How the Psyscho-Halachic Process is Like Halachah

[rebzgabbai]

Originally Posted by dauer

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.

Originally Posted by dauer

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:

Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

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]

Originally Posted by dauer

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.

Originally Posted by dauer

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.

Originally Posted by dauer

Sublime Philosophical Crap Test

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.

Originally Posted by dauer

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?

Originally Posted by dauer

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.

Originally Posted by dauer

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.

Originally Posted by dauer

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