Having
refers to things and things are fixed and describable. Being refers to
experience, and human experience is in principle not describable. What is fully
describable is our persona – the mask we each wear, the ego we present –
for this persona is in itself a thing.
In
contrast, the living human being is not a dead image and cannot be described
like a thing. In fact, the living human being cannot be described at all.
Indeed, much can be said about me, about my character, about my total
orientation to life. This insightful knowledge can go very far in understanding
and describing my own or another’s psychical structure. But the total me, my
whole individuality, my suchness that is as unique as my fingerprints are, can
never be fully understood. Only in the process of natural alive relatedness can
the other and I overcome the barrier of separateness, inasmuch as we both
participate in the dance of life.
Being
active vs. being active
The
mode of being has at its prerequisite independence, freedom, and the presence
of critical reason. Its fundamental characteristic is that of being active, not
in the sense of outward activity, of busyness, but of inner activity, the
productive use of our human powers. To be active means to give expression to
one’s faculties, talents, to the wealth of human gifts with which - though in varying degrees – every human
being is endowed. It means to renew oneself, to grow, to flow out, to love, to
transcend the prison of one’s isolated ego, to be interested, to “list”, to
give. Only to the extent that we decrease the mode of having, that is of
nonbeing – i.e., stop finding security
and identity by clinging to what we have, by “sitting on it,” by holding onto
our ego and our possessions – can the mode of being emerge. “To be” requires
giving up one’s egocentricity and selfishness, or in words often used by the
mystics, by making oneself “empty” and “poor”. But most often people find
giving up their having orientation too difficult; any attempt to do so arouses
their intense anxiety and feels like giving up all security, like being thrown
into an ocean when one does not know how to swim. They do not know that when
they have given up the crutch of property, they can begin to use their own
proper forces and walk by themselves. What holds them back is the illusion that
they could not walk by themselves, that they would collapse if they were not
supported by the things they have.
In
modern usage, activity is usually defined as a quality of behavior that brings
about a visible effect by the expenditure of energy. Thus, for instance,
farmers, who cultivate their lands are called active; so are the workers on
assembly lines, sales people who persuade their customers to buy, investors to
invest their own or others people’s money, physicians who treat their patients,
clerks who sell postage stamps, bureaucrats who file papers. While some of
these activities require more interest and concentration than others, this does
not matter with regard to “activity”. Activity, by and large, is socially
recognized purposeful behavior that results in corresponding socially useful
change. Activity in the modern sense refers only to behavior, not to the
person behind the behavior. It makes no difference whether are active because
they are driven by external force, like a slave, or by internal compulsion,
like a person driven by anxiety. It does not matter whether they are interested
in their work, like a carpenter or creative writer, or a scientist or a
gardener; or whether they have no inner relation to and satisfaction in what
they are doing, like the worker on the assembly line or the postal clerk.
The
modern sense of activity makes no distinction between activity and mere
busyness. But there is a fundamental difference between the two that
corresponds to the terms “alienated” or “ non-alienated” in respect to
activities. In alienated activity I do not experience myself as the acting
subject of my activity; rather I experience the outcome of my activity – and
that is something “over there,” separated from me and standing above, and
against me. In alienated activity I do no really act; I am acted upon by
external or internal forces. I have become separated from the result of my
activity.
In
non-alienated activity, I experience myself as the subject of my activity.
Non-alienated activity is a process of giving birth to something, of producing
something and remaining related to what I produce. This also implies that my
activity is a manifestation of my powers, that I and my activity are one. I
call this non-alienated activity productive activity. Productive activity
denotes the state of inner activity; it does not necessarily have a connection
with the creation of a work of art, of science, or of something “useful.”
Productiveness is a character orientation all human beings are capable of, to
the extent that they are not emotionally crippled. Productive persons animate
whatever the touch. They give birth to their own faculties and bring to life to
other persons and things.
“Activity”
and “passivity” can each have two entirely different meanings. Alienated
activity, in the sense of mere busyness, is actually “passivity,” in the sense
of productivity; while passivity, in terms of non busyness, may be non
alienated activity. This is so difficult to understand today because most
activities is alienated “passivity,” while productive passivity is rarely
experienced.
Please take me
back to the main page