https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=n9AB14m7W_0
But I think that any of those ways of thinking about subjectivity sort of limit us when it comes to interacting with God or reading the scripture. And I think it’s the Psalms in particular that helps us recover, I guess what we might call a kind of scriptural subjectivity. So by that I mean that we don’t exclude the physical or the cognitive or the affective. All those things are definitely part of the human experience. But I think what Psalms show us is that subjectivity, human subjectivity is fundamentally relational. That what makes us who we are as beings and what kind of is at the core of our interaction with the world is our capacity for relationality, specifically for relating to God, which I think in the Psalms is presented as like the fundamental relationship. So, and that’s I mean, I just want to mention one thing because if you realize then that when Christ says that, you know, the, let’s say all the commandments are gathered into love God and love your neighbor, what’s being enunciated there is in some ways is not just an ethical command. It’s not just the way that you have to act, but the way we have to be that it’s a it’s an enunciation of what it means to be a being in itself, that a being is has to be in relationship with in relation to others. That’s how it works. Right. So like, how do we move from the kind of domain of the self to something outside the self, I guess is a question. And do we do it on the basis of, again, our emotions or cognitive maneuvers or whatever? I think the Psalms kind of anchor us in something deeper and kind of a deeper way to make that movement that movement that is fundamentally a movement of love. So I was kind of helped in my reflections by this distinction that philosopher Charles Taylor makes right between two models of the self. Right. So he talks about something called the poorest self, which he associates with, you know, pre-modern cultures. Right. So where people didn’t sort of draw this hard line between themselves and the world outside, but saw the boundary as porous. And so things that happen in the world essentially can be experienced in this in this sort of direct way. There isn’t like a wall, so to speak. And so this, he says, goes along with experiencing the world in an enchanted way. Right. So that we see what kind of porous to the spirits were porous to cosmic forces were porous to God. And that in this mode, you know, along with that is actually a kind of vulnerability. Right. So you have people who are sort of feel vulnerable to spiritual forces. And so one of the things that Taylor’s interested in is like what it means for us to be modern people. Right. And he says that one of the hallmarks of modernity is a kind of shift from the study of the porous self, where we are kind of feel ourselves as being connected to and vulnerable to that, which is outside of us, to what he calls the buffered self. So when he speaks of the buffered self, he’s sort of talking about a model of the self in which we have like complete control over the meanings we assign to the world. So we can kind of stand back, observe things and decide what they mean. And we have this sort of buffer then that that insulates us from what happens to us. And so not only do we have sort of control over over what we the meanings we assign to things in the world, but he says that people, you know, see in this, see this as liberative because it gives them freedom. Like I can assign whatever meanings I want. I can kind of remake myself as I like. And I think of Richard Rorty in connection with this because, you know, he’s the one who sort of celebrated our kind of Nietzschean potential to recreate ourselves. And, you know, he says, he has this quote, he says, there’s nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves. So it’s a kind of buffered self. And behind the buffer is this container that’s completely at our disposal. Yes, I think this kind of modern view of selfhood. And, you know, I have to say, to a great degree is kind of the view that I walk around with, you know, as a function of, you know, living when and where I do. And it makes it hard to kind of relate to that, which is on the other side of the buffer. If you know, if you’re if you if you’re kind of experiencing yourself in this in this particular way. But it’s interesting that now because that that way of thinking, especially online, especially the fact that we’re physically separated from each other and we interact through screens we interact. There’s an acceleration of this like the notion of the buffered self is manifesting itself in the world and accelerated and even in the means by which we interact like you and I right now interacting through this screen. And so the consequences of it are more visible. Right. If you think of avatar culture like this idea of people self creating themselves online through their personas that are extremely that have become very strange. And, you know, like, they can even be aliens or furries or whatever like people will self create themselves in ways that have become so idiosyncratic that it’d be it’s almost now impossible not to notice the the side effects of this buffered stuff like it’s for it’s fragmenting and splintering in ways that in some ways I think is opening a call of the heart for people wanting something more wanting a more connected reality. Yeah, I think that’s an excellent I do think that digital stuff and screens sort of are, in a way, a kind of buffer right like that’s just the version of the buffer that we’re kind of working with today and. And also the thing about the digital is that it really has this idea of plasticity and kind of infinite potential and I can, you can rearrange and reconfigure endlessly and so this idea that the kind of stuff that we work with behind the buffer is infinitely plastic and it’s part of the you can just reuse you know use and reuse cultural tropes and memes and you know this bit of song and this image and you can just sort of put it all together and create whatever you want. But I think what the Psalms point to when it comes to subjectivity is this idea that it’s not infinitely plastic there is actually something there that that is God given that can only really be fulfilled and fulfilled when when when we come back into communion with God. So I think rorty is is wrong there’s there’s more than down in there than what we put there, namely, there is what what God put there. And I think it’s the Psalms that in this really unique way kind of tutor us you know they kind of like lead us in this sort of manner of living that reconnects us I think with a notion of the self that’s not fragmented as you know to use your word it’s but but actually kind of reintegrated. you