![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I just went to a Rabbis Without Borders dinner thing (Rabbis Without Borders being a CLAL project). It was fascinating and infuriating, both. This time (this is the first one I've gone to, but not the first they've done here) the main point was drawn from a piece of Moreh Nevuchim about how Torah has 2 purposes: 1. to teach correct beliefs, which R. Kula "translated" as being about understanding the meaning of life, and 2. to get along well with other people. His big thing was that everything we do religiously needs to be understood as contributing to one or both of those two goals. Left like that, it sounds like an interesting construction, and I am interested in playing with it, as a way of getting a new insight into mitzvot, and into how to talk about them.
However, he then tried to put love of G-d and awe of G-d into the role of things that need to fit into somewhere in that framework, where love of G-d is still something that supposed to fulfill a purpose. And I had a huge problem with that, because I don't see how something can be real love if it is supposed to have a purpose of doing something for me. Should love have side-effects that help me? sure, of course. But if that's the goal, then I don't see how it's actually love of an other- it's a love of self, and that's important- but calling love of self love of something Other is lying, and I don't see the use of that- in fact, I think that it's actively destructive.
So I talked about it with him afterwards a little bit, and his answer had to do with the experience of having that encounter with G-d, and with perceiving the self as either nearly non-existant or all-encompassing, which was lovely and inspirational, but it didn't connect to his original premise in a way that answered the issue. I mean, it answered the issue of love of self being love of G-d, almost- except that while it provided a view for how the problem could be not a problem for people who can manage that feat, well, very few people do manage that feat right off the bat. And even for them- how often can they really pull it off? In the meantime, it leave people maybe finding meaning, and that's great- except that in that framework, I don't know how real love of G-d starts to get built, and if it doesn't get built, I don't know how the meaning lasts.
However, he then tried to put love of G-d and awe of G-d into the role of things that need to fit into somewhere in that framework, where love of G-d is still something that supposed to fulfill a purpose. And I had a huge problem with that, because I don't see how something can be real love if it is supposed to have a purpose of doing something for me. Should love have side-effects that help me? sure, of course. But if that's the goal, then I don't see how it's actually love of an other- it's a love of self, and that's important- but calling love of self love of something Other is lying, and I don't see the use of that- in fact, I think that it's actively destructive.
So I talked about it with him afterwards a little bit, and his answer had to do with the experience of having that encounter with G-d, and with perceiving the self as either nearly non-existant or all-encompassing, which was lovely and inspirational, but it didn't connect to his original premise in a way that answered the issue. I mean, it answered the issue of love of self being love of G-d, almost- except that while it provided a view for how the problem could be not a problem for people who can manage that feat, well, very few people do manage that feat right off the bat. And even for them- how often can they really pull it off? In the meantime, it leave people maybe finding meaning, and that's great- except that in that framework, I don't know how real love of G-d starts to get built, and if it doesn't get built, I don't know how the meaning lasts.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject