reserving the notion of Truth for that which one experiences on a personal level that helps us to avoid error and allows us to develop a more concrete conceptualization of what is and has been.
Unfortunately, Chance seems only meant to portray one aspect of humanity and is not himself a whole being. He lacks the ability to go a step further and apply this outlook to what might be or what could be. One must accept the opinions of others to some extent in order to reach a consensus about what has been, and therefore be able to apply that opinion to the task of predicting what may come next. This still remains helpful as long as the willingness to continually change and update the consensus based on new information or opinions is kept in mind. The honesty of Being There applies mostly to differentiating between those options that James labels as living and dead for a fully realized human being. In order to decide what one must do with the options for the future, he must first define what those options are.
In reality, our grasp on what is to come lies forever only in what is not possible. All that we can know for certain is that which is now. Through this knowledge, we can gain a certain perspective on what has been, but for the future; all this allows us is the knowledge of which options are dead and this knowledge is even still dependant on the level of accuracy of our information and our ability to truly bracket away that which we are unsure of. We can never be certain if a thing is truly possible based on the information we have in the present. This is why both hope and fear are really two aspects of the same thing. They are both reactions to what we expect in the future which is ultimately unknown. Hope is faith in a positive future, and fear in a negative one; but both are equally perilous. They both assume conditions beyond our control in the non-existent or yet to be. What they both ignore is the self as an active agent in the creation of the future through actualization in the present and response to the past. Hope and fear are both ways in which one allows the outside world to narrow his list of living and possible future choices as they approach the present.
The underground man is the embodiment of this dilemma. He succumbs to both hope and fear and in so doing relinquishes all choices he might make and wallows in inaction. He rejects the notions epitomized by the crystal palace of strict causality and yet still allows them to rob him of his will. He becomes an outside observer to his own life, watching as determinism sweeps him through what he sees as the inevitability of existence. Because of this, he never truly lives, but merely exists.
The act of living fully, consists of realizing that the future remains to be created and choosing among the real and living possibilities the most desirable or advantageous options in order to create the best possible future for oneself. One may forget both what he fears might be and what he hopes will be, and instead concentrate on what actually can be. Siddhartha shows us the truth of this through his profound realization. Despite his deep understanding of himself and the world around him, he still relinquishes his will to the forces of hope and fear; sometimes willfully. He purposely seeks to abandon the self completely but only manages at first to relinquish the self as an active agent. He still sees his life as an individual being, distinct from reality as a whole and only really gives up his desire to act towards becoming who he truly is. Because of this, he still allows hope and fear to enter his awareness. He hopes to reach enlightenment but fears that he will not reach it on the paths that he is following, all the while only aimlessly following the paths instead of actively choosing his route. He has moments of lucidity in which he realizes the path he is on does not go where he wishes and so he turns aside, but once on this new path, he cannot shake his detached demeanor. He detaches himself in action but not in desire and so becomes in some ways like the underground man. If instead he were to detach himself from desire and engage himself in actively becoming, he would realize that enlightenment is his for the taking, which he eventually does. In the end he finally understands that no one path is necessarily the ‘right’ one in order to become himself, but that the choices he makes and how he makes them ultimately create the path to true selfhood.
But what does it mean to be a true self, and a fully realized human being? It is easiest to understand what we are by examining what created us. A child’s first interactions are with humans simply because it is from humanity that they have emerged. A tree will not nurture you, it will not respond to your cries when you are hungry and it will not flinch when you reach for it. In the same way, a child not raised by human hands will also not believe itself to be human. Feral children who have developed in the wild do not behave as though they are human beings at all and are perceived more like the animals of the forest. It is known that if a physically human child develops without human contact, eventually they loose the capacity for understanding in the sense that the rest of us take for granted, that is; human understanding.
So it is obvious that to be human is not merely a question of physiology and form. There must also be some aspect of us that transcends the physical world and lies in the ideas that surround us. We develop human ideas by submersing ourselves in human culture, and in return, that culture develops ideas about us through connections with individuals. The ideas about an individual are no less important in their formation as a whole being. Really, once a person dies (especially if they are cremated) the ideas about them are all that is really left of them in existence.
The idea of free will is also deeply connected to our concept of humanity. If one believes them self to be a mere cog in a deterministic machine set in motion by causality in the distant past, it is hard to see oneself in a very human sense beyond the physical form that has evolved due to strict laws of natural selection. A human being is a purposeful animal. This purpose should not be confused with destiny however, which in my mind is more fitting for the mindless cog, predetermined to behave as it does. A human’s purpose is a self imposed destination; created in part by potential and in part by the desire to fulfill that potential. Through a person’s life, who one truly is grows towards who one ultimately could become. The potential of a person remains unknown to them, and in most cases it is never reached, but it is in them from birth until death. This is the transcendent nature of the meaning of a man’s life. What he actually is when he dies is the immanent truth of humanity. Without actually knowing “what could have been,” a person knows when they are close to death (and even before) whether they lived close to their potential or whether they fell short due to a lack of direction and participation as an active agent in their own becoming.
If one has remained honest to oneself, and always been aware of what he truly believes; if one has decided the truth for himself based on those living options that show the most promise; if one has actively participated in his own life through relation with his present and the knowledge of what is being experienced, one can say that they are a human being. If one also immortalizes himself through the sharing of the ideas that compose his spirit with the rest of the world, and passes on his physical form through creation of life or of art; one can transcend the existence of an individual human and finally become a part of that which is humanity as a whole being. This, I believe, is the ultimate purpose of all that exists; to actively participate in the development of a greater system than oneself. To create a greater purpose and a greater potential than one can hope for on its own.
