[MD] I-It versus I-You

[Gareth Evans]

In a similar vein Karen Armstrong recently talked of "The All".If there is
an "The All"(and I believe there is), then to try and artificially separate
yourself from that of which you are a part is to try and "define"(or make
real) that which is an illusion. In my understanding, Pirsig resists
'definition' (that is analysis beyond the point of what is experienced). But
as with Bentham and his Theory of Fictions we must talk of these things as
though they were real because otherwise we can not talk of them. In Pirsig's
confrontation with The Chairman he very clearly saw the 'analogy' of the
chariot(in the translations I see, the term is "figure" or 'literary
construction'(or perhaps metaphor)).
Philosophy is about finding meaning in the world and Pirsig has given a
model that can be used to transcend artificial bounds in a similar way to
that which Buber unites things in "word-pairs" (and in better understanding
Aristotelian dualism).
Gareth.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I recently revisted a book by the Jewish existentialist philosopher, Martin
> Buber, called "I and Thou" and it resonated with me as getting at something
> similar as the MOQ in terms of its "new spiritual rationality."  I and Thou
> is about having I-You as opposed to I-It relationships.
>
> The It in the word I-It is something to make use of. The You in the word
> I-You is something to be related to with one's whole being rather than just
> as an object to make us of.
>
> The I in the word I-It is a different from the I in the I-You. These
> different relationships with the world affect who we ourselves are. The I
> of
> I-It is itself only an object. When we speak I-It to the world or to other
> people, we not only objectify the world and others but also ourselves.
>
> I think this idea harmonizes well with ZAMM's notion of "care."
>
> What do you think?
>
> Excerpts from Buber's book follow.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.
>
> The attitude of man is twofold in accordance with the two basic words he
> can
> speak.
>
> The basic words are not single words but word pairs.
>
> One basic word is the word pair I-You.
>
> The other basic word is the word pair I-It; but this basic word is not
> changed when He or She takes the place of It.
>
> Thus the I of man is also twofold.
>
> For the I of the basic word I-You is different from that of the basic word
> I-It.
>
> *
>
> Basic words do not state something that might exist outside them; by being
> spoken they establish a mode of existence.
>
> Basic words are spoken with one’s being.
>
> When one says You, the I of the word pair I-You is said, too.
>
> When one says It, the I of the word pair I-It is said, too.
>
> The basic word I-You can only be spoken with one’s whole being.
>
> The basic word I-It can never be spoken with one’s whole being.
>
> *
>
> There is no I as such but only the I of the basic word I-You and the I of
> the basic word I-It.
>
> When a man says I, he means one or the other. The I he means is present
> when
> he says I. And when he says You or It, the I of one or the other basic word
> is also present.
>
> Being I and saying I are the same. Saying I and saying one of the two basic
> words are the same.
>
> Whoever speaks one of the basic words enters into the word and stands in
> it.
>
> *
>
> The life of a human being does not exist merely in the sphere of
> goal-directed verbs. It does not consist merely of activities that have
> something for their object.
>
> I perceive something. I feel something. I imagine something. I want
> something. I sense something. I think something. The life of a human being
> does not consist merely of all this and its like.
>
> All this and its like is the basis of the realm of It.
>
> But the realm of You has another basis.
>
> Whoever says You does not have something for his object. For wherever there
> is something there is also another something; every It borders on other
> Its;
> It is only by virtue of bordering on others. But where You is said there is
> no something. You has no borders.
>
> Whoever says You does not have something; he has nothing. But he stands in
> relation.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>