OPM 114 represents the writing that constitutes the penultimate meditation of "The Saying of the Sage," chapter 7 of Being and Learning. No coincidence, then, that in OPM 114 we read: "We have arrived at a deeper understanding of the proper name of the philosopher, the 'lover of wisdom.' We appear to have arrived at a crucial moment where our initial re-naming of the philosopher, the 'lover of wisdom,' as 'lover of learning' has come full circle....The one who loves learning is precisely the one who desires and yearns for freedom and peace." The writing has come around in returning to wisdom, now understood as a modality of openness arising from a specific location, the open region. Freedom and peace emerge from this location as a gathering together of a community, a congregation that emerges from friendship.
The gathering of friends is a significant departure from the tradition of philosophy that idealizes the singular 'self.' Subjectivity is replaced by intersubjectivity. But then why so much emphasis on the sage? Does this singular figure stand out from the gathering? This question has been raised before, but it is worth revisiting because these meditations are consistently writing of the singular meditative thinker, and not of the learning community. Yet, as we read OPM 114, we encounter this matter with the description itself : "...the one who is ful-filled with meaning is the one who has emptied himself and submitted himself to the other."
As I reflect on this question I'm reminded that this project was a writing project, and one that, consciously or not, most closely resembles the writings of the Roman Stoics. And unlike the meditations of Descartes, which culminate in a universal knowing ego, these Stoic meditations are dialogic (between the self), and always grounded in lived experience, even if that life is only ever referred to via metaphors and poetic language. The universal appeal is made from a specific historical location. And in this sense, it is inclusive of the hypothetical community of readers. In sum, the writing is dialogic at the point of origin, and remains dialogic ten years later. But like Dante, the poet, who writes of 'Dante' the hero of his Divina Comedia, the sage is at one and the same time both an imagined character and an actually existing figure, an aspiration and ideal, who is also the distilled memories of the best teachers I have known and experienced.
The gathering of friends is a significant departure from the tradition of philosophy that idealizes the singular 'self.' Subjectivity is replaced by intersubjectivity. But then why so much emphasis on the sage? Does this singular figure stand out from the gathering? This question has been raised before, but it is worth revisiting because these meditations are consistently writing of the singular meditative thinker, and not of the learning community. Yet, as we read OPM 114, we encounter this matter with the description itself : "...the one who is ful-filled with meaning is the one who has emptied himself and submitted himself to the other."
As I reflect on this question I'm reminded that this project was a writing project, and one that, consciously or not, most closely resembles the writings of the Roman Stoics. And unlike the meditations of Descartes, which culminate in a universal knowing ego, these Stoic meditations are dialogic (between the self), and always grounded in lived experience, even if that life is only ever referred to via metaphors and poetic language. The universal appeal is made from a specific historical location. And in this sense, it is inclusive of the hypothetical community of readers. In sum, the writing is dialogic at the point of origin, and remains dialogic ten years later. But like Dante, the poet, who writes of 'Dante' the hero of his Divina Comedia, the sage is at one and the same time both an imagined character and an actually existing figure, an aspiration and ideal, who is also the distilled memories of the best teachers I have known and experienced.
3.0 - Today is my father's 97th birthday! He passed in 2019. At the beginning of the video above, which I recorded at the home where I grew up (29 Sunset Drive, Summit, NJ) I note the celebration we had for my father. He definitely fancied himself a sage. Loved to talk! And was an inspiration for my life's work and this project.
ReplyDeleteOPM 114 announces that the name of the sage has re-qualified as "the lover of learning." I wrote on this day 20 years ago: "The one who loves learning is precisely the one who desires and yearns for freedom and peace." I have no objection to that description, especially the emphasis on desire. If freedom captivates us, then it is something we yearn for. We hope to captured by the spirit of freedom and we hope to carried over into the place of peace, the Open. Earlier this week I was comparing the writing I did in this project to the writing I am currently doing for my sabbatical book, and I contrasted the poetic and uninhibited speculative approach of the former with the more prosaic and conventional approach of the current. I emphasized that the poet writes from himself and for himself with a romantic sensibility of producing something authentic and original. But one of the fundamental claims, which, in fact, I repeated this week when writing the Preface of the sabbatical book, is that the relationship between Being and Learning is gathered and moved by the essential way of Being unfolding as Becoming: ceaseless nativity. Learning is "related" to Becoming in the sense that it is caught within Becoming, moved with the flow of ceaseless nativity. And this week as writing the Preface to my new book and was describing the dialectic via Hegel I wrote: "We can enact this fundamental principle: for Hegel we must think dialectically. When we think dialectically we are placing ourselves in an authentic relationship to what is real and true: the dynamic unity of opposites, Becoming." And then: "The significant implication, which for Hegel was a breakthrough in the history of philosophy, was Heraclitus’ recognition that the dialectical principle implied that the truth of Being (Existence) is Becoming: 'This universal principle is better understood as Becoming, the truth of Being; since everything is and is not, Heraclitus hereby expressed that everything is Becoming.'(LHP, vol. 1, 283) Or, as Heraclitus wrote: 'Everything is in a state of flux; nothing subsists nor does it ever remain the same.' (LHP, vol. 1, 283)". So I realize that there is much continuity between the OPM project and my new book, which is exciting! What's more, the new writing is not so new in style nor in content. Perhaps it's a bit more refined or distilled? As my old friend/colleague Sam Rocha likes to say: it's a reduction (with a play on phenomenology and gastronomy!)