Re: Who is it when Thou and I play tag?

[Guest guest]

A difference in perception really, no better, no worse,no more insightful,merely different.No intention of communicating a snip.And I felt regretedly, that I had not conveyed Buber's message adaquately in the necessity of excerpting the quote, thus I added the subsequent page number. It seems as if we agree,that we humans do need to change the way we relate to each other and this is often difficult even with the best of intentons.One only needs to look at history, war, and the destruction of the environment to see that we employ "it" perceptions of one another as individuals,and within cultural contexts, often with negative consequences.To connect at a deeper level( Buber's thou perception of one other) might assist in more genuine,compassionate communication. As to which ideas,writers, philosophers,psychologists, etc. will engage each individual, the individual decides. Buber'style may not appeal to everyone( for whatever reason he is neutral to me) his ideas however, are elemental and are expressed in various ways in both eastern and western thought. Best, Gail

Who is "it" when Thou and I play tag?

>

[snipped unfairly]

> He ( Buber) indicates that it is only when we see the other as a thou, not an it( no matter whom) that this lifting/helping of other can occur.

But how can one ever see the other as an it? Even automobiles are called he and she and given names. We treat our pets like children. Is it distance? Quantity? (There are supposedly 26-plus people living in Mexico City. Every one has a story and a name.)

Do you recall Desdemona's cry for the despised Shylock? "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

> [snip] In the longer passage, p. 15 (for anyone interested) he indicates that this perception of other as thou is not always possible, but when we can move into this zone, we connect and can be of potential help to others and they to us.

I do not understand how lack of thou degrades to it, by default. Could we see the foreign, even the enemy at war with us, as fully human? If not, what is wrong with our meaning for human.

Obviously to see the "not fully thou" as utterly human brings up a host of discomforts. We might need to change our ways.

Jane Axtell

[Guest guest]

This morning after a night of restless guilt I retract my agreement. This is more than a difference in perception that is no better, no worse. When the people we cannot say "thou" to are "it" then horrors multiply.

This is not about Buber's message but about your message and mine as we move through our lives.

Accepting that unknown distant people are fully human is not difficult at all -- except that there are apparent consequences. If the people in Japan before and after March 11, 2011, are fully human, then what? Then we must come to a vision of humanity that includes what is usually called tragedy. (The same might be said of whatever competing example comes to your mind.)

Tragedy may have the same root as trajectory, and if it does not, it should. Life comes from.. (your preferred word for the nameless) and returns to... (your preferred word for the nameless.) All life, not just our form -- life from less than microbe to those thinly dispersed organic beings Boyle found haunting vast space. All comes, all goes. All flashes briefly with a particular light.

The funniest things happen if you try this game (fully human) instead of the other one (it). Even the weed and wild insects will begin to tell you stories.

Jane Axtell

A difference in perception really, no better, no worse,no more insightful,merely different.No intention of communicating a snip.And I felt regretedly, that I had not conveyed Buber's message adaquately in the necessity of excerpting the quote, thus I added the subsequent page number. It seems as if we agree,that we humans do need to change the way we relate to each other and this is often difficult even with the best of intentons.One only needs to look at history, war, and the destruction of the environment to see that we employ "it" perceptions of one another as individuals,and within cultural contexts, often with negative consequences.To connect at a deeper level( Buber's thou perception of one other) might assist in more genuine,compassionate communication. As to which ideas,writers, philosophers,psychologists, etc. will engage each individual, the individual deci des. Buber'style may not appeal to everyone( for whatever reason he is neutral to me) his ideas however, are elemental and are expressed in various ways in both eastern and western thought. Best, Gail

Who is "it" when Thou and I play tag?

>[snipped unfairly]> He ( Buber) indicates that it is only when we see the other as a thou, not an it( no matter whom) that this lifting/helping of other can occur.But how can one ever see the other as an it? Even automobiles are called he and she and given names. We treat our pets like children. Is it distance? Quantity? (There are supposedly 26-plus people living in Mexico City. Every one has a story and a name.)Do you recall Desdemona's cry for the despised Shylock? "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"> [snip] In the longer passage, p. 15 (for anyone interested) he indicates that this perception of other as thou is not always possible, but when we can move into this zone, we connect and can be of potential help to others and they to us.I do not understand how lack of thou degrades to it, by default. Could we see the foreign, even the enemy at war with us, as fully human? If not, what is wrong with our meaning for human. Obviously to see the "not fully thou" as utterly human brings up a host of discomforts. We might need to change our ways.Jane Axtell

[Guest guest]

From Wikipedia re: Buber's I-Thou, I-It relationships

Ich-Du

Ich-Du ("I-Thou" or "I-You") is a relationship that stresses the mutual, holistic existence of two beings. It is a concrete encounter, because these beings meet one another in their authentic existence, without any qualification or objectification of one another. Even imagination and ideas do not play a role in this relation. In an I-Thou encounter, infinity and universality are made actual (rather than being merely concepts).[24] Buber stressed that an Ich-Du relationship lacks any composition (e.g. structure) and communicates no content (e.g. information). Despite the fact that Ich-Du cannot be proven to happen as an event (e.g. it cannot be measured), Buber stressed that it is real and perceivable. A variety of examples are used to illustrate Ich-Du relationships in daily life – two lovers, an observer and a cat, the author and a tree, and two strangers on a train. Common English words used to describe the Ich-Du relationship include encounter, meeting, dialogue, mutuality, and exchange.

One key Ich-Du relationship Buber identified was that which can exist between a human being and God. Buber argued that this is the only way in which it is possible to interact with God, and that an Ich-Du relationship with anything or anyone connects in some way with the eternal relation to God...

[edit] Ich-Es

The Ich-Es ("I-It") relationship is nearly the opposite of Ich-Du.[24] Whereas in Ich-Du the two beings encounter one another, in an Ich-Es relationship the beings do not actually meet. Instead, the "I" confronts and qualifies an idea, or conceptualization, of the being in its presence and treats that being as an object. All such objects are considered merely mental representations, created and sustained by the individual mind. This is based partly on Kant's theory of phenomenon, in that these objects reside in the cognitive agent’s mind, existing only as thoughts. Therefore, the Ich-Es relationship is in fact a relationship with oneself; it is not a dialogue, but a monologue.

In the Ich-Es relationship, an individual treats other things, people, etc., as objects to be used and experienced. Essentially, this form of objectivity relates to the world in terms of the self – how an object can serve the individual’s interest.

Buber argued that human life consists of an oscillation between Ich-Du and Ich-Es, and that in fact Ich-Du experiences are rather few and far between. In diagnosing the various perceived ills of modernity (e.g. isolation, dehumanization, etc.), Buber believed that the expansion of a purely analytic, material view of existence was at heart an advocation of Ich-Es relations – even between human beings. Buber argued that this paradigm devalued not only existents, but the meaning of all existence.

.. Who is "it" when Thou and I play tag?

>

[snipped unfairly]

> He ( Buber) indicates that it is only when we see the other as a thou, not an it( no matter whom) that this lifting/helping of other can occur.

But how can one ever see the other as an it? Even automobiles are called he and she and given names. We treat our pets like children. Is it distance? Quantity? (There are supposedly 26-plus people living in Mexico City. Every one has a story and a name.)

Do you recall Desdemona's cry for the despised Shylock? "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

> [snip] In the longer passage, p. 15 (for anyone interested) he indicates that this perception of other as thou is not always possible, but when we can move into this zone, we connect and can be of potential help to others and they to us.

I do not understand how lack of thou degrades to it, by default. Could we see the foreign, even the enemy at war with us, as fully human? If not, what is wrong with our meaning for human.

Obviously to see the "not fully thou" as utterly human brings up a host of discomforts. We might need to change our ways.

Jane Axtell