In any relationship we must consider whether or not we are experiencing the other person as he or she really is (the other as other) or only a partial paring down of this person to suit our needs (the other as ancillary to myself). More simply, do I see you for who you are or do I replace you with a projection of who I think you are which is based on who I want you to be? The persistence of this question foregrounds the limits of our perception, the selectiveness of our mental filter and the ‘value’ we place on the other. Our evaluation of the other that takes place in the seat of our understanding does not generally transcend the confines of my own mind. On the contrary, the relatability of the other is decided from the standpoint of my own centrality in the relationship: ‘what do you mean to me?’ This extreme shift–from me getting outside of myself in order to have insight into you, verses my constricting and subsumption of you within my conceptual classification which pulls you apart in order to pull you into my idea of you–is a consequence of the descent from the world of Emanation to the world of Creation.

In the world of Creation, self-other, masculine-feminine, subject-object bifurcate in such a way that the gap can only be filled by perception and understanding. I relate, not to your person, but to the knowledge that I have you of you. This condition is reminiscent of Jean-Luc Godard’s carefully selected film title: Two or Three Things I Know About Her where we ‘construct’ the person we relate to as an assemblage of facts, images and perceptions that we harvested from the field of our experience of that person. Everything begins by the assumption of there being ‘the two of us’ that issues from my relating to the other in my mind. By force of habit, my thinking often only aspires to be practical and in doing so it triggers considerations such as: ‘how useful is this person to me?’ ‘She is a big help in my life–best keep her around.’ In a ‘marriage of convenience’ the connection is maintained as long as a certain ‘support level’ is there. As we explained perviously, this type of relationship is geared to one’s significant other being a ‘helper’ (ezer).

I have needs and you have needs. If our needs can both be met then the relationship is strong and healthy according to the mentality of the world of Creation. This world resonates with the consciousness of my own independent existence. I’m an independent ‘something’ (yesh) which also means that I am ‘self-possessed’–’I have a life.’ What occurs here amounts to the ‘I am’ (world of Emanation) mutating into the ‘I have’ (world of Creation). ‘Having’ (yesh) goes much further than ‘being’ to separate me from you. The catalogue of my holdings is imprinted in my mind as part of ‘instrumental reason.’ We utilize this language in such foundational ways within our relationships that it often goes unnoticed: ‘I have you in my life.”

When we are conscious of the other in the world of Creation (‘I have a connection to you,’ ‘we have our marriage’) the relationship is constituted as that which is held ‘between us’ like a bridge linking two islands. We both collect profits from the traffic on this bridge which is external to both of us. It is added on to each of our islands. While it is anchored on my island (and your’s) it cannot be said to be the island. This is because it can seemingly be removed without compromising the integrity of each island. By contrast, the consciousness of the other in the world of Emanation is one where I am the relationship. Everything is interincluded within me–the part contains the whole. To find the relationship I don’t need to look to something external–I carry you within me and I can no more separate myself from you than I could separate me from myself. Rather than being held ‘between’ us, the relationship penetrates to the depths of what is within us. We is me.

All of this is reflected in the power of the soul called binah or ‘understanding’ which corresponds to the world of Creation. As the ‘mother’ image in the mind, binah conceives (conception-conceptualization) by assimilating the outside ‘seed’ of pure intuitional experience into the womb of understanding. Internalized in this manner ‘she’/understanding breaks down the experience as a whole (chochmah–intuition) and raids it for ‘parts’ with which to furnish the construction (binah relates to boneh ‘to build’) of a useful concept.

Binah or ‘understanding’ also derives from the word bein which means ‘between.’ Our rational mind mediates our experience as something cultivated ‘between’ subject and object. What is conceived must fit within the confines of the matrix (womb) of our pre-existing understanding. Since, Kabbalah evokes all of these procreative metaphors, we  may also learn from this that conception aims at producing (offspring). It also plays host to a ‘trading-exchange’: input transforms into an output (‘seed information’ turns into baby as product or ‘fully articulated information’). Mothering our own understanding acts as the site of ‘exchange-value’ where we replace the actual thing (or person if we are speaking of relationships) with it’s representative value. ‘You are worth the world to me!’ ‘You are not worth the price of this meal!’ ‘You are a consistent provider of support.’ ‘You do my laundry from time to time.’ Notice the difference between ‘I love all the help you’ve given me’ verses ‘I love you for all the help you’ve given me.’ Ergo, ‘now that you are not contributing that help, I no longer love you.’

When we are engaged via our intuition in the world of Emanation, we see that the nature of intuition is to overflow our understanding. You are not reducible to your intelligibility. I cannot completely confine you cognitively nor can I wrap my head around you entirely. In the world of Emanation, I am ‘no-thing’ meaning ‘no definite thing.’ My ‘I’ dissolves into a fluid sense of self (rather than the congealed sense of being a some-thing or ‘some definite thing’ with my understanding directing me towards greater degrees of crystallization of my ‘Self’).

Within the emanative sphere, ‘I carry you in my heart’–that is, I find you at the core of my sense of who I am. This explains why the world of Emanation is also referred to as the world of unification (yichud) in that ‘you are within me and I am within you.’ Besides this important shift from a relationship ‘within’ to a relationship ‘between’ when transitioning from the world of Emanation to the world of Creation, another key aspect of intuition or chochmah provides the seed (zera) that leads to understanding. Conception cannot take place without fertilization. Hence, some aspect of the world of Emanation has to carry over into the world of Creation to give rise to it. This is hinted at in that the seed or zera [זרע] which, once implanted, becomes supportive and helpful ‘ezer’ [עזר] to the one who conceives it. One state naturally morphs into the other just as ezer (helper) is a permutation of zera (seed) in Hebrew.

In terms of our relation with the Divine Other, the difference between our spiritual service in each of these worlds boils down to ‘rational conditioning’ and the value proposition based on reward-benefit analysis (world of Creation) and the ‘dis-interested’ dedication which does the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do and not because of ‘derivative’ considerations like reward or punishment. When we play ‘let’s make a deal’ with God and attempt to solicit Divine assistance in exchange for our compliance with something that is spiritually and morally asked of us, then we have reduced our connection with the Creator to a relationship of utility. ‘I don’t have any more use for you God, you don’t give me what I ask for!’ Or, ‘I will stop stealing if You agree to help me make loads of money legally’ and parenthetically, ‘I am going to wait until You deposit the goods first or at least make a down payment. Then I’ll do my part.’

This mentality consists of an endless negotiation ‘between’ me and God where I do spiritual contract work–as long as it make sense as an exchange. Of course my understanding mediates what constitutes ‘fair trade’ while an underlying contingency clause states that if the request put upon me is irrational, then I can always opt out. Here I am more occupied with how I conceive of God than to God Himself. From this vantage point, I have extreme difficulty relating to that which I cannot conceive of. Not so in the world of Emanation. There, our intuition allows us to relate to paradox and link to the unrepresentable and inconceivable unconditionally.

Descending further through our schema of worlds, in Part Eight we will engage the emotions and character attributes in the world of Formation.

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-8/

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-6/

Print PDF