leonardcohenforum.com

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:46 am**

I tried to find page 3, but I couldn't... went to the Excerpt, but it wasn't what you'd talked about. It was about the dream with the lion's cub, etc. Then, I went to "Look Inside this Book" and typed in 3, and found 13 references, beginning on page 25, that refer in some way to "3" ~ well, maybe tomorrow night I'll be more successful with it, eh?

~ Lizzy

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:50 am**

right after that part

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:33 am**

I hope this is close enough to legal.

Martin Buber wrote:Silence which is communication

Just as the most eager speaking at one another does not make a conversation (this is most clearly shown in that curious sport, aptly termed discussion, that is, “breaking apart”, which is indulged in by men who are to some extent gifted with the ability to think), so for a conversation no sound is necessary, not even a gesture. Speech can renounce all the media of sense, and it is still speech.

Of course I am not thinking of lovers’ tender silence, resting in one another, the expression and discernment of which can be satisfied by a glance, indeed by the mere sharing of a gaze which is rich in inward relations. Nor am I thinking of the mystical shared silence, such as is reported of the Franciscan Aegidius and Louis of France (or, almost identically, of two rabbis of the Hasidim) who, meeting once, did not utter a word, but “taking their stand in the reflection of the divine Face” experienced one another. For here too there is still the expression of a gesture, of the physical attitude of the one to the other.

What I am thinking of I will make clear by an example.

Imagine two men sitting beside one another in any kind of solitude of the world. They do not speak with one another, they do not look at one another, not once have they turned to one another. They are not in one another’s confidence, the one knows nothing of the other’s career, early that morning they got to know one another in the course of their travels. In this moment neither is thinking of the other; we do not need to know what their thoughts are. The one is sitting on the common seat obviously after his usual manner, calm, hospitably disposed to everything that may come. His being seems to say it is too little to be ready, one must also be really there. The other, whose attitude does not betray him, is a man who holds himself in reserve, withholds himself. But if we know about him we know that a childhood’s spell is laid on him, that his withholding of himself is something other than an attitude, behind all attitude is entrenched the impenetrable inability to communicate himself. And now—let us imagine that this is one of the hours which succeed in bursting asunder the seven iron bands about our heart—imperceptibly the spell is lifted. But even now the man does not speak a word, does not stir a finger. Yet he does something. The lifting of the spell has happened to him—no matter from where—without his doing. But this is what he does now: he releases in himself a reserve over which only he himself has power. Unreservedly communication streams from him, and the silence bears it to his neighbour. Indeed it was intended for him, and he receives it unreservedly as he receives all genuine destiny that meets him. He will be able to tell no one, not even himself, what he has experienced. What does he now “know” of the other? No more knowing is needed. For where unreserve has ruled, even wordlessly, between men, the word of dialogue has happened sacramentally.

Buber, Martin. Between Man and Man.
Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1947. p 3-5.

I don't know if I agree with Buber completely. Not only does one person have to allow it, but for this dialogue that he's talking about to take place, the other must also be receptive to it. Being receptive to it may even be more important, for if the guarded man doesn't let down his guard, he still communicates through silence, and the receptive man can take note of that as well. The receptive man can still become more aware of the guarded man's humanity, reguardless (

) of what the guarded man feels, issues or projects.

Please argue with me.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:37 pm**

Manna wrote:I don't know if I agree with Buber completely. Not only does one person have to allow it, but for this dialogue that he's talking about to take place, the other must also be receptive to it. Being receptive to it may even be more important, for if the guarded man doesn't let down his guard, he still communicates through silence, and the receptive man can take note of that as well. The receptive man can still become more aware of the guarded man's humanity, reguardless () of what the guarded man feels, issues or projects.
Please argue with me.

What you say can't be argued with other than to say it is aside of what Buber is referring to.
A clearer way to look at that would be to see if we agree with what he says at the beginning is not conversation, is not the word of dialogue.

Just as the most eager speaking at one another does not make a conversation (this is most clearly shown in that curious sport, aptly termed discussion, that is, “breaking apart”, which is indulged in by men who are to some extent gifted with the ability to think)

Is setting at a distance, showing that we have a different point of view, a different background, a breaking apart: Dialogue? That certainly is not what Buber thinks dialogue is.
Although it might be the start of dialogue, true dialogue doesn't happen until there is a giving of oneself to the other and a receiving. A being changed by and changing the other.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:45 pm**

That makes it a lot easier to read, thanks Manna.

Jack said:

I think that where he is going with this is along the same lines you were and that he thinks that the human can do much more than the machine. That it can communicate the information to you, not just who you are but also who you could be. The example he used is one who, for various reasons, is locked into a position of "with-holding oneself.( He doesn't know any other way.) and another who gives freely of himself. Being next to the other the information of knowing another way is communicated in a closer way than they are capable of being consciously aware has happened. He seems to think that a position of silence can facilitate that.

Yes, I understand this. Here is an experiment for you, even more interesting than your ear one, or my machine one. In this experiment you can be your own machine, and someone else can simultaneously be yours:

Find someone who will sit opposite you and, in silence, hold eye contact with each other for ten minutes (blinking is allowed). If you break eye contact, just resume it again without speaking. That's it, that's the experiment. What happens?

If you have a close friend or lover around who will do this with you, it may be fairly easy to do this experiment. Otherwise, you might find it very difficult, because one or both partners will feel awkward, feel compelled to start talking, and feel unable to meet each other's eyes for anything like that length of time. But try it anyway.

Manna said:

for if the guarded man doesn't let down his guard, he still communicates through silence

People who don't want to do this experiment might be using silence for another purpose; to remain unknown to themselves and others.

There is another part of that book that I think I am going to write about soon. He refers to it as his "conversion" The time when he stopped being interested in seeking "spiritual experiences" and the "religious".

I agree. I think you have to be your own machine, and find out who you are, using the methods from any tradition you may find useful, not to seek a "spiritual experience", but to get beyond just approaching it intellectually and reading other people's words.

Diane

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:01 pm**

Diane wrote: Find someone who will sit opposite you and, in silence, hold eye contact with each other for ten minutes (blinking is allowed). If you break eye contact, just resume it again without speaking. That's it, that's the experiment. What happens?
Diane

I'll try it. It might take a little while to find a willing partner. I remember doing that as an exercise a long time ago as part of a series of very revealing exercises.
One much more recent that I kind of got tricked into doing was to just laugh for no other reason than just laughing but to really laugh sincerely. It is so interesting and I recently noticed that in Montreal they have a group that meet once a week to laugh together. No jokes are told, nothing funny is done, they just laugh. I just might join that group.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:19 pm**

I made up this experiment from similar "experiments" I have observed or taken part in in different contexts. At least it might make everyone shut up for ten minutes. Sounds like an interesting group, Jack. Laughter is definitely contagious. My experiment might make people laugh, also.

Diane

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:22 pm**

Communication, conversation, discussion and dialogue all pretty much mean the same thing to me, except that a dialogue is specific to two engaged people. All require issuances and perceptiveness; all can happen silently or aloud. When in the presence of another, we tend to be perceptive to that other, but our perception also goes through our own psychological filters. When someone enters a room, you can generally tell that peson's state of mind - contented? angry? joyful? This happens easily in the absense of words because "For here too there is still the expression of a gesture, of the physical attitude of the one to the other."

Buber makes clear what he isn't talking about, and what I've just written above is what he's not talking about. But in spite of his example, I don't know if I understand what he is talking about. I think people are both more expressive and perceptive than he seems to allow here. It sounds like he's trying to make something of (close to) nothing. If one man has always lived "entrenched [in] the impenetrable inability to communicate himself," and then suddenly for some undisclosed reason, he lets it go and his childhood spell is lifted... Is that not a profound change in a man? I hold that his position would change, (maybe he relaxes his shoulders, or sighs, or looks up, or his adrenalin levels increase, or he even just widens his eyes a bit) and that would be perceptible to the other man, who would then either take note or not.

I think I understand what he's trying to say, but I'm open to more explanation. So far I'm just not convinced of the validity of his example. It's part of my scientific training that I've come to question almost everything. It's still interesting writing, and I am still curious enough to read the rest. Maybe it's good that I didn't go into philosophy.

I can appreciate this way of thinking:

lazariuk wrote:Being next to the other the information of knowing another way is communicated in a closer way than they are capable of being consciously aware has happened. He seems to think that a position of silence can facilitate that.

But I think it takes something more than uncluttered presence.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:37 pm**

I attended a workshop several years back where I engaged in that exercise... sitting on the floor, cross-legged, fairly close to your 'partner' [the workshop leader specifically addressed that your partner needs to be someone you don't know or haven't specifically interacted with], and simply looking into each other's eyes... saying nothing. My partner was a male approximately 20 years younger than me and who appeared to be of Mideast origin. The follow-up was to share with the group the feelings that surfaced throughout the process. It was amazing the feeling of closeness we felt with/toward each other after the exercise had concluded.

~ Lizzy

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:25 pm**

Manna wrote,
>Communication, conversation, discussion and dialogue all pretty much mean the same thing to me, except that a dialogue is specific to two engaged people.

Two engaged people can be engaged for a very long time. Each feeding off each other, listening to each other, often waiting for the other to finish because a new thought has already been born in their mind which they want to express. Sometimes they trigger emotions in each other, make the other cry or laugh. Give each other new information. Delight in how they are being seen by the other, get preened by the effect they are having on the other and all the other things that happen when people are so engaged.

I think that all that and so much more can happen and it still not be dialogue. It can still be almost entirely in the world of manifold monologues, though maybe not completely devoid of dialogue. People tend to have monologues with each other and not dialogues.

> It sounds like he's trying to make something of (close to) nothing.

Yes it does sound that way. I'm going to try to be cute here.
When you go looking for nothing, nobody is always waiting to show you around.

>I can appreciate this way of thinking:

lazariuk wrote:Being next to the other the information of knowing another way is communicated in a closer way than they are capable of being consciously aware has happened. He seems to think that a position of silence can facilitate that.

>But I think it takes something more than uncluttered presence.

Yes I think so too.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:29 pm**

lizzytysh wrote:I attended a workshop several years back where I engaged in that exercise... sitting on the floor, cross-legged, fairly close to your 'partner' [the workshop leader specifically addressed that your partner needs to be someone you don't know or haven't specifically interacted with], and simply looking into each other's eyes... saying nothing. My partner was a male approximately 20 years younger than me and who appeared to be of Mideast origin. The follow-up was to share with the group the feelings that surfaced throughout the process. It was amazing the feeling of closeness we felt with/toward each other after the exercise had concluded.

I found that such exercises got better by just looking at the face and not staring into the eyes. Moving your eyes all over the face in a very relaxed way.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:49 pm**

Moving your eyes all over the face in a very relaxed way.

As you say that, and as I recall it, I'm thinking that may have occurred.

Another interesting exercise that I only fairly recently learned about was pairing up and, this time for certain looking into the other person's eyes, repeating only the phrase... "I know you... " and the many, many variations in expression of that simple phrase that emerge. I've forgotten the specified time frame for it. It was quite awhile, maybe close to an hour[?] ~ I'll check and clarify.

~ Lizzy

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:01 pm**

That sounds exhausting, Lizzy.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:40 pm**

Yes, it does, Manna. It ends up being very engaging and revealing on many levels, however

.

~ Lizzy

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:41 pm**

I think I would be afraid to do this exercise. Just saying "I know you" to a person is always going to be a lie on some level, though I know I've said this to people with a lighter sense in mind. I used to enjoy these activities, back when I thought I was more innocent than I think I am today. I don't know how willing I'd be to be so revealing. There is an exhibitionist somewhere in this skin I wear, but she seems to be unreliable.

I don't know if it really has anything at all to do with how I feel about myself. Maybe since I've done these types of things, I just don't feel the need anymore.

leonardcohenforum.com

I would like some help with an experiment