mentalblog.com comments:
You told me that on this blog "mental block" was an award! There is no honesty left in this world... :(
Maybe we washouts from polite frum societies should have a yearly convention. :)
polite :?:
I guess it's true what they say:
"That, from which we flee, pursues us..."
In polite frum society, when someone says that we all must rush home before six because Mars is in ascendency (whatever that means), everyone just smiles in agreement.
No one would dare to have the Ga'avah or chutzpah to question the matter. I mean, what if we made kiddush at 6:01 on red wine and the klipah and sitra achara (or what the Christians call SAY-TUN) put the whammy on us.
In polite frum society, if we cannot hold back our wonder at matters hypocritical, whacky or just plain ridiculous, we express it only at home, to ourselves.
Rebel:
You are a complete am ha'aretz. Making kidush between six and seven has nothing to do with the color of the wine or even wine at all. If you don't make kidush between six and seven, then you don't even make kidush on pas. Thus, I take the broad liberty of concluding that - just as in this instance, so to in general - you are rebelling not against Torah but against your very own pediatric and shallow misimpressions.
No go and learn so you won't have to be so angry anymore.
PS- this post goes for all y'all frustrated wannabe pseudo-heretics on this blog.
By the grace of G-d
Shalom uBrocha!
Tzemach we love you.Rebbe surely has much nachas from your blog.Please continue writing and make it even better.
brocha ve'hatzlocha:
Ariel Sokolovsky
Long Live our Master our Teacher and our Rebbe King Moshiach Forever and ever!
Anon (pseudo-anonymous?)
The sarcastic comment was on what one commonly heard from the "Chabad believers", not the actual halacha, (which you, no doubt, can source, while we are on the subject?)
Perhaps the anger you sense in me is not external to you at all, given your ad hominems. Oh, and I am not pseudo-anything. If you feel I am a heretic, feel free to call me so. I would be in good company.
As to the charge that I am an am ha'aretz, I have no defense, unfortunately.
Rebel:
I am darned impressed with your response. I gave you a potch in ponim and you took it like a man, so you are not so angry and twisted after all.
I most certainly do NOT think you are a heretic. My whole point is exactly that: you and your ilk (forgive the generalization) desperately long to be heretics much like wiggers in suburban middle America fancy themselves to be gangstas. I said "pseudo" and I meant "pseudo."
As to the charge that the anger I sense in you is not external to me, I plead guilty as charged. I thank the good L-rd, however, that perhaps even to meet some deep-seated psychological need, my frustration was channeled into pro-active bitterness (see Tanya ch. 31) and instead of "sour-grapes-ing" the chasidic hegemony opted to get on the fast track. (Forgive me for the mixed metaphors.)
I leave you now with this last thought - though I do hope we can continue our chat, being that it pertains to so many of the commentors on this blog (and the "blog master" himself, me thinks): How much of "pseudo-heresy" is do to real intellectual disappointment and how much is due to being unable, in a given situation, to procure basic social and emotional needs? It's no fun being a nerd in ANY society.
They leave you no choice. You gotta bring a shotgun to school and THAT'LL teach 'EM! Now the prettiest in school will regret that she never spoke to you! Hit 'em where it hurts most... then they'll be sorry!
anon, you are very weird and a bit scary...
Anon
Believe it or not, monomonasticism is not all it is cracked up to be, morally or intellectually.
As far as comparing me to some Jewish version of the Columbine or Minnesota killers, I think you use psychoanalysis to cover what you cannot address with honest argument.
And I have my own blog, if you care to "step outside".
First of all, thank you, Berl, for calling me weird and scary (if, indeed, you were being genuine.) That means I have the intimidation factor on my side (and I am not afraid to use it if intellectually cornered.) Second, Rebel, I don't want to step outside. I wanna brawl right here in the middle of the party where the buffet table can get knocked over. Third of all, I am not using "psychoanalysis to cover" what I "cannot address with honest argument." This IS my argument. My ONLY argument. (Cuz I sho' 'nuff did NOT come to philosophize with you boors. I'm an ardent anti-intellectual and you would only get frustrated by my party-line chauvinism if were to dare engage me in serious dialogue.)
Thus, although I may sound like I am dancing around the facts, that is not the case. I am deliberately and completely IGNORING the facts. And I ask again, how much of any of the ideas espoused on this and similar blogs have anything to do with real intellectual disappointment and how much is due to being socially frustrated?
I'm really asking. Can we, please, consider the "nerd factor"? Then, maybe, the healing can begin.
Anon
I fail to see how much of an intimidation factor can be had by someone who cannot even be fully anonymous, only anon.
And why should we discuss the "nerd factor"? Your need to categorize others who disagree with your stances so that you can simply put them into an "abnormal" box and feel as if your own hypocracy is not under examination is not one that I care to humor. Note: I assume you are hypocritical based on your comment implying that you would tow the party line.
In reality, in real practical terms, you do not fully buy into everything that you would no doubt preach here, philosophically or religiously, any more than any of us would. It is a hard thing to face. Hiding behind slogans is much easier.
Okay, you're right. Anon is a stupid name. I'm changing it to Chauvin.
Now, listen here, Rebel. I already told you that I ain't gonna get sucked into discussing ideas. I'm not interested in discussing who is or is not a hypocrite. Save your epistomolgy for the coffee house.
What I want to discuss is how social rejection forms apostacy. (And BTW don't think I am ignorant of the fact that it works both ways, that many who have a secular upbringing choose to turn their life upside down and become frum precisely because they were nerds in their former society. Only, they usually just remain nerds and then either accept the fact or get ornery and turn on those who robbed them of their taanugei olam hazeh.)
I recall the classic "megadeif" in the Torah. Who was the megadeif? He was a nerd who was socially rejected so he spazzed out and cursed G-d. Remember the story? He wanted to camp with sheivet Don (his mother's tribe) and they told him that he had to go out and camp with the geirim outside of the machne. Instead of being cool and just going ahead with that, he did what any good nerd would do... he freaked and kept pushing 'til the whole thing had to end in tragedy. Jethro was the exact opposite. He was also an "outsider." He also had to pitch his tent in the "nosebleed section." But he was cool. When Moses told him about the Egyptians getting wiped out at the sea, his flesh went prickly. Like Rashi says there, he still sympathized with the goyim. But he didn't let on. He was just cool. He didn't even get hung up about not being able to camp in the machne. Instead, he even made THAT look cool. After Matan Torah he was like "Oh, I gotta go and be megayer my family in Midian." Now maybe you want to call Jethro a "partyliner," too or maybe an "Uncle Tom." That's fine. But you know who were descended from Jethro? Roshei Sanhedrin. You know who was descended from the megadeif?
NO ONE! He died a frustrated, lonely bachelor!
Man, Torah is SO true.
I love you all!
Anon-Chauvin:
Having read this post, I am more inclined toward Berl's original opinion.
And, while we are dodging the subject of how Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 271:1 (the kiddush between 6 and 7 issue) was corrupted in common Jewish culture, I would note that "Uncle Tom" is similarly corrupted by modern culture. The character Uncle Tom was a strong man who overcame terrible hardship through faith. He was not a weak man who was dominated by fear.
I strongly encourage you to continue your hubris filled ranting about nonsense, though. The sane Chevra should be alert to what is out there.
You got me pegged all wrong. I'm not some nut standing on a soapbox. I'm just a gadfly (or perhaps a wino in the park) trying to harrass you while YOU stand on the soapbox. Second of all, it's not called hubris. It's called irreverance. I don't mind to make myself silly if I can expose your human frailty in the process.
So, let's talk... "The nerd factor." Have you been let down by ideas or by people?
Chauvin
You finally say something worth addressing. "Ideas or People"? The fact that people cannot live consistently by the ideas shows a severe lacking in teh ideas themselves? Are you asking me if my unconventional outlook is caused by vendetta against particular people? Not that I know of. The atempted brainwashing of Yeshiva never fully took with me.
Are you asking me if my revisiting of ideas and testing and reformulation of their validity is based on interactions with particular people? Probably, like every other thought. When you do not have the comfort of like minded sloganeers, you seek validation from empirical anecdote.
So, I think I can say that if I had never met a frum Jew, I would have pretty much developed my outlook as it is. My interaction with frum Jews makes it that much more certain in my mind.
Nerd factor? I am a computer guy who likes Star Trek for crying out loud!
So Chauvin's theory-that social anxiety/frustration leads to a desire to validate one's own innability to adjust to the social norm by taking an intellectual position contrary to those who he once considered his social superiors even if this has to be done on an irrational level (pending he can support it with enough rhetoric to sound legitimane)-is correct?
No Negotiv. It was precisely that point that is not even worth discussing.
The point at issue was people or ideas contributing more influence to an unconventional outlook.
Commenting by HaloScan
