Blog for Nameless-Value

novel, essay, poetry, criticism, diary

Responsible to Lord Part4

Philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas suggested "Absolute Other Person", it could mean either that to us, all the otner person could be third persn, of course, that person in question is absent from our own staying spot. If I was here with another one, also this spot could have third person as I and another one can talk to me as you, a second person at the situation.


Levinas's absolute other person would mean that all other ones to own myself are just absolute other one as we can never know their own mind.


Although, if we have a situation with another one, and we talk about some other one, absent from our spot could be perfectly third person, this case's him or her is of course different from own imagining him or her, coz latter is just only my mind imagining him or her, but former in question is concretely object for us, with I and another one for me, but latter is just only my mind imagining that other one, it must be more immanent, it could be genuinely objective for my mind, but it must never be public to us. In other words only internally my imagining the one is just immanent and never be publicly meant, coz it can appear only in each my imagination, then if we use third person in topical object, we use own imagination to the one in question, but in dialogue as conversation all imagined thing coukd never be svown to us usually, except on the spot inspection in questined by police officer when we are personally called as witness of some incident.


But former is topical object by us, with I and anothrer one as you for me, then it's so publicly meant third person, but its one for me in mind, it means never public, never yet, it's so personal, in other words, our personal conversation with I and other specific one for me as you, that situated himself or herself means being along with our sharing community.  
In other words, we make third person in making us with every myself and other one as you for that myself. But necessarily privately and immanently personal imagined himself or herself must never be public, thus publicity is made by and with our dialogue, conversation as privare communication. Never yet that presence is so individually interested to me and other one in a mass, in other words, at any case, publicly meant interested third one must be set only with our own attention.
In other words, public thing is consistently so personally interested, to us all, at any case.


Probably Levinas's claming absolute other one means my this debate's latter immanently imaginable one and its number is essentially possibly infinite, and he must regard it as Lord's gifting miracle to us together, in co clusion, all the other one in presence as infinite to him must have meant so such as being itself, human each presence in sum number must mean itself is closer to being's all presence at the same time, consistently.


Evetually, that third person either could be adopted either to all "you", each you is in all yous, that means to him as Levinas and it would be applied to the case I and another one for me as you in the spot made by two ones, eventually, his claiming absolute other one must mean all you for me, necessarily it could be adopted to all you for us as each myself.


That his view could have been found at his so miserably tough critically last-ditch situation with his all family members murdered in homocaust, then his mind would have been exposed to trust and dustrust in serious gap caused from his mind wanting to bemieve in other one's affection and mercy and conspirous betrayal or sort of neglection to his tragedy.He must have observed and confirmed all around each individual so vacant infinity and his powerlessness.
In coclusion, Levinas's person propposition could be deduced that all other one as third person in public means  all second person for him, simultaneously, and this view driving factual truth means deducted to be in infinity, thus its being to be could be close to difinition to being, then the one who generated the being as universe must be Lord, as the omnipotent to all.


That view as  well as an idea of "being is Lord Himself" would be so assimilated to Judaism, thus Christianity which separates Lord and His creating or generating being, thus it could be discerned to Judaism, these differentiation means one of serious fault or crevice neans that Christian seem to fegard Judaic world view is closer to e.g. Taoism as one of polytheism, of course, it could be just flat impression.


Anyway this time debate should be in seeing summary, thus, eventually it's the absolute truth that I can never know any other one's mind as well as I can know my mind. Namely with that absolutr truth, as factual premise, we essentially must have been a presence, so personally, and its thing could drive us to communicate with each other, that truth would evidence that if we can know mutual mind as well as each Ican know myself, we must have never had any communication, as plants must have never had.
We certainly do all communicating mutually with words and languages, in conversation and transmitting together nowadays.


If that thing could be applied to Lord, in supposition, now, but of course. we could never meet and see Him, as we can do so with other all human person, thus, He must be at a rate, absolute other ones as He, but we can privately and immanently call Him as "You" as absolute You. Then necessarily it must be absolute "You" either to me, though He only is simultaneously you for any other one but me.


There we can have supposition that only He is absolute "You" but simultaneously absolute "Him" coz only He must be present for all.


Necessarily that position must be applied only to Him. Only Lord must be absolute Second Person and at this view, Lord for us must be either absolute other one, coz nobody could never be crossed only to Him, but intrinsicly and immanently for each of us, only He must be absolute "You" to me and other all ones but me, as possibly existing you with me in Us.


Only there could be completion and perfection crossed internality and externamity, and it means absolute accord of I and other all "I" in accordance and synchlonicity.


If that supposition is cinfidentally so appropriate, we all are prohibitted to intrude any other one's mind, arbitrarily, thus all fanatic hating religeous motivated negation in hostile emotion or aggression must never be allowed to anyone.


Because only He must be the sole and absolute being for anybody, making us being prohibitted to intervene other one's mind, so selfishly, and arbitrarily, of course even toward to Him, at this meaning, Levinas's claiming in absolute other person must be applied either to Lord, according to his its claiming to His chracter.
(to be continued)
(Mar. 11, 16th., May. 26th. 2020)