Seemingly, the Rabbi’s words here contradict what he said in explaining Maimonides in chapter six. There the Rabbi explained that regarding rational commandments, there is indeed value in identification and connection. And I will quote the Rabbi’s words: “His claim is that with rational commandments it is proper to reach a state of identification, and with non-rational commandments not. But there is no statement here at all about the question of why or how to observe the commandment. One can observe it because of commitment to the command, even if within me there is full identification with the commandment and its goals. The identification exists, but it is not necessarily the motivation and reason why I do it. Thus, with moral commandments I can create identification (usually it exists naturally), and nevertheless do the commandment because of commitment to the command.”

Where is the contradiction? There is no value in identification except in the moral realm, and even there it is not supposed to be the motivation for the action.

“In my view, there is no value in this at all {in identification}” versus “His claim is that with rational commandments it is proper to reach a state of identification, and with non-rational commandments not}”

I’ll explain, although I don’t see the need. It is obvious that: 1. The question was not about identifying with “You shall not murder” or charity, but with prayer and Sabbath (it’s hard to believe the discussion was about a phenomenon of people making moral behavior conditional on feeling connected. People make religious behavior conditional on feeling connected). 2. The question said they make the observance conditional on identification, not merely that they hope to identify.
In Maimonides it says that regarding moral commandments there is value in identification, and even that is not a religious value in the observance of the commandment (the commandment of charity without identification is a perfectly fine commandment), but rather a moral value. Therefore it is not related to the question. What is related is his determination that there is no such value on the religious plane. And that is what I wrote.

Thank you to the Rabbi for the explanation. I mean, for example, prayer. If I understand the Rabbi’s view, this neither adds nor subtracts anything {and unfortunately I understood that the Rabbi’s view is that prayer “doesn’t really work”}. And I think the words of the Sages, “Do not make your prayer fixed, but supplications,” and “the gates of tears have not been locked,” still stand in full force. One should pray in the manner of supplications, like a pauper begging at the door, gently, and it should not appear to him as a burden that he is trying to get rid of.
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 98:3

You are mixing together two planes of discussion.
Even if prayer works, I do not see value in feeling connected to it. Maybe it helps you in some sense in the service of God, but it has no essential value. For someone to whom it doesn’t fit, there is no problem with that.
Beyond that, there is the factual question whether prayers are answered. What does that have to do with our issue?

Connection in the sense of supplications and of someone begging at the door, and not like reading a phone book — on that I disagree with the Rabbi. The Rabbi is right that I mixed together 2 issues — it’s just sad to me that a wise person like the Rabbi, because of the Waxman case, decides that prayers are not answered. Thank you very much, and more power to the Rabbi for the availability, depth, and breadth of knowledge. Thank you very much!!

What does that have to do with Waxman? I only said that it was the trigger. The whole world around us cries this out, and as I have written more than once, I do not believe even those who declare that they do believe. Their behavior shows otherwise. Okay, that’s it.

Thank you very much, Rabbi. We part in disagreement, and with my hope that in old age, and maybe even before then, the Rabbi will change his mind. More power to you!!