Integral Halachah

[Avi]

Seth, I particularly liked this paragraph:

So my challenge to my friends in your camp is that while we want to get rid of superstition, we must be aware of the new emerging cosmologies that point to spiritual realms beyond our own physical one. Ideas contained in the Kabbalah should be taken seriously. Without a vital and irrational weekday prayer life, connected with the living God, observance will not be a sustainable part of the life of the people who participate in centrist Orthodoxy.

I agree with getting rid of superstition !! I am not sure about these "new emerging cosmologies that point to spirtual realms" but would be interested in learning more about them.

Best, Avi

 

[dauer]

My sense of that article is that for the audience he was addressing, getting rid of superstition is a given and he was warning against overreaching.

 

[bananabrain]

BB, what are your views about chosen-ness ? Why would there be "internal anti-semitic" ideas ?

because if you spend your entire time fighting off accusations about yourself then after a while you may come to believe that there is something that actually needs addressing, rather than that people are just being total feckin' eejits. or they actually start believing it themselves. this is only amplified when people become estranged from what the religion actually says about X or Y, thus you get internal positions about judaism being "racist" or "chauvinist" or "sexist" when actually in many ways it is far more enlightened than the point from which it's being criticised. this is a specific. as far as "chosenness" is concerned, people that use it as a basis for xenophobia or chauvinism have no religious basis on which to stand. it is chosennessin the sense of "you have been volunteered". it's an honour to be chosen and an ongoing obligation, which we should continue to honour not out of fear, not out of desire for reward, but out of love.

I'm asserting that the common sense conclusion and the only [one?] that doesn't quickly end in stalemate is that there is something beyond our minds.

oh, fair enough annyway.

Could you define Context for me as you're using it in this statement?

i'm saying we understand the multidimensional space in relation to G!D, not, as it were, the other way round.

As to whether G!d is real, I know G!d is real. I'm agnostic toward the truth bit.

you see, that's the bit where i get confused. but i suppose it could just be woolly thinking on my part.

I'm skeptical toward both the approach of pure reason and your approach. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to assume one or the other is true. No, I take that back. I think it creates a sense of security for them.

i think that's OK as long as you don't start kidding yourself that security can be confused with certainty and Absolute Untrammelled Truth.

With the diversity in Jewish theology I just don't see that.

i don't know, it feels primarily a mod-orthodox position but from my experience of non-orthodox denominations i don't think it would be completely wrong for them; it's just the details of the covenant that would differ, as well as the terms & conditions.

However, I think both you and I are referring to the same thing, just interpreting what it is differently.

i suspect so.

The question that immediately came up for me, which he couldn't answer, is whether or not all animals share that construct or if there was some point in the evolution of life at which that developed. Thinking about it now, I'm also curious at what point it switches on for the fetus.

presumably, the point at which it gets swiped on the filtrum and forgets all its in-vitro Torah learning, or maybe when the cord gets cut.

That would tie the biology both into tzimtzum and into Freud's understanding of the mystical experience as a regression back to the state in the womb.

well, i cordially dislike freud as an ignorant, arrogant assimilationist so i tend to avoid his analyses of this sort of stuff. but that's by the bye. tzimzum would be far more interesting as a metaphor for birth.

I also wonder if there can be consciousness without the sense of separation. If not, then separation is necessary in order to consciously experience the lack of separation.

that would give you a psychological basis for the differentiation of humans from animals i suspect, which would be quite interesting - and also take account of the etymology of kedushah.

If not, then separation is necessary in order to consciously experience the lack of separation. I also wonder if there are some species where that structure is just less well defined, where consciousness has developed but there's a degree to which the individual being experiences a connection with its surroundings.

arguably, there are human societies where this structure is less well defined, if you think of aboriginal or animist concepts.

What about the examples you gave previously regarding torat imecha?

very valid here. in fact, some of the time you are talking about the same posekim.

But the methodology is monolithic. Including concepts like minhag hamakom doesn't change that. It's still contained within that system.

i see what you mean, but i'm not sure i see it as inflexibly as you do.

I think it's important to take a meta-halachic approach, reflect and revise just I think one ought to look for room for improvement in any systematic approach, especially when, as in the case of halachah, there have been issues with retention of adherents to the methodology.

perhaps, but such an approach can demand that the option is on the table for the halakhic turkeys vote for christmas, as it were, which would make it unworkable for me.

That's not to insist that the lack of retention is always an issue with the system or that in this case it must be, but it is an insistence upon looking at both the individuals and the system for structural weaknesses. But that I think also comes down to whether or not one sees halachah as revelatory.

i think you probably mean the source of halakhic authority rather than the halakhah itself.

the kol haneshama siddurim make references to some of that sub-structure and I do remember that they reinsert some of the explicit kabbalistic references that had previously been stripped out. In either case, I don't think your conclusion follows. They're not beginning with an assumption that the sub-structure is there from the start. Rather, for them it may be something that developed over time and may or may not involve the Divine. Whether the structure is kabbalistic or not wouldn't matter.

it would matter to me. again, i'm not assuming that the substructure is there from the start, only that it becomes explicit over time, whereas it is implicit earlier; of course, the structure of tefillah itself has got larger and more complex over time, so i wouldn't expect to see a massive amount of kabbalistic structure before the idea exists. i wonder if anyone knows just how old the different sections are? is there a book on it?

Hearing my own aspirations to pursue ordination

oh, really? i didn't know. good plan if you ask me.

I agree with getting rid of superstition !! I am not sure about these "new emerging cosmologies that point to spirtual realms" but would be interested in learning more about them.

kabbalah, on the other hand, properly functions as a "substition".

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

i'm saying we understand the multidimensional space in relation to G!D, not, as it were, the other way round.

You mean seeing G!d as transcending both time and space?

you see, that's the bit where i get confused. but i suppose it could just be woolly thinking on my part.

I think we may be brushing up against some of the limitations of language bracketed by our different ways of relating to the concepts true and real.

i think that's OK as long as you don't start kidding yourself that security can be confused with certainty and Absolute Untrammelled Truth.

I agree.

i don't know, it feels primarily a mod-orthodox position but from my experience of non-orthodox denominations i don't think it would be completely wrong for them; it's just the details of the covenant that would differ, as well as the terms & conditions.

That's probably very true of those Jews that aren't terribly engaged in Judaism and may be more true of engaged non-O Jews in the UK. In the US at least I've seen a shift among engaged Jews so that now not everyone's so absorbed in rationalism and there's more diversity. But if we apply your suggestion to the whole Jewish community I don't think it works so well.

arguably, there are human societies where this structure is less well defined, if you think of aboriginal or animist concepts.

I've been meaning to read Jaynes' theories on the bicameral mind at some point and I wonder if that might tie in a bit as well.

perhaps, but such an approach can demand that the option is on the table for the halakhic turkeys vote for christmas, as it were, which would make it unworkable for me.

I'm not familiar with that figure of speech. Do you mean to say that with that approach, anything can be justified? I don't see a meta-halachic approach as necessarily addressing the actions themselves, but the methodology. In the end you're left with some sort of concrete methodology albeit a revised one.

i think you probably mean the source of halakhic authority rather than the halakhah itself.

Right, and I'm probably being terribly unclear by using the word halachah to refer to halachic authority, halachah as methodology, and specific halachot at different times in the same conversation. I'll try to use more specific terminology.

i wonder if anyone knows just how old the different sections are? is there a book on it?

I'm familiar with some of that but only loosely. I'm sure I've read it somewhere. What I know is I'm guessing what you know as well, like that pesukei dezimra developed later and the kabbalat shabbat service, much later. It might be dealt with in the section on liturgy in Back to the Sources or that chapter may bibliographically refer to a book that covers it. There's a series called My People's Prayerbook that has a lot of in-depth commentary from different perspectives. But it's many volumes.

 

[Avi]

because if you spend your entire time fighting off accusations about yourself then after a while you may come to believe that there is something that actually needs addressing, rather than that people are just being total feckin' eejits. or they actually start believing it themselves. this is only amplified when people become estranged from what the religion actually says about X or Y, thus you get internal positions about judaism being "racist" or "chauvinist" or "sexist" when actually in many ways it is far more enlightened than the point from which it's being criticised. this is a specific. as far as "chosenness" is concerned, people that use it as a basis for xenophobia or chauvinism have no religious basis on which to stand. it is chosennessin the sense of "you have been volunteered". it's an honour to be chosen and an ongoing obligation, which we should continue to honour not out of fear, not out of desire for reward, but out of love.

Hi BB, I like your idea of chosen-ness not out of fear but out of love.

However, I still have trouble accepting the idea of chosen-ness. The reason for this is because the idea that G-d chose us, the Jewish people, does not seem rational to me. If G-d is non-corporeal, and panantheistic, how would we even know G-d's will ? We could no more know that we are the chosen people than know G-d's favorite color. The idea of chosen-ness seems even harder to me, to defend in an interfaith environment. The reason I believe this is because I think in an interfaith setting one needs to step back and question their own assumptions. It seems to me that if I look at underlying Jewish assumptions that chosen-ness would be one of the big question marks.

Since we are discussing this, I also have trouble with the more traditional notion of the covenantal community. I believe the covenant holds for issues of ethics and moral behavior. I do not think it extends to ideas of ritual, mysticism and blind faith. That is another reason that I reject the idea of chosen-ness. So I guess I am a Reconstructionist on this issue.

Best,
-Avi

 

[dauer]

Avi,

here's a video of Reb Zalman discussing the idea of covenant. Thought it might interest you: YouTube - JEWISH RENEWAL: What is AUTHENTIC JUDAISM? Reb Zalman

 

[Avi]

Dauer, that was a very interesting YouTube. Thanks. R. Zalman's Chassidic roots come out somewhat there.

I appreciate his views of the covenant, however I don't think I agree. But he presents them beautifully. His comments about circumcision and Shabbas are questionable for me.

I did like his idea about Jewish ego, which he says stands up for doing the right thing. I also like the idea of being a "Socialist for Isaiah".

I have to watch some more of his YouTubes, please let me know if there are others that you recommend.

 

[dauer]

I watched them around when they were first posted and couldn't tell you very well. I liked the Consciousness one, the Jew as a verb one and the one on defining Jewish Renewal.

 

[Avi]

I finally had enough time to buy this book (Integral Halachah), so I am sure as I start reading it I will have a bunch of questions for you, Dauer and BB.

As I opened it, I came to a section heading, entitled "Homosexuals", which made me think of the other thread that has been debated for many pages now. So I thought I would share some of R. Zalman's thoughts on this:

"We have been taking it for granted that people who are attracted to others of the same gender and who can't feel fulfillment except with people of the same gender are still included in that passuk (verse, meaning the traditional verse from the Bible that prohibits homosexuality).

What I am suggesting as a new starting place is the people with these attractions are in effect saying, "Iy efshi / I can't do it any other way."
Iy efshi means that we are dealing with something that is integral to a person.

While the court is still in session over whether being gay is genetic or learned, what I want to say is that people who want mishkivei ish (consentual sexual relations), (as opposed to people who really want miskivei isha (forced sex) but who get it from another male), are not included in this passuk (the one which prohibits homosexuality)".

So, it seems that the Renewal approach to homosexuality is much more open and accepting than traditional.

 

[Raksha]

I also object to the way some members of Renewal relate to Reb Zalman. In my dialogue here with Gabbai Seth Fishman (he runs the blog at the Reb Zalman Legacy Project) that came up, where, although he didn't use the term, he seemed to see Reb Zalman as some sort of Tzadik Ha-Dor (in hasidism typically that's how hasidim see their rebbe, as the tzadik of the generation.) I didn't object to the idea that Reb Zalman has made valuable contributions, but I did suggest time will tell what, if any lasting impact he has on the Jewish Community.

Dauer,

I never heard the term Tzadik ha-Dor before I read your post, but if Reb Zalman isn't the tzadik for this generation, the term has no meaning at all. If not Reb Zalman, who else could it be? Is there another candidate who even comes close in terms of both the depth and range of his influence? In my never-humble opinion, it would be much easier to understate than to overstate the effect he has had on the Jewish world. We really don't need to wait for the verdict of history in this area...unless you want to say that history has spoken already.

I think you're being excessively cautious.

Shalom,
Linda

 

[dauer]

Linda,

I am strongly skeptical of most things. This is par for course for me. Just my nature.

-- Dauer

 

[Avi]

Linda,

I am strongly skeptical of most things. This is par for course for me. Just my nature.

-- Dauer

As well you should be Dauer, in the opening of "Integral Halachah", as R. Zalman introduces the notion of paradigm shift in Jewish Renewal, he reminds the reader that the fall of the Second Temple was an example such a paradigm shift. Therefore not all paradigm shifts have been exactly successful in the history of Judaism !

 

[dauer]

I think he was actually suggesting that was part of the shift from biblical to rabbinic Judaism, hence positive.

 

[bananabrain]

You mean seeing G!d as transcending both time and space?

yes, but also in the sense that time and space both occur "literally" *within* G!D as Space. that is what the Divine Name of Ha-MaQOM conveys to me.

I think we may be brushing up against some of the limitations of language bracketed by our different ways of relating to the concepts true and real.

could be!

That's probably very true of those Jews that aren't terribly engaged in Judaism and may be more true of engaged non-O Jews in the UK. In the US at least I've seen a shift among engaged Jews so that now not everyone's so absorbed in rationalism and there's more diversity. But if we apply your suggestion to the whole Jewish community I don't think it works so well.

well, as one of my systems thinking rebbes is wont to say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

I've been meaning to read Jaynes' theories on the bicameral mind at some point and I wonder if that might tie in a bit as well.

by a curious coincidence, this appears to relate to the genetic basis of language skills and grammar, which is the area of study of an old friend of mine, who has just won the francis crick prize for his work on the FOXP2 gene; i was privileged to hear him lecture ojn the subject. how odd.

I'm probably being terribly unclear by using the word halachah to refer to halachic authority, halachah as methodology, and specific halachot at different times in the same conversation. I'll try to use more specific terminology.

i'm probably guilty of the same thing!

What I know is I'm guessing what you know as well, like that pesukei dezimra developed later and the kabbalat shabbat service, much later. It might be dealt with in the section on liturgy in Back to the Sources or that chapter may bibliographically refer to a book that covers it. There's a series called My People's Prayerbook that has a lot of in-depth commentary from different perspectives. But it's many volumes.

oh, i've seen that. it does seem pretty clear that much of the kabbalistic substructure was made more explicit when kabbalah went public in the C13th, but both the pesuqei de-zimra and the kabbalat shabbat are traceable to the talmudic sages, if not completely explicitly. but then again there are also opinions that the 'aleinu was written by joshua.... hey ho.

However, I still have trouble accepting the idea of chosen-ness. The reason for this is because the idea that G-d chose us, the Jewish people, does not seem rational to me. If G-d is non-corporeal, and panantheistic, how would we even know G-d's will?

because G!D Revealed the Divine Will through Speech to the patriarchs and prophets and in particular to the people at Sinai. just because it's mythical doesn't mean it didn't happen. by definition G!D's Will is unknowable - all we know of it is what has been Revealed. it is like white paper - we can't know what it conveys until black ink is on it, which conceals the white paper as it proceeds. so the more comprehensible it is to us, the more distant it becomes from the actual Mind of G!D. that is why Revelation is so crucial. it is why it's such a big deal. because something isn't "rational" doesn't mean one should refuse to consider it. without Revelation, all you have are the tools, however formidable, of human rationality and science. if you, like me, do not believe that science can provide an adequate and appropriate answer every question, then although we have differing positions, we're in the same religious ecosystem, as it were. are you familiar with stephen jay gould's concepts of NOMA and POMA?

The idea of chosen-ness seems even harder to me, to defend in an interfaith environment.

only if it is understood as conferring any sort of superiority. interfaith dialogue cannot proceed from such a basis of ego.

The reason I believe this is because I think in an interfaith setting one needs to step back and question their own assumptions. It seems to me that if I look at underlying Jewish assumptions that chosen-ness would be one of the big question marks.

i agree - but you hardly have to *wait* for an interfaith setting to step back and question your assumptions, it is perfectly valid, some might even say more so, to do such in an intrafaith setting where everyone assumes they share certain positions.

Since we are discussing this, I also have trouble with the more traditional notion of the covenantal community. I believe the covenant holds for issues of ethics and moral behavior. I do not think it extends to ideas of ritual, mysticism and blind faith. That is another reason that I reject the idea of chosen-ness. So I guess I am a Reconstructionist on this issue.

i do not accept your categorisation here, avi. classical reform attempted to divorce "ethical monotheism" from "superstitious ritual", when in fact both are interdependent. what on earth makes you assume that ritual, mysticism and "blind faith" are in separate domains from ethics and moral behaviour? these are *your* assumptions about what "chosenness" means and i do not recognise them. this feels like a "progressive" straw man.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

yes, but also in the sense that time and space both occur "literally" *within* G!D as Space. that is what the Divine Name of Ha-MaQOM conveys to me.

I thought that's what you meant.

by a curious coincidence, this appears to relate to the genetic basis of language skills and grammar, which is the area of study of an old friend of mine, who has just won the francis crick prize for his work on the FOXP2 gene; i was privileged to hear him lecture ojn the subject. how odd.

As an update, I'll be studying bicameral mind theory for the next three or so weeks. It doesn't seem to directly address to what we'd discussed previously but does address related issues.

but then again there are also opinions that the 'aleinu was written by joshua.... hey ho.

... You mean it wasn't?

 

[Avi]

I just finished reading Integral Halachah and right now I am a bit disappointed in it. I think this is because I was expecting a more radical shift and many new ideas. I felt there was a strong connection to Chassidism and I felt that some new embryonic ideas were there, but they were not developed sufficiently as I had hoped they would be. In my view there was too much emphasis on Ketubot, the marriage laws, there could have been more discussion of ethics and morality, which I think would have had greater impact. His seemingly neutral position on chosen-ness does not seem strong enough to me. I prefer M. Kaplan's rejection of chosen-ness.

I did enjoy the sections on re-assessment of halachah. I liked the ideas related to conversion. I like ideas related to eco-kashrut. But these ideas are not enough of departure for me. I like his support of feminist understanding. I like his ideas about Shabbat observance. He brings out some very good ideas about "servile mechanisms" and music on Shabbat which people have wondered about for a long time. I like his ideas about "permeable membranes" and hyphenation. These ideas connect Judaism to other religions. He is clearly a leader in interfaith belief. I like his focus on "loving attitude".

I feel the connections to technology, especially computer technology are a bit naieve. R. Berg does this even more, with respect to Kaballah, and because I am familiar with these technologies I find these simple analogies somewhat disingenuous.

Perhaps I am being too critical . I will go back through this tread and see what your thoughts are on these issues. I will review the book again, to see what areas I need to read in more depth.

 

[Avi]

I do probably maintain a greater deal of anthropomorphism than you because of my approach to G!d. For me, it seems quite natural that humans would anthropomorphize the Infinite in order to relate to it. We're little bits of organic material hurtling through the cosmos on a fleck of space dust. So finite next to existence (and if we add to that the depths of the unconscious, the reaches of time, more finite still) it makes sense to me to project out onto reality images that I can relate to, modes of interaction and emotional engagement with the incomprehensible vastness of this world in which I find myself. But that all reflects my own strong biases toward skepticism and valuing religion as a vessel for the growth of the individual, active engagement with the unconscious and the fostering of meaningful communal and individual experiences.

Dauer, I found this thoughtful post that you made early in the thread. I hope you do not mind if I bring back some of the earlier ideas, they are very helpful to me as I re-read the book.

Your description about anthropomorphism reminds me of the story of the ether in 19th century physics. From the time of the Greeks physicists thought that light was carried not in a vacuum, but by a mysterious "ether" which surrounded the earths atmosphere. This ether answered a lot of the early questions about light transmission. The only problem is that it was over simplified and wrong.

That is how I feel about anthropomorphism. You are right, we are little specks of matter travelling through space. But does that mean that we need to portray an image of a great man or a king as G-d for us to relate to ? Why can't we portray a more realistic image ? From my understanding pantheism or panentheism are more in touch with reality. I do not mean to be critical here, I am just thinking out loud. I will read more of R. Zalman's ideas to see if I need to re-adjust my thinking.

 

[pohaikawahine]

BB - this really made me laugh ....

"yes, that is my problem in a nutshell. help, my problem is in a nutshell! how on earth did it get into this nutshell?"

having your problem in a nutshell is a good place .... in some places in the south pacific in myths of creation, the universe is conceived as the hollow of a coconut shell .... I won't go into details but if you visualize the coconut shell (pointed side down) - the point is the beginning of all things .... then one passes through layers within the hollow of the shell - seven layers to be exact each with its own story or legend and its own sacred (inner) meaning (this is the world of darkness or "po" - there is even a sacred island) - when you reach the summit (top of the mountain, or in this case top of the coconut shell) you reach the next world of the sun ("ao") and even then there are layers, each with its own story. There are stories about the dream of a beautiful woman - "vatea dreams of her but when he wakes he can discover no trace of the fair one - he searches in all directions for her - but in vain" ... I think of the Torah when I read or hear stories about a beautiful woman that is hidden from view .... let me not digress ....

like all knowledge, your problem must move through the stages within the nutshell .... the goal is to move it upward toward the world of the sun or light or knowledge or wisdom .... I'm just having fun with this but a nutshell is a good place to start ....

I always enjoy the dialogues between you and dauer .... much too complicated for me to understand fully .... but I learn something each time I read them ....

dauer - the Hopi have a saying about the coming change and loosely translated it is "the time in which we will meet ourselves" .... to me, the return of the Masiah is the time in which we will remember who we are and we will meet ourselves .... I think that terms like "the living Torah" and "the new Torah" tell us that we are getting there .... I love the Torah and its inner meanings (as I see them) .... when we all get past the walls that seperate us (our own minds) the regathering will quicken at an exponential pace .... isn't that our goal as people .... to be able to live in peace in the promised land .... when I post on these forums sometimes I feel so simple in my thinking .... I read and study but I don't have the same grasp of history and certainly am no expert on the torah, bible, koran, i-ching, buddhism, etc .... but deep inside I understand that there is a connection that is ancient and has sustained itself despite our ability to try and destroy its meaning in the name of g-d....it is embarressing to see what was carried out even in the name of "hawaiian culture" .... even as people seek to "revive" it (hawaiian culture), it is so cloaked in its mysteries that we do silly things and then try to claim it as the true culture..... so I have turned slightly on my path and I look to understand the "new Torah" .... I haven't found a home yet, but I am drawn to "reform" because it may be the only door that opens for me. There are many barriers in my way but I will get there as I move from "inside the nutshell". He Hawai'i Au, po

 

[Avi]

I don't really think he has a strong Jewish argument for paradigm shift.

by the sound of things i think you're right. the question is really whether what he is doing is a radical innovation or not. if it's just a "hiddush", then i can't see why there would be an issue. if he was doing something *really* controversial, like the prosbul, or the 13 principles (to be frank) then perhaps. it requires specialist halakhic work in the area as is going on with regard to

I think R. Zalman has a really strong argument for paradigm shift !! (Meaning the need for paradigm shift).

One of his compelling arguments relates to the nature of the convenent. Although in earlier times, it was necessary to accept the covenent. People lived together in densely populated areas (in Europe they were called ghettos) and formal laws had to be set up.

Now we are much more assimilated. Secular laws prevail. R. Zalman says that we are no longer required to participate in the covenent, and I agree. So Judaism must search for its relevance in our lives.

Whether he has found that paradigm shift is another question ?

He seems to be looking in fairly traditional places to me. Much of his observations are with respect to Shulcan Aruch, the codification of Halachah. Of course this plays a role in the quest for paradigm shift. But I have some doubt whether it is at the core. I think real paradigm shift lies more centrally with philosophical and psychological infusion. I think his interfaith work is more at the heart of paradigm change. In my view paradigm change is not incremental, evolutionary change. Micro-scale changes in Halachah are not going to get us there. Paradigm changes are world shattering.

 

[dauer]

Avi,

You are right, we are little specks of matter travelling through space. But does that mean that we need to portray an image of a great man or a king as G-d for us to relate to ? Why can't we portray a more realistic image ?

For me, it's because the different images lead to different emotions and different ways of relating. It's not about saying, truly, "God is a great bearded guy in the sky." If I insisted that my heart met my head's standards I wouldn't pursue much at all. Why bother marrying someone I love when so many marriages end in divorce? I could lose a lot financially in a divorce. I'd be better off not getting married. The images I use to relate to God aren't for the sake of my head. They're for the sake of my heart.

As regards pantheism and panentheism, they can render difficulty with images unproblematic. Here's an article by Jay Michaelson on that matter:

Zeek | Polytheism and Nonduality | Jay Michaelson

My root way of relating to God is panentheistic. Once that door is opened why protest many faces for the Divine? Reb Zalman has said for himself both that there's no real difference between the two (Wrapped in a Holy Flame) and that "God can be no less than pantheism." (Renewal is Judaism Now)

I think R. Zalman has a really strong argument for paradigm shift !! (Meaning the need for paradigm shift)... Whether he has found that paradigm shift is another question

Agreed.

. R. Zalman says that we are no longer required to participate in the covenent, and I agree. So Judaism must search for its relevance in our lives.

I think you mean what he means, but your statement may be a little misleading to someone who reads it. He's argued that everyone today is a Jew by choice in that we can either accept or reject Judaism, but he's also argued that covenantal relationship is central to Judaism, even if say for a humanist that only means covenant with the Jewish people. Choosing Judaism by his definition means choosing to take part in a covenantal relationship.

Micro-scale changes in Halachah are not going to get us there. Paradigm changes are world shattering.

I think it depends on where one stands whether or not what Reb Zalman suggests is micro-scale or touching at the core of Judaism. While Integral Halachah does deal extensively with potential applications, what's more radical is the theory behind it in that it would take greater account of the individual. The actual application of halachah might look very different between one person and another. As a Reform Jew, correct me if I'm wrong about you specifically, you're probably more likely to reject the whole idea that halachah is necessary at all. For someone coming from an Orthodox background, Reb Zalman's suggestions might seem too radical.

-- Dauer