Spirituality Studies 51 Arik Segev that ultimately there is “no good or bad” (Van Gordon et al. 2021, 1845–46). However, if we accept that an educational framework requires the maintenance of ethical distinctions that are supposed to be real and true (MacIntyre 2007; Segev 2017), then, by viewing the self not as an illusion to be discarded but as a reality, a vessel of God to be refined, the proposed perspective enables students and individuals to navigate the spatiotemporal world with a sense of moral responsibility and a positive spiritual goal of refining self-identity and to value and accept (Heb. Le-Kabbel – “Kabbalah”) the world. To support this realist approach, one may draw upon moral realists such as Shafer-Landau (2003), Parfit (2011), and Huemer (2008), who argue for mind-independent ethical realities. As argued above, these are a necessary foundation for the concepts of truth and wisdom. Metaphysically, this approach is reinforced by Kripke’s (1980) concept of “rigid designators”, which posits that a proper name, such as a person’s name, designates the same object across all possible worlds as a matter of metaphysical necessity (Kripke 1980; LaPorte 2022). This idea offers an alternative to the ontological emptiness and deconstruction of the “I” found in relativistic theories, ensuring that the individual (the “I”) maintains, at least in some respects, a trans-world identity throughout the spiritual journey. Thus, the model is not a ladder to be kicked away upon reaching the height (as in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus or some readings of the Ten Bulls), but a cumulative tree where the roots are as essential as the treetop. Later, in the stages of Binah (Heb. “understanding”) and Chochmah (Heb. “wisdom”), I will further apply Kripke’s idea of naming as a framework to illustrate the potential of this spiritual stage for identifying entities, both in the spatiotemporal Sefirot and in the Sefirot of Possibilities beyond them. Turning now to the Western models, such as the Great Chain of Being, they have been presented with a rigid ontological hierarchy. However, as Darr (2024) observes, these hierarchical views have been critiqued for justifying domination and devaluing non-human life, prompting a shift toward a non-hierarchical Great Web of Being (Darr 2024, 2). The current perspective offers a middle path. It maintains the developmental structure necessary for education, resonating with Ungar-Sargon’s (2025) call to reclaim sacred dimensions to heal the modern fragmentation of body, mind, and spirit (Ungar-Sargon 2025, 4). However, this model is integrative: the ascent, for example, from Tiferet to Gevurah and Chesed is not an abandonment of the previous stage but an expansion of perspective. In this sense, it also differs from Plato’s perspective on the ascent of consciousness. While in the Platonic exit from the cave, the individual leaves its shadows; here, the earlier stages must be maintained to hold the entire spiritual structure. In the 20th century, Karl Popper (1980) proposed the Three Worlds theory to map reality, comprising the physical world – stones, stars, organisms, radiation (World 1), the mental psychological states, feelings, thoughts, decisions, emotions, pain, pleasure (World 2), and the reality of human-mind created objects such as languages, mathematics and scientific theories, songs and other art works (World 3) (Popper 1980, 143–144). Facco (2022) analyzes this model and suggests a neurophenomenological update to better understand the relationship between the mind and the world (Facco 2022, 744). The proposed Ten Sefirot framework shares interesting parallels with Popper’s ontology (e.g., Malchut/Yesod paralleling World 1; Yesod/Hod paralleling World 2; Binah/Chochmah paralleling World 3). However, Popper’s model is primarily epistemic. The current model introduces a distinct ethical and transformative dimension. It offers not only a map of reality but also a path for personal transformation. It describes the specific educational movements required to navigate these worlds wisely, a dimension often absent from purely descriptive epistemological models. In conclusion, while existing models offer paths based on negation (as in some Eastern traditions or Plato’s) or static mapping (as in the Great Chain or Popper), this study proposes a unique reading of the Ten Sefirot as a dynamic, educational, and cumulative model. In this reading, the transition between stages does not nullify the previous ones but rather adds a layer of meaning and balance. Furthermore, the “bottom-up” phenomenological approach – reading from the human experience toward the infinite rather than from the Divine downward – translates this theological structure into a pedagogical map relevant to any spiritual seeker of wisdom.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==