Yom Kvutza: (An early one. 10-5-09)

Heyo!

On October 10, we had our first serious Yom Kvutza. (See glossary for explanation.)In the midst of some intense Kvutza growing and bonding, our madrichim decided to challenge our minds by exposing us to our first text by Martin Buber, and an anomous text tittled, "Lack of Message." In the first text, "Lack Of Message," The author explains that our society has come to the point where in almost every situation where conversations are held, there is truly a lack of message. what does this mean? The message is clear, conversations, weather it be at home, on the phone, or at a coffee shop with a friend, tend to leave out true heart to heart conversations, and the problem in conversation becomes the value of the message, or lack of value. Words that tend to be said are hollow, empty words that dont say anything, or have a true meaning rather than making small talk, that really has no significants. By saying these simple words in a simple manner. When these conversations are held the author of this peace gives the following analogy of what the conversation really means: "I know you, you know me, all right, buisness as usual." The key importance here seems to be not the meaning of the words, but the words that are actually spoken. Again, it seems the message is hollow and empty. Another explanation he gives that describes these conversations are that they are like a gift. "Nicely presented to someone, yet whats inside-the content doesnt matter. SO the gift itself which is just an object, or the words spoken, are what is supposed to preserve the relationship." Is that right? is it right to base an entire relationship on a gift? or simple objects which are spoken? I dont think so. Empty conversations can lead to the colapse of a relationship. The author further explains that individuals are afraid, until the first real conversation is held, a relationship cannot even begin to form. In short, having a "conversation," means one thing, but what exists in every day life tends to be an immitation of what should really be said. During the Peula, I asked myself, "So does every single conversation I have need to have intention." And as we concluded the first peace, i realized no. There is always room for small talk, its a good way to feel comfortable. But when it comes down to it, there needs to be much more.

This leads to the question of how do we go about having these talks??? The answer? Just ask Martin Bubber.

In Buber's piece, "Sicha Kehavayata," he goes through, and explains his seven key points to having a full hearted and meaningful discussion. For the most part, Bubber seems to make his point perfectly clear. The first point by Bubber is Knowledge of the Heart. To me, this term means two things. First, as Buber describes it, the term means, in simple terms, "The ability to know the living creature within yourself." To me, this knowledge of yourself is crucial when having a Sicha. How can you be truly honest and put your heart into the talk if you do not know the "living creature," within your self. Once this self understanding is reached, then it is up to that individual to take the next step, and get to know the other person, intimately. In order to do this, and "know a persons heart," i think that you must feel the person entirely in their special individual essence. Once these two concepts are understood, and the step of reaching out is taken, then we are taken to Bubber's next step. My interpretation, is that when talking to someone, you must truly see the individual as beeing "there." Or, as Buber calls it, "the act of Presence." In the text, Buber gives a long complex description of what this act means. In short, along with my opinion, this point as well has two key points. First and foremost, in a sicha, both parties must be seen as equal people, whose beleifs must be valued. This is much easier said than done, but its crucial. If one person sees themselves above the other, then the sicha can truly not reach its full potential. Furthermore, if one beleives they are more supreme than another, then that individual will form judgements on the other, and not take the sicha seriously. The other aspect to this point is the ability to validate the other person. If both people are seen as equals, but have clashing opionions or views on a specific topic, then its crucial the people in the sicha can validate eachother. By validate, I, and Buber means that its important to understand that each person is coming from a different situation, and has a different story to lead them to whatever opinion they have. Rather than fighting with eachother about these opinions, by accepting that, as a person, there are different opinions, then you can energetically debate openly, and work to understand eachother, and not form judgements on what the person will say next. By accepting eachothers differences in a sicha, you can then move onto Buber's next point of "Social Validation." I personally feel that the step of social validation should come before the second step of "The act of Presence." This third step of social validation is basically what I elaborated on in the second step. "Each one of us is asking deep within his heart for social validation of himself and wants to know that the other is accepting and validating of the way he is." This is a difficult step to achieve. Based on sichot in the peulah, its now clear to me that I am not the only one who feels that I am always searching for this validation. Wheater we know it or not, everyone is. Social validation is key. A word that came to my head during the peulah was confidence. By being one's self, and realizing that everyone is coming from somewhere, than the social validation is slightly more atainable. Points two and three are quite similar, but Buber's point is crucial. By validating ourselves, and eachother, and recognizing that everyone is different, then it is possible to move on with the sicha.

Moving on, Buber's next point is perhaps the most important. The next rule is that everyone, in all sichot must "put himself inside it," or in my eyes, not be afraid to express all thoughts that come to mind, in a constructive manner. Buber also refers to this as "truth." his definition is the following. "Truth: A person revealing themselves as they are in essence." Truth has such a profound meaning, espcially within sichot. Another explanation of truth that comes to my head is the idea of not letting any projected image come to ones head and come between individuals in the sicha. This "truth," must go both ways, otherwise it will be a waste, and unfair to the other individual. Going along with earlier points by Buber, his fifth point has to do with "projected image." Just like social validation and knowledge of the heart, and truth for that matter, the projected image only makes conversations less whole. A projected image means that the individual will not expressing the "truth." All of these steps seem similar, but all must be taken carefully and seriously, as well as they must not be confused with one another. Moving on to the sixth point of Buber's theory on Sicha Kehavayata, Buber touches on the subject of inner and vocal talking. Again, just like our fourth point, truth, inner and vocal talking has much to do with being honest and expressing your true thoughts. Speaking has two levels. The inner level, where thoughts are formulated within the deeper and tend to be often unspoken, and then the vocalizing aspect. There is a major difference between having thoughts and speaking them. This especially applies within the Kvutza. If one has deep emotional thoughts on an issue, those thoughts are valid, and must be presented, and very well could be a major step towards a solution. However, if those important thoughts arent expressed, and not vocalized, then the conversation cannot be truthful, and the individual is being passive. Just like truth, the step of "inner talking and vocal talking," are quite important for the overall sicha between a people. Last, but certainly not least is the goal. According to Buber, "The goal of the conversation is its content and the partnership you make with the other that you're facing." This point has two main aspects to it. First, the content. All of the points I have elaborated on must all be expressed on whatever the content is, otherwise the sicha will not be true. And second, the other people in the sicha and the individual must be partners in the discussion. If one puts themself in the center of the conversation instead of its content, then it is not a true Sicha Kehavayata. However, if it goes the other way, and the individual invests themselves truly in the content and the partnership with the others in the sicha, then the conversation truly is full.

This peula was the first on workshop that truly had an impact on me. After the peula, the kvutza broke into pairs, and we all had a Sicha Kehaveyata, all keeping Buber's thoughts in mind. It seems like quite alot, but for me keeping these things in mind on a daily basis makes my relationships stronger and more whole, and I strongly suggest looking into some of his work.