From the beginning of the creation of the world, G-d used His discernment, to separate the light from the darkness. This separation is a phenomenon that we may observe every day at dusk and dawn. The transition at twilight into nighttime, and at sunrise into daytime.
The Targum Neofiti emphasizes that G-d separated by word between light and darkness. We take the separation of light and darkness as a natural occurrence that seems effortless on the part of what most human beings refer to as nature.
Since there was no Biblical Hebrew word for nature, modern Hebrew uses the word Teva. The point that I would like to make is that the initial separation was not effortless, nor a natural phenomenon; rather, it was a principle of separation built into the fabric of Creation.
According to Rashi, because the light was good, it was not appropriate “that light and darkness should function together in a confused manner” (commentary on Genesis 1:4, sefaria.org). A parallel can be drawn to moral sphere, wherein the same rule may apply.
This tenet would caution us against the mixture of light and dark in our thinking, and how we approach the challenges in life; it may help decrease the confusion prevalent in society today. The current chaos of the world derives from the admixture of good and evil that permeates society. It is fueled by the flames of bitterness, animosity, and hostility.
Yet, the line of good and evil runs through the heart of every human (Solzhenitysn). This must be acknowledged by all decent people with a conscience in order to maintain a balanced perspective. The designation of people groups leads to an us and them mentality, as if the moral integrity of the in-group compels them to be sinless in their own eyes.
On the contrary, we must examine ourselves, all the moreso, in order to better challenge evil. In a world where the difference between good and evil is blurred we need the discernment that is able to separate light from darkness. “The words You inscribed give light” (Ps. 119:130, JPSN).
Furthermore, to attempt to justify evil by placing it within a context that is itself deceptive is a disavowal of the existence of objective good and evil. We approach the dystopic inverse mentioned by the prophet, wherein “good is called evil and evil is called good, darkness is changed into light and light is changed into darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).
Yet, the original light of Creation, created before the sun, stars, and moon were created was set aside for the righteous in the Messianic Era. This is G-d’s promise of utopia on earth, when Moshiach will reign from Jerusalem. No utopia that man attempts to create can deter the divine plan.
Have you ever had the feeling that “it’s later than it seems?” This feeling could manifest within the framework of your daily routine, yet, point toward something of greater significance. We tend to ignore, overlook, or distract ourselves from one of the fundamental givens of our existence: that our lives on earth are limited to a certain number of years. From the perspective of existential psychology, this existential given that everyone faces, causes us anxiety that manifest in indirect ways in our lives. Therefore, it is better to be brought out into the open, at some point, so that we can acknowledge what will eventually be brought to our awareness, sooner or later.
Yet, instead of acknowledging this reality, we might unconsciously try to avoid any reflection upon the brevity of our lives, by constantly distracting ourselves. In other words, by default, we face this particular existential given, by avoiding the recognition of our life on this earth as finite. Rather than think that we only have so many days to live in a way, pleasing to G-d, many of us live by always occupying our time with something to distract us from our own personal anxiety, fear, and uncertainty about the future, and the inevitability of death.
And, so, like water flowing where it will, or dandelion puffs blowing here and there, our natural inclinations lead us astray, acting against contemplation of the givens of our existence, and bringing us further away from the responsibility of actualizing an overall purpose in our lives, above and beyond the daily grind, and the seeking of pleasure, entertainment, and relaxation for its own sake.
Moreover, rebellion has become normative. Our flight from reality is sanctioned by the ongoing progressive cultural milieu of our times. For, if we do not even acknowledge the finiteness of our lives, then we may see ourselves within the framework of a delusion – that our lives are limitless, we can pursue whatever gives us satisfaction without any repercussions upon our conscience, especially if we are our own masters of conscience, and arbiters of truth.
As such, we disavow any claims made upon our lives by an authority higher than ourselves. Part of the tragedy stems from our views of authority from childhood, as influenced by the surrounding culture. Unless there is a tight-knit cohesion of the family unit, it is subject to decay, by way of outside influences. Its authority, in terms of positive parental influence is decreased in the minds of youth, who show signs of disrespect, and the parents themselves, who want to raise their children having a sense of freedom and autonomy they themselves value in their own lives. Yet, freedom must be balanced with responsibility, and autonomy must be weighed against the sovereignty of others.
There is a difference between dominion and domination. Mankind has been given dominion over the world, in order to serve as responsible stewards of the archetypal Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve lived in a Paradise, wherein a threefold harmony existed between themselves and G-d, with each other, and their environment. A fourth harmony was the inner sanctity within each of them as individuals.
This harmony was abandoned in favor of disobedience, the lure of becoming independent actors in a world created with a purpose and directive by the ultimate Director, whose script they chose to no longer follow. Instead, we establish ourselves as the highest authority, and end up dominating, instead of guiding the lives of others. Yet, G-d is compassionate; ever since the Fall, the expulsion from Paradise, G-d has been calling us back to him. He also took a measure of propriety to ensure that mankind would not have the leeway to continue outside of the initial plan – he limited the lifespan of mankind to 120 years maximum.
And, yet, we fill up our years, whether they be 70, 80 or more with material concerns (in Hebrew, gashmiyos), irrespective of the destiny of our souls. We attempt to dominate time, by making sure that we are always active, or always accomplishing something, yet, while concomitantly relinquishing our responsibility to use our time wisely. Rather, we need to redeem the time, by way of more meaningful pursuits in our lives.
Consider, that a conundrum exists between the focus on our physical existence, to the neglect of the soul. Our physical lives, in particular, the body, will eventually be subject to decay, while the soul is eternal. If our soul is eternal, then shouldn’t we begin to nourish what will last forever? We wouldn’t invest in a company that has a declining stock value. Yet, we continue to invest our lives with interests that are ephemeral. Moreover, whether you receive this or not at this time in your life, know that we are held accountable for the way we conduct ourselves in this life. The quality of our eternity depends upon how we lived our life.
Nobody wants to face death; we would rather enjoy our lives. Moreover, if this is all there is, irrespective of any kind of an afterlife, then most people who think this way, perhaps, would tend to live outside any sense of telos – an ultimate, purposeful goal beyond the ordinariness of our lives. And, yet, if we have not already considered what might be our ultimate purpose or individual mission in life, then the question may beg an answer, if only below the level of our awareness.
We distract ourselves from what is the most value in life. We are consumed with busyness – busy activity – even outside of our normative roles, tasks, and challenges for survival and to provide for others. However, of virtue, destiny and telos we remain ignorant, unconcerned, and even resentful toward any claim of an order that exists outside of our own individual kingdom where we seek to reign by giving into whatever we feel, think, or desire for ourselves. Thus, we do not even realize, that, in actuality, we our slaves to our desires.
Our lives have been stolen from us by the influence of therapeutic culture, an ever-pervasive “philosophy of life” that emphasizes our subjective pursuits for safety, freedom from suffering, and the lowest common denominator in terms of responsibilities – only to adhere to the path that will bring the most satisfaction. In doing so, we risk acknowledgment of the value and integrity of others. We honor ourselves more than others, and even worse, give no thought to honoring the Creator. Thus, the inherent danger in regard to G-d’s creatures – our fellow human beings – is to disregard their autonomy. Moreover, when we objectify others, we deny their dignity.
A repair of the human soul, a reordering of our values, and a reconstituting of a greater harmony going out beyond ourselves is in need. While we might remain faithful to the responsibilities of our lives, we have abandoned the yoke of Heaven. Yet, the path to harmony within and without begins with a first step, made in tandem with an answer to a higher calling. We may still have a chance to place our faith in someone other than ourselves before it is too late.
The promotion of virtue within a human being is the original idea of changing oneself on the inside, in order to become a better human being. This type of virtue acquisition is ensconced within the tomes of religious libraries, and the shelves of classical antiquity that are becoming more like tombs, in the face of a redefining of virtue. If virtue-signalling continues to replace actual virtue in the minds of this generation, then all virtue will eventually be lost.
Virtue as defined by religion and classical works of antiquity is a moral compass formed by character development that takes place within the human soul. Discernment, courage, self-control, and a sense of fairness are some of the main virtues of classical antiquity. Patience, kindness, humility, and compassion are a few of the virtues found amongst the world’s religions. Doing unto others as you would like to have done to yourself is a key adage meant to foster consideration to others. And, loving your fellow person as yourself exceeds the limitations that are inherent from a sense of egoism.
Yet, the trendy virtue-signalling of more recent years is based upon a set of pseudo-values that lack the countermeasures to put a rein on one’s own negative character traits. In fact, it is entirely possible to fall prey to virtue-signalling, without becoming virtuous at all. If we are considerate, then we should be considerate to all. We should not only be concerned for specific “oppressed” groups within the framework of identity politics; rather, also, for those who are labeled “oppressors.”
By labeling, categorizing, and placing into good groups and bad groups, we are overlooking the uniqueness and individuality of each, and every person categorized. “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts.” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn).
Thus, every individual has a fine line within themselves, wherein both hate and love, compassion and intolerance exist. We should compel ourselves to demonstrate love toward all human being, rather than love some and hate others. Also, in regard to compassion for all, instead of compassion for some, and intolerance for others.
I think that some people are clearly looking for solutions to the world’s problems, and may feel that if the view that they have accepted as the solution is not accepted by others, then the fruition of that solution into actuality is being threatened. It’s as if the enactment of their world view, that they have staked a claim upon as necessary for a better society, is a view desperately clung to as a panacea for the world. It is not so much their own certitude in regard to their particular view, rather their allegiance toward that worldview as the only credible solution for the evils of the world. As such, it may become implausible for them to even attempt to consider how anyone else could object; and, therefore their only recourse is to shut down the other, or for themselves to exit the conversation, while condemning the other. Apparently, civil discourse is not an option when emotions run high, and devotion to a cause is intractable.
As a result of this political, social, and moral climate, another question is being asked, based on the assumption that people in general need to stand together in some kind of unity with each other, or at the very least, acceptance of each other’s viewpoints. After all, isn’t that what the term, diversity originally meant? Yet, amongst the left, and those who support the Woke Ideology there can be no room for error in their presuppositions about the world as seen through the Marxist lens of power dynamics. So, how can the ordinary person better learn to communicate with one’s fellow person? How can we allow for the diversity of opinion celebrated in an actual democracy? Moreover, what has happened to the marketplace of ideas in this country?
Consider that there must be a mutual receptivity to what the other has to say, and those words need to be spoken in a nonassertive way, without putting oneself or one’s ideas upon a pedestal. Additionally, both must be active listeners as well as effective communicators, giving ample time and space to the other to express his or her viewpoints before responding. Additionally, if individuals stand upon their own belief system, in recognition that first and foremost they must be the ones to enact it in their own personal lives, then maybe there would be less of an impetus for others to also have to accept the same worldview. Finally, to act out of humility, knowing that one’s viewpoints might not necessarily lead toward the ideal sense of society that one would hope to see; and, be open to exploring other possibilities.
Yet, the main reason why the marketplace of ideas has been shut down is because of the rise of cancel culture in mainstream society. This “strategy,” if you will, for getting one’s way in a heated debate began over ten years ago on university campuses. It was used so much as a tool of the left, that even in universities at that time, many students as well as teachers with conservative viewpoints withheld their views in order to escape being dragged out into the limelight of public discourse where they could be intimidated. Perhaps, today, the intransigence of one’s position as the only defense against others with different views only contributes to the invective.
So, it may not be about changing others per se; rather, simply to start by challenging the stance of others who feel a need to be overly assertive about their viewpoints, asking why they feel threatened by those with different views. And, if some is open to sincere dialogue, then to raise that possibility as a means of restoring a sense of civil discourse. Yet, as for the ideologues who are not interested in entertaining any other set of ideas, how can someone unwilling to discourse with another be approached? The strength of one’s position compels that person to see his or view as the correct one, and to be adamant to the point of refusal to hear anyone else’s view. This intransigence is a roadblock that cannot be crossed, except if that person realizes through personal insight, the nature of his position, and the need to transform one’s viewpoints. (Stay tuned for Part 2).
Breathing Room 