Actually I think I have stumbled upon this post once before probably when I was seriously considering law school. I don’t think I still will because it seems to be a second-rate version of yeshiva.

As far as Zionism vs Zionicty this is a serious debate whether the essence is the essence or the manifestation is the essence. It would seem that the essence would have to be the essence unless the essence and the manifestation are one. This rests on the assumption that we can divorce experience from practice: hence accusation of hypocrisy of religion. But if consciousness/inner-experience and outward manifestation are actually seemingly-dual manifestation of an identical state, it may not be possible to assume that. it would also explain the emphasis in Judaism on what we do concretely, with no attempt made to reproduce an inner state without preserving whatever action was taken to achieve that state.

In other words, it may be possible that what is important IS ACTUALLY to DO exactly what it says because in a new metaphysics (substantiated by quantum science and consciousness studies) one may believably posit that the external reality and the internal are the same.

Funny enough, this jives well with the poststructuralist viewpoint which Derrida would in fact appreciate, and also with William Carlos Williams quote you mention. This is because the manifestation of an internal state is possibly something we also experience to be internal: we do have things in thoughts. Thoughts have physical instatiation. These words are instantiations. The thoughts are inner psychic creative intentional entities which resides in the realm of the non-physical. These exercises teach us to become attuned to the psychic content in all states, both physically sense-able and psychologically introspectable… we cannot actually distinguish between the two psychologically because when we have thoughts they can be equated phenomenologically as well as physiologically with having (audio) sensations.

This is a lot of thoughts but I like to be in touch if you think this has any validity please by all means let me know. It may just be gibberish.

This is a great post. I’m commenting to check the updated comment feed.

-yedidya

1) Regarding Cohen’s emphasis on personal empathy, did he make any attempt to integrate Kantian moral philosophy with that of Adam Smith and his Theory of Moral Sentiments? (cf. Exodus 23:9 as a “prolegomena to any future Jewish metaphsyics”)

2) Would you consider R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik a “rock star” of existential philosophy?

I’m honestly puzzled at the way the debate on the citizenship oath for new immigrants is shaping up. It seems to be all heat and no light.

First of all, many countries (including the US) impose an oath of allegiance on new citizens. Several of these include allegiance to specific political systems (such as constitutional monarchy). Why is what Israel doing so outlandish?

The legitimacy of the state of Israel lies not in it being a state where all citizens have equal rights (though I think we would all agree that they should continue to have such rights). The legitimacy of the State lies in it enabling the Jewish people to actualize their rights to their home land. A state that predicated a Jew’s the right to citizenship on their willingness to swear allegiance would not be legitimate. It would be no more legitimate than revoking a born American’s citizenship because he was a member of the Communist Party.

A Jew, by definition has the right to live in Israel. A non-Jewish immigrant is only petitioning for that right. That means that the former cannot be denied his/her right without a very good reason (Meyer Lansky might be a good example) and a non-Jew could be rejected for any reason.

I have nine kids (baruch HaShem). They are all entitled to UK citizenship (in my merit) and US citizenship (in my wife’s). If a UK or US government were to insist on them taking some oath of allegiance before granting them the right of abode in Britain or America, it would be an illegitimate act. On the other hand, my son-in-law, who is an Russian-Israeli, can claim no right to US or UK citizenship and those countries could apply such conditions as they see fit on admitting him. A Jew born anywhere in the world, as a member of the Jewish nation, is entitled to Israeli citizenship. Discrimination in immigration policy between those who are members of the nation they are seeking entrance to and those who are not (but want to be), is legitimate and commonplace.

We should not be afraid to face up to the basic arguments about Israel and Zionism.

(BTW The idea of making the oath mandatory for all immigrants (whether under the Law of Return or not) is a bad idea. If a Jew, who is born with the right to citizenship, can only exercise it after swearing some sort of oath, what’s to stop making the citizenship of Arabs who are born with the right to citizenship also conditional on swearing an oath?)

It occurs to me that perhaps the New Voices community would be interested to know that British law today requires the royal monarch to be a member of the Church of England and excludes from the position of king or queen any member of the royal family who has married a Catholic. (Fewer are probably aware of the fact that Tony Blair only just converted to Catholicism post his prime ministership so as to avoid having the affiliation negatively affecting his political prospects!)

I presume the above means that the scrupulously moral minds of New Voices will similarly stop visiting the United Kingdom? Imagine the outcry if Israel officially excluded Muslims (or all non-Jewish religionists) from holding the post of President (roughly analogous to the ceremonial role played by the British monarch). Forget that – surely we should be boycotting and divesting from those other small and insignificant European nations which have been banning the burka (France) and minarets on mosques (Switzerland). If the debatable symbolic bigotry of a verbal loyalty oath for non-citizens is so utterly repugnant, I can only imagine how detestable the physical religious oppression of the UK, France and Switzerland against Muslims must seem to the eminently ethical arbiters of New Voices. Similarly, I hope to see some serious condemnations rain down on the Islamic Republic of Iran when it becomes a true democracy (perhaps under the Green Movement), since we all know Islam or any other religion cannot coexist with that form of government (see: Indonesia).

Or maybe it’s time to introduce some real world complexity and perspective into this discussion, rather than the mendacious and uninformed mischaracterizations and tunnel-vision that seem to typify Israel discourse in these parts.