Beit Binah Virtual Intentional Community, My New Project

[dauer]

mw,

I know people who use Second Life with vista. The only issue I've heard with it is making sure all your drivers are up to date. I also met a hareidi woman recently who at first was going to make her own clothes for modesty (and she still probably will design her own line of modest clothing in Second Life) but until she's got that going my girlfriend was able to direct her to some clothing that is both modest and looks nice. I think at al-andalus they have a free outfit that adheres to Muslim rules for modesty.


bb,

I was telling some people that at the exhibit. xD I find the whole concept of the dreaming extremely fascinating. They may be the only culture in the world that lives within an entirely mystical worldview. I think I'm going to have to find a book that goes into a bit more depth on them. Someone suggested I read The Songlines by Bruce Chatwin which does look like a good book, but also like it's less to do with aboriginal thought and society than the title suggests.

The exhibit has sparked some nice conversations. There was a fairly conservative christian fellow who seemed to originally come to missionize. He said he didn't do interfaith. But when he, I and a friend of mine got to the exhibit we were able to discuss each of the artists and their artwork in a way that had nothing to do with the religious backgrounds of any of us.

Dauer

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by dauer

mw,

I know people who use Second Life with vista. The only issue I've heard with it is making sure all your drivers are up to date. I also met a hareidi woman recently who at first was going to make her own clothes for modesty (and she still probably will design her own line of modest clothing in Second Life) but until she's got that going my girlfriend was able to direct her to some clothing that is both modest and looks nice. I think at al-andalus they have a free outfit that adheres to Muslim rules for modesty.

Hi Dauer

I shall have another look, I downloaded all the sofware etc and after ages it said it couldn't run with Vista. My laptop is only 5 months old so the drivers should be up to date I think, will give it a go tomorrow and see how it goes.

Great to know about the clothing too, I wasn't too keen on the half naked look.

[pohaikawahine]

[quote=dauer;129154]mw,

aloha e dauer - here is a little quote about the song-cycle (of Australia) (or song lines) that you may find interesting "each section of the song-cycle belongs to a person; while the entire song-cycle belongs to the clain - thus in order for a song-cycle to achieve complete identity, it must be rendered by the entire group" and another regarding the bird songs of the haulapai (arizona tribe) "bird songs tell of the migration at the beginning of time. All tribes are seperated by language but united by song. "

This all makes me think of the 12 tribes and the regathering - when we become whole again, in the meantime we each carry our little piece of the song-cycle.....just a thought that came to mind as I was typing ....

I loved the art - so beautiful .... aloha nui, poh

[dauer]

Thanks Poh. I knew the ownership aspect as regards the individual, but I wasn't aware of the larger tribal element. That's very cool. I like the sense that, while there's much we can accomplish individually, we can accomplish the most together.

[Raksha]

On this board I've said on a number of occasions that I'm an agnostic pan/panentheist and don't draw so much distinction between pantheism and panentheism, both theistic forms of monism.

Dauer,

You sound a lot like me, except that I've never used the words atheist or agnostic to describe myself. But monist and/or pantheist or panentheist (can't be sure about this one), definitely. I hope your community is cutting-edge Renewal, because that's pretty much where I'm at. I'm a diehard eclectic syncretist, my main influences being Judaism (my birth religion), Gnosticism and more recently Neopaganism.

I'm going to return to this topic tomorrow when I can read it more carefully and also check out some of the links you posted.

Shalom,
Linda

[dauer]

Hey Raksha,

Welcome to the forums.

When I say agnostic it's in part because of the ambiguity of the word G!d. If I can redefine G!d then there is no question for me, but at that point it's not about belief either. At the very least I could say that G!d is a psychological construct, or multiple constructs, and that must be true because of subjective experience. I could define G!d as everything that is and, well, everything that is, is. So that's not really debatable either. When paired together, the two definitions allow for a personal and a universal G!d. But because of the ambiguity in definition I don't think it's often expedient to say I believe in G!d. To a lot of people that inculcates a belief in myth. While I like to work with myth on a personal and experiential level, I see it as ahistorical and fallible. I tend to understand what makes something sacred from a more sociological perspective. Something is sacred to a group of people because that people hold it to be so. It is a shared subjective understanding or a communally assigned meaning that becomes real for the community.

When you review the thread later you'll probably end up coming across this, but Beit Binah ended up closing in part due to lack of active participation and also because a person who I'd been working with closely that had the web domain and land in his name left Second Life without warning or notice. Right now I'm involved with another Jewish area in SL called Ir Shalom.

I would say that Beit Binah was very trans-denominational with a mystical bent, but I would not call it Renewal or at least I did my best to avoid that association to allow for more people becoming involved. However, as the person who was drafting all of the literature and who came up with the idea, it definitely took some Renewal flavor from me. I used to host ecumenical meditation sits in Second Life six days a week for 20 minutes and the time I spent as an intern at Elat Chayyim one summer had a huge influence on the direction I wanted to take with Beit Binah.

Currently at Ir Shalom I've been helping a bit with ideas for future events and helping a little with recent events. I've written up some notecards on Judaism that will eventually be going up in the welcome center, recently have been saying the brachot for chanukah candle lighting each night over voice in the Hebrew and the translation from Kol HaNeshamah (we've had as many as 32 people at a lighting), and have been working with the other volunteer staff there on ideas for upcoming holidays.

--dauer

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by dauer

On this board I've said on a number of occasions that I'm an agnostic pan/panentheist and don't draw so much distinction between pantheism and panentheism, both theistic forms of monism.

i don't think a lot of people can tell the difference between pantheism and panentheism - that's why the mitnagdim didn't get on with the early hasidim because they thought panentheism was too close to pantheism which, of course, made them think of spinoza. it was a battle of labels rather than ideas, which was, of course, a shame.

as for being agnostic, i always feel from reading your points that that's a point of principle with you because you feel it is so dangerous to be certain about things, which i have a lot of sympathy with and respect for your position, because it is so principled. i just don't think it's an easy one to understand or explain and certainly not one that translates well as a group identification. but then again, you are an elitist, not that i think that's a bad thing, but only in the sense that you demand a higher standard of humility from yourself than others, which for me is a true mark of hasiduth. of course, you will probably turn round to me now and say i have completely misunderstood you!

Originally Posted by Raksha

I hope your community is cutting-edge Renewal, because that's pretty much where I'm at. I'm a diehard eclectic syncretist, my main influences being Judaism (my birth religion), Gnosticism and more recently Neopaganism.

as i understand it (which i might not) cutting-edge renewal might look syncretist, but there are certain irreducible fundamentals which it doesn't violate, such as the idea of limits and the core of monotheism. it is always possible to learn from other belief systems without feeling you have to copy them. i'm interested to hear more about where you're coming from and how you got there.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

BB,

of course, you will probably turn round to me now and say i have completely misunderstood you!

You know me well enough to say that! xD

I think the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is difficult as well, which is why I tend to say pan/panentheism. If there's something that's everything and then some, then "and then some" would seem to me to be an extension of everything. Maybe it's just a bit too subtle for me. I like my metaphysics straightforward. When I think panentheism I guess what I mean is, "Even if we knew everything about the world there would still be some things we don't know about G!d even if all that exists is G!d." The description of different dimensions that makes use of theoretical 2-dimensional beings to describe our relationship to greater dimensions than 3 comes to mind or as I might more regularly say, as finite beings our experience is by definition limited, one thing that ties into my agnosticism.

For me agnosticism isn't just a point of principle. It's more a matter of keeping both my thoughts and my feelings satisfied. Feeling there's no question about G!d. But thinking it just doesn't seem very logical to me. If I said "Yeah, there's a G!d and I believe in that G!d" I wouldn't be as content with my worldview as I am saying what I do now. If there's anything I actually believe in, it's that I don't know what Truth is and, even if I do, I can't verify it without going into subjectivity. G!d as a part of my experience, real. No argument there. But G!d as a universal I just have to throw my hands up and say "I don't know." I think it's just as likely that the voices inside a schyzophrenic's head have a manifest existence outside of their mind. I truly don't see a difference between spiritual experience and certain types of psychiatric disorders. I think the major issue is whether the effect on a person's life is positive or negative. If it's positive, whether or not it's true at least it's beneficial. If it's negative, gotta do something about it. And I think that applies to some of those who believe in G!d as well. So...

Is G!d real? Yes.

Is G!d Truth? I don't know.

Do I experience G!d? Yes.

Do I believe in G!d? No.

I rather like my two-fold definition of G!d as both everything that is and a psychological construct, however neither of those things require belief. I experience the world (everything that is) via my brain's filtration of my experiences in terms of my inner world of symbols and associations.

I don't really think I'm an elitist. My personal theology is pretty localized. I'm happy that there are those who believe and those who disbelieve in G!d. For myself, neither makes much sense. Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by elitist.

I don't really think it's dangerous to be certain, no more dangerous than being uncertain. I think it depends what ingredients you throw into the mix. For example, if someone's uncertain about ethics then they might do something terrible. If someone's certain about ethics they might also do something terrible. I'm certain about my personal ethics as I also am about my experiences. What I remain uncertain about is the universals. I would actually insist that, living in the world, certainty is very important. It's when dealing with abstracts that I find it much more difficult to draw satisfactory conclusions.

My personal philosophy does include certain axiomatic assumptions e.g.:

perception is not verifiably synonymous with Truth

nor, for that reason, can our subjective experiences adequately verify what is True.

Just because something can be reduced to what seem like demonstrable and universally shared experiences of reality, it does not mean that those demonstrable shared experiences are all that is (my issue with much of reductionism and materialism) or can be taken as literal Truths about reality (my issue with literalism in exeriences of unio mystica) and, given

the limited nature of finite existence

it's quite likely there's more to the world than what we can perceive.

The more perspectives of reality a particular position can integrate the more likely it is to contain a greater degree of Truth.

Personal truths (what is real) need not agree with Truth (what really is) which, as something unverifiable and out of reach is in my experience not worth wasting one's time and effort on.

Despite Truth being unverifiable it is still possible to speak in terms of likelihoods.

I'm pretty sure there's more than that but I think what I said gives a pretty good idea. I should try compiling my thoughts on this subject somewhere that I can review it at a later time and see how my perspective on reality has evolved, then maybe someday if I get some letters next to my name I can write a book that everyone else will disagree with. xD


There are some syncretic forms of Judaism that aren't entirely monotheistic such as Jewitchery which may say "No G!ds before me" means put Hashem first and then after that it's okay to have some other deities.

--Dauer

edit: Just wanted to add one thing. I think a lot of liberal believers are at least somewhat agnostic and that refusing that label despite the fact that they doubt G!d is somewhat inaccurate. Maybe calling myself agnostic on top of the other labels is, if anything, an issue of accuracy.

[Raksha]

...as for being agnostic, i always feel from reading your points that that's a point of principle with you because you feel it is so dangerous to be certain about things, which i have a lot of sympathy with and respect for your position, because it is so principled. i just don't think it's an easy one to understand or explain and certainly not one that translates well as a group identification.

bananabrain,

Well, I certainly don't know Dauer very well at this point, but I get the feeling he calls himself an agnostic as a precaution against idolatry. It's all too easy to go from asserting that you "believe" in God, to defining what you think God actually IS, and from there forgotting that your definition is in fact your own human-created concept of God. And then you assert that this fabricated concept actually *IS* God, and you have the whole lowdown, and everybody else better agree with you or else they are just a bunch of deluded heretics. We've all seen it happen over and over again in those "other" religions, and we've seen the intolerance that results.

Dauer can (and I'm sure will) correct me if I'm wrong about his motivation, but if it's something like what I described I can definitely see his point. I just have never felt any need or desire to call myself an agnostic. You've probably noticed that I don't hyphenate the word "God." I come from a Reform background and I wasn't brought up to do that. I don't mind if you or Dauer or anyone else does it--as long as you don't mind that I DON'T!

--Linda

[Raksha]

I used to host ecumenical meditation sits in Second Life six days a week for 20 minutes and the time I spent as an intern at Elat Chayyim one summer had a huge influence on the direction I wanted to take with Beit Binah.

Dauer,

What is Elat Chayyim? That sounds like it means "Goddess of Life." I have never seen the word Elat used anywhere except in the name of the city of Eilat. I know it isn't used in the Bible. Could you elaborate on this?

--Linda

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by dauer

If there's something that's everything and then some, then "and then some" would seem to me to be an extension of everything. Maybe it's just a bit too subtle for me. I like my metaphysics straightforward.

so i see - but i like mine subtle and supportive of paradox, with one fundamental equation:

One Is Infinite Is All Is Truth

obviously, this is an axiom and, as such, not objectively verifiable. i notice you say you're not sure G!D Is Truth, but that's entirely understandable, because we both agree that Truth is not something that is within the purview of human experience. the best we can ever do is *relative* truth (ie with a small "t") because everything we know is axiom-based reasoning. it's a so-far insoluble problem of the philosophy of mind. hence i would completely concur with the following:

"Even if we knew everything about the world there would still be some things we don't know about G!d even if all that exists is G!d."

now:

For me agnosticism isn't just a point of principle. It's more a matter of keeping both my thoughts and my feelings satisfied.

yes, but what that actually means is that it's a necessary check and balance within your mental and spiritual map of the cosmos, if i understand you correctly.

I think it's just as likely that the voices inside a schyzophrenic's head have a manifest existence outside of their mind.

only insofar as everything exists somewhere in the multiverse or mind of G!D or whatever you call it. i think one can, however, certainly say that despite these restrictions on categorical statements, some things are certainly less true than others, like bertrand russell's orbiting teapot. where some are in error is that assuming that all non-scientifically-observable phenomena are consequently "flying spaghetti monsters".

I think the major issue is whether the effect on a person's life is positive or negative. If it's positive, whether or not it's true at least it's beneficial. If it's negative, gotta do something about it.

ok, but the problem there is that positivity and negativity are actually interpretative judgements made upon a neutral data set. something may be positive for me whilst being negative for you. that's the meaning of "da'ath tob we-r'a" - da'ath connoting "mixture" as well as knowledge; therefore post-edenic existence is one in which good and evil are mixed (the basis of the shevirat ha-qelim) and have to be separated, as it were, by manual tiqqun.

I rather like my two-fold definition of G!d as both everything that is and a psychological construct, however neither of those things require belief.

as terry pratchett's granny weatherwax would put it, there's no point believing in things that are real; it's like believing in the postman - and in the case of gods, it only encourages them.

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by elitist.

what i probably mean in this context is that you subject yourself to a far more stringent standard of self-doubt than most; in this you are lifnim min-shurat ha-din and that, of course, is an elitist thing to be!

I don't really think it's dangerous to be certain, no more dangerous than being uncertain.

gosh, i do!

I'm certain about my personal ethics as I also am about my experiences.

i wish i was.

It's when dealing with abstracts that I find it much more difficult to draw satisfactory conclusions.

that's because they're abstract!

I think a lot of liberal believers are at least somewhat agnostic and that refusing that label despite the fact that they doubt G!d is somewhat inaccurate. Maybe calling myself agnostic on top of the other labels is, if anything, an issue of accuracy.

hah, that could be due to the elastic nature of that particular label.

There are some syncretic forms of Judaism that aren't entirely monotheistic such as Jewitchery which may say "No G!ds before me" means put Hashem first and then after that it's okay to have some other deities.

yes, but actually that's technically known as henotheism and it's the classical heresy of the first Temple period, which is why i have tended in the past to end up having a problem with that sort of jewitchery after a period of engagement and dialogue. i've generally found it to be a rather ill-considered mishmash of gardnerian wicca, undigested archaeology and mystical feminism, which results in a sort of "woo-woo" (as mrs bb puts it) replacement of the Big Beard In The Sky with the Big Tits In The Earth. essentially, it tends to result in a sort of fundamentalist religious revisionism with very little basis in historical fact and quite a lot of ignorance of the content of what it is they end up holding up as the Rise Of The Patriarchal Beards Of Oppression. basically they appear to be angry with religion and men and find it convenient to conflate the two. fortunately, by no means everyone thinks this way.

Originally Posted by Raksha

your definition is in fact your own human-created concept of God. And then you assert that this fabricated concept actually *IS* God, and you have the whole lowdown, and everybody else better agree with you or else they are just a bunch of deluded heretics. We've all seen it happen over and over again in those "other" religions, and we've seen the intolerance that results.

i don't think the concept is necessarily human created, but the linguistic interface is, which can cause endless problems of what the muslims call "shirk", which is essentially confusing the messenger with the king, as it were. it's like thanking the postman for the content of the letter. the fabricated concept may not be G!D, but it certainly may be the most reliable, tried and tested method of interfacing with the Divine; that's kind of why i ended up a traditionalist.

You've probably noticed that I don't hyphenate the word "God." I come from a Reform background and I wasn't brought up to do that. I don't mind if you or Dauer or anyone else does it--as long as you don't mind that I DON'T!

do what you like. i grew up in the reform myself, although i am traditional-mystical-mod-orthodox-with-a-dash-of-post-denominational-awkward-squad sephardi nowadays, but have long adopted this custom (which i picked up on my journey through the conservative/masorti hinterlands) as a means of indicating linguistically a concept that is essentially beyond language. heschel called it "radical amazement", which i rather like.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

Raksha,

what you suggested is a part of the issue, but not the whole thing. For example, I think words have relative meaning and that the word G!d has so many meanings which people will use at the same time in the same conversation that it's almost meaningless. For a person to say they believe in G!d almost doesn't mean anything until they've defined what G!d is for them. Once they've defined that for themselves I probably don't share their belief.

I come from a Reform household that attended a Conservative shul. My own addition of an exclamation to G!d is not because I think it must be done, but because I find treating the word thusly gives it a bit more significance in my mind and hints at the radical amazement within the mundane. If it seemed expedient to do so, I would spell out Yahweh rather than typing YHWH.

Elat Chayyim can mean mean G!dess of Life or Pistachio Tree of Life and a word that had that double meaning was intentionally used. It's a Jewish Retreat Center. Since I was there they've merged with another retreat center:

Elat Chayyim Center for Jewish Spirituality, Jewish Renewal, Jewish Singles, Jewish Retreats, Jewish Meditation

It's probably right up your alley.

BB,

the best we can ever do is *relative* truth (ie with a small "t") because everything we know is axiom-based reasoning.

I agree with this, but as such I don't think it's very valid to make Truth claims.

yes, but what that actually means is that it's a necessary check and balance within your mental and spiritual map of the cosmos, if i understand you correctly.

I would say not that agnosticism is the check and balance but that it's a label which fits the outcome of my checks and balances. I didn't someday decide to become agnostic. I realized that agnostic is a good descriptor for my lack of faith in the validity of universal Truth claims.

only insofar as everything exists somewhere in the multiverse or mind of G!D or whatever you call it. i think one can, however, certainly say that despite these restrictions on categorical statements, some things are certainly less true than others, like bertrand russell's orbiting teapot. where some are in error is that assuming that all non-scientifically-observable phenomena are consequently "flying spaghetti monsters".

Russel's teapot is based in physical space, so that is a case where we can speak of likelihood, but I think the flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as many other non-physical conceptions of deity and that lack of actual belief in said deity does not decrease likelihood.

ok, but the problem there is that positivity and negativity are actually interpretative judgements made upon a neutral data set. something may be positive for me whilst being negative for you. that's the meaning of "da'ath tob we-r'a" - da'ath connoting "mixture" as well as knowledge; therefore post-edenic existence is one in which good and evil are mixed (the basis of the shevirat ha-qelim) and have to be separated, as it were, by manual tiqqun.

Yes, I agree that issues of right and wrong are interpretive but I think we still can speak in terms of what is more likely. I was referring to cases where, for example, a person is violent and aggressive because of their particular belief due to either psychosis or religion. In either of those cases I think most people outside of their view would see them as wrong. I'm not certain the concept of right and wrong exists as a universal at all, but I think in some cases we can still speak of what's right and what's wrong by the majority of humanity.

as terry pratchett's granny weatherwax would put it, there's no point believing in things that are real; it's like believing in the postman - and in the case of gods, it only encourages them.

I don't understand the second half. Do you mean that saying that something claimed to be real to begin with assumes it's real? I don't think it's debatable that everything that really is is real, because everything that is isn't being defined in that statement. Everything that is could be a brain and the vat that contains it, it could be a particular religion's cosmology, it could be what the materialists call reality. As to the other part of my statement, that G!d is a psychological construct, I wouldn't say that it's True, only real which for me is synonymous with true. It's just as possible that G!d is a flying spaghetti monster or any other conceptualization. My only real claim regarding that would be I really don't think G!d can be less than a psychological construct because, at the very least, people do have experiences of Deity. They're either having an internal or external experience, but I don't see how it could be anything less than that or anything other than internal or external.

what i probably mean in this context is that you subject yourself to a far more stringent standard of self-doubt than most; in this you are lifnim min-shurat ha-din and that, of course, is an elitist thing to be!

Yes, I guess that's true. I don't think elitist fits that very well though. When it comes to other matters I'm probably less strict and it's not really a matter of choosing to pursue that route, but of embracing my natural inclination toward analysis and skepticism.

gosh, i do!

I think the issue is what one is certain or uncertain about, and I couldn't state so universally that either is good or bad. Being uncertain that the world will exist tomorrow could lead to panic and irrational behavior. Being certain it will exist would hopefully avoid that.

i wish i was.

I mean in the moment. I know my experience is happening as it happens. Whether or not my experience complies with an external reality is another issue. As ethics go and worldly decisions in general, once I've made a decision I tend not to second-guess myself. I don't think it's very helpful to do so unless new data has come up that necessitates reassessment. So, for example, sometimes I can be a little hesitant to leave my apartment. But once I make the decision to leave there's no question that leaving is what I will do. Perhaps some of it comes from being a fairly rule-based thinker despite my lack of reliance upon convention.

that's because they're abstract!

Yes, but I think most people are more willing to concretize the abstract in terms that they can relate to so that they have a sense that reality is solid, graspable, predictable. This goes for materialists as well.

hah, that could be due to the elastic nature of that particular label.

the elastic nature of agnostic or of liberal believer? If liberal believer than I fully agree. It seems to be a term of opposition rather than identity. Agnostic I think has a more fixed definition as neither belief nor disbelief in a Deity.

i don't think the concept is necessarily human created, but the linguistic interface is, which can cause endless problems of what the muslims call "shirk", which is essentially confusing the messenger with the king, as it were. it's like thanking the postman for the content of the letter. the fabricated concept may not be G!D, but it certainly may be the most reliable, tried and tested method of interfacing with the Divine; that's kind of why i ended up a traditionalist.

I agree with pretty much all of that except the personal statement about ending up a traditionalist (I'm not) in that either your suggestion or raksha's are possible. I think your position is actually a bit more open-minded in that you don't seem to be asserting what is or isn't but are instead speaking of what seems likely to you. I think this shows a bit how it's possible for someone very traditionalist to be less of a fundamentalist than someone who is much more liberal. I don't think it makes sense to correlate the two. However it's also possible that Raksha's language is less accurate regarding her own views. I don't know her well enough to say.

heschel called it "radical amazement", which i rather like.

jinks.

--dauer

[Raksha]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as i understand it (which i might not) cutting-edge renewal might look syncretist, but there are certain irreducible fundamentals which it doesn't violate, such as the idea of limits and the core of monotheism. it is always possible to learn from other belief systems without feeling you have to copy them. i'm interested to hear more about where you're coming from and how you got there.

b'shalom

bananabrain

BB,

I'm sorry I left your most recent post and Dauer's hanging for so long, although I did read them not long after you posted them. But "where I'm coming from and how I got here" is very much a loaded question for me, an open-ended question. It seems like the more I think about it, the harder it becomes to answer--and it's NOT like I haven't tried either! For the past two months it seems like I've been doing very little besides trying in endless e-mails to my long-suffering friends to explain where I'm coming from and how I got to be where I am now. This is complicated by the fact that "where I am now" is something that in itself has transformed radically over the past few months as a result of new knowledge about myself that I've been trying to assimilate.

That probably doesn't make any sense, so let's just say I've had a very, very challenging and difficult life, especially where Judaism is concerned. This has made me a very difficult person--in a number of ways but again, especially where Judaism is concerned. If you disapprove of my syncretism or if some people might consider me a heretic, all I can say is that you or they are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect it to mean anything to me, because the word "heretic" has lost even the power to make me angry.

For now, and until I can find a way to make this more concrete and specific, I can only say that I realized about 10 years ago that my Jewish heritage is MINE, to do with as I please. It has been bought and paid for with MY BLOOD and nobody else's...and therefore I own it free and clear! Nobody can ever lock me into it and nobody can ever lock me out of it either.

That's an absolute statement, of course, not subject to negotiation. But then you probably already figured that out.

--Linda

[Raksha]

Elat Chayyim can mean mean G!dess of Life or Pistachio Tree of Life and a word that had that double meaning was intentionally used. It's a Jewish Retreat Center. Since I was there they've merged with another retreat center:

Elat Chayyim Center for Jewish Spirituality, Jewish Renewal, Jewish Singles, Jewish Retreats, Jewish Meditation

It's probably right up your alley.

Dauer,

Thanks for the explanation and the link to the Elat Chayyam website. I explored the website for a few minutes right after you posted it, and you're right--it's very much right up my alley. Unfortunately, it's also out of my price range and...a lot of other things. In fact, I have to admit it made me a little bit sad to read the section about kohenet training, and even to read the word kohenet for possibly the first time in my life. Nobody has to translate that one for me.

It appears I was born just a little bit too soon, and also bitterly alienated too soon, to take advantage of such opportunities, which simply did not exist when I was growing up. I've been trying to avoid that fatalistic "too late" feeling because it's such a trap, but sometimes it just isn't possible. The fact remains that I'm an aging hippie, 61 years old, with only a year and a half of college education. It really *IS* too late for me and sometimes I just can't avoid knowing that.

I understand that my generation of malcontents who became JUBUs in such great numbers in 1960s and 1970s had to be every bit as dissatisfied with the status quo as they were to create the need for a Jewish Renewal movement. But the fact remains--and this is also inescapable--that I was the wrong KIND of malcontent. I was an underachiever and not part of the professional class, and therefore my defection didn't register at all on the Jewish community Richter scale. How were they supposed to know they had lost me when they barely knew I existed in the first place?

I was Jewish. I was poor. I was female. I had and still have a vocation. I also had and still have rather severe ADD, which was entirely unrecognized until four years ago, when I was 57 years old and already a widow. I took the paths that were open to me, but inevitably there were missed opportunities, or maybe I should say opportunities that existed for other people but not for me. I have to include those missed because of my own bitterness and resentment, which were every bit as inevitable under the circumstances.

I went through all that so that my daughter might become a priestess, and so that a world would exist in which it was possible for her to become a priestess. She has been an active member of Starhawk's neopagan group, Reclaiming, for over 10 years now, since she was about 18. That's how long she's been going to Witchcamp, the annual retreat in the redwoods in Menocino County, California. This past summer was my first experience at Witchcamp, the first spiritual retreat of any kind I've ever attended. It was one of the most incredible experiences I've ever had in my life, and hopefully I'll be able to get into more detail about it down the line.

There's a very strong Jewish presence in Reclaiming, and my daughter informs me they have been doing Shabbat services on Friday evenings at Witchcamp for long as she's been attending. Considering that Starhawk is also Jewish, that shouldn't come as any big surprise to anyone.

--Linda

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Raksha

I went through all that so that my daughter might become a priestess, and so that a world would exist in which it was possible for her to become a priestess. She has been an active member of Starhawk's neopagan group, Reclaiming, for over 10 years now, since she was about 18. That's how long she's been going to Witchcamp, the annual retreat in the redwoods in Menocino County, California. This past summer was my first experience at Witchcamp, the first spiritual retreat of any kind I've ever attended. It was one of the most incredible experiences I've ever had in my life, and hopefully I'll be able to get into more detail about it down the line.

There's a very strong Jewish presence in Reclaiming, and my daughter informs me they have been doing Shabbat services on Friday evenings at Witchcamp for long as she's been attending. Considering that Starhawk is also Jewish, that shouldn't come as any big surprise to anyone.

--Linda

Very nice. I have much respect for Starhawk. Her book Dreaming the Dark is an indespensible part of my education. It was one of the first books to turn me onto the idea of how emodying a radical spirituality can be a constant political action, part of our state of being. It opened doors and doors for me, and I continue to be wonderstruck at the avenues that I'm able to tred now, and the fascinating places they lead, and how so many of those paths are indeed spirals.