One man's meaning is another man's cope[1]? I agree with you, but I'm not sure how I could argue people with entirely different starting assumptions (the two you listed) out of their conclusions, even if I wanted to do so (which, generally, I don't).
Also, something went wrong with your footnotes! I think you lost one and then it put all the others out of sync.
[1] Possibly this is because I'm reading him at the moment, but "cope" sounds to me like something from a Philip K. Dick novel, like Ubik or Can-D and Chew-Z. Something you can eat or spray that keeps entropy (The Form Destroyer) away for a while.
A. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I don't think they can be changed, at least not those at the poles. I'm just trying to illustrate the what seems like a natural outcome of a certain kind of thinking and maybe offer an alternative to those whose minds are not made up.
B. Thanks I fixed those footnotes! I think. It really was 5 am when I wrote this, and did not have the koach to triple check things.
A world without G-d is dystopian and disfunctional— as evidenced by the hyper materialism of the first example and the extreme fantasy of the second. As creations of the Almighty, we were made to be in relationship with Him, part of a sacred order that He designed for us. When we choose gods of our minds, they always fail.
Your regular reminder that the multiverse concept as used in sci-fi was invented by Michael Moorcock in 1962's "The Sundered Worlds". It was later picked up by Everett and Wheeler for their 'Many Worlds' quantum hypothesis (strictly: metaphysics, since it isn't testable), who expressly credit Moorcock for the influence.
In later novels, Moorcock's multiverse becomes a deeply metaphorical symbol for the many worlds we live in i.e. a psychological symbol rather than merely a physicist's fantasy. This, in fact, is a part of the origin story for why my Substack is called 'Stranger Worlds'. 🙂
That's very kind, Thomas - I wasn't angling for you to change your words though, just continuing to resist the ongoing erasure of Moorcock.😅
I'm sure this is just an illusionary effect, but ever since he embraced his Jewish heritage he seems to have been pushed further and further to the sidelines. Moorcock was in denial of his Jewish roots nearly his entire life - a theme that animates his Between the Wars quartet about an antisemitic Jew in the 1930s and 40s similarly in denial about being Jewish, even when it sends him to Dachau...
Of course, he's far from the only author to not have made 'the approved list' these days! 😜
I like your writing so much. It makes me think like nothing else. There is an authenticity to your thoughts and how you share them that I have never gotten from any contemporary Jewish writing. It all seems to be outcome oriented faux logic and faux emotion.
I have been thinking and thinking about your post about those women singers. Your post reaches the truth on modesty. I hope I can write about that, but it gets mangled in my writing sometimes.
I think I finally figured out what I love so much about what you write.
I think that I struggle with-maybe my main struggle in life-is, If I think that G-d’s laws are so great, and worshipping Him is so meaningful, why aren’t I a lot better at it?
I should be the frummest person in the world if I truly believe that G-d made me as I am on purpose. I do believe that. To my core.
How am I not nearly as good as I should be? And even further left in my observance than I wish I was? I can’t answer my question.
But I sense an analogous question in your writing- not the same question but something in the same genre, if I may be so bold as to say so. Correct me please if Im wrong.
I struggle constantly with the idea both of believing in God and what that means for me. And also with believing that God communicated His desires clearly and correctly through the sages and rabbis. And with that idea that even if He doesn't/didn't the frum life may be a better life than whatever else the world has offered me. And with the fact that I miss eating non-kosher meat and sometimes wish I could play my uke or guitar on Shabbat. And with the knowledge that sometimes it's better for me not to get what I want. . . . .
And yes, I do believe that if one believes two things: that God exists and that the rabbis are correct in their understanding of Him, then it naturally follows that we should all be pretty strict in our observance, and yet many of us aren't, and that's a curious and sometimes troubling thing.
I think the classic Jewish answer is that belief is only a small part of action, much of which is habitual. You need to get in the habit of doing mitzvot and "being good" -- but then, if it's habitual, it becomes hard to do it with meaning and intention. This is the struggle.
Also, is "further right" in observance always better? I don't think it is for everyone.
Being brought up frum means that so many things are really not difficult, in my opinion. Like eating kosher. I never ate non kosher. So basically it isn’t something I would seriously consider.
Further right, for me, yes. More refined, less immersed in secular culture. Like not being on social media. Stuff like that.
Being brought up Orthodox, I know how powerful it is to be brought up only knowing one way. I would give unqualified thumbs up to raising children exposed to less. If you want to know more about secular culture, it’s always right there at your door. What makes it difficult to raise our children how I would like to is that I wouldn’t expect them to do things that I am not willing to do myself. The kids raised by the parents with the worldview I appreciate the most don’t do a lot of the things I do and that I allow our children to do. I don’t think that Im a bad person. I just think that I could do better. And I can’t explain why I can’t.
A lot of my secular orientation is the way I was raised. I didn’t become more secular than my parents. Still, I see people raised the way I was who are more insular and I think that their kids really benefit from it. And they do too.
Because most people who touch the dichotomy end up with saying that G-d’s laws aren’t true- some of them, all of them, extreme, don’t make sense, mocking the detail oriented aspect or even the humanity involved. It’s really intellectually bankrupt, even if emotionally appealing.
But I do believe that G-d’s ways are best. And I don’t know why I have such a hard time with it, except that maybe life is supposed to be hard. Which I do think is true.
But you don’t say that. You say a lot of things. But you don’t say that.
I think you've helped me understand what I hate Everywhere Everything All at Once so much. It's not relevant,
Thanks for the shout out in footnote #7! 🤪
One man's meaning is another man's cope[1]? I agree with you, but I'm not sure how I could argue people with entirely different starting assumptions (the two you listed) out of their conclusions, even if I wanted to do so (which, generally, I don't).
Also, something went wrong with your footnotes! I think you lost one and then it put all the others out of sync.
[1] Possibly this is because I'm reading him at the moment, but "cope" sounds to me like something from a Philip K. Dick novel, like Ubik or Can-D and Chew-Z. Something you can eat or spray that keeps entropy (The Form Destroyer) away for a while.
A. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I don't think they can be changed, at least not those at the poles. I'm just trying to illustrate the what seems like a natural outcome of a certain kind of thinking and maybe offer an alternative to those whose minds are not made up.
B. Thanks I fixed those footnotes! I think. It really was 5 am when I wrote this, and did not have the koach to triple check things.
C. That Philip Dick all allusion sounds apt!
A world without G-d is dystopian and disfunctional— as evidenced by the hyper materialism of the first example and the extreme fantasy of the second. As creations of the Almighty, we were made to be in relationship with Him, part of a sacred order that He designed for us. When we choose gods of our minds, they always fail.
Beautiful and correct. No better combination.
amazing post!
I absolutely love this post. The contrasting of two different approaches to irrelevance is excellent.
Dear Thomas,
Your regular reminder that the multiverse concept as used in sci-fi was invented by Michael Moorcock in 1962's "The Sundered Worlds". It was later picked up by Everett and Wheeler for their 'Many Worlds' quantum hypothesis (strictly: metaphysics, since it isn't testable), who expressly credit Moorcock for the influence.
In later novels, Moorcock's multiverse becomes a deeply metaphorical symbol for the many worlds we live in i.e. a psychological symbol rather than merely a physicist's fantasy. This, in fact, is a part of the origin story for why my Substack is called 'Stranger Worlds'. 🙂
Happy Gregorian New Year to you and yours!
Chris.
Thank you Chris for the reminder, I've revised appropriately!
That's very kind, Thomas - I wasn't angling for you to change your words though, just continuing to resist the ongoing erasure of Moorcock.😅
I'm sure this is just an illusionary effect, but ever since he embraced his Jewish heritage he seems to have been pushed further and further to the sidelines. Moorcock was in denial of his Jewish roots nearly his entire life - a theme that animates his Between the Wars quartet about an antisemitic Jew in the 1930s and 40s similarly in denial about being Jewish, even when it sends him to Dachau...
Of course, he's far from the only author to not have made 'the approved list' these days! 😜
Happy Gregorian New Year to you!
Chris.
I like your writing so much. It makes me think like nothing else. There is an authenticity to your thoughts and how you share them that I have never gotten from any contemporary Jewish writing. It all seems to be outcome oriented faux logic and faux emotion.
I have been thinking and thinking about your post about those women singers. Your post reaches the truth on modesty. I hope I can write about that, but it gets mangled in my writing sometimes.
I think I finally figured out what I love so much about what you write.
I think that I struggle with-maybe my main struggle in life-is, If I think that G-d’s laws are so great, and worshipping Him is so meaningful, why aren’t I a lot better at it?
I should be the frummest person in the world if I truly believe that G-d made me as I am on purpose. I do believe that. To my core.
How am I not nearly as good as I should be? And even further left in my observance than I wish I was? I can’t answer my question.
But I sense an analogous question in your writing- not the same question but something in the same genre, if I may be so bold as to say so. Correct me please if Im wrong.
Thank you Rivka.
I hope I can live up to your words!
I struggle constantly with the idea both of believing in God and what that means for me. And also with believing that God communicated His desires clearly and correctly through the sages and rabbis. And with that idea that even if He doesn't/didn't the frum life may be a better life than whatever else the world has offered me. And with the fact that I miss eating non-kosher meat and sometimes wish I could play my uke or guitar on Shabbat. And with the knowledge that sometimes it's better for me not to get what I want. . . . .
And yes, I do believe that if one believes two things: that God exists and that the rabbis are correct in their understanding of Him, then it naturally follows that we should all be pretty strict in our observance, and yet many of us aren't, and that's a curious and sometimes troubling thing.
I think the classic Jewish answer is that belief is only a small part of action, much of which is habitual. You need to get in the habit of doing mitzvot and "being good" -- but then, if it's habitual, it becomes hard to do it with meaning and intention. This is the struggle.
Also, is "further right" in observance always better? I don't think it is for everyone.
Being brought up frum means that so many things are really not difficult, in my opinion. Like eating kosher. I never ate non kosher. So basically it isn’t something I would seriously consider.
Further right, for me, yes. More refined, less immersed in secular culture. Like not being on social media. Stuff like that.
Being brought up Orthodox, I know how powerful it is to be brought up only knowing one way. I would give unqualified thumbs up to raising children exposed to less. If you want to know more about secular culture, it’s always right there at your door. What makes it difficult to raise our children how I would like to is that I wouldn’t expect them to do things that I am not willing to do myself. The kids raised by the parents with the worldview I appreciate the most don’t do a lot of the things I do and that I allow our children to do. I don’t think that Im a bad person. I just think that I could do better. And I can’t explain why I can’t.
A lot of my secular orientation is the way I was raised. I didn’t become more secular than my parents. Still, I see people raised the way I was who are more insular and I think that their kids really benefit from it. And they do too.
Because most people who touch the dichotomy end up with saying that G-d’s laws aren’t true- some of them, all of them, extreme, don’t make sense, mocking the detail oriented aspect or even the humanity involved. It’s really intellectually bankrupt, even if emotionally appealing.
But I do believe that G-d’s ways are best. And I don’t know why I have such a hard time with it, except that maybe life is supposed to be hard. Which I do think is true.
But you don’t say that. You say a lot of things. But you don’t say that.
The 19 year old’s life philosophy sounds like what I understand Mein Kampf is about- a materialist understanding of the world.
I think that we have a raised a generation paralyzed by fear and anxiety, where nothing else can motivate, nothing is stronger.