那日，某人发来微信，问我有没有看过这本《我和你》，我说没有听过，她说你去看一看吧，看完有个问题我想跟你讨论一下。虽然是再好不过的朋友，但这实在是一个很奇怪的要求…… Anyway, 广州回上海的飞机上刚好也没有别的事情可以做，那就勉强一读吧。
先看的陈维纲的中译本，翻得非常精妙，但我根本看不懂，语言的艰涩深奥复杂度完全超出我这个理科女的理解能力。我觉得我顶多读懂了10%吧，但就是这10%，已经打到我的泪点，在那些似懂不懂的文字中，there is something profoundly touching…… 回上海后我试图找一个简单易读一点的版本，所幸这个英译本没什么智商歧视，油管上的几个讲解视频也都是大白话。回头去看陈维纲的那个译本，稍微好那么一点点……
前两天，园长大人发了篇文章，关于《BBC园艺世界》的主持人Monty Don的新书《Down to Earth》，里面写到：“你很容易把自己想象成花园的指挥家，控制所有的音符与节拍。但是谦逊是唯一恰当的态度。即使是最棒的园丁，与其说是他是指挥家，不如说他是需要更换灯泡的后勤，和拥有最佳视野的观众的结合体。种植任何东西的诀窍是让信心和直觉合作：保持你的信心，从种植里锻炼直觉，多留意多观察，知识与直觉逐渐会互相影响，良性循环。”
Martin Buber envisions a self-transformation that is not an inner transformation. It is not a change inside me, but rather between me and others. This is because according to him, relationships are a central aspect of who we are. A person is never an isolated atom, but always a person in relation. My identity as a person is based on my relationships with my friends and family members, with colleagues and neighbors, with trees, animals, nature, even God. These relationships are an essential part of who I am. I cannot be separated from them.
Buber distinguishes between two kinds of relationships: I-It and I-You. In I-It relations, I relate to the other person as an It, as a thing. I regard him as something that is out there in front of me, is something which I think about, something which I experience or know, manipulate, desire, try to help or harm. If for example I think to myself: I wonder what he is feeling now? Then I am in an I-It relationship.
In contrast, I-You is a relationship of togetherness in your relations. I am with the other person or with the animal or tree or whatever. I do not try to understand him. I do not use him. I do not experience him. I do not examine him from a distance. I am in full togetherness with him and no distance separates between us.
Although we continue to be two people and not one. After all relationships can exist only between two different individuals. Nevertheless we are fully with each other. This togetherness involves my entire being. Unlike I-It relations, which involve only limited parts of me, only my thought for example, or only my curiosity and so on.
To understand Buber's idea of I-You. You could think for example about those special moments when you sit quietly with your friend or with your lover. No word is spoken between you. You are not trying to impress her, to analyze her or even to understand her. You're simply with her.
Or to give another example in some magical moments in nature, you're totally with the forest around you. You don't try to identify the names of the trees you don't try to compare or analyze. You're simply with nature, totally in your entire being.
Here is a relevant passage from Buber's famous book I Thou: When I meet a human being who is my You and say to him the basic word I-You, then he is not a thing among things, nor does he consist of things. He is no longer he or she limited by other hes and shes, a dot in the grid of space and time.
He is not a condition that can be experienced or described or a bundle of specific qualities, but neighborliness and seamless. He is You. And he fills the entire sky. This is not to say that there is nothing except him, but everything else lives in his light. Just as a melody is not composed of tones and a poem is not composed of words and a sculpture is not composed of lines. So it is with a human being to whom I say You. I can abstract from him the color of his hair, or the color of his speech, or the color of his kindness, but then he would immediately stop being You.
So we see that for Buber in I-You relations, I express my full being and I am authentic. In contrast, I-It relations are distant, fragmentary, partial, alienating. They are necessary for practical purposes. I cannot be all that time in full togetherness with every bus driver, with every colleague, with every neighbor. But although it is impossible to maintain the I-You all the time, this relation is a source of meaning and value to all my interactions, and to life in general.
As Buber's says, without it a human being cannot live, but whoever lives only with it is not human.
There are people of spirit and there are people of passion, both less common than one might think. Rarer still are the people of spirit and passion. But rarest of all is a passionable spirit.
A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.
The world is not comprehensible, but it is embraceable: through the embracing of one of its beings.
All journeys have secret destinations of which the traveler is unaware
This is the eternal origin of art that a human being confronts a form that wants to become a work through him. Not a figment of his soul but something that appears to the soul and demands the soul's creative power. What is required is a deed that a man does with his whole being.
© 本文版权归作者 Sophie