A previous study argued that the spiritual trajectory of the Twelve Steps, read alongside the Hasidic recovery of relational address, resolves the ancient quarrel between a personal God who is addressed as Thou and an impersonal Infinite into which the self is absorbed; it proposed that Hasidism reorients mystical depth toward relational responsibility rather than dissolution.¹ The present essay revisits and partly recants that conclusion. It argues that the resolution was premature, and that the deepest honesty available to the theology of recovery is not synthesis but the steady inhabitation of an antinomy that cannot be closed. Drawing on William James’s account of the wider self through which saving experiences arrive, Martin Buber’s insistence on the irreducibility of encounter, Elliot R. Wolfson’s apophatic phenomenology of identity-in-difference, and the Chabad doctrine that the divine Essence transcends the categories of being and non-being, the essay reads Step Eleven’s movement from a transcendent Higher Power toward ‘conscious contact’ not as a passage from transcendence to immanence but as the moment at which the two grammars—address and ground, Thou and depth—become simultaneously unavoidable and mutually irreducible. The recovering self does not discover that it is God, nor that God is merely the floor of its own interiority; it discovers that it cannot say which, and that its sobriety, and its capacity to remain present at the bedside of another’s suffering, depend on not deciding. The argument is developed through the author’s framework of hermeneutic medicine and therapeutic tzimtzum and is offered as a contribution to philosophy of religion, Jewish mystical studies, consciousness studies, and the still-unwritten theology of recovery.
Julian Ungar-Sargon· American Journal of Medical...· 1 citation
Deveykut cannot be defended descriptively. Moshe Idel’s correction of Gershom Scholem established that genuinely unitive and absorptive strands are well attested across Jewish mysticism, which means that any account of deveykut as communion-without-annihilation cannot be presented as a simple report of what Jewish mystics sought or attained. This essay accepts Idel’s finding and draws the consequence: a deveykut that preserves the finite self must be argued for normatively, as a claim about what covenant requires, made in full awareness that the tradition contains the alternative. The argument proceeds in three stages. First, the descriptive route is closed. Second, three normative warrants are advanced for the persistence of the yesh — the conditions of accountability, the structure of ethical summons following Levinas, and the requirement of anti-theodicy after catastrophe — none of which apophasis alone can supply. Third, the resulting model is given a mechanism rather than merely a definition: covenantal asymptoticity, in which distance functions as the medium of relation rather than its deficit, exemplified in Rebbe Nachman’s parable/mashal of the Heart and the Spring. The essay engages Wolfson’s demonstration that Chabad’s own apophatic grammar resists metaphysical closure and concedes the point while identifying what it leaves unaddressed: apophasis destabilizes predication without generating any demand that the finite self-remain finite. An addendum applies the model to the Higher Power of Alcoholics Anonymous, reading Kurtz’s not-God-ness as the practical form of the same normative claim.
Julian Ungar-Sargon· Journal of Psychology and Ne...· 0 citations