?

Log in

entries friends calendar my info Previous Previous Next Next
Ooh my achin' back - Y aconteció en aquellos días…
las aventuras de David Santiago del Bosque
tehuatzi
tehuatzi
Ooh my achin' back
Just spent 3 hours shoveling my driveway and front walk, as well as the proverbial little old lady's next door. The snow was up to my knee.

Said little old lady informed me that our street might not even get plowed by day's end TOMORROW. I live on a short cul-de-sac, four streets in from a main artery (Knoxville). A couple hours ago, there was a plow stuck in the snow two streets in.

I mentioned to my neighbor Fox that I was reading Buber, and his eyes lit up. He loves Buber, and he should make a nice conversation partner. I think he likes that I'm his neighbor, here in this world of Bud Light and NASCAR, because I know who people like Gustavo Gutierrez and Martin Buber are (and even occasionally read them).

Current Location: home
Current Mood: exhausted exhausted

10 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
slightlyjillian From: slightlyjillian Date: December 1st, 2006 08:55 pm (UTC) (Link)
Uh oh. I can chat NASCAR but not Buber!! I'm lacking! You'll have to enlighten me or, I've got it, *lightbulb* google search. :)
slightlyjillian From: slightlyjillian Date: December 1st, 2006 09:01 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hang on, wikipedia! Does religious consciousness mean what I think it means? Because that's right one of my favorite conversation interjections that rewards me with several blank stares.

From 1910 to 1914, Buber studied myths and published editions of mythic texts. Now, it all makes sense.

So which translation do you have?
tehuatzi From: tehuatzi Date: December 1st, 2006 10:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have Kaufmann's, which allegedly is the better translation. Anyway, Smith's argument that Buber uses Du to refer to God, and should thus be translated Thou, is silly; Germanic and Romance languages use not the 2nd person formal, but the familiar du/tu/etc., to refer to God. While historically, thou was the English equivalent of these, it is no longer, carrying now connotations of religious affectation rather than familiarity.

What does religious consciousness refer to, as a Jillian interjection? I feel slightly left out, as I've never heard you say this.

I'm just starting the book. Still in Kaufmann's prologue. Happy to pass it along when I'm done.
slightlyjillian From: slightlyjillian Date: December 1st, 2006 11:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
*chuckles* I usually bring it up while I'm standing in line at the grocery store or Target. *wink* Although, as a very shallow conversational piece, I'm usually saying that it's the universal subconsciousness that provokes everyone shopping to mob the cashiers at the same time. I think it's pretty funny, most cashiers show their teeth and grimace and check me out faster...

But my whole self-centered humor about the concept comes from studying mythology in college and being rather fascinated with the global/individual awareness of faith/God etc and the underlying urge behind different cultures to have some sort of connection with God. Hmm. I must be getting old. It's harder to know if I'm explaining myself well.
slightlyjillian From: slightlyjillian Date: December 1st, 2006 11:42 pm (UTC) (Link)
/here's where we pretend Jillian knew how to use LJ codes... heh.
tehuatzi From: tehuatzi Date: December 2nd, 2006 01:12 am (UTC) (Link)
Ah, yes. This I have heard. *no longer feels left out*

In religious consciousness Buber, I think, is speaking of an awareness of God, or of another person, as a subject-in-him/herself, a You, not an It to be manipulated, or discussed, or situated in some contingent relation to myself; but encountered, attended to, and honored/respected as another I. I think he goes as far as to say that we only encounter God as we encounter others in this way; that the I-You encounter is the encounter with God. He says things I don't yet understand, like God can not be named or described, but merely encountered as "You." Sounds like the Buddha... or, he suggests, YHWH, "he who is." I don't get yet why it is so important that we not [be able to] predicate anything about God; that "the only God worth talking about is a God that cannot be talked about" (pp. 25-26, 1st ed.). But I know I like the sense of openness and respect toward another, and to God; the commitment to allowing myself to be changed by such encounter, that Buber talks about. So he certainly has my interest.

All this from my extensive reading now of the first 30 pages of the prologue. *rolls eyes* More news later.
slightlyjillian From: slightlyjillian Date: December 2nd, 2006 01:53 am (UTC) (Link)
In honor of your icon, *fascinating*

I think the concept of 'you' as described is pretty intriguing. My BBBoss once said that when people ask him how he is half of them don't care and the other half are wishing him ill. Summed up his worldview in a nutshell with that one.

The past few days I've been realizing how often I don't always really listen to people when they talk... which in some situations is because I'm thinking too much about what I want to say TO them than respond to THEM. ;)

The book sounds fascinating, but potentially *thick*...
tehuatzi From: tehuatzi Date: December 2nd, 2006 02:22 am (UTC) (Link)
The book sounds fascinating, but potentially *thick*...

Yes, this is one of those thick-thin books, you know. After Kaufmann's prologue, there are only 130 pages of actual Buber. He wrote the entire thing "under the spell of an irresistible enthusiasm." Would that my paltry religious ecstatic experiences were as productive.
tehuatzi From: tehuatzi Date: December 1st, 2006 10:59 pm (UTC) (Link)
I know nothing about NASCAR, and don't plan to. I did like Cars, though.
slightlyjillian From: slightlyjillian Date: December 1st, 2006 11:36 pm (UTC) (Link)
NASCAR is the passtime of choice on my mother's side of the family. I'll say no more except that I fear the desire to watch folks race on/in wheels in genetic. Thus: Tour de France.
10 comments or Leave a comment