Untitled Document

Intersubjectivity is the concept of the person knowing one's self in relationship to the other. Various thinkers view this issue with varying degrees of importance. The existentialists Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Karl Jaspers, and Albert Camus will be the authors compared and contrasted for their similarities and differences on how intersubjectivity is handled in their particular viewpoints.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his work "Phenomenology of Perception" states, "In the experience of dialogue there is constituted between the other person and myself a common ground." Merleau-Ponty describes interaction between two people as almost making a third presence; neither person is without the other in the interaction. Neither creates the discussion between the two people. He speaks of the collaboration of the people, both being receptive to a new merging. The shared perspective creates a "common" world. Once the interaction fades and Merleau-Ponty begins to recall the discussion, then he can integrate the new perspective into his perception of reality. There is a struggle to hold onto one's own being in the interaction with the other. The struggle for Merleau-Ponty is to have the other clearly recognize him and to grant to the other the definite feeling of security to be free from falsehood.

The central issue of importance for this author is, "whether we are concerned with my body, the natural world, the past, birth or death, the question is always how I can be open to phenomena which transcend me, and which nevertheless exist only to the extent that I take them up and live them." For Merleau-Ponty the other person never can reach the level of importance that we have for our own existence.

The present moment is all that there is for Merleau-Ponty. The present moment in which we express ourselves as a being in the world is the true reflection of the two consciousnesses of the other and the Self. Merleau-Ponty asserts "One arrives at self-knowledge only by projecting itself into the present. ... The present mediates between the For Oneself and For Others." It is the creation of the present moment that the "true reflection presents me to myself not as idle and inaccessible subjectivity, but as identical with my presence in the world and to others, as I am now realizing it..."

Merleau-Ponty expresses the idea that life is a mirror reflecting back to the perceiver the perception of the self; and that the process of seeing life and all of its experiences changes the perceiver. One experiences life not in spite of one's situations and station but because of it. Only by being in the moment of the physical body and the situation of your life is union with the other made by being accessible to the other.

Karl Jaspers believes that the "individual is fulfilled only in the movement of love." The individual for Jaspers is essentially invisible for those that do not love you. You are the one among the many of the crowd. Jaspers asserts that communication is the key to understanding both the self and the other. Communication with another in which there is complete understanding makes the other person irreplaceable. This understanding can take place in isolation but is certainly more difficult. The other provides the opportunity for communication to exist on a foundation of interpersonal and individual freedom.

Within the communication with another person dissatisfaction is experienced because the limits and boundaries of the communication are experienced. Jaspers expresses the need to meet in communication so the meeting can be mutually satisfying. "Only together can we achieve what each of us wants to achieve."

Jaspers differs from Merleau-Ponty in his emphasis on communication. Jaspers, like Merleau-Ponty, asserts that there must be the freedom to be oneself. Jasper says, "If the other does not become himself in his action, neither do I. Neither the submission nor the domination of the other permits me to become myself. Only in mutual recognition do both of us become ourselves. Only together can we achieve what each of us wants to achieve." Karl Jaspers and Merleau-Ponty both believe in the importance of dialogue and that communication only takes place in the freedom to be true to one's self. For Jaspers, life is communication, or "the consciousness of being a decisive factor for myself and the other drives me to utmost readiness for communication." Another common point between these two authors is the experience of a mutual creation that is generated by two people in dialogue and communication with each other. Merleau-Ponty speaks about a struggle to retain the Self in the creation of dialogue and living in the moment. Jaspers also is aware of the struggle but in a slightly different context. Jaspers states, "This communication is not blind love, indifferent to its object, but a contending love which is clear sighted. It challenges, complicates, demands and draws the other potential Existenz out of its potentiality ... Communication is a fight for the truth of Existenz and not for something of universal validity..."

Jaspers and Merleau-Ponty both find the greatest expression of truthful being in the experience of living in the world. Jaspers speaks of love not being communication but rather the source of communication. If communication ceases for Jaspers, then he asserts that love will die because without communication love was but a delusion. In this respect, he differs from Merleau-Ponty, with Jaspers' focus being on love and communication. Merleau-Ponty does not address as clearly intersubjectivity from the perspective of love but rather living through your present condition whatever it may be. Jaspers' individual becomes himself through the community of communication, which is truth, "the total will-to-communicate." Jaspers' strong assertion is that intersubjectivity is absolutely necessary in order for the communication of truth to take place. He says, "The great seductions are: through belief in God to withdraw from men; through supposed knowledge of the absolute truth to justify one's isolation; through supposed possession of being itself to fall into a state of complacency that is in truth lovelessness. ... At all the levels of communication among men, companions in fate lovingly find the road to the truth. This road is lost to the man who shuts himself off from others in stubborn self-will, who lives in a shell of solitude." For Jaspers, communication is the ultimate achievement and is truthful living. Merleau-Ponty did not place as much emphasis on communication but on living through your present set of circumstances and living in the reality in the now, which allows two consciousnesses to become one.

Albert Camus, in "The Rebel", discusses intersubjectivity through the need to rebel against conformity that may oppress and enslave others. He has in common with Jaspers and Merleau-Ponty the perception of communication and dialogue only being possible between free individuals. Camus also talks about the struggle inherent in human nature. "There is in fact, nothing in common between a master and a slave; it is impossible to speak and communicate with a person who has been reduced to servitude." Camus, like the other two authors recognized the imperative need for dialogue and communication. Without dialogue and communication there can be no real understanding. "Instead of the implicit and untrammeled dialogue through which we come to recognize our similarity and consecrate our destiny, servitude gives sway to the most terrible silence."

Camus, unlike Jaspers, did not speak of intersubjectivity in terms of love, lovelessness and truth. Camus saw intersubjectivity as a necessity for man's humanity to man to remain in place. "If injustice is bad for the rebel, it is not because it contradicts an eternal idea of justice, but because it perpetuates the silent hostility that separates the oppressor from the oppressed. It kills the small part of existence that can be realized on this earth through the mutual understanding of men."

Communication for both Jaspers and Camus is a key issue for men being able to live in truth. Camus like Jaspers writes of the struggle being an assertion for life. "Every rebel, solely by the movement that sets him in opposition to the oppressor, therefore pleads for life." Camus, like Merleau-Ponty finds that life and its living is the greatest expression of the union of dualities. "There is no suffering, no torture anywhere in the world which does not affect our everyday lives... Today tragedy is collective."

There is more in common between these writers than differences. Merleau-Ponty, Jaspers and Camus all agree that dialogue and communication are paramount. They disagree or perhaps arrive at different destinations in what will be the outcomes for lack of dialogue. Merleau-Ponty sees ... "The nation and class are neither versions of fate which hold the individual in subjection from the outside nor values which he posits from within. They are modes of co-existence, which are a call upon him... Both idealism and realism, the former by making the external world immanent in me, the latter by subjecting me to a causal action, falsify the motivational relations existing between the external and internal worlds and make the relationship unintelligible."

Jaspers believes we live in community and only with communication. "Out of the consciousness of a becoming truth, first springs the possibility of a radical openness of the will to communicate in actuality - a will, however, that can never fulfill itself except in an historical moment which, precisely as such becomes incommunicable." Camus concludes, "There is no reason why some of us should not take on the job of keeping alive, through the apocalyptic historical vista that stretches before us, a modest thoughtfulness which, without pretending to solve everything, will constantly be prepared to give some human meaning to everyday life."

II. Albert Camus demands that through your commitment and how you live your life, you offer yourself as an image of authenticity. In "The Rebel" Camus states "... since the man who lies shuts himself off from other men, falsehood is therefore proscribed and, on a slightly lower level, murder and violence which impose definitive silence. Every ambiguity, every misunderstanding, leads to death; clear language and simple words are the only salvation from this death." In the time of Hitler, when the world stood in silence and allowed six million Jews to be killed there can be no greater example of how the inauthenticity of silence lead to death. Camus states, "Mankind's long dialogue has just come to an end. And naturally a man with whom one cannot reason is a man to be feared." There was no reasoning with Hitler; a Hitler would have heard no amount of international discussions because he was completely mad. Yet, the world community in retrospect with all of its intelligence made an inauthentic attempt to derail Hitler and his armies. And, by the time they did take action millions of people had already lost their lives.

Jacob Boehme writes about desire and how fulfilling desire can lead you to the depths of inauthenticity. "We now consider Desire, and find that it is a stern attraction, like an eternal elevation or motion. For it draws itself into itself, and makes itself pregnant, so that from the thin freedom where there is nothing, a darkness is produced. For the desiring will becomes by the drawing-in thick and full, although there is nothing but darkness."

In the anguish of the choices that one must make daily, is the decision to be true to oneself or to betray oneself and live a lie. To live an authentic life one must contend everyday with despair and often the feeling of having been abandoned by God. The question must be faced, what is the true condition of my life? Am I really expressing the truth on the Eight-fold path as described by Buddha?

Jacob Boehme also writes, "We have evil and good in us. The one wherein we draw our will, its essence becomes active in us; and such a property we draw also from without into us. We have two Mysteries, the divine and devilish in us, of the two eternal worlds, and also of the outer world. What we make of ourselves, that we are; what we awaken in ourselves that is moving in us. If we lead ourselves to good, then God's Spirit helps us; but if we lead ourselves to evil, then God's wrath and anger help us."

Boehme clearly points to the path of authenticity and inauthenticity that lies before each one. When you choose the path of fulfillment by following the inner voice of spirit, you authenticate yourself, with the right actions of your choice. Choosing the desires of your cravings leads you to an emptiness that is filled with darkness and nothingness. Cravings that are eternally crying out to be filled again and again because there is no filling this emptiness. The emptiness of your life which becomes a lie lived is the ultimate expression of inauthenticity.

Meister Eckhart writes in a very clear manner about the nature of authenticity versus inauthenticity. "The impulse to sin is not sin but to consent to sin, to give way to anger, is indeed sin. Surely, if a just person could wish a thing, he would not wish to be rid of the impulse to sin, for without it he would be uncertain of everything he did, doubtful about what to do, and he would miss the honor and reward of struggle and victory. Because of the impulse to evil and excitement of it, both virtue and its rewards are in travail born." Once again the concept of having to choose between sin, or the inauthentic and good, or the authentic is part of the human condition.

In the New Testament in The Gospel according to Matthew there is an example of the authentic. These lines that follow come from "The Sermon on the Mount". "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is life not more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, "What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or "What shall we wear?" For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."

These instructions are one set of guidelines by which one can demonstrate the authentic life and reap the reward of having overcome the struggle with inauthenticity. To ignore the small still voice within that daily guides our life toward the path of righteousness is to live inauthentically and not know oneself; also hiding ultimately from others. Silencing the inner divine voice is the expression of self-hatred that in turn hates the world. As expressed by Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav, "No limits are set to the ascent of man, and to each the highest stands open. Here your choice alone decides." When you let in the higher voice and know that you know, then you have a choice to be authentic.