B. ON COGNIZANCE AND FAITH

B. 意識和信仰

I. On cognizance

I. 關於意識

4. Cognizance «in persona»

4. 在人格之中的意識

Part 1 : The element of Freedom Now let us focus on analyzing what the term “persona” means. What is significant is that the persona is of course seated within a personal relationship. It cannot be imagined on its own, but solely within a relationship. One persona equals no persona. However, that which characterizes the persona is that it is unique and that it cannot be repeated, subsequently, when defining it, it does not allow for any possibility of comparison, of substitution or incorporation - within the lattice of our experiences - which is the case with all objects. Subsequently, we cannot recognize God based on His attributes, because attributes can also be applied to other objects, to things other than God. As we said, this is the way we can know things, not persons. You cannot come to know a persona based on its attributes. You would essentially be relating it in spite of its attributes, and it is then that you realize it is indeed a persona. In other words, someone can be a bad person, but because you love him, you acknowledge him as being unique, without taking this attribute into account. On the contrary, if you relate a good person to his goodness, then you are not relating to the persona per se. If you likewise identify God on account of His goodness, you are not identifying Him as a persona; you are identifying Him as you would an object, or a thing, which, if tomorrow it proves it is not as you expected from the aspect of His attributes, your faith will instantly be shaken and you will lose your relationship with Him. God is not recognized by His attributes, the way that objects are; it is precisely because He is a persona, that He is recognized without the need to associate His identity with His attributes. This therefore is the basic characteristic of a persona. The other characteristic is that the persona ontologically comprises an irreplaceable element of our existence; that is, if the persona were to disappear, then our entire existence would collapse. It is then that we perceive the persona ontologically, in the profoundest ontological sense: in other words, that He exists, and that we exist thanks to Him; and furthermore, that the interruption or rather the non-existence of the one affects the existence of the other. Theologically, this means that if the Son ceases to exist, the Father ceases to exist. If the Father ceases to exist, so does the Son. There is a personal relationship here. This loving relationship is ontological because from it, hangs the existence of each of the parties of this relationship. Thus, we do not recognize God simply as a kind Being or whatever else, but instead, as an element from which our existence hangs. And we shall now see the special meaning it carries, in the realm of Christian knowledge. This personal relationship in Christ – the one between Christ and the Father – is also given to us in Christ, thus enabling us to recognize God as sons of God, and to address Him as Father. You must be aware that our addressing God as Father originates exclusively, one hundred percent, from this relationship, from the right that Christ bestowed on His disciples, to address God as Father. The concept of God’s paternity was of course also common outside of Christianity, before the Bible. To the ancient Greeks, Zeus was “the father of gods and mankind”. But this concept has nothing in common with the concept of God as Father in the New Testament, in the Bible. In the New Testament, only the Son has the right to address God as Father; only Christ. But He bestowed this right upon His disciples, when He pointed out to them how they should pray; and this was the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer, when Christ says: “…for I instruct you to pray thus, by saying : Our Father……” Addressing God as Father does not involve an inherent religiousness. It involves a personal relationship, which only the Son – the exclusive, only-begotten Son – had. God has no other Son that could address Him as Father; God has only one Son. Well, it is this same Son who bestows this right; not in a judicial way, but, by relating Himself to us, and our relating ourselves to Him, we too become sons of God the Father, thus creating a relationship and subsequently able to know God. What does it mean, to “know God”? As what do we know Him? As someone good? As someone powerful ? We could surmise all these, without Christ. What Christ gives us as God’s identity, is that He is the Father. This is what creates a personal affiliation, a filial relationship. This relationship that God has with His Son eternally is the one that is relayed to us, and it is thus that we know the Father; that we know God as Father. This is the basic content in the cognizance of God: it is the paternity of God; that God is the Father. Let us not forget this. We do not learn about God. We do not gather information on Him. We do not create a dossier with God’s attributes, the way that Dogmatics often do. For the Christian, the content of God is that He is the Father; that God relates to Father and that we cannot comprehend this outside a filial relationship. You cannot address someone as “Father” without being a son. In the intellectual sphere, one can state that “God is the Father of His Son”. I know that; I know it from the Bible, from Dogmatics; but, in order to know Him existentially, to acknowledge Him as Father, you must be His son. It cannot be any other way. It is another thing to say: “that is the father of my friend, therefore, I know him to be a father because he is my friend’s father”, and it is another thing to say “existentially I acknowledge him as my father because I am his son”. A son knows his father in a different manner than the one by which he knows his friend’s father. This is different kind of knowledge. Well, this existential relationship, this loving relationship, is attained only through Christ, because only He is the Son who knows God as Father, eternally. And it is bestowed only to those who acquire this filial relationship thanks to the Son. We shall see what this means, in more detail. We shall now make a brief analysis of this cognizance. What does this cognizance contain, which we call “personal”? This is the cognizance “in persona” that Paul speaks of, when we know God “in the persona of Jesus Christ”. What does it mean, to know someone “in persona”? What elements does it contain, which could be compared to the elements by which we recognize things? We shall now make this comparison. The first basic element that the cognizance of a person entails, as compared to the cognizance of things, we could call the element of liberty. What does this mean? It means that I can never recognize something liberally, neither does that thing have any liberty of its own, during the moment of cognizance. Neither the recognizer nor the recognized behave freely; can you freely ignore, or not recognize this table that is in front of you, or me, who is speaking to you? Of course not. Whoever says that he does not recognize my existence is obviously not in his right mind. He doesn’t have the liberty to not recognize me. The object itself imposes its recognition. Just as I, being something recognizable by you, cannot be considered non-recognizable. Therefore, cognizance contains the element of compulsion. It is somewhat like the compulsion that is used in Apologetics, in its attempt to prove all those things that we say about God and His existence. There is a certain element of compulsion there: we want to convince someone logically that God exists. If you convince someone with logic, then this knowledge (cognizance) will be compulsory by nature, just as you are compelled to acknowledge the existence of the table or any other object. God therefore also becomes a compulsory object of cognizance, both to Himself and to us. This is the way that God is usually recognized by people, by demons and by animals. God is the “supreme power”. This is the way that idolaters and most people recognize God; how they compulsorily see Him. That is so, because they are conscious of their own weakness. It is the almighty Being that they cannot control…. He is known to them, as a “thing”. They refer to a “supreme power”, and not to a person. Being recognized in this manner, he is recognized compulsorily and therefore lacks the element of liberty. When can we recognize something “in liberty”? And what does it mean, for the element of liberty to exist? Saint Maximus posed this question (It was also posed by Saint Clement of Alexandria, but he didn’t utilize it): How does God recognize things? How does He recognize the world? Does He recognize it in accordance with its nature and the nature of things? His reply is No. God does not recognize the world according to its nature. And we shall explain what this means. What does it mean, to recognize something in accordance with its nature? It means that the thing that you recognize is in fact there and you cannot do anything but recognize it. For example, what is the nature of a tree? This thing that I know to be a tree, I know it on the basis of its nature, just as a scientist knows, in the old sense (as I told you, science today has changed slightly). But, just as the scientist knows something on the basis of the laws of nature, by knowing things that are based on given and objective laws, one could say that God similarly knows - let’s say – the tree: that it has this colour, this shape, these laws of growth, etc.. God’s omniscience is quite often perceived in this manner, giving rise to tremendous problems. We must forget this means, this concept of knowledge, when we refer to God. Maximus says: No, God does not recognize things in accordance with their nature; He recognizes them as His “own wills”, for “He created those beings, by His wanting to”. There is a vast difference between the two. For God to recognize things, the nature of those things is not a prerequisite. All things are products of His free will. In order to comprehend this, we must look for similar situations in our own experiences (otherwise all of this might impress you, but it will not enlighten you). Is it possible to relate to something as a “wanter”? or as an “own will”? And not to recognize it as a certain nature, according to its given nature ? This can only occur in the case of a persona, no matter how many difficulties this issue may contain. The persona is regarded, perceived as an identity, but not on the basis of its nature, which would imply its attributes; perhaps not even because of its physical presence. There is a delicate issue here. I have to mention it, and I hope it will enlighten you. Sartre mentions an example that is very useful in this instance. He says that someone had an appointment at a café with a person named Peter, at three in the afternoon. This person was a person in the manner that we just described; that is, there was a relationship of existential interdependence between them. He goes to the appointment, but does not find this person at the café. There are other persons who are sitting there, but not Peter. Sartre observes that what is happening at that moment is, that the absent person – that is to say, the physical absence of that person – immediately creates a unique presence: the entire café is engulfed by the presence of an absent person. And he immediately observes: do not think that this is a psychological matter, or a matter of fantasy; because realization comes later, always as a secondary factor. It is an ontological matter. The absentee is present. And the absentee can be present, despite his physical absence, because there is a – let’s say (as we did before, between the Father and the Son) – a loving relationship. One’s persona is not dependent on its physical presence. That is the conclusion: in a personal relationship, you can have a presence, without a physical presence. Or rather, physical absence can assist cognizance, unobstructed by the compelling element of physical presence. What do I mean by this? You cannot deny a physical presence. The person in the example denied the physical presence of all the others. If you asked him, it is only in retrospect that he will tell you that George, Nick and others were there. These physical presences were not the determining elements for his cognizance. And this has immense consequences on the cognizance of God without His physical presence, with all the explanations that must ensue on the matter. On a somewhat simpler level, we can recognize the persona only in liberty, because if the persona does not wish to divulge its identity, we cannot recognize it. Revelation is always a prerequisite for cognizance of a persona. The meaning of revelation lies here. What is a revelation of God as a basic element? It means that God is recognized in liberty; He wants to and does, give Himself. Just like a persona. You can regard me as much as you like as an object, with all the properties that you can observe thanks to my physical presence. But no-one can actually know anyone, unless there is a willful revelation by the recognized. You cannot forcefully recognize someone. You can get to know him properly, only in a state of liberty. Therefore the element of personal cognizance always contains the element of revelation, and revelation contains the element of liberty in knowledge. This is basic. We must always remember, that God identifies with our knowledge, only if He wants to. Because He reveals Himself freely. I would now also proceed to another, somewhat provocative conclusion : that God does not want to be recognized by us, unless it is done in a state of liberty. A cognizance that is imposed on us, that is not in a state of liberty on our part, or is in defiance of our liberty, or despite our liberty, is not the cognizance that God wants; that is, if someone were to prove God’s existence logically, thus convincing us logically that God exists. If you could ever imagine that we can become convinced logically, as I am logically convinced that this table exists at this very moment (I can also do this visually), for instance, I can be logically convinced of the existence of a constellation that I have never seen, but, a scientist can prove that this constellation could exist, with a series of reasonings, it cannot be otherwise: I would be convinced logically. This is another compulsory knowledge – I am not regarding it in a state of independence. God cannot be regarded, nor does He want to be regarded, under compulsion. Which means that man has the option to deny the existence of God; he can say “I don’t know You”. Which essentially means “I don’t want to know You – You may exist, but You don’t exist for me”. God wants us to know that He exists for us, for me. In essence, He wants that personal relationship. He wants recognition that springs from within a personal relationship, not just a general knowledge that a God exists. This kind of knowledge does not interest God. When He reveals Himself, He reveals Himself as my Father, your Father, his Father, and not just God in a general and vague sense. Such a knowledge, in a state of liberty, is what gives me the right to say liberally : “Yes, You exist” in agreement, or to say “No, I ignore You, to me You don’t exist”. In the cognizance therefore of God, we have the element of liberty, both on the part of God and man. And this is what a personal relationship entails: cognizance as we outlined it, and not according to nature; what I would now call “own will”. You can also acquaint yourself with God, because you want to know Him, just as He knows you, because He wants to become acquainted with you. This is why knowledge of God is revealed only to mankind; to Adam who is a person. He does not reveal Himself to nature. He of course also reveals Himself to nature, but in another, compulsory way. Animals also know that God exists, and demons know that God exists “and demons believe and are terrified…….”. Who would want this kind of knowledge ? This is not the recognition that God wants: an objective recognition. He wants that special recognition. That is why Adam, by saying “no” to God, is displaying the liberty to ignore God in practice. This is a wonderful expression, not only in Greek, but in other languages also: “I ignore You”. It literally signifies “I don’t know You”, but that is not the true clout of the word. When we say “I ignore You” it actually signifies that I don’t want to know You. “I do not know thee” is the awesome statement that Christ said He would make to certain people…. “I do not know thee”. But is it possible, that God doesn’t know these people ? Christ surely knows them on Judgment Day, and yet He will say “I do not know thee”. He will say: “I don’t know you”, implying that “I have no personal relationship with you”. Therefore it is not knowledge of any kind, but knowledge of a personal nature. And that is why it contains the element of liberty.

一：自由的要素 現在讓我們來分析一下「人格」(persona) 這個詞是意味著什麼。在此重要的是， 人格當然是位于一種個人性的關係之中的。人格是不能够獨自地被想像的，它只能在一種關係之中被想像。一個單獨的人格只等於没有人格。但是，人格最重要的特點则是，它是完全獨特的，它是不會重複出現的，以至，當我們想為他作出定義時，我們不能够 （在我們的經驗的格子之內）將其比較，替代， 或結合于它物之中 -- 我們只能對一般物體這樣作。因此，我們不能够以上帝的性質為依據來認識他，因為性質也能夠被應用於其他的、不是上帝的事物。我們已說過，這是我們用來知道一般物體的方式，而不是用來了解人格的。 你是不能够以其性質為依據來認識一個人格的。你是會不顧其性質而與其建立起聯繫，然後呢，你就知道， 它確實是一個人格。換句話說，某某人可能是一個壞人，但是因為你愛他，你就承認他是獨特的，而不去考慮到這個壞的性質。相反地，如果你把一個好人與他的善良性質相聯繫上，你就不在是聯繫到這個人格的本身了。如果你同樣地以他的善良性質來識別上帝，你就不是在將他識別為一個人格；你是在將他識別為一個物體，一件事物，如此，如果明天他不再是你從他的性質方面所期待的那樣子，你對他的信心即會被動搖， 並且你將會失去你與他的關係。 上帝不是以他的性質而被認識的，只有物體才是如此；這正是因為他是一個人格，所以，當我們認識他時， 我們是不需要將他的自我的身分 (identity) 與他的性質 (attributes) 相聯繫上的。 這因此是人格的基本的特點。人格的另外一個特點则是， 他在我們的存有中是屬於一個不能被替換的要素；也就是，如果人格忽然消失的話，那我們存有的整個即會倒塌。所以，我們是在最深的存在性的意義中以存在性的方式來察覺到人格的：換句話說，他存在，而我們自己是因為他而能存在的；並且，一個人格的中斷或非存在能影響到另一個人格的存在。 在神學性的說法中，這意味著如果兒子不再存在了，天父则也不再存在了。如果天父不再存在了，兒子则也不再存在了。在這裡有一種個人性的關係。這種親愛的關係是存在性的，因為這個關係之中的兩者中的每一個的存在性都是靠着這個關係而有的。因此，我們不僅僅是認識上帝為一個親切之者（或是任何別的甚麼），但是更加認他為一個對我們的存在性所必需的要素。我們現在將要看到這點在基督教知識的領域中所有的特別的意義。 在基督之中的這種個人性的關係 （在基督以及天父之間的關係） 也在基督之中給予了我們，以至使得我們能以上帝的兒子們的身份來認識上帝， 以及將他稱為天父。 你一定得明白， 我們將上帝稱為我們的父親的這一回事是完全地，百分之百地，發源于這種關係之中的，也就是發源于基督所给予他的門徒的、能够將上帝稱為父親的權利。 上帝為父親的這個概念當然也在聖經之前以及基督教之外常出现過。對古代的希臘人來說， 宙斯 （Zeus） 是「所有神和人類之父」。但是這個概念與在聖經中（在新約聖經中）的上帝為父親的概念完全没有共同之處。在新約聖經中，僅僅只有兒子才有稱上帝為父親的權利；僅僅是基督才可如此的。但是， 當他為他的門徒們指出應該如何祈禱之時， 他即將這個權利給予了這些門徒；這就是天主的禱文  (Lord's Prayer) 的意思，也就是當基督說：「...  我教你們如何祈禱，如此說：我們的天父 .....。」 稱上帝為父親並不本身即含有着一個宗教的意義。 反之，它包含着一種僅僅只有兒子 （上帝的唯一生子）才有的個人性的關係。上帝沒有其他能够稱他為父親的兒子；上帝只有僅僅一個兒子。 而同時也是這個兒子給予了我們這個稱乎的權利的；他不是以一種法律的方式來如此給予的，而是透過自己與我們相聯繫上，而我們自己再與他相聯繫上，如此，我們也成為上帝天父的兒子，以至與上帝建立起一種關係， 並且以後能夠認識他。「認識上帝」， 這意味著甚麼？我們又將他認識為甚麼？一個好者？一個強者？ 没有基督的話， 我們则能一直這樣推測下去。但基督教給我們上帝的自我身分， 即，他是上帝天父。是這個建立起一個個人性的從屬關係的，一種父子的關係。是這個上帝與他兒子的永恒關係被傳遞于我們的，我們是因此而能認識天父；我們是因此把上帝稱為父親。 這就是對上帝的意識的基本內容：上帝的為父性；上帝是為父親的這回事。讓我們不要忘記這點。 我們並不學到上帝。我們也不是在收集關於上帝的資訊。我們也不是在成立一個收有上帝的性質的有關檔案 (教義學經常如此做)。對基督徒來說，上帝的內容是他是天父； 上帝是與父親有關係的， 而我們是不能在這種 父子關係之外來理解他的。你不能夠稱呼某人為「父親」而又不是他的兒子。 在理智的領域中，一個人可以說「上帝是他的兒子的父親」。我是知道這個的；我是從教義學和聖經中學到這點的； 但是，為了能存在性地認識他，為了能承認他為父親，你一定得是他的兒子。我們没有任何其他的方式。若是你說：「那是我的朋友的父親，所以，我將他認識為一個父親， 因為他是我朋友的父親」，這则是一回事。若是你說：「我是存在性地承認他為我的父親的， 因為我是他的兒子」， 這又是另一回事。一個兒子之認識他的父親， 以及他之認識他的朋友的父親， 這兩者是以不同的方式的。這兩者是屬於不同種的知識的。 這種存在性的關係，這種親愛的關係，是只有透過基督才可被獲得到的，因為只有他才是能够永恒地把上帝稱為父親的兒子。 同時，這種關係也是僅僅被給予那些經由兒子而獲得到這種父子關係的人。我們將更仔細地看到這到底是意味著什麼的。 我們現在得對這種意識作出一個短暫的分析。這種我們所謂的「個人性的」(personal) 意識包含着些甚麼？這是使徒保羅所說過的「人格中的」意識 (cognizance in persona)，當我們「在耶穌基督的人格中」認識到上帝。「在人格中」認識某人， 這意味著甚麼？它包括些甚麼可以比較於我們認識事物的方法的要素？我們現在將做出這個比較。 對人格的意識所必需的第一個基本的要素 （如與對事物的意識相比），我們將稱之為自由的要素。這是甚麼意思？這意味著， 我是绝不能够自由地認識一件事物，而那件事物在被認識時也绝對沒有任何自己的自由。 認識者和被認識者皆不能自由地自我舉動 ；你是不是可以自由地忽略或不認識在你前面的這張桌子， 或是在你面前的、在跟你說話的我？當然是不可以的。 任何說他不識得我的存在的人，很明顯地，是頭腦不清的。他沒有不識得我的自由。 事物自己本身強迫我們對其認識。就如我是你所辨認的一件東西，並且绝不可能被認為是非可辨認的。因此，意識包含着一種強迫性的要素。這有點像是在護教學 (Apologetics) 中所使用的強迫性，以便証實我們關於上帝和他的存有所說的全部事情。 在這裡有某種強迫性的要素：我們想在邏輯上迫使某人相信上帝的存在。如果你以邏輯迫使某人相信上帝，這種知識（意識）则將會由己本身即是強迫性的，正如你是被強迫承認這個桌子或是任何其他物體的存在的。上帝也因此成為一個 （不但是對我們是如此，但也對上帝自己來說）被強迫意識到的物體。這就是上帝通常被人， 動物， 和魔鬼所認識的方式。上帝是「最高等的能力」。這是偶像崇拜者 (idolater) 和大部分人認識上帝的方式；他們被強迫地看見他。但這是因為他們瞭解他們自己的弱點之故。他們是不能控制住那個全能的存有者的 .... 他們是以認知一件事物的方式來認知上帝的。他們講到一種「最高等的能力」，而不是講到一個人格。以如此被認識的方法，上帝则是強制性地被認識的，他因而缺少一個自由的要素。我們是在甚麼時候能「自由地」認識一件東西？並且， 擁有自由的要素，這又意味著些甚麼呢？ Saint Maximus 問過這個問題（Saint Clement of Alexandria 也問過這個問題，但是他沒有利用它）：上帝是如何認識事物的？上帝是如何認識世界的？他是依照其本質和事物的本質來認識它的？他的回答是， 不是。上帝不是根據其本質來認識世界的。我們將解釋這個的意思。首先，依照其本質來認識一件東西， 這意味著甚麼？這意味著， 你所認識的事物是在事實上存有于那兒的，你除了認識它之外，並没有其他的選擇。例如，一棵樹的本質是甚麼？我所知道是一棵樹的這棵樹，我是在其本質的基礎上來知道它的，就好像一名科學家知道某某事物一樣 （這是以以前的意思來說的，我已說過，今日的科學已有所改變了）。但是，就好像一名科學家以自然的，也就是以已有的和客觀的法律為基礎， 來知道一件東西， 我們也能說 （打個比方）上帝也是以同樣的方式來知道一棵樹的：它有這種顏色，這種形狀，它的成長是依照這些法律的， 等等。上帝的無所不知的能力經常是以這種方式來了解的，以致引起很大的問題。 當我們在提及上帝之時， 我們必須忘記這種方式，這種知識的概念。Maximus 說道：不，上帝不是依照事物的本質來認識它們的；他是將它們認識為「自己的意志」的，因為， 「他是因他想要之故， 而創造出那些所有事物」。這兩者之間有一個级大的差異。 如果上帝想要認識某件事物，那件事物的本質並不是于此的先決條件。 所有的事物皆是他的自由意志的結果。為了能理解這點，我們必須在我們自己的經驗中尋找類似的情形（不然, 全部這些可能只給你一個深刻的印象，但是並不會啟發你）。 我們可能與一個「想要者」建立起關係嗎？或與一個「自有意志者」 (own will)？並且不將其認識為某種本質，或是根據其本有的性質？這只能在一個人格的事例中發生，無論這個問題可以包含着多少的困難。人格被認為，被視為一種自我身份，但是這不是在其本質的基礎上 (這會意味著其性質)；可能也不是因為其物質性的存在。 在這裡有一個微妙的問題。我必須提及它，並且希望它會啟發你。 薩特提及過一個在此是非常有用的例子。他說， 某某人在一間咖啡屋裡與一個名叫彼得的人在當天下午三點有一個約會。這個人是個我們已描述過的人格；也就是，在他們之間有一種相互依賴性的存在性的關係。他到咖啡屋裡， 但却没有找到彼得。在那裡有許多的其他人，但是没有彼得。薩特觀察到，在那時所發生的是，不在的人 （ 也就是說，那個人在實體上不在此）立即制造出一種獨特的在此性：整個咖啡屋立即被吞沒在一個不在之人的在此性中。他並且立即觀察到：不要認為這只是一件心理性的事情，或是一件幻想性的事情；因為， 明悟是後來之事，是一個次要的因數。這是一件存在性的事情。不在之者是在此的。而不在之者能夠在此，儘管他在實體上是不在此的，因為 -- 讓我們說（好比我們已說過的，在天父和兒子之間之事） -- 在那裡有一種親愛的關係之故。一人的人格不是依賴於他的物質性的存在的。這就是我們的結論：在一個個人私有性的關係中，你能夠在此，而又不是實體性地在此。或者說得更確切些，實體性的在有能夠幫助意識之持有，但是這個意識却不受于這個實體性的在有之強制。我這是甚麼意思？你不能够否認一個實體的在有。在以上的例子中的人否認了所有其他人的實體性的在有。如果你問他的話，他是在後來回想之後才會告訴你， 喬治，尼克和其他人等等皆在那裡。這些實體性的在有對於他的意識之形成來說不是具有決定性的。這對對上帝之意識來說 -- 在上帝不在此的情形下-- 是有龐大的影響的，並且需要一連串的解釋。 在一個較為簡單的水平上，我們是只有在自由中才可認識人格的，因為， 如果一個人格不希望洩漏他自己的身分，我們则不能認識它。顯露 (revelation) 總是一個對人格的意識的先決條件。顯露 （啟示）的意思即在此。身為一個基本要素的上帝之顯露到底是甚麼？這意味著， 上帝是在自由中被認識的；他想要將自己給予出， 並且如此作出。就像一個人格一樣。你可以依你喜歡把我當作一個物體，擁有全部這些因我的實體在有之故而有的性質等等。但是沒有人能夠實在地認識任何人，除非被識者有意地揭露他自己。你不能強迫地認識某人。你只有在自由中才可恰當地認識他。所以，個人的意識中總是包含着顯露和啟示這個要素，而啟示则包含着在知識中的自由。這是最基本的。我們必須記住，只有當上帝想時，他才與我們的知識相合。因為， 他是自由地顯露自己的。 我現在想說另一個，有點挑撥性的結論：那就是，上帝不想被我們所認識到，除非他是在自由中被認識到的。一個強迫于我們身上的意識，一個不是在我們的自由中，或是無視于我們的自由，或是不顧于我們的自由所作出的意識，不是上帝想要的意識；也就是，如果某人想以邏輯來證明上帝的存在，以致在邏輯上使我們相信上帝之存在。你可以想像某某人使我們在邏輯上相信某件事，就如我在邏輯上相信這張桌子在這個時刻是存在的（我也可以在視覺上如此相信），例如，我能夠在邏輯上相信我從沒有看見過的一個星座的存在； 一名科學家能夠以一系列的議論證明這個星座是存在的，如此，它不能是不存在的：我如此在邏輯上相信。這是另一種強迫性的知識 -- 我不是在獨立自主的狀態下知道的。上帝不能，也不想，在強迫下被認識到。這意味著， 人是有否認上帝之存在的選擇的；他能夠說「我不認識你」。這其實是意味著「我不想認識你 -- 你也許存在，但是你對我來說是不存在的」。上帝想要我們知道， 他是為我， 為我們， 存在的。其實，他是想要那種個人私有性的關係的。他想要那種在個人私有性的關係以內所有的認識，而不只是一個知道上帝存在的知識。上帝對這種知識並不感興趣。當他顯露自己的時候，他將自己顯露為我的父親，你的父親，他的天父，而不是一個在一般含糊意義中的上帝。如此在自由中的知識，才可給我那種權利， 以便自由地說：「是的，你是存在的」， 或者，「不，我不理你，你對我來說是不存在的」。因此，在對上帝的意識中，我們是有一個自由的要素的，不但是上帝的自由，而也是人的自由。這就是一個個人性的關係所造成的：我們所略述過的意識，而不是根據本質的意識；我所謂的「自我的意志」(own will)。你也能夠使自己認識到上帝，只因為你想認識到他，正如他認識你，只因為他想認識你。這就是為甚麼對上帝的知識是只被透露于人類的；于是為一個人格的亞當。上帝不與大自然顯露自己。他當然也對大自然顯露自己，但是那是以另外的，那種強制性的方式。動物也知道上帝之存在，魔鬼也知道上帝之存在：「魔鬼相信， 並且害怕.......」.誰會想要這種知識？這不是上帝想要的認識：客觀的， 物體性的認識。他想要那種特別的認識。那就是為甚麼亞當，當他拒绝上帝之時，是在顯示着他可以不理上帝的自由。這是一個不僅在希臘言中，但也在其他語言中， 皆是驚奇的語法：「我不理你」。從字面上講， 這表示着「我不認識你」，但是那不是這語法的真實的影響性。當我們說「我不理你」的時候， 這其實是表示着，我不想認識你。「我不知道你」， 這是基督所說他會對某些人說的驚人的話 ....「我不認識你」。可是，上帝不知道這些人， 這可是可能的？基督自然地在世界末日之時會識得他們，但儘管如此，他會說「我不認識你」。他會說：「我不認識你」，這意味著「我與你没有任何私人的關係」。所以，這不是任何類形的知識，而是一個個人私有 性的知識。而那就是為甚麼它包含着自由的要素。