Beit Binah Virtual Intentional Community, My New Project

[dauer]

Hey Raksha,

Welcome to the forums.

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

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

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

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

--dauer

 

[bananabrain]

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

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

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

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

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

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

BB,

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

You know me well enough to say that! xD

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

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

Is G!d real? Yes.

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

Do I experience G!d? Yes.

Do I believe in G!d? No.

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

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

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

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

perception is not verifiably synonymous with Truth

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

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

the limited nature of finite existence

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

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

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

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

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


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

--Dauer

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

 

[Raksha]

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

bananabrain,

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

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

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

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

Dauer,

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

--Linda

 

[bananabrain]

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

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

One Is Infinite Is All Is Truth

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

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

now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by elitist.

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

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

gosh, i do!

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

i wish i was.

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

that's because they're abstract!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

Raksha,

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

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

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

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

It's probably right up your alley.

BB,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gosh, i do!

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

i wish i was.

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

that's because they're abstract!

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

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

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

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

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

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

jinks.

--dauer

 

[Raksha]

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

b'shalom

bananabrain

BB,

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

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

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

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

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

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

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

It's probably right up your alley.

Dauer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Linda

 

[Pathless]

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

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

--Linda

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

 

[dauer]

Hey Raksha,

I don't know if you went ahead and looked it up, but this from the Kohenet website I thought might interest you:

Priestess Paths : Resources : Embodied Jewish spiritual leadership, creativity and community from an earth-honoring, feminist perspective : Kohenet

And thank you for feeling comfortable sharing a piece of your story. It sounds like you've walked trying road that has led you down a very sacred path.

-- dauer

 

[Raksha]

Very nice. I have much respect for Starhawk. Her book Dreaming the Dark is an indespensible part of my education. It was one of the first books to turn me onto the idea of how emodying a radical spirituality can be a constant political action, part of our state of being.

Pathless,

It's always great to meet anyone who knows who Starhawk is and who respects her accomplishments. I'm a little bit jealous of her to tell you the truth, but I don't let that stop me from appreciating her and learning from her. I have read both Dreaming the Dark and The Spiral Dance, which I refer to constantly.

You'll be happy to know that Reclaiming is just as committed to combining spirituality with political, social and ecological activism as they have always been. I received the e-mail newsletter of the Bay Area Pagan Jews this morning, and they were giving everyone a heads-up on the Winter Solstice ritual tonight, which this year will focus on the recent oil spill in the San Francisco Bay.

1) People will be ~invited~ to cut and contribute a lock of their
hair, which will be woven into mushroom-infused hairmats that can
absorb and bio-remediate oil spills -- (see
http://www.matteroftrust.org/ for info) --`as an act of mourning,
hope, action, transformation, etc. for our home waters and land.

This is an *OPTIONAL* part of the ritual. Please consider
beforehand whether you want to cut (and how much) or not cut at all.
You can also bring hair with you, lend scissors, or simply offer your
intentions/prayers.

Please check out this link for general information on the solstice ritual.

Reclaiming: Bay Area Public Rituals

Since I live in the distinctly un-hip city of San Bernardino in SoCal, I can only be there in spirit. I won't be able to contribute any of my hair for the oil spill mat. But my daughter lives in northern California (she recently moved from Santa Rosa to Oakland) and I know she'll be there. I'm going to call her in a few minutes and ask her to remember me during the ritual, since that's the closest I'll be able to get under the circumstances.

Shalom,
Linda

 

[bananabrain]

I think the flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as many other non-physical conceptions of deity and that lack of actual belief in said deity does not decrease likelihood.

surely not *just* as likely? on the other hand, lack of actual belief does not necessarily impact on the domain of Truth itself as opposed to truth.

I don't understand the second half. Do you mean that saying that something claimed to be real to begin with assumes it's real? I don't think it's debatable that everything that really is is real, because everything that is isn't being defined in that statement.

umph. what i (or granny) mean is that it's somewhat futile to feel the need to affirm the existence of something that, as far as reality can be established (ie not being a BIV as they call it in first year philosophy) nobody really disagrees about. i think the bit about encouraging gods is somewhat cheeky and i encourage you not to read too much into it!

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

i'm not sure this is right - certainly the elasticity of belief itself allows agnostics to sit on the fence.

let's just say I've had a very, very challenging and difficult life, especially where Judaism is concerned. This has made me a very difficult person--in a number of ways but again, especially where Judaism is concerned.

hah. i don't know any thinking jew who can't say the same. it's not the easiest belief system to follow and, imho, those who aren't challenged by it either aren't using their heads or aren't using their hearts - or even both.

If you disapprove of my syncretism or if some people might consider me a heretic, all I can say is that you or they are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect it to mean anything to me, because the word "heretic" has lost even the power to make me angry.

well, as a traditionalist, you can hardly expect me to approve of syncretism. with that said, my criteria are those of tradition, so what you call it don't especially signify; i'll be making my own mind up about what i think. all i can ask you to believe is that i'm a pretty fair-minded person and some of my opinions may surprise you; don't let the avatar prejudice you against me.

i read a fair bit of starhawk a few years back when i was trying to establish if there could be meaningful and productive interfaith dialogue between jews and neo-pagans. suffice it to say that the answer i found was "in most cases, yes", but the issue of people born into judaism professing neo-pagan beliefs or attempting to syncretise them with judaism raises far more problems than it solves. it's far more productive (if you ask me, at any rate) to try and find solutions within judaism - like, for example, appreciating that mainstream judaism also "honours the earth", at least when properly understood. i appreciate that within the context of the 60s this was not anything like as easy as it can be nowadays, but nonetheless we remain on the Way, not at any particular End.

you may find the following organisation (run by a friend of mine) interesting:

hazon :: new vision, inclusive community, outdoor and environmental education.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

BB,

surely not *just* as likely? on the other hand, lack of actual belief does not necessarily impact on the domain of Truth itself as opposed to truth.

Yep, just as likely.

umph. what i (or granny) mean is that it's somewhat futile to feel the need to affirm the existence of something that, as far as reality can be established (ie not being a BIV as they call it in first year philosophy) nobody really disagrees about. i think the bit about encouraging gods is somewhat cheeky and i encourage you not to read too much into it!

That's probably where my definition comes in. It's not really a matter much of belief. I think what I'm really doing is translating the mythical and mystical G!d into more reasonable naturalistic terms. Reconstructionism is appealing to me because of its naturalism but I think that it ended up all but abandoning the mystical and mythical G!d as a lived reality. There are Recon/Renewal folks who put the mystical and mythical G!d back in but it seems for them they get pretty far away from Kaplan's direction by asserting a very new agey/neo-whatever pantheism (or otherwise abandoning the mythical G!d and going for monism.) They don't go back and explain the myth in terms that are more in touch with what Kaplan was doing: reconstructing a definition of Deity that didn't really require belief so much as redefine the Divine based on those things that most everyone agrees about. That's of course my take on Kaplan and I'm sure there are folks who would disagree with me. I think Morty was more of a radical and wanted to destroy the mythical G!d and start from scratch, hence some of Recon's liturgical changes. I don't want to destroy the mythical G!d. I just want to relate to that part of my experience without asserting a lot of crazy cosmological ideas and at the same time understand that experience in terms that don't seem silly or backwards to me.

i'm not sure this is right - certainly the elasticity of belief itself allows agnostics to sit on the fence.

I don't know what you mean by the elastic nature of belief. I'm just talking about relative word meaning and usage. Do you mean that the way belief is used could sometimes include me in the believer camp? Even if that is correct, I don't think such a definition is very useful. If a schyzophrenic hears voices and doesn't believe they have some reality outside of their head, we don't say that the schyzophrenic believes the voices exist only that she hears voices. When Ebenezer Scrooge challenges the existence of the ghost of his former partner he's not asserting belief: he's questioning his own perception. His conclusion after some consideration is that it really is his former business partner but that's irrelevant. I don't think it's useful to have multiple definitions of belief: one for the Divine and another for all other phenomena.

imho, those who aren't challenged by it either aren't using their heads or aren't using their hearts - or even both.

Obligatory hasidic quote: ""Nevermind what you have in your head! Nevermind what you have in your heart! What about your pupick?"

-- Reb Menachem Mendl of Kotsk

--Dauer (Please do not confuse all of the above post for the ideas of the Kotsker Rebbe. If I said all of that to him he might very well have yelled at me for a good hour.)

 

[Raksha]

well, as a traditionalist, you can hardly expect me to approve of syncretism. with that said, my criteria are those of tradition, so what you call it don't especially signify; i'll be making my own mind up about what i think. all i can ask you to believe is that i'm a pretty fair-minded person and some of my opinions may surprise you; don't let the avatar prejudice you against me.

BB,

I didn't realize until I read your notes on the other board that you're as much of a traditionalist as you are. Which means I haven't quite decided whether I even WANT your approval or not. I might actually be more comfortable with your disapproval. That would indicate to me that I'm on the right path...by my standards, of course.

As to whether you're a "fair-minded" person or not--I'll make up my mind about that too. As I said, I'm a very, very hard person where Judaism is concerned and I judge very harshly. About the only thing consistent about me is that I can usually be found to the far left of everything and everyone.

--Linda

 

[bananabrain]

Which means I haven't quite decided whether I even WANT your approval or not.

i don't post here in order for people to feel approved of or not. i do so in order that people get access to information they might not normally have access to. i'm not at all interested in whether you are someone to be "approved" or not. you are welcome to dialogue or not. that's what we do here.

I might actually be more comfortable with your disapproval. That would indicate to me that I'm on the right path...by my standards, of course.

that's an idiotic thing to say and quite a strange attitude to bring to a dialogue board. personally, i'd prefer it if everyone could find a way to get along and have respect for each other. sometimes, unfortunately, it's not possible. but it doesn't mean we have to mistreat each other. of course, if you want me to be, on your desert island, the "shul you don't go into", then that is your choice. i'm not running an outreach programme here.

As I said, I'm a very, very hard person where Judaism is concerned and I judge very harshly. About the only thing consistent about me is that I can usually be found to the far left of everything and everyone.

well, bully for you. i personally find it fairer to judge people with compassion. i appreciate you have had some unpleasant experiences with institutional religion. so have i. i'm not here to apologise for idiots, but i am keen to point out that being a traditionalist doesn't necessarily make you one.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Raksha]

well, bully for you. i personally find it fairer to judge people with compassion. i appreciate you have had some unpleasant experiences with institutional religion.

BB,

True, but you don't have any real idea about the nature of those experiences, because I haven't really talked about them yet. I was going to get into it a little bit in response to Dauer's last post but changed my mind.

For whatever reason, I felt I had to make it clear that I am not, nor will I ever be, a "ba'alat teshuvah" (I think that's the correct feminine form for what I mean) in the way some people expect. It's an attitude I've run into on various Judaism boards over the years, and sometime in RL too, namely "wherever you've been, you're back." But I'm NOT "back," not in the sense they mean anyway, because I'm not the same person I was when I left.

My main interest in Judaism nowadays is in excavating the roots of pre-patriarchal Judaism, which I have every reason to believe really exist, or did exist at one time. I believe they still exist and are still viable.

It's not a matter of a superficial kind of syncretism like you were condemning on the other board either. I agree with Starhawk when she says that Judaism is essentially an earth-based religion. I believe it is, much more so than Christianity, and if the roots are in pre-Judaic paganism...well, why be surprised at that or try to deny it? Why would anyone expect it to be otherwise?

The link you posted about the Jewish food movement is a good example of an earth-based approach that feels like a natural outgrowth of what is already there, not forced or tacked on late in the day by outsiders. That's how animals were raised for meat in biblical times, after all. Your friend will find that some of his biggest supporters and eventual customers will be among those Jews who have gone--in your opinion, anyway--way too far towards the neopagan side.

It's true that most of these people are vegetarians and even vegans, but not all of them. My daughter buys mostly organic food, but she still eats chicken and turkey on holidays. I know she'd feel a lot better knowing these birds were both raised AND slaughtered humanely.

i don't post here in order for people to feel approved of or not. i do so in order that people get access to information they might not normally have access to.

Well, you did just that in the example I mentioned about the Jewish food movement. I was pleasantly surprised, athough I doubt that I'd consider watching the slaughter of a goat "a spiritual experience." I'd probably become a vegetarian right then and there!

That said, though...there are some practics I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to observe if I'm aware of why they are considered kosher--and I happen to disapprove. For example: the laws concerning kosher wine. From everything I've read, these have NO other apparent purpose except to prevent Jews from socializing with foreigners, and that just isn't a worthwhile objective, let alone a spiritual one. Also, according to the rules now prevalent in Israel and elsewhere, in order for wine to be labeled kosher certain processes have to performed by a "Sabbath observant" Jew. That means it wouldn't be kosher if I personally made it myself!!! And I'm supposed to take that seriously?

Or worse yet...the rules concerning the mikveh, as they apply to women and menstruation and childbirth. For years, I was so outraged by the whole idea that I told anyone who would listen that I wouldn't use a mikveh if I had one in my bathroom! And yet for several years I've been hearing about the book The Red Tent, although I still haven't read it. I've also heard that there are an increasing number of Jewish women who feel a need to use the mikveh after a trauma, such as the death of a child.

Now purification because of trauma or grief is a concept I can totally relate to. I would do that myself at the earliest opportunity, although I'd prefer it to be in a natural mikveh like a river and not an "official" or kosher one. Also, in order to reassure myself that I was giving absolutely no quarter to patriarchy and its sick notions about a woman's natural cycle of fertility, I'd actually prefer it to be a non-Jewish ritual of purification. Fortunately, such rituals aren't all that hard to come by.

That may seem like a ridiculous objection to you, but I don't care. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...and there's a lot of Kali in me, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you at this point.

--Linda

 

[bananabrain]

True, but you don't have any real idea about the nature of those experiences, because I haven't really talked about them yet.

and you don't have any idea about my experiences or opinions, yet it seems you feel free to call me names and give me doctrinaire labels.

For whatever reason, I felt I had to make it clear that I am not, nor will I ever be, a "ba'alat teshuvah" (I think that's the correct feminine form for what I mean) in the way some people expect.

i don't expect anything of the sort. i take the position (based at least in part on rav kook) that there is such a thing as "religious biodiversity"; that is, in the same way that a healthy spiritual system embraces *everything*, for whatever reasons G!D may have, there is a purpose and a place for the various forms of judaism within one "portfolio", as it were, from the "cultural" jews to the haredim - we all have our purpose and attempts, like those of the ba'al teshuvah movement, to impose some kind of wahhabist/artscroll conformity and uniformity of practice and outlook are not only misguided but absolutely opposed to the Divine Plan. just as the reform movement and the enlightenment have had things to teach us, so have the orthodox modernists, the jewish feminists and the green activists. so be so good as to avoid pigeonholing my opinions.

It's an attitude I've run into on various Judaism boards over the years, and sometime in RL too, namely "wherever you've been, you're back." But I'm NOT "back," not in the sense they mean anyway, because I'm not the same person I was when I left.

perhaps not, but perhaps it's not entirely unreasonable for them to take that attitude - at least it's welcoming. it's not spoiling for a fight.

My main interest in Judaism nowadays is in excavating the roots of pre-patriarchal Judaism, which I have every reason to believe really exist, or did exist at one time. I believe they still exist and are still viable.

oh deary me. the conquistadors were "patriarchal" too, but i don't believe people excavate aztec roots in order to reconstruct that society. just because one civilisation was replaced by another, it doesn't necessarily follow that the first was therefore better or indeed viable. you seem to be working on the assumption that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" - and if your "enemy" is defined as so-called patriarchal judaism, it is hard to see exactly what you would achieve and what you would be left with after your purge! there are plenty of people working within the "system", particularly within the reform movement and even within the part of modern orthodoxy that is concerned with the integration of LBGT people; however, it is inconceivable that a reconstruction of essentially canaanite fertility religion would be welcome or could be described as jewish. i mean, if you want to build asherahs or whatever it is, i can hardly stop you but you're hardly going to be able to get along with anyone from any of the established denominations.

I agree with Starhawk when she says that Judaism is essentially an earth-based religion. I believe it is, much more so than Christianity, and if the roots are in pre-Judaic paganism...well, why be surprised at that or try to deny it? Why would anyone expect it to be otherwise?

well, if you read your Nakh you'll see that it was precisely this that exercised the prophets, but what they were interested in doing was preventing the idolatrous short-circuits that the local pagan religions would lead people into.

The link you posted about the Jewish food movement is a good example of an earth-based approach that feels like a natural outgrowth of what is already there, not forced or tacked on late in the day by outsiders.

good, but what's wrong with something being added on "late in the day" (as, say a rabbinic ordinance) if it is consistent with the logic of the Text?

I know she'd feel a lot better knowing these birds were both raised AND slaughtered humanely.

inhumane raising and slaughtering cannot be considered truly kosher. i am aware that the shechita industry has not always given these considerations the importance they must deserve and i am one of those who campaigns for precisely this as a correct understanding of the Divine Will.

That said, though...there are some practics I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to observe if I'm aware of why they are considered kosher--and I happen to disapprove.

interestingly enough, you will find that there are a number of halakhic options around principled dissent, which i will try and dig out for you. i do hope, however, that you are big enough to accept that there are few of us that make the mistake of confusing our opinions with those of absolute Truth.

For example: the laws concerning kosher wine. From everything I've read, these have NO other apparent purpose except to prevent Jews from socializing with foreigners, and that just isn't a worthwhile objective, let alone a spiritual one.

depends on the context. if (as i do) you consider intermarriage and/or sexual immorality to be a bad thing, then measures taken to prevent people, under the influence of alcohol, acting in a way of which you approve, then they're perfectly logical. if you know the sort of thing that went on at roman banquets, which is a prime driver of those laws, you'll understand why it was a particularly worthwhile objective. on the other hand, if you are part of a married couple drinking wine in your own home with non-jewish friends, it is hard to know exactly how this is going to lead to immorality, so one can be forgiven for concluding that this law doesn't apply to one's own situation. the other consideration is that wine (especially if it's french or eastern european) can contain non-kosher ingredients such as blood used as "fining agents", so it wouldn't even be vegetarian.

Also, according to the rules now prevalent in Israel and elsewhere, in order for wine to be labeled kosher certain processes have to performed by a "Sabbath observant" Jew. That means it wouldn't be kosher if I personally made it myself!!! And I'm supposed to take that seriously?

look, don't get me started on the mad stringencies that get imposed in israel by the demands of the haredi lobby. nonetheless, judaism takes wine as a substance very seriously because of its sacramental dimension and if you take these concepts seriously then the rules are there for a purpose. there is a concept of "idolatrous libation" which personally, i take an extremely stringent view of. i know what i would consider "idolatrous" and frankly if there is no chance of it than i see very little reason to cause a desecration of the Divine Name by appearing intolerant.

Or worse yet...the rules concerning the mikveh, as they apply to women and menstruation and childbirth. For years, I was so outraged by the whole idea that I told anyone who would listen that I wouldn't use a mikveh if I had one in my bathroom! And yet for several years I've been hearing about the book The Red Tent, although I still haven't read it. I've also heard that there are an increasing number of Jewish women who feel a need to use the mikveh after a trauma, such as the death of a child.

sheesh. all i can say is that the educated religious women of my acquaintance don't see it this way at all. mrs bb goes to the mikveh and finds it an excellent and extremely positive way to regulate her personal space and her relationship with her body, so all i can say is that you're entitled to your opinion, but frankly i don't think you understand the system. perhaps you might like to engage in dialogue with some of the more engaged thinkers on the subject:

http://www.mayimrabim.com

besides, men are supposed to immerse as well in various circumstances. i don't do this often myself (partly because the mens' mikveh is not nearly as nice as the womens'!) but it is a wonderful way of "rebooting" yourself - the problem comes when one imposes english words like "purity" or "uncleanness" on spiritual concepts which have virtually nothing to do with them, any more than "positive" or "negative" have any value-judgements attached to them in terms of electricity. all the mikveh does is reverse the polarity of your flows, as it were.

I would do that myself at the earliest opportunity, although I'd prefer it to be in a natural mikveh like a river and not an "official" or kosher one.

the reason people don't use natural mikvehs so much is because it's so much less practical! i live in north london - i can't exactly nip down to the south bank and jump in the thames with no kit on. nor can mrs bb!

Also, in order to reassure myself that I was giving absolutely no quarter to patriarchy and its sick notions about a woman's natural cycle of fertility, I'd actually prefer it to be a non-Jewish ritual of purification. Fortunately, such rituals aren't all that hard to come by.

well, i'm delighted you're approaching the issue with an open mind.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Raksha]

i take the position (based at least in part on rav kook) that there is such a thing as "religious biodiversity"; that is, in the same way that a healthy spiritual system embraces *everything*, for whatever reasons G!D may have, there is a purpose and a place for the various forms of judaism within one "portfolio", as it were, from the "cultural" jews to the haredim - we all have our purpose and attempts, like those of the ba'al teshuvah movement, to impose some kind of wahhabist/artscroll conformity and uniformity of practice and outlook are not only misguided but absolutely opposed to the Divine Plan. just as the reform movement and the enlightenment have had things to teach us, so have the orthodox modernists, the jewish feminists and the green activists. so be so good as to avoid pigeonholing my opinions.

BB,

"Religious biodiversity" is a good way of putting it. It's been my experience though that most "frum" types absolutely deplore it, when they don't flat-out despise it. There is nothing more revolting than listening to a self-righteous Orthodox type putting down on the Reform movement, for example. I first encountered the phrase "Jewish goyim" in one of Chaim Potok's novels--fortunately, nobody ever used that phrase about me in RL because they would have instantly regretted it. In one of his books he mentions that only haredi Jews OR gentiles were permitted to work in the Lubavicher Rebbe's office or anywhere on the premises. No Reform or Conservative Jews allowed!

If you encounter this "my way or the highway" attitude enough times (even a few times are enough) you naturally conclude, "okay, fine...I guess it's the highway for me." Pretty soon the guardians of tradition are shouting "my way or the highway" to an empty room...and wondering where everybody went! A few of the more perceptive types like Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi figured this out early on and began taking proactive measures--but I understand the Lubavicher movement has disowned him. I guess he went too far by their standards, but it's their loss and the Jewish Renewal movement's gain. In fact, without him there probably wouldn't even *BE* a Jewish Renewal movement!

So yeah...when you run into that hard-nosed intolerant attitude enough times, pretty soon you come to expect it and even anticipate it from people who are absolutely convinced there is only ONE way to be Jewish. They don't even want to know about "religious biodiversity," let alone understand it or give it credit for anything. That's really what I dislike about the haredi types more than anything--specifically, their ingratitude. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that if it weren't for the liberal denominations, almost nobody over the past 100 years would remember they were Jewish at all, or have any what it meant if they did remember.

I've read Rav Kook also and I admire him very much. I bet that surprises you! He was fairly liberal considering his time and place and background, especially compared with his contemporaries. But he understood when nobody else did that a Jewish state could not be built by a bunch of old-world yeshiva types, and therefore the evolution of the "secular" Israeli or sabra type was also God's will. I know what a hard time he had selling that one to the contemporary haredim, but history has clearly vindicated him. It turned out they were the ones trying to second-guess God, not Rav Kook.

I still have to "translate" a lot of his writing into my own frame of reference in order to make it relevant to me, but it's worth the effort.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

And thank you for feeling comfortable sharing a piece of your story. It sounds like you've walked trying road that has led you down a very sacred path.

Dauer,

Well, I don't feel all that comfortable now and don't feel like sharing any more of it at the moment. My fault, I guess. I have a bad habit of getting too get too heavy into polemics too soon.

I just want to tell you I read the 13 priestess paths at the link you posted and I can identify with all of them, but especially the first three. I don't know why they are called the "three mothers of space" though. They correspond to the three phases of the moon or the three stages of a woman's life, in other traditions and in reality. And I definitely prefer "Matriarch" over "Crone" as the designation for that last one! Anyway, I see them as being the "three mothers of time" rather than space.

I think I've been down a very sacred path, and I appreciate your picking up on that. Most people probably wouldn't see it that way, but I'm the only one who really knows.

--Linda