Destructive Force of the Collective Ego

Just as an individual has his ego, any social collective has its ego. They are called individual ego and collective ego respectively. The common denominator between the two is that both of them are a survival mechanism. Unconscious, that is, unawakened, individuals and social collectives typically try to secure their respective survival by labeling others as inferiors to themselves. This way they can continue to live in the illusion that they are separate beings without making any effort of their own.

Individuals who are controlled by their ego also tend to be controlled by the ego of the social collectives (they think) they belong to, which include nations and religions, among others. Then many followers of the collective ego, who behave otherwise as law-abiding citizens, may say and do terrible things, including inciting atrocities and actually committing them. I've studied, though rather superficially, three pairs of followers of probably the most dangerous type of the collective ego in modern history - chauvinism - and their victims.

Though I try to be tolerant of others and their opinions that are different from mine, I don't find it morally right to even remain in touch with those who have turned out to be supporters of such poisonous ideology so that I may not be indirectly complicit in it.

PS: Collective Ego by Leo Gura

Maintaining Long Distance Relationships

When I still lived in Jerusalem until the end of last September, I used to be in touch with more or less 50 people with different degrees of frequency ranging from a few times a week to a few times a year, mainly by seeing them in person.

When I left Israel, I had no illusion that I would be able to remain in touch with all of them, not because I didn't want to but because I was afraid that more and more of them would stop investing their time in reciprocating my electronic messages.

Unfortunately, I was right. Maintaining long distance friendship in writing doesn't seem to be part of Israel culture. Even those I consider my closest friends don't write to me unless I write to them first.

I used to email my monthly updates to all of these 50 people, but a few months ago I stopped emailing those who had never answered me, and this month I decided to stop emailing all of them. I simply sent them a one-time message instead with a link to a special blog where I publish my monthly updates for them. I didn't want to force my monthly updates upon them. If someone is interested, he can simply follow it through RSS or email.

I've decided to accept this sad reality instead of resisting it. Some of them may say that they wanted to answer me, but for some reason or other they missed the opportunity to do so. Such an excuse doesn't convince me. When speech and action contradict, I trust the latter.

If I really want to maintain long distance relationships, including friendship, with someone, I never spare my time to write to him or her on a regular basis. Sometimes I enjoy such relationships that are maintained by our mutual efforts even more than those relationships with people we regularly see face-to-face. I still remember one special type of my long distance relationship as one of the most unforgettable experiences I've had in my life.

Rationality vs. Transrationality

[S]ince both prerational states and transrational states are, in their own ways, nonrational, they appear similar or even identical to the untutored eye. And once pre and trans are confused, then one of two fallacies occurs:

In the first, all higher and transrational states are reduced to lower and prerational states. Genuine mystical or contemplative experiences, for example, are seen as a regression or throwback to infantile states of narcissism, oceanic adualism, indissociation, and even primitive autism.

On the other hand, if one is sympathetic with higher or mystical states, but one still confuses pre and trans, then one will elevate all prerational states to some sort of transrational glory ([...]).

- Ken Wilber ("The Pre/Trans Fallacy")

When I was first exposed to Chassidus in general and Chabad Chassidus in particular several years ago, I was so fascinated that I asked every frum Jew I met in Jerusalem if he studied either of them. It didn't take me long to realize that those who are the most difficult to please are paradoxically those frum Jews who only study the Talmud. Compared to them, even non-Jews seem to be more open to Chassidus and its teachings.

There is no doubt that the Talmud as the most important work of the revealed Torah occupies a central place in the study of Judaism, but this doesn't contradict the study of Chassidus as one of the two important areas of the concealed Torah, together with Kabbalah.

As I continued to study Chabad Chassidus, firt at a format setting, then by myself, I've come to identify intuitively with a fairly high degree of precision who have studied Chassidus and who haven't.

It took me more time to realize what contributes to this difference. My conclusion so far is that the difference is between rationality and transrationality. The study of the Talmud is mostly rational, while the teachings of Chassidus transcend rationality.

Ironically, many of those who focus on rationality seem to have double blind faiths - the first is in their rational mind, and the second is in that they have no blind faith. ;-)

Recently I witnessed the same statement by a few (now former) rationally minded frum Jewish friends of mine. It was a most grotesque statement that could only be made by those who are totally trapped in the prison of their egoic mind and are even unware of this very fact.

In spite of their purported rational mind their statement was highly irrational. My attempts to explain to them rationally were met with their highl emotionally accusations against me. The only thing that was left to me was to walk away from them silently.

Celebrating Two Passover Seders at One of the Chabad Houses in the New Place

I celebrated two Passover seders on two consequtive nights, as is customary in the Diaspora, at one of the Chabad Houses in the new place. This has a symbolic meaning for me as the communal celebration of my "exile" with no clear end in sight so far.

Exactly 30 years ago I went into exile and it took me about ten years to get out of it. But unlike last time I don't see this as real exile as I left Israel this time with one important personal task and one clear public mission. I may participate in this communal celebration before I leave this country for a certain place where I've been thinking of spending the last chapter of this life of mine, which is not Jerusalem.

In the meanwhile I've been trying my best to live the present moment here. Because of the nature of my personal task and public mission my contact with other people is minimal, and I don't have a chance to spend time with such a huge group of people as in a communal Passover seder.

Spending time with 50-200 people at the same table for three communal meals gave me a unique chance to observe and experience anew how the individual ego and collective ego manifest themselves in the majority of people regardless of their cultural background.

As I expected, almost everybody I met there labeled me, the other people and themselves, thus confusing our essence with our bodies or our life stories. I still feel tired of this every time I encounter it, but I have no other expectation any more, which is a progress on my part. And after all this manifestation of the individual ego doesn't pose any immediate threat to anyone.

But one manifestation of the collective ego which I expected to encounter and I did encounter this time was a warning against one extremely dangerous thought and action. I verbally protested directly to one supporter of this dangerous ideology and received his very aggressive emotional counterreaction, which surprised not only me but also the whole community. The bigger problem is that he is not exceptional in the social collective with which he identifies himself.

From these two manifestations of the ego in a group of people I've realized once and for all that a common or similar state of individual consciousness is far more important to me that belonging to the same social collective when I decide with whom to remain in close contact.