By Corbin Croy
The Ground of Being
The Ground of Being and the Wholly Other are just two sides of the same coin. They express the same reality, but they are used differently to address how we relate to ultimate reality; if one can appeal to spatial or temporal terms to best explain this distinction. The Ground of Being looks behind us to see what is our ultimate source of “being.” Humans have long struggled to truly define this Ground of Being, and that is partly because this idea of a Ground of Being is in a sense beyond definition. To use a spatial metaphor it would be a category “outside” of being which grounds or anchors all being. It has the advantage that once it is acknowledged it becomes an unmovable and invincible principle, the thing to which all (other) things relate to, but since technically it exists outside of being there is really no sense in speaking univocally about it. The Wholly Other, on the other hand (pun intended), looks ahead of our self to the future and relates to something beyond us. It takes the Ground of Being and filters it through all other knowledge and relations and considers something relational for the Ground of Being. So when we speak of the Wholly Other we are speaking of a theory on how to relate to the Ground of Being.
Since the uncertainty that arises from the Narrative of Otherness cannot truly be resolved through any-other, nor can it be resolved through the self, then it becomes possible that we can through the Ground of Being this issue can be addressed and fixed. Now this is an issue which does strike to the heart of our being. This is not simply a really, really hard problem that we cannot find an answer for and so we now turn to the Ground of Being. The issue of how we can forgive our self, or how we can participate in the Narrative of Otherness as both subject and object, is a fundamental issue to our very being. It describes our humanity taking shape in the world process. So without the Narrative of Otherness there is no humanity which participates in the world. It is both necessary and sufficient for our being.
So when we look to the Ground of Being for how we can forgive our self, we are met with a reality that is immanent and rapturous. The reality that comes over us is not some abstract judgment to be made from superior minds or intellects. It becomes a question of what is the true source of who you are as a person. Who is the real “you”? What is your core? When all flesh is laid bare what remains of you? This is not about what you want, it is not about your desire, or appetites. This is about what controls your desire. What makes you want what you want. What disciplines your appetite? When you peel away at your motives and emotions and dig down into the core of who you are then you are getting in touch with the Ground of your Being. You are finding that primal urge to burst forth into reality.
I speak of this as being possessive, as though you find *your* Ground of Being, and I find my own, but the truth is that the Ground of Being, in itself is impersonal and non-possessive. When we dig into the depths of your person you are not looking for something you own. You are looking for that which you participate in that makes you, you. In the name of the best that is within you, and to the “you” that is that you can be, should be, and hope to be that is the Ground of Being directed toward the Narrative of Otherness. When we call upon this name, when we invoke the Ground of Being in such a way an interesting dynamic takes place. We come to see our self as “other” within our own narrative, and this transforms our relation to the Ground of Being as something Wholly Other.
To take upon oneself the task of becoming “other” even unto himself to achieve the goal of self-forgiveness gives way to a relationship with the Ground of Being. When we can make peace with our self, we must incorporate some metaphysic or spirituality in order to not think of ourselves as mere appeasers. When we come to see our self as “other” in our own narrative and extend to our self the forgiveness and grace that is required for any narrative to develop toward resolution then the Ground of Being ceases to be simply an abstract idea. It becomes involved in our own narrative, and must be designated accordingly. When this happens the Ground of Being relates to us as the Wholly Other. But what is the Wholly Other?
The Wholly Other
Everything is separate. This is what makes the Narrative of Otherness possible. We only come near to things by increasing our separation from them. A dialectic, or narrative, relationship does not diminish separation. It only facilitates inner reconcilement in the hope that this will make separation obsolete. The Wholly Other is not far off. He is not separate. We are separate. He is near. The Wholly Other is so “other” that he is closer to us then we are even to our self. The Wholly Other can help us come to self-forgiveness because He accepts us as we totally are, in our completeness. Now in our present state I am merely using personal metaphors to help describe the Wholly Other, just as I used spatial and temporal metaphors to describe the Ground of Being. We come to the Wholly Other in a personal manner, and so it is apt to personify this relationship, just as it is apt to use projection in all I-Thou relationships.
Understanding that the Ground of our Being is Wholly Other and that it is closer to us then we are to ourselves facilitates in the Narrative of Otherness as being the only candidate capable of reconciling our narratives to reach ultimate resolution. At this point these are mere ideas and abstractions that work within a worldview of our we relate to ultimate reality. There is nothing here that is particularly theistic or atheistic. It incorporates both in understanding how we as people can ultimately come to be in brotherhood with one another. In this sense, it is merely a social theory. But it does create an opportunity for something that can possibly guide us to theism.
Taken as they are the Ground of Being and the Wholly Other share many characteristics that are emblematic of what we might typically think of God, as being. They are transcendent and they possess an eternal quality. The Ground of Being transcends Being, because it is the Ground for all Being. And the Wholly Other signifies one other aspect of God in relation to man, and that is holiness. The original word for holiness has always meant, “set apart.” And the Wholly Other is the most “set apart” that anything can possibly be. But there is one thing that the Ground of Being and the Wholly Other that are severely lacking. God, in traditional theism, is a person.
Appeal to Grace
Now let us take a pause for a moment and consider what God means in relation to ourselves anyways. It can be said that all people serve God, or a god, in some way. We all have a god, even if it is not the actual Gee Oh Dee. For some popularity is their god. For others it is achievement, and still for some it might be freedom, or security. These are all concerns that we have which direct us to elevate them as worthy of something to which we can be, or ought to be, ultimately concerned with. Now we do not call ourselves theists simply because we want to get rich or die tryin! So what “concern” does the God of theism address in order to make itself unique and particular. Why is God different then god?
What the theistic model provides is a rather ubiquitous idea that that which must concern us ultimately must be sovereign unto itself. Things rust. Wood burns. Money gets spent. Respect is conditional, and beauty fades. In just about all senses man’s concerns are fleeting and finite. A concern which is ultimate should be something which cannot succumb to these fleeting conditions. Thus, god gets a capital “G” to signify that a Sovereign God is the proper God.
Well, this may fit one requirement for theism. In this sense we can call the Ground of Being and the Wholly Other our God, because at this point our God becomes our sovereign. But there is still this lacking of personhood. It seems that we are simply calling the Ground of Being God because it is definitionally expedient. But there is still lacking any personal contact, or relationship to something in which we can say that God is a person. Without this we really only have a half-theism. We can say that we serve God and that he is our Sovereign, and those words can have meaning for us, but when we say that God is a person we are still unsure as to what they means.
Making an argument for why God is a person will have to wait for another article, but for now, I make this one appeal. God-as-a-person can make it easier to accept grace and the reality of self-forgiveness in the Narrative of Otherness when we receive forgiveness from on high.
