My new article on Linkedin “When Voters Are the Staircase to the Throne”

A few hours after the results come in, the winner of the 2020 presidential election will come on stage, thank his supporters, perhaps thank his rival for a tough race, and promise that he will be everyone’s president, not just of those who voted for him. But when a country is divided as deeply as America has become today, I’m not sure any president can patch it up.

To make America one again, you need more than words; you need a common goal. When people of differing views share a common goal their different viewpoints contribute to its attainment since they can cover more angles, look at things from different perspectives, and reflect problems that the other side did not think of before they materialize. But when each party sees the country as its own possession and wants to exploit it to promote its own interests, you’re bound to deepen the chasm and exacerbate the anger.

It seems that everyone has forgotten that unity is not built out of similar opinions, but out of different views that unite around a common goal through mutual concessions.

Currently, America is en route to mayhem. There is utter mistrust between Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Progressives, and blacks and whites. Generally, America has become a country where every decision you make puts you in agreement with half the country and at odds with the other half, even if you don’t want to be at odds with anyone. It seems as though there is no middle anymore, only extremes.

Four years ago, there was still a faint veneer of respect between the two parties. Today, no one even bothers to conceal the odium. I am all for frankness, but when you take pride in your derision of another and do not intend to mend it, you are sowing wind, and you will reap the storm.

It seems that everyone has forgotten that unity is not built out of similar opinions, but out of different views that unite around a common goal through mutual concessions. If the benefit of the United States were the goal of both parties when they come to present their cases to the public, it would have been a very different election campaign, and the whole country would be in a very different situation than it is in today. But when power is the goal and the voters are the staircase to the throne, politicians will not miss a step as they trample their way to the top.

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “Virtual High Holidays and What They Mean”

Now that Covid-19 has imposed social distancing on us, many establishments that rely on physical attendance have a problem. Among them are shuls. According to a story on Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), “The pandemic’s first High Holiday season has synagogues wondering: Will people pay dues?” This is a very good question, and it remains to see how Jewish establishments such as synagogues and JCCs will cope with the absence of income from participants who come to attend services and activities.

If only those who can afford the hefty entry fees may pray to God inside the shul, and if only those who pray by “our prayer book” are allowed to join the service, and the rest are told to find their own kind, then we are an example of sinaat hinam (unfounded hatred), the very cause of our exile and dispersion. If we hate our brethren, we do not deserve to congregate.

But to me, the more interesting point is the message behind the prohibition to congregate. I think that any Jew who believes in God should ask, “What is God trying to tell us by not letting us congregate on the holiest day of the year? When have Jews not been able to congregate on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)? Probably only during the Holocaust and under totalitarian or antisemitic regimes. Does He not want our prayers? How can we atone for our sins if we can’t congregate for the Yom Kippur services?”

In my view, there is indeed a message here. We are unworthy of servicing God because we are untrue to the fundamental tenet of our Torah: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If only those who can afford the hefty entry fees may pray to God inside the shul, and if only those who pray by “our prayer book” are allowed to join the service, and the rest are told to find their own kind, then we are an example of sinaat hinam (unfounded hatred), the very cause of our exile and dispersion. If we hate our brethren, we do not deserve to congregate.

I think that this year is very special. This year, we truly have an opportunity to contemplate our Jewishness, to reflect on what it means to be a Jew, on why we were told to be “a light unto nations” and what this means. And I think we should start from the basics, from unity and mutual responsibility. Before we learn to recite from the prayer book, let’s learn to pray for one another, let’s be a role model of unity rather than an example of division.

Today is a time of tectonic changes. Judaism, too, will have to change. Unless we return to our core values of love of others and mutual responsibility, Judaism as we know it will vanish.

Filed under: Holidays, New Publications - No Comments →

Medium published my new article “Nothing Wrong with Egoism (If Used Right)”

When we talk about egoism being the bane of our generation, we need to understand what it means. After all, where would we be without it? We wouldn’t have industry, modern medicine, or communication. We wouldn’t be able to travel, explore, or lead a pleasant and easy life compared to our forefathers. Moreover, the ego is not man’s creation; it is inherent in our nature. So when we praise nature, how can we condemn the ego, nature’s own creation?

Today, America, which has cultivated the ego culture more than any other country, is reeling with the pain of resisting nature’s pull. But thankfully, there is no need to suffer. If we understand that we do not need to kill our egos but simply use them correctly, share with others and strengthen our communities, we too will evolve, our lives will be safe, and our consciousness will encompass all of humanity and all of reality.

The problem isn’t with the ego; it is with how, how much, and when we use it. In a sense, the ego is everywhere. It is what maintains the shape of atoms and does not let them disintegrate. Nevertheless, in order for atoms to develop, they “relinquish” exclusivity of one or more of their electrons and “share” them with other atoms to create molecules, which is the next stage of their own evolution. As molecules “relinquish” some of their exclusivity and “share” parts of themselves with other molecules, they create molecular structures that in the end become cells, which begin to divide and multiply, and before you know it, you have life.

In other words, life consists of “selfish” elements that “relinquish” exclusivity of parts of themselves and share them with other elements. But by doing so, atoms, molecules, and cells don’t extinguish themselves; on the contrary, they guarantee their survival because now their existence is vital to someone else besides themselves. Moreover, by partaking in the evolution of a more complex system, they themselves evolve. All of creation follows the same evolutionary principle, and this is how our universe was built, with humankind within it.

We, too, are subject to the same laws of development. Socially, we evolved from clans to villages, from villages to towns, from towns to counties, from counties to countries, and now into a global village. But while our societies evolved, our psyches have remained uncared for; now it is their turn. They are the last element in creation that has not been touched, and now it is their turn.

We are at the dawn of an era where we will learn to relinquish parts of ourselves and share them with others in order to create true bonding. We will become one entity not only as communities of individuals, but people will feel each other as parts of themselves. It is a level of connection that we have never experienced, but which our egos are afraid to try thinking that this will be their end.

Indeed, the only thing that stands in the way of this final stage of evolution is our ego. It does not want to relinquish anything regardless of the cost. Like cancer, it is willing to die along with its host, as long as it does not share anything with anyone. But nature will not stop evolving until it brings all of reality into its highest level of development, where all parts both share and sustain one another, and thereby expand their consciousness to encompass the entire system of existence.

Those who resist the process will suffer along the way, but they, too, will reach it. Today, America, which has cultivated the ego culture more than any other country, is reeling with the pain of resisting nature’s pull. But thankfully, there is no need to suffer. If we understand that we do not need to kill our egos but simply use them correctly, share with others and strengthen our communities, we too will evolve, our lives will be safe, and our consciousness will encompass all of humanity and all of reality.

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “Humor, Not Mockery”

Talk show after talk show, comedian after comedian, everyone’s trying to be funny, to make us laugh. But they really needn’t go a long way to do that. All they have to do is find a topical issue, invite a guess or talk about a certain person, and drag their names through the mud until they have lost all speck of respect in the eyes of the audience.

With humor, the rule of thumb is this: When it brings people closer and increases affection, it is good. When it sets us apart and increases derision, it is bad and we must push it away.

More than anything, the media’s humor is a mark of disgrace for our society. And the soaring rating they get only proves that we are growing worse. The truth is very simple: If I find someone else’s pain funny then I am not a good person. It may not be easy to acknowledge, but unless we know the truth, we will never change.

Mockery is not humor; it is venting our venom into the atmosphere and poisoning the air with our ill-will. Later, we shouldn’t be surprised that we can’t trust anyone, that we’re afraid of everyone, and that we feel alone and depressed. We helped build this exact atmosphere with our own foul minds.

Media that presents sneering “entertainment” is not our friend, either. These shows indoctrinate us to be cynical, mean, and unsympathetic—the exact opposite of what we need to build a happy life. We shouldn’t give these shows the rating that they get, and we certainly shouldn’t idolize talk show hosts or comedians who deride their guests. They are not our friends and they do not have our interest in mind. The crueler they make us be toward each other, the more they profit, and the more unhappy we become.

True humor is a gift. When you look at a pet doing funny things, or when your baby does baby stuff, it’s very funny and it’s good humor because it stems from our love for them and even increases it. Also, when humor helps us cope with hardships, it is a true gift.

We can even use humor for constructive criticism, but first we must make certain that we love the person we will criticize, and then use humor as the most inoffensive way to make suggestions. However, here we must be very careful since our ill-will rejoices in opportunities to “offer sound advice,” when in fact it strives to patronize and reprimand.

With humor, the rule of thumb is this: When it brings people closer and increases affection, it is good. When it sets us apart and increases derision, it is bad and we must push it away.

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

Medium published my new article “Save Our Home: Planet Earth”

Entire neighborhoods are engulfed in fire; thousands have been evacuated from their homes in California. A historic and unusual summer thunderstorm and rare massive lightning strikes combined with record-breaking heat ignited devastating fires across the Golden State. Death Valley reported temperatures of 130°F in what is believed to be the highest temperature ever measured on Earth, and this is attributed to climate change. Other natural disasters around the globe endanger our very existence. What is nature trying to tell us? Its message is clear. We are unwanted guests on this planet unless we humans change.

Other natural disasters around the globe endanger our very existence. What is nature trying to tell us? Its message is clear. We are unwanted guests on this planet unless we humans change.

Global warming not only causes blazes, agricultural problems, water shortages and puts certain species at risk of extinction; it is also blamed for glaciers melting away in Greenland and other locations to the point of no return, dangerously raising sea levels. It is said that there are actions we can take to tackle global warming, such as reducing gas emissions from the industrial sector, but there are so many economic and personal interests that very little is actually done.

If the ecosystem continues deteriorating at such a fast pace, half of humanity may become extinct, and the half that will survive will have to change its way of life from end to end. Continuing our “business as usual” approach despite Earth’s outcry is extremely dangerous.

Man is a very delicate creature. We need so many conditions to live and so many factors affect us: earthquakes, storms, plagues. The problems we face are global in scope; therefore, solutions require global thinking. Yes, thinking. Everything starts with our thoughts.

People think only of themselves, of what is bothering them today and what may produce big profits. Moreover, international organizations, which are supposed to safeguard our planet, fail the test over and over again. Every country is busy developing weapons and economic power, fighting others in all sorts of arenas and thinking that this is how control will be gained. If an ecological disaster does not affect us directly, we do not care.

We have not realized yet that our planet is our common home and whatever happens within it has an endless chain of reactions which will eventually affect us. Someday, we will have to understand that the problems begin with the selfish nature of man, who operates from an individualistic, me-centered, exploitative and narrow vision that wants to keep everything for himself. Until we transcend individual and national borders and start thinking globally, nothing will help.

Sometimes it’s the turn of certain countries to undergo natural disasters, and then it’s the turn of other countries. But overall, there will be no place on Earth that will not face problems. The coronavirus is the first global disaster, with many others waiting in the wings, if necessary. It is nature’s way of making us feel on our own skin that we are all part of one system.

The Destructive Fires Burn Between Us

Ecological calamities make people believe that nature has gone crazy. This is not the case. It simply behaves according to the laws of cause and effect of the integral system in which we live, a system that ties all the details of reality together. What happens inside the Earth, on its surface, and in the whole universe is linked and interconnected because nature is one.

Humans, for our part, need to comprehend that the state of nature depends on the relationships between human beings, and on the willingness of man to adapt to the integrality of nature — that is, taking only what is necessary for survival and caring for the good functioning of the entire system, instead of considering only egoistic calculations.

How are human relationships and what happens in nature related? There are four levels in nature: inanimate, vegetative, animate, and human. All but man exists in accordance with nature’s laws of reciprocity and balance. The other levels have no free choice in anything; they act instinctively taking only what is needed for their survival. Conversely, the human level is the only one that commits atrocities on Earth and does so intentionally, consciously, for the sake of causing harm. Thus, all the negative reactions we receive from nature are just a consequence of our actions. Simply put, we bring these blows upon ourselves.

As of today, humanity does not have an agreed-upon plan to save the planet, and we are just putting out fires instead. And the truth is that the most destructive fires we must put out are those burning within us, in our mutual relations. The ego of man has nearly reached the flash point burns nature just to exploit everything to his advantage.

If we try to build a harmonious system of human relations, all of nature will calm down. The comprehensive solution to the ecological and social dangers we face lies in efforts toward global connection in which we will feel how dependent we are on everyone. Therefore, we will think twice before engaging in ill-treatment of one another. Thus, only through mutual responsibility will we attain the right frame of mind to save our common home and live safely and happily under one roof: our planet.
[269789]

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

My article in Newsmax: “Progressives and Conservatives – A Reluctant Interdependency”

From protest to counterprotest, to counter-counterprotest, we’re going nowhere. Nothing will come out of any of them except intensifying hatred to the point of breakdown.

We can keep blaming one another for all our troubles and feel good about ourselves, but righteous indignation never got anyone anywhere good. Unless we acknowledge the simple fact that hatred leads to more hatred, which eventually leads to death, we will end up in bloodshed.

We’ve built a society that doesn’t intend to achieve unity, where each one must sympathize with a certain viewpoint, party, ideology, school, etc., and part of that sympathy is expressed in refuting the other side’s merit at growing intensity. Today, that repudiation has come to a level where each side thinks that the other side is a danger to the nation, a peril to the country, to democracy, to the rule of law, to freedom of speech, and must therefore cease to exist.

When you build a society where merit is on the side with the most strength, the side that’s currently on top, you sentence yourself to live by the sword and die by the sword, or the bullet. The reason for the downfall of every great nation since the dawn of history has been just that: Its rulers deemed only their own perspectives worthy, and denied the merit of any other viewpoint.

But contrary to common belief, when you extinguish your rival, you don’t rest on your laurels, you sentence yourself to extinction.

Each of us thinks that he or she is right. This is our nature: I think so, therefore I am right, to paraphrase Descartes’ words. But we forget that we’re all made of the same stuff. The same program that designed, molded and generated me, designed, molded and generated everyone else.

The program, known as “nature,” designed us all slightly different not so we would fight each other to death, but so we would complete the picture together. Nature needs all its facets, and especially the most extreme opposites, in order to define and express all its subtleties. You wouldn’t be able to define “day” in the absence of “night,” “cold” in the absence of “hot,” “love” in the absence of “hate,” and “life” in the absence of “death.”

Likewise, you wouldn’t be able to define “progressive” in the absence of “conservative,” or “faithful” in the absence of “agnostic.” Our opposites are vital to us because without them, we cannot know who we are or even articulate our thoughts about ourselves.

It turns out that we are dependent on all the ones that we detest, despise and demonize because without them, we ourselves would not exist as human beings. We’re living in a dual system through and through.

But there is a good reason for the perpetual dissent: It forces us to turn our attention to the common program that created us — to nature.

Nature is completeness that’s made of united opposites. When we think of unity, we think of the closeness of hearts and minds. But this is not unity; it is sameness. And just as you don’t unite with your own reflection in the mirror, you don’t unite with someone who resembles you in every way. You feel close to that person, but it’s not because you are united, it’s because you are similar. This may feel good, but it leads to stagnation and eventual decadence. To achieve growth, there must be two opposites that challenge one another.

Therefore, unity is the joint effort of two opposites to bond with one another despite their initial animosity. Their oppositeness cannot, and must not be erased, or it will become sameness. To unite, the two sides must value each other’s existence since without the other party, neither would exist. And that appreciation creates a new kind of closeness that exists alongside the animosity.

Also, the two parties must appreciate their unity more than their inherent animosity or they will revert back to mutual destruction. King Solomon put it succinctly in his immortal words, “Hate stirs strife, and love will cover all crimes” (Prov. 10:12).

It is very easy to fall prey to hate. Hating feels great; there aren’t many emotions more satisfying than self-righteousness. But we must always remember that it is a bait we must not bite into. If we do, we will fall into decadence and disintegrate. If we resist the temptation to hate, and acknowledge that the other side exists so as to turn our attention to the nature that created both of us, we will connect to that nature and realize our full potential as human beings.
[269550]

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

Medium published my new article “Cancel Culture or Learning to Accept One Another”

Should we cancel people and their ideas if we do not agree with them? This has become the dilemma of our era. The so-called “cancel culture” which consists in removing support for public figures for their opinions or actions is already a trend invading the Internet. At times when the lives of all revolve around the same struggles and challenges, what we need to cancel are our divisions. Instead, we need to embrace our differences and create an environment of acceptance. Our common destiny is at stake.

Human society continues to deteriorate and we need to understand that our salvation from this situation can only come through learning how to treat each other properly.

Public backlash against celebrities, scholars, scientists, public persons or companies for something they expressed that might be considered offensive — this is the new norm on social media. No one is exempted from such calls to end their careers or to receive other punishments, even to the point of total boycott if their views don’t please certain sectors. Where does the freedom of expression end and freedom to cancel others begin?

We live in a time when our ego — our self-centered vision — breaks every boundary, lacks any restraint or control. The ego does not want to hear others out or consider differing views. It is unwilling to discuss facts or controversial issues in a civilized way. In other words, we have no interest in forming a common idea, meeting halfway (or even a fraction of it) to find common ground. The ego does not give up easily, because what matters to us is our own point of view. This is the only truth.

The abolition of the other has penetrated so deeply into modern society that there is no chance of agreement, of a civilized exchange of ideas, or of a fruitful and enriching discourse. It is very unfortunate to see how far we have drifted from the culture of discussion, how far we are from openness and how close to stubbornness. “I will reign” is the call of the hour.

The tendency to cancel others is also commonly witnessed on TV talk shows and round tables. The guests shriek out their little sound bites as fast as they can because otherwise, others will not let them be heard at all. Expressing opinions louder, sharper, faster than the other is encouraged. Logic no longer matters, and there is no longer any interest in the content of things.

Public Intimidation or Collective Social Vigilance?

Cancel culture promoters see it as a useful tool to preserve acceptable parameters of social justice, but how can society judge based on objective standards if its own perspective is biased and founded on a narrow-minded vision? A balanced dialogue can only be guaranteed when we learn how to communicate and listen to one another — not through intimidation but through receptiveness.

This does not mean that there is a need to undo anything, nor to give up any opinion. All that we need is to learn how to arrange the arguments and confrontations so that they are delivered without grating on nerves. In whatever topic of interest, we need to hold a conversation directed to the benefit of the public and the world instead of a fight. If we speak from the intention to help, we will not bring each other down, but we will look together for the right path. We need to discover within every meeting a path to move forward to a better and more considerate world for all.

Please don’t mistake this for adopting an artificial politeness, because pleasant manners today are no match for the rising egos of tomorrow. The new mode of communication should be based on building our inner abilities to connect with others. This means changing our intention and our way of thinking: for the benefit and progress of others rather than to belittle and exploit them.

Human society continues to deteriorate and we need to understand that our salvation from this situation can only come through learning how to treat each other properly.

In the end, the only behavior we need to cancel is our mutual cancellation; this is all that separates us. When we reach such awareness and exert to come to mutual understanding, our society will be a much more pleasant place to live.
[269731]

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

Medium published my new article “The End of the Ego Era”

The ego was great as long as it served us. The desire for power, knowledge, and wealth drove civilization to innovate, create, and challenge its own limits. Thanks to the ego, we now live longer, lead easier lives, and engage much more in realizing our dreams than in survival.

Now that nature has demonstrated what humanity can be like, we can rise above it and end the ego era.We can keep it as a reminder of what we can be like if we are unaware, but instead of the ego, it is time we ushered in the age of care for one another.

But over the last several decades, the human ego has grown out of proportion. It is no longer working in our favor; it has become toxic and noxious. Today the ego is making us intolerant to other views, exploit other people and all of nature, and disregard the ruin we are leaving for our children. In fact, in some countries, even children are becoming somewhat of a rarity as people see child rearing as an unrewarding task.

Through such unnatural tendencies, and through excessive self-absorption, the ego is destroying the planet we live on, the society we live in, and even our own bodies. The ego, in a word, is killing us.

Today, the ego is telling many people not to wear face masks and fight for their freedom of choice. But at a time of a global pandemic, what could be more ruinous to ourselves and to others than not to follow the minimal requirement for avoiding contagion? Yet, egoism is blinding us to the fact that it is risking our lives and the lives of our loved ones in the name of fake freedom when in truth, the ego is the master and we are its slaves.

Or, take nationalism, for example, a classic type of egoism. It demonizes another country or nation and convinces us that if we only ruin, impoverish, or conquer that monster, our lives will be all rosy. It entices us to launch a campaign against our perceived nemesis and when we end it devastated and heartbroken, it tells us that we’ve been used again by opportunistic politicians and heartless tycoons. And so we end up broke, downtrodden, and hopeless. But behind the scenes, it is the human ego that is running the show, laughing at all of us behind our backs.

It is time to put an end to the ego era. It is time to see that if we raise our heads and look at each other instead of catering to our quirks, we will find that we have no enemies. Every person who is different from me shows me something I could never see alone. We show each other new beauty, teach new ideas, and introduce new ways of thinking just by being different. It is diversity that makes the world we live in beautiful, and it’s diversity that keeps it going.

Even the most extremist views must not be destroyed. They are extreme because their opposite extreme exists as well, and together, they allow us to tell good from bad, choose unity over separation, care over carelessness, and connection over alienation. Were it not for extremists, we would not be able to develop ourselves.

In fact, if we try to annihilate them, they will only grow under the surface and infest our whole society. This is when they become dangerous, when we do not use them to cultivate unity and try to forcefully uproot them.

The same nature that runs the world we live in creates the most bizarre phenomena in humanity. And just as it does not make mistakes when it creates trees, it does not make mistakes when it creates different people. We are the ones with the wrong perspectives. We are the ones who think that one view is good, as long as it is mine, and cannot see that in nature, nothing is uniform, diversity rules, and thanks to it we thrive. Had nature made humanity uniform we would not know we have to change and would continue to lead our unsustainable lifestyle to our sorry end.

But now that nature has demonstrated what humanity can be like, we can rise above it and end the ego era. We can keep it as a reminder of what we can be like if we are unaware, but instead of the ego, it is time we ushered in the age of care for one another.

Filed under: Egoism, New Publications - No Comments →

The Times of Israel published my new article “A Peace Treaty Is Great, Now We Need Peace”

40 years after the peace treaty with Egypt, and 26 years after the peace treaty with Jordan, Israel signed another peace treaty with an Arab country: the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Unlike the former two treaties, this treaty seems poised to create a warm relationship with a country that is ready and willing to conduct full and warm diplomatic and trade relationships, with embassies, investments in technology, and tourism. And in the absence of territorial and refugee related disputes, the road to successful implementation of the agreement seems smoothly paved.

But for all the merits of a peace treaty, there is a big difference between peace and a peace treaty. A peace treaty will last just as long as the parties have an interest in keeping it. It relies on narrow calculations, enough of which have piled up between countries to sign an agreement that will benefit those interests. But when the interests no longer hold, nothing will maintain the peace.

The Hebrew word for “peace” is shalom, from the word shlemut (wholeness). This is interesting because wholeness does not imply lack of hate, but rather inclusion of hate under the governance of love. We can think of it this way: We cannot even want to unite with someone before we feel the pain of separation from that person. Likewise, in order to build love with someone, we need to want it, and we cannot come to want it unless we first feel that we hate that person and want to get rid of the hatred and turn it into love.

When a positive feeling first awakens toward someone, it is still not love; it is enchantment. By nature, enchantment is intense yet momentary. If we want to keep feeling love after the enchantment is gone, we have to work on it and rise above the disenchantment and other negative feelings that surface in us toward the previously admired person. If we succeed, this will be the beginning of love. From here on, the evolution or devolution of the love will depend on our willingness to transcend recurrent spells of hatred and rejection by building love that is stronger than the manifested hatred.

It turns out that the intensity of the love depends on the intensity of the hatred that precedes it. When you have reached a state where the hatred between you has exposed itself to the fullest and you still managed to cover it with love, then you have achieved a state of shlemut, namely wholeness, peace. You felt the most intense hatred yet you chose love over it. From here on, nothing can divide between the loved ones; they have attained shalom, peace.

And what is true for people is equally true for nations. The peace treaty with the UAE has no reason to fail. As said earlier, we have common economic interests and no reasons for disagreements. But to achieve true, solid, and lasting peace in the Middle East, the neighboring nations will have to rise above tremendous amounts of hatred.

I know that in the end, peace will win. All of creation is moving toward increasing unity, so eventually all nations will have to transcend their belligerence and choose peace. The only question is how many innocent people will have to suffer until that happens.

People think that making peace requires making concessions. I don’t think so. If you make concessions, you will forever wait your turn to take over everything. But peace, as we just said, means wholeness, and wholeness means that each person must feel fully satisfied. This is possible only if all the people feel that they are sharing a common goal that is greater than either their individual ambitions: the goal of unity.

While each person remains in his or her religion or faith, people will want to unite above these differences. And just as greater hatred forms the basis of greater love between people, greater division forms the basis for greater unity among nations. When nations make wholeness their utmost goal, they learn to value both their individual perspectives and the ability to unite with other perspectives to create a common whole. Then, and only then there will be peace. And when that happens, the strongest connection will be with those who are currently the worst enemy.
[269556]

Filed under: Israel Today, New Publications - No Comments →

Medium published my new article “Covid-19 Has Quenched the Flickering Candle of Higher Education”

Covid-19 has crippled every conceivable aspect of civilization. Yet, some aspects suffered such a blow that in all likelihood, we are witnessing their premortem spasms. One such aspect is higher education. After decades of accelerated ethical and political decadence, and voluntary discarding of academic integrity in pursuit of wealthy donors, all that remains of the Ivory Tower is an empty shell. Now, thankfully, social distancing has puffed away that, too, exposing what was once the zenith of human engagements as the nadir of human indulgence.

Today’s employers attribute much greater weight to candidates’ professional experience and independent learning skills than to their academic background. In that regard, a study that surveyed over 3,000 U.S. teens and adults found that half of young Americans think that their degree is irrelevant to their work.

When Plato founded the Academy, he encouraged diversity of perspectives and discussion of alternative views. Being a participant in the Academy did not require adherence to Platonic orthodoxy. What a stark contradiction this is from today’s blatant political agenda that every academic institution advocates. If you can tell what political views students of a certain academic institution will have at graduation, this takes away even the pretense of academic or intellectual integrity.

Worse, when every student is indoctrinated according to the institution where he or she studies, the more institutions you can buy into promoting your ideas, the more you will control the leadership of the country in a few years when the graduates take their places in the country’s corporate world and political leadership.

When universities began to develop in Europe in the early Middle Ages, they started as monastic (or cathedral) schools that focused on religious studies, as well as liberal arts (grammar, logic, and rhetoric, music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy). As in ancient Greece, their focus was on development of thought, but also on provision of knowledge. In the middle, and especially the late Middle Ages, universities began to emerge as independent institutions in Italy, England, France, and elsewhere in Europe. By the time of the Renaissance, they were fully developed academic institutions, and many of them were funded by the Monarch rather than by the Church.

Yet, in doing so, they also lost their academic independence. To maintain the favor of the benefactor, academic institutions had to “bend” science to meet the views of their sponsors, and objectivity flew out the window.

While it is possible to accept partiality when it comes to humanities, it is far less acceptable when concerning hard sciences, and it is downright detrimental when it comes to medical studies and other fields of research that concern human lives and people’s health and well-being. Over the past few decades, there have been numerous cases where medical research was distorted, and medical evidence concealed in order to meet the interest of the funder, often causing horrific consequences to numerous people. The thalidomide distribution scandal of the late 1950s and early 1960s, for example, left a lasting effect on the world. Released as a sedative drug in the late 1950s, thalidomide was also found to ease the effects of morning sickness in pregnant women. The drug was sold over the counter for five years before it was discovered that it could interfere with developing fetuses and cause death and horrible birth defects. During those five years more than 10,000 children were affected, some 40% of whom died and the rest were born with abnormalities to the arms and legs, as well as other parts of the body. And worst of all, at least in Britain, the company that distributed and sold thalidomide knew almost six months before it was pulled from the market that there were credible claims it caused terrible deformities and the deaths of infants.

Since the 1960s, the situation has only gotten worse. When even medicine is for sale, anything is for sale. Today’s universities are mostly funded privately, or rely heavily on private donors to secure their budgets. These sums are not pro bono. They carry a very clear and high price tag, which the university agrees to pay when it decides to accept money from individuals, corporations, or foreign governments. These donors often get to determine much of the curriculum, the lecturers, and even some of the public statements that the university makes on issues of interest to the donors. In fact, these are not donations; it is quid pro quo.

But fortunately, times are changing thanks to the coronavirus. Covid-19 has uncovered the worst of the medical community, exposing nearly every official medical personality as a promoter of the financial or political interest that he or she supports. The views among so called “experts” concerning the nature of the virus and the ways to deal with it are so conflicting that it has become clear that none of them can be trusted to speak with the public interest in mind. In that state, the public cannot know the truth about the virus because either no one knows it but will not admit it, or no one tells the truth because it does not promote his or her vested interest.

Even more importantly, the transformation that the job market has been going through since the turn of the century has made universities almost superfluous. Today, when you study computer science, for example, by the time you graduate, at least half of what you learned in the first year has been changed and your knowledge has become irrelevant. Today’s employers attribute much greater weight to candidates’ professional experience and independent learning skills than to their academic background. In that regard, a study that surveyed over 3,000 U.S. teens and adults found that half of young Americans think that their degree is irrelevant to their work.

It is not that young adults do not need to learn. They need to learn and they learn a lot, but not in universities. They find that dedicated, professional trainings in their field are far more relevant, affordable, and effective. They get what they need from these short, usually online courses, which make them more professional in their fields and do not leave them in debt for decades to come, and with heaps of irrelevant knowledge.

When Covid-19 forced social distancing on the whole country, it shut down the universities. Thankfully, this coming fall, hundreds of them will not reopen but will continue teaching online. In doing so, it takes away the little appeal that universities had — the campus atmosphere.

I think it is time to move to the next phase in learning. There is no point funding behemoth institutions that do not benefit the public. Medical research institutions should be funded solely by the government so as to maintain objectivity and their ability to focus on the public benefit and not on catering to various vested interests.

Social sciences and humanities should not be regarded as sciences, since they are not. Those who want to study them should be able to do so, but institutions should openly profess what ideology they are endorsing so that when people study there, they will know what will be their views when they come out. Additionally, people who listen to a graduate from this or that institution will know what to expect and will not be misled into thinking that that person presents objectively researched information.

It is a long overdue cleanup of the Academia, and the coronavirus expedited it. In the near future, I believe that higher education will take on a completely new and much healthier form.

Filed under: Coronavirus, Education, New Publications - No Comments →