a human something

"There's no longer a whole man confronting a whole world, only a human something moving about in a general culture-medium."

–The Man Without Qualities

Robert Musil, stroke and splatter.

Harold Bloom said something in Jesus vs. Yahweh about how the Cartesian mind–body split is originally a Greek idea and very much linked to the Christian universe, in direct contrast to what he identified as the Hebrew world view, wherein the human being is a whole creature (Bloom reminds us of Yahweh sculpting the first man out of the mud). As is true of much that Bloom says, I don't know whether any of this can be demonstrated or validated, even theoretically—for example, I don't know whether it's really true that this "whole man" concept is essentially Hebrew in any particular way—but I love the idea, regardless of its context, provenance, and so forth.

This is a jog in another [opposite?] direction, but another thing I always enjoy reflecting upon is the way in which all sorts of "truths" are really more like half-truths; another way to say this would be to say that all sorts of "wrong" statements have at least a germ of "rightness" in them. A favorite example is the advice sometimes given to boys and men that being mean to girls and women is a great road to romantic & sexual victory: that chicks dig assholes. As far as I can tell, the germ of truth in this is that women—people, really, but maybe especially women—find confidence attractive and insecurity unattractive, and that if you're being an asshole, you at least don't come off as preoccupied with whether the person you're talking to likes you; in other words, you might appear quite confident. I believe that being genuinely decent and confident will generally trump being mean—even from an amoral, results-focused perspective. Again, I'm bringing this up as an example of the ways in which what might seem demonstrably true to us might just be an accidental approximation of the truth (like if someone with severely restricted experience made some sort of casual reference to one's ability to look at himself "in the medicine cabinet," and you realized that he had never seen a medicine cabinet that didn't have a mirror on it or a mirror that wasn't on a medicine cabinet).

So what is behind my concern or preoccupation with "the truth" or "getting the story straight"? I've identified this as a problem I have. (I was talking a while back to someone who when telling stories has a tendency to embellish, explaining why I had objected to one particular embellishment in which my own actions had, I felt, been misrepresented; the storyteller conceded that she could understand why such a thing might bother me, and I for my part conceded that this particular objection was possibly a relatively reasonable instance of an often ridiculous pathology: "If we had been walking on Avenue A and you had said we were walking on Avenue B," I said, "I probably would have had the strong impulse to interject and say, 'Well, to be fair, it was actually Avenue A'—which is absurd."*) This tendency is certainly on display on this blog—more in a harmless, charming fashion,† I'm inclined to hope or imagine.

What is it, then? Might it be a misguided effort to simulate or approximate a kind of "wholeness" that is hard to achieve in an over-complicated world in which no authority can be trusted absolutely? If, as Musil (or his character) suggests in my epigraph, it is no longer easy or even possible to find an individual's borders in a scattered and chaotic social and intellectual universe, then could it be that getting a firm handle on "the truth" promises (falsely) to establish borders, to carve out a comfortable place in the world for an individual or at least a small patch of solid ground that is at worst no smaller than that individual's feet in comfortable shoes? (You know—so you can stand on it.)

Put it another way, more simply: is it a gesture toward reestablishing what religion used to do?

Martin Buber blew my mind by suggesting that the most important human responsibility is the responsibility to make decisions.‡ He even goes so far as to suggest that no decision can truly be wrong if it is made completely, with your whole self: wholly is holy, you could say—nyuk nyuk.

Anyway, I leave you with a big hunka Buber, from his essay "Jewish Religiosity." Enjoy.

Martin Buber knows how to brawl.

The act that Judaism has always considered the essence and foundation of all religiosity is the act of decision as realization of divine freedom and unconditionality on earth... The Mishnah interprets the phrase "Thou shalt love God with all thy heart" to mean: with both your inclinations, the "good" as well as the "evil"; that is, with and by your decision, so that the ardor of passion is converted and enters into the unified deed with all its strength. For no inclination is evil in itself; it is made evil by man when he surrenders to it instead of controlling it. The Midrash has God say to man, "You turned passion which was given into your hand into evil."

And it is stated with still greater emphasis: "Only when you are undivided" (that is, when you have overcome your inner dualism by your decision) "will you have a share in the Lord your God." On the other hand, inertia and indecisiveness are called the root of all evil; sin is basically nothing more than inertia. The man who has fallen prey to it but later, by a wrenching decision, extricates himself from it; who has sunk into the abyss of duality but later hews his way out of it to unity; and who, taking himself into his own hands, like an inert earthen clod, kneads that self into a human being—that man above all is dearest to God...

The meaning of the act of decision in Judaism is falsified if it is viewed as merely an ethical act. It is a religious act, or, rather, it is the religious act; for it is God's realization through man.

....a concept that is innate in Jewish religiosity: the concept of the absolute value of man's deed, a value that cannot be judged by our meager knowledge of the causes and effects of this world. Something infinite flows into a deed of a man; something infinite flows from it... It is said in the Mishnah, "Every man shall say: 'It is for me that the world was created.'" And again, "Every man shall say, 'The world rests on me,'" which is corroborated by the hasidic text: "Yes, he is the only one in the world, and its continued existence depends on his deed."

In the unconditionality of his deed man experiences his communion with God. God is an unknown Being beyond this world only for the indolent, the decisionless, the lethargic, the man enmeshed in his own designs; for the one who chooses, who decides, who is aflame with his goal, who is unconditioned, God is the closest, the most familiar Being, whom man, through his own action, realizes ever anew, experiencing thereby the mystery of mysteries. Whether God is "transcendent" or "immanent" does not depend on Him; it depends on man... "The Lord is close unto all them that call upon Him, to all that call upon Him in truth" (145.18). That means, in the truth they do.

In the truth they do. This truth is not a What but a How. Not the matter of a deed determines its truth but the manner in which it is carried out: in human conditionality, or in divine unconditionality. Whether a deed will peter out in the outer courtyard, in the realm of things, or whether it will penetrate into the Holy of Holies is determined not by its content but by the power of decision which brought it about, and by the sanctity of intent that dwells in it. Every deed, even one numbered among the most profane, is holy when it is performed in holiness, in unconditionality.

...God does not want to be believed in, to be debated and defended by us, but simply to be realized through us.

[Of course, the problem with Buber is that in the end he probably thinks this all clearly points somehow to the importance of not eating pork, or of wearing a little hat. Ah, well: more than one way to skin a god. Good night and God bless!]

Yahweh: a rare photo§

* Actually, I think I used 74th and 73rd Streets, not Avenues A and B, in my example. (See what I mean?)

† Charming + harmless ÷ 2 = charmless (?)

‡ Actually he said it was the central religious act—or really the central Jewish act, but then I think that in this case Judaism:religion::assholery:confidence (see dating advice above), and that religion:humanity::confidence:love, or something. Anyway...!

§ Thanks, Google Image Search!