[February 2005 journal entry]
A doctoral student/friend recently introduced me to some of his Philosophy Department faculty and fellow students. We spent an hour in conversation with the department chair, a junior faculty member, and a doctoral student just beginning her dissertation. We later spoke with another doctoral student who is partway into his dissertation. They all seemed intrigued with my irrigation ditch metaphor, medic metaphor, and anthropologist image as explanations of my experience living/working within the medical education and practice settings. My friend conveyed to me the next day that the department chair later said to him, “Please try to invite him back. I would like to sit and talk with him for hours.” My friend was pleased with the conversations. I was relieved that I had not diminished his status or standing in the department! Prior to the above meetings, my friend and I had met for dinner and conversation. In anticipation of the discussion with the individuals from the Philosophy Department, I had been thinking about how my approach to ethics, values, spirituality might be associated with the various approaches studied in academic circles (e.g., utilitarian, virtue, existential, deontological, pragmatic, . . .). After my friend summarized the angle of two authors he had most recently been reading/studying in his applied ethics course, we discussed how my approach might be classified. I identified for my friend three ‘markers’ by which I get my bearings and by which I test my decisions/actions – i.e., (1) the resolve to speak/act consistently in the multiple, simultaneous, distinguishable relationships/conversations of which I am a participant, (2) the resolve to be humane and to exercise a sacrificial social conscience, and (3) the resolve to be the sort of person who can be with individuals experiencing the worst in life and not harm/bruise them further. My friend and I later had the following e-mail exchange –
[Friend] “I feel as though I stammered more than anything when I attempted to describe (categorize) your ethical approach during our dinner conversation. Despite my poor analysis, I think your approach is superior to all others with which I’m familiar . . . at least in that you provide persons with concrete help/guidance and a foundation that, instead of having been primarily assumed, has been tested and found to be valuable. . . . Or is it that such ideas (e.g., integrity) only seem valuable? Is there tension between this claim and your willingness to identify what is not real (e.g., ‘religious’ claims)? The former idea appears to endorse the Kantian distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal (i.e., X seems valuable, but in reality might not be), while the latter does not (i.e., X does not seem to be real and, therefore, is not).”
[Doug] “I listened closely to your analysis of my approach to ethics (which is inseparably linked to spirituality re ‘the more’ about human beings). I have thought quite a bit about that part of our conversation. I did not in 1973 know Martin Buber’s life/thought, but I think his ‘I-It’/‘I-Thou’ paradigms re relationships/encounters capture the decision I had to make (daily, even hourly) re being with my first wife as multiple sclerosis hit her and never relented. To be ‘I-Thou’ with her necessitated the three ‘markers’ I mentioned.”