Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
14,716
edits
Changes
User:VargasMilan/I and Thou/Part 1 (view source)
Revision as of 07:12, July 22, 2019
, 07:12, July 22, 2019Created page with "''I and Thou'' ''Part One'' [incomplete] ---- T{{sc|o man the world is twofold}}, in accordance with his twofold attitude. The attitude of man is twofold, in accordance with..."
''I and Thou''
''Part One'' [incomplete]
----
T{{sc|o man the world is twofold}}, in accordance with his twofold attitude.
The attitude of man is twofold, in accordance with the twofold nature of the primary words which he speaks.
The primary words are not isolated words, but combined words.
The one primary word is the combination ''I-Thou''.
The other primary word is the combination ''I-It''; wherein, without a change in the primary word, one of the words ''He'' and ''She'' can replace ''It''.
Hence the ''I'' of man is also twofold.
For the ''I'' of the primary word ''I-Thou'' is a different ''I'' from that of the primary word ''I-It''.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
P{{sc|rimary words do not signify things}}, but they intimate relations.
Primary words do not describe something that might exist independently of them, but being spoken they bring about existence.
Primary words are spoken from the being.
If ''Thou'' is said, the ''I'' of the combination ''I-Thou'' is said along with it.
If ''It'' is said, the ''I'' of the combination ''I-It'' is said along with it.
The primary word ''I-Thou'' can only be spoken with the whole being.
The primary word ''I-It'' can never be spoken with the whole being.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|here is no}} ''I'' {{sc|taken in itself}}, but only the ''I'' of the primary word ''I-Thou'' and the ''I'' of the primary word ''I-It''.
When a man says ''I'' he refers to one or other of these. The ''I'' to which he refers is present when he says ''I''. Further, when he says ''Thou'' or ''It'', the ''I'' of one of the two primary words is present.
The existence of ''I'' and the speaking of ''I'' are one and the same thing.
When a primary word is spoken the speaker enters the word and takes his stand in it.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
{{sc|The life of human beings}} is not passed in the sphere of transitive verbs alone. It does not exist in virtue of activities alone which have some ''thing'' for their object.
I perceive something. I am sensible of something. I imagine something. I will something. I feel something. I think something. The life of human beings
does not consist of all this and the like alone.
This and the like together establish the realm of ''It''.
But the realm of ''Thou'' has a different basis.
When ''Thou'' is spoken, the speaker has no thing for his object. For where there is a thing there is another thing. Every ''It'' is bounded by others; ''It'' exists only through being bounded by others. But when ''Thou'' is spoken, there is no thing. ''Thou'' has no bounds.
When ''Thou'' is spoken, the speaker has no ''thing''; he has indeed nothing. But he takes his stand in relation.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I{{sc|t is said that man experiences his world}}. What does that mean?
Man travels over the surface of things and experiences them. He extracts knowledge about their constitution from them: he wins an experience from them. He experiences what belongs to the things.
But the world is not presented to man by experiences alone. These present him only with a world composed of ''It'' and ''He'' and ''She'' and ''It'' again.
I experience something.—If we add "inner" to "outer" experiences, nothing in the situation is changed. We are merely following the uneternal division that springs from the lust of the human race to whittle away the secret of death. Inner things or outer things, what are they but things and things!
I experience something.—If we add "secret" to "open" experiences, nothing in the situation is changed. How self-confident is that wisdom which perceives a
closed compartment in things, reserved for the initiate and manipulated only with the key. O secrecy without a secret! O accumulation of information! It, always It!
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he man who experiences}} has not part in the world. For it is "in him" and not between him and the world that the experience arises.
The world has no part in the experience. It permits itself to be experienced, but has no concern in the matter. For it does nothing to the experience, and the experience
does nothing to it.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
A{{sc|s experience}}, the world belongs to the primary word ''I-It''.
The primary word ''I-Thou'' establishes the world of relation.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he spheres in which the world of relation arises}} are three.
First, our life with nature. There the relation sways in gloom, beneath the level of speech. Creatures live and move over against us, but cannot come to us, and when we address them as ''Thou'', our words cling to the threshold of speech.
Second, our life with men. There the relation is open and in the form of speech. We can give and accept the ''Thou''.
Third, our life with spiritual beings. There the relation is clouded, yet it discloses itself; it does not use speech, yet begets it. We perceive no ''Thou'', but none the less we feel we are addressed and we answer—forming, thinking, acting. We speak the primary word with our being, though we cannot utter Thou with our lips.
But with what right do we draw what lies outside speech into relation with the world of the primary word?
In every sphere in its own way, through each process of becoming that is present to us we look out toward the fringe of the eternal ''Thou''; in each we are aware of a breath from the eternal ''Thou''; in each ''Thou'' we address the eternal ''Thou''.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I {{sc|consider a tree}}.
I can look on it as a picture: stiff column in a shock of light, or splash, of green shot with the delicate blue and silver of the background.
I can perceive it as movement: flowing veins on clinging, pressing pith, suck of the roots, breathing of the leaves, ceaseless commerce with earth and air—and the obscure growth itself.
I can classify it in a species and study it as a type in its structure and mode of life.
I can subdue its actual presence and form so sternly that I recognise it only as an expression of law—of the laws in accordance with which a constant opposition of forces is continually adjusted, or of those in accordance with which the component substances mingle and separate.
I can dissipate it and perpetuate it in number, in pure numerical relation.
In all this the tree remains my object, occupies space and time, and has its nature and constitution.
It can, however, also come about, if I have both will and grace, that in considering the tree I become bound up in relation to it. The tree is now no longer ''It''. I have been seized by the power of exclusiveness.
To effect this it is not necessary for me to give up any of the ways in which I consider the tree. There is nothing from which I would have to turn my eyes away in order to see, and no knowledge that I would have to forget. Rather is everything, picture and movement, species and type, law and number, indivisibly united in this event.
Everything belonging to the tree is in this: its form and structure, its colours and chemical composition, its intercourse with the elements and with the stars, are all present in a single whole.
The tree is no impression, no play of my imagination, no value depending on my mood; but it is bodied over against me and has to do with me, as I with it—only in a different way.
Let no attempt be made to sap the strength from the meaning of the relation: relation is mutual.
The tree will have a consciousness, then, similar to our own? Of that I have no experience. But do you wish, through seeming to succeed in it with yourself, once
again to disintegrate that which cannot be disintegrated? I encounter no soul or dryad of the tree, but the tree itself.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I{{sc|f I face a human being as my}} ''Thou'', and say the primary word ''I-Thou'' to him, he is not a thing among things, and does not consist of things.
This human being is not ''He'' or ''She'', bounded from every other ''He'' and ''She'', a specific point in space and time within the net of the world; nor is he a nature able to be experienced and described, a loose bundle of named qualities. But with no neighbour, and whole in himself, he is ''Thou'' and fills the heavens. This does not mean that nothing exists except himself. But all else lives in ''his'' light.
Just as the melody is not made up of notes nor the verse of words nor the statue of lines, but they must be tugged and dragged till their unity has been scattered into these many pieces, so with the man to whom I say ''Thou''. I can take out from him the colour of his hair, or of his speech, or of his goodness. I must continually do this. But each time I do it he ceases to be ''Thou''.
And just as prayer is not in time but time in prayer, sacrifice not in space but space in sacrifice, and to reverse the relation is to abolish the reality, so with the man to whom I say ''Thou''. I do not meet with him at some time and place or other. I can set him in a particular time and place; I must continually do it: but I set only a ''He'' or a ''She'', that is an ''It'', no longer my ''Thou''.
So long as the heaven of ''Thou'' is spread out over me the winds of causality cower at my heels, and the whirlpool of fate stays its course.
I do not experience the man to whom I say ''Thou''. But I take my stand in relation to him, in the sanctity of the primary word. Only when I step out of it do I experience him once more. In the act of experience ''Thou'' is far away.
Even if the man to whom I say ''Thou'' is not aware of it in the midst of his experience, yet relation may exist. For ''Thou'' is more than ''It'' realises. No deception penetrates here; here is the cradle of the Real Life.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|his is the eternal source of art}}: a man is faced by a form which desires to be made through him into a work. This form is no offspring of his soul, but is an appearance which steps up to it and demands of it the effective power. The man is concerned with an act of his being. If he carries it through, if he speaks the primary word out of his being to the form which appears, then the effective power streams out, and the work arises.
The act includes a sacrifice and a risk. This is the sacrifice: the endless possibility that is offered up on the altar of the form. For everything which just this moment in play ran through the perspective must be obliterated; nothing of that may penetrate the work. The exclusiveness of what is facing it demands that it be so. This is the risk: the primary word can only be spoken with the whole being. He who gives himself to it may withhold nothing of himself. The work does not suffer me, as do the tree and the man, to turn aside and relax in the world of ''It''; but it commands. If I do not serve it aright it is broken, or it breaks me.
I can neither experience nor describe the form which meets me, but only body it forth. And yet I behold it, splendid in the radiance of what confronts me, clearer than all the clearness of the world which is experienced. I do not behold it as a thing among the "inner" things nor as an image of my "fancy" but as that which exists in the present. If test is made of its objectivity the form is certainly not "there." Yet what is actually so much present as it is? And the relation in which I stand to it is real, for it affects me, as I affect it.
To produce is to draw forth, to invent is to find, to shape is to discover. In bodying forth I disclose. I lead the form across—into the world of ''It''. The work produced is a thing among things, able to be experienced and described as a sum of qualities. But from time to time it can face the receptive beholder in its whole embodied form.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
—W{{sc|hat, then, do we experience of}} ''Thou''?
—Just nothing. For we do not experience it.
—What, then, do we know of ''Thou''?
—Just everything. For we know nothing isolated about it any more.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he}} ''Thou'' {{sc|meets me through grace}}—it is not found by seeking. But my speaking of the primary word to it is an act of my being, is indeed ''the'' act of my being.
The ''Thou'' meets me. But I step into direct relation with it. Hence the relation means being chosen and choosing, suffering and action in one; just as any action of the whole being, which means the suspension of all partial actions and consequently of all sensations of actions grounded only in their particular limitation, is bound to resemble suffering.
The primary word ''I-Thou'' can be spoken only with the whole being. Concentration and fusion into the whole being can never take place through my agency, nor can it ever take place without me. I become through my relation to the ''Thou''; as I become ''I '', I say ''Thou''.
All real living is meeting.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he relation to the}} Thou {{sc|is direct}}. No system of ideas, no foreknowledge, and no fancy intervene between ''I'' and ''Thou''. The memory itself is transformed, as it plunges out of its isolation into the unity of the whole. No aim, no lust, and no anticipation intervene between ''I'' and ''Thou''. Desire itself is transformed as it plunges out of its dream into the appearance. Every means is an obstacle. Only when every means has collapsed does the meeting come about.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I{{sc|n face of the directness}} of the relation everything indirect becomes irrelevant. It is also irrelevant if my ''Thou'' is already the ''It'' for other ''I''s ("an object of general experience"), or can become so through the very accomplishment of this act of my being. For the real, though certainly swaying and swinging, boundary runs neither between experience and non-experience, nor between what is given and what is not given, nor yet between the world of being and the world of value; but cutting indifferently across all these provinces it lies between ''Thou'' and ''It'', between the present and the object.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
T{{sc|he present}}, and by that is meant not the point which indicates from time to time in our thought merely the conclusion of "finished" time, the mere appearance of a termination which is fixed and held, but the real, filled present, exists only in so far as actual presentness, meeting, and relation exist. The present arises only in virtue of the fact that the ''Thou'' becomes present.
The ''I'' of the primary word ''I-It'', that is, the ''I'' faced by no ''Thou'', but surrounded by a multitude of "contents," has no present, only the past. Put in another way, in so far as man rests satisfied with the things that he experiences and uses, he lives in the past, and his moment has no present content. He has nothing but objects. But objects subsist in time that has been.
The present is not fugitive and transient, but continually present and enduring. The object is not duration, but cessation, suspension, a breaking off and cutting clear and hardening, absence of relation and of present being.
True beings are lived in the present, the life of objects is in the past.
''Part One'' [incomplete]
----
T{{sc|o man the world is twofold}}, in accordance with his twofold attitude.
The attitude of man is twofold, in accordance with the twofold nature of the primary words which he speaks.
The primary words are not isolated words, but combined words.
The one primary word is the combination ''I-Thou''.
The other primary word is the combination ''I-It''; wherein, without a change in the primary word, one of the words ''He'' and ''She'' can replace ''It''.
Hence the ''I'' of man is also twofold.
For the ''I'' of the primary word ''I-Thou'' is a different ''I'' from that of the primary word ''I-It''.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
P{{sc|rimary words do not signify things}}, but they intimate relations.
Primary words do not describe something that might exist independently of them, but being spoken they bring about existence.
Primary words are spoken from the being.
If ''Thou'' is said, the ''I'' of the combination ''I-Thou'' is said along with it.
If ''It'' is said, the ''I'' of the combination ''I-It'' is said along with it.
The primary word ''I-Thou'' can only be spoken with the whole being.
The primary word ''I-It'' can never be spoken with the whole being.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|here is no}} ''I'' {{sc|taken in itself}}, but only the ''I'' of the primary word ''I-Thou'' and the ''I'' of the primary word ''I-It''.
When a man says ''I'' he refers to one or other of these. The ''I'' to which he refers is present when he says ''I''. Further, when he says ''Thou'' or ''It'', the ''I'' of one of the two primary words is present.
The existence of ''I'' and the speaking of ''I'' are one and the same thing.
When a primary word is spoken the speaker enters the word and takes his stand in it.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
{{sc|The life of human beings}} is not passed in the sphere of transitive verbs alone. It does not exist in virtue of activities alone which have some ''thing'' for their object.
I perceive something. I am sensible of something. I imagine something. I will something. I feel something. I think something. The life of human beings
does not consist of all this and the like alone.
This and the like together establish the realm of ''It''.
But the realm of ''Thou'' has a different basis.
When ''Thou'' is spoken, the speaker has no thing for his object. For where there is a thing there is another thing. Every ''It'' is bounded by others; ''It'' exists only through being bounded by others. But when ''Thou'' is spoken, there is no thing. ''Thou'' has no bounds.
When ''Thou'' is spoken, the speaker has no ''thing''; he has indeed nothing. But he takes his stand in relation.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I{{sc|t is said that man experiences his world}}. What does that mean?
Man travels over the surface of things and experiences them. He extracts knowledge about their constitution from them: he wins an experience from them. He experiences what belongs to the things.
But the world is not presented to man by experiences alone. These present him only with a world composed of ''It'' and ''He'' and ''She'' and ''It'' again.
I experience something.—If we add "inner" to "outer" experiences, nothing in the situation is changed. We are merely following the uneternal division that springs from the lust of the human race to whittle away the secret of death. Inner things or outer things, what are they but things and things!
I experience something.—If we add "secret" to "open" experiences, nothing in the situation is changed. How self-confident is that wisdom which perceives a
closed compartment in things, reserved for the initiate and manipulated only with the key. O secrecy without a secret! O accumulation of information! It, always It!
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he man who experiences}} has not part in the world. For it is "in him" and not between him and the world that the experience arises.
The world has no part in the experience. It permits itself to be experienced, but has no concern in the matter. For it does nothing to the experience, and the experience
does nothing to it.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
A{{sc|s experience}}, the world belongs to the primary word ''I-It''.
The primary word ''I-Thou'' establishes the world of relation.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he spheres in which the world of relation arises}} are three.
First, our life with nature. There the relation sways in gloom, beneath the level of speech. Creatures live and move over against us, but cannot come to us, and when we address them as ''Thou'', our words cling to the threshold of speech.
Second, our life with men. There the relation is open and in the form of speech. We can give and accept the ''Thou''.
Third, our life with spiritual beings. There the relation is clouded, yet it discloses itself; it does not use speech, yet begets it. We perceive no ''Thou'', but none the less we feel we are addressed and we answer—forming, thinking, acting. We speak the primary word with our being, though we cannot utter Thou with our lips.
But with what right do we draw what lies outside speech into relation with the world of the primary word?
In every sphere in its own way, through each process of becoming that is present to us we look out toward the fringe of the eternal ''Thou''; in each we are aware of a breath from the eternal ''Thou''; in each ''Thou'' we address the eternal ''Thou''.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I {{sc|consider a tree}}.
I can look on it as a picture: stiff column in a shock of light, or splash, of green shot with the delicate blue and silver of the background.
I can perceive it as movement: flowing veins on clinging, pressing pith, suck of the roots, breathing of the leaves, ceaseless commerce with earth and air—and the obscure growth itself.
I can classify it in a species and study it as a type in its structure and mode of life.
I can subdue its actual presence and form so sternly that I recognise it only as an expression of law—of the laws in accordance with which a constant opposition of forces is continually adjusted, or of those in accordance with which the component substances mingle and separate.
I can dissipate it and perpetuate it in number, in pure numerical relation.
In all this the tree remains my object, occupies space and time, and has its nature and constitution.
It can, however, also come about, if I have both will and grace, that in considering the tree I become bound up in relation to it. The tree is now no longer ''It''. I have been seized by the power of exclusiveness.
To effect this it is not necessary for me to give up any of the ways in which I consider the tree. There is nothing from which I would have to turn my eyes away in order to see, and no knowledge that I would have to forget. Rather is everything, picture and movement, species and type, law and number, indivisibly united in this event.
Everything belonging to the tree is in this: its form and structure, its colours and chemical composition, its intercourse with the elements and with the stars, are all present in a single whole.
The tree is no impression, no play of my imagination, no value depending on my mood; but it is bodied over against me and has to do with me, as I with it—only in a different way.
Let no attempt be made to sap the strength from the meaning of the relation: relation is mutual.
The tree will have a consciousness, then, similar to our own? Of that I have no experience. But do you wish, through seeming to succeed in it with yourself, once
again to disintegrate that which cannot be disintegrated? I encounter no soul or dryad of the tree, but the tree itself.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I{{sc|f I face a human being as my}} ''Thou'', and say the primary word ''I-Thou'' to him, he is not a thing among things, and does not consist of things.
This human being is not ''He'' or ''She'', bounded from every other ''He'' and ''She'', a specific point in space and time within the net of the world; nor is he a nature able to be experienced and described, a loose bundle of named qualities. But with no neighbour, and whole in himself, he is ''Thou'' and fills the heavens. This does not mean that nothing exists except himself. But all else lives in ''his'' light.
Just as the melody is not made up of notes nor the verse of words nor the statue of lines, but they must be tugged and dragged till their unity has been scattered into these many pieces, so with the man to whom I say ''Thou''. I can take out from him the colour of his hair, or of his speech, or of his goodness. I must continually do this. But each time I do it he ceases to be ''Thou''.
And just as prayer is not in time but time in prayer, sacrifice not in space but space in sacrifice, and to reverse the relation is to abolish the reality, so with the man to whom I say ''Thou''. I do not meet with him at some time and place or other. I can set him in a particular time and place; I must continually do it: but I set only a ''He'' or a ''She'', that is an ''It'', no longer my ''Thou''.
So long as the heaven of ''Thou'' is spread out over me the winds of causality cower at my heels, and the whirlpool of fate stays its course.
I do not experience the man to whom I say ''Thou''. But I take my stand in relation to him, in the sanctity of the primary word. Only when I step out of it do I experience him once more. In the act of experience ''Thou'' is far away.
Even if the man to whom I say ''Thou'' is not aware of it in the midst of his experience, yet relation may exist. For ''Thou'' is more than ''It'' realises. No deception penetrates here; here is the cradle of the Real Life.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|his is the eternal source of art}}: a man is faced by a form which desires to be made through him into a work. This form is no offspring of his soul, but is an appearance which steps up to it and demands of it the effective power. The man is concerned with an act of his being. If he carries it through, if he speaks the primary word out of his being to the form which appears, then the effective power streams out, and the work arises.
The act includes a sacrifice and a risk. This is the sacrifice: the endless possibility that is offered up on the altar of the form. For everything which just this moment in play ran through the perspective must be obliterated; nothing of that may penetrate the work. The exclusiveness of what is facing it demands that it be so. This is the risk: the primary word can only be spoken with the whole being. He who gives himself to it may withhold nothing of himself. The work does not suffer me, as do the tree and the man, to turn aside and relax in the world of ''It''; but it commands. If I do not serve it aright it is broken, or it breaks me.
I can neither experience nor describe the form which meets me, but only body it forth. And yet I behold it, splendid in the radiance of what confronts me, clearer than all the clearness of the world which is experienced. I do not behold it as a thing among the "inner" things nor as an image of my "fancy" but as that which exists in the present. If test is made of its objectivity the form is certainly not "there." Yet what is actually so much present as it is? And the relation in which I stand to it is real, for it affects me, as I affect it.
To produce is to draw forth, to invent is to find, to shape is to discover. In bodying forth I disclose. I lead the form across—into the world of ''It''. The work produced is a thing among things, able to be experienced and described as a sum of qualities. But from time to time it can face the receptive beholder in its whole embodied form.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
—W{{sc|hat, then, do we experience of}} ''Thou''?
—Just nothing. For we do not experience it.
—What, then, do we know of ''Thou''?
—Just everything. For we know nothing isolated about it any more.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he}} ''Thou'' {{sc|meets me through grace}}—it is not found by seeking. But my speaking of the primary word to it is an act of my being, is indeed ''the'' act of my being.
The ''Thou'' meets me. But I step into direct relation with it. Hence the relation means being chosen and choosing, suffering and action in one; just as any action of the whole being, which means the suspension of all partial actions and consequently of all sensations of actions grounded only in their particular limitation, is bound to resemble suffering.
The primary word ''I-Thou'' can be spoken only with the whole being. Concentration and fusion into the whole being can never take place through my agency, nor can it ever take place without me. I become through my relation to the ''Thou''; as I become ''I '', I say ''Thou''.
All real living is meeting.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
T{{sc|he relation to the}} Thou {{sc|is direct}}. No system of ideas, no foreknowledge, and no fancy intervene between ''I'' and ''Thou''. The memory itself is transformed, as it plunges out of its isolation into the unity of the whole. No aim, no lust, and no anticipation intervene between ''I'' and ''Thou''. Desire itself is transformed as it plunges out of its dream into the appearance. Every means is an obstacle. Only when every means has collapsed does the meeting come about.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
|}
I{{sc|n face of the directness}} of the relation everything indirect becomes irrelevant. It is also irrelevant if my ''Thou'' is already the ''It'' for other ''I''s ("an object of general experience"), or can become so through the very accomplishment of this act of my being. For the real, though certainly swaying and swinging, boundary runs neither between experience and non-experience, nor between what is given and what is not given, nor yet between the world of being and the world of value; but cutting indifferently across all these provinces it lies between ''Thou'' and ''It'', between the present and the object.
{|style="width:100%; text-align:center;"
|style="width:0;"|~*~||~*~
T{{sc|he present}}, and by that is meant not the point which indicates from time to time in our thought merely the conclusion of "finished" time, the mere appearance of a termination which is fixed and held, but the real, filled present, exists only in so far as actual presentness, meeting, and relation exist. The present arises only in virtue of the fact that the ''Thou'' becomes present.
The ''I'' of the primary word ''I-It'', that is, the ''I'' faced by no ''Thou'', but surrounded by a multitude of "contents," has no present, only the past. Put in another way, in so far as man rests satisfied with the things that he experiences and uses, he lives in the past, and his moment has no present content. He has nothing but objects. But objects subsist in time that has been.
The present is not fugitive and transient, but continually present and enduring. The object is not duration, but cessation, suspension, a breaking off and cutting clear and hardening, absence of relation and of present being.
True beings are lived in the present, the life of objects is in the past.