Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The Grand Wizard and the KKK

It's been a while since I last put out a fresh post. One simple explanation for it is that other obligations have been encroaching into my limited blog-writing time of late. Another thing, I am looking into the prospects of retiring from the Blogosphere, assuming I have been here long enough to draw a pension. (From what I understand, I can retire gracefully and still collect 100% of my current remuneration!)

The amazing thing of my more than 2 week hiatus is that my site-meter has moved at a faster pace than when I actually was writing posts! Go figure!

Anyway, despite the lack of fresh material, I did get in a comment this morning regarding my post of June 26 - "Kuf" is for Kiddush Hashem. This was my latest post about "pearls of wisdom" from the autistic preacher, Ben Goldin. I responded to his(?) comment on the post - you can link over to the post and see the comments but, to make it easier and to get back into the swing of things, I will present the comment and my response right here.

Original comment:



Anonymous said...

FC is nonsense. Another take on the Kuf's position in Korach/Chukas/Balak was already dealt with by R' Gedalia Schorr. Given that Rav Schorr's drashos are very well known, it's very likely that the facilitator was aware of the original vort, and (perhaps subconsciously) came up with a variant.

This divining Divrei Torah from a Ouija board is very dangerous. What's next?Paskening Shaylos?

Now, the response:
(Note - I added a bit of text in tan.)



>>FC is nonsense.

In at least 2 of my posts about the autistics including this one, I put in a disclaimer that I am not campaining for the veracity of FC. It's just that the autistics and/or their handlers are directly preaching the messages of the neviim of old that were meant for us and only they have the temerity to do it. I am pushing for the doing teshuva, achdus, tznius, and aliya that they are pushing for, not to be a believer in FC.

That said, it is exceedingly pretentious and irresponsible to blanketly say that "FC is nonsense" unless you have studied the subject and heard out proponents and opponents. (Ed.: And at least attempted to contact those involved such as the Goldins, Rebbitzin Kalmanovitz, Rav Yehuda Srevnik, etc.) You present no such credentials. My position is: L'Meichash bo'i. למיחש בעי It is more responsible to say that it is a taboo realm that we should stay away from (תמים תהיה עם ה' אלקיך ) than to just dismiss it outright as "nonsense". Incidentally, you probably don't live in Har Nof and never met the Goldins (or Rabbi Srevnik).

>>Another take on the Kuf's position in Korach/Chukas/Balak was already dealt with by R' Gedalia Schorr.

I would love to see it. Is it in Ohr Gedalyahu? (I do not have my own copy.)

>>Given that Rav Schorr's drashos are very well known, it's very likely that the facilitator was aware of the original vort, and (perhaps subconsciously) came up with a variant.

Makes sense - As long as the facilitator herself had heard the vort of R' Gedalya Schorr at least once in her life. But, if she didn't...

(Ed.: Also, your debunk theory is assuming the most extreme fraudulence - that the facilitator is totally making up on his/her own all of the communication and the autistic subject is just a show puppet not doing anything at all. This is a big stretch, especially once the people (in this case, Rebetzin Kalmanovitz) are not faceless, nameless "Wizards of Oz" behind the curtain but people who we can contact. BTW, the facilitator cannot do this "subconsciously". If she does it, she knows what she's doing!
However, you might have a point if you substitute the word "subject" (meaning Ben, in this case) for "facilitator". In other words, perhaps BEN "was aware of the original vort", not the facilitator. He might be communicating a variant.
In fact, FC itself is no myth. Autistics CAN communicate. It is well documented (check You Tube). The question at hand is: are they clairvoyant and do they know Heavenly secrets? On this, the evidence may not be conclusive but it seems like they sure know a whole lot more than they are taught in school.)

>>This divining Divrei Torah from a Ouija board is very dangerous. What's next? Paskening Shaylos?

You are correct. It is dangerous and should not be taken beyond the mussar message which is it's purported purpose. However, the trite argument that since for Halacha the rule is "Lo bashamaim hee" therefore you should not take mussar either from piguei moach (who are just verifying the words of Chazal and neviim achronim) is just a weak excuse for hitting your spiritual snooze button and going back to sleep.

Do so at your own risk.

While we are on the subject, Ben's father did indeed locate the text of the FC session fron 9 years back and he emailed it to me. It adds a little spice to the vort so I will reproduce it here:

KoRaCh, ChuKaT and BaLaK are all interconnected and show the greatness of Am Yisroel as being the Am Hasegula. Hashem opened the earth to swallow KoRaCh and his group, something contrary to Nature because his behavior was contrary to what his level of intelligence demanded. He went out against Moshe the way people today think they are smarter than Daas Torah and that is why things contrary to Nature are happening today. People are using their intelligence for machlokes and not Lesheim Shamayim. That is why last week Parshas KoRaCh there was a tragedy every day of the week.

KoRaCh has a Kuf at the beginning and the beginning of the Parsha shows Kiddush Hashem through punishment, ChuKaT has the Kuf in the middle because there is Kiddush Hashem in the middle of the Parsha through Midda Kaneged Midda and BaLaK has Kiddush Hashem at the end through Mesiras Nefesh. So there you see Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh three times. Hashem shows His greatness through Am Yisroel.

The question is: does Hashem also show His greatness through His autistic children?

3 comments:

Ahavah Gayle said...

I have a dear friend who was blinded in an auto accident some 40 years ago. So I can tell you that it is absolutely true what they say that someone who loses one of their senses becomes highly sensitive in all their other senses.

In the case of an autistic person, all their senses have gone haywire, in some respects. The input doesn't make it to the brain, or doesn't get processed correctly if it does get there. What to us is ordinary input becomes incomprehensible background noise. And I imagine like the rest of us, eventually they learn to tune it out.

Leaving...what? Perhaps what is left is a very attuned spiritual sense. After all, they can't communicate effectively with this plane of existence, perhaps they can therefore be more sensitive to higher planes. It does make sense.

I doubt, however, you could actually ever prove that. Some people will always insist that the person, even as a small infant or child, might have overheard a lesson or teaching and like a musical savant who remembers every piece of music they ever heard, be able to recall the teaching or lesson verbatim years or decades later. That is also possible. You would have to show that there's no way the person ever heard that teaching as a child or adult, not on the radio, not in shul, not on tv or video - not anywhere at all.

I don't know if that could be proved, but I suppose someone could try it.

joshwaxman said...

"Also, your debunk theory is assuming the most extreme fraudulence - that the facilitator is totally making up on his/her own all of the communication and the autistic subject is just a show puppet not doing anything at all. This is a big stretch, especially once the people (in this case, Rebetzin Kalmanovitz) are not faceless, nameless "Wizards of Oz" behind the curtain but people who we can contact. BTW, the facilitator cannot do this "subconsciously". If she does it, she knows what she's doing!"

This statement by you appears to show just how ignorant you are on this matter. Either that, or dismissive of evidence. In fact, this is precisely the problem, that the ideomotor effect is producing these phenomena, just as it does for an Ouija board.

Read this Wikipedia article for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect

Now that you know this, and that one can suspect FC without labeling the facilitators as reshaim, what is your take?

kol tuv,
josh

Yechezkel said...

I am plenty ignorant on this matter, as I have said in every post. However, this statement is not the proof because you misread it.

The pronoun "this" (when I wrote "cannot do this") was not meant to stand in for "FC" but was meant to stand in for what anonymous wrote: "to (perhaps subconciously) come up with a variant". IOW, what I was saying is that there are only 2 possibilities - (A) the vort was Ben's initiative and the facilitator had nothing to do with it besides facilitating or (B) the vort was the facilitator's initiative and Ben had nothing to do with it. There is no logic to say that Ben was communicating some level of the vort and the facilitator "subconciously" altered it slightly (and even if so, it would prove FC to be genuine though not necessarily a proof of clairvoyance). So getting back to our options: option A that it was his doing and not hers vs. option B that it was her doing and not his, if we take option B it is pretty impossible for her to instigate a coherent vort subconsciously. Go ahead, Josh, try it yourself. Let's see if you can subconciously type a vort on your blog.

Bear in mind that according to Arthur Goldin (who I spoke with), the facilitator claimed to have not heard this vort before.

Thank you for cluing me in on Ideomotor effect. The Wiki entry is exceedingly brief and doesn't say much. It presents it as a given in physical reflexes (such as tearing in response to emotion) but it clearly implies that its relation to metaphysical behavior (Ouija boards, automatic writing, FC) is purely theoretical.

It appears to me to be something as unproven and controversial as FC itself and it's raison d'etre is presented for the express purpose of being a counterargument to FC, etc. It presents an alternative but does not disprove it. This is just like Creation vs. evolution but let's not go there, Josh. Your saying with such definitiveness that this is Ideomotor is the same definitiveness that evolutionists decry Creationism. I have heard no end of frustrated evolutionists declaring how ignorant the Creationists are about evolution and you really have to stand on my side of the fence to know how hollow that rings.

To sum up to both you and anonymous, I would respect someone much more for saying "This stuff can be attributed to other phenomenon and I personally don't want to accept it" than one who says "This stuff is utter nonsense and all those who support it are ignorami."

Just my viewpoint.