Dialogue in Martin Buber’s Book: “I and Thou”

Chapter One of Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communication is largely an introductory section, acquainting readers with some of the foundations of communication – our needs, models and characteristics of communication, and the world’s newest form of communication: social media. One of the needs detailed during this chapter was titled “Identity Needs,” and this is the particular section to which I wish to respond through this “Biblical Response” paper.

It has been many years since the sacred word has been discovered. Since then a lot has changed. I have faced many difficulties trying to create a society that no one else save for Gaea can see. The others, my friends, have trouble comprehending the word ‘I’. This is of no surprise to me but it does complicate things. How can they convince the rest of what they themselves are unsure of? All the same we do have people in our side; it is not as much as we want but it is more than we could have hoped for.

According to Nozick when two individuals join and form a “we” this new identity completely takes over and creates a new shared identity. To Nozick, it would be completely irrational to even think of the person of an individual and to ask what the value of love is to them. It is something that is just not possible when a person has formed a “we” with another.

Interpersonal communication is described as two or more people exchanging information through verbal and non-verbal messages. “God gave us the gift of communication so we could get close to others” (Griffin, 1987, p. 10). There are various theories on interpersonal communication two of which will be discussed in this paper, Symbolic Interactionism and Social Penetration. One theory is based on verbal and non-verbal communication and the other is based on how communication can help each of us develop deeper relationships. We practice both theories on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not. This paper will look how each theory is used in our daily lives, how each theory helps us to gain better understanding of our relationships, and how each theory ties into our biblical worldview.

“I” symbolizes individuality. One reason why I believe “I” symbolizes individuality is that “I” was banned and renamed the “Unspeakable Word” after collectivists laws were put in place (Rand, 1938, p. 23). These shows me that “I” stands for individuality because the leaders wanted to eliminate “I” in order to make everyone the same. This is because if you say “We” instead of “I” you begin to forget who you really are and this leads to a loss of individuality. Furthermore, Equality unlock individuality when he discovers the word “I”. Before he knew of “I” Equality had lived in a society where there was no man, only men, however when he discovers “I”, he reveals a much different thought process than the other citizens. “And man will go on. Man, not men,” (Rand, 1938, p. 101) is just one of the quotes that expresses Equality’s new thinking of the world once he escapes from society and learns about the “Unmentionable Times”, the times before laws of collectivism was in place. Soon after he learns about the “Unmentionable Times” he states, “It is my mind which thinks, and the judgement of my mind is the only searchlight that can find my truth,” (Rand, 1938, p. 102) This quotes show just how much Equality’s thoughts have changed from collectivism to individualism. This is important to notice because this means Equality is finally

m. Rastas feel that Jah, in the form of the Holy Spiri, lives within the human soul, and for that reason they often refer to themselves as “I and I”.

Michael J. Himes, in his book Doing the Truth in Love, describes theology as a way of “talking about God.” Talking about God brings many questions to mind: how do people talk about God when God is a mystery? How do people converse about what they do not know for sure? Many may think theology is inherited and even theologians talk about what they have learned from doctrines and the history they have been taught. Even though theologians know very little about God aside from what they studied, they still know it is important to talk about God. As Himes states, “God is simply too important to us not to talk about.” Although theologians are still figuring out the mysteries of God, they attempt to put forth their opinions and ideas about God in order to inspire people to find their own theology.

How do we know when communication has served to strengthen relationships between people and expand individual viewpoints? When does communication reach beyond individual goals to promote and develop a sense of community? We can attempt to answer questions like these by exploring Martin Buber’s theory of Dialogue.

Equality 7-2521 works to find a better society than just staying in one place getting nowhere in life. Once Equality 7-2521 runs away from his own society he ends up in a forest where he soon starts his own life. Here, he searches for ways to have people be equal instead of the government just telling them who and what to be. One of the many ideas that he came upon was the most unformidable word that marks the sign of individualism, I. This one word, one letter gives him the opportunity to have a little bit more freedom and equality from people. Here Equality 7-2521 discovers this word and from now on uses it without regret, “I am. I think. I will. My hands . . . My spirit . . . My sky . . . My forest . . . This earth of mine . . . What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer” (Rand Chapter Eleven). This explains that the words I and my are the answer to a better life and a more ethical and honorable society.

This quote represents the individuality in the book. This was the first time Equality has experienced freedom. It is the first time he refers to himself as “I” instead of “We”. At the beginning of the book it was discussed “the unspeakable word” which it was now discovered it is “I”. This quote goes against everything the council and his “ brothers” believe in and everything he used to believe.

Interrogator Questions : 1Q: What did Elizabeth anticipate that John delegate was doing ? A: John delegate was undermining elizabeth 2Q:

entity; what happens to one, will happen to the other. Also, the speaker says that if two people

‘In a very large and interesting class of cases the social reference takes the form of a somewhat definite imagination of how one's self--that is any idea he appropriates--appears in a particular mind, and the kind of self-feeling one has is determined by the attitude toward this attributed to that other mind. A social self of this sort might be called the reflected or looking glass self: " Each to each a

Christensen, K. (2011, Spring). Difficult conversations: How to address what matters most. Rotman Magazine, 22–27.

Every human being depends on another to connect for the natural association when they are present in the womb itself. In some occasions Buber describes as I-Thou relationship is nothing but the specifically personal relationship between two persons, the bond between man and man. “In the beginning, it is the relationship that gives authenticity to human existence.” What Buber describes as I-Thou relationship is nothing but the personal relationship between two persons. Human inter-subjectivity affirms I -Thou encounter. “Resting upon the claim that no isolated I exist apart from relationship to another.” Dialogue or encounter transforms each figure into an ultimate and mysterious centre. It is more than mere feeling and understanding; it is a living bridge between two persons. The act of relationship contains the function of the soul of a man. It is a wide and a central act. But at the same time, it binds two persons mind to each other; the centre core of man which relates itself and the centre core of the other to whom he relates himself. This turning toward the other, the Thou, is the fundamental movement in man. It is the state of fellow manliness. This relationship between I and Thou is not an arbitrary interaction. But it