In Defense of Liberty

End of one chapter, start of another

2010-02-05T00:01:00Z

Next month this blog and Torah Echad will no longer be online and operational. The website for Libertarian King may still be around, but if so, will be redesigned.

This isn't a sad time; life has become busier and I'm focusing on working on a book project. So most of my writing will be directed towards those ends. That was partially why I've been less active with updating the websites. Also, financially I can no longer afford to pay for these sites (as I've been homeless and unable to support myself) and donations have been nil for quite some time. I had paid last March for the year in advance, otherwise I would've canceled these sites earlier. As such, I cannot afford to renew them next month.

While traffic on all sites is very good (all things considering), there has been very little activity and communication (comments, emails, etc). Given the lack of activity and support, I have no idea what people think or want. As such, it makes my decision easier since it's not like I'm removing something that people consistently rave about. While I know I've provided a valuable resource to people, it is just unfortunately not in high demand. Even still, traffic has surprised me and I'm happy to know of those people who have made comments, sent emails, or made donations in the past who have been helped and intrigued by the information here.

There's still time to help out if that's your wish. I'll also be looking into creating an archive of this blog and Torah Echad to post on the Libertarian King website. While that site will still cost me (even though I can use free/limited hosting), I will do my best to keep it for as long as possible until I get through and get myself back on my feet.

I feel truly privileged to have been able to share my questions and musings with all of you over the last 3, almost 4 years. Thanks for all your help and support.

It's not always the system, it's always about us

2010-01-14T22:17:00Z

Even though they know better, people often spend time working on a better system. The truth is that whatever system of government or institution we have, that we are ingenious and can spend time manipulating the system. That human element is both a sign of what is great and not-so-great about us as people. All governments, all institutions (private even) are susceptible and can fail us. As I've mentioned before, the farther removed from the people any institution is, the more people can slip through the cracks or become marginalized. The flip side is that the larger it is, the more resources it has. Unfortunately, its the allocation of those resources that is the weak link of the system.

The thing is that we all know these things. We can see them in our daily lives. The drama between friends, family, co-workers, and associates is not limited to the micro-level. At the macro-level there are all those micro-dramas, as well as the macro-dramas between institutions/states and within them. It's naive to believe that any institution is beyond this, but I must mention that many conservatives in the US blindly accept this dogmatic assertion...at least as far as their own goes (that is, they use selective thinking to remove that association from their group). This is the level where patriotism becomes almost the same sociologically speaking as fundamentalism in religion; it is not therefore unusual that the two groups are usually linked and one in the same.

If we want to create a better world, to love people, to help others, to do good in this life then it starts with each of us. It's not about perfecting a system or going back to one, it's not about ideas or intangible things that cannot be proven, and it's not about arguing or contributing to the drama in the world. Rather, it is about being a peacemaker. That starts with each of us and in our own homes. If there is manipulation, deceit, passive-aggression, anger, control, and many other states or behaviors within us and our circle, then we ask more of others than we ask of ourselves. The golden rule so common to religions "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or as in Jewish tradition, "do not do unto others as you would not like done unto you" comes into play here. In some senses we must have patience, respect, and mercy on others and on ourselves while also holding all of us accountable and to higher standards - not by judgment, condemnation, disrespect, or authoritarian means, but by encouraging, loving, disciplining (uplift, not castigation), helping, and believing in others - through goodness, peacefulness, kindness, rationally, emotionally supportive, and calmly.

Some of my Jewish friends and readers may suggest that the Torah has the ultimate system...but even within it we have seen how power corrupts and that we have fallen prey to the very dangers that the Torah asks us to work on. It's not the system my dear readers, it's about us...always. The system in itself, especially as an autocratic or authoritarian institution is not the manner by which the system operates. The engineers can devise and design an excellent system on paper, but it's the working parts that determine whether it operates and at what type of output and efficiency and efficacy. The system is nothing without us doing our part within it and not being weak links ourselves. So lets move forward one day at a time and achieve more inner peace, treat others better and with more kindness, and help others up and out through love. Let us try to make peace between people. And let us help others who suffer even if we disagree or think that withholding would lead to a better result...let us at least open our hearts wide enough to have compassion on those who need it, to befriend the lonely who may be too shy to ask, to give to the poor too humiliated to beg, to uplift the downtrodden...for it is what we want when we are in those straits. These are what bind us together as human beings...we deep down are very much the same.

To those suffering from the devastation in Haiti there and abroad, our hearts and prayers and resources go out to you. Yes, a better system for handling earthquakes can help mitigate loss...but now is not the time for blame or for this kind of assessment. When people live in poverty, they are often downtrodden - lacking in self-esteem and empowerment - and so we must not cast blame on them especially while also withholding our empathy, sympathy, and help.

Spread light and love.

Political Policy Research: Fundamentalism, Science, and Skepticism

2009-10-04T15:29:00Z

                    The vitriol in current American politics is staggering. Many partisans act as if politics is a rigorous science that can be proven like the "hard" sciences can. Policy research for example does not take place in controlled environments, is not subjected to double-blind trials, and cannot be reproduced or replicated in the way that physics research can for instance. When supporters of this or that policy cite "facts" they can often be met with resistance by dissenters with "opposing facts." The nature of politics is such that one cannot rule out multiple causes (remember: correlation does not equal causation) and it is dealing with human behavior. Social sciences do rely on the scientific method, but by its nature is not able to utilize the scientific method in the manner by which we can gain the most reliable, empirical data.

                    Fundamentalism has swept politics not just with those prone to religious authoritarian dogmatism, but also with those who want a detailed and structured scientific proof for everything. This fundamentalism can and does exist on all ends of the political spectrums*, but that is not to say it is universal - it is rather not prone to just one end of a spectrum. For example, some will want proofs that a person's claims are valid. This is a perfectly reasonable request. Where this becomes problematic is when the request is made because of wishful, selective thinking or when the person is using an ad hoc hypothesis. In other words the person likely has "proofs" for their beliefs and are asking for proofs that require a degree of scientific scrutiny not possible in politics (this is an example of selective thinking).

                    It is not hard to comprehend that "data" supports many different think-tanks built on a variety of platforms. It would be disingenuous to suggest that "they" are malicious while "we" are beneficent. For instance, say there is a debate on welfare. One group may use statistics and analyze data to come up with one result and thus resultant theory and advocacy, while another has come up with different results. The mechanisms behind the political machine are complex, sometimes inter-related, and can have multiple causes or effects - and this is just regarding the aparatus, which doesn't include the complexity of human behavior added to the mix.

                    This is not to say that it is a worthless enterprise or that it has no ability to produce empirical data. We can analyze trends, look for patterns (careful not to fall into post hoc fallacy), evaluate specific impacts, consider the logical steps we've used to make our conclusions, and so forth. It is not entirely devoid of the scientific method.

                    We must be exceedingly careful to place so much "faith" in our political beliefs based on the notion that there are empirical facts that can be proven [scientifically] for every policy or theory. Rather, a preponderance of evidence can exist for competing theories. In some cases, those who are a-religious often fall into the same fallacies as distorted thinking as those with religious dogmas. Political dogmatism in those instances becomes a substitute for religion. Some of them attack religion relentlessly as evil, but fail to recognize the damage done by non-religious political systems. Any firmly held belief system on abstract ideas, especially those that play little relevance to our lives here and now (such as the afterlife), can lead to major conflict. These competing narratives can be mutually exclusive to the point where group A believes group B is a threat that must be stopped.  Often this involves "special pleading" where one group believes to be exempt, as in the case between religion and politics. Both are systems that are not beings - they are in and of themselves neither good nor evil - but can be used by humans for either ends. It is like calling a key evil. The key may lead you to an evil place, that may be true. There is a jump in the logic though. While an argument may say something like, "religion leads you to believe in false things" there is a straw-man here that is based on the assumption that religion must be defined to have false beliefs. While I may have my misgivings and skeptical agnosticism towards G-d and religion, it is not necessary to define it as evil. For example, Reform Judaism does not necessarily believe in G-d or anything supernatural (it allows each person to come to their own conclusions), but focuses on community and social justice. It must be noted that political beliefs could also be false. Both religion and politics, being concerned with abstract thought and how that pertains to our lives, have several places where something can go wrong (like with an assumption, a theory, or in the practical method trying to employ an otherwise correct hypothesis). In light of this, it would behoove us to act in what is called "micro politics" by some that suggests we focus more on what we have within our grasp so to speak (our central network, the resources we have, and the behaviors we choose when interacting with people, not just abstract beliefs about univeral, national, or otherwise farther-removed from us).

                    It is noteworthy to point out that many skeptics and scientists are libertarian in philosophy. While the Libertarian party has a variety of beliefs and power spheres, the common denominator is often a rejection of authoritarianism based on the notion that we can think critically for ourselves and do not need to be ruled-over, but that governance should be more egalitarian or collective rather than resting in the hands of few. As such, it allows for competing theories to co-exist and work together; some models of libertarianism are built on this foundation (it must be noted that there are many different forms of libertarian philosophies and political models/theories). Unfortunately, as I've pointed out, the Libertarian party is at odds with each other at times trying to have one libertarian theory dominant over another libertarian theory. As has been pointed out, we are all capable of this and there is no singular group in religion or politics exempt from this (as far as I know).

                    Making informed decisions that rely on empirics rather than just logic, intuition, feelings, and beliefs is praiseworthy. Let's just realize that when it comes to certain subjects the empirical data is not as rigorous or irrefutable as we may want it to be due to the nature of what we are studying. Perhaps in time the social sciences will, like the natural sciences of old, become more and more refined in its use of the scientific method which included the need for developing new and refining theories, models, and the general philosophy behind it. Politics you might say is a way in which we as a people study how what we do and the policies that we mandate regarding our behaviors influence the stability and/or progression of the way of life that we seek. That's a lot of considerations; for example, not all of us want the same "way of life" which is how we understand the desire for both freedom and security. So let's not delude ourselves into fundamentalist ways of thinking (if you find yourself constantly angry, exacting, and proselytizing for instance those are often ways in which religious fundamentalists act, but is in no way comprehensive, necessary in all cases, or determinate). Demands for conformity and hegemony in politics is much like the same in religion; it doesn't usually go over well either, as none of us like to be on the receiving end. Critical thought is not the same as being critical of others as it includes making sure we are self-aware and working on mimizing bias and fallacious/distorted ways of thinking/feeling.

In Defense of Liberty...

* According to different political theories, there are more than just two poles in the "spectrum" of political thought (e.g., economics, authoritarianism, values, etc, etc.).

The relationship between religion, skepticism, and plot holes in geeky movies

2009-09-29T18:58:00Z

Wired just released the "Top 10 Unanswered Questions in Geeky Movies." As I was reading through the comments, on page 4, I came across two comments that succinctly explain the skeptic's case regarding religion and the idea of G-d.

"Theoretically, there are no [plot] holes in fictional movies...anyone can derive a fictional answer to fix the hole."

And

"The definition of 'Geek': Someone who actually tries to come up with a 'logical' explanation for these obvious logical impossibilities."

I know I've mentioned before that often a person will formulate some explanation to try to prove their version of religion is correct or to explain away something in a religious text for instance. They begin with the idea that it's true and work to find a way to reconcile it, rather than ask all the questions, like "is this even possible, let alone the most plausible answer?" That is, they speculate and it is on these speculations that provide them with assurances to questions by "non-believers." So not only does one have to suspend reason for faith in general (this is not the first tactic, but often if you are "too intelligent" they will stop and counter with emotional rhetoric to appeal to your spirituality and get around your intelligence), but now you must also suspend reason further by accepting speculations on top of that, which are a dime a dozen. That is to say that many different speculative scenarios can "fix the plot hole" or unanswered question. In real life, that doesn't make it so, even though we could figure out "logical explanations" for behaviors or events so that people judge us in their favor or things work out or so that we don't get in trouble, etc, etc. Heck, some guys even use, "nah baby, it wasn't me...who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Oy.

Most of the time, like with Geeks, those who are religious have a vested interest in the religion to begin with. So they spend time coming up with these logical explanations or searching for evidence because they want to believe and refuse to acknowledge that there may be holes, already believe so strongly that they want others to believe too (and take it personally when they don't), or because their ideology is based on the idea that faith is better or otherwise more valuable than reason. Not all religious people are equal: some are nominally religious, some are even agnostic or atheists but engage in religion for other reasons than dogmatic ones. Most religious people are probably aware of the problems and have their fair share of doubts and may not even feel the need to find compelling reasons (like some geeks) to fill the holes. They find comfort in it, take part it in because its tradition, identify with the moral and social justice aspects, or other reasons.

The parallels are strikingly obvious; especially if we consider "fundamentalists" the "geeks" of the religious world. As some people commented though, movies usually have plot holes and unanswered questions, but its just a movie (does this remind anyone else of the South Park episode, Red Hot Catholic Love?). And yes, this is what geeks like to do and so they remind the people commenting "it's just a movie!" don't rain on their parade as they don't have to engage in this.

Book Review: Who Am I? by Steven Reiss, PhD

2009-09-27T01:28:00Z

Dr. Steven Reiss' book, "Who am I? The 16 Basic Desires that Motivate Our Actions and Define Our Personalities " is an excellent book that offers insights not only into personal psychology, but politics, sociology, and religion. Dr. Reiss considers many of the psychology theories out there that try to explain why humans behave the ways that they do. He undertook research to try to ascertain that. He often quotes Aristotle, andVictor Frankl's logotherapy is also mentioned in regards to the "pleasure principle" for instance. Frankl's, "Man's Search for Meaning," which is a harrowing story of a doctor who survived the Holocaust, argues that people search for meaning in the lives and that without meaning we often lose the will the live under duress. As such, the "pleasure principle" - that we always seek to maximize pleasure and reduce pain - is not necessarily the most accurate assessment of human behavior.

Dr. Reiss' theories are well explained and broadly analyzed. He even discusses or at least sheds light indirectly on the role of religion in our lives, as well as politics. In chapter 6, he describes a concept called "self-hugging" which is a behavior that we engage in that not only is about reaffirming that our values are the right ones, but that others should also come to that same conclusion. He notes there are few exceptions to this and that those are usually from those who value "acceptance" too highly, usually a sign of disorder. While other values do not have disorders associated with them per se (that is, valuing one highly or low can both be good), in the case of "acceptance" this does not seem to be the case. He mentions that if there were to be found a 17th (and he mentions that he did have a breakdown such as that, but it did not yield statistically better results) it would be on the value of self-concept, but distinct from acceptance. While there are definitely those who are needy and have low self-esteem (which in the book is "high value of acceptance") this is the one value that does not seem to meet his criteria of being an ends in itself and a value. For instance, it would seem inconsistent if a person valued both independence and acceptance highly, as they would tend to be contradictory since acceptance he also defines as "inclusion" (his description of "acceptance" is the longest and described in more ways than others; for example, high acceptance can lead to a quitter mentality, neediness, shyness, retreating from conflict, and personality disorders). His argument is that a high value of acceptance means a high sensitivity to rejection. Yet for all the evidence that points that valuing acceptance too highly (which based off of the criteria presented would be valid) says that it leads to disorder, it is also the major factor in reducing "self-hugging." This concept [self-hugging] seems to itself be a value and an end, fitting his criteria for a value. There appears to be an associated effort with it that is not just a means to achieve an end (value), but something that humans do in politics, interpersonal relationships, religion (for instance, through evangelism and outreach), and other sociological factors.

This concept of self-hugging has lead to much conflict and violence because others cannot accept people who differ from their values. His bleak assessment is that this is the way things are, but he does provide models and ways for us to get over our "misunderstandings," "self-hugging," and "everyday tyranny" that we impose on others for having different (or in our minds: inferior) values. That is, the assumption is that this is human nature and that there is no counter-balance (and if there were, it is only in the minds of those who are prone to mental and emotional disorders). Otherwise, we have to come to terms with the fact that people have different values, and his suggestions though good are not ground-breaking and are fairly new concepts in human relations theory (in the scheme of history since globally we've only fairly recently begun to accept other people's cultures not as threats to our own existence, but as legitimate; though other ancient cultures have had these beliefs). In other words, it almost flies in the face of history to suggest we are capable of this, if as he suggests, we are all prone to these behaviors. However, if this were a function of values, and not just behaviors which seem to have no basis in one or more values but just are human nature (which contradicts the rest of the philosophical premise that all our actions are based on 16 values), then the problem becomes even less tenuous as it is no longer an inherit behavior, but a value system. I would argue much authoritarianism and trying to convince others of our correctness underlies this behavior; as those more egalitarian cultures that are not so much about "inclusion" in the sense of "joining" a group, but "accepting" others inherently are not so prone to these behaviors. Dr. Reiss did mention that this research was done not on a global or universal human or cultural scale, but were primarily Western and WASP's who's life is consumed by a value for abstract thought so much so that it demands we agree with the theories and beliefs of others. Other cultural modes do not always share this level of abstraction.

The book definitely is worth reading and is better than other theories I've read, like say, Myers-Briggs. It gives ample insight into oneself and others. The basic philosophy and sociology behind it are sound. The ways in which it describes politics and religion are also noteworthy, as well as between those who reject religion and those who choose religious life. My life philosophy and research on these topics had lead me to the same conclusions beforehand. I had no idea that the book was about this; I had thought it would be a new theory on psychology and was interested to learn about it. The major criticism I had was about the above. It seems that the value of acceptance, which he even admits is a difficult one and that his original hypotheses had been shown incorrect by research, perhaps was not analyzed at all the various angles based on the evidence. That is, perhaps the theory needs to be reworked not because the evidence was faulty, but its interpretation. Another minor criticism is that he both seems to accept that we can change our values, but then also says they are largely not able to change. Online you can access a 18 page summary of his theory that also discusses the "16 strivings for G-d" or our religious yearnings here via pdf file.

I think this book has a lot of potential to help people accept others for who they are and see that others don't have to be wrong, just because "I think I am right." There's definitely a lot of conflict resolution that can be had through the philosophy of the book. The theory just seems to lack the understanding that humans, at least Westerners, have almost an intrinsic need for "belief" that takes the shape of fundamentalism to the point of evangelism. That is, that our beliefs seem to take precedence in our lives. Our values and beliefs are not necessarily the fundamental impetus to our actions. In such a society that so highly values beliefs however, it becomes normative in the way that the society expects to function. The research then that shows how animals behave morally and with "social conscience" does not infer that the animals have values over which they debate though it could, but the evidence is more prone to suggest that it is so because those behaviors are for social order and the benefit of the individual and the group. In other words the obsession with abstract ideas as the basis for our actions is in itself a philosophical premise based on a behavioral mechanism of "thinking." Humans are not exactly the best, strongest, or most agile of animals, but our ability to think has made us a dominant species. Our behavioral social order expects us to think in order to produce the most efficacious methods of survival. If however, we choose to also elevate our behavioral traits, such as compassion, charity, love, and others then perhaps we will see that we generally want the same things, but we have different values by which we choose to achieve those goals and more so, that different values are themselves more pertinent to others not as means, but as ends in themselves - but not at the exclusion necessarily of the common and universal components and longings of humanity, such as peace, acceptance, love, and praise.

Tragedy not Travesty

2009-09-21T00:40:00Z

Ok, please people - especially you Hollywood - a travesty is not a synonym for tragedy. Please stop using the word as such replacing tragedy with the "cooler" sounding travesty. A travesty is a burlesque or gross imitation. It is an exaggeration, especially of a literary work; in other words a parody. It can mean a debased likeness, it ridicules something disguising or making the likeness thereof grotesque or distorted. There is a big difference between that and tragedy, which is about calamity, suffering, drama, especially in literary or dramatic works. People often try to sound so dignified using the term travesty instead of tragedy, but it just shows you've never even bothered to look it up in the dictionary and likely "learned" it from TV.

Also, there is no "nauseous." When I have nausea, I am nauseated not "nauseous." Again, please look it up. And once again, TV is not a proper way to learn your vocabulary. Often "writers" for TV shows are not talented at writing, but talented at comedy, drama, scriptwriting or knowing the right people.

Yes, language evolves. It is nice however to know the proper meaning and etymology of words. Sometimes meanings do change, but simple confusion is not a reason to confuse people and further complicate our language. Works of art should edify us and help us to learn. Whether we learn empathy, about human nature from drama, finding joy in an otherwise dreary day, or learning some new, cool vocabulary the important thing is that art helps us to grow and evolve. The funny thing is, what we've done to the word travesty is make a travesty of it. How ironic indeed. Or is it?

In Defense of...grammar? Really?

Values of Agnosticism

2009-09-10T22:35:00Z

Over the years I've asked a lot of questions and written down many of my thoughts on the idea: "does G-d exist?" All my life actually, but more so on this blog and in my other writings about philosophy and if G-d exists. And if so, how does that relate to us? I've written that, as a Jew, even if I found out G-d did not exist that I would still practice Judaism. Ok, so maybe not Orthodoxy, or at least the more ritual observances, but the moral aspects; at my core I am Jewish and I identify deeply with them as values for reasons other than religion or tradition. And come to think of it even then, some rituals have meaning. To some, this notion is strange. Yet a good number of Jews - Reform to Orthodoxy and all sorts - don't know if they believe in G-d and some are atheists. Judaism is a religion of the here and now, of good deeds, of the idea that we can choose to live a good life and repent/return to a better, truer place for ourselves.

I'm a poet at times who has that passion for life, for ideas, and words. You might find I write about G-d or a prayer to G-d in a deep and spiritual way, as if G-d exists. Other times I may turn the tables and question, challenge, even deny G-d. The Sephardi Jews of Spain experienced this after the Inquisition and Expulsion, sometimes writing deep elegies of utter submission to G-d and other times, demanding that G-d make good on promises and even chastising G-d.

Yet at my core I seek a holistic way of approaching life: rational, emotional, "spiritual," physical, inter-personal, etc. To rely solely on reason, especially say to deny empirical data, can itself be a folly. After all, we can argue and "prove" just about anything.

So in a holistic way, agnosticism seems to be the most viable and actually fulfilling weltanschauung (yes, an agnostic Judaism for me personally). I can't deny that a part of me feels comforted by a notion of G-d. In the book by Rabbi David J. Forman, "Over My Dead Body: Some Grave Questions for G-d" he readily admits this is why he hangs on, even though he expresses his doubts in such a way that can connect us to humanity: universal longings, fears, questions, and musings. On the flip side however is that its also emotionally burdensome to believe in G-d. When you pour out your heart, your soul, making sacrifices, being told G-d wants a relationship: yet it's always a one way street. We make up ways to see G-d in life, either as Creator or some Divine Planner of Fate. We don't want our efforts to have been in vain or be wasted, so we look hard for ways to find; and we especially don't want to be wrong and risk punishment, especially a possible eternal one! In real life, this lack of response would be neglect and abuse. We reason, "maybe it was my fault daddy left," "mommy will be back soon," and "daddy only did this because he said he loves me."

In effect, we make excuses for G-d. When someone asks, especially after a horrible tragedy, "why?" We find an answer. G-d's audible booming voice or tangible interaction (like that of another person or animal) doesn't answer. We do. We postulate and theorize over many, many religious issues and have for millenia. Some claim only their religion is true, but can only do so existentially when fully pressed. But if their experience is true, then why not the claim of another's experience that is contradictory? Missionaries and acolytes of any religion find themselves at the same fundamental level when talking with another about why they believe: their personal relationship. Now why do some try to find this with G-d, but fail (and not coincidentally feel ashamed and guilty)? Or do some people fill in the blanks? Or is that why we define faith the way we do? Incidentally, as I've pointed out, "emunah" (translated as "faith" in English from the Hebrew) is related to the word "emet" or truth as such it means a commitment to the truth, an active observance. Very different from its Western usage.

In the Bible, so many people had encounters with G-d; as such their "faith" was based on, as the story goes, their tangible relationship to G-d. In many ancient religions, they had encounters with a god or even gods! Then, it stopped. But not entirely, people now had encounters with angels or demons, with spirits and otherwise; many claimed divine inspiration from all walks of life and cultures. The gods it seemed had taken flight. So I ask, where are you now G-d? Have you ever been? How fair is it IF you do exist and have created rules to live by, by which we cannot agree who is right? That's like telling a kid you're going to beat him if he doesn't do what you like, but then you don't tell him and act inconsistent, threatening his everlasting soul with the "real" judgment. And we wonder why the more fundamentalist, the more religious often can act very threateningly and maliciously towards others, especially by castigating, shaming, and using various coercions on others?

This is why, ever since I was a kid, I had intuited and realized philosophically that the beliefs we choose to act on, those that we hold so dear and value, can wildly influence our behavior. The philosophy of mind and psychology of consciousness enthralled me, not just in relation to morality. Sure, no shock there, but it prompted me to find out how various beliefs influence our self-concepts and behaviors. Thus, one way to proper overall health is to examine one's beliefs. As you know, that is my passion: trying to help myself and others find a healthy, authentic, holisitic life. To uplift without ignoring the painful realities of the world, to understand the dark part of the soul as well as the good, and more ways of seeing reality in total as a means towards bettering ourselves, to live more enriching, happy lives as individuals ("to thine own self be true").

I quote Dr. Stephen Diamond (from the spirituality section of Psychology Today):

But recognizing, honoring, embracing and bringing this dark side to light is at the very heart of true spirituality. Spirituality can best be characterized by psychological growth, creativity, consciousness and emotional maturation. In this sense, spirituality is the antithesis ofpseudoinnocence: the naïve denial of destructiveness in ourselves and others. Spirituality entails the capacity to see life as it is--wholly, including the tragic existential realities of evil, suffering, death and the daimonic--and to love life nonetheless.

When I examine what spirituality is in my life it is "ruach" which in Hebrew also means wind. It is life, zest, anima, a rush! I've had this feeling on a mountaintop or at the Kotel (Western Wall), but not always when at the Kotel. I can find it within, not always related to G-d, but to life. The question for me is: what will my spirit pursue? Those darker forces can often be the antithesis of spirit, like in the case of brutal torture quashing the spirit of a child for being a different color or clan. Where is G-d then? In any case, it is the will to live, not just biologically but with spirit (goals, purpose, meaning, values, etc), that gets us through the darkness (see Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning"). It is not always enough, like when someone snuffs out the life force from you.

Maybe G-d exists and maybe not. In the absence of proof all we know then is the here and now. That to kill each other over ideas (be they religious or political or...) that cannot be proven is ridiculous. Really? Theories are means by which we can demonize and malign others? Rather, to save the life of one is like saving a world. To care for the sanctity of all life, like all that has "breath" (spirit). We can argue over history, over the future, over what ideas are true or right. In the end it is how we treat each other. This was the message of the Israelite prophets. So were ideas such as animal rights, eco-conservation (green), charity, social welfare, upholding the dignity of another, compassion to sick/widow/orphan, hospitality, welcoming the stranger/immigrant, and many other progressive ideas that are naturally intuitive to all of us. Michael Shermer briefly discusses his views as a libertarian and skeptic humanist which you might find resonance with.

What we get hung up on sometimes is that because of this or that, somehow someone doesn't deserve that anymore or its not practical (ideal, sure, but not a right or not through this means, or other rationalizations). But when you are suffering, when you are crying, doubting G-d so much you tremble, when life hurts and you're not sure why: you cry out! You want help. You wish someone would accept you. Even if it was your fault, you seek forgiveness and help nonetheless. This is what makes an agnostic worldview viable is that it comes with humility hopefully, but at the very least a belief that since we don't really know, that the important thing is love (giving) and real tangible actions: the ways in which we treat each other. After all, even the Bible and Jewish tradition holds that G-d said, "Would they forget me, but remember my commandments" in the sense that forget me and the rituals to get to me, what really matters is how you treat one another! That's a message I can get behind. Yet still, I wonder...if so, then how can G-d be so distant if G-d does exist and many other inconsistencies of belief in G-d? The question(s), though profound, is not as important as knowing that it's not the most important question. G-d can prove "Him/Herself." You, us, we don't need to do that for G-d. In the absence of such proof, if G-d does exist, maybe the answer is: it's because its not as important. Deep down in our hearts, we know what is: how we treat each other.

In Defense of Liberty...

Jewish Ideas Article: Moving to Israel

2009-09-10T22:25:00Z

It's been posted for a while and I was waiting partially because the formatting was off...but then I just forgot.

Here is an article I wrote for the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals an Aliyah Diary called Moving to Israel: A Dream, A Reality.

...

Some Historical and Sociological Analysis on Political Parties

2009-09-01T19:39:00Z

While this entry may in fact turn out to be published later in another format, right now it is just to sort out, organize, and conjure my thoughts for expression on the nature of world politics at the moment. The stark question – really the only one that matters – is what is right for the defense of liberty and human rights? Oppression, tyranny, and injustice cannot be abided, no matter what platform a party or group espouses.

In any country it can be said that it is divided. There are many political and ideological views that conflict. Some are anti-nationalist while others are nationalist, but even this is too simplistic. While sometimes the political ideology of one may be like the other, the truth is that even amongst “nationalists” who want to “support their people” they have different ideas on what that means. Some will side with one party over another, each claiming that the other side (though “also nationalist”) has policies that will be bad for “nationalism.” Simply put, every side believes what they are doing is right. And some narratives are mutually exclusive. One side believes that the other is making things worse and their policies must be stopped.

So how is anyone to make sense of it? An outsider may just be that: unable to understand and give assistance based on political ideology and ideologues. We all would love to believe one side is clearly right and the other wrong. This however is the basis for political parties and for partisanship. Any good political theoretician knows that a party cannot be formed on ideas or platforms alone, but by the creation of “the other.” Demagoguery exists from all sides, all platforms, all parties because it is essential – indeed de facto – for the basic psychological and sociological foundation for partisanship. While modern peoples live in a state where parties are common, the perception is that they have always existed akin to de jure. They simply do not understand that parties have always been created by social (political, religious, business, etc.) elites seeking to protect their interests by becoming part of the political power. One doesn’t need to be the elected partisan of a party to hold power, but just to be part of the party’s leadership is a means to ensure your (and your allies) interests are being represented in the party. It should come as no surprise that political parties, factions or movements existed in democracies after the creation of a Democratic State or Republic.

In many instances, these parties were formed as a result of the groups that had formed during the revolution that country underwent. That is, often times there were various factions of militias that worked with, against, or were “neutral” with other groups. These militias formed based on “charismatic” leadership models. Each movement - whether student, labor, military, etc. - usually had a charismatic leader along with several cohorts who would seek to rally an opposition against the government; it would thus become its own faction (or militia). Usually these leaders would work in conjunction with other groups or would vaguely support them in their propaganda in an attempt to gain enough of a “critical mass” of a mob within the country that would be able to expel the government. If the revolution was a violent one, each leadership group would organize its “members” to fight, sometimes arming them. Bonds naturally form during wartime amongst those fighting with each other, so these would naturally result in that revolutionary movement to become a political party. As an example here in Israel, this can naturally be seen in the various Zionist movements, Labor and Likud being Zionist (Labor vs. Revisionist) but differing in agenda and having arisen out of the militias of Haganah and Irgun (Herut/Gahal eventually into Likud), which eventually became united as the IDF.

During relatively non-violent revolutions, often the ideological divides between the groups was clear, but they all agreed with one thing: they wanted power in different hands (not the ones of the current government). These were natural political parties. The wealthiest or most “respected” (generally upper class) were those who held the majority of influence. Their tactic was to incite the “masses” and create fear, anger, and/or despair (means of mobilizing scholars, religious leaders, and the upper class were similar, but very different). The “other” was a means by which the group could mobilize people.

People by nature do not revolt for an idea, but against an entity with the idea being secondary or tertiary (usually slogans and propaganda; that is, rhetoric, which is the best way to mobilize people. It should be obvious that debates and logical analysis do not have the same effect and would not have been efficient anyway, especially in days where mass media was not like it is in the modern world. Even still we rely on sound bites and 1 min videos). That is, people would revolt because they felt oppressed, taken advantage of, or because of perceived “rampant corruption” (though on this point, even though there have been times where peasants revolted when they had more money than the nobles, such as in England in various stages in the Middle Ages, they were legally oppressed by being taxed or forbidden to buy or wear certain colors/clothes/items. Thus, oppression from “wanting to do what they wanted to do” is always the fundamental reason). To make it clearer, people do not revolt unless they feel that they cannot do what they want to do, that they feel restricted, or unable to be self-determinate.

This is central to our understanding of politics. That is the true nature of a political or social movement is not in what they “preach” but in what they fear and what they want. A common adage in the US is that “people vote their pocketbook.” That is to say that people vote based on economic affluence. In the Health Care debates, it can generally be boiled down not to what the advocacy is, but what it represents. Usually a person will admit that “this will be more expensive:” and each side says that theirs is the least expensive option. One side may say, “it will make it more affordable for the poor” (as well as cut out corporate interests and save the national economy) while the other side will say, “it will raise prices for everyone” (and increase taxes for most which will harm the national economy and not help or even harm the uninsured/poor). People are generally multi-tiered in political psychology, which means that a person will do or vote for good for another (particularly a minority) because of several inter-dependent factors. Each group and person differs considerably, but there is always a built in “self-protect” function so that at a certain “price” or “risk” (whether to life, limb, money, or honor) they will generally seek to protect their own interests first. This is natural and indeed, essentially to human (and seen in animal) survival.

George Washington and other Americans opposed political parties. They did not want to see the power of the Republic become enmeshed and mediated by (and thus muddled) by political parties. It was clear that many of the founding fathers were rationalists who sought to uphold rights. That is, it was a very ideologically based movement, as seen in the Federalist Papers. However, the “masses” who were lead by interests (like the merchant class) were incited not by political rhetoric, but by anger, fear, or coercion (it should be noted that many who supported the ideology of separation did not agree with a violent revolution; sometimes these people were conscripted or, if wealthy, killed and their assets seized by revolutionists). The framers of the US gov’t were not all idealists and many of those leaders in the trenches were not framers per se, but leading the masses. The framers, as committed rationalists did not want a public controlled by interests and demagoguery, but by principled commitments to rational political theory. It was truly part of the idealistic Enlightenment school which thought that rationally based behavior is ideal and if implemented, would lead to peaceful relations between peoples since this would be clearly the most rational value one should have and thus attempt to create [through rational behaviorism].

The bulwark of the US revolutionists was not philosophers and theoreticians, but merchants, poor working class, and political & religious dissidents from Europe seeking refuge. Thus, these are the foundations for the political parties and social movements of the early US (for example, several states or localities were dominated by certain Christian sects and imposed laws to restrict political representation or election to office without meeting religious tests). As time went on, different “threats” and issues formed the basis of new parties. Notably, the products of the modern US parties are slavery, Industrialism, isolationism, Imperialism, and the Depression.

The common theme then becomes obvious when wanting to evaluate political and social movements: 1) what they fear, are angry about, or feel oppressed about/prohibited from doing and 2) the actions they take, specifically towards “the other” (their “enemy” as well as other segments of the general populace). Obviously, no person is perfect so all groups will naturally take actions performed by individuals which do not represent the group (that is for example, an individual of any party or movement may use torture or execution, but this does not represent the group; however, the way the group deals or tolerates said person does indicate something of the group, but it should be noted that it is natural to tolerate a person’s behavior one would not do – even deplorable – if it was for “survival” as this is known as “herd behavior” and “group think”).

This, understandably, will likely not sit well with most people since people of most countries are very committed to their political parties and social institutional affiliations. It will seem foreign in many ways to think about and no less, seems to suggest an affiliation is based on negatives or selfishness. No one likes to hear such things. This is why it must be clear that these are ways humans (and animals) have always survived historically. It is natural and even to some degree, essential and thus ethical. The true bothersome aspect is that it requires introspection, honesty with oneself, and soul-searching. Humans naturally seek comfort and these processes are usually not done during times of comfort, but times of conflict when they become “necessary” in the eyes of the individual (i.e., in order to return to comfort).

However, another aspect should be made clear. That is, that the individual has been coerced and manipulated by powercrats. While most people know that the top levels of corporations, political parties, social/religious institutions, and government protect the interests of those in those positions first, many are comfortable with (tolerate) it as long as they feel their interests are reasonably met. There’s also a level of “no one can change it” kind of apathy which inevitably, allows such actions to thrive. That is, until a “mass” feels angry enough that their interests have not been met to change it; usually such movements are accomplished by violence. Thankfully, others have historically been able to achieve this through relatively non-violent means, such as the Civil Rights Movement as lead by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Violence did occur, but those resisting remained principled enough to resist with little use of violence. Other groups obviously lead by other “charismatic” leaders sprang up who used varying degrees of violence to achieve their stated goals.

Which is what political and social movements usually come down to: charismatic leaders. I say we stop playing their game: divide and conquer. They only have power because we give it to them. Many realities have changed, so too does socio-political theory. Let's figure out non-partisan approaches to politics. One way to do that is to support and concentrate on those you know well and trust. Instead of sending money to an invisible hand from some institution, give it to your friend who needs help. Instead of joining a group you know little about, spend time hanging out with your friend who could use the company. Instead of arguing about abstract ideological narratives and ideas, take some time to just laugh and enjoy your family. Focus on the here, the now, the local. This is where you're at after all. Maybe this way, we can truly have that unity of humanitarianism, to be a human family.

To be continued...on how to still uphold human rights and liberty, an examination of political and social activism in light of what has been discussed here. I sense a series coming on this.

In Defense of Liberty...

What You See is What You Get?

2009-08-30T13:16:00Z

In sports and martial arts one of the things you learn is where to put your sight. For instance, if you want to break a board, see through it - don't look directly at the board, but try to see "past" it. If you want to jump a curb on your bike, you have to look to where you want to land, not on the obstacle to jump. If you want to turn on a snowboard, you turn to face that direction; if you want to avoid trees, avoid looking at them! Then there's the common expression, "what you see is what you get."

In the mind-body link to physical activities, there's a calm that comes. It's an active awareness that is relaxed. Its somewhat hard to describe, but race car drivers have a calm focus for instance. The excitement and adrenaline and stress are channeled into the focus while the mind and body remain in a loose and relaxed state. In martial arts, finding this state can be a challenge for some. To see and focus by not seeing and focusing. It's a strange paradox, but once trained the "center" can be found more readily and easily. The mind-body link is so strong that things happen quickly, almost effortlessly. A sort of passive-resistance that can allow a person not to be moved by someone much physically stronger and other ways that people harness their chi/qi. A large component is in being able to control not only our physical sight, but our overall mental sight. Basketball players for instance perform mental training exercises where they see in their minds the action and feel the movements.

Sometimes we have to slow down our minds to see and feel all the intricate parts of an action. Other times we need to "just do it" by instinct, muscle memory, and sight. In a fascinating article in the Scientific American, scientists have found that depression is not so much a disorder as it is a necessary and useful evolutionary tool. One such aspect is that rumination allows us to spend more of our energies dissecting the problems and viewing them more clearly. It's in essence a problem solving technique that asks us to slow down. That is one common way that stress effects us, it "depresses us." Other times stress can "key us up" and make us jittery, nervous, manic, active. Others experience stress in a mixture. These responses though have functions. As such, it causes us to think differently - to see differently - such experiences. Rather than view these as disorders and problems, they are tools and clue us in to what is going on in our lives. If you have a tool, but don't know what its for or how to use it, its useless. Perhaps thats a reason why depression or stress become out of hand and destructive. Especially in our overly focused abstract and mental culture, we've seen it as a problem or illness. We often times, as I've stated for years, overthink.

If you look at an obstacle in sports, that focus will often cause a crash. The stress induced can cause the mechanisms not to flow like water and act smoothly. Rather, we can take that stress from knowing where the obstacle is by also looking beyond it to allow ourselves to overcome it. At one point in the manuever we will likely need to slow down while in another speed up. Just like taking a corner at high speeds (brake into, accelerate out). Focusing on one part (hyper-focus) can cause lock up. Yet, that hyper-focus that one can achieve through depression or ADD/ADHD has benefits too. One can really adjust and fine tune our responses that way. Sometimes even in the course of the physical action, as long as we've trained enough to have the basic proficiency to accomplish the task (that is, while obviously it can be useful as a mental exercise outside of the sports/physical world, if you can perform the task "with your eyes closed" because you have proficiency, then using hyper-focus during that task can allow you to fine tune and adjust the way you respond, thus becoming more proficient). In an analogy I've used on this blog before, when you first get on to balance, you may feel shaky and fall off. The more proficient you become, the more proficient you also are at noticing slighter and smaller variations in balance. In emotional levels, we rarely see how skilled we've become. Physically, we can measure our ability. So even though we ruminate or hyper-focus, we objectively know we've gotten better. Emotional (even mental) complaints are not so simple.

But perhaps the same principle applies. Knowing how to direct your sight and focus. How to see the obstacle clearly without focusing on it. Or, as in the case of mountain biking, knowing how to fall. We all do, but you just roll and jump right back up. There's no guilt, shame, humiliation in it. You fall and pick up and get going again. Any ruminations are done to know how to do it better next time, not to beat yourself up and call yourself a loser. Someone proficient in mountain biking will know when they made a jump or didn't (sometimes it is too close to call though); our muscle memories and sight know even during that it didn't quite work out. So we adjust all we can and if we are going to crash, we roll and fall correctly. When you don't have that skill of knowing, a fall can be more dangerous for the novice even if the fall is not as technically challenging. In other words, lacking the knowledge of when to prepare for the fall leaves one unprepared to fall, which can cause more injury.

There is almost always a pro and con to everything; nothing is usually so simple and black-and-white. So sometimes what you see is what you get. Other times, no matter how much seeing you're doing, you're not going to get it. Sometimes the intricate hyper-focus or depressed ruminations can allow us to resolve complex problems (coincidentally, it is well noted that genuises and people with higher IQs in general tend to experience more depression in their lives). Sometimes they allow us to get stuck into a routine that does not work and makes general living harder (eating even). Where you look, where you turn, where you put your mental focus and sight (not just physical sight, but "consciousness" and "awareness") can be a huge difference. Often times we live in our minds - our heads. We experience our energy most there, especially sight. But martial artists, the blind, and others train to see in other ways. Having that awareness in our whole selves - our finger tips, stomach, legs, etc - can really open up a lot for us. We gain new perspectives. It's one reason I advocate doing more physical work. Not only do we need to have more manufacturing and goods production (in an overly "service" based economy), but it will be more rewarding and open you up to being more holitically authentic.

Be more than just your mind, what you see in your eyes or think with your thoughts - or abstract ideologies and emotions. Be you. You is everything you are. Be that. Get your body involved, learn the feelings other than just abstract emotion. Be your whole self. This is liberating. Free up that energy and let it flow. Relaxation is a focused calm, even in the hardest circumstances. Challenge your sight by opening it up to the whole you. And enjoy it. See more, see beauty, see good, see the whole picture, see the details, expand your awareness and ability to live in paradox. Maybe what you see isn't always what you get, but if you don't see what you have, you won't know its there or how to use it. So just keep looking.

In Defense of Liberty...

A healthy dose of Skepticism is in order

2009-08-29T17:44:00Z

I didn't want to go a whole month without blogging, lol! I've been busy working on my book manuscript as well as trying to make a living (or should I say, trying to live?). That's not to say I haven't done writing for the blog, in fact I have. Only I'm not yet ready to post it. Soon actually my main website that hosts this blog will undergo major revision.

Huh, I guess that's more metaphor than I intended. Suffice to say that my life has much more clarity now. Partially from having moved and now living in Israel. There's so much I could write about on any number of topics right now. Health wise and financially, things have been really tough. More so the latter, which doesn't make the former any easier. Thankfully, this is not the worst my health has been which gives things perspective. Nonetheless, most of my effort has been on "making in living" in both of those senses.

There is an advantage to this though. You may have heard that about 4% of Israelis think Obama is pro-Israel, a staggering number. During interviews for my articles I found that it was likely under 10%. I guess I've had the advantage of perspective; I remain calm in stressful situations and keep a healthy dose of skepticism, particularly of whatever is popular. Many of my interactions here on politics have not been encouraging. Yes, I'm perhaps "fiercely" independent and prefer non-partisan evaluations of policy. However, it has been clear to me that the right-wing explosion here is not due to policy analysis, but demagoguery (fear mongering). The right-wing religious and political leaders here have used Obama's missteps to enlarge themselves. I saw it in the US too, but here the tactics were so plainly clear. Mystical rabbis (whom I give little to no credence in any shape or form) "prophesying" the "end of days" and making nicely argued points to "prove" their positions are but one example. Now let me be more frank, Obama did not show even handedness towards Israel. His efforts have drastically failed so far - instead of making progress towards peaceful relations, he's stirred the pot and made an ally become overly skeptical. Yes, I agree that settlements (and settlers!) are a problem and must be frozen for the most part, but his statements were far from cogent or historical. Again, perhaps I emphasize too much, but I believe neither the right nor the left. These elitists bought by corporations & non-profits play the common person. Historically, this has always been the case: corruption, deceit, propaganda, manipulation, demagoguery, etc. And in the end, no matter how you look at it, the common person pays the most (economically, socially, etc). This is not to say that all are evil. In fact, it is just like our own smaller social circles that have conflict. What I'm saying is that neither should we put our leaders on a pedestal nor demonize them. I have no answer for you on how to solve this - its just simple human nature (the dual pulls); this has always been out lot and nothing has thus far curbed it. But perhaps not knowing the answer is half of it.

We spend so much time demonizing others just for beliefs. So-and-so or "they" are evil and wrong. Why? Because they believe in X and we in Y. Those days are long gone for me. Ideology far too often divides us and furthers conflict. If we just admit that we don't really know maybe there's more peace in that. That young child raped and mutilated in some remote village - suffering the most horrible agonies - for some difference of religion, creed, color? Don't you see that your war, Dems vs Repubs, left vs right, is the foundation stone to tragedies such as these? "The other" becomes an evil that must be eradicated for "our" survival. In the American revolution, militias did the same in the name of freedom and independence. Surely, it was not part of the ideological foundation of the Founding Fathers, but nonetheless, these men were some of those fighting for what those Framers had preached. They just did so in their own sick, twisted way. Racists and those of otherwise cruel intentions come from either side. And good people, humane, decent people come from either side too. Fact is, its not the ideology, its the behavior of the person. Remembering the good and beautiful, seeing the merits of "the other" and their positions is a path towards peace. But politics (and religion) is far too often based on rhetoric and "argument" over/instead of the people involved. It remains in the abstract, in an intangible world of debate and persuasion. Even when these leaders are often the corrupt and those preached against. No matter, because the argument, the abstract "idea" is what matters most. That's what we fight over: essentially nothing.

Personally, I have no real opinion on Obama. I'm undecided. He's done some good and in other areas I've disagreed. The same went for Bush or Clinton. Need I continue? But just as it pained me to "stand up" for Bush when others went way too far with their fascist, nazi, and otherwise "evil" branding of him I have to do the same here amongst my Israeli and American brethren who have been so misguided (granted, most are not branding him like the ultra-left did Bush, but that did take a couple years and Obama has not been in office even a year). Obama is just another politician. He's a junior statesman for crying out loud, I'd bet you he doesn't really know half of what he's doing; he's still learning. Yes, our situation here in Israel is bad on many levels, but giving in to fear is no answer, especially by "leaders" who themselves are just afraid and have no real answers (their surety is a coping mechanism, not necessarily some scheme or plot). Usually people do what they think is best for them and those they love. Leadership is just "ideologically misguided" as it were, following the behavioral pattern of partisanship. Fellow Americans, please think about the lunacy of the ideas being thrown around, such as concentration camps for the anti-Obama crowd. How conspiracy theories such as these gain such popularity amongst people is beyond me (yes, mass media and the highly stressful society we live in play a large role in fear). Or did you forget, you leftists, of the same trumped up charges you had against Bush? Do you realize your own idiocracy? Or do you conveniently forget how fervently you believed what you did that turned out to be wrong. Yet, you still hold on to such (albeit different) abstract and unprovable beliefs now with such fervor. Grow some willpower and common sense, a healthy dose of skepticism. Take some time to de-stress, as it clouds the mind and invites fear. We can get along, even if we disagree; this is a choice, a behavioral one.

I've been wrong too you know. I know its not easy to admit, to have to cope with changes. But if you realize the superstition in your beliefs, adapt. There's plenty of superstition in any of the more "fundamentalist" versions of any religion to go around. I swear, I just want to scream anytime I hear it, but especially when it comes from intelligent people (again of any faith). I don't exclude Judaism; my skepticism towards superstition generally keeps me from forming any close ties to the Orthodox world mostly not because I don't try, but because of others who dislike that part of me. Just generally speaking, its no wonder I have few friends in this world. I piss everyone off. Partisanship is just not part of my makeup. As such, I get on everyone's nerves, willing to call bs where I see it (perhaps a reason I love South Park? lol). Its more what we do than what we believe. Yes, they are symbiotic, but the action is more important. And no matter, we can agree to disagree on that even. Just let me live in peace. I'm not interested in these ideological wars any longer (speaking of South Park, their two part Go G-d Go episodes are more or less about this, especially see the end of the second episode about giving up "isms"). I share what I do to those who are interested. There's a difference between interacting and intervention, between sharing and coercion or manipulation. Frankly, I could care less sometimes. The world will carry on as it usually does with or without me (or you). I'd love to be wrong and part of the reason why I've been away. I just want to focus on life, on those real things. Everything else, all those abstract and ideological ideas and doubts and questions we have, I'd rather just say I don't know and make them tertiary. Yeah, it's good to think about things, but living a life that is tangible is far more rewarding and actually, IMHO, answers a lot of those questions. But rather than give more of mine, why don't you get out of this abstract world of the Internet and go find something else to do, something more tangible.

In Defense of Liberty...

Sweeping our floors for Tisha B'Av

2009-07-30T12:18:00Z

On Tisha B'Av kinnot (elegies, dirges) are read in many communities. They differ based on the community and the writers that produced them. In the Iberian (Spanish & Portuguese) Sephardic tradition these kinnot come from the times of the Inquisition and Explusion from Spain (the expulsion was announced around the time of Tisha B'Av). One of the major characteristics of these kinnot is the demand for G-d's justice. Some communities and leaders were more quick to just accept with reticense these events as punishments. Others however, still could not fathom such suffering and indeed also pointed out that we must seek forgiveness and rectify our sins, they also lamented and cried out to G-d with a "why?!" You can find some of these for instance in Seder Arba Ta'anioth. Rabbi Dr. Marc Angel's book, "Voices in Exile: A Study in Sephardic Intellectual History" has some examples of these kinnot as well.

There's a Sephardic tradition to clean and sweep the floors on Tisha B'Av. In the more mystically oriented and Kabbalistic communities, the reason is to have a clean home if moschiach (the messiah) arrives. Even our vast tradition though says that Eliyahu HaNavi (Elijah) will arrive, some sources say 2 days before moshiach. While these are beautiful notions in the esoteric world, there is another more rationalistic reason. The rational schools of the Sephardim might be more inclined to say something such as this: Here I've sat on the ground and mourned. Perhaps we have not seen the real errors and deficiencies of our ways. What more can I do? What have I think I have right, which in fact may be wrong? Now, I sit here on the floor and I see the dirt, dust, and uncleanliness. So this afternoon, I sweep my floors, I loose my rugs. I clean my house. Perhaps I've too often focused not on my house, but on others. So today I've wept and mourned; I've refrained from eating, from washing, from pleasures. Now in my lowliness, I attempt to pick up the pieces.

This isn't necessarily an insular, self-absorbed view. To clean one's house and invite guests to a pleasant place is not like about mourning over the state of the world and attempting to fix it oneself or in feeling helpless, to desperately seek a "savior." Now, if we only looked at ourselves and our homes, then in fact it is insular and self-centered. If however, it is one way in which we examine how to properly use our resources to assist others, then it has gone beyond and into inclusiveness and loving-kindness (chesed).

Shabbat Chazon (for R. Angel's message/shiur on this: http://www.jewishideas.org/angel-shabbat/righteousness-not-self-righteousnessthoughts-s) just passed and it reminds us to look into the details of how we treat one another. This is one of the essential themes. In the Iberian communities before the expulsion, there was a sense of aristocracy and much fighting between different communities. Even physical violence happened just in regards to the proper order and prayers in the services. A large rift occurred between the more rational, philosophic schools and the mystical, Kabbalistic schools. Yet the rabbis of the period at times were nostalgic and overly praiseworthy of their communities. Some of this was done so as not to kick the people when they were down to show compassion and sympathy. Rather than act like Job's friends, they wanted to comfort the mourners. So this is understandable and meritorious! The underlying theme since the destruction of the Second Temple has been this schism and fighting amongst Jewry. It's perhaps time to not just concentrate on doing good deeds towards others, but in seeing the ways in which we mistreat others.

Ritual halakha is important, but the Nevi'im (prophets) constantly remind us that we must seek forgiveness, open our hearts, rectify our wrongs, and seek to do good towards others and towards G-d's world. This takes priority over our "standing" with G-d. Rather than seek deliverance or ensure we are somehow "right" with G-d by focusing our attention on matters of ritual or on our sufferings, pain, and guilt, we are told in some ways not to worry but to "go forward" and seek justice, live humbly, and do acts of kindness. Unfortunately, some schools of new Jewish thought are allowing these attitudes to develop which are more akin to Christian and Muslim sentiments about "personal salvation" (such as "what does it take for me/you to be saved"). Let's not become self-absorbed with thoughts about messiah or how much suffering or evil are in the world. Let's not be blind to it either of course or crusaders who believe we are absolutely right and must help this world. Each of those three attributes: justice, mercy, and humility as the prophet Micah related keep us from falling prey to the imbalance of the others.

Let's remember and learn from reading kinnot, Eichah (Lamentations), and Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah). Perhaps even in our own conversations and if we try our hand at a kinah (dirge, elegy) to take on this spirit; to learn from both schools (such as those that tried to just humbly accept the suffering and others that questioned and asked for G-d's justice). There's something we can learn from each other to grow closer.

Have an easy fast and meaningful Tisha B'Av.