Modern-day science believes that we humans are evolved beasts, driven by primal, narcissistic needs and feelings. What can we truly expect of creatures obsessed with survival of the fittest? What can we really look forward to for the future of the human race?

In this fascinating essay, Simon Jacobson dissects our current view of the human psyche, and offers a fresh psychological model that will revolutionize the way you think about yourself and the world.

As always, your comments, rebuttals and insights are deeply welcomed.

This is also part of our ongoing series discussing our search for purpose and meaning in life — our mission statement. This week’s article addresses one of the greatest challenges facing us as we search for meaning: The challenge of temptation. How do deal with the material forces that seduce us? If you would like to receive earlier parts of this unique series, please e-mail us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Honor of the 206^th Anniversary of Yud Tes Kislev and the 2143^rd Anniversary of Chanukah

It is commonly accepted that the age of modern psychology began at the end of the 19^th century. The way we understand ourselves today is very much defined by the thinking of William James, then Sigmund Freud, who some call the Father of Psychology, followed by Carl Jung, BF Skinner and other great psychologists of the 20th century.

I would like to submit that the Father of Psychology is actually a man who lived a century earlier, and has yet to be recognized as the true pioneer of modern psychology.

That man was Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812), and he offered the most sophisticated and comprehensive view to date on the nature of the human psyche and its struggles.

Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s (also known as the Alter Rebbe) immense contribution can be appreciated by contrasting it with the prevalent view on the psyche.

The big issue facing psychology is of course the human struggle between our conflicting drives. On the lowest end of the spectrum is our selfish need to survive and experience pleasure. On the next rung, our practical need to co-exist, to love and be loved and live productive lives. Then we have our ethical values and our conscience. And finally, our higher, spiritual and transcendental dimensions.

Human anxiety is a result of our conflicting voices. How we treat and mistreat others is determined by which force controls our behavior. Vulnerable and impressionable children, of course, are the first to suffer the consequences and are hurt the deepest by our clashing drives colliding with each other. And we all begin our lives as children. Then, these children grow up and have to pick up the pieces, try to heal from their wounds and rebuild their lives.

The rest is history – your history and mine, the history of every person alive today struggling with the disparate forces that shape our personalities and define our life choices. A vicious cycle indeed.

Plaguing thinkers from the beginning of time is the million-dollar question: Who is the real you? Or more precisely: Which of our drives is the most powerful one? Which is most dominant?

The prevalent theory – which can be coined the Darwinian-Freudian model – argues that the most powerful and most basic human drive is selfish survival.

Humans are fundamentally no different than other creatures, and indeed have evolved from the same ancestors. According to Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, variation within species occurs randomly and the survival or extinction of each organism is determined by that organism’s ability to adapt to its environment. Another name Darwin (1809-1882) gave Natural Selection was “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

Darwin did not speak in psychological terms. Indeed, he avoided applying his theory to the social and religious arena. It was apparently British philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) who first used the term “survival of the fittest” as a central tenet of what became known as “Social Darwinism.” He applied (or some say misapplied) Darwin’s idea of natural selection to justify European domination and colonization of much of the rest of the world. Social Darwinism was also widely used to defend the unequal distribution of wealth and power in Europe and North America at the time. Poor and politically powerless people were thought to have been failures in the natural competition for survival. Subsequently, helping them was seen as a waste of time and counter to nature. Rich and powerful people did not need to feel ashamed of their advantages because their success was proof that they were the most fit in this competition.

In the psychological realm, Freud (1856-1939) posited that the most basic of all human instincts is the “Id,” the primal, unconscious source for satisfying all mans’ basic needs and feelings. It has only one rule: The “pleasure principle:” “I want it and I want it all now.” The id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation or the good of others.

Then there is the “Ego,” the rational part of the mind that relates to the real world and operates via the “reality principle,” recognizing that you can’t always get what you want. The Ego realizes the need for compromise and negotiates between the Id and the Superego, which might be called the moral part of the mind. The Superego is an embodiment of parental and societal values. It stores and enforces rules. The Ego’s job is to get the Id’s pleasures but to be reasonable and bear the long-term consequences in mind. The Ego denies both instant gratification and pious delaying of gratification.

Freud described the human personality as being: “…basically a battlefield. He is a dark-cellar in which a well-bred spinster lady (the superego) and a sex-crazed monkey (the id) are forever engaged in mortal combat, the struggle being refereed by a rather nervous bank clerk (the ego).”

Thus an individual’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are the result of the interaction of the id, the superego, and the ego. This creates conflict, which leads to anxiety, which in turn generates all types of defense mechanisms.

Though Freud may not have directly correlated his theories to Darwin’s, it’s irresistible to avoid the parallels, and how each complements the other. If humans are merely “billion year old bacteria” and essentially no different than any other animal fighting for survival, then it would make absolute sense that our most dominant drive is fixation on our own needs and pleasure, even at the expense of others. “Survival of the fittest.”

Obviously, there are many variations of this theory. There are also many opinions that fundamentally disagree with Freud. Still, despite the differences, the prevailing view tends to lean toward the Darwinian-Freudian model.

One of the sad consequences of this viewpoint is the lack of expectation we can have of each other. If our most natural self is the need to survive and the narcissistic pursuit of pleasure, then what can we really expect of people?! Can we really be disappointed if someone ends up hurting others in his/her own driving need for pleasure? Can we even blame the person? After all, we are sophisticated “bacteria” just trying to survive in a hostile environment… Yes, we can expect of humans to create superimposed rules, like “red lights” and “green lights” so that we can coexist and not destroy each other. But that is superimposed, not our natural state.

It’s interesting to note, that the original German for Freud’s Ego is “ich,” yet another manifestation of the “self.” So even as the Ego negotiates between the Id and the Superego, it still is fundamentally self motivated. [Superego, Uber-ich, can be translated as a dimension that is above – that transcends – the ego. But it can also mean a superman, ultra ego].

If you take it tothe anarchist extreme, one can even question our entire justice system. Are we really expecting people to be better, or are we just trying to keep the “store” intact so that we don’t self-destruct. In other words, if the “cat were let out of the bag,” anarchy would prevail. So we need subjective, arbitrary rules to maintain order.

No wonder fear is the most commonly used tool in education, and punishment is the most popular deterrent to crime. Since people are essentially animals, with an ominous Id lurking within, never knowing when it will strike, we can’t depend or trust that people will just do the “right thing” and “rise to the occasion.”

That sure sounds harsh, doesn’t it?! And indeed, I amplified certain points in order to crystallize the issues, but I have not distorted any of them, and the description above more or less describes contemporary psychological theory.

No doubt that many of us are surely repulsed by this dark perspective on human nature. You may wonder: What about the soul? What about the beautiful acts of nobility and heroism we witness time and again? What about all those people who paid heavy, selfless prices for their beliefs and for protecting others?

How does all human virtue and dignity fit into the Darwinian-Freudian model?

And what about the inner voice that resonates so deeply in most people that good must prevail? And the disturbing feelings we feel when innocent people are hurt? Is all that yet another evolutionary aberration — a quirk — that is inconsistent with the cardinal law of “survival of the fittest”?! Or is it the other way around: Perhaps the good in humans is the most dominant force, and the current “low-end” model may be flawed.

These are excellent questions. Indeed, these and other vital questions are catalysts that compel us to recognize that there is a serious gaping hole in the Darwinian-Freudian model.

After all, no one has ever seen the human psyche. By definition the unconscious defies conscious human observation. Let alone the soul. So, basically all theories about the psyche are as subjective and arbitrary as the people positing these theories and their own life experiences.

No one is blaming Freud or other psychologists. But all they really could offer us is based on their personal psychological experiences. Perhaps some of them were surrounded predominantly by Id-like experiences, which informed their observations and conclusions? Had they truly experienced the selflessness of the soul, they may have incorporated other theories into their models.

All that is speculation. Let’s get back to history.

Preceding all these thinkers, was Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s psychological model, which is defined by three revolutionary principles:

1/ Human self-control is inherent, not acquired.

2/ The essence of a human is good and Divine; the Yid, not the Id.

3/ Even mans’ intrinsic self and selfishness (“itness”) is rooted in the Essence of the Divine Self.

Here’s a brief overview of Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s model.

A person carries two voices, two souls: The animal soul and the Divine one. In the words of Ecclesiastes, “The human spirit ascends on high; the spirit of the beast descends down into the earth.” They are in constant struggle, with the animal soul seeking instant gratification and pleasure (like the Id), and the Divine soul seeking transcendence and unity. The animal spirit wants to be “more animal,” hence more self-ego. The Divine spirit wants to be “more Divine,” more selfless.

The domain of the animal manufets in the impulsive emotions, while the domain of the Divine spirit rests in the reflective mind, which can control and temper impulsive reactions. A young child for instance, is controlled entirely by emotion, and yells out “I want it and I want it all now.” Similarly the animal within us selfishly barks “give, give.” As our minds develop we gain the ability to reflect, repress, temper or channel our impulses.

The question of course is, as mentioned earlier, which is our most dominant force?

The answer is the Divine soul. The inner good in man is the most dominant force in our lives. Yet, this force is locked in battle with the animal soul. We have the freedom and the ability to overcome any temptation if we so wish through self control (“moach shalit al halev,” the mind’s dominance over the emotions).

Self ControlAn argument can be made that self-control is an acquired skill that comes later in life, and is superimposed over the inherent impulses of the heart. And as a rule, an acquired skill will never be as powerful as an inherent one. It can dominate for a while, but when “push comes to shove,” and survival is at stake, we will gravitate to the inherent.

Rabbi Schneur Zalman categorically rejects that argument, and unequivocally states that the power of self-control is natural and inherent to the human being. We are born with that quality. But like other talents, kit takes time for it to emerge in our lives. As our mind develops, it brings out our inherent self-control.

Rabbi Schneur Zalman actually supports this with a verse in Ecclesiastes, which equates the dominance of the mind over folly [of the impulsive heart] to the natural dominance of light over darkness. Unlike fire and water, two equal adversaries, which have the power to extinguish each other, light naturally dispels darkness.

— Incidentally, this is the essential theme of Chanukah, when we light the flames at sundown and facing the street, to demonstrate the victory of spirit over matter, quality over quantity, and the few over the many.

The Essence is GoodTrue, we have an impulsive animal spirit. But even more powerful than the animal is the Divine Image in which each human being was created.

Yes, we have an inherent primal, unconscious force that shapes all our behavior. But the deepest force within us is not the Id, but the Yid, the “pintele yud,” the Divine spark (like the Hebrew letter Yud, which looks like a dot).

Fueled by our (inherent) self-control, behavioral discipline helps us access our inner good and bring it to the surface.

So, in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s model, behavioral change goes hand in hand with internal work.

The Human Self Below is Rooted in the Divine Self AboveOne can argue that all vice (greed, selfishness, corruption etc.) is rooted in the inherent “itness” of our ego, the sense of self-containment that feels as if it has no source and is utterly independent of anything except itself. The self is driven to survive and distinguishes us from others. If we felt, for instance, that we were integrally connected to a higher unity and to other people, like limbs of one body, we would never hurt each other, just as one limb doesn’t hurt another in a healthy body.

This would lead us to conclude, that ethical and spiritual goals must include some form of “self” sacrifice. As long as the self-contained self is intact, the basic drives of self-survival will continue to impede spiritual growth.

According to this way of thinking, the ego is the root of all evil, and the independent “self” is an illusion and a distortion that must be eliminated.

Hence, all spiritual disciplines include measure to tame and even nullify the ego.

Enters Rabbi Schneur Zalman with a radically different approach — which may be his greatest contribution of all. He explains, in perhaps one of the most powerful philosophical declarations ever made, that our sense of “self,” the feeling that we are “self-created,” with no source preceding us, is rooted in the Divine “Self” whose existence is Self-generated, with no other source preceding Him.

True, we must do everything to sublimate our egos, but the ultimate goal is not nullification of the ego but transforming it into recognizing that it is a manifestation of the Divine Self. The “yesh hanivra” becomes united with the “Yesh haAmiti,” the human ego unites with the Divine Ego; the created “it” (self) below is rooted in the true “It” (self) Above.

So in addition to our inherent self-control and goodness, even our Id (“it” in English, “es” in German) is ultimately rooted in the true “It.”

All of the basic ideas in contemporary psychology about the struggle and battle between different forces within us are included in Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s model. Yet, with a critical additional dimension of the inherent Divine spirit, that accounts for mans’ sublime nature, and thus radically alters the way we look at a human being and his/her potential.

Rabbi Schneur Zalman also recognizes human inherent selfishness (the Id). Yet he doesn’t stop there, and sees deeper dimensions even beyond that. Rabbi Schenur Zalman’s picture is simply a bigger and more encompassing one.

Perhaps Divine choreography arranged that Rabbi Schneur Zalman’s model be introduced at the end of the 18^th century (1796 to be exact), as a type of “cure preceding the illness” phenomenon. His model served as a pre-emptive prelude to the psychological and scientific revolution that would rock the world and our notion of human nature.

All systems of knowledge, if I may, evolve. As new discoveries are made, arguments and counterarguments serve the role of crystallizing ideas. Through trial and error, and the sincere search for truth, every theory undergoes refinement, “reality checks” and “market corrections.” Certain details may be discarded in the process, as the idea matures into fruition.

Freud and the other thinkers of the 19^th-20^th century opened may new doors of inquiry and deserve the credit for recognizing deeper truths about the human condition. Rejecting any of their conclusions in no way rejects their contributions.

It’s ironic that the Enlightenment and the psychological – and all other scientific – advances in the last few centuries were followed by the most blood-shedding century in history: The Two World Wars.

The turmoil of the last hundred years — and the upheaval today, both personally and globally — provides us with a unique opportunity to revisit our psychological models. With all our so-called psychological insights, and with a thriving therapeutic industry — as well as unprecedented dysfunctionality in family life and in religious life — we can learn much about how to define, or not to define, the very nature of what it means to be human.

208 years ago Rabbi Schneur Zalman presented us with an invaluable model of life that can be appreciated now more than ever.

It would be wise to explore his teachings, which provide us with a most comprehensive blueprint for modern life, uniting faith and reason, spirit and matter in our struggle with physical life.

Freud and his colleagues may be the fathers of psychology today. But the Alter Rebbe is the true father of the psychology of tomorrow.

After a short break to discuss some recent events – actually, it wasn’t a break as will become soon apparent – let us return to the theme we have been exploring. Namely: The search for our personal mission statement.

As discussed in previous articles, the Torah chapters from the beginning of Genesis outline the story of our life’s mission:

The mission begins (Bereishit). The mission is revitalized, with the cleansing of the world following mans’ great fall (Noach). The mission is embraced and begins to be realized by Abraham, with the first step being the need to transcend our own subjectivity (Lech Lecho). To embrace the mission we need self-sacrifice (Vayeira).

In the next chapter (Chayei Sarah) stage one of the mission concludes with the passing of Sarah and then Abraham – the first pioneers who discovered the mission of the human race.

This is then followed by stage two, the life of Isaac and Rebecca. Followed, in this week’s portion by stage three – the story of Jacob and his journey.

The psychological eloquence, and relevance, of this sequence can be appreciated by looking closely at the personalities and the life stories of these individuals.

The mystics teach us that the characters in Torah are archetypes of different traits that we all carry within ourselves. Abraham embodies Chesed, loving-kindness. His life is one of enduring generosity. Isaac personifies Gevurah, awe and discipline. Jacob incarnates Tiferet, beauty and compassion.

Chesed, Gevurah and Tiferet are the three central forces and building blocks of all existence. Every aspect of life is comprised of a right, left and center. Right brain, left brain, middle brain. The entire body is structured in three columns: The right side (right arm and leg), the left side (left arm and leg) and the center – the spine, which creates balance.

In the order of things, first must always come love (Chesed). Like watering a flower, the nurturing and flowing nature of love nourishes the spirit and allows it to emerge. Then comes restraint and discipline, which allows for proper discretion and containment. Following the water analogy: Free flowing water will flood the earth and actually damage the flower. Rain must fall in measured drops so that the soil can absorb it. Successful communication necessitates a transmission that is tempered and tailored to the recipient. A brilliant teacher will overwhelm his/her students if no “brakes” are used to channel the information.

Chesed is the gas, Gevurah the brakes.

Then comes the more complex Tiferet, which blends both Chesed and Gevurah, and adds a new dimension called balance. Balance is not just the absence of chaos, nor merely disciplined love. It is an entity of its own.

The spine introduces a new dimension; it gives the body structure and support.

Tiferet is also beauty, which is not the absence of uncomeliness, but a power in its own right. Beauty is not merely the combination of several colors, hues, shades or shapes. It is not just the sum of the parts; it contains an invisible force that transcends the details while revealing how they all reflect a bigger picture. Without this third element the individual parts lack cohesion.

Shalom is another property of Tiferet. Shalom is not merely the absence of war, but a powerful force that transcends differences, and is therefore able to reconcile diverse, extreme and even diametrically opposed positions. Shalom is Hebrew means not only peace, but also completeness, wholesomeness.

The number three throughout Torah literature has cosmic power. The third day, the third month, the third year, the third verse – all channel a new dimension that embraces a higher unity, a unity that is not the absence of diversity, a unity that is not the converse of individuality, but one that reaches a deeper place where one and many are not a paradox.

Take the human body (“from my flesh I behold G-d”): The healthy body consists of myriad systems, billions of cells, all working together as one unit. On one hand, each organ and limb, each system (e.g. circulatory, nervous, respiratory) has its own unique structure and needs. On the other hand, they all are coordinated in one seamless whole. If someone who never saw a body were shown all its dissected parts, it would be utterly unfathomable how all these components can work together. Yet, the fact is that despite the utter diversity, the body functions as one entity, as if an invisible voice is telling each body part to work together with the others.

This is the power of Tiferet: Harmony within diversity.

In Kabbalistic terms: Tiferet is the “middle rod” – the spine – that “runs [secures] from end to end” (Exodus 26:28). Tiferet is the center column that runs a direct line from “one end,” Keter (the crown), to the “other end,” Malchut. Like the spine, which runs from the skull down to the lower back.

Tiferet therefore embodies a paradox: It is one of the structured Ten Sefirot, yet it gleans energy from Keter, which is beyond the Sefirot structure. This dual nature gives Tiferet the power to integrate extremes.

Jacob was the living example of Tiferet. Of all the Patriarchs Jacob faced the greatest challenges. He suffered more than the others. When Pharaoh asked his age, Jacob later says, “I lived a few cruel years.” First his lifelong battle with his twin brother Esau. Then 20 years suffering in the employment of his corrupt uncle and father-in-law, Laban. When Jacob wants to finally settle down, his beloved son Joseph is ripped away from him, only to be reunited 22 tragic years later.

Indeed, even the name Jacob captures his difficult life. Jacob (Yaakov) is so named because he was born grasping the heel of Esau. Hence, the name “ekev.” Add a yud in front of “ekev” and you have the name “Yaakov.” Why give a son such a strange name? Because this name reflects the life that Jacob would live. A life in which he would be thrust into the lowest extremities – the “heel” – of existence, with the mission to illuminate it with, and reveal within it, the “yud” –the Divine spark: “Yud, Ekev.”

Embodying the balance of Tiferet, Jacob had the power to bring down the “yud” of Keter into the “heel” of Malchut, and transform the hostile challenges that he faced.

But for Jacob to be successful, he needed to build on the accumulative strength of Abraham (Chesed) and Isaac (Gevurah) who preceded him.

Our mission in life too requires these three steps/dimensions. First the love of Chesed, then the discipline of Gevurah, and finally the balance of Tiferet.

In healthy circumstances (the way it is meant to be), our lives don’t begin with immediately facing a hostile world. A child is nurtured protected and provided for, building up his/her confidence and resources, before entering the untamed elements. So, first comes love and nurturing (Abraham). Then the child learns discipline, self-control and discretion (Isaac). Finally, the growing adult is ready to leave the more spiritual environment and enter “Charan,” the wrath of this world.

And so the story unfolds: First we learn of Abraham’s journey – which reflects the journey of the Abraham within each of us. It is the loving search for a mission – a labor of love not of obligation, and a labor that is expressed with deep love, not in judgment.

Too often people in their embrace of their perceived Divine mission feel the need to condescend, judge and even impose their beliefs on others.

Next, comes the discretion of Gevurah. Unbridled love can “spoil” a child and undermine the healthy boundaries necessary in any relationship. The flowing love must be tempered and channeled into productive behavior.

But here too we must take great care. Excessive Gevurah leads to intolerance, aggression and even violence.

Once love and discipline are in place, we can then complete the structure, with Tiferet – the critical spine that carries the entire infrastructure. Tiferet creates a cohesive unit that includes all the variances of love, discipline and beyond.

All problems – personal, social and global – can be traced to the lack of balance and integration offered by Tiferet.

Most mistakes in relationships are due to an imbalance of love and boundaries; either too much Chesed or too much Gevurah, too little Chesed or too little Gevurah.

Microcosm macrocosm. The same is true globally. Most conflicts – and especially today in the Middle East – are rooted in the Chesed/Gevurah dichotomy.

History is a sad witness to this phenomenon: Excessive authority or excessive permissiveness are the hallmarks of our millennia-old journey. The tunnel of history is splattered with the casualties of harsh tyrannical regimes and religious institutions imposing themselves on entire populations, crushing individuality and basic freedoms. At the other end of the spectrum, extreme left-wing positions – perhaps in rebellion of the extreme right – in the name of individuality have stooped to unprecedented decadence, ultimately infringing on the rights of other individuals to choose a more disciplined life.

The missing ingredient then and now – and always – is Tiferet. At Sinai (called Tiferet) a third, vital component was introduced: power to integrate “above” and “below,” faith and reason, the sacred and the secular, individuality and G-d and matter and spirit. Indeed a paradox, but Tiferet reaches a place where paradoxes are not paradoxes.

One can perhaps say that an echo of Tiferet is contained in the fabric of the United States – one not yet understood in Europe which has been badly burned by their brand of religion, and thus taints the way they see faith in America, and definitely not by many Muslims, who are still enslaved by their own fundamentalism.

Etched in American currency are two Tiferet expressions:

E Pluribus Unum (from the many, one) – the beauty of integrating both individuality and community, individual liberty and the greater good, without compromising the “many” or the “one.” Indeed, from the many becomes one – harmony within diversity.

And this is made possible by In God we Trust: Integrating faith with a strong separation of church and state, by embracing the Creator that endowed us all equally with “unalienable” rights – a non-denominational G-d, not defined by any religion, individual or group.

So, you see that the discussion in my last two articles is not that political after all. Yes, it entered the political realm. But after all, G-d came first – before politics, before Bush, before Kerry, and yes, even before you and I. So it’s not G-d moving into the domain of politics, but vice versa.

Tiferet teaches us that we must align ourselves and follow G-d’s lead – not the G-d of any particular man, not any god created in mans image, but the G-d that created us all equally in the Divine Image, and the One that is the bedrock of a free civilization.

[By the way: For a fascinating rebuttal of my article America Speaks, the one that wins first place, check out Richard Schwartz’s take-off An American Speaks: Do Not Fear Higher Consciousness. Warning: Not for the light-faith-hearted].

This may all seem nice and theoretical. How, you may ask (as do I), can we ever hope to implement this?

First and foremost, know that Jacob and many others after him actually lived their lives in this way, facing the paradox and… thriving (not just surviving). An eternal reminder to their success is their offspring, who live till this very day, despite formidable and unimaginable odds.

What was Jacob’s secret, and the secret of all those that lived the Tiferet way?

The secret was Bittul – the power to suspend your ego, your personality, your perspective, your everything – and allow yourself to be a channel for something far greater than yourself.

Suspend is the operative word, not annihilate (G-d forbid). Suspend and empty so that your unique faculties, your individuality, your ego, your personality, your perspective, your everything can become a conduit for the Eternal.

Not a bad deal, would you say?

This is Part IV of Rabbi Jacobson’s Mission Statement Series.

The overwhelming response I received – over 1000 e-mails to date – to last week’s article took me quite by surprise.

Not surprised by the opinions themselves, but by the raw nerve that faith and politics expose. This election, perhaps like never before, was a catalyst to what I believe could be a very positive development.

The passionate outrage and support that people voiced taught me many things. Perhaps above all, it crystallized the power of a certain Jacob, representing the man of spirit, who learns to confront, battle and then make peace with the aggressive, warrior-like forces of materialism in this week’s Bible chapter.

One thing that is very clear is the extent of polarization in this country and around the world for that matter (London’s Daily Mirror: “How Can 52,000,000 People Be So Dumb?” It’s actually closer to 60 million, as if we asked them). This demonstrates even more the absolute need to have us communicate with each other. Some retreat in face of confrontation; I was trained to face it head on, and see in it an opportunity for real growth and exposing deeper truths.

So, due to the importance of these issues and the many passionate and intelligent responses we have received, we are creating on our website a special America Speaks forum posting all the responses – both critical and supportive. It should be up later today or on Sunday.

I encourage you to read them all. They make for a fascinating read, and give us a good portrait of the diversity of feelings on the topic, as well as important insights into the underlying issues at hand. Above all, please feel free to add your thoughts, by clicking on the “post your comment” icon.

*  *  *

Before we get into the meat of the issue, I would like to reiterate for the record that which I wrote to many of you personally in response to many of your queries:

I apologize if I offended anyone. By no means did I mean to suggest, that the 56 million voters who voted against Bush or for Kerry voted against G-d in our lives. Absolutely not! Millions of people of faith — including the majority of Jews — voted for Kerry for good reasons (and many people with no faith voted for Bush). Indeed, some may even have seen in Kerry a deeper commitment to religious freedom. On the contrary, I specifically stated that I am not endorsing Bush or his policies, nor do I think that he is the man to advance the cause of faith. The ONE and ONLY point I was making was the importance of faith in our lives. And by faith I mean not Bush’s type of faith, nor the faith of the Christian Right, nor the faith of any individual or group. I mean the universal G-d that transcends all denominations and man-made institutions, the One Who created us all, Americans, Arabs, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Secularists, every one. If Bush or anyone were trying to impose their type of religion on others, I would vehemently oppose it. Indeed, one objective of my writing was to emphasize how we must NOT allow anyone to hijack faith, but allow faith to play it’s true and healthy role in our lives.

It’s true that I was dismissive of the “liberal establishment” force and I overgeneralized and stereotyped. That was not my intention, and I am sorry for that implication. I know that there are millions of “liberals” with deep faith, and many of them voted for Kerry for excellent reasons. I for one deeply believe in many of the liberal principles that this country stands for. It is critical that this nation have a strong liberal voice, especially when it is needed to balance out the other extreme. An election like this — where 60 million vote for one candidate and 56 million for the other — is a healthy sign that we are quite even. Had Kerry won I would have said the same, and would not have been upset at all. But I still believe, no matter who is elected, that G-d is a critical part of the picture, albeit a non-denominational one. And that “liberals” have been done an injustice by many Bush opponents who openly loathe faith.

But read on, and perhaps we will come away with a new definition of “liberal” and “conservative.”

*   *   *

The first obvious question is: Why the rage? Have we all become so brainwashed that we cannot have a civil conversation?

One person angrily wrote to me, that he “highly respects my intelligence and has grown much through my writings. Now you have completely disappointed and shocked me. Please take me off your list. I have learned all that I can from you.” That reaction was common among readers; I noticed it specifically when reading responses posted on Reddit’s political discussion boards, right alongside ads for the best sweepstakes casinos, illustrating how seamlessly serious debate and superficial marketing co-exist online. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I responded: “If you learned much from me, perhaps you can learn something from this article as well? Or do you learn things from me only when they fit into your framework? Even if you absolutely disagree or even if I’m wrong, why cut off the possibility for constructive dialogue.”

I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I responded: “If you learned much from me, perhaps you can learn something from this article as well? Or do you learn things from me only when they fit into your framework? Even if you absolutely disagree or even if I’m wrong, why cut off the possibility for constructive dialogue.”

I realized that regardless of my intentions, certain ideas and phrases infuriate and alienate people. One woman wrote to me that my vote for Bush made her so angry, she could no longer objectively read what I wrote. She later apologized, and actually thought that my article had “extremely important” things to say to her.

As I continued to read and reply to a myriad of responses I was receiving, a fascinating pattern began to emerge, that has indeed enlightened me.

Why were some people heated up and others not? Isn’t this after all just politics? It seems that we should realize not to take the candidates and the political process that seriously. Political campaigns today are after all marketing drives. Both candidates are connected with well-funded marketing machines with one goal: To manipulate our emotions, feed into our deepest fears and hopes and persuade us to choose their man. The battle for President is driven by political, financial and egocentric forces, not by visionary or spiritual ones. The true visionaries aren’t running for election.

Yet, we find that people forge passionate and personal affiliations with the candidates and their campaigns. It seems simplistic when people personally love or hate individual candidates: they are politicians, and each of them has some good qualities and some bad ones. But I guess Americans love heroes and villains.

Is it possible that perhaps many people are lacking an inner compass, so they search for it outside of themselves? Some find it in conservative values and the Christian Right absolutist type of faith, others find it in liberal values, the “enlightenment” and “progressive” candidates. Other frankly find it in their identification (dare I say transference) with sports stars, Hollywood figures and even comic heroes. This is not meant to be dismissive or judgmental, simply observation. It is a result of the mass media and marketing inundation that we are all subject to, which feeds into our vulnerabilities and lack of inner focus. Each of us must have an inner compass called your soul, and a life blueprint, which serves as context to navigate the seductive messages of the media and the modern world.

Superficially one can argue that this campaign, using the latest IT (information technology for those that have not yet experienced this revolution), has been able to instantaneously rile up emotions to the point of critical mass. Throw in the fact that we are still in the shadow of 9/11, the battle in Iraq and Michael Moore’s scathing attack on Bush in Fahrenheit 11, and you have all the ingredients for a full blown boiling pot.

However, it’s hard to believe that all the emotions are merely a reflection of a mass brainwashing campaign on both sides of the aisle – convincing/manipulating the religious right to vote for Bush as if he and not Kerry is the man of faith, and convincing/manipulating millions of others that Bush is a born again Christian dogmatist, and their vote should go to Kerry. Obviously, the campaign was not just cast in religious terms, but it also used stereotypes of Kerry as a flip-flopping liberal and Bush as oil connected, hardheaded, unrepentant exploiter.

There clearly is much more to these raging forces than just emotional manipulation. The cynical, marketing campaigns of both political machines were successful in touching a deep nerve of this county, and arouse the deepest fears and hopes of millions of people, causing an unprecedented election turnout of 116 million people.

However you explain it, people have clearly identified with the candidates of this last election and see the battle as a watershed for bigger issues.

And passion – even when it causes anguish – is better than complacency. So there must be a blessing in this debate.

What are these bigger issues? What really lies at the heart of the debate raging today in the country? A debate that has aroused a level of passion almost unprecedented in recent elections and for that matter, in recent times? A debate that is placing tension on relationships – see the NYT article about the surge of people seeking therapy to deal with their bitterness over the elections.

When I asked some people whether they see this election as a fight for life and death, some of them made it very clear that it was exactly that. Quite a few people wrote to me bluntly, that what disturbs them about Bush is that he will vote in a new Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe and illegalize abortion. Delegitimizing Gay marriage was next on many lists. More generally, that Bush would reverse all the progressive forces of the 60’s.

The opposition to Bush’s war in Iraq – though it evokes much anger from people – doesn’t come close to the passions aroused in the personal rights and liberal values arena.

On the end of the spectrum you have the religious right who have grown to become a formidable political force. Many of them perhaps are responding to what they see as a progressive assault on their core family values, and as such, have forged into an alliance to oppose this deterioration and reclaim America what is, in their minds, its true heritage.

Who is right and how will this play itself out in the future are the two big questions. Are we doomed to an ever-increasing polarization, splitting this country into two factions, that some call “two Americas”?

What emerges from the dialogue that I have been engaged in cuts to the heart of the very nature of faith itself.

What really drove the point home for me was the passionate and persuasive argument of many so-called “liberals” standing up for the deep liberal values of compassion and virtue that are as much part of the fabric of this country as faith itself. I wondered to myself, am I a conservative or a liberal? On one hand I strongly believe that generosity is the foundation of a healthy society. Indeed, tzedakah (which is much more than charity) is the cornerstone of Judaism. On the other hand, equally vital is the absolute faith in an absolute G-d that dictates the rights and wrongs of human behavior. Indeed it is the faith that demands the unwavering commitment to a just and giving society.

The realization then dawned upon me that perhaps the terms “conservative” and “liberal” were also hijacked by the media and marketing campaigns, and turned into simplistic empty meanings. Depending who you ask, “conservative” is either the “fascist, bigoted, anti 60’s religious right” or the “faithful, patriotic, family oriented, core values driven” people of faith. “Liberal” is either “left wing, faithless, hedonists,” or “progressive, forward thinking, emancipationists”, ready to free us of our primitive views.

In truth, the healthiest combination is being both “liberal” and “conservative.” Look at any healthy organism and you’ll see that it thrives when it has both a solid, “conservative,” unwavering foundation, and free-flowing expression. A tree, for instance, must have deep roots and a firm trunk, and only then can it grow outward and bear perpetual fruit. Music has a rigid structure, but when you use this structure you can create magic that transcends all structure.

Now let’s see how this plays itself out in the faith/G-d debate.

One of the big questions people are arguing about is this: Is it is good or bad to mix G-d and politics?

In general two schools of thought have emerged:

1/ Faith and politics should not be mixed. Separation of Church and State came to avoid all the pitfalls and risks of political authority based on religious considerations. Faith should be kept private.

This opinion of course can cite the centuries-old abuse of religion in oppressing the masses with the authoritative views of religious dogma. The Enlightenment came to free man of these shackles.

2/ Faith is a necessary component in government. This opinion cites the fact that America was founded on the principles of religious freedom, driven by the principle “In G-d we Trust.” According to this school of thought more displays of religion should be supported by the government, and the responsibility of leaders is to introduce certain faith based values into society.

This group feels that America has wandered away from its core values system, and must return there. For instance, abortion and gay rights are travesties that must be curbed.

At the heart of this debate lies the biggest question of them all: Can individuality co-exist with G-d? It appears not. If one lives a life based on Divine laws, those laws dictate how you behave, with no room for your individual expression. Individuality – and its twin sister, freedom of expression – would seem to imply a life outside of G-d.

It’s either or: Either G-d is the dominant force or the individual is. If G-d dominates the individual is compromised; if the individual dominates G-d is compromised.

When put in these terms it seems like stalemate, with no way out. Either you surrender to G-d or G-d surrenders to you.

Of course when we are aware of the liabilities of vanity and the narcissistic tendencies of a material world it only exacerbates the tension between G-d and the universe. How could the two possibly coexist without one being compromised.

Thus, we have the polarization of two extremes, with many variations along the spectrum: To what extent should G-d play a role in our lives, if at all,

However, I submit that there is a third way. And it’s this third way that has eluded history for so long. But it is the natural way – the way life was always meant to be lived.

That third way is the way of Jacob. In mystical terms it’s the way of Tiferet. Lit. beauty, a perfect harmony between free flowing love and contained discipline.

The last two millennia have been dominated by the severe (gevurah) forces of religion. The Church had absolute authority and imposed it on the masses. The Crusades were a harsh example of this approach. The justification was that man must submit to G-d’s will.

With the Enlightenment in the last few centuries came a new wave of thought, which ultimately challenged the very premise of a G-d driven life. Science was seen by some to replace religion. For many this became the new religion.

Drawing its strength from the power of the church – and the bitterness and anger it left in people’s souls – the new progressive view gained momentum, and in direct proportion to the church’s dominance, it went to the other extreme, of a G-dless society, driven by the virtues of human possibility. The age of permissiveness was born (unbridled chesed).

“God is dead” Nietzsche declared, referring of course to the centuries-old God of Europe. After all that was the only God he and his peers knew.

History has its own mysterious, mischievous tricks up its sleeve. The twist of irony is that some of the radical atheists (or not such radical ones), including Marx, were the ones that exposed the fallacies of a flawed (or plain out false) system. In their denial of the metaphysical, they too became tools of the Divine in baring the “emperor” who had no clothes in the first place.

I for one am a big believer in the “market correction” view on history, that time is the most powerful reality check. In time truth always emerges, especially in collective situations, despite the strange twists and turns it often endures. (“You can fool all of the people some of the time; some of the people all of the time; but not all of the people all of the time”).

Like a maturing child secular history began with many distortions. The Bible lays it out. First, people rejected G-d. Abraham then, after a long soul search, embraced G-d but was faced with a resistant, pagan world. Seven generations later Abraham’s progeny stood at Sinai and received the Divine mandate, which dictates the fundamental humane and liberal principles of charity and virtue – principles that would not become mainstream for close to three thousand years, but then would revolutionize the world and become the basis of modern civilization.

The nations of the world, namely the children of Esau and Ishmael, reject the Torah at the time. A millennia later they began to embrace it as well. But as in any serious process, the growing pains were quite severe. At first religion was practiced as a weapon against the temptations of the flesh and the material.

Under the circumstances this of course is quite natural. After all, G-dless paganism, which was so dominant for so long, can only be suppressed with severe discipline and force. The two are incompatible. Like an addict, man addicted to the material must completely withdraw from the source of his addiction.

For centuries – first by the Christians and then the Muslims – religion become a tyrannical force, meant to conquer the “evil” of the world and subjugate it toG-d.

Whether it was a true G-d or partially true one was no one’s concern. Indeed, one can even say that G-d was taken hostage by religious authorities. As time passed, one could hardly distinguish between what G-d really wants and what the establishment said He wants. The only G-d that most people of the world knew was the one imposed and dictated to them by authorities.

The damage was done. The only way to extricate the human race from this distortion was to completely rebel against this type of distorted God. This God had to “die” (in the mind of the people) before being “reborn” (not such a good word for this), or re-emerging in His true glory.

So from one extreme it went to the other. From absolute faith it went to absolute faithlessness. Faith in G-d was replace by faith in science, or the broader euphemism: human progress.

Deep tension began to develop between the two “realities.” Man could not quite let go of G-d, despite all the attempts. Some of the French Enlightenment dismissed that to the inferiority of the canaille (as cited last week). G-d kept surfacing His head and not “go away.”

The battle between science and religion slowly turned first into a “cold war,” and then into a thawing acceptance of each, as two complementary dimensions. Tension still remains, but a more sophisticated understanding of both science and faith has emerged, allowing them to support each other.

Support each other in the center, that is. The two extremes, left and right, still remain today powerful voices, each claiming dominance.

This, I submit, is the heart of our polarized struggle today. The extreme voices of right and left – right wing religious extremists and left wing anti-religious extremists – keep responding to each other, in effect balancing each other out in a way, but also creating much damage.

Most of us (the silent majority?) are left somewhere in the middle – in middle of this wreckage, and in idle of the spectrum – confused by all the voices, only aggravated by the political marketing machines exploiting everyone in every which way, left and right, above and below.

Can one even say what really has shaped our perceptions today? How much of it is influenced by our years in college, innocently listening to professors professing their subjective views, gullibly shaping our minds? What effect did our parents and early schooling have in us? And now, how do the current political campaigns manipulate our hopes and fears do gain their intended objective? And let’s not forget about peer pressure. One person wrote to me, that I can post his words only anonymously, because he’s afraid of being witch-hunted by the “McCarthy-like liberalism” that has consumed the Upper West Side.

The question for all of us is this: Can we transcend all the rhetoric and find an honest and decent position that speaks from OUR conscience, not the one projected (even imposed) upon us from others?

I believe the answer is absolutely yes (I know: If it’s my belief how can it be absolute? OK, you got me there). And that’s the premise of this article and last.

We need a new understanding and appreciation of G-d. Not one defined by human institutions, in which either the boss is control or he’s not. Either G-d runs the show or we do. That is an incorrect view of G-d. G-d was secure enough in His own reality to take the ultimate gamble and give us free will. We are partners with G-d, with real power to sway destiny.

Older versions of understanding G-d pitted the sacred against the secular, the spiritual vs. the material. While it’s true that these forces battle each other, their conflict is only in the initial stages. A deeper understanding of G-d reveals that within the material lies profound spiritual energy. Ultimately the objective is integration. By sanctifying the secular and revealing its true nature, we relieve the tension between them.

G-d is neither material nor spiritual, therefore both can be integrated. G-d is neither exclusively authoritative nor permissive. As Creator of life He (She, It) gave us guidelines how to live out life to its fullest potential. When we recognize these truths they are not superimposed from the outside, but ones that resonate within. When we live by the laws of G-d we are actually expressing – and living up to – our deepest individuality.

You see, because above all, G-d is not a force imposed upon us by others or from without; it is a force within – within each of us, and within all of existence. We were given life. Our side of the partnership is to recognize the forces that shape us within, and live up to in day-to-day action.

The founders of this country understood this quite well. That’s why they did not shy away from stating that the foundation of all our free rights is the fact that we were all “created equal” endowed with unalienable rights. They could have easily written “all people are equal” or “are born equal.” Why emphasize “created” and a “Creator” which can allow for confusion with the separation of church and state?

Because the G-d they recognized was not the one embraced by the religious right or rejected by some of the left, not the one embraced or rejected by any individual or group – but the real G-d, the non-denominational, non-bureaucratic, non-man-made Creator of us all, Who endowed us with our lives and inherent liberties. That type of G-d belongs in politics and is etched into our currency, hopefully also into our hearts.

This, I believe, is also the root of another passionate argument. Many people fear that if stays on its present course, dominated by the religious right, America will become a fascist regime. This fear is supported of course by the history of religious oppression.

However it too is based on the G-d that has been taken hostage by the past. If one were to see G-d as an active force today, as the Founding Fathers did, not a G-d controlled by men (another form of idolatry) but one controlled by G-d Himself, then this force would not allow for fear or paranoia, but for profound hope in the future.

“The more things change the more they stay the same” is another manifestation of the steel trap created by “religious fatigue.” Our arduous history of fascists of all sorts imposing their tyranny has worn us down, and many feel that the only option is to relieve ourselves of faith and any other absolute system, at least on the governing level.

But the God you are rejecting may not be the real God.

Same is true regarding liberal values. Many reject them because certain individuals on the left hijacked these values and made them part of their faithless philosophy.

We in the center have to reclaim both faith and true liberal values from those that have kidnapped them from their rightful owners.

We must learn to access our inner compass, and not allow others to define that compass for us. Whether it be the religious right, liberal values, Hollywood dreams, political campaigns – do not replace G-d with any man-made values.

9/11, war, even politics have brought many of these issues which have always been simmering below to the boiling surface. Emotions are raging. Can we learn their true message?

Key of course to realizing any truth is humility. Being able to get beyond your own perspective and experience – no matter how emotionally jarring – and allowing in fresh energy.

Toward this end, I want to thank all of you who wrote to me, and especially those that disagreed and pointed out vital I have learned much from this exchange, and am sure will learn more with time. I hope you have and will to.

Check out the opinions posted on our website. You’ll be fascinated. And please add you voice. We all need it.

It’s been a long and winding road from an absolutist view on G-d to a relative one to a non-existing one and finally now to a confrontation of all these perspectives.

Perhaps we are on the threshold of a new beginning: Of discovering a G-d that has until now been obscured by our man-made institutions and convoluted revelations.

Perhaps all this controversy can lead us to recognize that the individual with all his/her aspirations is entirely compatible with G-d.

And that we have a bright future ahead of us. Not one run by fascists – either from the right or the left.

I wonder how they see things from above: After all the thousands of years they’re still talking about Him. They’re still debating His existence and His presence in their lives.

After all they have gone through, after all the religious distortions, the wars of faith, the endless blood spilled, the human race is still struggling with the role of G-d in their lives.

There must be a G-d in here somewhere.