%20(2)%20(2)%20(2).jpeg)
Questions are raised here that need to be taken seriously. Some people seem to want to set aside the (superficial but genuine) aspiration for universal human fraternity that the West took for granted 60 years ago. We see this among “religious fundamentalists” (i.e. ideologues and terrorist factions), extreme nationalists, and factionalists of all kinds, but also in the brave new worlds of “transhumanists” and tech billionaires with strange ideas. The notions that only elite and competent human individuals deserve to survive a global catastrophe, or that the human community is a “herd” that requires “thinning out,” are gaining traction among people across the political spectrum.
In light of these concerns and my own desire to uphold universal human fraternity—which I know to be founded in our creation in the image of God and our common destiny in Jesus Christ—I conveyed my own reflections with the desire to facilitate further consideration and dialogue.
The result is something far from a complete exposition. It represents fragments of expression in light of my own ongoing historical, philosophical, and theological studies regarding the dignity of the human person. Inseparable from all of this are my prayers and longing to see the face of the Mystery who fulfills all things, and the faith that impels me to stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in the obscurity of their search, and to “co-suffer” with them.
I share below (with minimal changes) what I wrote, as a reminder to myself and for the interest of my blog readers:
________________________________________________________________
You are profoundly correct in your idea of what is necessary to avoid the sixth mass extinction: an unprecedented “adaptation” and an overturning of the concept of unbridled competition, breaking free from “hyper-individualism” and going beyond the “I” to the “you” and the “we.”
The new adaptation must be more aware and purposeful (and not merely “reactive”) than humans have ever achieved. What will help move in this direction is “dialogue” that leads to mutual understanding, respect for persons and things in the inherent positivity that “diversity” expresses (analogia entis), and a common effort toward harmonious collaboration as fruit of dialogue (without any forced conformity, but in freedom and mutual love). Humans must have an analogous “dialogue“ with the natural world, “listening” to the needs and the beauty of the natural world, and taking care of the world as the gardener tends a garden. This also leads to a kind of “collaboration” on different levels, where human reason contributes from an awareness and wisdom that articulate the value of nature. Technology still plays an important role, but it is relative and subordinated to a greater wisdom. Humans will retain (and in fact make more fully manifest) their place at the “summit” of the natural world through dwelling-in-it in wisdom and love.
You are profoundly correct in your idea of what is necessary to avoid the sixth mass extinction: an unprecedented “adaptation” and an overturning of the concept of unbridled competition, breaking free from “hyper-individualism” and going beyond the “I” to the “you” and the “we.”
The new adaptation must be more aware and purposeful (and not merely “reactive”) than humans have ever achieved. What will help move in this direction is “dialogue” that leads to mutual understanding, respect for persons and things in the inherent positivity that “diversity” expresses (analogia entis), and a common effort toward harmonious collaboration as fruit of dialogue (without any forced conformity, but in freedom and mutual love). Humans must have an analogous “dialogue“ with the natural world, “listening” to the needs and the beauty of the natural world, and taking care of the world as the gardener tends a garden. This also leads to a kind of “collaboration” on different levels, where human reason contributes from an awareness and wisdom that articulate the value of nature. Technology still plays an important role, but it is relative and subordinated to a greater wisdom. Humans will retain (and in fact make more fully manifest) their place at the “summit” of the natural world through dwelling-in-it in wisdom and love.
The model of the 20th century was that of human power and anthropocentric rationality imposing itself on the natural world. This model has failed.
Overcoming hyper-individualism is a particularly difficult challenge. We must learn the lessons of recent history. “Individualism” is really a myth, which can become a pernicious lie. We are exhorted to a radical existentialism of being self-sufficient, of “being ourselves” independently. But in reality, humans are much too fragile for such an isolated posture. They inevitably must find a “we” in which to ground themselves and experience validation (not to mention the material necessities of life). Interpersonal and communitarian relationships (I-Thou and We-You) are the only way this can be achieved with respect for human dignity.
But humans have tried (and still try) other ways. The myth of individualism creates anxiety, leading humans to seek some kind of communal bonds based on partisan security or a “collective affirmation” that “carries away” the self into something apparently “greater”—thus “I” becomes “we,” but only by debasement.
This leads to the development of what could be called “artificial tribes”—sometimes on a small scale or only partially extended, sometimes large and virulent enough to swallow up whole nations and peoples. Ideologies and Image-ologies (I need a better word for this) can reduce the “I” to a mere part of a party: the “vanguard of the dialectic of history” or a “member of the ‘Volk’ and its historic mission, the Master Race” or “revolutionary worker-peasant-soldiers wrecking havoc and destruction in obedience to The Great Helmsman,” or whatever. What is both strange and ironic is the fact that this “I” subsumed by an artificially postured “we” seems to aim inescapably toward a totalitarian “thou,” a leader who is charismatic at first, but has no authority adequate to the dignity of the human person, and therefore must use power and violence to unite the collective and define it—inevitably in opposition to some “enemy.” Thus Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao… and others too, but there is much to learn from the recent history of these architectonic “exemplars” and the people who suffered (often after “serving”) one of these three historical monsters within the last hundred years. Contrary to our assumptions, we have only begun to scratch the surface of understanding these histories of totalitarian-violent-mass-subjugation and how it was able to degrade and deform the humanity of ordinary people who were “just like us.” (Particularly vivid are the stories of the soul-destroying idolatry of Mao Zedong that the Cultural Revolution generation of Chinese youth are finally beginning to express in their old age. These have been a particular focus of my recent studies.)
The true, interpersonal “I-Thou-We” needs freedom and a genuine “authority” (one that gives human dignity its real foundation, and that is the source and sustenance of freedom). Humans cannot help wanting justice, truth, beauty, happiness, love. The human heart has a conscience that never ceases to urge the person in this way. It would be a step forward for our world if people committed themselves to an ongoing intelligent and ardent search for the source of this conscience.
Overcoming hyper-individualism is a particularly difficult challenge. We must learn the lessons of recent history. “Individualism” is really a myth, which can become a pernicious lie. We are exhorted to a radical existentialism of being self-sufficient, of “being ourselves” independently. But in reality, humans are much too fragile for such an isolated posture. They inevitably must find a “we” in which to ground themselves and experience validation (not to mention the material necessities of life). Interpersonal and communitarian relationships (I-Thou and We-You) are the only way this can be achieved with respect for human dignity.
This leads to the development of what could be called “artificial tribes”—sometimes on a small scale or only partially extended, sometimes large and virulent enough to swallow up whole nations and peoples. Ideologies and Image-ologies (I need a better word for this) can reduce the “I” to a mere part of a party: the “vanguard of the dialectic of history” or a “member of the ‘Volk’ and its historic mission, the Master Race” or “revolutionary worker-peasant-soldiers wrecking havoc and destruction in obedience to The Great Helmsman,” or whatever. What is both strange and ironic is the fact that this “I” subsumed by an artificially postured “we” seems to aim inescapably toward a totalitarian “thou,” a leader who is charismatic at first, but has no authority adequate to the dignity of the human person, and therefore must use power and violence to unite the collective and define it—inevitably in opposition to some “enemy.” Thus Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao… and others too, but there is much to learn from the recent history of these architectonic “exemplars” and the people who suffered (often after “serving”) one of these three historical monsters within the last hundred years. Contrary to our assumptions, we have only begun to scratch the surface of understanding these histories of totalitarian-violent-mass-subjugation and how it was able to degrade and deform the humanity of ordinary people who were “just like us.” (Particularly vivid are the stories of the soul-destroying idolatry of Mao Zedong that the Cultural Revolution generation of Chinese youth are finally beginning to express in their old age. These have been a particular focus of my recent studies.)
The true, interpersonal “I-Thou-We” needs freedom and a genuine “authority” (one that gives human dignity its real foundation, and that is the source and sustenance of freedom). Humans cannot help wanting justice, truth, beauty, happiness, love. The human heart has a conscience that never ceases to urge the person in this way. It would be a step forward for our world if people committed themselves to an ongoing intelligent and ardent search for the source of this conscience.
