Gelassenheit:

How I Avoided Writing a Paper on Existential Nihilism

Sarah Miller

Wheaton College

Dr. Read Schuchardt

Digital Society

May 4, 2015

This paper is concerned with what is and what ought to be. What is: the digital

society, the technium, the thing with which we dont quite know what to do. What ought to

be: a way of living that allows us to affirm our existence as earthly beings without

compromising the other-worldliness that inhabits us as spiritual, divinely created beings.

We each have a limited number of years for which to inhabit the earth as corporeal

creatures, so what should those years look like, in light of the human-created conditions,

structures, and systems under which we live and in light of humanitys inherent longing to

rest with its creator in eternity?

I will focus on the concept of dwelling, using four definitions of the word dwell to

guide the papers flow of thought. First, the dwell that means to inhabit a specific place at a

specific time. Here, I will be concerned with what it means to be a member of the digital

society, especially in relation to how we are told to view ourselves as self-creations. Second,

the dwell that connotes lingering on a source of dissatisfaction, pain, or anxiety. In this

section I will briefly explore the deep sadness and despair that comes with an awareness of

our own helplessness at the hands of the technium. What are the consequences of dwelling

too long on our own images? In the next section, I will explore possible solutions. This is

the dwell that implies focusing ones attention on a vision of something good and lovely.

Here, we move closer to a restoration of our humanity. It is a better way of living, but it is

still not quite enough. We must still come to terms with the conditions of the world in

which we must live. Finally, I offer another potential solution, a way of thinking about the

world that allows one to be in the world in good faith. So, how does one come to terms with

not only ones own existence, but also find peace of mind in relation to all of the things that

make the world a pretty objectively terrible (but potentially wonderful) place to live?
 3

dwell /dwel/
verb
1. Live in or at a specified place

The digital society is at once connected and disconnected, conducive to

omnipresence and omni-absence, an infinite source of information and limited by the

finiteness of human intellect. The digital society is these things and many more, but

perhaps the most significant aspect of digital life is the way that it has changed our

conception of what it means to be a self, what it means to be, especially what it means to be

in relation other beings. Under digital conditions, the presentation and conception of the

human self is entirely disembodied and symbolic.

The term telecopresence describes the primary form of human interaction in

digital societyan interaction that is mediated by the Internet, occurring from a distance

in a disembodied environment (Zhao, 2005). Telecopresence is most conducive to a

customizable presentation of the self. Gen-Xers are especially adept at thisappealing to

prescribed symbols of popular culture to construct an online identity that tells their

Facebook friends and Instagram followers who they areor, at least, who they would like

to be. Telecopresence is also the context in which one learns how to conceive of the self

that is, where ones own perception of the self is influenced by how one perceives others to

respond to their constructed digital self. We attempt to find ourselves in the eyes of others,

barely aware that every self-perception is merely a distorted reflection, only a small part of

which actually reflects our true, embodied selves, and the rest of which is the more

attractive, more desirable, more intelligent, and, in many ways, less human, constructed

digital self.
 4

Zhao (2005) describes the digital self as oriented inward, narrative in nature,

retractable, and multiplied. It is oriented inward in that it creates external, disembodied,

symbolic representations of inner thoughts, feelings, and desires. Every external

representation of the self faces inward, not reflecting the worlds true perceptions of the

individual, but the individuals perceptions of him/herself. It is narrative in nature in the

sense that, in the absence of physical interaction, the individual must actively construct his

or her own identity. We are nothing until we type at the keyboard and others do not know

us unless we tell them something (Zhao, 2005). Retractability is a result of anonymity. To

the anonymous other, one never need be held accountable for the symbolic, digital self

the one found in a snappy 140-character Twitter bio or Valencia-filtered profile picture.

And finally, the multiplicity of self exists both in the vast array of online domains through

which digital interaction occurs, and in what de Zengotita (2005) calls mobility among the

optionsthe virtual menu of endless choices and possibilities that make up a persons

identity and experience.

Such are the woes of the postmodern, the result of which is a faade of freedom,

where the authentic self is something to be found somewhere in the menagerie of choices.

Says de Zengotita (2005), You are completely free to choose because it doesnt matter

what you choose. Thats why you are so free. Because it doesnt matter. For many, this

plethora of choice is overwhelming, often paralyzing. All the options are out there. At some

level, you accept this, and that is why evaluation of the whole is ultimately swamped with

ambivalence as well. Everybody can be everything; nobody can be anything.

So what do these options look like? For the majority of people, the menu of choice is

twofold. For every quality, experience, characteristic, etc., there is another, opposing
 5

option. You are male or female, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, religious or non-

religious, and so on. The flood of the information market will eventually render this binary

system of identity construction obsolete, but until then, individuals are forced to navigate a

crippling array of choices and compromises. Crippling, in that the either/or nature of

binaries forces one to deny certain parts of their identity in order to affirm others. As in

Gleicks evaluation of information, these choices may seem too cheap and too expensive at

the same time (Gleick, 2011). Binaries are only a matter of language and symbolism, to

actually attempt to abide by them is bound to produce failure (St. Pierre, 2000).

dwell /dwel/
verb
2. (dwell on/upon) Linger over; think, speak, or write at length about (a particular
subject, especially one that is a source of unhappiness, anxiety, or dissatisfaction)

But so what? Its hard being a human in the digital age; get over it. In fact, be

grateful, says Kevin Kelly. Without the full spectrum of choice and opportunity afforded us

by the technium, we would never be able to access our full potential as human beings. It is

only because of technological advancesand the choices they producethat humankind is

able to better itself. Only a very small number of us may choose to reject the technium for

the sake of a humbler, monastic way of living, sacrificing true choice and opportunity for

constrained choices and tiny opportunities (Kelly, 2010). How quaint.

There is no denying that human achievement as a result of technology is quite

remarkable. Since the dawn of the printing age, the achievements that mark moments in

time as important to human history have appeared to accelerate and increase

exponentially, folding over and over upon themselves until something extraordinary is
 6

happening every day. The printing press itself is a principal factor in producing the

conceptualization of the digital age. It is not merely one of many equal factors facilitating

change, says Garth Jowett (1981), For printing became the agent which elucidated the

changes themselves.

As remarkable as those changes may be, Kelly (2010) recognizes that humanity is

reaching the end of an era, in part as a result of those changes and achievements:

About 10,000 years ago, humans passed a tipping point where our ability to modify
the biosphere exceeded the planets ability to modify us. That threshold was the
beginning of the technium. We are at a second tipping point where the techniums
ability to alter us exceeds our ability to alter the technium.

David Nye (2007) agrees: we have brought this radical shift in power upon

ourselves. Inventions and innovations, and especially the choices that arise from them, may

appear relatively inconsequential until a society tries to choose something else. Nye gives

the example of the electric current. A society may adopt direct current or alternating

current, 110 volts or 220 volts, But a generation after these choices have been made it is

costly and difficult to undo such a decision (2007). Other inventions like the telephone and

the automobile were revolutionary in that they literally transformed the landscape and

systems by which our society now functions. To turn back now would be too costly and too

difficult.

The conclusion: technology cant be stopped. This realization is either a moment of

shock and horrorthe sleepwalker waking to find blood on his handsor a moment of

triumph and confirmation of what we suspected all alongyes, we really are gods. Perhaps

both.

One could argue that the development of artificial intelligence is evidence of the

latter response. Noreen Herzfeld (2002) says:

To replace relationship with God and with each other with relationship with our
own artifacts is idolatry. If we hope to find in [artificial intelligence] that other with
whom we can share our being and responsibilities, then we will have created a
stand-in for God in our own image.

Of course, the idolatrousness of creating in our own image is not limited to artificial

intelligence. Any number of technologies and devices could replace those words in

Herzfelds statement. We are hypnotized by our own visages, creating extensions and

reflections of ourselves, over and over and over until we are indistinguishable from our

own creation. Lucas Introna (2009) compares the contemporary way of being to a

hybridized existencepart human, part machine. We are the humans that we are because

of the things that we allow to mediate our existence, and in the same way, things are the

things that they are because we made them for our purposes and in our own image. We

even attempt to transcend our own mortality. Introna (2009) asks:

Do we not build pyramids, cathedrals, temples, and towering office blocks as

concrete expressions of our yearning for the possibility of overcoming our finitude
inscribing into the flesh of things our deepest existential desire for immortality, a
life after death?

This, this is the source of the profound dissatisfaction that prickles and stings from

every corner of humanity. We are neither perfect beings, nor perfect creators, and we

deeply long for a perfection that our own hands, minds, and spirits can never attain.

Moreover, we are not inherently immortal creatures, and a life after death will never be

possible if the infinitude of our being is dependent on the infinitude

of the things we create. Yet we remain under the delusion that it just might be possible.

dwell /dwel/
verb
3. (dwell on/upon) (Of ones eyes or attention) Linger on (a particular object or
place)

For the one who sees the truth about the technium with horror, repulsion, and fear,

a possible solution may be to remove oneself from the technium as often as possible, to

refuse to be defined by the things of the digital world. Perhaps in this state, as distant and

distinct from technology as one can be, you could cling more tightly to the natural, the

divinely created, the things that reflect The Creators image rather than your own. Perhaps

if you took the time to simply be outdoors, or if you were joined closely and intimately with

another person, or if you were to see natural wonders with your own eyes, then you might

find a moment of respite from the buzz of the machine.

If we all somehow managed to lift our tethered gazes from Narcissus mirror, and

glanced aboutlooking each other in the eyes and reveling in the raw power and fragile

intricacy of creationthen surely we would want to kill ourselves a little bit less than we

did last night. Perhaps we might even catch a glimpse of the divine.

And we very well might. These things are good. Herzfeld (2002) describes the three

approaches to understanding God in human nature: substantive interpretations, functional

interpretations, and relational interpretationsto be, to do, and to encounter, respectively.

Karl Barth argues that the image of God is not manifest in anything that a human is or does,

but in the fact that humans are a counterpart to God (Herzfeld, 2002). The very nature of

the Godheadthe Trinityimplies that a relational aspect is essential to Gods image.

According to Kierkegaard (1989), the human self is entirely relational. It is a

synthesis of the finite and the infinite, the temporal and the eternal, necessity and freedom.
 9

A human cannot be described only in physical terms or only in abstract, spiritual language.

We have both a physical body and a spiritual identity, but we are also the relation between

the physical and the spiritual. Kierkegaard describes this in three relations. The first is that

we are a relationthe spirit and the body. The second is that we are that relation's relating

to itself. And the third is the relation between the spirit-body self and that which

established it.

And so these things are good: to see Gods image in flourishing relationships with

other humans, to see his transformative work within ourselves, to attempt to be in holy

communion with God through other elements of his creation. We seek to encounter God as

earthly beings, to experience the spiritual via the physical, the relational.

At last, we are looking around instead of down, peering into faces and observing

alongside others rather than staring at surfaces. Yet somehow this is still not quite enough.

Though we are now focused on the natural things, the divinely created things, and no

longer the things that we created for ourselves and in our image, we still attempt to

exercise a certain power over them. The goodness of creation does not deter us from using

and manipulating it as a means to our own endsa way to justify our existence and

attempt to transcend our own fallenness. The finite is the medium through which we

attempt to see the infinite, and it does not satiate humanitys desire to see its creator in

eternity.

The closest that we, as earthly, finite beings, will ever come to an unmediated

relationship with God is through prayer.

Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the
love of the Spirit, to join fervently with me in prayer to God on my behalf. (Romans
15:30)

 10

Prayer, mediated only by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, is relational and

communal, but also personal. It is physical and spiritual, word and deed. While a prayer

may be enriched by human imagination, its power is not limited by the confines of the

human mind. In prayer, we take responsibility for our own existence, and may also

intercede on behalf of those around us. The act of prayer requires a certain degree of

volition, but ultimately, one must have the humility and strength to submit the will of the

individual to the will of the divine authority.

It is prayer that seems to be the answer to many of the questions of human

existence, especially now, when the relation between body and spirit seems so nonexistent

and reconciliation of the two so hopeless.

dwell /dwel/
noun
4. A slight regular pause in the motion of a machine.

Many people would attribute the concept of Gelassenheit to the Amish or another

Anabaptist group, but the words historical usage actually traces to medieval writings and

German mysticism.

Meister Eckhart, a Dominican preacher and 14th century mystic, described

Gelassenheit as a surrender of self and denial of ones will for the sake of Gods. These

principles would typically be viewed as traditional monastic codes, but Eckhart wrote for

the layperson, making monastic ideals accessible to all. Gelassenheit is a complete

yieldedness to Gods will, a letting-go of the self: Let us go on learning to abandon

ourselves until we hold on to nothing that is our own (Funk, 2014). To abandon oneself,
 11

according to Eckhart, is also to abandon all that which one is attached to. He uses the term

Abgeschiedenheit, which, commonly translated as disinterest, is actually closer to the

English understanding of the word detachment (Klaassen, 1991). The letting-go aspect of

Gelassenheit is best understood as a letting go of oneself and all created thingsa

detachment from earthly beings and objects. To hold tightly to earthly things is to hold

tightly to nothing: It is evident that everything created is nothing in itself. Rather, the

significance and value of all beings and things is found in who and what they are as

creation, insofar as they belong to their creator. Nothing has meaning in and of itself (Funk,

2014).

One could fairly argue that this sort of thinking borders dangerously close to

existential nihilism, in that it appears to deny an intrinsic value and purpose to all life.

Perhaps a better alternative to Eckharts letting-go model is the concept of letting-be. In

letting-be, we are able to encounter the intrinsic value of all created beings and things,

because we encounter them in light of the creator. Martin Heidegger suggests a move to a

more ethical encounter with things, an ethos of Gelassenheit in which one enters the open

region in which [all beings] dwell (Heidegger, 1977). In this openness, one has the

responsibility and freedom to cultivate and care for the Being of beingsthe inherent

goodness and worth that is present in every being and thing, not insofar as it is useful or

beautiful or valuable to me or you, but only insofar as it is a created thing: it is of God.

In this way of thinking, we can hold all earthly things with open hands, not expecting

ourselves to prescribe a certain value or degree of goodness to them. Gelassenheit does not

necessitate that one reject human creations and inventions for the sake of embracing that

which is natural and divinely created. Writers like Eckhart were writing against this way of
 12

thinkingagainst the idea that one is either in or out, worldly or ascetic, submerged in the

technium or totally isolated from it. While the principles of Gelassenheit would typically be

viewed as traditional monastic codes, Eckhart wrote for the layperson, making monastic

ideals accessible to all. In Gelassenheit, the monks and the techies are not so far apart, nor

do they need to be, because, Man is not the lord of beings. Man is the shepherd of being

(Heidegger, 1977).

The letting-be of Gelassenheit is not apathy, or even indifference. Indifference is

unmoved, thoughtless, uncaring. Apathy allows wrongdoing and stands by as violence is

carried out. The concept of Gelassenheit, especially in association with Anabaptist groups, is

often viewed as passivity, inaction, and, at worst, compliance with injustice. But it is the

letting-be of Gelassenheit that makes it countercultural and even revolutionary in its

opposition to instrumentalism, domination, and annihilation. (Manolopoulos, 2009).

Letting-be is the other of war in every sense, especially during an age in which the victims

of warfare and modern militarism extend far beyond the geographical borders of an actual

warzone. Manolopoulos (2009) goes on to say, We can therefore counteract disfigurative

and destructive violence by letting-be rather than indifferently standing by.

Introna (2009) uses the metaphor of a clearing to give the abstractness of

Gelassenheit a more tangible image. A clearingperhaps a natural one in a forest, or in an

empty lot surrounded by skyscrapers, or a sudden open space in a crowd of peoplegives

a moment of clarity and peace, a slight pause in the movement of a machine. It is space

space to see things as they are, and to have the humility and faith to let-be. It is a tenacious

serenity, an intentional quieting of the selfs desire to effect change or define oneself on

ones own terms. And finally, it is the courage to keep moving.

 13

Heidegger (1971) and Introna (2009) call this kind of existence a poetic dwelling,

but it may just as easily be described as a prayerful dwelling. In a world that seems utterly

hopeless and beyond understanding, even beyond redemption, we might turn to Christs

example in Gethsemane, when he prayed to the Father in the ultimate surrender of self-

will, the ultimate letting-be. Here, a brief description of the Gelassenheit known among

every generation and distinction of Anabaptism:

In medieval devotion, this word for self-surrender was invariably passive. It

referred to the souls submission before God. But in the Radical reformation of
Anabaptism it came to mean both passive yieldedness and active unyieldedness.
This union of self-surrender and radical obedience, uniquely Anabaptist, echoes the
identification of martyrs with Gethsemane: the resistance (If it is possible, let this
cup pass me by [Matthew 26:39]) and surrender (yet not as I will, but as thou wilt
[Matthew 26:39]) with courageous consequence (Enough! . . . Up, let us go
forward! [Mark 14:41-42]). (Funk)

I will conclude with a very short story. Last summer, a 51-year-old Amish-

Mennonite man named Matthew Schrock was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Physicians said he would die within the year. At his funeral last month, a small, square

paper card was placed between the pages of every program. On one side was the word

Gelassenheit in plain black print. On the other, some of his last words, spoken during his

final goodbye to his wife and their five children.

There is peace. Peace in saying, What is, is good. In our culture we talk of non-
resistance. This is non-resistance. People think this transitioning into eternity is an
awesome thing, but if you can say it now, if you can say it beforewhat is, is good,
that is just as awesome.

That is Gelassenheitwhat is, is good. It is a letting-be, a surrendering of the self in

life. Matthew learned how to die in the very literal sense, but Gelassenheit is a way of

learning how to die daily, a way of coming to terms with the suffering and despairthe

sickness unto death (Kierkegaard, 1983) that plagues everyday human existence. It is
 14

dwelling prayerfully, working out, instance by instance, how one ought to move through

the world in cultivation and care for the being of others. It makes the possibility of living in

this world that much more possible because it gives up the need for life to always be as it

ought to be.

 15

Sources


De Zengotita, T. (2006). Mediated: How the media shapes your world and the way you live in it
(p. 40-50). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Eppley, K. (2006). Defying Insider-Outsider Categorization: One Researcher's Fluid and

Complicated Positioning on the Insider-Outsider Continuum. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(3). Retrieved from
www.qualitative-research.net

Gleick, J. (2011). Chapters 9-10. In The information: A history, a theory, a flood. New York,
NY: Pantheon Books.

Funk, D. (2014). Gelassenheit: The Union of Self-Surrender and Radical Obedience. Canadian
Mennonite University. Retrieved from cmu.ca

Heidegger, M. (1971). The thing. In Poetry, Language, Thought. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. New
York, NY: Harper and Row.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays. Trans. William
Lovitt. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Herzfeld, N. (2002). Creating in our own image: artificial intelligence and the image of God.
Zygon, 37(2), 303-316.

Introna, L. (2009). Ethics and the Speaking of Things. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(4), 25-46.

Jowett, G. S. (1981). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (Book). Journalism Quarterly,
58(1), 117-119.

Kelly, K. (2011). What technology wants (p. 237). New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Kierkegaard, S. (1983). The sickness unto death: A Christian psychological exposition for
upbuilding and awakening (H. Hong, Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Klaassen, W. (1991). "Gelassenheit" and creation. Conrad Grebel Review, 9(1), 23-25.

Manolopoulos, M. (2009). Toward an Oscillational Eco-Ethos. In If Creation Is a Gift. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Nye, D. (2006). Technology matters questions to live with. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zhao, S. (2011). The Digital Self: Through The Looking Glass Of Telecopresent Others.
Symbolic Interaction, 28(3), 387-405. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.