Comments on: Is ubuntu enough? (Part two in ubuntu series)

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 02:06:29 +0000

Louis, I think there are a lot of parallels there, though Buber takes a much more philosophical approach to it.

By: Louis

Louis — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:29:43 +0000

Is “ubuntu” somewhat similar to Buber’s concept of “I and Thou?”

By: UU Soul

UU Soul — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:45:56 +0000

No, I didn’t mean to suggest that you need it to practice ubuntu. I thought you asked if ubuntu is enough. I was only mentioning something that I thought was an important perspective to have in addition to/combination with ubuntu, which by the way is a great concept. I love that it doesn’t let you focus on seeing people as “other” which is so dangerous. Thanks for the thought provoking posts.

By: chutney

chutney — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:15:39 +0000

UU Soul, I’d be up to casting a wider net with ubuntu, to include a looser, wider understanding of humanity.

But I don’t think that everyone needs to cast that wider net in order to practice person-to-person ubuntu. If it helps, then more power to you. But I don’t think it’s strictly necessary.

By: UU Soul

UU Soul — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:44:48 +0000

In addition to ubuntu, I would add something like the concept/prayer Mitakuye Oyasin from the Lakota. Not to claim in depth knowledge of it, but it is something that I often think of when meditating. “All my relations,” acknowledging your place in the interdependent web as I understand it. I personally find it important not to limit my perspective to humans only. It gives me a sense of humility, of connectedness but also of relationship to each living thing that I encounter – the human in front of me included.

By: We already have what we need at Making Chutney

We already have what we need at Making Chutney — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:01:28 +0000

[…] Earlier I said ubuntu is all we need. Now I want to push further. […]

By: chutney

chutney — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:30:09 +0000

I don’t think ubuntu requires being a polymath at all. It requires only that you be you, and that you recognize that your being you depends radically upon other folks. Critical thinking helps, of course, but we can be good to each other without that.

All ideas are provisional, as you say. The god-word for what you’re saying in your second comment is idolatry, which for Tillich was making something ultimate which ain’t. And yet we must generalize to function—and probably, too, to function well. It’s a difficult balancing act.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:36:44 +0000

One more example, Chutney.

When I was in grad school, we were taught to try to keep our egos at bay regaring our own pet theories that we thought were “perfect”.

I was taught that no idea is ever perfect. It can always be improved on. Furthermore, it MUST be improved on. It makes every historian uncomfortable when his work is not being constantly discussed in the academic community because he/she feels as though it isn’t being challenged for improvement.

And nothing is as stale as a topic without any sort of application to the current day.

We have to keep our pride at bay and understand that reform is a process of evolution.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:39:01 +0000

I think it requires an expectation of all people to be well-rounded and not just versed in one particular area. It requires human kindness, mentoring, and the application of the golden rule, also.

I really wish each of us could strive to be a Polymath (Renaissance person). Not just because it makes a person much more interesting, but because it makes a person much more receptive to the needs and desires of others. If a person is able to pull from a wide variety of disciplines, synthesize them all together, and excell then he/she is heads and shoulders above.

I think our traditional education TRIES to do this, but we never teach our children to think critically. We never manage to encourage abstract logic and thinking outside the box. Instead, our heads are filled with gobs of information that no one really links up and makes us understand WHY we need them.

That’s what I think is lacking. Particularly with the important-sounding activist who lacks people skills but trumpets a lot of impressive sounding causes. And why not teach interpersonal relationships skills in schools as well?