Editorial notes:
This draft exposition is significant as it is the first documented evidence to Shai’s deep study of Kabbalistic concepts. Alongside his Kabbalistic writings, Shai also uses (sometimes extensively) a special notation for depicting combinations Hebrew letters. So, 1I refers to the Hebrew letter Aleph, 8I to the Hebrew letter Chet, and 4I to the Hebrew letter Daled. In this case, using Shai’s method of annotation, the combination 1I+8I+4I = Echad (אחד) or the Hebrew word for One.
For a complete table decoding the combination of letters and numbers, used by Shai in his Kabbalistic writing, see the page ‘Summing it All‘
{30/10/2016}
Draft for explainings 10III-2II-10III’.
Schema: This is an attempt to describe the ark as a set of relationships between our will.
First, need to describe how one can speak of ‘relationships (plural) between will (singular)’.
Second: may help to allude to the internal dimension.
Third: Explain on its own the rooms (Kuf-nun-yud-MEM).
Fourth: Explain briefly Rakiya for the sake of
Fifth: Explaining: Atzei-gofer and how to build rooms from these
Sixth: Explaining how to Cafer the ark from both inside and out (which by this stage should be more intuitive and may not need much explaining).
Things that are not being explained include how to understand Noach (qua child of Lamech, qua lineage of Adam, qua father of &c, as a builder of the ark and why that is helpful for seeing to this stage).
Nb. this is not being built to scale.
Nb. this is not being fully built, only perceived.
Nb. Have not yet included top ‘window’, nor door, nor bottom stories, although it may be obvious to someone to do this.
{30/10/2016}
Draft for chapter 1/2 combined.
The ark is a TAF-BET-TAF. The BET and final TAF have no dagesh, the first TAF has a dagesh.
Without going into the dagesh, TAF may suggest ‘keter hapnimi ve’hasodi‘ which when thinking about a mundane psyche is the logos of our core will, but when thinking about the ‘zot‘ (i.e. ZAYIN-ALEPH-TAF and chevel nachalato) is the secret emanation of will which expresses itself into creation through the variegation of wills etc.
In seder hishtalshelut, TAF is the Keter of Atik–Yomin, which forms a partzuf separate to that of Arich-Panim.
BET is hod be’oam Yetzirah, and is the lowest power of hod (i.e. in the aleph-bet). (There are quite a few nuances of BET that differentiate it from KAF, and which are hinted by way of its grammatical/semiotic functions, but which are not necessary to go into at this point).
An ark is a metaphysical construct that forms a container of adaptability. The dimensions of the container are hard to intuit because they don’t map well onto 3D, but it is not a bad simplification to imagine it in 4 dimensions. If we were just making a container between TAF and KUF then we would say it is an adaptor between those. Which we are (per rooms) but we are then adapting between that KUF (per room) to the same TAF, albeit seen from a perpendicular dimension (which is the line of cleavage between man and woman).
I can later explain how to see this in Bereishit, both preceding Adam, and in the generation of Isha.
Here is one way to think of that dimension:
There are two symmetries in seder olamim that relate here: Between Malchut of higher olam and Keter of its lower olam; between Keter and Malchut of single olam. For those familiar with the Seder, it may suffice to say that “It is difficult to simultaneously see these two properties, but easy to see them one at a time.” I struggle to think of that dimension in its form as a continuum, but in any case, it is sufficient to conceive of it as quantum.
In architectural terms, the ark will regard to its “contents” (not yet explained, but which are basically its rooms), and it will regard them by way of (1) Keter-Malchut, and (2) Lower Keter that is higher Malchut. The way it will be regarded (i.e. BET) is basically by the adaptability-quality (viz. whatever name you want to give BET), but will be more specifically explained when giving examples.
Draft for chapter 3.
The ark will be made up of KUF-NUN-YUD-MEM^.
One may intuit this as a dynamic structure or static. As psychological or divine. And each for each (i.e. 4 ways). And obviously many more ways, but these are the most relevant here. By dynamic, I mean by way of the mechanisms of action that link the letters. By psychological I mean as that particular abstraction of mind, and for divine I mean something similar, but the two differentiate by context, and may be considered in two ways, whether by the particular Partzufim/Begadim of the Seder, or simplified without.
I prefer to look at this from its static and psychological avenue (for reasons which will become clear later in terms of my choice of example).
NUN and MEM are well known as being the extroverted powers, and for also qua Otiyot Sofiyot (nb. sod min son). And YUD is the Keter in the Olam below them, but for thinking of this qua static and planar, I’ll be considering them as if the YUD was a MALCHUT of the same Partzuf. Obviously when perceiving this inside one’s own mind, in any given example, one would have to allude to its lower Olam nature in specific.
Basically basically basically what this is: Any given ethos which you exhibit, e.g. I want to live (e.g. to be expressed via intention to eat), that psychic structure, which is made up of the constellation of its purpose, expression, rules of conduct, and ability to overcome challenges/expansiveness of relevance. That is a room.
Draft for chapter 4.
It’s helpful to know what the liminal space between the waters is.
But I’m going to skip the explanation (which I’ve made elsewhere), and say that we are concerned here with that aspect of ourselves.
This is the aspect of a will that is simultaneously (and by secret tautologies) always being expressed, and benevolent.
Draft for chapter 5.
AYIN-TZADIK-YUD – – GIMEL-PHEY-RESH
This is the material for building the rooms.
Basically, it is the way to relate the TAF to the room.
Basically, it is by way of form (nb. by this I mean something like paradigm, attribute, see elsewhere) of Chesed.
Basically, it is also by way of divergent conceptualizing (nb. dual since both PEH and RESH).
The connective function of YUD and GIMEL to be explained
Draft for chapter 6.
CAF-PEH-RESH is the material for relating the ark to the external wills and to any other internal wills that act in opposition. It acts similar to GIMEL-P-R, but uses a CAF, I think that it is helpful to imagine this as a CAF sofit, which gets into the whole question of why the wood’s letters are spelled in that particular order. Which is a whole thing, and which I’m still very very uncertain about.
But once GPR is understood, CPR should be more or less easier to understand by way of analogy.
{30/10/2016}
I’m going to give a very very down to earth example, and one which may lead anyone reading it that the theoretical undertones elucidated above are nothing more than redundant confabulations.
Take any “purpose” that you have. E.g. to eat to live. Or to prepare food to eat to live etc.
Note how it relates to your divine will. Your divine will is the will that is hidden. It is your life as something an expression of the creator.
Note this by in a generous spirit. E.g. I eat to live so that I may serve.
Do not note this by a cynical spirit. E.g. I eat to live because I am greedy.
Note this by way of intellect. E.g. This will to eat uses an intelligence (e.g. to use a fork) which parallels a higher intellect (e.g. to keep myself pure).
Note this in relation to other people’s will by linking your divine will, to its divine intellect, to a mundane intellect to total abnegation to their will. E.g. all the different ways that I use to eat and that oppose your will to eat are linked because none of us is anything.
Note this in relation to contradictory wills within your mind in the same way.
This is a very very very simplified and crude example. And does no justice to anything except the most general allusion to the shape of the letters of the construction as I have poorly conceived them. And not only that. It’s really only half of the ark’s dimensions.
{31/10/2016}
This week I want to think about building a Tebvah (ark).
What follows is the practical ramification of the letters of the ark, repurposed for recentering our thoughts, and aligning our vision of ourselves with our vision of ourselves as aligned with a divine mandate. The result will be a happier, easier-flowing human experience.
What we’re going to do is apply this exercise whenever we can. It’ll be easiest to do so whilst engaged in a routine task. But we can also do so in preparation for chapters of the day that are particularly taxing, for example when we feel most insecure within ourselves, or most judged by others.
I’ll first describe this exercise in an extended form, and thereafter in a minimal form.
Steps:
- Know the arena of activity – become aware of what you’re doing/will do
- Relate that arena to the divine by a generous way and by an intellectual way
- Relate that arena to others and other aspects of ourselves by way of abngegation
1
Let’s say I’m peeling potatoes for dinner.
Let’s answer the following four questions:
What is the (mundane) purpose of what I’m doing?
To prepare the potatoes so that I can cook them so that I can eat them so that I can not be hungry so that I can be healthy so that I can share them with my family so that they can be happy so that they don’t have to worry about food etc
What are the “laws” of this activity?
The potatoes must be peeled by using a peeler and hands and washed and spiced according to what is known about spices and cut etc
What is the product of this activity?
Peeled potatoes, and cooked potatoes, and the activity of eating potatoes, and the satisfaction of eating, etc
What are the ways in which this activity is expanded?
I can peel more and more potatoes, I can find other foods to cook, I can find other people to feed, I can prepare ever further ahead in time etc
2
Assume that the (mundane) purpose serves some divine purpose.
And be generous towards oneself in seeking these alignments, (do not consider all the ways in which you are “actually” being selfish, etc).
What could those be?
The divine wants me to be healthy, not to worry about getting food later, to share food with my family etc and in these ways I am acting by way of a divine will
Assume the (mundane) ideas you are using are reflections of some divine purpose.
Take each concept and be generous in telling a story.
I use a peeler because the divine uses the best tools for each purpose, I wash because the divine wants things to be pure, I spice because the divine wants things to be nuanced
3.
Notice at least one way in which your mundane purpose clashes with anothers’ (doesn’t matter if you know this for a fact or are only “fearing” this).
My eating this is taking away food another could eat, or another person thinks that I’m doing this in a wrong way
And notice at least one way in which it clashes with another (mundane) purpose you carry inside yourself).
I’m making potatoes when in fact I should be cleaning my room, or making something with more appropriate nutrients, etc
Then relate the concepts in those criticisms to your divine purpose, but do so by noting that everything is actually nothing in the grand/cosmic schema.
None of us really deserves any food, and none of us really knows how to prepare food, and there are so many more thines that all of us should be doing and yet none that shall ever amount to anything that lasts etc
In this way all, things are justified relative to each other, since anything is approximately just as good as anything else.
Now in a minimal form:
Be generous in self-evaluation. Compliment the reasons that you do something. Don’t worry about finding faults in your reasons. Compliment the ways that you do something. Imagine that they reflect beautiful values.
When confronted by internal/external criticisms, remember how all of us pale into nothing before the infinite, and therefore that none of us has any real right to criticize within/without.
Conclusion:
These forms of engaging with the world may help us remember that we are all expressions of the divine, and may reduce the pain of conflicts (when we lose perspective).
