8/14/2019 Leszek p y r A

1/5

L E S Z E K P Y R A

Y A L U K S W I T H I N R E L A T I O N S

Th e ce n tr a l ca te g o r y of Martin Buber's p h i l o s o p h y of d ia lo g u e isundoubtedly the re l a t i o n I-You, s ta n d in g in o p p o s i t i o n to the relationI-It, w h i c h is in fact a separation. In order to a ch ie ve hi s ful i h u ma n itya m a s h o u l d take a relation I-You as often as possible. Just to thisre lation ar unb indingl y attached the values presented by Martin Buberin his theory. Such values w ill be analys ed b elow. The analysis consistsaccording l y of: A) a description of the construction of the I-You relation,B) a discussion of its properties (values), and C) a description of spheresin which the relation may appear.

A . C O N S T R U C T I O N O F T H E R E L A T I O N I - Y O UWr it in g about construction of the relation I-You, Buber f irs t ly charac-terizes its f irs t part, nam ely the You. The notion "You" means m an'scertain, specif ic attitudes towards a partner in dialogue, characterizedby respect due to the partner 's existe ntial value. Under the word "You"th e author means not o n l y an object of relation, but something thatappears in a given s i tua t i on between a subject and an object, and thismeans the confirm ation of the others ' s v alue. 'The essence of a dialog-ical s ituation is expressed by B u b e r in the f o l lo w in g words: "Spirit isno t in the I, but between I and You. It is not like the blood that circu-lates in you but l ike the air in which yo u breathe."1 You, in oppositionto It, cannot be in f l uenced by the categories that rule in the materiaworld, i.e. time, space, ca u sa l i ty . Th e being treated as You is saturatedby spirit.W h e n in turn the "I" is co n s id e r e d (of course the "I" of the I-Yourelation), it is i n te rn a l l y w e l l-o r d e r e d and can be named "person." InBuber 's understanding the notion "person" means a ma open to dialogue,ready at every m om ent to lead a dialogue with a being from w h ich acali comes.

55A-T. Tymieniecka (ed.), Analecta Husserliana LXVII, 5563.' ( ) ( ) ( ) A / m i r r Aciulemii' Puhlishem. Printed In the Netherlands.

8/14/2019 Leszek p y r A

2/5

56 LE S Z E K P Y R A Y A I . U H S W I T H I N R E L A T I O N S 57B. F E A T U R E S OF THE R E L A T I O N l Von

According to Buber, such a relation is characterised by the followingfeatures: presence, unmediating, exclusiveness, mutual i ty, impermanencean d responsibility.Th e feature of presence means readi ness of a subject for the meeting,readiness to accept a cali and answer i t. I t is the presence understoodas "nic et nunc," because: "The I of the basie word I-It . . . has o n lypast and no present," whereas "Wha t is essential is lived in the present." 2The feature of being unm ediated means that nothing appears betweenthe two objects of di a logue. Accordi ng to my interpretation it can beunderstood in two w a y s : cognitively, as the ck of any prior assump-tions, and valuationally. In the f i r s t case there is nothing conceptualbetween I and You. As far as the val uat ional sense of being unm edi-ated is concerned, this means that al l addit ional aims, however worthythey might be, should be e x c l u d e d from th e relation, because th e onlyaim of the dialogue is the dialogue i tself .Th e feature of e x c l u s i v e n e s s m e a n s that o n l y tw o b ei ngs ca n partici-pate in a given dialogue at a given moment, because man's possibi li-ties of initiating an d su s ta i n i n g a given dialogue ar c l i m i l c d , an d completeconcentration upon one partner in dialogue e xc lu d e s the possibility ofbeing involved in dialogue with other partners at the s a m e t ime. It shouldbe mentioned that this l imitation does no t refer to I h c H l e r n a l Yo u (God)- able to lead simultaneous d ialogues with all other bein gs. Buber stressesthis fact many times. An d here is an example: "Evcr y a c t u a l relation-ship in the worl d i s exclusive. . . . Solely in the re l at ion to God ar unconditional exclusivene ss and unconditional inclu siven ess one. . . ."3Th e feature of m ut ual i t y means interaction between I h c Iw o partnersinvolved in dialogue. Buber states this outright t h u s l y : " Relat i on i sreciprocity. My You acts on me as I act on it. Our s tudents teach us ,ou r works form us."4 Before mutuali ty appears, we have a s i l u a t i o n inwhich one of the s ides in the dialogue sends an invitat ion to dialogue,an d the other side answers it. It is the characteristic trait of such adialogue that every being ca n send a cali to dialogue, whereas the answercan be supplied only by a being which is a person, first of all by ma.The feature of impermanence means in turn that the I-You relationdoes no t last forever, that it has a tendency to become the I-It relation,and therefore constant effort is needed to sustain the first relation andto limit the second. No ma, however, is capable of being in constantrelation of I-You, and Buber stresses this sad fact numerous times.

Accordingly, in B u h e r ' s theory one can distinguish two kinds ofresponsibility. This - unfortunately - has remained unnoticed so far bya ll Ih c interpreters of B u b e r ' s theory w h o m I know of. The f irst one,i - . \ p l k - i i l y expressed by the author himself an d therefore generallya c k n o w l e d g e d by cr i t i c s , i s the responsibi li ty of the I for the You.Howcver, one can t a l k ab out th e second kind of responsib i l i t y , expressedby the author only i m p l i c i t l y an d strongly connected wit h th e categoryof freedom, w h ich is the respons i b i l i ty fo r giving up the I-It relation inorder to get inv ol ved in the I-You relation, as often as possible.

C . S P H E R E S O F D I A L O G U EO u i l e a separate problem is the question referring to potential partnersi n dialogue, in regard to whi ch a dialogue can be initiated, or who initiateit themselves.Firstly, di a logue m ay be in itiated with natur, that i s with differentform s of the materia world. In this case, "The relation vibrates in thedark an d remai ns below language. T he creatures . . . ar unab le to cometo us, and the You we say to them sticks to the threshold of language."5Because beings coming out of this sphere cannot us e speech, they turntowards ma with a cal i formulated in a way suited to their particularlevel of development. In the very im port ant Afterword to "I and Thou"written in 1957, that is, after mor than thirty years of thinking aboutthe theory under discussion, th e thinker answered th e uest ion concerningthe character of m ut ual i t y g iven to ma by natur. And so in this sphere,rcaching from stones to stars, one can basically talk about "the thresholdn i mutual i ty" i n whi ch we f ind "reciprocity of being itself- a reciprocityl h a l has nothing except be ing, "6 and therefore is identical with such abeing.Secondly, dialogue may be init iated with ma. According to Buber:"He r the relation is manifest and enters language. We can g ive an dreceive the You."7 A ma sends his appeal using speech, with one ofmc languages. This is truy th e most essential kind of dialogue. In theabove-mentioned Afterwo rd, the author answers the uestion of w hethert u l i m ut ual i t y is a l w a y s p o s s i b l e in this sphere. H claims that fulim i i l u a l i t y is not poss i b le in every particular relation, that it may or mayn o t h a p p e n . W h a t is mor, there exist such I-You relations in whi chd i n - a priori cannot count on fuli mutuali ty. Such a situation is typicalo l i l u - l o l l o w i n g relations: educator-pupil, psychotherapist-patient,

8/14/2019 Leszek p y r A

3/5

58 L E S Z E K PYRA V A I U l S W I T H I N R E L A T I O N S 59c le r g yma n -w o r s h ip p e r . Fo r e xa mp e : in case of the i r l a l i o n educator-pupil , the educator, in order to bring ou t what is best in l i i s p u p i l , mu s tpart ic ipat e in the m e e t i n g by also lo o kin g at it from Ih e pupil ' s pointof view, practising the k i nd of relation w h ich embraccs Ih c whole situ-ation. Similar s ituations appear in two other cases.T h i rd l y , dialogue m ay be initiated with spiritual beings. Her, ". . . there l at ion is wrapped in a cloud b ut reveals itself , it lacks but createslanguage. We hear no You and yet feel addressed; we answer - creating,t h ink ing, acting. . . ."8 The above-mentioned spiritual beings ar f irs tof all, it seems, th e products of culture. In case of d ia lo g u e w ith th em,th e I of an artist - every ma is an artist in certain s ituations! - answersa cali through the realisation of his own artistic vis ion s, whereas the Iof the receiving person does so th ro u g h reception of the w o r k of art,within concrete aesthetic expe rience .In th e Af te r w o r d of 1957, Buber d i s t i n g u i s h e s "the spirit that ha salready entered the w o r l d " from "the spirit that has not yet entered thew o r l d but is ready to do so."9 As e xa mp le s o f th e f i r s t , h m e n t i o n sconcrete products of people w ho d ie d th o u s a n d s of years ago: th etradit ional s a y in g s of a master, and the Doric co l u n in . In the second case,Buber refers to creative influences an d inspiration of the spiri t that every-one has felt at some time. Such spirit demands a r e a l i s a l i o n , a fulf il lmenton behalf of the person wi th i n the frame of a g iven artistic actiyity.Amo n g th e a bo ve -me n t io n e d kinds of dialogue, th e m o s t im port antis the dialogue with ma. According to Buber, o n l y in t l i d i a l o g u e ofma w ith ma one can achieve fuli mutuality, b e c a u s r o n l y i n suchcases does a cali e u a l an answer with respect to ua l i ty - in both aspects,that is with respect to the uality of beings engaged i n a g i v e n relation,and with respect to means of communication (human speedi).Some commentators of Buber 's theory cali him a "personalist". I thinkthey ar right, all the mo r so as h often stresses th e fact I h a l the effortconnected with achieving and sustaining the relation I-You confirmsthe development of persona lity, the fact that the person is b ein g created. 10Much attention is payed in Buber's considerations to the dialogueof a human being with th e Eternal You. In spite of appearances of otherkinds of dialogue, I am not certain whether the fourth kind of dialogueis considered in this case. Th e author stresses th e fact that th e dialogueI-Eternal You is superior to the dialogues with natur, ma an d spiri-tual beings, that it constitutes their base, conditions them and becomesrealised in each I-You relation.

A ccording to the u u t h n r , every encounter ultimately leads to the EternalY m i , bu t " when th e perfect encounter is to occur, th e gates ar unif iedi n i o i l u - on e gate of aclual l ife, and you no longer know through whichu l u - y ou have e n te r e d ."" Bu be r is deeply convinced that w h e n a givenl u - i n g does not answer a cal i directed towards it, the answer is supp lieds o m c w h a t as a s u b s l i l u t e - by the Eternal You, and it is done bypa r t i c ula r beings and events of the world.

C O N C L U S I O N SIn reference to the above-mentioned views certain uest ions and doubtsmay appear. Nw I w o u ld like to pay some attention to several of them.O ne of the most intriguing and unresolved uest ions is the uestionc o n c e r n i n g the natur of the dialogue, n a me ly whether it happe.ns onIhe basis of positive feelings only or is also possible in regard to then e g a t i v e o n e s . Al th o u g h th e a u th o r h ims e l f does no t give an explicita n s w e r i n th i s respect, one can draw the conclusion on the basis ofs o m e of his express ions that h allows th e p o s s ib i l i ty of meetings basedon negative feelings, too. H writes, fo r example: "Yet whoever hatesdirectly is closer to a relation than those who ar without love and hate."12Acco rd i n g l y , the philosophy of dialogue, in order not to lose any of itsc o g n i t i v e and explanatory v alue , should not limit itself to meetings basedo n l y on positive f e e l in g s . '3

A well known an d often cited saying of Bu be r ' s : "Every real l ife isa meeting," should perhaps be fo l l owed by "not only with others but alsow i t h oneself." But is it possible to conduct a di a logue w ith oneself?T l i author of "I and Thou" does no t accept such a possibil ity. Accordingu i l i i m this would be a false dialogue, in fact, a mo n o lo g u e . Bu t never-i l u - l e s s , some theoreticians try to b ui l d a theory of such a dialogue. Fo rr \ a m p l e , Reinhold N i e b u h r does this, and at the same t ime confirms a! ' i r a l i n f l u e n ce exerted u p o n h im by Buber.'4 Re ca l l in g th e theory ofl ' i v u d , h points out the possibility of leading the dialogue among par-i i r u l a r spheres of personality: id, ego and superego. H tries to prove that\ \ v often h a ve to deal with a personality splitt ing into tw o foci that ara h k - to ho d a dialogue with each other. One of them appears in as i i b j e c l i y e aspect and the other in an objective one.15 Acco r d in g toN i r b n h i , such a si tuation appears first of all in cases of self-evaluation.A vvi y seriou s counter-argument against this is the opinion that only ful ly . i i l > | t v i i w b e i n g s aro ahle to conduct s u ch a di a logue.16

8/14/2019 Leszek p y r A

4/5

60 L E S Z E K P Y R A Y A l . l I l i S W I T H I N R E L A T I O N S 6 3A very int eres t ing q uest ion i s t he prob l em of c h a n ^ o s appearing inma d u r i n g m eet ings . A ccording to Bub er, during a g i v o n nieeting m an' sp o te n t i a l i ty is s t rengt hened. This me a n s that f i r s t ly , ho is g i v e n reci-p ro c i ty ; secondly, h receives inex press ib l e confirmation of meaning; andthirdly, the meaning of his own life "here and nw" becornes clear toh i m . The author stresses th e fact that every meeting c ons t i tute s a fact,

indiv idual i sed and uniq ue to the highest degree. H writes: "The m eaningwe receive can be put to proof in act ion only by each person in theuniueness of his being and in the uniqueness of his l ife." 'One cannot agree without object ions w i th Bub er ' s op inion, which say sthat "n o prescr ipt ion ca n lead us to the encounter." 18 Because even ifno m e t h o d can guarantee a concret e encount er - and this refers m ainl yto the i n te r huma n sphere - I t h in k that a good t eacher m ay prepare hispupi l , fo r example, for an encount er wi t h a piece of art, by t e a c h i n ghi m to be r e a l ly sensit ive to art . In genera such a p u p i l is w e l l preparedto "meet" works of art in the world a r o u nd h i m .B u b e r ' s p h i l o s o p h y of d i a l o g u e , a p h e n o m e n o n a p p e a r i n g in threespheres, proves that there is no sharp d i s t i n c t i o n b et ween sacred an dp ro fa n e , be ca u s e b o t h m a and t he worl d s u r r o u n d i n g hi m ar sat u-rated by spi r i t , and t he o n l y l in of div i s ion we can l a i k ab out is theon e separat ing You and It. Every b eing m ay b ecom c Yo u an d similarlyevery being may, or even m ust - after some t ime - b ccom e It. Of coursethis does no t refer to the Eternal You.The q uest ion referr ing t o t he poss ib i l i t y of d i recl m c e l i n g s wi th th eEternal Yo u i s also just ifiable. Martin Buber al l ows lo r ih c p o s s i b i l i t yof such meetings, describing them as the "highest." H owever, they happenrather rarely an d onl y in a true community, when "men's rc l at ions to theirtrue You, being radii that lead from al l I-points to the centcr, create acircle. Not the periphery, not the community comes f i rs t, but the radii,th e common relat ion to the center."19 In the ab ove- m ent ioned case, Bub eradapts to his own use the concept transferred from the Ha si d i c m ovem ent(ab out w h i c h mo r later on), according to which the c e nt r a l p o i n t ofal l relat ions of a given com m unit y is its spiritual leader, th e zaddik.20Martin Buber's phi l osophical views do not pret end to be strictlyscient i f ic , if onl y b ecause of the fact that they ar no t b ased on anyobjective, empirical studies. They seem to be inspired by the Hasidicinheritance, th e ex i s t ent ia l t hought of H erm an Cohen, an d "existentialexperiences" of the aut hor f rom hi s y out h. 21 T he f i r s t on e especial ly,t he H asid ic m ovem ent , i n f l u e n ce d Mart in Buber's v iews, and to such

. 1 1 1 c M o n t that these v i ow s ma y b e def ined as neo-Hasidic. Th e thinkerlo r an a n s w e r a b oul th e sense of l i fe an d found it in the H asidicM c e (one of the curr ent s of Juda ism), in the trend init iated byi l u - 1 ' o l i s h .lew n a m e d l/rael ben Eliezer (1700-1760). Th e essence of

I h i s i i o i u l ma y b e c x p r c s s c d in the comdction that life in this world an dl o j - . o i h o r w i l h th e w o r l d i s the superior duty of m a ; th e trend also payeda t l o n l i o n lo Ihe fact that al l reality was of a spiritual character. Buberm o d i l i o d an d d e v e l o p e d th e H asidic inheri t ance unders t ood in such aw a y ; one can even v e n t u r e the statement that its ful lest explication wasi n i i i p r i s o d in "I and Th o u ."

A i c o u l i n g to his theory, th e m ost fundam ent al vocation of ma "i nI h i s w o r l d " s us ta i ns a real isat ion of man's hum a nism b y m eans of d i f-h - i o n i r o l a l i o n s of the I-You type. Th e author also intercepted, for hisow n use, th e Ha si d i c b el ie f that real l i fe appears in norm al i t y of evefydayl i l r , i ha l th e ma ab out w h o m Bub er wri t es is an everyday ma - notul Ihe S a h ba l h .One can say that the philos oph er is an existential ist , but only in thes ons o I h a t ho is not interested in any abstract natur of m a . H isi n l or os l od in a widel y unders t ood s i tuat ion of ma in the world whicho l l o r s p o ss i b i l i t i e s for meetings of a different type - every single onen i i i i i i c | u e character. In c o n s t r u c t i n g hi s theory, th e aut hor g ives up sharpt l i v i s i o n s into sub ject and object . In his theory, subject and object,i oimected by a spirit that appears between them, create a q ual i t a t ive l yn w whol eness , a new struc ture, and the l ife in their meeting appears.i s s o m c t h i n g m ost im p ort a nt . Bub er underl ines t he t ot a ll y person al h . n . u lor of hum an ex i s t ence, an d according to him , th e adj ect ive

l i .onal" m eans m uch mor than "subjective." It is like this becausei n o n l o r lo b ecom e personal , what is sub j ect ive m ust be accom pl i shedl' \ " l i n o relatedness," by a n element of spirit. A n d this, first of all,

. i i l n l e s t he m et aphy s ics of a Bub erian concept ion. In t he l ig h t ofi l i * . i l > o v e , it is al so ob v ious t hat t here is no poss ib i l i t y of coming backi n .1 metaphysics o f fe r i n g th e dual i sm based on contrast betweenn. i nonc e and transcen denc e. It should be also stressed that Bu ber' sl Y i i n r e l a t i o n has no m y st ica l charact er , t hat ,h treats al l b eings as

< n . i i i n j 1 . a c o m m u n i t y , whereas the assumption that God is present inr \ v i \ p a r l icu l a r re l at ion rem ains a uestion of faith.l h o i o is no d o u b t that "relat ion" is the m ost basie category of Buber'sl > l i i l i ' M i | t l i v . O n l y rn a n ' s "true relatedness," and therefore live dialoguemi s p n i i t a i i e i t y an d trust , al l ows ma to create true community. Th e

8/14/2019 Leszek p y r A

5/5

62 L E S Z E K P Y R A Y A l . l l h S W 1 T H I N R E L A T I O N S 63t h ink er accepts neither collectivity - because h I h i n k s of it as the"atrophy" of personality, nor individualism - because i i is a separation,an d decidedly approves of personality and c o m m u n i l y . In the work 7and Thou h presents the picture of ma considered as a m y st er ious unityof different relations heavi ly loaded wi th different ethical categories. A ndj u s t th is , to me , determines that th e basie motif of his creativity m aybe described as anthropological an d ethical. It should be stressed thatthe relational attitude towards the other means neither subjectivism(tendentiousness) nor sentimentalism. N either psychological nor socio-logical interpretat ions ar able to grasp the essence of true relation. Atleast, that is Buber's opinion. Despite th e fact that th e ontological statusof relation was never ful ly explained by Buber, his views greatly influ-enced his contemporaries' ways of th i n ki n g . Th e i n f l u e n ce is especiallywell seen in theology (especially Protestant), but also in secular waysof philosop his ing, because the spheres of dialogu e of bom atheists andbelievers remain generally th e same. I am d e e p ly co n vin ce d th a t Buber'stheory suggests a n s w e r s w h ich ar especially i inportant to contempo-rary m a , who is l i v i n g in a co n s ta n t h u r r y an d a v o i d i n g true meetingsw i th others. And it is just such meetings that decide the uality of ourhuma ni ty .Academy of AgricultureJagiellonian UniversityCracow

b W) in l e n s e emo t i o n al i - x | n - i n - m v s , we arc impelled to point ou t that Buber's theory' ' ' M . m i of its aspects, p i c e m s o i y in relation to the theory of po s i t ive disintegration ! I " | " - 'I I ' V Kaz i mi erz D a l m i w s k i , Dezintegracja pozytywna (Warsaw: 1979); andeditedb) M I, ume toithor: Zdrowie psychiczne (Waisw. 1979), pp . 46-63.

l i u l i r i . / ,iii,l Thou. , i / > . cii., p. 150.IbUim, |> . 6 8 .! ' < . lo/rl T i M l m r i . " S p o t k a n i a w h o ryz o ncie za," Analecta Cracoviensia

M II i l ' i s i i. A d a m We g r ze cki , O poznawaniu drugiego czowieka (Krakw: 1990), pp .l ' i i I IK Y i n l i n l d N i r l i i i l n , / ' / V // ,iml th e Dramas of History (London: 1956), p. 11.Ihiili-in. p I X . I i s l m i i l i l l H - noticed, h o wever, t h at the author has in mind the ui te

l " . i l i h v ( m u-'. | ia l I D i i > m, J l u - i i l l h ) p e rsona l i t y . B u t h i s reaching t o Freud's concept i n ' l ' i i" I m i l i l h i s o wn th eo ry o f i n tern al d i a l o g u e does no t seem to be the mo st' ' ' l l c "! ' .L U - r a u s i - , I n s l of a l l , Freud's theory seems to lo se mu ch of i ts actuality inlin h.nr.In

H" 1 ' ' l < ' > a i r i i i i i c n t l os cs m u c h of its act u al i t y w he n w e recall Buber's spheres l d i . i l i i f i u - w i i h n a i i i i c and with spiritual beings and real i se at the same time that only

"prMence" ul I n - i n g permi t s e n g a g i n g in d ialo gu e.U n l n ' 1 , / ,in,l Tum, p. 159.l i n , ! , ' n ilhi,l, niI I . n r . K i i l m , Martin Buber. Sein Work und seine Zeit (Koln: 1961), p. 186.1 [ ' ." i- M ic d cscri p t i o n of me e ting a horse, in Buber's Between Ma an d Ma

Y o i k I ' ) 4 X ) , p . 4 1 .

N O T E S1 Martin Buber, / an d Thou, A New Translation, by Walter K a uf m a nn ( N ew Yo rk: 1970),p. 89; and K s . St anisaw K o walcz yk, Bg w myli wspczesnej ( W r o c a w : 1982), pp.88-91.

' Buber, / and Thou, op. cit., pp . 63-64.' Ibidem, p. 148.* Ibidem, p. 67.5 Ibidem, pp . 56-57.6 Ibidem, p. 173.1 Ibidem, p. 57.8 Ibidem.9 Ibidem, p.174.10 Taking into consideration the fact that ma, in his ontogenetic developm ent, mustgo th ro u gh three stages, those of the primary I-You relationship, the I-It re lat io nsh ip ,and the I-You relationship, and also the fact that this "going through" is accompanied