A dialogical relation will show itself also in genuine conversation, but it is not composed of this. ...On the other hand, all conversation derives its genuineness only from the consciousness of the element of inclusion—even if this appears only abstractly as an "acknowledgement" of the actual being of the partner in the conversation; but this acknowledgement can be real and effective only when it springs from an experience of inclusion, of the other side.
-Martin Buber, Between Man and Man (London: Routledge, 1947).
One vision of the I-Thou encounter may appear in the often-parodied cult film My Dinner with Andre. For anyone who hasn't seen MDWA, the synopsis is as follows: two friends get together for dinner, and wind up having a really deep conversation. Much of the beginning of the film consists of the Apollonian Wally listening somewhat skeptically to the strange spiritual experiences recounted by his more Dionysian friend Andre. But it's only when Wally starts to challenge Andre on the deeper significance of his new-age adventures that the conversation becomes compelling. As described in this blog entry from Prof. Azly Rahman:
At the dinner table hence, we saw a meeting of beings, one with a “world consciousness” of the “I-it” and one of “I-Thou” as in Wally and Andre respectively. It is a meeting not merely of two people possessing of (or being possessed by) a varying amount of economic/material capital but of metaphysical/spiritual capital. The movie could also have been titled “The Re-education of Wally and Andre” in that only when there is, as Buber term[ed] the inclusionary aspect of the parallel monologues can genuine dialogue happen. When Wally was probing into what lies in the consciousness of Andre for a great length of the conversation, he is merely excluding himself from the dialogue. Similarly, when Andre was narrating his metaphysical escapades, he is largely excluding himself from the transformative realm. But when Wally started to question the “meaninglessness” to him, of Andre’s “fantastic stories”, a genuine dialogue was about to be established and one which perhaps would have a lasting effect on both characters. Through this thesis–anti-thesis of this stage of the dialogue, we saw a remarkable moment of the meeting of the I with the Thou in the dialogue itself (and not between the interlocutors as persons).
-Daniel Horne
Lynda OReilly says
March 6, 2013 at 12:29 pm“…the meeting of the I with the Thou in the dialogue itself (and not between the interlocutors as persons).” ~ Prof Rahman
When toddlers are playing in the same room they do what’s called ‘parallel play’ — casting an eye at each other occasionally but staying in their own territory. We humans do that all the time even when we’re eye to eye and using each other’s names. Listen to conversations around you; listen to your own conversations. We stay in our own safe place and rarely does a question or a challenge really want an insight different than our own. It’s a relief to stop being fearful and solicit truth or the discomfort of a scary possible truth and then to actually consider it without throwing familiar defenses up in front of ourselves. Difficult too, and a human can only stand so many hard truths in a lifetime so examine possible truths carefully, partially even, after you’ve listened carefully to the other.
dmf says
March 7, 2013 at 10:04 amhttp://ttbook.org/book/love-20-barbara-frederickson
dmf says
March 6, 2013 at 1:21 pmDH, if you get a chance see what you think of: http://www.janushead.org/8-2/lingis.pdf
Daniel Horne says
March 6, 2013 at 8:01 pmThanks, dmf, will consider. I can already tell Lingis has a refreshing prose style.
dmf says
March 6, 2013 at 9:21 pmhe’s a gem to but tends to wax Romantic, or as the anthropologists say goes na(t)ive
Tammy says
March 7, 2013 at 9:32 amI read an article in Commonweal (a Catholic publication) then read your blog and watched the clip.
http://commonwealmagazine.org/polarization-church-and-country
First, I want to say, I really enjoyed the Martin Buber podcast with all the follow-up blogs. The thing about Religious Studies is it’s academic study, which I like, yet, I am Catholic and to write any publication re Catholic theology (a theologian I’m not) one has to stay within the boundaries or one is pretty much in the doghouse.
That said, it’s hard to address topics that are controversial, yet need to be addressed for any in-depth discussion. The thing is I don’t know if this kind of medium allows for authentic communication. Actually, I think it does or rather can but it’s difficult and different from oratory face-to-face communication. The Clip from My Dinner with Andre picks up on a similar topic re dialectic in Plato’s Gorgias.
dmf says
March 7, 2013 at 10:08 amJack Caputo is Catholic tho he is often in the doghouse, but ya know for a people who pay annual homage to a manger that might not be a bad place to be…
http://books.google.com/books/about/Demythologizing_Heidegger.html?id=r5AHN7sH0h4C
Gerry says
March 7, 2013 at 12:54 pmAn interesting exploration of the experience of this kind of mutual meeting/openness is “Working at Relational Depth” by the psychologists Dave Mearns and Mick Cooper.
URL here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Working-Relational-Depth-Counselling-Psychotherapy/dp/0761944583/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top