The following is not an argument. It is nothing more than a way to see things, which can be entertained, tried on or ignored. One person can compel another to accept certain facts through use of logic and empirical evidence (under threat of excommunication from the world of the reasonable), but understanding of worldviews is entirely different. Here there is no compulsion, only invitation. Invitations can always be declined (otherwise it is a disguised summons)…
*
A dimension differs from an object, in at least two ways.
First, no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time, where it is essential to the idea of dimension that dimensions do precisely this. The introduction of height does not displace width, but coincides and extends width into a plane. And depth coincides and extends the plane into space, and time extends space temporally.
And notice, each time a new dimension is introduced, the others, in their extension are multiplied into the new dimension. This is the second difference: the introduction of a new object is additive. The introduction of a new dimension is multiplicative in respect to the objects considered dimensionally (think about a film strip, where in each frame the image is repeated in its entirety in a new moment), and exponential in respect to dimensionality per se (a line is x, a square is x2, a cube x3, a cube in time x4…).
*
I’ve come to think of human consciousness as a dimension of reality.
When two people look at the same room, the room is multiplied by two.
*
To get flaky about it, I’d say the concept of personal God, that is, that aspect of God who is conscious, represents the continuity and infinite extension of the dimension of awareness (a.k.a. spirit), upon which each I represents a point.
*
When we regard another person as deserving dignity and respect we theoretically acknowledge the existence of God’s personhood beyond that bit that exists here in the point called “I”.
When we treat another person with dignity and respect — literally, as one who has worth and who “looks back” and by looking back multiplies the world — we experience faith that someone who is not I is like us in being a fellow-I.
When we learn from another person — when we engage in dialogue (dia- “across” + -logos “word”/”reason”) with another person and open ourselves to changing how we know the world — to undergo metanoia ( (meta- “after”/”with” + -noia “perceive”/”think”) — we now move across this dimension of spirit and know the world from multiple points across the spiritual dimension.
But — and this is where I may alienate some people — the value of the movement isn’t exhausted in arriving at a point better than the previous one. The value is also in the insight that this dimension of spirit exists, and that every person is a point on this continuum. In this light, even degrading mistakes can be redeemed by being overcome and remembered.
*
If we deny that another person’s worldview matters, or if we insist that all people occupy the same point on the spiritual continuum, what we are really attempting is to reduce God’s infinite personhood to our own point I, as opposed to the full dimension I. To be born again reveals the permanent possibility of second coming.
But this does not amount to uncritical “embracing of diversity”. There is great value in gathering people together on the continuum of spirit, because this kind of gathering helps us feel the continuity extending beyond us. It is important to reach agreements with other people, but these agreements must serve to cultivate a pluralistic unity. This is very different from demanding unanimity of opinion — from making minds uniform and redundant dittos of one another. This is true even (and in fact, especially) if what is being dittoed is one’s godlike knowledge of good and evil.
*
The upshot of all this: if one wishes to love God with all his being, he cannot do this while refusing to love his neighbor. Love extends outward to what one is not, and that of God who is not mere self-love exists most palpably in one’s neighbor, and specifically in our differences with him. It is the difference we find most troubling, and it is the difference we want to suppress or withdraw from, but it is the difference we must love.
*
“Love and duality. — What is love but understanding and rejoicing at the fact that another lives, feels and acts in a way different from and opposite to ours? If love is to bridge these antitheses through joy it may not deny or seek to abolish them. — Even self-love presupposes an unblendable duality (or multiplicity) in one person.”
*
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
*
At the risk of making this all seem crass, teaching groups of people that their neighbor is not their fellow group-members, but rather those outside the group who see differently from one’s fellow group members is one of the most important tasks of our time. I consider the practical example of the so-called “User Experience” disciplines to be an important part of this mission. To research interpersonal differences and to bridge them well enough that a team becomes able to design things for them that are received as gifts… the experience of working in this mode can change how we conceive people and personhoood, and cause us to reckon with the spiritual dimension of life.
*
UX is an ethic first and foremost, and the methods follow from it. Or rather, UX is the operationalization of an ethic.
stephen. I had to read it twice. And I may even read it again. I truly believe you should…you ought, you must write a full length book to help bridge this growing divide and unChristlikeness in America today. I fear we are fleeing en masse from the First Commandment, Christians in particular. It is not that I think you could add to the conversation, as much start it. You have the requisite gifts and the training. I see Buber’s influence in your writing, as well as many other great thinkers. But it is your humility, I think, more than your learning that uniquely qualifies you to reach people.
This piereced me: “When we regard another person as deserving dignity and respect we theoretically acknowledge the existence of God’s personhood beyond that bit that exists here in the point called “I”.
And this: “if one wishes to love God with all his being, he cannot do this while refusing to love his neighbor. Love extends outward to what one is not, and that of God who is not mere self-love exists most palpably in one’s neighbor, and specifically in our differences with him.”
And this: “teaching groups of people that their neighbor is not their fellow group-members, but rather those outside the group who see differently from one’s fellow group members is one of the most important tasks of our time.”
I understand the UX point, but I don’t know if the uninitiated who read the book will.
Write, my friend, write. Then publish.
Thanks for the encouragement, Barry.
Love it. Here is the question, do you lead with the Christian view of loving your neighbor, or do you explain the importance and value of that perspective and say…. oh by the way, this is a Christian POV. I think would be good not to alienate non-Christians but later surprise them once they are bought in. Make sense?
My plan is to be fairly open about it. I’m going to address it to two audiences: 1) good-faith atheists (atheists of conscience, who simply cannot see how God could exist, as opposed to people who are hostile to the possibility) and 2) theists who wish to have productive dialogue with good-faith atheists. I don’t think it needs to be explicitly Christian, but I do plan to refer to passages from both Matthew and John.