Wise men have asserted that we only really know something when we can
recreate
it in our own
language.
If someone tells me something, and then asks "Do you
get
that?" and I do, then the way I see it, I have three options. One, I
can say "Yes I do
get
it" and provide no further commentary. In this case, aside from my
saying so, there's no
clear
proof I do
get
it. Two, I can say "Yes I do
get
it" and then echo back ie parrot back exactly
what I heard them say. And I do mean "exactly what I
heard them say": there's a
world
of difference between hearing and
listening
(which is a subject for another
conversation
on another occasion). In this case, there's proof I do
get
it (or at least there's proof I do
getsomething) but it's not
clear
proof. Three, I can
recreate
what they said in my own
language.
It's the latter which is
clear
proof I do
get
it. It also shows I'm
listening,
I'm
present
to the
conversation,
and I'm being fully
out-here
with the material ie it shows my
humanity
in
play.
So what would I say if I were to
recreate
his assertion "It's what we're
present
to which defines our
humanity"
in my own
language
to prove I do
get
it? What I would say is "It's what (and especially who)
we're
out-here
with which defines our
humanity.".
Being
out-here
with you ie being
out-here
with people, is to be fully
present
ie as fully
present
as it's possible to be. You might say it's being
presentfor
presence's
own sake. It's the yardstick ie the scale with which being
present
is measured.
Whatever you may share in
answer
to his
question
"What are you
present
to now?" will give an accurate indication of your
humanity.
Being
present
to something (ie being fully
out-here
with it) calls for all the being it's possible to muster. This is our
essentialhumanity.
When we're not
present
to something ie when we're not fully
out-here
with it, or when we're
present
to something other than (ie to something less than) people, we're
bringing forth something other than our
essentialhumanity.
It's in this
context
that our preoccupation with all things tech is costing us
our
humanity
(which is also a subject for
another conversation
on another occasion). When we're preoccupied with tech, we're not fully
out-here
with people. Instead, we're
present
to something other than (ie to something less than) people. Now, is
this bold assertion
the truth?
... or is it plainly nottrue?
... or is it somewhere in between? Personally I know no better
way
for you to find out for yourself than to just be with it (as
controversial as it is),
sit
with it for a while in your lap like a hot
brick,
and then to try it on for size.
Consider
its validity like a possibility, and take what you
get.
However with all that said, and setting aside my own
opinions
as well as my own
views
of the subject, I really don't see any point in
recreating
his
original
assertion in my own
languageother than to
demonstrate
I
get
it. Aside from doing that, should it be (indeed, can it
be) improved on?
Personally
I don't think so. Taking his "It's what we're
present
to which defines our
humanity"
(which is to say trying it on for size) as a given ie as an
axiom, what provides a count-on-able
direct access
to your own
humanity,
is his
question
"What are you
present
to now?". And my
note
to accompany you asking this
question
for yourself, is notice it won't only have one right
answer.
It's a greatquestion
- so like all truly great
questions,
it'll generate lots and lots of
answers,
the plethora of which prove your
humanity
knows no bounds.
