Friday, February 25, 2011

Gaddafi versus Mubarak

Power is unique in that it can be a means or an end- it is a means to money, women, or both, or it is an end for the sake of honor itself. However, there is a difference in how it manifests. If it is a means towards physical desires, then it is limited and has the possibility of satisfaction, albeit temporary in nature for physical satisfaction always needs replenishment. However, if it is an end, then there is no possibility for even temporary satisfaction. The desire for self aggrandizing is limitless because it is anchored by the soul, and just like there is no limit to how spiritual a person can get, so too there is no limit to how arrogant a person can get.[1] A cursory view of current events seems to bear out these truths. In the case of Gaddafi, we see power as an end driving his violent struggle because he is willing to forfeit his life for the sake of power.  Mubarack seems to have used power primarily as a means[2], funneling away billions of dollars before acquiescing to demands and retiring to a Sinai resort town.  His desires seem to have had a limit. Now, radically enough, the drive behind Gadaffi’s violent struggle is not a bad thing, and in fact, in a certain sense, the world may need more of it. 
One of the main issues that plague the world is addiction.  This comes in a myriad of different forms, ranging from the destructive impact of drugs to the brain deadening impact of video games or the soul deadening impact of shopping.  There are several reasons why people become addicted, but the main one is a low self esteem that results in a consistent emotional distress that begs to be alleviated in some way or another. Low self esteem is often a result of a presupposition that the world is a just and fair place, and therefore, when parents don’t act like parents or teachers don’t act like teachers, a.k.a. the world does not act fairly, it is not the teachers or parents fault, rather the child’s.[3]  So from a young age, the injustices of the world result in a low esteem because it is too frightening as a child to accept that the world is not a just place.  For the child, it is easier to accept that he is simply not adequate. 
This feeling of inadequacy is a complete negation of what it means to be a human being.  These two weeks in the Torah document the complex grandeur of the Tabernacle, the dwelling place of G-d in the world.  Prophetic artisans and super human kindness dedicate themselves to the Temple, and all the spiritual wisdom of the world is contained therein.  Yet, when all is said and done, G-d presence does not come down into the building.  Why?  Because the building needed a spiritual human touch, the building needed Moses- ‘So Moses completed the work.  The Cloud covered the Tent of meeting, and the glory of Hashem filled the Tabernacle’[4]
Imagine, Man has the power to create real holiness through his actions, and this does not only apply to Moses.  A Jewish scribe can take animal skins and through proper lettering create a Torah that is Holy and has a slew of Laws associated with its handling. Or a person can write a book of Prophets that has a lower level of sanctity and cannot be placed on top of a Book of Torah.  That is the amazing G-dliness of a human being that he is able to imbue the world with Holiness that makes a difference. If a person can understand and appreciate what power that is, then a feeling of inadequacy is absurd, and irrelevant, no matter what life circumstances surrounds a person.
However, this power of the Human soul can be taken in the wrong direction, and drastically.  The same root that can create holiness to no end can create a notion of self-entitlement that knows no limits.  Though I don’t them personally, this is what seems to plague Kim Yong Ill and Gaddafi. The path to greatness is narrow, straddled between inadequacy and narcissism, but the task is to find that path and maintain the balance.  In this day in age, probably a dose of self-worth is more crucial than its possible downside.





[1] See Rav Dessler Mictav m Eliyahu Second Volume T’ Sha B’av page 51
[2] Obviously, there were elements of both aspects to Power for each leader, but one may be more primary than the other.
[3] See 'Addictive Thinking' by Rabbi Twerski
[4] Chiddush from the Alter of Slabodka Or HaTzafon ‘Hashras Hashcina’ and See Exodus 40:34

No comments:

Post a Comment