http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-buber.htm

I don't really have any comments, but I generally like his approach to learning a lot. Does anyone want to discuss Buber?

I should say that I found this thinker while studying Pablo Friere's (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-freir.htm) "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," so we can discuss that as well. Maybe I'll pose some questions and thoughts as time goes, if people are interested in this topic.

Thanks,

Asher

Asher,

Having skimmed your link about Buber (that reading being the height of what I know of him) I can say I'm interested in exploring your further questions based on your exploration of his approach.

I've only read a little of him, but have resonated with his teaching on I-You vs. I-It. Some of what w.c. has written recently about "letting others in" seems similar.

I seem to recall a Thomas Merton lecture on Buber, and would like to check Merton's journals for references to him. His father was an agronomist,
and this may have influenced his environmental thought. http://web.singnet.com.sg/~chlim/Buber.html

He sought a "third way" in politics, beyond collectivism and individualism. Interesting...

Thank you Asher, as I know little about him, perhaps I and Thou mightest talk...

Yeah, wc has written on something similar. Anyway, I'll keep this thread going as I wouldn't mind educating myself more about it. As per usual, I connect my own experience with it.

I was thinking about the dialectic between self-other through the lens of Lacan. Basically desire (in Lacan's writing) always moves towards the other. And it is this dialectic which structures our notion of self in relation to Other, mediating through language. This is what got me thinking about Buber, because I think (although I'll have to dig the material up) that he has a notion of a language/dialogue being rooted in love.

When I was re-thinking Lacan and desire as always moving towards the Other (and we can relate this to nations, as well...Benedict Anderson has a interesting concept of nation as an imagined community, so how then do nations structure themselves in relation to Other nations? etc) I would say that language also moves towards Utterly Other. Now I don't think this is the same as Buber's notion of dialogue being rooted in love.

However, I began to see/think/experience this self-other dialectic as having this transcendent layer. My friend told me turn to the Bible to understand how language is also written about as having a mystical roots. You have various ideological uses of the concept during the Renaissance. For instance, one author suggested that English was rooted in Hebrew etc. This all led to stuff I don't want to get into in this thread.

I was mostly interested in this notion that desire moves toward the other, who is the Utterly Other veiled. And thus, I began to sense that language has a transcendent root which touches us as we explore the self-other dialectic in greater depth.

Again, this does, not produce the intersubjective love that Buber is speaking of. It is something else. But it made me think more positively about language.

Anyway, here's this link to begin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber

I think this sounds similar to a WC thread, but at any rate, I like the distinctions he's making:

"I-Thou
I-Thou 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).

"Buber stressed that an I-Thou relationship lacks any composition (e.g. structure) and communicates no content (e.g. information). Despite the fact that I-Thou cannot be proven to happen as an event (e.g. it cannot be known as a fact), Buber stressed that it is real and perceivable. A variety of examples are used to illustrate I-Thou relationships in daily life - two lovers, an observer and a cat, the author and a tree, and two strangers on a train. Common words Buber used for I-Thou include encounter, meeting, dialogue, mutuality, and exchange.

[edit]
I-It
The I-It relationship is nearly the opposite of I-Thou. Whereas in I-Thou the two beings encounter one another, in an I-It 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 representations of some an being. This is similar to Levinas� theory of totality), in that these objects reside in the cognitive agent�s mind, existing only as thoughts. Therefore, the I-It relationship is in fact a relationship with oneself; it is not a dialogue, but a monologue.

In the I-It 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 does not say that the I-It relation is better than the I-Thou relation; rather, he argues that they are both natural and necessary. Human life consists of an oscillation between I-Thou and I-It. However, in diagnosing modernity, Buber believed that the expansion of a purely analytic view of existence was at heart an advocation of I-It relations - even between human beings. Buber argued that this devalued not only individuals, but all of existence."

I'm great-full for the topic, Asher. Guess what jumped off the shelf at the used bookstore ? ? ?
The Walter Kaufman translation, 1st edition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann

Will get back 2U in 180 pages or so... Known about him for quite some time, but this would be a good time
from a personal and sociological perspective.

Thank you, Asher

No probs, mm:-) It says here that Kaufmann translated "I and Thou."

At any rate, I'm reading Friere who seems to draw from Buber, so you can see the far-reaching effects of Buber's thought in pedagogy. Anyway, these were my notes to my analyst regarding the Utterly Other, since that has been my experience. I understand this notion of autheticity, but sometimes distrust it. And when it occurs, it usually leads to silence, rather than speech:

I have been thinking of Lacan's notion of desire being always for the Other. We structure ourselves, our nations, and our communities around this notion. Lacan suggests that we do not speak, but are always spoken. Desire is always rooted in language. As soon as we speak, we desire and are thus embodied in and through a constant conversation/desire with/for the other. Desire and fear go together, so that even as we desire the other, we fear him/her/it as well. We want to be dissolved in the other. We also require this self-other relation in order for us to be differentiated. (Simplistic rewriting here). I was thinking of this in terms of desire being, at its root, desire for the Utterly Other who we unconsciouly seek through language (the Utterly Other=Purusha/primordial Witness). So in other words, our desire is not only for the self-other, but also for the transcendental. This means that even if the self is mainly a social construction, there is also a trancendental fact. Wilber suggests that Freud confused transcendetal states with pre states. So the reason why we speak and desire and seek is to be in dialogue with the Utterly Other, who heals our false relationship with this false self-other dialectic by which we structure our personal and social relations. Language has a social root as well as a transcendental root. Even as we are spoken, we are also spoken through by Utterly Other. Utterly Other mediates through language, even as we constantly evade It/Him/Her through language - but our evasion is a hidden search. There is no transvaluation, but dialogue from Utterly Other which interpenetrates language and on the other end there is this Imaginary self seeking the other through language - but Utterly Other knocks on the door and shows us that what we seek is the Other of ourselves where It/He/She is more easily perceived. Does this make sense?

Now, when I think about the Other as a social construct, this comes to mind. I wrote this a while back and realized now that it is slightly Hobbsian and deterministic. What does one do when they have internalized the "evil eye"? Here is my story:

. The structure of racial difference is founded on a master signifier � Whiteness � that produces a logic of differential relations. Each term in the structure enables its reference by referring back to the original signifier.

i.e. I recall traveling in Halifax and being confronted by a white male in Moncton who said �can�t you read the sign, you�re not wanted here, so get the **** out.� When I considered this later, I realized that the sign he was alluding to was his own privileged skin, a master signifier for determining who was allowed to travel through this town. When we chased, later that night, by the same man, we ran into a white police officer. The man chasing us was a convicted criminal, but the police officer listened to him. He never really questioned the man, nor did he read our fear. I remember as a 16 year old registering the hatred in this man�s eyes, the hatred that I internalized. The hatred structured my relationship with whiteness and with my self. There was, in other words, an unstated logic which worked to structure my own relationship with myself and with whiteness. I remember rebelling against this - asking the man chasing us why he hated us so much and getting that acid glare back at me, an exaggerated version of what goes on daily, just underneath the surface of white and �immigrant� relations. It is in moments like these that one is dislodged from their own identity and destiny and superimposed on a white grid, fit tightly into the vice of a gaze. Locked away from oneself, the self becomes split and fragmented. Many years later, a professor asked me if I had more to write about racial relations. I said, no. The nightmares of being chased went on and I denied that I was being constructed by whiteness. I had internalized the gaze so much and was confounded by it, that I no longer knew what was �I� and what was �it.� The gaze, I nursed and it has become my own gaze now which I cannot disavow. It has in other words, turned in on itself, turned inside out, become aware of what is doing moment to moment. It transmuted into an extreme self consciousness, picking up frequencies that are present underneath skins. There is nothing redemptive about this, though. One is changed and one can no longer be oneself without this internal dialogue, this negotiation. It is in moments such as these that one becomes projected into the world as a �visible minority.� The gaze first eats away at time and later eats away at the notion of identity as ontologically fixed.

So for me, the questions becomes:

1) How does one disentangle from the internalized gaze? I think it is something that requires subtlety. My friend compared it to Perseus using a shield to view Medusa's reflection, and, in the other arm using a sword to slice her head off. You cannot look into the eye of the internalized gaze.

(dear feminists, excuse the essentialised analogy)

2) What is redemptive about this all is that, perhaps this "eye" becomes something else. In Bhabha's writing he writes about a subversive liminal space where "I" speak in between the "self" and the gaze. This is intriguing, but it doesn't free one self from the gaze.

3) How can one relate to another, unless there is freedom from this "evil" internalized gaze which is now my own, which I am now responsible for?

4) The Utterly Other gazes back at me and through all eyes, but this is not enough to heal this "gaze."

5) The Other that has named me is now myself.

6) So what does dialogue mean to me, to you?

7) This is the realm of social constructions; it is very rare find people who are authentic enough to relate to...so you do your best and hope that what is perceive as authentically "you" is really authentically "you."

8) Yes, I understand soul-to-soul dialogue, but this leads me and the other to silence, rather than creation. How does one than move back into language, while maintaining the soul-to-soul link?


9) I suppose the answer lies in forgiveness, but not without a fight i.e. I suppose my life will be constructed now in relation to the branded "I" and this constitutes a personal journey of forgiveness. I must forgive myself and forgive the other throughout my life. And hence my last name, which means forgiveness.

10) Most people are unaware of how priviledged they are by virtue of being white, male and middle class: how transparent. Not that I would ever desire that for myself, but people should be aware of this. Not that I desire self-pity. But the re-cognition of this...makes an encounter easier...

People talk of "Eurabia" and their colonial fears of it; of immigration and defining nations as white, and in the next moment, we talk of God? Don't we see the hypocricy in our thinking? We want to encounter the other, but we have already generated a picture of him/her/it. Then we go on these insular boards where rarely someone will argue with our point of view. We are caught in the nexus web of contradictions, even as we have encounters with God, we refuse to encounter the Other...we refuse to speak to Him/Her/It. And we talk about healing...There are these layers. We carry our lairs with us. I mean, your politics reflect your spirituality. What is a spiritual politics? Where do we meet and become confounded? You know that's it for me - when I meet a conservative, I allow myself to become confounded. This is what happens, quite literally. But where is this third space?

On that lingering note, here's something I'm working on:

The gaze, I nursed and it has become my own gaze now which I cannot disavow. It has in other words, turned in on itself, turned inside out, become aware of what is doing moment to moment. It transmuted into an extreme self consciousness, picking up frequencies that are present underneath skins. There is nothing redemptive about this, though. One is changed and one can no longer be oneself without this internal dialogue, this negotiation. It is in moments such as these that one becomes projected into the world as a �visible minority.� The gaze first eats away at time and later eats away at the notion of identity as ontologically fixed. It is in moments like these that one is dislodged from their own identity and destiny and superimposed on a white grid, fit tightly into the vice of a gaze.

The house boats that you live in when you travel, those brilliant chandeliers with lotuses in portraits. It will never be the same, you say. The eye remains fixed, inert. K2 covered in a black veil, peering out of snow; musing its own reflection on the glacial lake, its gaze frozen, now wavering and I am Perseus supposedly, a shield, in one hand, and a sword in the other. I gaze in the metallic reflection. How it grows and becomes now � not a nest of snakes, but the venom of your forked tongue which makes a hero. Between the snow and the veil, I would rather be stone. The train whirls through the snow from this angle. The train travels through the landscape, its engine whirling images of your face. Of your gaze within me, turning; I tend to you, as I tend to the veil. The snow whirls the train, in side the gaze. The tornado whirls in ones sleep, taken over the land of snow, the glacial peak all glossy and ornate; a bedside story, the train takes off the track and dissolves in a becoming gaze. I am kissing you, but you will not go away. I am kissing you, even if you whirl - even if you have nostalgia for your own lost world. I will not silence you speaking inside me, speaking in tongues. I am a Christian, a heathen and a worm. We scatter petals while you laid down bouquets. We count your stones to reach our mounds. We know that the dead become part of the history of the earth, kismat. The woman that grandfather slapped to see if she was really a ghost is now underneath the stone; the grave diggers made a mistake and you pray for her underneath a constellation of banyan roots. They fall from the sky, those roots and they deviously move towards your loved ones. We are tangled in one another. There is now the story of how I became you; how I tried to deny you; how I later tried to kiss your face and how you moved away within me � and how I tried to grasp you. How I tried to release you from the earth; how you become heathen and I become pearl; how your transparent skin suddenly darkens.

Asher,

I read your posts, and I'm stumped as to how to respond. I want to respond (thus this note) because earlier, I said I would. But I'm mute. What response would you like, if any?

Ryan: Sorry, maybe read some Buber and see what I-Thou means to you. Respond however you like. I'm not a moderator:-) I mainly placed this up here to discuss language as it relates to encounter in Buber's sense, but I went on some tangents. I usually brain storm aloud and then begin to focus my thoughts. Feel free to start anywhere you like:

"I-Thou
I-Thou 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).

"Buber stressed that an I-Thou relationship lacks any composition (e.g. structure) and communicates no content (e.g. information). Despite the fact that I-Thou cannot be proven to happen as an event (e.g. it cannot be known as a fact), Buber stressed that it is real and perceivable. A variety of examples are used to illustrate I-Thou relationships in daily life - two lovers, an observer and a cat, the author and a tree, and two strangers on a train. Common words Buber used for I-Thou include encounter, meeting, dialogue, mutuality, and exchange."

Here's another link to chew on:

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/buber.html

"Buber says that the I-Thou relation is a direct interpersonal relation which is not mediated by any intervening system of ideas. No objects of thought intervene between I and Thou.1 I-Thou is a direct relation of subject-to-subject, which is not mediated by any other relation. Thus, I-Thou is not a means to some object or goal, but is an ultimate relation involving the whole being of each subject."

"We reach a new level of awareness when we approach the other as a Thou - as a relational being. The Thou is changed by my awareness of it in that it responds to my awareness - and thus establishes a relation between I and Thou. Buber notes three ways in which we can become aware of the Thou:

In nature: this is the bare minimum awareness of Thou - other creatures can respond to us or not, depending on their own awareness of our Thou-ness. When we attempt to communicate with them (which we would never do with an object), we are at "the threshold of speech" - because we never know if they understand us as a Thou.

In other humans: this is the most common experience of another Thou. While we can experience other persons as objects, we only know them as complete beings when we are aware of them as another Thou - a being which we can enter into a relationship with. When we address another, we usually get a response. This establishes the I-Thou relationship with the other, and is fully realized in conversations.

In spiritual beings: Here is where we get close to Mysticism in our expression - for Buber says here that "here the relation is clouded, yet it discloses itself; it does not use speech, yet begets it." In the end, we cannot speak of the Thou of which we are aware - yet it still seems to be undeniably here for us."

Lots of chunks, large chunks of truth here. The book reminds me of seven thousand twelve step meetings where the I-Thou was either spoken to directly or peripherally and underlying the whole program.

Buber learned well from the Ba'al Shem Tov and from life.

I see a great deal of merit in the topic and would encourage others to aquire a copy.

It seems to address the Cartesian/Newtonian mind/body split and the tendency to categorize and analyse and objectify information coming into the senses.

Oh, nothing much, just the whole sickness and addiction of the Western world...

Lots of chunks, large chunks of truth here. The book reminds me of seven thousand twelve step meetings where the I-Thou was either spoken to directly or peripherally and underlying the whole program.

Buber learned well from the Ba'al Shem Tov and from life.

I see a great deal of merit in the topic and would encourage others to aquire a copy.

It seems to address the Cartesian/Newtonian mind/body split and the tendency to categorize and analyse and objectify information coming into the senses.

Oh, nothing much, just the whole sickness and addiction of the Western world...

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalmichael9:
[qb]

It seems to address the Cartesian/Newtonian mind/body split and the tendency to categorize and analyse and objectify information coming into the senses.

Oh, nothing much, just the whole sickness and addiction of the Western world... [/qb]

Yes, that seems correct, mm. I guess my initial question would be: how is it possible to be in dialogue with another, when dialogue itself always constituted by ideas/imagination/etc.? Of course, you can be with a lover and be talking about nothing in particular and feel in love with the other person, somehow merged with the person, yet retaining some sense of individuality. Or that feeling of love itself, elicited through dialogue can move and deepen into silence...this is where dialogue seems to end for me, and one is moved into another sort of dialogue, soul-to-soul. In this space, there is a sort of interpenetration of two subtle and etheric bodies. Often I feel this at a distance; it is as though a person enters your "aura" and circulates within you, strangely. But is this dialogue, or is this a sort of siddhi? Sometimes when I talk to my friend Damian about advaita, for instance, we invoke the reality of advaita and both bathe in Self, as though a new window has opened; and even while we are moving into this point of bliss together, we still talk and talking seems to increase this. There are so many forms of communication; I guess I find it hard to understand what Buber means by "authentic." I understand that in the Christian tradition, there is a very powerful idea/transmission that when two are together in His name, He is present. One has to be plugged into something larger than the self, in other words, to be in dialogue, to see/feel something authentic in another...



Well, I should probably read him more closely. But, here's a slide show, for those interested:


http://courses.washington.edu/spcmu/buber/index.htm

"when he says about the I-Thou relationship, that by the graciousness of its coming--gracious because you cannot will it--and by the solemn sadness of its going--sad because every meeting with the thou, the you, the other. . .must again and again turn into an it that has become discontinuous, become an object; "it can again become a thou, but it always turns into an it. But he uses the analogy of the chrysalis and the butterfly. It teaches us to meet others and to hold our ground when we meet them. And I think the important, the essential, word there is 'teaches'."

This is great:

"It takes a lifetime to learn how to be able to hold your own ground, to go out to the others, to be open to them without losing your ground. And to hold your ground without shutting others out."

Sitting for a time with a fellow I never had met before, and speaking as though we had known each other all of our lives yesterday. We had a great talk. He has not had a drink for 65 days, and things are all fouled up, the wreckage of unconsciousness.

I had the reward of being helpful. Since I did not want anything from him and only wanted to be helpful, we had the I-Thou thing going for an hour and a half, and my problems evaporated.

It's great to have such opportunities.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalmichael9:
[qb] Sitting for a time with a fellow I never had met before, and speaking as though we had known each other all of our lives yesterday. We had a great talk. He has not had a drink for 65 days, and things are all fouled up, the wreckage of unconsciousness.

I had the reward of being helpful. Since I did not want anything from him and only wanted to be helpful, we had the I-Thou thing going for an hour and a half, and my problems evaporated.

It's great to have such opportunities. [/qb]

Interesting, mm. It's wonderful, those encounters. I used to have them a lot outside my friend's shop (who is a devotee of Mary and a proud Catholic). She seemed to attract those sorts of encounters. I should probably visit her soon. A true (and quiet) mystic. We used to talk for hours when I was working over on Bathurst and Dupont as a short order cook. I would visit her on my break and usually come back to work with a couple of pairs of new socks. This is what touched me most about Christianity. The way in which Almira used to serve people and attract this sort of encounter. She was the only one who appeared for a funeral of someone who died on the steets. And that woman would be in front of her shop all day because Almira really loved her. These people must be God's most precious instruments. She used to give drinks to people who shouted at her, insane people. She used to sell these Fatima tshirts and I bought about a dozen from her and gave them to friends who thought I was nuts. She had a large picture of Our Lady of Fatima outside her shop. I love that image. You know when I think about how I internalized the gaze from racist experiences, I remember it was Mary, and only her, who appeared in my body where that gaze was internalized . In dreams. It was only through the kindness of Almira that I made this connection. The first time I walked in her shop we chatted about cheese and she ran to her husband's shop next door and brought me havarti cheese. She also shared all her experiences and visions of Mary with me. She said that one could only see Mary three times in their life. I love Almira. I should bring her a gift. She had all these strange stories of people who would appear at her shop in the middle of winter and bless her and then suddenly disappear. I could go on and on about her. She was very kind to me.

Internalizing the gaze from racist experiences.

I am learning about the subtle and not so subtle forces of oppression and repression. As part of the dominant culture, I am amazed at how little I know
about this, although I operate in it unconsciously
and have been trained in it from childhood.

I've been in an hispanic group for several years, and have listened to the stories as they come up,
and the stories of some of the activists who knew
Corky Gonzales and Cesar Chavez in the 60s and 70s.

They talk about racist police and employers, or experiences on the street, etc. Sometimes they switch over to speaking Spanish and I feel left out, but I am getting used to it.

I have been accepted into this family, and the potucks and picnics, and have gained much from the experience. I see in a different way now, I-Thou
kicks in and I can transcend my often unconscious racism.

Working out the green meme with the Holy Spirit.

Nice sharing, guys.

I think about married life, here, and how love requires both an I and a Thou to dance between. After almost 30 years of marriage, it's so obvious, too, that love has no interest in collapsing I and Thou into some kind of "pure consciousness" where all distinctions are lost in some kind of cosmic consciousness. Far from it! Love delights in the other being truly itself in all its uniqueness; Thou is loved as Thou, and love enables Thou to become even more beautiful in manifesting itself.

There's an analogy here with regard to how God and creatures inter-relate, I believe.

Thank you Phil!

I do get these little snapshots of family life hanging around with married freinds, especially Christian families. It proves the existence of a higher power when I see what love can do.

God is a loving God of second chances, too. I was saddened when my parents split up about twenty years
ago, but rejoice in the very happy relationships that they eventually found.

Visited my dad yesterday and the magic was working. I actually kissed him on the cheek as I was leaving. I don't think I ever did that before.
He has a wonderful Christian partner and they are deeply in love.

I wish I had never studied psychology and family systems, since it led to a ten year resentment I had to work through, but God is melting it like butter. Dad and I have an I-Thou relationship today, and we are like a couple of kids laughing and wondering at the world together.

My younger brother's best high school freind walked into a recovery meeting about six years ago and we are becoming quite close. He is a role model and example of a Christian husband and father.

I just recieved a mushy e-mail from an old guy who has become a big brother and father-figure to me.

I am on my way to my men's group tonight, where I am joined to my brothers by suffering and triumph.

I am greatly blessed, and Buber's books is a reminder of that which can be possible.

Reading it very slowly...

Sounds like you've got a social life going, MM. And how wonderful that you and your father are finding ways to connect.

I think relationships really are of the essence -- not just in Christian spirituality, but for our deepest sense of meaning as human beings. We don't necessarily need large numbers of friends or family members to be close to. Just the very act of being open to relating is almost enough . . . although it really is nice to have an actual flesh-and-blood person to hook up with.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Sounds like you've got a social life going, MM. And how wonderful that you and your father are finding ways to connect.

I think relationships really are of the essence -- not just in Christian spirituality, but for our deepest sense of meaning as human beings. We don't necessarily need large numbers of friends or family members to be close to. Just the very act of being open to relating is almost enough . . . although it really is nice to have an actual flesh-and-blood person to hook up with. [/qb]

Thanks for all the responses, guys. I'm moving onto a new study which requires another thread. We can close this, or keep it open for people who want to explore relationship, share their experience of how relationship can be a means of communing with Christ, or with the Divine.

Had an experience 20 years ago, and Buber was the only author I could find who identified it for me. A reading his "Good and Evil" provided a translation of 'yada' - a gift described in the first Psalm.

At the time it was accompanied by other experiences which lasted about two months in total.

This experience is given to the 'proven - the pious' and it's both a confirmation and a promise of happiness. I had just finished reading 'People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck and was married with a one year old. The final chapter noted that the only way to overcome evil was to 'absorb it' by becoming pure through the grace of God.

Sitting at the kitchen table I remember thinking "My husband is evil! How do I become pure?"

The experiences started (some directed me to the Church, others confirmed God as love - but all were connected by a powerful experience of the Holy Spirit). The final one was the 'yada'.

Since then nothing mystical has happened (thank goodness), but the contemplative path appeared to be my fate. Fortunately, I have done much reading on the subject and have identified the fact that I have completed the dark night and am now in the state of no-ego (I think the better definition would be no-id). Phil's description of it is very apt - connection with things as they happen, but a down time when not directly involved in interactions.

Memory has become an issue - when I find myself in the basement because I want to accomplish two things, I can usually only remember one. I think this is because I no longer have any emotional connection to why I really wanted to do something - it's more of a power of the will rather than a desire. But actions involving people come more freely and naturally - self consciousness or doubt as to self intentions no longer play a role. I feel much freer to be with, to play with people, and to enjoy the moment.

An addendum to Buber

Actually, thinking about it, I would like to leave some documentation that this experience occured to me. I don't plan to write a book, and it probably doesn't happen to too many people in this, or any generation. Perhaps here, if a future scholar is searching under the name 'Buber', they will find this.

As a preface, I'm a 51 year old special education teacher, happily married for 7 years to a director of a local corporation. I have one child (a college graduate) and 3 step-children - all living independently.

The next to last experience I had 20 years ago was, as Buber describes it in Good and Evil, Chapter V, The Ways, pg. 56 was: "At the centre is not a perceving of one another, but the contact of being, intercourse."

It can only be described as a silent rocket going off in my head - and at the time I had no clue what it meant. After these experiences I researched everything I could find on mystical experiences - St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa, etc. They mentioned nothing like this. It wasn't until a few months later that I found Buber and realized what it was.

"Through His contact with them God draws them out of the abudance of living creatures in order to communicate with them. This 'knowing' of His, this reaching out to touch and grasp, means that the man is lifted out, and it is as those who have been lifted out that they have intercourse with Him." So like God - a massive gift with no recompence.

Yes, I can't imagine how I could be happier in my life. My work in an inner city school is very rewarding. My children are happy, I love my husband, and for some reason I have a deep inner contentment, which probably has to do with how God has placed me in life.

I wanted to leave this note for someone who might be researching Buber to find.

I can be reached at shenshaw@charter.net. It is an unusual gift, probably documented in very few places. And, of course, I have no proof except my testimony.