A BRIEF HISTORY OF OUR JOURNAL:
FROM "DIALECTICS AND HUMANISM" TO "DIALOGUE AND UNIVERSALISM"

1. The scientific-metaphilosophical stand, periodical and movement

Apart from fulfilling their function as components of the title of our English-language interdisciplinary monthly "Dialogue and Universalism," the two concepts of dialogue and universalism primarily signify a certain attitude and manner of perceiving and dealing with the world.
Furthermore, they have a chance of being something more: an increasingly clearly emergent theoretical structure, contained in this combination of words, ones even developing into a particular model of research, thought and activity - that is, a paradigm. This process could be even more intriguing considering that it is situated within becoming and is being formulated in the course of our joint work. It could assume the form of a certain model, together with all its consequences. Our attempt is to include this model into "Dialogue and Universalism," which has appeared as a monthly for the past five years. Published by the Centre for Universalism at Warsaw University, with the cooperation of numerous authors from the Polish Academy of Sciences, our periodical is an organ of the International Society for Universal Dialogue (former International Society for Universalism) and a forum for the presentation of the outcome of assorted studies, views and discussions. It is also frequently associated with the scientific, intellectual and metaphilosophical movement known as universalism, conceived as metaphilosophy. Nonetheless, the periodical always was, and continues to be primarily a medium of the scientific and philosophical milieu in Poland. From its very beginning 25 years ago, the chairman of the Editorial Board has been Professor Jan Szczepański. The monthly can boast of exceptionally numerous publications by foreign scholars, who comprise the International Interdisciplinary Council of "Dialogue and Universalism," and include several Nobel Prize laureates as well as acclaimed scholars, creators and intellectuals.

2. The sources of the idea and attitude of the periodical

The history of the periodical is lengthy and complicated. Although it was founded in 1973, its history goes back even further into the past. Originally, it was conceived as a modest English-language supplement to "Studia Filozoficzne," and subsequently became the quarterly "Dialectics and Humanism."
In the wake of the dramatic events of 1968 I assumed the post of vice-editor of 'studie Filozoficzne", edited up to then with great expertise and devotion by Helena Eilstein. Initially, I directed the periodical and the Editorial Committee. From the time of the first issue, the Committee was composed of, among others, Tadeusz Czeżowski, Marek Fritzhand, Maria Kokoszyńska, Zbigniew Kuderowicz, Jan Legowicz, Narcyz Łubnicki, Jerzy Pelc, Marian Przełecki, Klemens Szaniawski, Jan Szczepański, Jerzy Topolski, Andrzej Walicki, and Ryszard Wójcicki. Soon afterwards, already at the time of the next issues, the Editorial Committee was joined by Janina and Tadeusz Kotarbiński and Władysław Tatarkiewicz, who had previously learned about the projects and work of the editors.
The inaugural issue (1/1968) of "Studia Filozoficzne," which acted as a basis for "Dialectics and Humanism," included a table of contents for the year 1968, an index of authors, and an extensive opening of a discussion on The history of Polish Philosophy as the object of studies and contemporary culture. Andrzej Walicki, the author of the study, wrote: "Unfortunately, the announcement of a textbook on the history of Polish philosophy and social thought remains unfulfilled. As a result, we are dealing with an embarrassing fact: the most recent and relatively most complete synthetic history of Polish philosophy are the two-volumes by Wąsik, issued by PAX, a methodologically anachronistic book full of mistaken information, totally ignoring the Marxist breakthrough in Polish humanities." [1]
In the next issue, we presented an extensive discussion in which positive opinions about the paper presented by docent Walicki and the editorial initiative were sent or presented by Prof. Tatarkiewicz, Kotarbiński, Fritzhand, and Legowicz; docent Barbara Skarga began her statement by saying :
"I would like to thank the editors of "Studia Filozoficzne" for organizing a discussion on the history of Polish philosophy. A confrontation of opinions is always extremely valuable, especially when they pertain to questions which have produced so many misunderstandings. In my opinion, the paper by docent Walicki explains many of them and not much can be added to his reflections. Nevertheless, I take the liberty of examining some of the theses in greater detail." [2]

3. Sinking roots and opening - towards the greatest and most differentiated personifications of value

Sinking roots in tradition, which has proved to be such a neglected and thus composite and difficult problem, constituted one of the most essential reasons for founding "Dialectics and Humanism." We were concerned with a presentation of the best Polish achievements and direct, intensive contact with world philosophy. This called for a suitable presentation of Polish thought. This task was carried out with particularly success in reference to phenomenology and the Lvov-Warsaw School. The family and students of R. Ingarden made available his works for publication. We also issued an extensive supplement to "Studia Filozoficzne," devoted to Ingarden (the most copious in the history of both publications).
The opening issue of "Dialectics and Humanism" also contained Ingarden's A priori knowledge in Kant vs. a priori knowledge in Husserl, followed by Tatarkiewicz's aesthetic experience: The early history of the concept, and Kotarbiński's study on methodology and Czeżowski's Truth in science. Docent Stróżewski embarked upon the then fashionable theme in his work on Three models of the history of dialectics. The study by Łubnicki on The universal philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin is worth recollecting, but, unfortunately, it did not pose the problem of universalism in its entirety (universal philosophy in history was mentioned frequently, e. g., in Polish Romanticism, and the term itself was applied by Husserl in reference to Descartes, albeit without leading to consequences of interest to us).
In 1976, we devoted whole monothematic issues of both periodicals to Kotarbiński and Tatarkiewicz, which included copious interviews conducted by our editors.

4. Dialogue as a fundamental principle and method

Throughout the entire period, dialogue between the most widely disseminated trends, i. e. Marxism and Christianity, continued to develop [3]. Today, it is easily discernible that particularly far-reaching consequences arose from discussions and joint conferences held with the International Society for Metaphysics and dealing with such topics as Man and Creativity, Evil and Good, Man and Nature and Collectivity and Individuality. We published their outcome both in our quarterly and in Oxford University Press.
The election of Cardinal Wojtyła as Pope proved to be a true breakthrough. Two enthusiastic articles devoted to this event, written from unambiguously materialistic positions at the beginning of 1979, used the category of "universalism", probably for the first time. In 1984-1985 and consecutive years, new publications considered Young Europe - Pluralism and Universalism, Dialogue and Universalism as a New Way of Thinking, Universalism as Metaphilosophy, and Universalism and Global Order, published in Canada. I wrote the above studies in order to indicate as concisely and concretely as possible that universalism envisaged as metaphilosophy had emerged from a dialogue conducted by the four main currents in Polish philosophy.
Only against this backdrop was it possible to pose the problem of the eventual theoretical structure both more exactly and, despite appearances, more humbly. There emerged the paradigm defined by the premise of "dialogue and universalism", along with certain synonyms of "universalism as metaphilosophy" or, in an abbreviated, but overly generalized form, as "universalism."
Christian milieus frequently and willingly accepted our invitations. Particularly memorable discussions were held with philosophers from the Catholic University in Lublin, organized in Kazimierz on the Vistula at the end of 1970s and the turn of the 1980s [4].

5. Dialogue as the overcoming of orthodoxy and the recognition of the (counter) partner

From the perspective of time, the general social and even political significance of dialogue is becoming increasingly marked. Paradoxically, it was appreciated much more in the United States and, generally speaking, in the West than in Poland - see the copious works by P. Mojzes, J. Will and M. Żmijowski, who frequently discussed our books with enthusiasm. At this point, I would like to quote only two other, much more modest statements made by outstanding Catholic philosophers. In 1980, Tom Langan, professor at Toronto University, co-author of the Contemporary History of Philosophy, written together with Gilson and Maur, and a participant of our joint dialogues with the International Society for Metaphysics, perceived the similarities of both world outlooks:
"The new heroic world of Janusz Kuczyński, the world of mature, responsible individuals living in a total community of love, from which they have eliminated dependencies based on a feeling of force, brings to mind that human dimension which the Christian faith envisages as the "The Kingdom of the Spirit" " [5].
On the other hand, in 1985, already after the appearance of publications about universalism, McGovern, a Jesuit Professor at Detroit University, the most eminent expert on the theology of liberation and the highest regarded Christian critic of Marxism, declared in an exchange of opinions presented in "Journal of Ecumenical Studies":
"The profound and serious reflections pursued by Janusz Kuczyński concerning Christianity and Marxism constitute a dialogue model worthy of further discussion. The author demonstrates respect for both those stands. He seeks joint values and common benefits, thanks to which the two partners could exceed differences, at the same time retaining their identity. Basically speaking, I agree with his general version of "universalism" (...). The most attractive appears to be his call for universalism. My life and studies were devoted to a striving towards mediation, which could assist mankind in transcending differences and basing itself on universal ideas and targets" [6]. We shall write about dialogue even more extensively, and upon many other occasions. This undertaking will be necessary especially in light of the scientific level and ethical style of certain behavior in Poland, disclosed at the latest philosophical congress in Toruń.
Undoubtedly, every serious historical analysis shows that both sides of the great dialogue contributed, obviously in different ways and to different degrees, to the fundamental intellectual transformation in Poland, a theme which requires separate analysis.

6. Dialogue, universalism and universal society - a perspective of conciliation

Universalism as a metaphilosophy emerged in truly specific conditions.
In the nearest future, a structure (currently, its metaphilosophical character is more evident) marked with the "dialogue and universalism" premise will be capable of explaining, justifying and even rendering possible many important solutions.
An essential turnabout in almost universal awareness, and paradoxically, even more distinctly in the humanities and philosophy, has remained chiefly negative. It was concretely negative, and only in the most general outlines - positive. Furthermore, it comprised radical criticism, and, I would hazard, even a nihilistic and emotional rejection of that which only thirty years ago Walicki called a "breakthrough in Polish humanities." He was one of those rare scholars who dared to embark upon a more serious settling of accounts with the philosophical past, although conducted from an almost opposite orientation. The problem of an all-embracing, harsh, but just comprehension of the past still remains open (Walicki himself writes about this in "Dialogue and Universalism," no. 1-2/2000).
Here and now, however, we can say that it is precisely dialogue and universalism which constitute the best premises for understanding the entire, extremely complicated past. They also form the only possibly chance for studies and assessment that could be jointly acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of society.
For this and many other reasons, the best proposal today is universal society, which can be accepted by almost every one. Particular importance is attached to the fact that this project - albeit not described as such - was excellently prepared in Laborem exercens. Let us also keep in mind the time of its origin, and the critical rightist opinions expressed at the time. This is why a more extensive analysis has been included into the first volume of Wstęp do Uniwersalizmu (Introduction to Universalism), devised as a topical project worthy of universal discussion.

7. The social helplessness of heretofore philosophies - their theoretical value and analytical, "laboratory" indispensable qualities - in the perspective of universalism as metaphilosophy

It is impossible to justify the universal crisis affecting all philosophical currents. In his dramatic speech given at the third symposium of the International Society for Universalism, held in London in the spring of 1994, Leszek Kołakowski proclaimed their almost total helplessness in relation to the most important problems of the epoch. Upon a number of occasions, I recalled the postulate, formulated at the time, of changing mentality, although equally important was the ascertainment of the incapability of all present-day philosophies in tackling the crisis, and even preventing the encroachment of global catastrophe.
Equally critical reflections are to be found in Kołakowski's great books - starting with the most celebrated trilogy Main Currents of Marxism to the successive, outright desperate and ineffective quest for unshaken certainty. Naturally, this holds true for all philosophies. Apparently, even the most radical solution of the problem of "freedom from" does not solve, but renders more acute the problem of "freedom to."
Verily, metanoia is indispensable.
This is the reason why the increasingly distinct emergence of something which is to overcome the weaknesses of heretofore philosophies is historically understandable. This time, growing awareness concerns the requisite nature of a radical and positive turnabout, a situation resembling the "revolution in science" discussed so spectacularly by Kuhn. Paradoxically, he too unmasked even deeper sources of the crisis of philosophy. On the other hand, he raised, without referring to it, the great and possibly the most essential Nitzschean "problem of truth."
This is why the heart of the matter no longer concerns an "ordinary" change of paradigms. Amsterdamski maintains that "he does not use the term truth throughout his whole work." Kuhn wrote that:..".. we shall be compelled to renounce the opinion that changes of paradigms bring scholars and those who profit from their knowledge, increasingly closer to the truth" [7].

8. Universalism as a premise of truth accessible to the transcendental and universal subject

The perspective of a change of paradigms - ways of perceiving patterns, "model-like problems and solutions" (ibid., p. 197 and 12) - is insufficient. Obviously, we do not know "with all certainty" what is the nature of truth in the humanities and whether we are capable of achieving it. Paradoxically, our knowledge about the nature of falsehood and how to keep a growing distance from it, is much greater and more complete. But are these issues not connected?
In its capacity as a metaphilosophy, universalism has proposed perhaps the greatest chances for solving also this problem upon the basis of the principle of the complementariness of historicism and "transcendentalism", the multi-strata and multi-range nature of identification, and the conception of the historical expansion of the universal subject, etc. By resorting to Kuhn's vocabulary and the one applied by universalism it is possible to say that we are dealing with the emergence of a metaparadigm, which does not bear previous paradigms, but nonetheless situates and assesses justly their place in history and the structure of knowledge as a whole. This holds true also for historical, multi-strata and multi-range knowledge. Understandably, we cannot and do not wish to say that such a paradigm will be the last. Putting it in metaphorical and vivid terms: the yardstick of changes can be the fact that class, national and cultural "truths" - the paradigms of a group of scholars - will be placed in an actual perspective of a historically and structurally developing truth of mankind - the metaparadigm of the UNIVERSUM.

9. The grounding of the sociopolitical formation revolution by a metaphilosophical revolution: the preservation of values and the enhancement of the breakthrough

At this stage, we are dealing with several indubitable factors of qualitative changes, which, perhaps in the near future, will render possible the greatest, albeit pacific and creative revolution of 1989:
first: the emergence of at least several embryos of the universal subject, encompassing the Earth as a whole and open to all cultures, social groups and orientations;
second: a chance for the co-creation by all those groups and nations of a joint universal civilization (understood much deeper than in the case of Huntington);
third: an understanding of the fact that despite enormous difficulties and even, paradoxically, the intensification in many domains and areas of disintegration, the basic unification of our planet constitutes a condition for the survival of human life;
fourth: an increasing intensification of this necessity of unification by factors ever more obvious to an increasingly large group of the population: ecological, information, economic and ethical factors;
fifth: a growing understanding of the fact that the dialectics of rule and servility, dominating in heretofore history and contemporaneity, not only ceases being effective in a longer perspective of time, but becomes more and more suicidal, and even after initial and partial successes leads to revenge or some other path towards defeat;
sixth: a growing and ever wider appreciation of the value and effectiveness of dialogue, even more so considering that in praxis it generates synergy;
seven: dialogue is no longer a fount of, and path towards universalism, but becomes its method and theoretical component. Together, dialogue and universalism quite possibly compromise that which in the not so distant future could be described as a metaparadigm.

10. The universalism of social and theoretical 'salvation" is justified by truth and justice, the tradition and raison of Poland. The diversity of conciliation as the foundation of the might and permanence of the Republic

It is "essentially" obvious that this conception has been barely outlined. It is even more obvious that as regards definition it can be only co-created by scholars representing assorted methodologies, orientations, domains of knowledge, and world outlook convictions, religious or materialistic.
This opening towards everything is a premise for great optimism, the kind contained in the very title of our publication: "Dialogue and Universalism." The reason lies also in the fact that what appears to be our greatest hope could be, in this manner, concretely co-created by almost daily efforts.
Let us refer to the past issues of our periodical, in which the aforementioned diversity was so striking, rich and presented in the most reliable statements: the historical speech given by John Paul II at the United Nations, concerning the rights of nations and commented from two ontologically opposite standpoints, both of which appreciated its significance, in the editorial entitled Spotkanie uniwersalizmów Jana Pawla II i ONZ: An Encounter of the Universalism of John Paul II and the U. N. O. (no. 1- 2/1997) and Rev. J. Tischner's Nations and their rights, no. 7-8/1997).
The particularly varied and copious no. 5-6/1997 contained, i. a., The creation of Polish, European and global history: the role of John Paul II in the emergence of universal society, an interview with Wojciech Jaruzelski, a closely associated last text by President Mitterand on, i. a. the great significance of the Polish breakthrough for Europe, a speech given by President Havel:The categorical imperative of the dialogue, a text by the successor to the Jordanian throne On dialogue between religions, and a study by Jacek Kuroń: On the edge. The epoch of universalism or the agony of mankind, Umberto Echo's Universities and the media, an article about the Club of Rome, written by Locke, one of its founders, a text by B. Marian Przełęcki: What does it mean to be tolerant as regards moral issues? and four articles dedicated to Prof. Jan Szczepański, discussing wisdom, the reintegration of philosophy, sociology and pedagogic;
- monothematic issues: Comparative Aesthetics in Praxis, (no. 3-4/1997);
The Christianity of John Paul II - seen from Poland, including the first English-language version of texts by Jan Strzelecki as well as contributions by outstanding Catholic intellectuals and several non-believers (no. 7-8/1997);
- a double monothematic issue on Janusz Korczak: The Universal Significance of his Works and Martyrdom, with the participation of renowned experts on Korczak from over ten countries, edited by Prof. A. Lewin and R. Wasita (no. 9-10/1997);
- a double monothematic issue on non-monotheistic Eastern religions, prepared by Prof. K. M. Byrski and Rev. Prof. A. Woźnicki, containing, i. a. an interview with the Dalai Lama and a text by Gombrich and Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche (no. 11-12 /97).
A special although unintended summary of this diversity is to be found in no. 1-2/1998, in which we issued Leszek Kołakowski's In praise of cosmopolitanism; in several parts of the text cosmopolitanism is comprehended as universalism, studies by Prof. A. Anderson, president of I. S. U. D., and by Prof. P. Ribaut from the Council of Europe, addressed to the First European Congress on Universalism. Furthermore, in the same issue we find two papers greatly characteristic for the atmosphere of the Congress: Convictions as the object of moral assessment by Prof. Marian Przelecki from Warsaw University andCan non-believers be saved? by Rev. Prof. Wacław Hryniewicz from the Catholic University of Lublin.
------------------------
1. A. Walicki, Historia filozofii polskiej jako przedmiot badań i jako problem kultury wspólczesnej (The history of Polish philosophy as an object of research and a problem of contemporary culture), "Studia Filozoficzne", no. 1/1969, p. 105.
2. B. Skarga, Dyskusja o historii polskiej filozofii (A discussion on the history of Polish philosophy), "Studia Filozoficzne", no. 2/1969, pp. 128-129.
3. Prof. Antoni Stępień, who chaired the latter discussion, published, together with Tadeusz Szubka, an extensive book entitled Oblicza dialogu (The Faces of Dialogue), Redakcja Wydawnictwo KUL 1992. Prof. Stępień was also the editor of Wobec filozofii marksistowskiej. Polskie doświadczenia(Polish Experiences with Marxist Philosophy).
4. Their bibliographic register is contained in "Dialogue and Universalism", no. 7-8/1997.
5. Thomas Langan, Nowy, heroiczny świat Janusza Kuczyńskiego (The new heroic world of Janusz Kuczyński), transl. by Witold Mackiewicz, revised by Jacek Hołówka, Polish reprint in Uniwersalizm jako metafilozofia (Universalism as metaphilosophy), vol. II, Świadectwo i filozofia dialogu (The Testimony and Philosophy of Dialogue), 1990. The original appeared in 1980 in "Dialectics and Humanism" as part of the aforementioned dialogues.
6. Arthur F. McGovern, Odpowiedź Januszowi Kuczyńskiemu (An Answer to Janusz Kuczyński), transl. ibid., p. 278 and 282. The tone of this view was probably determined by the fact that its author was already suffering from cancer. I saw him for the last time during my weekly stay with him in the Jesuit monastery in Detroit.
7. T.S. Kuhn, Struktura rewolucji naukowych (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), PWN 1968, p. 185. The view expressed by Stefan Amsterdamski, critical in relation to Kuhn, is to be found in the postscript on p. 191.