David Berliner on Becoming Other

2012

Interview with the anthropologist James T. Siegel by Joshua Barker and Vicente Rafael from 2012.

The concept of the Other is one of the key factors in the bipolar categoriza tion of the cognizable world. In relating to the Other, the Self usually operates in an either/or mode: the very otherness of the Other creates separation from the self, distancing and alienation. The distinctness of the Other is all too often maintained in holding it at arm's length, in estrange ment and alienation. Mostly, identification with the Other takes a negative form. It is often believed that to cross the vast distances between Self and Other, that is, to find modes of positive identification, one has to make undesired concessions and to pay too high a price. Since it is "normal" for the Self to accomplish significant stages of individuation by positioning itself visa -vis the Other, any change of that basic attitude requires some thing that we are likely to expect of others but rarely feel obliged to accomplish ourselves. It is very commonly thought that in reconciling Self and Other, the Self has to undergo a process of voluntary diminution. Thus, it becomes one of the chief tasks of humanistic philosophy and education to suggest ways of overcoming paucity of grace in treating our neighbour. It is not in vain that Rabbi Aqiva treats the injunction "you shall love your neighbour as yourself" {Le\. xix: 18) as a great principle in the Law. Awareness of one's own Self all too easily turns into selfishness. The other side of the coin, altruism, that is, the love of the alter (the Other), is a less frequent product on the shelves of human conduct. Consequently, the present volume is mostly concerned with those manifestations of attitudes that breed the repression of love, understanding, and benevolence in human relations. This is the sad side of the story; and when that story becomes history, the history in question is filled with pages telling the stories of hate, bloodshed, and prejudiced modes of behaviour. With all the preaching of grace and love that ideally goes with many a religious system, those qualities are mostly reserved for people who prove their deservedness by sharing the same acts of faith. Love and grace are generally granted to one's coreligionists, not to apostates, non-believers and heretics. This, it is said, is how order, ecclesiastical hierarchy and moral distinctions are expected to be maintained in organizations and

2012

2005

SIC. Časopis za književnost, kulturu i književno prevođenje, 2021

Otherness as a Social and Cultural Determinant of the Past, Present and Future It is likely that anyone who encounters the term otherness for the first time would think it describes something different from us and yet akin to us. And they would be right, just as they would simultaneously be wrong. Otherness is an exceptionally complex term, which cannot be understood separately from the idea of the self. When we want to articulate who is, to us, the other, we also have to articulate who is their opposite-the latter being us. Therefore, when speaking of the other, we inevitably speak of ourselves. The coupling of terms myself/other was mentioned already by Hegel, who emphasized that the identification of the Other enabled the synthetization of one's own identity (112). The Other (who is often identified within ethnic, racial, religious, geographical, and many other cultural and social categories) functions as a mirror. For Georg Simmel, for example, the Other is more than a stranger who is either close to or distant from us. The Other is an element that can simultaneously be a member of the group, outside of it, and in a confrontation with it (144). For Emanuel Levinas, the Other is what I am not. It is identified as one similar to us, but also different and extraneous. Precisely this extraneousness, which Levinas also refers to as alterity, illuminates a subject's path toward himself by demonstrating that which is intrinsic-where he belongs (43, 48). By identifying the Other, a person or a group is labeled in a process in which we construct our own roles, our position within the society, and the meaning of ourselves. To have an Other is essential to creating an identity, for by identifying the Other, we facilitate the understanding of that which is "here" and that which is "there" because, as Antony Smith emphasized, identity is not created merely from one's own experiences, memories, and myths, but through positioning oneself in relation to the collective identities of Others (11-36, 43). This process of synthetization of one's own identity consists of forming an awareness of an ingroup, which is based on a necessary delimitation toward an out-group.

Philosophy of History, Political Philosophy and Postmodernity from a Buddhist and Dzogchen Ourlook. “This remarkable manuscript presents the Buddhist Dzogchen insights in reader-friendly English that will instruct and inspire its readers. Its importance cannot be underestimated. Indeed, it is destined to become a classic guide to spiritual development.” —Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., Alan Watts Professor of Psychology, Saybrook University “I can’t pretend to understand all of what Profes- sor Elias Capriles has written in these magnificent four volumes, yet I have the utmost appreciation for the rare combination of impeccable scholarship and lived wisdom that Capriles has shared.” —Harris L. Friedman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Saybrook University, Senior Editor, International Journal of Transpersonal Studies “A challenging but exhilarating adventure for any readers interested in existential, humanistic, and/or transpersonal psychologies and their intersection with Dzogchen philosophy and practice.” —Douglas A. MacDonald, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Detroit Mercy, Editor Emeritus, International Journal of Transpersonal Studies “These volumes exemplify precisely the direction in which I for one would like to see transpersonal psy- chology grow: Capriles articulates profoundly innova- tive ideas about the nature of mind and transforma- tional processes through a solid grasp of the insights from a specific religious tradition.” —Les Lancaster, Professor Emeritus of Transpersonal Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK. Current President of the International Transpersonal Association

Modern Theology, 2016

call to share the mind of Christ through the Holy Spirit. If Christians are one with the Spirit and the Spirit is one with God, then potential for true unity between denominations must exist, even though real differences between denominational histories and cultures may make degrees of Christian unity both difficult to ascertain and imperfect. The final chapter, on discerning the Spirit, is all the more necessary given the complex portrait of the Spirit and Christian life that Castelo has offered. Here he points to the necessity of considering the sources, norms, and purposes of the Spirit's activity while cautioning against using methods of discernment, such as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, as formulas yielding clear solutions. Castelo's contention that the Spirit is mediated through persons and histories is important, as the Spirit is known by spiritual means. Thus to bear fruit, discernment methods must be undertaken by "epicletic" persons (). Castelo's focus on particular questions, breadth of sources, and stimulating arguments create a valuable resource for instructors as well as for graduate students who wish to take a further step into the field of pneumatology, accompanied by the diverse insights of Christian denominations.

An anthrôpos is a living being. But what kind of life does s/he live? A history of the definition of humanity would take us from Aristotle's political animal, whose logos, as opposed to mere phônê, makes possible the creation of a reasonable moral community, to the Stoic focalization on rationality, and to the increasingly unflattering characterizations of modern and contemporary philosophy. We are sinful creatures, for Christians; working agents, for Karl Marx; narrative neurotics, for Sigmund Freud; speaking subjects, for Jacques Lacan; self-transcending nothingness for Jean-Paul Sartre; or selfinterpreting beings-in-the-world for Martin Heidegger. We might be tempted to emphasize the abysmal gap between antiquity and modernity, but we should rather take stock of a theoretical thread that runs through our philosophical anthropology. We are the “children of Care” , we exist as caring animals. Care bears a double meaning. We care *for* others and ourselves, but, at the same time, we care *about* things and people. Attention and apprehension, curiosity and concern go together. We are anxious beings. In its unobvious and yet crucial understanding of what it means to be human, the philosophy of existence that has emerged in the twentieth century resonates with archaic Greek poetry and Hellenistic philosophy. It is this deep line of thought that, with Heidegger and beyond Heidegger, I wish to bring to the fore in this chapter.

This is an account of the life and work of a person who was trained as ananthropologist in the University of Calcutta and then made his career in a department of sociology in the University of Delhi, where he is now professor emeritus.The career, in both teaching and research, described here has been built on the presumption of the unity of sociology and social anthropology,whereas in the West, and particularly in the United States, the disciplines are organized on the presumption of their separation. In this article I have discussed my relations with colleagues and students from both India and overseas. The bias in favor of the unity of sociology and social anthropology present throughout my work comes naturally to someone who takes for granted the unity of India, which is a very large country encompassing the most diverse range of social formations.