What would it be like to perceive like God: to exercise an intimate awareness of the cellular structure of each blade of grass, of the spinning, birthing cosmos; of each unfathomable human being?
What a lovely, thoughtful essay! I’ve thought much about what it might mean to behold someone, and Heidegger’s notion of Being has been helpful, together with his Greek-derived understanding of truth as “unconcealing.” So, beholding could mean to allow the Being of the Other to shine forth unconstrained in its infinite possibilities. Whereas perception tends to be a construct of a few phenomenal aspects of the Other, beholding in the mystical sense I mean here doesn’t stop there, but apprehends the Other’s infinite dimensionality without comprehending it. Mine is a rather different approach from yours, which is probably why I found yours so interesting. By beholding your essay in the sense I’ve stated, I allow myself to be taught by, or changed by it—or not. There is no force or constraint.
Thanks for your thoughts! I also love (what I understand of) Heidegger and his notion of unconcealing. I think I could have done more to gesture at this, but I did reference the impenetrably mysterious" nature of the Other to signal that such beholding can never be complete or full. And what a good thing that is!
What a lovely, thoughtful essay! I’ve thought much about what it might mean to behold someone, and Heidegger’s notion of Being has been helpful, together with his Greek-derived understanding of truth as “unconcealing.” So, beholding could mean to allow the Being of the Other to shine forth unconstrained in its infinite possibilities. Whereas perception tends to be a construct of a few phenomenal aspects of the Other, beholding in the mystical sense I mean here doesn’t stop there, but apprehends the Other’s infinite dimensionality without comprehending it. Mine is a rather different approach from yours, which is probably why I found yours so interesting. By beholding your essay in the sense I’ve stated, I allow myself to be taught by, or changed by it—or not. There is no force or constraint.
Thanks for your thoughts! I also love (what I understand of) Heidegger and his notion of unconcealing. I think I could have done more to gesture at this, but I did reference the impenetrably mysterious" nature of the Other to signal that such beholding can never be complete or full. And what a good thing that is!
Rachael, did I ever have you in a class at BYU? You seem very familiar. It would have been a long time ago, and so I apologize for my memory blur.