A question about admission

According to you, you give importance to the legends of Chazal almost as much as you give to the stories of Hasidim (which are probably accepted).
This is the context

We moved on to writing riddles. Not part of my hobbies.

Riddle writings? I'm not sure what you mean.
I'll rephrase the question - the Ari's Kabbalah, for example, just as he fabricated it from his heart (I believe), the same ability could also be found in one of the great poets of the generation. And based on this, I don't see much difference between him and other mythmakers who tell moral stories.
As someone who has studied or researched Kabbalah for some time, do you still think there is too much respect to give to the Kabbalah or is my assumption well-founded?

You return again and again to the legends of the sages and the stories of the Hasidim, when the subject of the discussion that you yourself have set is the attitude towards Kabbalah. This movement from here to there is a riddle to me.
To your question, if you believe that the Aryan fabricated everything from his heart, then what do you have to ask? Is he a judge who deserves the Nobel Prize for Literature? What is the meaning of the comparison to poets? You mentioned that I do not assume that. So what exactly do you want from me?
In short, I have not yet deciphered the previous riddle, you send me another riddle. If we do not make progress, I will stop here.

I assumed that your attitude towards Hasidim stories and acceptance is the same. My mistake.
“Bedea Malibu” Not in the sense of a literary work that deserves to be a bestseller, but in the same sense that Freud Bedea Malibu psychoanalysis: the ideas presented in both are their way of understanding the complexities of the world, but at the end of the day neurophysiologists have not yet found parts of the brain that meet the definition of ego, superego and id.
Is this a definition you can agree on?

The comparison to Freud is much more successful. I have written more than once that Freud's theory is truly completely unfounded and has no empirical basis, and yet he created something very important and significant. It is a conceptual system for understanding the psychological world (which did not exist until his time). Now it is possible to argue or agree, create hypotheses and test or refute them, and so on. In this sense, this system is not an invention but a discovery. It is certainly similar to what Kabbalah does.

Well, if Freud's conceptual system was created for the purpose of discussing psychology, then I must ask what the Aryan conceptual system was for? Yes, you didn't mention it, but I must assume that it is not for the purpose of discussing God. Even if it only came to talk about the distance between our world and that of God, I doubt whether there is a place for such immanent elements in Judaism.
Is there really a need for discussions about sparks and shells, breaking and repairing tools in Jewish discourse? Which, as you often point out, has no other content than Halacha, which is a closed world.

It is designed to understand the world and its conduct.
All the concepts you described are incredibly practical for this purpose.
That in Judaism there is nothing beyond Halacha is absolutely true, but how does this relate to our discussion? Kabbalah is not related to Judaism. It is a conceptual-thought system for understanding the world.
Incidentally, Kabbalah also offers explanations for Halacha, but we will not go into that here.

The world and its conduct were studied at that time by those responsible for the scientific revolution.
I can understand the motive behind psychoanalysis, since the human soul is not at all understandable to us, but we are able to perceive the order of the world, and the fact that Lorian Kabbalah developed at the same time that Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton made their discoveries indicates, in my opinion, a disconnect between the Jewish people (who were expelled from Spain at that time) and the European intellectuals who flourished, and this disconnect is no longer necessary.
Although Kabbalah is not related to Judaism (from this it is clear why the New Agers adopted it), it places the Jewish people at the center of its world, and with it makes quite unfounded claims, such as that God created the world with the letters of the Hebrew language (the Book of Creation), and with this, anthropomorphic descriptions of angels and sublime beings that border on idolatry (Shiur Kuma).
The only positive aspect I can give to the Ari writings is that they express work not for its own sake, that if they are taught at a young age and not treated as a sacred sign that our eyes cannot be exposed to until the age of 40, then they will develop into work for its own sake. I can see a benefit in that, but I have difficulty seeing if there is anything beyond that.

You should read Maimonides”s introduction to the Mishnah. There he talks about three groups (sects) in the interpretation of the legends. And he is right. Such a simplistic and childish criticism shoots rational/listic thinking in the foot. Rationalism does not have to come with a lack of comprehension. Do you even understand the concept of “creating a world through letters”? Before you understand, you cannot disagree and criticize, and it is obvious that you do not understand.

Can you point me to a rational explanation for the book of creation?

This discussion has moved from place to place, each time at a different point, with strange links to legends and poets, etc. We finally landed on Freud, which I wrote to you about as a more successful comparison. You asked about basic Kabbalistic concepts and I answered you in principle and in general. You could have asked for a specific explanation for one of them, for example, how it is useful for looking at the world, but you didn't. You preferred to move on. For each such basic concept, I can offer you completely reasonable explanations (which you can accept or not, but you certainly won't be able to ridicule them as you tried to do). Regarding details, the situation is different (at least for me. Maybe there are those who will explain all the details to you as well).

Somehow, every time I answer one thing, you move on to discuss something else in order to maintain your wavering criticism of Kabbalah. It seems like insistence rather than a serious and substantive discussion.

As for your question, I don't know of any such interpretations of a book of creation, but it's certainly possible that there are. You'll have to look it up if it's important to you.

I gave my own explanation for the benefit of the Kabbalistic view of the world (“A person will always engage in Torah and mitzvah even for no reason, because from no reason comes for no reason”). It only makes sense that such a thing was needed after the expulsion from Spain, and the Rabbi showed that it is truly possible to translate these writings for work for no reason.
If you believe that there is another benefit to Kabbalah, I would be happy to know. My view may be too simplistic, since it is a world from which I am as far removed as the East is from the West, and I may be guilty of the same view as many Kabbalists who perceive this world in a practical way, one of amulets and soothsayers.

In any case, I believe that it is your place to give me a rational interpretation of the Book of Creation and not to direct me to an independent search, since you accused me of lacking comprehension.

Unfortunately, you continue with your lack of reading comprehension and stubbornness. I wrote that if you have a specific question, ask it. Don't ask me to interpret the Book of Creation or the Kabbalah for you here.

How do you perceive the scripture that God created the world with the help of the letters of the Hebrew language?

It seems to be something like Aristotle's Elements of Arminia, so we can talk about a periodic table of 22 elements that in different doses make up reality. We can continue the analogy and say that just as letters make up words, so the "letters" in the meanings I gave above make up the parts of reality.
There are two options. To interpret this:
a. An ontological option - understanding that letters have an ontic status, meaning that they are a type of entity, and God used them as the building blocks of the world. Of course, we are not talking about letters as we understand them, but abstract entities represented by the letters. Many have dealt with the shape of the letters and what it expresses. The argument is that this is not a schematic form as in any language, but a substantial one (representing something real).
b. A more moderate way (it seems more reasonable to me) is that reality in the world operates according to principles represented by the letters. Such as the division into spheres that represent different forces and forms of conduct that make up reality in different doses.
Now, each letter must be given meaning and what it represents. The same can also be done on several levels: through the words that it is composed of, or through its typographic form (the house and the house are open at the front and closed at the back, and so on).

Thank you very much for the detailed answer.