All sorts of interesting conversations

Tonight in Hasidism class, we had a genuine, if rather odd Hassidic rebbe come in to speak to us. He is a rebbe without hasidim, but he is the genuine decendant of a hasidic dynasty, of the Besht's family, in fact, and sees himself in that role, although he grew up in a Modern Orthodox setting, although the grandchild of a hasidic rebbe. The interesting part was less this gentleman's background, although that was also fascinating, and more that although I didn't perceive him as a particularly gripping speaker, he had the entire class believing things and ideas that we normally would never do. He has us almost believing things like the idea that women are the hidden part of the Jewish people, and that the holocaust was justified because we can't know what's really good or bad, and that good things have come about because of it, so it can't be completely bad. This wore off after he left, but it took discussing to even realize that it had happened. WHile he was speaking, it was as if while on one layer of my mind I was going "ok, that's a different version of the standard get-away-from-really-answering-my-question approach (about the role of women in Judaism in his view), another part of me was just accepting it, without question. It gave me a real taste of why this business of charismatic leaders works so well. Kind of frightening, even though it was also in some ways beautiful to see someone who has so much faith and so much trust in the world to conform to his religious expectations. I'm very glad we discussed it afterwards, rather than continuing our lectures as planned, because I'm not sure how much of it I would have caught as well, charismatic influence otherwise. I'm far too pliant to this sort of thing. But in this case, it was quite pbviously not only me: the discussion proved how much it affected my classmates as well. I'm not sure if that's reassuring or frightening, in itself.

The other interesting thing was a conversation I had with Nathan, once he and I finally connected- someone else had been on the phone when we'd agreed that I'd call, which I can never tell, and had gotten worried about it. But anyways, we got into a discussion of the value of writing academic papers. I see it as a valuable skill and an exercise that is actually productive eventually: one produces some bit of new knowledge or thought, in contrast to problem sets, where one is only repeating what has been done before. But he was suggesting that papers are often just bs, and that they weren't worth it, and were a useless skill in the long run for most people. This was in context of Noah, his brother, whose been getting assignments that seem too long and pointless to him, well, to both of them. To me, while I can sympathize, I also have a great deal of respect for formal education: if a teacher tells you to write up answers to some questions, complain to your friends all you want, but you sit down and get the work done. The teacher probably knows more than you do, and writing is an effective way of getting you to remember hte material and also to make you show exactly what parts of the text you've been given you see as proof of one idea or the other. He finds the need to quote unnecessary: because the teacher should have read the book. I don't quite understand this attitude, especially later on, when one is working from more books, but even originally, because it is the only way to demonstrate that you understand the way the material works together, and to show that you know where your ideas are coming from. It seems like a conversation that will be continued at some other point. He saw it as a conflict between a home schooler and someone who enjoys traditional educational settings. I think it's partially that, and partially that he just doesn't think so much about the sort of disciplines required for the humanities. It was interesting, nonetheless.

I have some poems to put up, but should head to bed, so they'll get put here sometime soon. Probably at the same time I send them to steve...

All sorts of interesting conversations

Tonight in Hasidism class, we had a genuine, if rather odd Hassidic rebbe come in to speak to us. He is a rebbe without hasidim, but he is the genuine decendant of a hasidic dynasty, of the Besht's family, in fact, and sees himself in that role, although he grew up in a Modern Orthodox setting, although the grandchild of a hasidic rebbe. The interesting part was less this gentleman's background, although that was also fascinating, and more that although I didn't perceive him as a particularly gripping speaker, he had the entire class believing things and ideas that we normally would never do. He has us almost believing things like the idea that women are the hidden part of the Jewish people, and that the holocaust was justified because we can't know what's really good or bad, and that good things have come about because of it, so it can't be completely bad. This wore off after he left, but it took discussing to even realize that it had happened. WHile he was speaking, it was as if while on one layer of my mind I was going "ok, that's a different version of the standard get-away-from-really-answering-my-question approach (about the role of women in Judaism in his view), another part of me was just accepting it, without question. It gave me a real taste of why this business of charismatic leaders works so well. Kind of frightening, even though it was also in some ways beautiful to see someone who has so much faith and so much trust in the world to conform to his religious expectations. I'm very glad we discussed it afterwards, rather than continuing our lectures as planned, because I'm not sure how much of it I would have caught as well, charismatic influence otherwise. I'm far too pliant to this sort of thing. But in this case, it was quite pbviously not only me: the discussion proved how much it affected my classmates as well. I'm not sure if that's reassuring or frightening, in itself.

The other interesting thing was a conversation I had with Nathan, once he and I finally connected- someone else had been on the phone when we'd agreed that I'd call, which I can never tell, and had gotten worried about it. But anyways, we got into a discussion of the value of writing academic papers. I see it as a valuable skill and an exercise that is actually productive eventually: one produces some bit of new knowledge or thought, in contrast to problem sets, where one is only repeating what has been done before. But he was suggesting that papers are often just bs, and that they weren't worth it, and were a useless skill in the long run for most people. This was in context of Noah, his brother, whose been getting assignments that seem too long and pointless to him, well, to both of them. To me, while I can sympathize, I also have a great deal of respect for formal education: if a teacher tells you to write up answers to some questions, complain to your friends all you want, but you sit down and get the work done. The teacher probably knows more than you do, and writing is an effective way of getting you to remember hte material and also to make you show exactly what parts of the text you've been given you see as proof of one idea or the other. He finds the need to quote unnecessary: because the teacher should have read the book. I don't quite understand this attitude, especially later on, when one is working from more books, but even originally, because it is the only way to demonstrate that you understand the way the material works together, and to show that you know where your ideas are coming from. It seems like a conversation that will be continued at some other point. He saw it as a conflict between a home schooler and someone who enjoys traditional educational settings. I think it's partially that, and partially that he just doesn't think so much about the sort of disciplines required for the humanities. It was interesting, nonetheless.

I have some poems to put up, but should head to bed, so they'll get put here sometime soon. Probably at the same time I send them to steve...