YESTERDAY I discussed Nishitani's analysis of human interaction, something he contrasts with Martin Buber's "I-Thou," concluding that an encounter between two subjects who are governed by universal law restricts freedom by way of an enforced equality from without.
Like it. How does this form of thinking relate to actual relationships? I have a sense of the lack of individual separate identity. Victor and edtith turner describe this as communitas - typically reached in choral activities and rituals that include music and dance - see Edith's book Communitas for examples, but even marching in step can effect this sense. But I think Buber might have reached something near to what I understand Nitishani is saying - he also had the concept of the primal We, which possibly relates to what Merleau-Ponty says of the infant's approach to the world? Or the oceanic sense that Freud criticised as infantile identification I think?
It's always difficult to communicate or realise such concepts within the context of the everyday, but if one begins to realise that we are all part of the same substance - or bodies floating in consciousness - then it becomes possible to transform narcissism (or self-love) into a genuine love for others (who are not really others at all).
The idea of 'communitas' sounds very similar to this, especially if the Turners are comparing ritualised activity or collectivised dance movements with the behaviour one might find among shoals of fish and other examples of beings operating as a single, mass mind. Beyond this, of course, lies Nishitani's absolute non-differentiation.
As for Buber's primal We, I always find that to be more in line with the idea of participation mystique (M. Esther Harding's 'The I and the Not-I' is a great resource in that respect).
Like it. How does this form of thinking relate to actual relationships? I have a sense of the lack of individual separate identity. Victor and edtith turner describe this as communitas - typically reached in choral activities and rituals that include music and dance - see Edith's book Communitas for examples, but even marching in step can effect this sense. But I think Buber might have reached something near to what I understand Nitishani is saying - he also had the concept of the primal We, which possibly relates to what Merleau-Ponty says of the infant's approach to the world? Or the oceanic sense that Freud criticised as infantile identification I think?
It's always difficult to communicate or realise such concepts within the context of the everyday, but if one begins to realise that we are all part of the same substance - or bodies floating in consciousness - then it becomes possible to transform narcissism (or self-love) into a genuine love for others (who are not really others at all).
The idea of 'communitas' sounds very similar to this, especially if the Turners are comparing ritualised activity or collectivised dance movements with the behaviour one might find among shoals of fish and other examples of beings operating as a single, mass mind. Beyond this, of course, lies Nishitani's absolute non-differentiation.
As for Buber's primal We, I always find that to be more in line with the idea of participation mystique (M. Esther Harding's 'The I and the Not-I' is a great resource in that respect).
Thanks Troy. Does mystique here mean delusion or illusion?
My pleasure. Harding uses the term in a Jungian fashion and here are some opinions for and against:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_mystique
Thanks!