How the Psyscho-Halachic Process is Like Halachah

[dauer]

bb,

for me veganism isn't about purity. It's about having some small impact on the world. Maybe if I had vegan tefillin it would inspire someone else to think more seriously about tzaar baalei chaim and they would end up making changes in their own life to reduce animal suffering. Maybe someday humanity will be able to bring about an Edenic paradise where we no longer need to kill animals for food. With the direction technology is taking maybe someday we'll be able to grow meat in vats. At that point we could stop killing animals for food and still eat meat.

--dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

The davennen there is pretty traditional egal. Lately though my practice has been fairly solitary, more recently a bit lacking in general.

So the beauty of orthodox davvenen where you stand as an individual before your maker and davven, is the discipline of being able to davven anywhere. If the shaliach tzibbur is adding anything to your ability to focus on what you need to do, that’s a mechayye. But if not, oy, the Siddur is so beautiful, so rich so deep. So if it is your practice to read everything, I don’t worry about whether I am with the congregation. I stand with them when they say the amidah, but I might be somewhere else. I get what I need and then once I’ve gotten what I needed, I join. Other times, I just lend my support to the shaliach tzibbur and stay with them. Put I put myself first. Two more points on this: 1) Memorizing the siddur is a big help. Zalman had us memorize ana b’koach and ashrei. It’s come in handy so many times. 2) Becoming the shaliach tzibbur solves a lot of problems in davvening because then you are setting the agenda so your heart is served.

I like some of the smaller innovations like silent meditation in addition to prayer, but having done three months of chanting brief excerpts from the liturgy while I was interning at EC, something that I feel is very unfortunately coming to be associated with "Renewal-style davennen", it's not for me.

It's not for me either.

It is I suppose the experiential and ideological flavor of Renewal that I'm more drawn to and I don't hesitate to be a bit critical of some of what I think is going too far.

Me either. I don't care for chanting services. I'm always reading the siddur privately during those.

I only meant to suggest that it may not make sense to trace much of the change happening today to Reb Zalman

That's fine

or to anything associated with Renewal.

I'm okay hee too.[/quote]

I do think Reb Zalman has accurately perceived a shift happening in the way humans relate to the world but I'm not certain that means his ideas will have a broader impact rather than forming a single wave in a rising tide of change.

Okay. I won't speculate. I just know that the impact he had on this soul was immense, life-saving, soul-saving.

At one time I started to question whether Reb Zalman might still be carrying out his duties as a chabad shaliach and I think that, taken more loosely, in part he may be. He wrote in Wrapped in a Holy Flame about how he sees Reb Shneur Zalman of Liadi as a translator of hasidus into the language of the yeshiva.

Yes. I like that.

I think in some ways Reb Zalman has served as a translator of hasidus into the language that's developing today.

Yes. I agree.

And I do think it's pretty clear that he's writing in part for Orthodoxy, but I also think that some of his writing is clearly not targeted at Orthodoxy like the book Renewal Is Judaism NOW.

This book was also aimed at Orthodoxy. Remember that it was originally published under the title of "Renewal is Note Heresy: How we differ from the Sabbateans." This is clearly aimed as an answer to an Orthodox criticism.

To me it seemed like the tone of some of that text may have been in part to address the more radical to the point of fundamentalist element among those who perceive a shift and choose in some way to embrace change by both agreeing with them and redirecting them.

I guess it is aimed at both. It’s also possible that the second edition has somehow changed Zalman’s message from the original edition. For example, the change in title. Why was it changed? I never understood that except because the perception was that from a marketing perspective they were selling to Renewalists, not Restorationists.

That's something I can agree with but I still don't see how your friend then becomes involved in that process outside of a gradual subversion taking root.

I am not sure either. Reb Zalman talks about the phenomenon in the book. There’s the consensus of the pious and the consensus of the committed. Being committed is worth a lot and that’s the main point of the book. So for me, it is more important to be in a community where people have a theology, a belief in God, and hunger to connect to the past, and are taking halachah seriously. As long as that basic criteria is met, the community has the possibility of implementing a practice, of discussing and reaching consensus on that practice, and therefore, they also become eligible to potentially influence the practice of all Jews. It requires communities to communicate and respect one another. So this is a vision for a working halachah. The one that’s not working for me is the one that says if you aren’t a Rabbi then you can’t question and that’s the one for many Jews. It’s not like we’re not part of the nation of priests too. The Rabbis have used their power inappropriately in this regard. You’ve got to honor my light too. It doesn’t seem to be happening.

How is that different from a person who eats pork and says that halachah needs to get with the times?

This person doesn't meet the criteria I've made above. This person isn't dong psycho-halachah because they aren't connecting to the tradition first and trying to figure out what the update is. This would involve scrapping what came before.

They may have principles by which they've arrived at their conclusion that it's okay to eat pork and could argue in the same way that if enough people eat pork eventually it will be considered okay within Judaism.

Sorry. I don't buy this.

I would argue that in many communities it already is considered an okay thing to do.

This example is really pushing my buttone. It isn't in line with Reb Zalman's examples.

You could suggest that eating pork is more against the grain of halachah but how is it more than a matter of degree?

Listen. Are you asking a serious question here, or just playing the devil’s advocate. We have Mishpatim, Edut and chukim and chazer is a chok. So you don’t use your logic with this one; you just do it.

You could also say that there's no active attempt to work with the existing halachah in eating pork but I think that in the case of someone who has certain principles and ideas about the nature of sacred text and authority that a case could be made it is working with halachah.

You are throwing away the torah. Jewish Renewal takes great pains not to do that. (The Jewish Renewal of Reb Zalman, I mean.)

I agree with you about cosmological change being out there, but out there in the sense of a general contour or shape within the human psyche

It is also without, like the whole question of a creator and transcendentalism. You are focusing on immanence. Mimale kol almin v'sovev kol almin. sovev is external.

that by its nature requires itself to be colored in finite ways, an unconscious archetype just being recognized/birthed that seeks a subjective imago by which to reveal itself and manifest in the world. Seeing the avant garde as you do is a perspective I share, but I see it only as one perspective and I see perspective itself as an issue separate from "the way things really are", something I'm not sure we can know.

If you study Kabbalah, it talks about things we can't know all the time.

I don't really assume that Renewal is organized in line with Reb Zalman's vision, especially with regard to practice and halachah, but I do think that within Judaism Reb Zalman is frequently associated with Jewish Renewal and vice versa such that a non-Renewalist who has no interest in Aleph and the like might say, "Well that Zalman guy is one of those do-what-you-feel-like hippies and I don't get them because they're a) too loose in applying halachah or b) too new agey."

I want to send you a nice transcript. Please let me know where to send it. It is called “Renewal isn’t Judaism lite.” I don’t think it’s published yet and Reb Zalman has edited this one, and I don’t have a copy of it but let me know where to send it. My e-mails on my website.

I'm not sure I see why he needs to use the word gaia to express an organismic worldview, and I'm not sure it's helpful to do so in regard to range of readership.

I don't know. He usually has good reasons for things he does.

A lot of the ideas in the eco-kashrut section clicked for me as well, in terms of the development of halachah, but whether or not halachah developed as Reb Zalman describes, why should the focus be on the origin of a process rather than on its current form?

I think that when talked about the melammed he was using that to summarize its current form and he was saying that it wasn't good enough.

When Reform is criticized for its roots I don't think that makes sense because today it takes a different direction.

He does talk about the way Orthodoxy has shifted because they let him be shaliach tzibbur on shabbos when they know he’s driven to shul and you have to be a shomer to be a shaliach, so he’s saying that is a shift from today.

That Protestantism did away with a lot of the additional stuff I don't think makes it more correct than Catholicism any more than Karaism is more correct than rabbinic Judaism. It may be viable to approach religion in that way in order to make malleable what has become concrete as it has proved successful before (Protestantism) but I think such activity is just as likely to become something that isn't as widely embraced (Karaism.) I think in terms of legitimacy I just have a hard time with any claim that seems a bit too inclusive including the more traditional claims to rabbinic authority. For me it's more an issue of what proves itself over time. In the same breath I'm not one to hesitate in investing into what I see as promising. I'm not trying to say "x is demonstrably correct and y isn't", just that I don't think we can address authenticity, authority, what is right and what is wrong, in those terms. I think it's more an issue of what vote each of us chooses to make. I also feel psycho-halachah was a point of view I was missing both when I rejected praxis and when I became a mitzvah-glutton. I got the book published by aleph about whether or not to blow the shofar when rosh hashanah falls on shabbos a few years ago because at that time it was the closest I could get to reading at length about psycho-halachah. At one time I went through the conversation about it hosted on the Ohalah website's page for Reb Zalman and extracted every principle I saw suggested, making a list in a text file. At some point I'll likely try making a similar outline for myself with Integral Halachah as the simple list form is a bit easier for me to reference and learn from in a way that I can take it and apply it. To me, integral halachah is something that can do a lot of good for Judaism. I don't take issue with psycho-halachah itself but with claims to validity and authenticity in general, really to any suggestion of a perceivable absolute, especially in domains such as this one. I know what makes sense to me but don't presume to say it is surely what's best for Judaism. To me that's something which is going to have to be decided by klal yisrael and only time will tell what the consensus is.

--dauer

Amen. Ken y'hi ratzon. Gut Gesagt. Brachot, Seth

 

[dauer]

Seth,

This person doesn't meet the criteria I've made above. This person isn't dong psycho-halachah because they aren't connecting to the tradition first and trying to figure out what the update is. This would involve scrapping what came before.

I didn't mean they're doing psycho-halachah, but that they have their own set of principles no more or less arbitrary than psycho-halachic ones. Saying that their "pork's okay" idea isn't valid because it doesn't meet psycho-halachic principles seems like the pot calling the kettle black. A restorationist could say the same in response to integral halachah. How do you know where to draw the line and how is the way that you know not an arbitrary demarcation? You said you don't buy it, but why not? It's a serious question, a hypothetical but still quite serious. How are psycho-halachic principles valid when theirs are not? How is psycho-halachah any less picking-and-choosing which principles to keep, which to let go of, which to add more emphasis, which to take away emphasis etc?

It is also without, like the whole question of a creator and transcendentalism. You are focusing on immanence. Mimale kol almin v'sovev kol almin. sovev is external.

I'm an agnostic. I understand immanence in terms of anything within me and that which transcends as the rest of the world outside of me. For me the closest I can come to talking about G!d is a psychological construct and everything that is, neither of which require much belief.

I want to send you a nice transcript. Please let me know where to send it. It is called “Renewal isn’t Judaism lite.” I don’t think it’s published yet and Reb Zalman has edited this one, and I don’t have a copy of it but let me know where to send it. My e-mails on my website.

That would be awesome, thanks. I want to make clear that I'm only raising what I see as valid issues which fall much in line with my skepticism that I apply to most everything I come across. I'm not trying to say, "psycho-halachah is wrong." At least for me it's right. As I said earlier I'm very analytical and skeptical. Part of my way of relating to an idea is to try and punch holes into it. Even if it's something I might rely on I want to find all of the structural weaknesses and push them as far as I can to see how much pressure the structure can stand and what defense mechanisms it has for coping with that stress. I tend to be skeptical even of the things I think are valuable, if not especially of those things. If I can't defend the ideas I value from my own criticism, how could I possibly answer a real critic? And if there really are no good answers to my criticisms, why hold a particular idea at all? I tend to debate things that others just accept which may be why I'm sometimes viewed as combative or difficult, but truly I have only good intentions.

The pork-eating faction has had a huge impact on Judaism and while its goals are different, it's still just another arbitrary adaptation to changes in the world.

I'm not really sure exactly what your response is meant to be to my question about why we should focus on the origin rather than the current form, unless your answer is, "Because Reb Zalman says the current form isn't good enough." If that is your answer I don't really see how it's more than a subjective value judgement and possibly a claim to authority. If you don't want to answer a question that I ask because it makes you uncomfortable that's okay too. I'm not going to request that you go somewhere you would rather not be.

-- dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

The reality is that in order to implement Reb Zalman's vision of psycho-halachah as he lays it out in this book, you have to be on the level of a Rabbi, or a scholar, and you have to have spent time living according to the traditional way one follows halachah.

I think that is the starting point that psycho-halachah builds upon.

If you haven't lived in a way that is observant, and if you don't know the sources that a particular practice is based upon, haven't read the talmud, codes, shulchan aruch, then you would not be in a position to understand the intent hazal had for implementing that law and consequently you would not be able to implement the process.

Now that sounds like a process that most of us can't reach toward, but the fact is that our chachamim of this day and age, the ones who meet the specification I lay out above, need to be looking at cosmology and changes, need to be listening for God connections among klal yisroel, and one of the sources of practice is what observant communities (any flavor) are finding meaningful to them during this zeitgeist. So the practice of you and me and our communities may lead into our chachamim implementing psycho-halachah in a certain way because we are a reflection of the cosmology.

So it's not really a democratic process in the sense that we can restructure judaism. It's much more grounded in tradition than you would think.

Seth

 

[dauer]

Seth,

But whether or not it's grounded in halachah, it's still changing things based on a set of principles that are not encompassed by the traditional approach to halachah. As such I'm not sure what makes it any more valid than the pork's okay folks, which is not to say that I think it's invalid, but that I don't see what would make it a more valid approach. Of course, from my pov it would not be easy to demonstrate a difference as I see the philosophy of pork's okay as something that can also be determined by consensus, in that coming from a sociological and not a psycho-halachic perspective.

 

[rebzgabbai]

Seth,

But whether or not it's grounded in halachah, it's still changing things based on a set of principles that are not encompassed by the traditional approach to halachah.

I think that is debatable. A part of what he is talking about is the traditional approach to halachah debunked. The example that comes to mind is his explanation that halachah limoshe misinai really means consensus of the pious. I believe he is right and the people who told me it was mamash hashem speaking to moshe rabeinu are wrong.

As such I'm not sure what makes it any more valid than the pork's okay folks, which is not to say that I think it's invalid, but that I don't see what would make it a more valid approach.

This is assuming that the torah we have received is more valid than the pork's okay folks because they're making up something new, but this is built on something ancient.

Of course, from my pov it would not be easy to demonstrate a difference as I see the philosophy of pork's okay as something that can also be determined by consensus, in that coming from a sociological and not a psycho-halachic perspective.

This is not about whether a practice is valid or not, or moral or not, or good for the world or not. It is about whether it is kosher, which means Jewish and which means in line with hazal as updated through the prism of paradigm shift. That's different than sociology.

 

[rebzgabbai]

There's another important point. If Jews get halachah right, i.e. if the practice shifts so that internationally, halachah is set in the way Zalman lays out in his book, then that will mean that the world over, Jews are totally in synch with paradigm shift. That's a vision of meshiach and God's ratzon will be totally aligned with humanity. It is a utopian vision.

Your view of God as identified with mimale kol almin doesn't reach to this point which is assuming that sovev kol almin is out there looking down for a partner. By bringing halachah into alignment the devekut between humanity and God becomes strong and that has all kinds of implications for our experience as living creatures as well as the planet and the cosmos. So it's not a question of developing some criteria for halachah which is better than the one of hazal and beyond. It is shining hazal through a prism of paradigm shift so that it comes out of the prism on the other side only slightly tweaked to keep continuity, yet aligned with paradigm shift. ken y'hi ratzon... Happy Hanukkah 8

 

[dauer]

Seth,

I think that is debatable. A part of what he is talking about is the traditional approach to halachah debunked. The example that comes to mind is his explanation that halachah limoshe misinai really means consensus of the pious. I believe he is right and the people who told me it was mamash hashem speaking to moshe rabeinu are wrong.

But you freely admit that this is only a part of it, and that it's still something which requires some faith that what he's doing is correct.

This is assuming that the torah we have received is more valid than the pork's okay folks because they're making up something new, but this is built on something ancient.

But I think if the assumption is that the Torah we have received is more valid then again it goes back to the difference between psycho-halachah and "pork's okay" as a matter of degree because both are a change to conventional halachah. I think you would argue that the change is in response to universal cosmological changes and okay, but I would argue that it's still change whether or not the human perspective of reality is changing, and I would argue that "pork's okay" also comes from a changed perspective.

This is not about whether a practice is valid or not, or moral or not, or good for the world or not. It is about whether it is kosher, which means Jewish and which means in line with hazal as updated through the prism of paradigm shift. That's different than sociology.

I don't see Judaism as defined in that way so much as defined by more universally applicable standards for what defines communities. For example, I don't think the mishna is particularly Jewish (by your definition) when understood in terms of biblical religion, but because eventually a consensus held that it was, it became Jewish. In the same way I think Judaism could potentially be redefined such that "pork's okay" is completely Jewish and in some places it is being redefined that way. Now whether some folks would get left behind in that shift, that's a possibility. Certainly have been sects that got left behind before like the Sadduccees.

Your view of God as identified with mimale kol almin doesn't reach to this point which is assuming that sovev kol almin is out there looking down for a partner.

I see G!d as looking for a partner, but I see that seeking G!d as a psychological construct, as with all faces of the Divine. In my case I don't really think we can grapple with the world around us without that subjective filter. In interacting with the world I think we're very deeply interacting with ourselves. So from that perspective it's possible for sovev kol almin to actually refer to G!d in those deep places of my psyche that my consciousness cannot usually reach, the ones Jung might suggest are offering teleological redirection. I think it's a bit like the metaphor Art Green suggests we use alongside the one of high places and mountains, that of the well in which we go deeper and deeper. He does not mean these are two different journeys, but one and the same understood from different perspectives.

...It is shining hazal through a prism of paradigm shift so that it comes out of the prism on the other side only slightly tweaked to keep continuity, yet aligned with paradigm shift.

From my perspective, the tweak is more than slight, and regardless of what the change is in response to and how it is done, it is still a change that comes from man. It's not that I think psycho-halachah is a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. But this is the type of language that I see as obfuscating the root of what is happening by placing it in almost mythical terms. I think it's a nice way to frame the changes happening in terms of meaning, purpose and relevance but I think that, when trying to speak clearly about what is happening it's best to avoid that type of grandiose mythos.

--Dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

Okay chaver. It looks like we still have some dialogue going here.

1) You say that you think the tweak of halachah through psycho-halachah is more than slight, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. My take about the book is that when Reb Zalman identifies changes to halachah, it is because he is sharing something personal on his part to illustrate the process. This book doesn't actually make any proposals to change anything. It is just pointing to what a healthy process would look like.

2) Thank you for sharing the Art Green suggestion. That's very beautify. So you are showing that sovev and mimale are echad. Very nice! They talk about the five levels of soul and so our nefesh, ruach, neshama are also part of chaye and yechida. So if you can tap into that then the world will give you back something that looks like G!d too.

3) The person who defines what is kosher and what is not kosher will be someone Jewish, (I hope). That definition is a big part of what it is to be a Jew. I am talking about a Jewish soul and what Reb Zalman calls the JQ, the Jewish Quotient, in the book. Jewish communities is something different. Reb Zalman contrasts his vision from the one of Mordechai Kaplan in terms of Kaplan's leaving out trans-personal psychology, trans-personal sociology as being essential to Jewish civilization. Zalman's saying it is essential for Halachah and the chiyu of Judaism. If God is taken out of the mix, then the “Jewish” community that has done this is not creating something that will live over eons (my interpretation of Zalman). It may live for a few generations, but it won’t last without the God-component (that’s what I mean by trans-personal).

4) I don’t believe that this book is someone looking at halachah and saying it has to change because it isn’t relevant. I believe it’s something else. I believe it is saying the following:
a) All halachah has a purpose vis-à-vis us and God.
b) Halachah has changed over time according to a process.
c) There hasn’t been much written about that process. It’s been pretty mysterious. I (Reb Zalman) am going to describe it for you.
d) The process is broken for a lot of Jews, and here’s why we’re allowed to fix it and also how to fix it.
He doesn’t really get into changing anything and he doesn’t change anything. He gives us a process. And further, I would say that even the process he didn’t make up. He observed it.

So I see this book more as a scientific description of an observed phenomenon, than as a theoretical proposal of a new process.

5) The difference between thes "pork's okay" example and a legitimate psycho-halacha one is that one is connecting (or trying to connect) to hazal, and the other does not. (Unless you can explain to me the deconstruction of some mitzvah that led you to eat pork.) What mitzvah is pork replacing? How is eating pork giving a God-connection?

6) I'd say that Psycho-halachah is definitely starting with the assumption that anything codified in the body of halachah at one point in time was holy for our ancestors and Psycho-halachah tries to understand this codification that was made at one point. That it was seen as holy is definitely an assumption. It’s based on saying that this will be honoring God and honoring Israel both of which are embedded into what’s come to us as halachah.

7) When someone tells me its halachah limoshe misinai, I now think that at some point in time, the "pious" of some particular generation adopted a practice which was then made official.
When it became official, it became halachah limoshe misinai.
If I’m going to implement this process, then because of the previous generation’s adoption of the practice (or to say the same thing differently, because it is halachah limoshe misinai), I have to do something (according to psycho-halachah) before I do anything new, and that’s what Zalman calls de-construction. That means that I need to understand the intent of why they adopted it.
Everything they adopted that is now halachah was done to increase God’s presence in the world. I need to understand how it did that. This will come from research and it will come from practice. I need to try to read up on everything I can find about this mitzvah and I need to imagine the times when it was codified and figure out why it was codified. If there’s a lot of interference in the mitzvah vis-à-vis the kind of God-connection it creates, then perhaps it requires adjusting.
Now I am able to create something which is true to their intent, and yet functions like it did at that time, but in the present. That’s an example of how new halachah might come about on a personal level. But the instantiation of the process itself isn't really dealt with much in this book. I would imagine Reb Zalman might talk about dream assemblies, and various new-agey kinds of modalities, and the internet, etc. I mean he really leaves the practical part about how this will change the world out of this book.

Kol Tuv
Shmuel Reuven (Seth)

 

[dauer]

Seth,

1. I think the process that he's suggesting is itself change as he admits in the book on page 42. He states very clearly that it's a reformatting of Judaism. On the same page, and continuing to the next, he talks about why the methods which worked in the previous paradigm don't work today. I think that's a very clear indication of change, if there is an old way and a new way.

3. I don't see any of that as particularly relevant to pork's okay guy. I don't think it makes sense to hold POG to psycho-halachic standards any more than it makes sense to hold psycho-halachah to normative halachah's standards. If psycho-halachah wants to root itself in Torah, great. The Christians did that too, and they also dabbled in syncretism and messianism.

4. Then why does page 43 say that the psakim of M'lamed l-ho'il don't really work and that we're "moving to an altogether different place... where we have to make radical choices and shifts..."? How can it be both a radical shift and getting at what halachah has always done?

a. That's a proposal but it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

c. I don't think it's necessarily true that Reb Zalman is correct either. I think a lot of people have historically projected their own ideas onto the past, and some have done it rather effectively. I think Reb Zalman may be doing the same what with talk of gaia hypothesis and transpersonal psych.

d. Again, they're claims but that doesn't make them correct.

I don't think it's a good idea to mix science and religion, and I don't see the book as particularly scientific. I do think he's making observations, but I don't think he's detached enough to call it scientific. I find the scientific language b'nei baruch couches its metaphysic in to be mildly offensive.

5. Firstly, it's not about me eating pork. I'm a vegan. It's a hypothetical. And as I said earlier I don't think it makes sense to hold POG to psycho-halachic standards. POG guy has different standards and to him the G!d connection may not be necessary. I've stated this at least once in my previous posts and I think I also stated that it's not about me, that it's a hypothetical.

6. I think some of the halachah that derives from the Tanach has more to do with biblical monarchic jurisprudence, for example all of these issues with forms of worship that aren't in line with what the monarchy's attempts to centralize power. I think some of the halachah that comes from hazal directly may also have been political, like creating a system of purity that challenged that of the kohanim.

7.

7) When someone tells me its halachah limoshe misinai, I now think that at some point in time, the "pious" of some particular generation adopted a practice which was then made official.
When it became official, it became halachah limoshe misinai.

Whether or not that was once the case, why should that matter for Judaism today which has evolved in a different direction? I don't understand why the origin is held to be more valid than what exists currently for you. Because it's more agreeable? There's an idea within Judaism that if something's older it's more correct, but I don't think that's necessarily true. And if it were, what then of trans-personal psych and gaia hypothesis?

If I’m going to implement this process, then because of the previous generation’s adoption of the practice (or to say the same thing differently, because it is halachah limoshe misinai), I have to do something (according to psycho-halachah) before I do anything new, and that’s what Zalman calls de-construction. That means that I need to understand the intent of why they adopted it.

What gives you the right to deconstruct? Because you perceive a change in human perspective that you then mythologize? In that case I have to tell you, there are some who hold the Rapture isn't far away. Armeggedon's around the corner. You can see all of these changes in the world and more and more people are believing this. So it must reflect an actual reality in the world.

Everything they adopted that is now halachah was done to increase God’s presence in the world. I need to understand how it did that. This will come from research and it will come from practice. I need to try to read up on everything I can find about this mitzvah and I need to imagine the times when it was codified and figure out why it was codified. If there’s a lot of interference in the mitzvah vis-à-vis the kind of God-connection it creates, then perhaps it requires adjusting.

What if you do the research and you still get it wrong? Do you believe that because you think you're connecting it to G!d that it won't be wrong or that, even if it is, G!d was a partner in that change?

I would imagine Reb Zalman might talk about dream assemblies, and various new-agey kinds of modalities, and the internet, etc. I mean he really leaves the practical part about how this will change the world out of this book.

What's Jewish about new-agey modalities and dream assemblies? What's Jewish about morphogenic fields (something that hasn't been scientifically proven) and taking gaia hypothesis to its mythical extreme?

If integral halachah is really the way things have always been done, why not just call it traditional halachah? Are you continuing our discussion to try and convince me that what you're saying is correct or because you're interested in mutual learning and the give-and-take of dialogue? I think we both have very divergent views of reality, the nature of religion, etc even as we share some of the same opinions about the value of certain ideologies. We are not in disagreement about whether there is value to psycho-halachah, only in whether or not it's new, whether or not it's change. I'm not sure how significant that really is. We're both rooting for the same team, as it were, but our methods are different.

--dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

We are not in disagreement about whether there is value to psycho-halachah, only in whether or not it's new, whether or not it's change. I'm not sure how significant that really is. We're both rooting for the same team, as it were, but our methods are different.
--dauer

I'd like to hear more about this. If we are both rooting for the same team, as it were, what is our common thread? I'm getting lost in what I see as our two main disagreements: 1) Whether our yerusha gets a higher priority than our experience. 2) Whether Reb Zalman's message is a departure from yiddishkeit as we know it or a continuation of a long-standing tradition.

Let's put these aside for a moment. What do you see as our agreement?

Seth

 

[dauer]

Seth,

I see our agreement being that Reb Zalman is a brilliant thinker and that psycho-halachah is a wonderful development that has the potential to have a very positive impact on klal yisrael. The disagreement re: psycho-halachah is only whether it's new or old. For me, I don't need it to be old for it to be okay with me. I do see a practice that I think should be maintained where even with what is new, there is an attempt to show that it's not really new and that it's all Torah. I think that's something that should be maintained as a mythical construct even as we might be aware that a particular innovation is adding something to the mix because it allows for some degree of continuity. I think that even POG is doing that to a degree because his Torah includes the more critical modern approaches. I don't find his answers satisfactory but I know that some people do. I don't think it would be fair to say that he shouldn't eat pork because it doesn't meet my personal standards. As a custom I don't see it as that important compared to some of the other things he might do well like Tikkun Olam according to the Reform drash. Maybe, even though he eats pork, he has a really nice shabbos.

On 1 I don't really think it's a matter of priority so much as integral halachah's lack of openness about the situation it's creating.

A good example of this is the need he emphasizes for hands-on experience in understanding the reasons for halachah. Since we're not the same people as our ancestors, I'm not sure our experiences in praxis are the same. I think what he's trying to do in part is to integrate more quadrants into integral halachah by saying something like: you've gotta try it out and see what it feels like, you've gotta look at what tradition says about it, you've gotta look at what the modern perspectives say about it, and then you can draw your conclusion (or if you don't like the modern perspectives so much leave that out, but the rest is essential (elevationism.)) But I think that what really ends up happening is the person does that and then 1-p becomes the judge of which is right about the intent. There are just more options to choose from, whether one might choose UL, LL, LR or UR. Reb Zalman might say that they're all true, and that's assuming that our understanding of what all of those quadrants looked like then is correct. I'm not willing to go that far. But if we go with that assumption that they're all true, then how can one focus on what the intent looked like in one of those quadrants and call it integral? To be truly integral wouldn't it be necessary to say "Well the individual's experience back then was x, and with that experience y was going on for them at a more external level, z was the shared experience of the collective and b was the structure of the collective" for each and every mitzvah being deconstructed?

I hope you follow that. I'm assuming, given the title of the book and Reb Zalman's involvement with Ken Wilber that you do. I'm not raising issues that I have with psycho-halachah, but issues that I have with claiming it's not new and with what I see as an elevation of individual experience in the interpretation of historical data.

-- dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

Hi Dauer:
I took a little break on this thread so I could step back. Hope you are well.

Regarding the Integral Aspect of it, you might be interested to learn that in the original Reb Zalman shiurim from which this material is drawn, there's no references to Integral Halachah or Ken Wilbur. I wasn't part of the final edit of the book or the change of the title from Psycho-halachah to Integral Halachah and I'm not familiar with Ken Wilbur. I know that some people didn't like Reb Zalman's term Psycho-halachah, though I'm not exactly sure why not. So there was a push to change it. However, I understand that Reb Zalman is still using the term Psycho-halachah.

That's not to say that there isn't harmony between the ideas because Reb Zalman was involved on the final edit, so I'm assuming it makes sense.

So I just read up about the quadrants you reference and it reminds me of a section that was from a Q&A after one of the lectures that wasn't in the book. Here's the excerpt. I think it might be interesting to you.

"Q. I’ve been trying to understand what you mean by psycho-halakhah."

Z.
"If it is merely halakhah, to say that this is the law and it does not have any impact on your psychological inner life, then it’s only halakhah, not psycho-halakhah. The way I want to deal with this is that it should have the transformative quality built in. That’s how I use the word psycho. All the other things -- if it doesn’t have a psychological impact, then it couldn’t be transformative.

"You may ask, 'On which level of psychology does psycho-Halakhah work?' So I say behaviorism is one level, depth psychology is another one, humanistic is another, transpersonal is another. But all the levels: That’s what I mean when I say 'psycho.' It’s a four-worlds thing. It brings us back to four world davvenen. That’s what I mean by it. And it’s a process. It also has the sense of process and one moves through it. It isn’t a static thing. And at the same time you can also talk about embodied- or ensouled-halakhah.

"All of these would be a good way of saying it. With, 'Embodied-halakhah,' one gets a different sense than just 'halakhah.' If one says, 'Ensouled-halakhah,' or, 'Engaged-halakhah,' all of these would work. That’s what I mean by psycho-halakhah."

I'm not sure if this is in line with Wilbur's quadrant or not, but it sounds similar. I'd be curious to hear your reaction to this.

I'm not raising issues that I have with psycho-halachah, but issues that I have with claiming it's not new and with what I see as an elevation of individual experience in the interpretation of historical data.

-- dauer

Regarding the whole issue of deconstruction, I have the sense that because of his scholarship, knowledge of philosophy, knowledge of language, intuition, understanding of people and souls, etc., that when Reb Zalman reads something from the past, he is really well-equiped to relate it to a living experience. So, for example, if I read Plato's Symposium, to an extent, there's a barrier between me and the characters because I'm not so good at personally relating to the people of that time, their life realities, their experience of being alive at that time, etc.

There was a tape I have somewhere called freeze-dried worship. Reb Zalman takes a psalm and describes the reality for King David in such terms that you feel that you are there, that you are King David experiencing his life and what goes into this psalm. The historical chasm is made small or becomes non-existent.

I get the feeling that Zalman is able to do that with halachah too. He doesn't say anything about how hard it is for the rest of us who might not have his training. I mean, I don't read gemara and know about the lives of every Reb so-and-so like a real talmud chocham would. So perhaps I can't do deconstruction like he can.

In shiur one of the second part of the book, he cautions the rabbis who might be interested in experimenting with halachah in any way to not raise experiments into changes to halachah for the community unless they have exercised a huge degree of care. There is a level of responsibility that comes into it when people move from personal experimentation to changing Jewish public policy and he surrounds the whole subject with an air of caution.

So I believe it is Reb Zalman's position that you, I and Pork's Okay Guy (POG) would all need to go through some kind of training before we would be eligible for making proposals to change Judaism; and this is no different than it has ever been. There's a big chunk of the material in this book specifically aimed at the people who will sit on the Beis Din of tomorrow. Reb Zalman isn't thinking of a "Renewal Community" Beis Din. He seems to be thinking of a mamash Beis Din in Israel.

I get this impression a lot from the book, but the example that comes to mind is when he cautions the Renewal community Rabbis (who were his audience in 1993 when the shiur was delivered) that if they don't handle the rules of conversion right, when their grandchildren want to marry the grandchildren of Orthodox Rabbis they will be creating a problem for their grandchildren. So he is envisioning a time when the division that seems so strong today evaporates, when Orthodox children are falling in love with Renewal children. And the issue is that anyone who changes halachah has a danger of becoming separate from Israel. So if one is a renewalist today and believes that patrilineal descent is kosher for a Jewish child, that is insufficient on the level of klal yisroel and that person will be creating a situation where they might end up on the outside. The same issue applies to circumcision, which is taken very seriously by Reb Zalman.

It's a complicated book. Yaasher koch'cha for opening this dialogue because it is very worthwhile. I agree with your comment that I'd like to see more voices join us.

Brachot,
Seth

 

[dauer]

Seth,

I'm not sure if this is in line with Wilbur's quadrant or not, but it sounds similar. I'd be curious to hear your reaction to this.

I don't think it is very much. Psychology is mostly dealing with UL which is the interior of the individual. Depth psychology and transpersonal psych are both the UL. I don't know much about humanism but from what I've read, if it's a phenomenological approach it's UL. Behaviorism gets into UR but that's not really touching LL and LR. And I'm not really talking about being integral in this moment but that, to be truly integral it would be getting to the root of the LL, LR, UL and UR of the past. I think some folks have gone to great lengths to integrate all four quadrants in the present. Reb David Ingber is one example. And I think Reb Zalman is striving for that too, in the way for example that he wants people to get the body more involved in davennen. But I think in terms of relating to the past he's adding more options for how to interpret it. As someone who has compared Ken Wilber to Aristotle, I think it's a worthy task to understand Reb Zalman in terms of Wilberian integral philosophy.

Regarding the whole issue of deconstruction, I have the sense that because of his scholarship, knowledge of philosophy, knowledge of language, intuition, understanding of people and souls, etc., that when Reb Zalman reads something from the past, he is really well-equiped to relate it to a living experience. So, for example, if I read Plato's Symposium, to an extent, there's a barrier between me and the characters because I'm not so good at personally relating to the people of that time, their life realities, their experience of being alive at that time, etc.

And my issue with this is that, as a living tradition I see Judaism as something that has changed and grown throughout history. I see Judaism as alive because so many people have nurtured and cared for it, but in each time they had to care for it using the water and soil around them. Different soil has different minerals, different ph balances, depending on the surrounding area. Even if one does not move from a spot, there are still environmental changes that effect those things. I don't think the lived experiences of Judaism today are necessarily the same as the lived experiences the mekubalim had or the lived experiences Hazal had or the lived experiences the neviim had. I think that Reb Zalman is tending for Torah much in accordance with the changes of the past in that he is introducing new types of soil and water but in that there's still a departure from the past.

There was a tape I have somewhere called freeze-dried worship. Reb Zalman takes a psalm and describes the reality for King David in such terms that you feel that you are there, that you are King David experiencing his life and what goes into this psalm. The historical chasm is made small or becomes non-existent.

I've read or heard him doing something like that and it's lovely, but I think what that's touching on is still not necessarily reflective of historical reality. I don't think that because it "feels right" it means it is. There was a silly philosophy test I took yesterday that I shared in the Lounge here. While my results aren't perfect, perhaps they'll help you to understand why it's unlikely we come to much agreement beyond those things I've already pointed out our two views share:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/sublime-philosophical-crap-test-8474.html

To summarize it categorize me as an (in terms of metaphysics) idealist non-reductionist, (in terms of epistemology) an idealist skeptic and (in terms of ethics) a subjective relativist. Differences with the explanations of those terms at the link are:

I think it's possible phenomenal and ultimate reality (I do not refer to the ultimate reality of mysticism which I see as still phenomenal, perhaps the most intensely phenomenal in a sense) mirror each other but that, if that is the case, it is unverifiable anyway without turning to circular reasoning (i.e. our phenomenal reality is our ultimate reality which can be proven via our phenomenal reality because it's our ultimate reality.)

I don't feel that moral words are meaningless, just relative.

I don't think that what is right in a given situation is necessarily what a particularly group of people desire, at least not the group that is being acted within. Sometimes I think it can be quite good to stir the pot and create much that is not desired if it could lead to a beneficial change for the system being challenged. I think that, while ethics are relative, there are some values that are held pretty consistently, merely applied in different ways, throughout history that can be a good guide in whether or not something needs to change. I'm not sure those ideas are more valid, but due to the amount to which they come up I think there may be some evolutionary connection which would suggest to me that we have a certain drive to reach those values even as we may have other drives (e.g. survival, power) that are in competition (yetzer hara vs yetzer hatov.) I think certain other things can show that a system needs to change like hypocrisy. If the system is not logically consistent then I think it probably needs to change.

I get the feeling that Zalman is able to do that with halachah too. He doesn't say anything about how hard it is for the rest of us who might not have his training. I mean, I don't read gemara and know about the lives of every Reb so-and-so like a real talmud chocham would. So perhaps I can't do deconstruction like he can.

And here I disagree. I don't think that's necessarily true that he can. It's possible some of the time he does. It's also possible some of the time he's very wrong and people swallow it up anyway. With that risk, why take the chance (assuming that real change is a bad thing, which I don't but I think you are more sensitive to that)?

So I believe it is Reb Zalman's position that you, I and Pork's Okay Guy (POG) would all need to go through some kind of training before we would be eligible for making proposals to change Judaism; and this is no different than it has ever been. There's a big chunk of the material in this book specifically aimed at the people who will sit on the Beis Din of tomorrow. Reb Zalman isn't thinking of a "Renewal Community" Beis Din. He seems to be thinking of a mamash Beis Din in Israel.

Above emphasis mine. So you admit then that psycho-halachah is about changing Judaism?

I agree with your comment that I'd like to see more voices join us.

Well, there is one free-thinking traditionalist sefardic guy on this forum and a woman who recently joined that's heavily into Renewal-style syncretism so it's possible more people will. And if not here, I'm sure this is something that's getting discussed in other places, by other people, if not along quite the same lines. I think most people who invite change wouldn't bother, as I do, to argue in the direction I am. I see your position that this is not a change to Judaism as a bit of doublespeak and so I argue against it for the sake of precise, clear and direct language, especially when you so frequently slip up and refer to it as change anyway. That suggests to me that on some level you do accept that it's a change, just one which you personally validate, as do I.

--dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

As someone who has compared Ken Wilber to Aristotle, I think it's a worthy task to understand Reb Zalman in terms of Wilberian integral philosophy.

I don't want to do a Wilber analysis of this book because I think we need to first be sure we understand the book and each other's ideas. In my opinion, that's where we're at at this point.
I'm not really familiar with Wilber, except that after some of Reb Zalman's appearances on his site I was in some discussions (I seem to recall something about Reb Zalman talking of the role of shadow in the process of enlightenment was of interest to those folks.)
In any event, I suggest we focus on clarity and understanding and if Wilber will help, that's okay. But I am not fluent in his ideas.
I just did a search of my hard drive which has all the transcriptions of Reb Zalman's original shiurim that went into this book and and the word "integral" doesn't show up at all; nor Wilber.
I will say that Zalman was very influenced by Rupert Sheldrake's ideas when he formulated this lecture and he sees a similarity between biological evolution and the evolution of halachah.

And my issue with this is that, as a living tradition I see Judaism as something that has changed and grown throughout history. ....I think that Reb Zalman is tending for Torah much in accordance with the changes of the past in that he is introducing new types of soil and water but in that there's still a departure from the past.

I was very influenced by an intellectual history class I took in college and I have always liked looking at history as a development. Perhaps this is not something we share. When Reb Zalman tells the story of his first meeting with the late Reb Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch a'h in 1940, it seems that he and the prior Rebbe, Yosef Yitzchak a'h looked at history in the same way Reb Zalman came to; in terms of epochs and development periods. A lot of Reb Zalman's paradigm shift work grew from the lubavitchers. So it's a way of looking at large scales of time and I think it has merit to look in this way. I think a lot of Reb Zalman's work needs to be looked at from an intellectual history perspective; that's the place where he lives and thinks, I believe. So I'd say a Judaism of the Age of Aquarius is where he serves as a mid-wife.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/sublime-philosophical-crap-test-8474.html

Started the test and was amused but I wasn't able to choose when it came to what is truth. It was asking me to make choices which are different depending on which world you are in. Beriah is about true/false, but Yetzirah is about Good/Evil. Assiyah is about usefulness and effectiveness and Atzilut, unity. I remember really liking Reb Nachmann's torah of the void which talks about which philosophical questions should be avoided if you are looking for devekut; some of them will take you in the direction away from devekut. Let me know if you want me to send you a copy of Reb Zalman's translation from yiddish.

To summarize it categorize me as ...

Though I didn't complete the survey, for me, Jung's idea, Maslow's ideas: I am very much into the idea of self-actualization as a holy process that we need to each be the best "I" we can be; not in a selfish way, but as a starting point towards a tikkun in the world. The personal work is really hard. Dealing with anger. Learning to listen, etc. You make interesting observations here. Have you ever thought of writing a book?

And here I disagree. I don't think that's necessarily true that he can. It's possible some of the time he does. It's also possible some of the time he's very wrong and people swallow it up anyway. With that risk, why take the chance (assuming that real change is a bad thing, which I don't but I think you are more sensitive to that)?

Here I hear an old mitnaged chasid dialogue. The mitnaged wants to say that in parshat vayeshev, yosef was immature; he was foolish. The chossid wants to say yosef was the rebbe and the people didn’t see it.
I started out my relationship like Rodger Kamenetz as a misnaged but being in Zalman’s presence over a number of years turned me into a chossid. Read the Baal Shem Tov and the misnaged if you have it. The chossid sees ayn sof when s/he looks at the Rebbe.

So you admit then that psycho-halachah is about changing Judaism?

The book Integral halachah is saying that the process of aligning halachah and cosmology is an eternal one and one that isn’t working at the moment. So for me, it’s about fixing an existing process; not so much a new process. Yes. Halachah changes over time. I never said it didn’t. The book talks about how to change halachah in such a way that it remains Judaism and that it becomes more relevant, more connected to what we experience in this Age vis-a-vis God.

I see your position that this is not a change to Judaism as a bit of doublespeak

Please don’t accuse me of doublespeak. You can accuse me of being unclear or of being confused. Doublespeak I understand as a deliberate attempt to confuse or promote or propagandize, neither of which apply here. I am learning by discussing like in any chevruta.

B'shalom
Seth

 

[dauer]

Seth,

I think we need to first be sure we understand the book and each other's ideas. In my opinion, that's where we're at at this point.

I think I understand you pretty well and simply disagree. I also think I understand the book and just happen to disagree about why it might be important, why it might be considered valid. I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Truth and the nature of reality that leads us to frame that which we find of value differently.

I was very influenced by an intellectual history class I took in college and I have always liked looking at history as a development. Perhaps this is not something we share. When Reb Zalman tells the story of his first meeting with the late Reb Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch a'h in 1940, it seems that he and the prior Rebbe, Yosef Yitzchak a'h looked at history in the same way Reb Zalman came to; in terms of epochs and development periods. A lot of Reb Zalman's paradigm shift work grew from the lubavitchers. So it's a way of looking at large scales of time and I think it has merit to look in this way. I think a lot of Reb Zalman's work needs to be looked at from an intellectual history perspective; that's the place where he lives and thinks, I believe. So I'd say a Judaism of the Age of Aquarius is where he serves as a mid-wife.

I think a lot of that comes from forcing generalizations and patterns onto history, understanding via deduction to prove a hypothesis rather than via induction to see what the available data suggests. I do see humanity as moving forward but I think that a better way of understanding it is a constant shifting between ages of intense conservatism and ages of great progression, both of which can become problematically fundamentalist. I think it's a sort of social homeostasis.

The world today is generally not in a progressive state but it seems that many of those who are progressive now have a habit of making triumphalist claims about their alignment with metaphysical theory. Hopefully either the spiritual progressives are correct or it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy but I don't think that will be clear for many years.

Started the test and was amused but I wasn't able to choose when it came to what is truth.

I didn't mean that you should take it, just that reading my results might help you to understand why a fundamental disagreement will likely remain between us.

I remember really liking Reb Nachmann's torah of the void which talks about which philosophical questions should be avoided if you are looking for devekut; some of them will take you in the direction away from devekut.

Yeah, Reb Nachman had a tough time with the ideas that came from the haskalah, though he also seemed to have some appreciation of them on some level. As Art Green explained it, if I'm recalling correctly, for those hasidim who were closest to him he would maintain a very careful balance of doubt and faith.

Let me know if you want me to send you a copy of Reb Zalman's translation from yiddish.

I don't think it's advisable to avoid any philosophical question and I think that the larger issue is letting that philosophical inquiry lead to a devaluing of one's own subjective experiences. I think it's possible to seriously question whether we can know anything at all while still maintaining personal truths based on subjective experiences. However I would very much appreciate a copy of the translation. Reb Nachman of Breslov was a brilliant man and probably all the more so because of his psychological makeup. Thank you again for sharing some texts with me. It's very kind of you.

Though I didn't complete the survey, for me, Jung's idea, Maslow's ideas: I am very much into the idea of self-actualization as a holy process that we need to each be the best "I" we can be; not in a selfish way, but as a starting point towards a tikkun in the world. The personal work is really hard. Dealing with anger. Learning to listen, etc.

I think the process of self-actualization is a very worthwhile and holy task as well.

You make interesting observations here. Have you ever thought of writing a book?

I don't think I'd consider it until I have some letters next to my name and am a bit more well versed. My interests tend to be quite acute and my knowledge of things outside my interests is not as great. At this time I don't yet have my bachelor's. My current plans are to get back to Hebrew College and continue to pursue my BAJS and from there possibly go on to rabbinical school. I wouldn't want to stay in academia as a professor. I think the academic establishment often has a gartel around its neck and my own interests lie more in spiritual direction, radical theology and its application. I have a very strong fascination with the human psyche and like to learn psychological maps. My primary attraction to Jung is because of his teleology, but for the few months that I was very focused on him I learned a lot in general. His spiritually-inclined psychology was very complementary to my own way of approaching issues of religion and theology.

Here I hear an old mitnaged chasid dialogue. The mitnaged wants to say that in parshat vayeshev, yosef was immature; he was foolish. The chossid wants to say yosef was the rebbe and the people didn’t see it.
I started out my relationship like Rodger Kamenetz as a misnaged but being in Zalman’s presence over a number of years turned me into a chossid. Read the Baal Shem Tov and the misnaged if you have it. The chossid sees ayn sof when s/he looks at the Rebbe.

I think it depends what you mean by hasid vs mitnaged. Most people would put me in the hasidic camp and I'm frequently stereotyped along neo-hasidic as well as new age, renewal, hippy and JuBu lines despite my frequent favor for more traditional forms of praxis and my skepticism toward all metaphysics. However if by hasid you mean blindly accepting the ideas of an individual, I don't think it's likely I'll ever find myself in that camp as I don't think we can speak in terms of absolute Truth, only likelihood, and I tend to be one to say, "We'll know when it happens." That's why I don't believe in the afterlife or the messiah, however much those concepts may be a part of my own subjective experience of reality. Now, acting along certain lines is a different matter, as I said before, and I place my vote with what I think is best as likely everyone does.

I think you keep seeing my questions like, "With that risk, why take the chance?" and disregarding my other statements that I do take that chance. It's not about whether or not this is something I consider worth investing in. It's about what I perceive as a lack of verifiability for claims to Truth. I don't think because something feels good or sounds good or is optimistic that it is then by definition more true. I'm a realist first, optimist second.

The book Integral halachah is saying that the process of aligning halachah and cosmology is an eternal one and one that isn’t working at the moment. So for me, it’s about fixing an existing process; not so much a new process. Yes. Halachah changes over time. I never said it didn’t.

This is why early on I said I think between you and I it's very much an issue of semantics. The meaning of words is relative. To me if something isn't working and you add some new stuff to the mix and let go of some other things it's a change and calling it a fix and not a change is an obfuscation. I think the word fix is more of a value judgement than change which is a less invested word. In a Jewish context sometimes the word change can take on a negative connotation but I think that's something that needs to be transcended. Change is neutral. Specific changes may take on positive or negative attributes based on the associations of the community that's defining what is good and what is not good.

edited to add: On re-reading, I think even saying that something is broken is a value judgement and that it would be better phrased less absolutely. For some people it's working great, and that goes for people on both sides of the spectrum.

The book talks about how to change halachah in such a way that it remains Judaism and that it becomes more relevant, more connected to what we experience in this Age vis-a-vis God.

I think it's more accurate to speak of multiple Judaisms that fall under the larger umbrella of Judaism and that frequently different Judaisms have a different way of understand what is Jewish and what it means to be a Jew. I agree that "the book discusses changing halachah in such a way that it remains Judaism and that it becomes more relevant" and I never disputed that.

Please don’t accuse me of doublespeak. You can accuse me of being unclear or of being confused. Doublespeak I understand as a deliberate attempt to confuse or promote or propagandize, neither of which apply here. I am learning by discussing like in any chevruta.

My apologies. I did not mean to imply that it is deliberate although I do not think it's necessarily that you're confused or unclear. I don't think you're confused at all, but rather very certain about what you believe to be correct. I am of the opinion, first and foremost, that we could not verify Truth even if we had it because our relationship to the world is a subjective one. We are finite beings and our experience of reality is therefore finite. I do think we can speak in terms of likelihood but I think that in doing so we're frequently speaking only of what seems more likely to us based on our own subjective interpretation of experience. For someone else something else will seem more likely.

-- dauer

 

[dauer]

If this bumps to another page, please see the previous one for my original post.

Seth,

Thanks for the text. I read it over. What I see in it is an axiomatic assumption by Reb Nachman that his metaphysic is correct followed by a number of claims to authority and some polemic again the sciences. What I see also coming through in the text is Reb Nachman's inner conflict about the type of wisdom that the haskalah was bringing because, on the one hand, it could be applied positively in many spheres but, on the other hand, at that time it was being used to kill the mythical G!d to which Reb Nachman was so closely enamored. To me the important thing is not to kill the mythical G!d but to realize that He is a myth created in the image of man. I think that the realization one is engaging in myth both liberates the individual from a certain kind of absolutism and allows for a greater malleability in one's conceptualizations of the Divine.

-- dauer