Monday, May 18, 2009
archives of a past age
Everything posted before this post is an archive of a yahoo group I ran almost 10 years ago called "Science through Kabbalah."
Re: Sickness
1) Well, first off we know that the shechina dwells above the bed of a sick person. And we know that the schechina dwells in a room with a minyan.
You could draw some interesting, and perhaps misleading or perhaps not, conclusions from this.
2) about permanent illness or injury, i have the following insights:
A Woman has fewer obligations than a Man. This is because the Man has more (naturally) un-fulfilled spiritual 'inputs'/'needs' than a Woman. (In other words a Man is less complete)
Now, a deaf person or a blind person has fewer requirements still than a person who can see or hear. Following this reasoning, they have still fewer spiritual needs and so need fewer mitzwoth to address those needs.
As far as I see it, a permanent injury/sickness/defect fulfills the need related to the mitzwoth the injured person is no longer responsible to perform.
3) taking points 1 and 2 together above, perhaps even temporary illness completes (for a time) a person in ways such that debillitate them (in the physical sense). This lack of spiritual need that is produced by illness is perhaps what raises the spiritual level of the one who is ill. This raising occurrs to such an extent that the shechina itself is present during great illness. The person who is ill has risen to a spiritual level comparable to the combined spiritual nature of 10 healthy Jewish Men.
---
This logic might seem very convoluted and backwards.. but it sometimes helps to view everything we think we know about the world (ie. illness is bad, physical power is desirable.) on its head. (illness brings one closer to God, physical weakness may denote spiritual strength)
[and of course: ilness may bring one closer to God in that when one is sick.. the whole world seems to shrink to that of oneself.. giving one a new perception of 'one-ness' otherwise only achievable as a baby or a greatly aged person. And spiritual strength (though initially begotten of physical weakness) eventually leads to limitless physical strength (ie: yaacov moving the stone off the well, moshe awake for 120 days without sleeping or eating, eliyahu running for 40 days and 40 nights, also without sleeping or eating.)
You could draw some interesting, and perhaps misleading or perhaps not, conclusions from this.
2) about permanent illness or injury, i have the following insights:
A Woman has fewer obligations than a Man. This is because the Man has more (naturally) un-fulfilled spiritual 'inputs'/'needs' than a Woman. (In other words a Man is less complete)
Now, a deaf person or a blind person has fewer requirements still than a person who can see or hear. Following this reasoning, they have still fewer spiritual needs and so need fewer mitzwoth to address those needs.
As far as I see it, a permanent injury/sickness/defect fulfills the need related to the mitzwoth the injured person is no longer responsible to perform.
3) taking points 1 and 2 together above, perhaps even temporary illness completes (for a time) a person in ways such that debillitate them (in the physical sense). This lack of spiritual need that is produced by illness is perhaps what raises the spiritual level of the one who is ill. This raising occurrs to such an extent that the shechina itself is present during great illness. The person who is ill has risen to a spiritual level comparable to the combined spiritual nature of 10 healthy Jewish Men.
---
This logic might seem very convoluted and backwards.. but it sometimes helps to view everything we think we know about the world (ie. illness is bad, physical power is desirable.) on its head. (illness brings one closer to God, physical weakness may denote spiritual strength)
[and of course: ilness may bring one closer to God in that when one is sick.. the whole world seems to shrink to that of oneself.. giving one a new perception of 'one-ness' otherwise only achievable as a baby or a greatly aged person. And spiritual strength (though initially begotten of physical weakness) eventually leads to limitless physical strength (ie: yaacov moving the stone off the well, moshe awake for 120 days without sleeping or eating, eliyahu running for 40 days and 40 nights, also without sleeping or eating.)
Tue May 22, 2001 12:02 pm
points on the curve
Re: POST Re: POST
here's a concept i've been working with and I feel the easiest way to explain it is via martial arts analogy:
In martial arts they teach you excersizes called katas, and you practice these katas until you are reasonably profficient at one, and then they teach you the next kata. Ultimately the goal is not that you necesarily memorize the katas themselves, the goal is that your mind/body will at some point integrate the various katas into an overall scheme of motion, a fundamental understanding of physical interaction, a new awareness of your body. When you reach these plateaus, this is the actual martial art which you are accquiring..
Basically, the katas are points that your teacher draws for you. When you start to see enough of the points at the same time, you can begin to get a sense of the curve. When you intimately understand the curve(which contains all these points and an infinite number of additional points), you can flow along it, never having to make use of any specific move you practiced or that you were taught. you can invent new moves that fit along the curve without having to think about them. you 'understand' or even moreso, you 'know' the curve, the martial art.
Now, this metaphor is true for all forms of learning. One cannot teach the curve, one can only teach the points, the teacher can only hope that the student will be able to put the points together and glimpse the curve. This is undoubtedly Torah as well.
This is what is meant in part by the fact that there is some Torah which you are not permitted to teach even to a single student. It is not only that it is not permitted, but rather that any points you might try to offer a student regarding these highly complicated curves would only throw the student off the track.
Now beyond Kabbalah, and beyond less esoteric levels of Torah, there is a singular, supernal curve. A level of enlightenment in which one perceives the will of HaShem and the flow of events. An overall image or knowledge of how and why things are as they are. Every level of Torah and every exclamation of Torah serve as points along this singular curve, and so all elements and levels of Torah are addressing the very same concepts and points.
Now, exactly what levels of such a perception are attainable and what are beyond our means is a very pertinent question but it has been addressed repeatedly, even by Moshe in direct discussion with HaShem. It is clear that one can never see this curve or know this curve with perfect clarity.. the question is, can we teach ourselves to see some of it at least..? can we see how every part of torah is related to every other part?
this is the part or aspect of Torah that captures my attention, and occupies my time.
here's a concept i've been working with and I feel the easiest way to explain it is via martial arts analogy:
In martial arts they teach you excersizes called katas, and you practice these katas until you are reasonably profficient at one, and then they teach you the next kata. Ultimately the goal is not that you necesarily memorize the katas themselves, the goal is that your mind/body will at some point integrate the various katas into an overall scheme of motion, a fundamental understanding of physical interaction, a new awareness of your body. When you reach these plateaus, this is the actual martial art which you are accquiring..
Basically, the katas are points that your teacher draws for you. When you start to see enough of the points at the same time, you can begin to get a sense of the curve. When you intimately understand the curve(which contains all these points and an infinite number of additional points), you can flow along it, never having to make use of any specific move you practiced or that you were taught. you can invent new moves that fit along the curve without having to think about them. you 'understand' or even moreso, you 'know' the curve, the martial art.
Now, this metaphor is true for all forms of learning. One cannot teach the curve, one can only teach the points, the teacher can only hope that the student will be able to put the points together and glimpse the curve. This is undoubtedly Torah as well.
This is what is meant in part by the fact that there is some Torah which you are not permitted to teach even to a single student. It is not only that it is not permitted, but rather that any points you might try to offer a student regarding these highly complicated curves would only throw the student off the track.
Now beyond Kabbalah, and beyond less esoteric levels of Torah, there is a singular, supernal curve. A level of enlightenment in which one perceives the will of HaShem and the flow of events. An overall image or knowledge of how and why things are as they are. Every level of Torah and every exclamation of Torah serve as points along this singular curve, and so all elements and levels of Torah are addressing the very same concepts and points.
Now, exactly what levels of such a perception are attainable and what are beyond our means is a very pertinent question but it has been addressed repeatedly, even by Moshe in direct discussion with HaShem. It is clear that one can never see this curve or know this curve with perfect clarity.. the question is, can we teach ourselves to see some of it at least..? can we see how every part of torah is related to every other part?
this is the part or aspect of Torah that captures my attention, and occupies my time.
Sun Dec 31, 2000 9:18 am
a little about gematria
The gematria equivalent of a word is arrived at by adding up the individual numerical values of the letters in the word..
aleph through teth = 1 through 9
yud through tzadi = 10 through 90
kuf through taf = 100 through 400
[ie. aleph = 1, beth = 2, gimel = 3, ... teth = 9]
so the word Av meaning father (or thick IIRC), spelled Aleph Beth would have a gematria of 3; Aleph(1) + Beth(2) = 3
BUT:
the point of gematria is not to translate or decode words or sentences, as much as it is to find the deeper meaning, ie. add to the existing meaning.. so meaning is not lost but rather added. For example: the phrase 'WaYichbos Avraham eth Hamoro' means : 'And abraham saddled his donkey', the rabbis further teach that since WaYichbos also means to 'overcome' or 'conquer', and Hamoro also means 'his matter/stuff'; that the phrase actually means that Abraham overcame his physicality. Now, if we look on the level of Gematriah we see that Homer or Hamor (heth mem resh (HMR)) has the gematria of 248 (heth = 8, mem = 40, resh = 200), this is the number of the positive mitzwoth (commandments) in the Torah.. so now we may see that 'And Abraham conquored his donkey' actually has a much deeper connotation: 'Abraham overcame his physicality through the practice of all 248 positive commandments.'
So it's more a question of the various levels of Torah you are trying to understand, not a matter of how much is being lost in translation.
of course there are always deeper levels, and those who see more clearly than oneself :)
yitz..
aleph through teth = 1 through 9
yud through tzadi = 10 through 90
kuf through taf = 100 through 400
[ie. aleph = 1, beth = 2, gimel = 3, ... teth = 9]
so the word Av meaning father (or thick IIRC), spelled Aleph Beth would have a gematria of 3; Aleph(1) + Beth(2) = 3
BUT:
the point of gematria is not to translate or decode words or sentences, as much as it is to find the deeper meaning, ie. add to the existing meaning.. so meaning is not lost but rather added. For example: the phrase 'WaYichbos Avraham eth Hamoro' means : 'And abraham saddled his donkey', the rabbis further teach that since WaYichbos also means to 'overcome' or 'conquer', and Hamoro also means 'his matter/stuff'; that the phrase actually means that Abraham overcame his physicality. Now, if we look on the level of Gematriah we see that Homer or Hamor (heth mem resh (HMR)) has the gematria of 248 (heth = 8, mem = 40, resh = 200), this is the number of the positive mitzwoth (commandments) in the Torah.. so now we may see that 'And Abraham conquored his donkey' actually has a much deeper connotation: 'Abraham overcame his physicality through the practice of all 248 positive commandments.'
So it's more a question of the various levels of Torah you are trying to understand, not a matter of how much is being lost in translation.
of course there are always deeper levels, and those who see more clearly than oneself :)
yitz..
Sun Dec 31, 2000 8:36 am
projection
while watching a soccer game it occurred to me the following:
regarding the merkavah in yehezkel perek 1,
what if the hayyoth haKodesh(holy beasts) were projections of the kiseh haKavod(throne of glory) into one less dimension? This would require four 'light sources' shining upon the kiseh haKavod in order to achieve this effect. now let us say that the kiseh haKavod shines upon the four hayyoth haKodesh.. and each of these is projected into one fewer dimension achieving four 'ophanim'(wheels) one 'beneath' each hayyah. Now.. let's say the lights of the hayyoth haKodesh then are cast upon the ophanim which would then cast a total of sixteen objects of one fewer dimension. (four people, four birds, four grazing animals, four hunting animals ?)
so that in each level of creation, the level above is the illumination, and the level below is that which is projected to form a new creation/projection on the level beneath that.
So that at every level, the two levels above play a part in it's creation. meaning, at the highest level, there are still two levels of removal between creator and created, as paradoxical as that may sound.
---the extrapolation could be faulty as most of the revellation deals with the world of yetzirah (in my meagre understanding) so there are only 2 worlds above yetzirah that would take a part in it's creation..)
=========
time for a second pass at sefer yetzirah methinx..
regarding the merkavah in yehezkel perek 1,
what if the hayyoth haKodesh(holy beasts) were projections of the kiseh haKavod(throne of glory) into one less dimension? This would require four 'light sources' shining upon the kiseh haKavod in order to achieve this effect. now let us say that the kiseh haKavod shines upon the four hayyoth haKodesh.. and each of these is projected into one fewer dimension achieving four 'ophanim'(wheels) one 'beneath' each hayyah. Now.. let's say the lights of the hayyoth haKodesh then are cast upon the ophanim which would then cast a total of sixteen objects of one fewer dimension. (four people, four birds, four grazing animals, four hunting animals ?)
so that in each level of creation, the level above is the illumination, and the level below is that which is projected to form a new creation/projection on the level beneath that.
So that at every level, the two levels above play a part in it's creation. meaning, at the highest level, there are still two levels of removal between creator and created, as paradoxical as that may sound.
---the extrapolation could be faulty as most of the revellation deals with the world of yetzirah (in my meagre understanding) so there are only 2 worlds above yetzirah that would take a part in it's creation..)
=========
time for a second pass at sefer yetzirah methinx..
Tue Dec 26, 2000 11:07 am
gematria
the word Lev (heart) has gematriah (gem.) of 32
the word Kavod (glory) has gem. of 26 when it is written chaser (without a wav) and gem. of 32 when it is written maleh (with a wav).
26 is the gem. of the Shem Havayah(tetragramaton).
the word echad (one) has gem. of 13, which is half of 26, implying two for HaShem's presence to be seen.
the word yachid (single/singular) has gem. of 32.
the letter aleph has gem. of 1, but can be read 'eleph' which means 1000, it also can be said that writing the letter aleph requires a wav and two yuds, the gem. of which is 26. there are also those who say the aleph is made to two wavs and two yuds, making the gem. 32 ..
(the word levad (alone) has gem. of 36 (which is made by combining the word lev with the daleth whose meaning is dal or 'poor'; of course through meditation and seclusion one may open a door (deleth) to HaShem)
just some things to think about..
the word Kavod (glory) has gem. of 26 when it is written chaser (without a wav) and gem. of 32 when it is written maleh (with a wav).
26 is the gem. of the Shem Havayah(tetragramaton).
the word echad (one) has gem. of 13, which is half of 26, implying two for HaShem's presence to be seen.
the word yachid (single/singular) has gem. of 32.
the letter aleph has gem. of 1, but can be read 'eleph' which means 1000, it also can be said that writing the letter aleph requires a wav and two yuds, the gem. of which is 26. there are also those who say the aleph is made to two wavs and two yuds, making the gem. 32 ..
(the word levad (alone) has gem. of 36 (which is made by combining the word lev with the daleth whose meaning is dal or 'poor'; of course through meditation and seclusion one may open a door (deleth) to HaShem)
just some things to think about..
Sun Dec 17, 2000 3:35 am
numbers
Like physics, in which scientists are always looking to discover a single lattice-work of mathematics and philosophy which may explain all of experiential existence, my journeys in judaism and kabbalah seek a similar goal.
What I have been, and continue to be, looking for is a framework, description, or passage within existing rabbinic literature, or more specifically Torah, nevi'im(prophets), or ketuvim (writings) (collectively Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim are called 'the old testament' by non-jews and Tanach by jews) that can interrellate and describe the various relationships between all the major numbers in existence. all the pivotal, basic numbers, the more common numbers, 1, 2, 4, 7, 3, 10, 5, 18, 26, 32, 72, 50, 40, 100, 248, 365, 613 etc and the physical constants as well.
any thoughts or musings about the existence of such a passage.. that perhaps all the old testament is one large such passage? ..
dig in if you so choose :)
yitz..
What I have been, and continue to be, looking for is a framework, description, or passage within existing rabbinic literature, or more specifically Torah, nevi'im(prophets), or ketuvim (writings) (collectively Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim are called 'the old testament' by non-jews and Tanach by jews) that can interrellate and describe the various relationships between all the major numbers in existence. all the pivotal, basic numbers, the more common numbers, 1, 2, 4, 7, 3, 10, 5, 18, 26, 32, 72, 50, 40, 100, 248, 365, 613 etc and the physical constants as well.
any thoughts or musings about the existence of such a passage.. that perhaps all the old testament is one large such passage? ..
dig in if you so choose :)
yitz..
Tue Dec 12, 2000 4:47 pm
::synthesis on the bus::
001101.1020
Physicality and spirituality are observer-related.
the sukkah can be seen as removing the physicality from the self, and making oneself entirely spiritual.. or as investing oneself in physical acts in order to reach the spiritual. The reverse of both of these can be said about pesach.
attraction is spiritual -- seeking unity.
repulsion is physical -- seeking individuality.
potential is spiritual -- unity of all possible worlds.
actuality is physical -- limiting to one specific world.
giving is spiritual -- ahava -- by giving all to all we unite.
taking is physical -- soneh -- by taking from all for me, i cut off.
quantum mechanics expresses the natural way of motion from spiritual to physical and back again. [light and hence waves have many simultaneous outcomes and solutions, whereas matter (hence particles) have a singular solution to a problem.]
action is relative -- it can unite or separate.
observation is relative -- it can unite or separate.
if every aspect of haShem (ie. creation) began to give in every way to every other aspect of HaShem, we would cease to be individual, and would result in the end of creation. This is how action/mitzwoth can actually lead to unity even when the action itself must acknowledge separation.
how could the only way to bring the Moshiach be through something unifying on a seemingly impossible level?[keeping two shabbatoth] Obviously haShem doesn't give us any test we don't have the potential to overcome, so what is the answer? how do we do it? perhaps the moshiach comes (for the worse) when the potential to bring him (for the better) is entirely gone ?
taharah is potential -- w'tahar -- (she became pure/she concieved) this is the moment when the child may still be almost anything.
tumah is actual -- w'taled -- (she gave birth) taled is dalet backwards, she already passed through the door from potential to actual. and we know that after birth there is the dead afterbirth as well as a period of tumah.
the taivah of noah placed all of the actuality within a womb once more, creating a physical actuality around it, and allowing it to return to a great level of potential (all put in one small place), this raised the spiritual level to such an extent, that the world could be remade; and that is what the flood did.
avraham - avdecha - melech
yitzhak - akedecha - elokim
yaacov - b'chorecha - av
Physicality and spirituality are observer-related.
the sukkah can be seen as removing the physicality from the self, and making oneself entirely spiritual.. or as investing oneself in physical acts in order to reach the spiritual. The reverse of both of these can be said about pesach.
attraction is spiritual -- seeking unity.
repulsion is physical -- seeking individuality.
potential is spiritual -- unity of all possible worlds.
actuality is physical -- limiting to one specific world.
giving is spiritual -- ahava -- by giving all to all we unite.
taking is physical -- soneh -- by taking from all for me, i cut off.
quantum mechanics expresses the natural way of motion from spiritual to physical and back again. [light and hence waves have many simultaneous outcomes and solutions, whereas matter (hence particles) have a singular solution to a problem.]
action is relative -- it can unite or separate.
observation is relative -- it can unite or separate.
if every aspect of haShem (ie. creation) began to give in every way to every other aspect of HaShem, we would cease to be individual, and would result in the end of creation. This is how action/mitzwoth can actually lead to unity even when the action itself must acknowledge separation.
how could the only way to bring the Moshiach be through something unifying on a seemingly impossible level?[keeping two shabbatoth] Obviously haShem doesn't give us any test we don't have the potential to overcome, so what is the answer? how do we do it? perhaps the moshiach comes (for the worse) when the potential to bring him (for the better) is entirely gone ?
taharah is potential -- w'tahar -- (she became pure/she concieved) this is the moment when the child may still be almost anything.
tumah is actual -- w'taled -- (she gave birth) taled is dalet backwards, she already passed through the door from potential to actual. and we know that after birth there is the dead afterbirth as well as a period of tumah.
the taivah of noah placed all of the actuality within a womb once more, creating a physical actuality around it, and allowing it to return to a great level of potential (all put in one small place), this raised the spiritual level to such an extent, that the world could be remade; and that is what the flood did.
avraham - avdecha - melech
yitzhak - akedecha - elokim
yaacov - b'chorecha - av
Wed Nov 1, 2000 6:00 am
Re: Bifurcation
..correction sorry.. what i meant is the last time bifurcation really surfaces to have real limited predictable possibilities it breaks into 3 (which become 6) possible values, before returning to chaos indefinitely ..
this is definitely related to the shattering of the six vessels. (to my mind)
[see the gif in the photo section entitled bifurcation_circled.gif]
this is definitely related to the shattering of the six vessels. (to my mind)
[see the gif in the photo section entitled bifurcation_circled.gif]
Mon Oct 23, 2000 9:42 am
bifurcation
Re: Bifurcation.. actually, it's interesting that in bifurcation it is the third period (IIRC) that implies an onset of chaos because at that level the initial solution has begun to shift between 6 distinct possibilities/results before it falls into complete chaos. Perhaps it isn't coincidental that it was the first six lower vessels that 'shattered'...
[i will try and post a pic [in the club photo album] from somewhere on the web of a logisitc bifurcation rendering.. ]
yitz..
[i will try and post a pic [in the club photo album] from somewhere on the web of a logisitc bifurcation rendering.. ]
yitz..
Mon Oct 23, 2000 9:27 am
Re: destruction of worlds.
1 God, a singular being (essentially beyond description) created a world of multiplicity, in order that we may willingly and actively re-unite the world in His name. This is the foundation of Jewish belief and Jewish faith. The unification and elevation of everything in God's name.
2 God renews the world continuously at every moment.
3 Other people, who desire to commune with distinct facets of God or Man as if they are individuals and distinct from the greater unity of all are actually rendering these instantaneous worlds 'meaningless and without point' and so they are destroyed.
4 Nothing can exist separate from God, and when a person separates (something within mankind's capacity to do) these worlds through their actions, they cease to exist. This is the destruction of worlds.
5 Now the world is not so simple, that I can be born and fully comprehend it's complexity in my infinitesimal lifespan. So much so that the concept of unification, ie. exactly what is an act of unification and what is an act of diversification, is not something one can easily figure out on ones own.
6 For this reason, God told us how to act in order that we may always be unifying the world in his name, prolonging life and health and happiness (on all levels--not only or necesarily the physical) and contributing to the establishment of an eventual world of infinite span. This is the creation of worlds.
snow and water
""Can anyone help me with this idea. Sheleg is not always translated as snow but it is under the throne of G-d before creation? Can anyone help me understand what the snow is? This idea is taken from Pirkei derebbi eliezer if anyone wants to look it up
Email me at Darka12@...com if you don't wanna post responses here
Thank you for your insights, but the idea of snow is My question. Why snow and does sheleg acutually have to mean snow. Why does G-d have to use another state of water to create land as oppossed to lets say a huge chunck of carbon or something else? why does he use water, in diffrent states, to create the land that is not water? This is my question, I apolgize for not making it a little clearer.
Chemchops ""
it is my, admittedly limited, understanding that the water and snow discussed here preexist physical matter, certainly atomic matter.. so I don't believe it means H20.
You have to look at the properties of water to get a feel for what is being discussed. Water has no fixed shape, has no structure, flows to fit whatever container it is placed in, and permeates all aspects of life. In essence, water represents something fluid (and transparent/invisible) here, Perhaps Energy. Whereas snow, would represent something that was fluid but is now fixed yet manifold in permutation, perhaps Matter.
Snow & Water expresses the interrelated nature of matter and energy that einstein basically hit upon.. perhaps this explains your dilemma.. even if it is not the true extent or depth of what our sages were discussing. ?
yitz..
Email me at Darka12@...com if you don't wanna post responses here
Thank you for your insights, but the idea of snow is My question. Why snow and does sheleg acutually have to mean snow. Why does G-d have to use another state of water to create land as oppossed to lets say a huge chunck of carbon or something else? why does he use water, in diffrent states, to create the land that is not water? This is my question, I apolgize for not making it a little clearer.
Chemchops ""
it is my, admittedly limited, understanding that the water and snow discussed here preexist physical matter, certainly atomic matter.. so I don't believe it means H20.
You have to look at the properties of water to get a feel for what is being discussed. Water has no fixed shape, has no structure, flows to fit whatever container it is placed in, and permeates all aspects of life. In essence, water represents something fluid (and transparent/invisible) here, Perhaps Energy. Whereas snow, would represent something that was fluid but is now fixed yet manifold in permutation, perhaps Matter.
Snow & Water expresses the interrelated nature of matter and energy that einstein basically hit upon.. perhaps this explains your dilemma.. even if it is not the true extent or depth of what our sages were discussing. ?
yitz..
Wed Oct 11, 2000 3:50 am
yeridah: falling and gravity
Our Rabbis teach regarding the Merkava experience that it is reffered to as a 'yeridah', a going down. This may teach us that whenever we try and connect with HaShem on the highest levels, we experience a falling and not a rising. This explains why gravity causes a falling sensation: Whenever one moves towards HaShem one must only begin the movement, and then HaShem will bring you closer. The closer you get, the more HaShem will bring you closer. Gravity stems from a desire of matter to unite, to reach a state of closeness with HaShem. Just as HaShem is a singular unity, Gravity is an expression of a desire to reach 'singularity'. The more united, the more singular, an object composed of matter is, the stronger it's gravity becomes. When we approach any massive object, we are drawn towards it, just as HaShem draws us close when we approach him. Just as by the Ma'aseh Ha'Merkavah this is experienced as a fall or a drop, so to by those objects which are meer shadows of HaShem's unity.
just a little morning tidbit..
whichi may have touched upon before.
but I (I hope 'we') will continue to examine simplicities that science takes as given, and understand precisely why they are so, through the teachings of our rabbis.
yitz..
just a little morning tidbit..
whichi may have touched upon before.
but I (I hope 'we') will continue to examine simplicities that science takes as given, and understand precisely why they are so, through the teachings of our rabbis.
yitz..
Wed Oct 11, 2000 3:40 am
for posterity
I think, now that there are 11 members, some of whom even return, and now that this club gets a trickle of page views a day, it might be beneficial for others to begin posting here? I can start going through the various manifestations of science as torah here, if people would like to see this, we can understand every scientific phenomenon through torah and kabballah--it is a matter of whether anyone else will contribute or whether I will just be talking to myself.. Perhaps you can post scientific phenomenae that you would like to (better) understand through Torah? and we (or I) could attempt to discern it's spiritual roots.
yitz..
yitz..
Wed Oct 11, 2000 3:24 am
more on truth
absolute, relative & universal TRUTH (2) my own perspective on the issue of days/ages/whatever is this:
When the Torah speaks of water it is a metaphor for many things, it is not an allegory in the sense that most mean it. Rather, every thing that fits correctly within the metaphor is a literal truth.
Recently for example, someone asked me about a comment of our sages, that God created the world through the mixture of snow and water. He said, "wouldn't the snow melt?" After we discussed it for a while, he was happy to understand that the water referred to energy, and snow to matter, and their combined nature was expressing something it took thousands of years for science to produce an Einstein to understand that relationship in nature. But I had to warn him that this was not what the sages had meant. They were talking about something even deeper than this, but this was one of the truths which is built upon this metaphor. [To his credit, the warning was just a reminder of something he was already well aware of.]
If you were to philosophically puzzle out how to explain an infinite concept to a finite intellect, you would realise two things, 1. it is ultimately impossible. 2. one can transmit more information through compression. [grouping ideas/metaphors into over-arching metaphors and groups that can be permuted to obtain a much larger family of ideas/metaphors.]
From this you can arrive at two philosophical conclusions: 1. That perhaps the point of the transmission must not be to provide with all information (read: truth)--rather perhaps information has been divulged on a need to know basis, ie. enough info was provided to complete the task at hand.
2. That if the simplest route was taken, the world could be created in a fractal manner, such that one could compress infinite knowledge into finite space.
When you take these two paths together as one, you may see that the Torah (Trans: old testament), contains all Truth, compressed in a fractal way.(The tradditions passed down from Moses, The Oral Torah, are then the directions through which one may permute the Writtern Torah in order to further decompress it.) Further, that the divulging of such knowledge is performed on a need-to-know basis. In other words, the fact that there may be a discrepancy between evolution & chapter 1 of genesis [which I don't agree with] may imply that we do not _yet_ need to understand our physical (and spiritual) roots in that much depth. (ie. it is enough to know that we originate from God, and not how the transition from God to Us occurred. (which, if you work on it long enough, you will realise such a transition is unexplainable from a logical/rational standpoint.))
yitz..
--- Nate Nygren wrote:
> So, is truth relative, according to what you just
> described? I understand about "Torah is truth", but
> if two faces
> contradict each other, as in the day/age problem,
> how can both understandings be true?
[disclaimer: obviously that was not what the maharal would say, rather.. what i understand him to say.. he would likely say something very different.]
When the Torah speaks of water it is a metaphor for many things, it is not an allegory in the sense that most mean it. Rather, every thing that fits correctly within the metaphor is a literal truth.
Recently for example, someone asked me about a comment of our sages, that God created the world through the mixture of snow and water. He said, "wouldn't the snow melt?" After we discussed it for a while, he was happy to understand that the water referred to energy, and snow to matter, and their combined nature was expressing something it took thousands of years for science to produce an Einstein to understand that relationship in nature. But I had to warn him that this was not what the sages had meant. They were talking about something even deeper than this, but this was one of the truths which is built upon this metaphor. [To his credit, the warning was just a reminder of something he was already well aware of.]
If you were to philosophically puzzle out how to explain an infinite concept to a finite intellect, you would realise two things, 1. it is ultimately impossible. 2. one can transmit more information through compression. [grouping ideas/metaphors into over-arching metaphors and groups that can be permuted to obtain a much larger family of ideas/metaphors.]
From this you can arrive at two philosophical conclusions: 1. That perhaps the point of the transmission must not be to provide with all information (read: truth)--rather perhaps information has been divulged on a need to know basis, ie. enough info was provided to complete the task at hand.
2. That if the simplest route was taken, the world could be created in a fractal manner, such that one could compress infinite knowledge into finite space.
When you take these two paths together as one, you may see that the Torah (Trans: old testament), contains all Truth, compressed in a fractal way.(The tradditions passed down from Moses, The Oral Torah, are then the directions through which one may permute the Writtern Torah in order to further decompress it.) Further, that the divulging of such knowledge is performed on a need-to-know basis. In other words, the fact that there may be a discrepancy between evolution & chapter 1 of genesis [which I don't agree with] may imply that we do not _yet_ need to understand our physical (and spiritual) roots in that much depth. (ie. it is enough to know that we originate from God, and not how the transition from God to Us occurred. (which, if you work on it long enough, you will realise such a transition is unexplainable from a logical/rational standpoint.))
yitz..
--- Nate Nygren
> So, is truth relative, according to what you just
> described? I understand about "Torah is truth", but
> if two faces
> contradict each other, as in the day/age problem,
> how can both understandings be true?
[disclaimer: obviously that was not what the maharal would say, rather.. what i understand him to say.. he would likely say something very different.]
Tue Sep 19, 2000 4:46 am
relative truth
truth on earth is relative.
just as the perception of color is relative--my eyes don't see what your eyes see, how can you expect my mind(soul?) to see what your mind(soul?) sees ?
Both meanings day/age can be seen in the text.. the simplest way to claim such a case is to fall back on relativity of time, and claim it depends on your frame of reference. But there are many other ways to look at it, all of them valid.
The Maharal would say that the heavenly dimension (the 'nivdal' (literally meaning separate) dimension) can make what would normally take eons, only take days.. so that only days passed (according to the laws of nature), despite eons of progress. Just as when Israel battled Amalek and Moses held up his hands, and the sun stayed in the sky far longer than it would normally.. more things were able to happen in a single day than are naturally possible (the Maharal explains that 2-3 days (depending on who's traddition was followed) worth of time spanned the single day in that instance)
Others who understand the cyclicity of time would explain that we are still within the six days of creation, cycling back to the first one at the beginning of every week.. so potentially an infinity of time could pass until we break free and enter into the seventh..and eigth days.
All of them can be correct, all of them can be the truth, all at once. [human truth]
As far as absolute truth, what is actually going on from God's perspective is completely beyond us at all times, it is nothing like the way we see the world.
We can work on trying to ascertain universal truth (something closer to absolute truth) by trying to open as many perspectives as possible to oneself ("Who is he that is wise? he who learns from all (70 permutations of) man"), in other words, attaining wisdom.
to claim one face of truth is wrong in light of another face of truth would be to deny another's perceptions, which is either foolish or pointless.
just as the perception of color is relative--my eyes don't see what your eyes see, how can you expect my mind(soul?) to see what your mind(soul?) sees ?
Both meanings day/age can be seen in the text.. the simplest way to claim such a case is to fall back on relativity of time, and claim it depends on your frame of reference. But there are many other ways to look at it, all of them valid.
The Maharal would say that the heavenly dimension (the 'nivdal' (literally meaning separate) dimension) can make what would normally take eons, only take days.. so that only days passed (according to the laws of nature), despite eons of progress. Just as when Israel battled Amalek and Moses held up his hands, and the sun stayed in the sky far longer than it would normally.. more things were able to happen in a single day than are naturally possible (the Maharal explains that 2-3 days (depending on who's traddition was followed) worth of time spanned the single day in that instance)
Others who understand the cyclicity of time would explain that we are still within the six days of creation, cycling back to the first one at the beginning of every week.. so potentially an infinity of time could pass until we break free and enter into the seventh..and eigth days.
All of them can be correct, all of them can be the truth, all at once. [human truth]
As far as absolute truth, what is actually going on from God's perspective is completely beyond us at all times, it is nothing like the way we see the world.
We can work on trying to ascertain universal truth (something closer to absolute truth) by trying to open as many perspectives as possible to oneself ("Who is he that is wise? he who learns from all (70 permutations of) man"), in other words, attaining wisdom.
to claim one face of truth is wrong in light of another face of truth would be to deny another's perceptions, which is either foolish or pointless.
Tue Sep 19, 2000 4:44 am
Re: inculmination re: culmination (chemchops)
Re: inculmination re: culmination That is correct, as it says in the Gemara, for every drop of secular studies you neglect to learn you loose a hundred fold of Torah. As to say that without studing the world around you, you will lose a basic concept of Torah, it was written for man! and man lives in this world. G-d also created the entire world and to neglect any part of it is to deny him glory. CHEMCHOPS
Sun Sep 17, 2000 7:30 pm
learn the opposite (tanya a'ipcha)
of course for any lesson of close-minded perspective.. ie. do not learn from outside sources.. there will always be an opposite lesson also derivable with relative ease from Torah, because always the middle is the best way. [as our fathers, far wiser than i, have already said.]
Thu Aug 31, 2000 3:49 am
no new insights
hmm.. the learning i've accomplished in the last few weeks has answered many of my questions regarding life.. and it appears clear to me that to seek wisdom beyond the texts of the oral and written torah is meaningless (and even damaging) to a jew.. so I would be more than happy to continue discussing science/other perspectives with people who have thoughts or questions ..but it means people here will have to bring up topics because i will no longer actively search out any knowledge that is not passed on to me from my ancestors (direct or indirect)..
this is far from a close-minded view.. i just understand the goals and discrepancies in the paths of the 70 nations a little better now.. and the knowledge contained in other culture's wisdom (While beneficial and vital to that culture) falls under the issur in parashath re'eh of 'bringing their gold and silver into your homes'. [don't take my word for it (ask someone you trust (who has smicha)), i do not have smicha and have not heard this from someone who does.. but it is my understanding.]
hope all is well with each of you :)
yitz..
this is far from a close-minded view.. i just understand the goals and discrepancies in the paths of the 70 nations a little better now.. and the knowledge contained in other culture's wisdom (While beneficial and vital to that culture) falls under the issur in parashath re'eh of 'bringing their gold and silver into your homes'. [don't take my word for it (ask someone you trust (who has smicha)), i do not have smicha and have not heard this from someone who does.. but it is my understanding.]
hope all is well with each of you :)
yitz..
Thu Aug 17, 2000 8:34 am
logic vs. God
this was a post of mine from a different club (Universe Origins) about how unphraseable/incomprehensible HaShem(God) is through logic and reason/rationality. I thought it applied here as well.. and was curious if anyone had any thoughts regarding this?
[it is about this very thing: 'trying to logically understand how creation could be' that i believe Hazal said we should not ask questions prior to Bereshith] ..
yitz..
-----------------
[ive decided to number my paragraphs because they refer back to one another.. any number in parenthesis relates to the paragraph bearing that number. eg. (2) would mean whatever is currently being discussed relates back to paragraph 2.]
1. i think my point was that any definition would fall short, you can't define something external to this universe with concepts internal to it.
taking a stab at what i've just claimed is impossible:
2. that 'primordial spirit' to which you refer would be, to my understanding, a unit, limitless, homogenous, and complete. Further, said entity would have no 'dwelling place' as that dwelling place could then be seen to be a greater entity. So, in essence, this primordial spirit as u call it would be (in my eyes) a homogenous limitless unit that is it's own container. (of course it's inside is the same as it's outside, so there can be no outside of which to speak..)
3. this definition(2) is somewhat contradictory in our terminology, but that is where i keep from contradicting my initial statement(1): this primordial spirit of which we speak must be indefinable in this world.. every definition falls short in some or almost all aspects.
i hope that this qualifies as more specific ?
4. now, it is my understanding.. (which I've spent over 10 years coming to (i've been thinking about this for ~half my life ) ..that one can come infinitely close (3) to a comprehension of this primordial spirit through the definition and explanation of paradoxes.. yet at some point all logic must fail.(5) (ie. however infinitely close you get, you are still infinitely distant.. )
A. I must re-emphasise that this is a comment on logic and rationality more than anything else.
I am not saying such a 'primordial spirit' is incomprehensible or unreachable.. i am saying logic and ration are not capable of reaching it/him/her.(6)
5. The reason I believe this is so, is because there is no way for the primordial entity, which i've described above, to initiate a creation. The spontaneous state-change from homogenous to non-homogenous(*see note) is unexplainable.. [just as science has difficulty describing the exact point of almost any state change--we can discuss right up to the change, and right after it.. but something happens in that instant which is unaddressable.]
6. The problem with logic and ration, as i understand it.. is that they separate things. (science breaks things down into smaller comprehensible pieces and then tries to relate them) The problem here is that I don't believe division is a way to reach/comprehend something that is not disparate. How could a heterogenous view of the world ever arrive at a homogenous one(2)?
hope this makes my perspective more clear :)
yitz..
*note: even if one were to posit a way for the homogenous being to continue being homogenous yet allow for heterogeny to exist (in the form of some paradox or some other construct which I am unable to imagine) there is still no firm basis to understand how something infinite gains a level of finity (sorry for the vaguery--i don't know what to call it)... (unless one were to claim the universe was actually infinite in duration--which i disagree with, but find no logical faults with (from the current perspective i am discussing(5) (since there is no state-change taking place.))
[it is about this very thing: 'trying to logically understand how creation could be' that i believe Hazal said we should not ask questions prior to Bereshith] ..
yitz..
-----------------
[ive decided to number my paragraphs because they refer back to one another.. any number in parenthesis relates to the paragraph bearing that number. eg. (2) would mean whatever is currently being discussed relates back to paragraph 2.]
1. i think my point was that any definition would fall short, you can't define something external to this universe with concepts internal to it.
taking a stab at what i've just claimed is impossible:
2. that 'primordial spirit' to which you refer would be, to my understanding, a unit, limitless, homogenous, and complete. Further, said entity would have no 'dwelling place' as that dwelling place could then be seen to be a greater entity. So, in essence, this primordial spirit as u call it would be (in my eyes) a homogenous limitless unit that is it's own container. (of course it's inside is the same as it's outside, so there can be no outside of which to speak..)
3. this definition(2) is somewhat contradictory in our terminology, but that is where i keep from contradicting my initial statement(1): this primordial spirit of which we speak must be indefinable in this world.. every definition falls short in some or almost all aspects.
i hope that this qualifies as more specific ?
4. now, it is my understanding.. (which I've spent over 10 years coming to (i've been thinking about this for ~half my life ) ..that one can come infinitely close (3) to a comprehension of this primordial spirit through the definition and explanation of paradoxes.. yet at some point all logic must fail.(5) (ie. however infinitely close you get, you are still infinitely distant.. )
A. I must re-emphasise that this is a comment on logic and rationality more than anything else.
I am not saying such a 'primordial spirit' is incomprehensible or unreachable.. i am saying logic and ration are not capable of reaching it/him/her.(6)
5. The reason I believe this is so, is because there is no way for the primordial entity, which i've described above, to initiate a creation. The spontaneous state-change from homogenous to non-homogenous(*see note) is unexplainable.. [just as science has difficulty describing the exact point of almost any state change--we can discuss right up to the change, and right after it.. but something happens in that instant which is unaddressable.]
6. The problem with logic and ration, as i understand it.. is that they separate things. (science breaks things down into smaller comprehensible pieces and then tries to relate them) The problem here is that I don't believe division is a way to reach/comprehend something that is not disparate. How could a heterogenous view of the world ever arrive at a homogenous one(2)?
hope this makes my perspective more clear :)
yitz..
*note: even if one were to posit a way for the homogenous being to continue being homogenous yet allow for heterogeny to exist (in the form of some paradox or some other construct which I am unable to imagine) there is still no firm basis to understand how something infinite gains a level of finity (sorry for the vaguery--i don't know what to call it)... (unless one were to claim the universe was actually infinite in duration--which i disagree with, but find no logical faults with (from the current perspective i am discussing(5) (since there is no state-change taking place.))
Thu Aug 17, 2000 8:20 am
seven years before moshiah (chemchops)
I was wondering if someone might be able to enlighten me on the seven years before the moshiach, I have the Gemara and have trouble understanding what exactly are considered years, are these just metaphores for a group of 7 people or seven years or seven countries that go through these stages? please I am asking about this seriously. CHEMCHOPS
Mon Aug 14, 2000 11:26 pm
lights we cannot see
R'Hayim Vital said that the Neviim could see the world of Atziluth, but it was slightly obscured by the lights of the world of Beriyah. After the destruction of the second beit hamikdash, the mekubalim could see only into the world of Beriyah which was greatly obscured by the lights of the world of Yetsirah. Nowadays, we can only see into the world of Asiyah because the lights of Asiyah obscure the other worlds.
I thought of it like this in the middle of the night last shabbat:
1. Atziluth is the absolute darkness of empty space.
2. the lights of Beriyah are the appearance of the Galaxies.
3. the lights of Yetsiarah are the lights of the stars.
4. the lights of Asiyah are those of fire and electric&chemical man-made lights.
If you think about this and you have read about the 4 worlds i think this is a really excellent way of understanding what's going on.. so much so that it is alluded to as well in R'Nachman's story of the 7 beggars.
I thought of it like this in the middle of the night last shabbat:
1. Atziluth is the absolute darkness of empty space.
2. the lights of Beriyah are the appearance of the Galaxies.
3. the lights of Yetsiarah are the lights of the stars.
4. the lights of Asiyah are those of fire and electric&chemical man-made lights.
If you think about this and you have read about the 4 worlds i think this is a really excellent way of understanding what's going on.. so much so that it is alluded to as well in R'Nachman's story of the 7 beggars.
Mon Jul 17, 2000 7:41 am
re: dimensions (yitz..)
dimentia ;) Re: Maharal i like that insight. the Maharal might understand an entirely different level of relativity. if the world is completely relative than the only dimensions that would 'exist' are those that are percievable, since there are 4 percievable and alterable dimensions (3 spatial & 1 spiritual(good<->bad)) he could be saying that.
on the topic of dimensions I would like to point out something though: percieved alterability... we feel trapped in time because we must continue always forward.. yet i suggest that the ability to alter one's spatial dimensions is mostly illusion--- no matter how much motion we undertake in any one spatial dimension..is it even comparable to the momentum imparted in us by earth's motion through the solar system, or the sun's motion through the galaxy, or the galaxy's motion through the universe? our spatial flexibility is as severely limited as our temporal flexibility--one can slow down or speed up the passage of time slightly but little more.
Also, regarding the Maharal's Nivdal dimension, because it is so separate ((also) read: kadosh), it may have complex structure of it's own that could be percieved as any # of dimensions.. or so i humbly imagine.
One last dimension (food for) thought:
did the initial 26-dimensional point originate @ 26 dimensions or did it build up from 0 dimensions to 26 and then break down again ?
yitz..
on the topic of dimensions I would like to point out something though: percieved alterability... we feel trapped in time because we must continue always forward.. yet i suggest that the ability to alter one's spatial dimensions is mostly illusion--- no matter how much motion we undertake in any one spatial dimension..is it even comparable to the momentum imparted in us by earth's motion through the solar system, or the sun's motion through the galaxy, or the galaxy's motion through the universe? our spatial flexibility is as severely limited as our temporal flexibility--one can slow down or speed up the passage of time slightly but little more.
Also, regarding the Maharal's Nivdal dimension, because it is so separate ((also) read: kadosh), it may have complex structure of it's own that could be percieved as any # of dimensions.. or so i humbly imagine.
One last dimension (food for) thought:
did the initial 26-dimensional point originate @ 26 dimensions or did it build up from 0 dimensions to 26 and then break down again ?
yitz..
Mon Jul 17, 2000 7:35 am
dimensions (by chemchops)
I have an idea on the mahral's interpretation me and you discussed on the dimensions of the universe. You stated to me that the Maharal thought of only 4 dimensions 3 spatial and 1 nisiey hashem dimension. Now I thought this quiet strage considering that I have been told that other kabbalists at around that time had found more than this amount of Dimensions; such as 10, 16 or even 26. Now I beleive that the reason he only states 4 dimensions is a very perspective based idea. The Maharal was a kabbalist, he was also therefore capable of looking into diffrent dimensions. If a person with 2 eyes can see three dimensions tha a person with 3 eyes might possibly be able to see into a forth dimension that he was not always able to look into. He therefore said that since everything in the universe has in essence a sense of a miracol, he saw a small sense of these miricals in the forth dimension and he saw them over come the 3 other dimensions in his normal evey day life. CHEMCHOPS
Thu Jul 13, 2000 9:09 pm
defining infinity without headaches
having become fed up with the abuse of the word infinity in mathematics, specifically Cantor's alephs etc. I put forth a new simpler definition of Infinity, which, @ this time, is only semantically different. Think of the set of all integers as a circle. Now draw the circle reprsenting the set of all even integers. Naturally, since it is contained within the set of of all integers, the second circle will be drawn within the first. The size of the circles drawn are irrelevant and have no meaning regarding the 'size' of the sets. This notation is only for purposes of containment. On closer inspection, every set can be described as being contained within another set. My definition of infinite is this: A set is infinite when it cannot/is_not (be) contained within another set. Since there is no such set as this, infinity is ultimately unreachable yet again, and Cantor can be said to be talking about how close to infinity such sets are.
This also achieves the result of having a single infinity towards which each of these sets is aspiring.
This also achieves the result of having a single infinity towards which each of these sets is aspiring.
Thu May 4, 2000 6:40 pm
re:curtains of the mishkan
Re: the curtains of the mishkan I do not, simply, understand your question. If it is what animal was the skin from you seem to have found answers to it, but if your question is about the numbers then it becomes a very intriguing question.
The numbers might have something to do with the understandings of how domensions are connected. The dimensions of reality (as in the 10 dimensional it seperates and how we connect to the other half of the 10D that we are not in.) It could be because these hooks and loops are to only represent the small connections to the other dimensions. (The idea that I am using here is that there was a 26D point that split into a 10D and a 16D dimensions. 10D "place" split again into either a 6D and a 4D or two 5D planes.) and also note the number here, 50 hooks and 50 loops. 50 is also the number of levels of holiness. maybe the fact that there are loops and not just hooks shows us that these connections between these two plains can be easily severed, but are harder to reconnect. Just like a loop is easier to undo and takes less effort to do this, it takes more effort to retie it again. cHEMCHOPS
The numbers might have something to do with the understandings of how domensions are connected. The dimensions of reality (as in the 10 dimensional it seperates and how we connect to the other half of the 10D that we are not in.) It could be because these hooks and loops are to only represent the small connections to the other dimensions. (The idea that I am using here is that there was a 26D point that split into a 10D and a 16D dimensions. 10D "place" split again into either a 6D and a 4D or two 5D planes.) and also note the number here, 50 hooks and 50 loops. 50 is also the number of levels of holiness. maybe the fact that there are loops and not just hooks shows us that these connections between these two plains can be easily severed, but are harder to reconnect. Just like a loop is easier to undo and takes less effort to do this, it takes more effort to retie it again. cHEMCHOPS
Tue Apr 25, 2000 11:19 am
a response to a forgotten post
This is all well and good, however,
to say: 0 = 1-1 (or 0 = n-n or 0 = n + (-n) )
is very different than to say 0 = 2
which you set out to explain.
In this case also, it is just as arbitrary to say 0 is 0 as it is to say 0 is 1.
I would just rephrase the above as:
1 = n / n
(of course this changing of 1 to 0 is irrelevant, below is the more important point:)
you can attach whatever metaphysics you like to the symbols, however they remain logical symbols with logical definitions.
What does an expression like 0 = n + {-n} mean if logic (or logic illogic) is itself one of the 'dimensions' in your reckoning? if it isn't, then your representation of 'everything' is ultimately flawed. If logic is not within your definition of everything(your statements F & C), then Logic pre-exists 'everything'. So what 'creates' or 'comes before' logic.(See your statement G)
to say: 0 = 1-1 (or 0 = n-n or 0 = n + (-n) )
is very different than to say 0 = 2
which you set out to explain.
In this case also, it is just as arbitrary to say 0 is 0 as it is to say 0 is 1.
I would just rephrase the above as:
1 = n / n
(of course this changing of 1 to 0 is irrelevant, below is the more important point:)
you can attach whatever metaphysics you like to the symbols, however they remain logical symbols with logical definitions.
What does an expression like 0 = n + {-n} mean if logic (or logic illogic) is itself one of the 'dimensions' in your reckoning? if it isn't, then your representation of 'everything' is ultimately flawed. If logic is not within your definition of everything(your statements F & C), then Logic pre-exists 'everything'. So what 'creates' or 'comes before' logic.(See your statement G)
Sun Apr 23, 2000 12:26 am
spirituality driving newtonian properties
It is my belief that it is spiritual relationships/symbolism and not 'simple newtonian quantities' that cause relativistic alterations in spacetime. My belief in such a theory is based largely on text from the Torah (old testament).
The ark of the covenant took up no physical space. Abraham and others travelled long distances in surprisingly short intervals. Moses didn't eat or drink for at least 40 days+nights and more likely 120. Elijah ran for 40 days+nights without stopping(ending up on mt. sinai).
2 points:
a.The Torah says that God is _One_.
b.The Scroll of Esther says "Orah" (light) to which the commentators (our Rabbis) say: "Orah zu Torah" (Torah is this Light which they were speaking of).
is it coincidental that:
a. when massive objects collapse beyond there schwaschild radius they are called "singularities". (One)
b. when things travel close to the speed of "Light", space and time start to warp.
From the perspective of Light or a Singularity there is no space or time.
Now, the ark of the covenant was not as massive as a black hole, nor was it's radius small enough relative to it's weight that it could be a black hole. (not to mention the world would have been sucked in by it's gravity had it been a black hole) Also Abraham was surely not travelling close to the speed of light when "Kvizat HaDerech" (shortening of the path or in modern science lingo: "length contraction") took place. Therefore, what would explain those 'Relativisitic' events. ?
There is only one answer (assuming you believe the veracity of the old testament): Things of great spiritual energy or meaning alter spacetime.
It is conceivable that singularities and light only bend spacetime because of their close spiritual relationships with either God or Torah.(They embody light (fluidity/ infinity) and one-ness, (simplicity/ infinity)).
...this is one of the fundamental tenets of my understanding of the universe which I have come to believe. in it's short form: That the spiritual world exerts control over the physical, that perhaps the physical world is something observed that doesn't actually exist at all. (an interpretation of the spiritual world)
The ark of the covenant took up no physical space. Abraham and others travelled long distances in surprisingly short intervals. Moses didn't eat or drink for at least 40 days+nights and more likely 120. Elijah ran for 40 days+nights without stopping(ending up on mt. sinai).
2 points:
a.The Torah says that God is _One_.
b.The Scroll of Esther says "Orah" (light) to which the commentators (our Rabbis) say: "Orah zu Torah" (Torah is this Light which they were speaking of).
is it coincidental that:
a. when massive objects collapse beyond there schwaschild radius they are called "singularities". (One)
b. when things travel close to the speed of "Light", space and time start to warp.
From the perspective of Light or a Singularity there is no space or time.
Now, the ark of the covenant was not as massive as a black hole, nor was it's radius small enough relative to it's weight that it could be a black hole. (not to mention the world would have been sucked in by it's gravity had it been a black hole) Also Abraham was surely not travelling close to the speed of light when "Kvizat HaDerech" (shortening of the path or in modern science lingo: "length contraction") took place. Therefore, what would explain those 'Relativisitic' events. ?
There is only one answer (assuming you believe the veracity of the old testament): Things of great spiritual energy or meaning alter spacetime.
It is conceivable that singularities and light only bend spacetime because of their close spiritual relationships with either God or Torah.(They embody light (fluidity/ infinity) and one-ness, (simplicity/ infinity)).
...this is one of the fundamental tenets of my understanding of the universe which I have come to believe. in it's short form: That the spiritual world exerts control over the physical, that perhaps the physical world is something observed that doesn't actually exist at all. (an interpretation of the spiritual world)
Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:08 pm
curtains of the mishkan
The Yeriot(curtains) of the Mishkan(Tabernacle), have always teased me as a seeming source of great information regarding the 'veils' of this world. (The Mishkan symbolising the world and the curtains being the outer-most coverings of this world). If I understand/recall correctly:
The inner curtain was made of 10 pieces of fabric, joined 5 and 5 and then connected via 10 hooks and 10 loops on each of a pair of 5. So, one side had : 5 pieces of fabric, 50 loops, and the other had 5 pieces of fabric, 50 hooks.
The next curtain was made of 11* pieces of fabric joined 5 and 5 with one extra flap wrapping around (either the front or back I don't recall). Like thhe first curtain this also had 50 hooks and loops, I believe.
The last curtain was made of a single piece of fabric, made of the skins of a now-extinct animal. This animal, called Tachash, has a shimmering multi-colored skin (some commentaries say like a seal), other commentaries claim it was a unicorn, I believe they also say it was water-dwelling.
So, before me I see the deepest mystery that has ever peered up at me out of the letters and words of Torah. I would love any insight, or any information scientific or kabbalistic which seemed to deal with numbers/quantities similar to those presented here !! :)
The inner curtain was made of 10 pieces of fabric, joined 5 and 5 and then connected via 10 hooks and 10 loops on each of a pair of 5. So, one side had : 5 pieces of fabric, 50 loops, and the other had 5 pieces of fabric, 50 hooks.
The next curtain was made of 11* pieces of fabric joined 5 and 5 with one extra flap wrapping around (either the front or back I don't recall). Like thhe first curtain this also had 50 hooks and loops, I believe.
The last curtain was made of a single piece of fabric, made of the skins of a now-extinct animal. This animal, called Tachash, has a shimmering multi-colored skin (some commentaries say like a seal), other commentaries claim it was a unicorn, I believe they also say it was water-dwelling.
So, before me I see the deepest mystery that has ever peered up at me out of the letters and words of Torah. I would love any insight, or any information scientific or kabbalistic which seemed to deal with numbers/quantities similar to those presented here !! :)
Wed Apr 19, 2000 1:45 pm
hyperdimensional interaction between sefirot
I have noticed that not only can one arrange the 10 sephirot (lines) as a 4d simplex, connecting 5 dualities (points); [A simplex is the simplest shape that occupies a given number of dimensions. In 2 dimensions it is a triangle, in 3 dimensions it is a tetrahedron, for a 4 dimensional simplex you can view one @ ken perlin's hyper-applet (check the Links section of this club)]
but that, when arranging the sephirot as the 10 lines in a 4d simplex, one finds that 4 lines end up on the 'inside' while the other 6 end up outside. this might be related to the fact that 6 of the vessels shattered during creation, whereas the first 3 and the last 1 were unharmed. (Presumably these 4 are on the inside of the structure.)
I have started to be able to visualize goings-on in the 4th dimension at least to limited fixed extents. But it has helped in my understanding of this arrangement. The question remains that at every point (what I have called 'duality') 4 lines (Which I have called 'sephirot') meet.
So, do certain sephirot have deeper and closer relationships to 3 neighbors on various levels or not? [i haven't put enough thought into this yet]
[The alternative perspective would be to arrange the 10 sephirot as the 10 points of a 9d simplex, with 45 connecting lines. It becomes much more difficult to imagine not only 9d shapes but what these 45 lines may possibly represent.]
but that, when arranging the sephirot as the 10 lines in a 4d simplex, one finds that 4 lines end up on the 'inside' while the other 6 end up outside. this might be related to the fact that 6 of the vessels shattered during creation, whereas the first 3 and the last 1 were unharmed. (Presumably these 4 are on the inside of the structure.)
I have started to be able to visualize goings-on in the 4th dimension at least to limited fixed extents. But it has helped in my understanding of this arrangement. The question remains that at every point (what I have called 'duality') 4 lines (Which I have called 'sephirot') meet.
So, do certain sephirot have deeper and closer relationships to 3 neighbors on various levels or not? [i haven't put enough thought into this yet]
[The alternative perspective would be to arrange the 10 sephirot as the 10 points of a 9d simplex, with 45 connecting lines. It becomes much more difficult to imagine not only 9d shapes but what these 45 lines may possibly represent.]
Wed Apr 19, 2000 1:36 pm
multi-dimensional world
One of the things that I feel has a large bearing on the underlying structure of the world is the many-dimensional make-up of it's most basic building blocks. R' Aryeh Kaplan describes 5 dimensions in his translation of Sefer Yetsirah (The Book of Formation). My Teacher, R' Yirmiyahu Luchins, describes as many as 26 (correlating to the gematria of the shem havayah (the ineffable name of God)). String theory, depending on it's various flavors seems to require minimally 10 or 11 and more likely 26-32 dimensions.
Wed Apr 19, 2000 1:26 pm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
