On Love and the Unbearable Lightness of Being

 April 2, 2021 Anno Domini

On love and the unbearable lightness of being

There is a famous existential saying by Milan Kundera that titles his book– "the unbearable lightness of being". A book like that details your typical brokenness story, affairs, a dog, etc. But the whole existential "mood" being conveyed in this post-war/war hyper realistic narrative is to explore the theme of existence at the forefront of some human stories. Aquinas posits that to exist is better than not to exist, and it's a neutral affair, morally. But since we are moral agents, putting existence to the forefront begets the question– what is the meaning of life? This unbearable lightness of being described is kind of a malaise attitude against existing, because at its root, the world and life seem utterly devoid of meaning. While many will brush it off as a war/post-war or even European story, existentialism revels in the subjectivity because there is no escaping the context; might as well embrace it and describe how it is as it is lived.

That being said, I believe underpinning it all is a theological point of phenomenological priority. Gentiles have the law written in their hearts, some people call it conscience (where Christ urges you to do good). During this Holy Week, I had the privilege of reflecting more on the existential roots of my Christianity. The theological point is a kind of pre-ontological character of being redeemed but not explicitly knowing it. And even when one knows it, there is a character of remorse, so much so that it feels unbearable. The classic examples of this unbearable lightness of being in a theological context, I argue, is in Judas and St. Peter. 

For Judas, feeling the character of betraying one's master for the price of a slave overfills him with remorse due to Christ's already imminent suffering which he had accepted, and this unbearable lightness of being– of knowing that one could have such a crime he commited unburden him– is unbearable to his being. St. Paul says "love bears all things", and with the love extended to even Judas, Judas chose to reject it and give in to being tormented by demons for his choice– those evil ones. And so Judas chose to end all that suffering because he believes he is unworthy of that love extended to him, resorting to a final solution. In that face of being unburdened, that lightness is unbearable for Judas, in other words.

With St. Peter, his willingness to defend Christ, and his ardent leadership quality in carrying Christ's mission, was graced with his sudden confession in Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). His disposition to grace, notwithstanding, does not prevent him from being free from also denying Christ– three times in fact. And when St. Peter knew it when the cock crowed, he was filled with remorse "and wept bitterly" (Lk 22:62). Yet he became our first Pope. But the future aside, at that moment St. Peter also felt the unbearable lightness of being, even if it's just as vague as Judas' compared to the moment before he experienced the risen Lord. He was unburdened because despite Jesus predicting his denial perfectly, Jesus still gazed at him with love. Receiving this free gift of love may seem unbearable because of how unburdening it is, one feels like they do not deserve it. Even St. Peter took time after immediately "[rising] and [running] to the tomb; stooping and looking in, [St. Peter] saw the linen cloths by themselves, and he went home wondering what had happened". 

For me, just recently too. I've been praying for help against one of my main struggles with sin. Spiritual warfare is annoying sometimes. I ask for better help against temptations for a sin I struggle with, and I get harder temptations, which is supposed to strengthen me. But even after realizing I’ve been given help to conquer it (I grabbed my bible and read Psalm 56 and then Psalm 57), I still feel somewhat remorseful? Being given that help of love made me realize the lightness of my own being, and it certainly felt unbearable because I felt like I didn't deserve it. Perhaps it’s the mood of Good Friday but no one ever said sadness or regret isn’t good when one remains hopeful. 

I posit that the centrality of being given such an overflowing and overpowering love– the power of the cross– structures our very existence and our relationship with existing in general in such a way that for those who do not yet know the Gospel, feels like an unbearable lightness of being. The people of Israel were caught up in being involved in the family of God, despite many times trying to unburden themselves with these rituals. God remains adamant about reminding them of who and what they are. One may think I am saying that this fundamental shift only pertains to us after Christ but I argue it is even before, albeit veiled (as with St. Peter and Judas above and even with Isaiah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.). The salvation Jesus offered to the whole world, which He did once for all, rings in the hearts of every human being of all times. 

We certainly have other things that characterize and orient our existence, that we are involved in worlds and have this character of being thrown into the world, yet upon really examining it, there is a characteristic lightness, and our very being finds that lightness unbearable. Why do we exist? Is there anything to my existence if there is nothing to put on it? When we get to the root of things, especially in our existence, we can only describe what we see. But what a blessing it is that we can encounter the world out there and find ways to look at things differently. The claims of the Bible are very amazing if one takes it seriously, it does not add upon our character but explains it more clearly– because we are not just anthropological beings but also theological beings– we relate to being that is outside of ourselves and have faith in that otherness in a very primordial way. The gift of faith is given to us, and also overwhelms us. 

What happens when we have an abundance of a free gift of love given to us? We want to deny it, characteristically, because we don't deserve it; we say in our hearts"let this cup pass from me", and Jesus said this as well as "but not my will but Yours" (referring to the Father; Matthew 26:39). In Gethsemane He draws His human nature and our human nature to unite it with God's will, to fulfill the needs based on who and what we are. So Jesus commands us (hence Maundy Thursday) to "love one another, as I have loved you" (Jn 13:34). In other words, pay it forward, spread that love to others, that our being may be made bearable in imitation of the source of our being. If God is the ground of all our being, and God is love (and not just a moral imperative) (1 John 4:8), then underlying our being (i.e. being ad extra, or "being without") that structures it is in this root of love, love begets faith and hope, the cardinal virtues. And so in receiving love, one should also beget those fruits of hope (also a gift) and nurture the gift of faith (which also bears fruit). To deal with existence is to be subsumed in that which undergirds our existence, that is something while also being something other of our being, that which is outside time, and yet is who He is. 

Rise

  February 6, 2021

Rise

If the Lord Had not been on our side... - Psalm 124:1

Lord, if You have not been on my side, then I would spiral further and further down into sin. Sin stains my soul and distorts the way one sees the world. Sin is enslaving, fixating only on the empty promises of finite reality. Sin wants something beyond the world, to "transcend", and become like gods. 

But You, O Lord, have always been by my side. Your silent voice comforts me when I sin. I ask You for help but You are silent. The kind of saving I sought, to ask for Your grace tantamount to saying "Jesus take the wheel", was not something I really wanted. You remained silent but always here by my side. Your permissive will allowed me to see the self-binding properties of sin. I had been stubborn in the grace You've given me and thought I was "set" to avoid sin, but Lord You saw my heart. I was too ahead of myself. I can be Holy as I thought but I stopped putting in the work. 

Nasa Diyos ang Awa, nasa tao ang gawa

I know that You will my good, O Lord, Your love is the ultimate sacrifice that heals all my sins. I only ask that You pardon me, and grant me Your healing, loving gaze. As I struggle to transform my heart. It is not only the outward signs of action that reflect obedience, it is in the heart's willingness. As St. Augustine says, those who are under the law are unfree, while those who are between it– who know the law and accept it (Listen, Trust, Obey)– are free. For You will love first, and your law is love itself. Your law is goodness. I look to You, O Lord, I want to see Your face. I want to seek You out in everything I do, let me not see myself anymore. I want to gain new sight as Saul of Tarsus did, or the blind man in the Gospels– take my hand and help me rise up from the eventual death of my flesh. Renew me, I will follow You. Because You love me, then I must love others, which begins with loving myself the right way. Help me take my mat and walk, Lord. If it is Your will, my Lord Jesus, send forth Your spirit, and it shall be created, and You will renew the face of the Earth. 

O, Come, Holy Spirit, fill my heart up and let my desires be transformed into the kind of flesh You breathed into from the beginning. I am sorry for my impatience. I wanted a sign from You, Lord. To rescue me when I hear a temptation. When I know that the temptation is sinful, I leaned on You saving me from it. But that is a misguided trust, Lord. For You have already saved me. Your sacrifice empowers me to be an instrument of Your grace. I am not worthy of this, yet you've said Your Word once, and it is written in my heart. I desire to know You more, O Lord.

You have given me all sources of Joy in my family, in Arie, in the gift of philosophy, in music, in driving, in poetry, in all my life. And when You've permitted sin and despair, You were by my side and helped me see the error of my ways. Never permit me to be separated from You, O Lord. Let this sin not distance myself from You, but make me closer to You. Transform my heart, Lord, that I may be made like a child for Your Kingdom. For You, I pray with my heart. For You, I offer my soul up this morning with conviction. This is everything, Lord, I know it is scarred and stainful, but it is Yours, O Lord, and You have deemed it Good. Continue to remain by my side, as I know You will. Help me to better cooperate with Your grace, to respond to it with Joy in my heart– to rise to the height You've set for me. Help me get back on track, and to be good to others, especially those who love me, and most charitably to those who persecute me.

This is my prayer this morning, Lord. And it is a Good day, Inshallah.

Amen

An Authenticity Crisis

  Saturday, November 7, 2020

An Authenticity Crisis

What accompanies an authenticity crisis? The very thing that brought it about– idleness. And idleness breeds temptations by the flesh. But however we get there, we're there– what happens then? The prayer life despite being followed suddenly feels insincere. The very liturgy of the hours that upholds the public office of the church is suddenly scrutinized. If I pray with others, shouldn't I feel their sense of prayer? It's a call to prayer isn't it? Liturgy of the hours. What does liturgy mean? These things, I haven't thought before but I knew love wasn't present as a tendency to resentfulness occupied me. But what I need to realize is that the thing I'm projecting on others is the very thing I need for myself. The public prayer life always comes with the temptation to consider authenticity– when we pray with others we either are insecure if we are praying as "hard" as others or if others aren't praying as sincerely as us.

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:5-6)

And it's in the latter verse where I'm tripping up. I pray the liturgy of the hours or the rosary and it doesn't feel as rewarding. I'm just doing prayer rather than paying attention to that inward sense of God in the midst. My lips move but my heart hardens. I'm in that point where it's hard to believe God can forgive a person who sins not long after He's forgiven him. And I know that's the incredible love God has for us. I know that. I should want to participate in this love through prayer. But how I've let myself fallen that now prayer is an obstacle because I've (and am) taking it for granted. Can I go to confession in 30 minutes with this? I'm confused more than I am contrite. The answer is probably yes. The temptations are sneaky then, aren't they? Cunning almost. It has attacked the foundation I've built up to try and combat it (prayer) by zeroing in on my sin that started this whole week. But perhaps I've forgotten what Father Casey was saying. I should strive to live a holy life not solely a pure one, for purity comes from living a holy life. 

I should probably go, and I should probably walk instead of driving there. What have I done today that's worthy of the convenience of driving? I know I'm called there because there is where I can find myself and work on my relationship with God to a greater authenticity and with a greater assent of faith. 

I'm coming Lord, for even as I sin do I still continue to search you. Forgive your prideful sinner and humble him to your love, impart knowledge and courage to resist temptation so that he may participate in the love that You freely give. Amen.

the little air

  October 6, 2020

the little air

Ah, a sigh escaped me;

the little air left over,

that fleeting relief:

mystifying

silently, the little spirit dissipated;

a world vaporized

from being held over

a summery haze,

released into the flow

of turbulent waves ebbing

through a mess of particles in motion

transformed by tiny touches–

oh grace!

 of invisible states

unknown to the eye,

yet unconsciously felt

in every exhale that I

exist in ecstacy,

being-there,

the little air

I am

For a river falls

October 2, 2020

 For a river falls

For a river falls

to wintry torpor,

with spring winds over

summer sun's setting,

to gather anon.

For a river falls

from the ebbing shore, 

perennial twilight

timing our brief waves,

to become its source.

(Catholic) Christian thoughts on "Letting her be"

  September 22, 2020

(Catholic) Christian thoughts on "letting her be"

While running today and listening to "Jesus of Nazareth" by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), I was caught up thinking about the call to evangelize (cf. Mark 16:15– "And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation'")– to be priest, prophet and king (CCC 783)– even as lay Christians. It is easy enough to live in a community of faith, where each person can (ideally) bring each other up and support the journey to faith. This is best exemplified in my life with my Bible studies and general encounters with my girlfriend Arie. For situations like this, it is easy to relate to my fellow faithful Christians. We all have a common orientation to the good that is epitomized in the trinity as father, son (word) and spirit (breath). 

It is of much more considerable difficulty in responding appropriately to the call to preach the gospel in secular society, of which make up general life outside of the people of faithful I know. Not only is the difference in orientation on what "good" is different (in fact it is respectfully and arguably diminished in secular short term thinking), it is difficult already to communicate the faith (even if it is my own) to others. 

This is of considerable question to me as a Catholic (as opposed to other denominations), because the faith teaches us of the urgency to seek others to conversion. As far as I've experienced in my albeit limited exposure to weekly Sunday worship in Arie's Victory church, it seems that the focus is on strengthening the Christian communities and to pray for other people to be awakened by their faith. I support this rather brandished statement by last week's sermon that quoted theologians saying that our faith was imparted to us by God and is not a result of our doings and that everything we do and are in relation to God comes from Him because we are saved by faith alone.

While Catholics actually also agree that faith alone is necessary to be saved and that faith is given to us by God, the emphasis of mission in Catholicism leads us to center our attention on what's next, often citing the often not defended James 2:26: For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.". In our discussion I think Arie concedes this point to me, even without having to rely on our own denominations, that works are indeed essential if only to emphasize and reflect our faith that God has graced us with. As far as I can be certain of my Catholic faith, it is of our mission to spread the good news especially to the poor and those suffering. Where does this begin? I'd like to think it starts with the family, and of most concern are my sisters, even my older sister already married with children. 

It is certainly much easier to rely on authority to communicate and remind my sisters of what the faith is. Certainly it is a safe enough position to take. However, authority only works when the authority is authorized by who they are instructing. In another sense, Mica and Anya have to look to me for something they recognize as needing advice on. In my scenario with them, this is not necessarily the case. Mica's mantra has focused on "you do you", probably not to the extent of doing serious harm unto oneself but allowing a kind of "learn from your mistakes" kind of approach. While it is agreeable to let someone "learn from their mistakes", I have now come to the position to disagree on being neutral about anything. Being neutral means to take a stance saying at worst I don't "care" about what you decide, often adding the existentialist "so long as you truly choose it but be aware of the ramifications". The ramifications of leaving it up to the "individual" is a symptom of modernity's failed ideal still being spun, that "man is the measure of all things"; in other words, relativism. 

But in our specific case it doesn't actually have to be this idealistic. I think such ideas have penetrated into our conscience entrusted into us by our mother, who often let us to decide on our own. This is just only part of the story, because I indeed have also fallen away from the faith and searching for truth. What we often forget is that mom puts trust in the institutions that take care of us, from La Salle and Woodrose to BSM and to our colleges. They in a sense outsourced the parenting, often preferring to be moral guidance if sought rather than being active. They leave us alone in that sense. 

So it would be no surprise that my sisters and I have adopted that kind of idea. I'm still privy to such a solution, I think trying to figure it out on your own is a good thing. But only if we actually know we have something to figure out. If we blatantly ignore what exactly it is we are being left alone to do, then most would just realize "I'm free to do anything". That kind of idea is dangerous and actually misses the point of this idea of "letting be". Heidegger for one has advocated a philosophical "letting be", giving up trying to appropriate "being" and instead letting it come and preferring to describe it poetically (while still being somewhat philosophical). But back to this point of contention, Mica's problem for me seems to be not that she is solely "free to do anything", but such a statement comes out of feeling that she was done injustice for her life trajectory which was given to her. She likes living in New York and being amongst other peers, "free" from our parents' parenting in a sense. And yet she knows that in order to fulfill such a contract, she "must become a lawyer" for the family. 

While such idea is commendable, when she talks to me about it, it feels twisted, almost resentful, and kind of certainly not the kind of "free to do anything" ideal that most Americans seems to want in their interpretation of liberty. The free to do anything clause was in a sense, her giving into indulgences because of the hardship and work she has to do to stay there. It's kind of a vicious cycle here, then. And what's even weirder is that whenever she needs help with something and asks for it, she doesn't really want to learn the reason why but just the "how" to do something. I used to get irritated at this, because the hyper-practicality makes me feel more like a tool rather than a person giving time to explain and teach. It's like giving into an opposite version of "do as I say, not as I do" , making it "do as I do, not as I say". 

But I ask myself now how this whole analysis is relevant? For one, I'm back here in DC and Mica's alone in New York. I quickly "left her" as soon as I got the chance to in that sense. I indeed given up (for which I am remorseful for), thinking that she couldn't (or wouldn't) understand where I'm coming from, especially with the whole debate on being free to do what you want. When we discuss and then eventually argue, it seems that it's hard for Mica to fight with me honestly because she may not be sure of herself either. What she is sure of is the idle talk of ideals in colleges now "people are free to come to their own interpretations about anything". It's such an obvious statement... of course people are free to their own interpretations about anything. What's lacking in this statement? Well a moral judgement. And when there is something lacking, people can attach things. For example: "people are free to their own [wrong] interpretations about anything". But that's not the ideal at hand here in this ordinary thought. In fact, it's more like people's own opinions are all right in their own way. 

Here we have yet another partial truth. When people feel strongly about something, it is indeed probably true in some respect. However as a Christian I'm led to remember what sin is: Sin comes from love as well but love for something that is "lesser", be it "less good" or straight up "wholly evil". Choosing something less good in the strictest sense is considered evil especially if one knows that there's a better chance. I have to keep myself accountable for this as well. Here is yet another weird attack on truth by partial and unthoughtful truisms. Relativism is dangerous and paradoxical in this sense, especially when used as an actual way of life and not just an argument, because it advocates to do away with something that is better. Sure it is hard to ascertain it, and even the most studied of people can be wrong despite advocating for the good. But morality shouldn't be politicized; morality is for all.

This is what I mean on how "letting be" can get out of hand, and is the object of my confusion here, of which I only hope to pray for being graced with as I continue my own studies and my own journey in faith. I acknowledge my limited knowledge and understanding here is rather the probable reason. 

An excerpt from Ratzinger's book struck me yesterday and I told Arie about it. It seemed obvious to her, but I went about summarizing his analysis of the parable of the two brothers (as he prefers over the parable of the prodigal son).  I just opened my Bible now and read it from Luke 15:11-31. The parable, in short, speaks of a son who asked for his share of his father's fortune to go out into the city. His father obliges and he goes out but spends every penny on it in "loose living", which led him to eventually finding work in a famine stricken area as a swine herd's help, happy to eat the pods used to feed swine. He realizes how wrong he is and resolves to make things right by confessing to his father "Father I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants" (Luke 15: 18-19). And when he did so, the father interjected him and forgave him, celebrating the return of his son. 

I reflected on this for the past 2 days and thought of Mica or Anya or anyone really. Are they also in their own prodigal son/daughter scenario? Should this be a foundation for "letting them be"? But as soon as I think this, I'm humbled myself of why Ratzinger prefers the parable to be called the parable of the two sons or the forgiving father– the other son is complacent and even resentful of his brother being forgiven. This other brother too, though so "steeped" in the comfort of the faith, was still in the wrong when he acted in that way. But the loving father is sure to forgive this son too, assuring him "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found" (Luke 15:31-32). So I too, having reconciled my faith (and still in the process of reconciling) must always be aware of getting too complacent within the faith. This is why I think mission is important, because it challenges one's faith to being active as we are called to be in the world– "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15: 19). And not only this but to be empowered by grace, and to cultivate it faith, so that "when the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). 

And there's even more to the story for me to identify with as well. I too was the prodigal son in that I fell away from my "home", living a largely agnostic secularist life while in college, but always kind of drawn to the idea of truth, which I thought the roman catholic church too rule-based (just as Ben Gibbard thought) to actually help me access it based on structure alone. But when I returned to the faith, oh how rich it is to read and be educated in catechesis. It is indeed the religious education that enriches all of the sacraments we can find boring. 

So where does this leave me at least in my state of questioning this strategy to "let her be"? I can't merely just say "it's her life so she should do what she wants" any more than I can say that for myself. The good life is indeed the better life, and I'm always reminded by Pope John Paul II's take on freedom: "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought". 

From the beginning, "man and woman; he created them" (Genesis 1:27) to have a personal relationship with Him, for which we have the freedom to freely choose God who is love and who is of utmost goodness. And it is such then that my resolve is to turn my attitude towards another not in terms of just cranking out a strategy such as "let her be", but to consider carefully each situation so that justice and what is due to each person is given. The slightest of grace that I can give in the form of light reminders can go a long way in helping them realize on their own freedom and not from my coercion/persuasion, that they freely chose the good. It is then that I turn to furthering more this idea of freedom and truth coming from that famous quote by actually reading the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, from which Pope John Paul II's teaching for the Catholic Church on freedom and truth is most officially and most authoritatively preached. 

On Jean-Luc Marion's Phenomenology of Faith via Givenness

  August 24, 2020

Couple thoughts about Jean-Luc Marion's Phenomenology of Faith via Givenness

A photo of the Georgetown Waterfront from a run I had

It is easy to do a Bible study and to say that God speaks to me through the readings, that faith is a "given". But really, what does that mean? Do we take faith to be given as "a given", or a dogmatic assumption? I was thinking about this today on my walk. How do I engage with other people such as atheists or those of other faiths, if we don't take (theologically) faith as a given? 

To define the parameter of faith here includes the assumption of a God. And I agree with this. However, I think this is a conclusion of the finding that faith is given. The philosopher-theologian Jean-Luc Marion takes this question up in his work through God without Being to the series that begins with Givenness and Revelation. Contrary to Heidegger, who thinks that Dasein is the primary and basic pre-theoretical feature of Being, Marion provides a correction that the character of "givenness" is the beginning. As far as I understand it, this is going back to Descartes, whom all of the aforementioned phenomenologists seem to need to take their shot at. But the context is that Descartes begins with a radical position from a radical method: from doubting everything he could doubt, he comes up with the theory "cogito ergo sum", I think therefore I am. 

Marion, in Descartes' Passive Thought , focuses more on Descartes' other conclusion "Ego Sum Ego Existo", I am, therefore I exist. While I have yet to complete his work, I have found from his analysis of the 6th meditation and the passions that Descartes' position does not fundamentally doubt the body's role in all this. That is, when we doubt everything we could possibly doubt, it is not so certain that Descartes doubts the body. Sure he can say that maybe a demon messed with him and made him think he had a body, but the characteristic of having a body is not removed from the action of thought. "I think (with a body) that I am, therefore I exist (with a body)". It is possible, from Marion's reading, that it was just unquestionable despite Descartes' methodology rooted in what was coming to be known as the virtue of science (questioning all assumptions); that the assurance and quality of having a body is embedded into how he even comes up with it. This sounds a lot like the kind of territory that the premiere phenomenologist of the body, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, was going on about. And this makes sense, given that even he returns to Descartes in his later lectures. Of course, this could just be another assumption unquestioned, but that's the sort of fundamental ground of analyzing the phenomena that phenomenologists are interested in (intentionality a la Husserl). Science, not even philosophy of science, wouldn't be that committed to digging that deep in questioning their assumptions because this puts them in the territory of philosophy (this word is used rather pejoratively in this context).

With the centrality of the body rooted in the primer to modern philosophy, phenomenology seems to be making progress here towards many applications such as identity, health, illness, etc. But with Marion's own center of his phenomenology, that of "givenness", roots one who walks along his path of thought with theology infused with phenomenology. The character of givenness– the phenomena that we encounter having the quality of being given– invokes or implies a background idea of a "giver". In contrast with Early Heidegger's Protagoras-esque Man is the Measure of all means path of thought in Being and Time, Marion paves a path found in the more humbled (feeling, with stubborn hermit inclinations, the consequences of his idealistic mistake registering in the National Socialist German Workers party) Later Heidegger, who takes a more theological approach to the question of being. 

For Marion, as with Descartes' Passive thought (thinking with the body), being is the characteristic of givenness that we take as fundamental and that we don't ponder about much in our everyday existence. The world of the given here has yet to take a definite theological tone, however. One can merely assert that the characteristic of givenness may be just that, a characteristic of experience. Evolutionary interpretations may take that to be just part of our genetic coding or wiring left over from a previous trait that, either by coincidence (vestigial) or by deliberate natural selection, we would be more "oriented" to that approach. However, this goes beyond the scope of phenomenology, which focuses on the phenomena (the things themselves) and how we experience it. In other words, we would follow Husserl and "bracket it out" (epoché), and put that reductionist explanation aside, especially if it doesn't help our phenomenological investigation. Such "orientation" may as well be characterized for the religious as how God "[formed] man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). And I didn't intend to connect the concept of ground (post-modernity's bread and butter) and the phenomenology of breath (see Havi Carel, Frederik Svenaeus, etc. on illness analyses); but I certainly thought it while typing it.

So, what now with givenness? Well, describing being within the ground of givenness, one can take in Jesus' theological stride to make Simon Peter, the doubting apostle, the "rock [He] will build [His] church" with and whom to give the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19), and reflect on this phenomenologically. While we may doubt that which is given (be it from confusion, anxiety, or existential inquiry), Christianity argues faith arises out of a gift by recognizing the giver of the given as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As Paul writes "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8) and such faith enters us through love as "God is love" (1 John 4). This is where Marion ties up how the description of givenness is fulfilled wholly by Catholic-Christian doctrine as the "gift" is manifested in the Eucharist, the bread as the body of Christ, and of the Church as the body of Christ instituted by Christ (see Called to Communion, Pope Emeritus Ratzinger). This is also where Marion turns from philosophy (via phenomenology) to theology, by taking "This Jesus [as] the stone which, rejected by you builders, has become the chief stone supporting all the rest" (Acts 4:11), and by fusing phenomenologically the given body with the Christian soul, giving kind of a dualistic twist but more a hermeneutical interpretation rooted in the ahistory of the Bible and the history of man's existence. 

At this point Marion takes up the theologian's humility and would take his theology just to be mere applied philosophy/science, that is, applying "reason" to discover more about God's creation/design for us as creatures. All of this can be undertaken without the scholastic acrobatics that Thomism, while important, because it draws upon the investigation into subjectivity of faith that began with St. Augustine and continued with Pascal, Kierkegaard and then initially with really early Heidegger (back when he was in the seminary); there's likely many in between but I'm not aware of them, I admit. Because an investigation into faith begets an investigation into the giver, which then leads back to the given; we come to know God so that we may know ourselves, as St. Augustine says– Noverim Te, Noverim me.