Contrary to the belief that exclusively searches for a buried common denominator with which to establish and maintain a relationship, the Torah provides ample evidence of relationships that are born and bred on differences. Without some degree of difference, all distance would be erased, two would become one, and no relation would be required. The Genesis story opens with the introduction of a series of ‘others’ with Creation itself functioning as the first engine of difference. Prior to Creation, there is [from our perspective] only God all alone in pure, undifferentiated sameness. Bringing the world into existence, the Creator ‘externalizes’ Himself or ‘others’ Himself in a virtual way (not that this presents an actual ‘other,’ for even after Creation everything remains entirely One just as before]. Nonetheless, on the most basic level, Creation may be viewed as a ‘self-othering’ process which brings about the possibility of a relationship (in this case, of God and the World). Thus, our opening lesson may be summarized as one where ‘Creation-as-other’ affords us the option of connection, of constructing a ‘between’ that links Creator and Created.

The second example of alterity (otherness) that becomes the focus of the whole creative process is that of the human other. Adam, our representative of the universal human condition, becomes ‘another other’ that can be fully conscious of self (myself as a created being, my own person) and Others/others (Divine and human). Sensing that I am not the origin of myself (autopoiesis), I can come to acknowledge my dependance on that which is not me, on that which lies outside myself.

Our third example begins the work of socialization: Chava/Eve as the marriage companion of Adam represents the first human other. The primacy of this human other or ‘significant’ other highlights the fundamental structure of an other who is not me and yet is me at the same time. Psychologically, feeling another person to both be me (effacing all difference and attaining fusion) and not me (preserving distance) shapes each of us on an instinctual level. We relate primarily by means of the complex of ‘me/not-me.’ Moreover, through our acquaintance with human others (where every relation is likened to a ‘marriage’) we can be attach ourselves with both the World and with Divinity.

In this fashion, the ‘genesis’ of all relationships can be traced back to the primordial ‘severance’ package wherein we are promised the ability to relate and reconnect to that which we have ‘lost.’ But what did we lose? Creation itself seems to be a barrier to a wrinkle free Reality. Our ‘separation’ from the Creator–part of what make ‘us’ us–comes at the price of the greatest sense of abandonment and loss. Consciously or unconsciously we mourn the forfeiture of this initial state of unity. Likewise, our primary pursuit of happiness in life–an enduring connection to our significant other–attempts to fill this tremendous void. Am I supposed to do it all alone? Who is meant for me? Ideally my loneliness is consoled in the formation of attachments to another as we hope to demonstrate.

The spiritual, the psychological and the social are knotted together in the first articulation of interpersonal relations in the Torah. Our Edenic couple opens the discussion of how we deal with other people in a wide variety of social contexts, even while its focuses on the suitability of spouses. As with all quotations from the Torah, the original Hebrew carries unique structural nuances which need to be carefully excavated from out of any attempted translation. On the surface we read in Genesis 2:18: “…It is not good for man to be alone: I will make for him a helper opposite him [לא טוב היות האדם לבדו אעשה לו עזר כנגדו].”

Now, picking this verse apart in more detail, we may assert that the first part sets up the problem–it is a negative state to be alone–while the second part suggests the solution–I will fix (‘to make’ can also mean ‘to fix’ according to the Sages) the situation by providing a companion. Our earliest exilic condition is that of loneliness and the first Divine act of redemption is to take us out of our isolation. We feel disconnected so God steps in and provides a means of connection. Obviously each of us plays that part of Adam seeking to escape our personal solitude by seeking social outlets. Perhaps less obvious is that each of us also plays the part of Chava/Eve where we assist in someone else’s breakout of themselves by providing support just by being there for them. That another person sees me or you in the world already forces a reevaluation of the all too human mistake of considering oneself all that exists. Making my presence known to another ruptures that person’s tendency (it is my tendency at times too!) to equate themselves with the world. I’ll pop your bubble if you pop mine.

What is obscured in our translation is the multivalent sense of this most basic self-other relationship. In Kabbalah, we break the verse down into a fourfold model that naturally divides into three (solutions) to one (problem).

Once again, the problematic condition is pretty straightforward: ‘it is not good for a person [Adam] to be alone.’ Sometimes the interpersonal is refused and rejected (hermits-are-us), while at other times, we are incapacitated by our physical or mental condition. Comatose to the world, we cannot respond to the call of the other. Similarly severe, a person with locked-in syndrome also cannot communicate with the outside world. One of the signs of the amelioration of the harshness of the human condition has been the remarkable progress in reconnecting those who cannot relate through technologies such as brain-computer interfaces which can, in some cases, translate a person’s thoughts into synthesized sound with a computer voice or even operate robotic equipment. Psychologically mirroring this would be a host of conditions of varying intensity from narcissism to autism. For those intellectuals who think we inhabit a solipsistic universe, the lack for true relations is just as apparent. Yet, we need not reach for such extreme examples. All of us are challenged at one time or another with feelings of existential loneliness. In sum, we are dealing with the ‘relation of non-relation’ or the ‘absence of relation.’

The response to this situation comes in three progressive stages: selfless dedication for the other, mutually beneficial support and conflict oriented opposition– all of which will be explored in depth in Part Two.

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-2/

Print PDF