Editorial notes: This essay appears in two versions, the first documented as a draft in Shai’s A BASHFUL HOPE blog (see For the Complexed (v1)) and another version found as a Google Document. The two versions have a similar structure but somewhat different content and the version showing here has been adapted to merge the two versions to form a more complete version of this document. It appears that Shai was working on a project to develop a treatise, possibly titled “For the Complexed”, made up of four parts. Only the first two parts were found in a complete form. Parts Three and Four were found in a skeletal – headings only – format and are showing here for the sake of completion. The essay is supported by a rich list of in-post enriching links and supporting footnotes.
{Part 1 – 13/12/2016}
A thought[1] for the complexed[2]: How can a person not believe and then believe?
First[3], would be to remove the causes[4] which had prevented the possibility of testing belief.
Second, would be to establish a foundational[5] momentum which could serve as a mandate for belief (whether or not it unfolds[6]).
A note for non-Jewish readers: This does not require you to be Jewish, and one can accept and practise this treatise in its entirety without being Jewish; and thus benefit per its claims.
A note for on style: This writing may be obtuse, and appear to imply the necessity with an academic bias, which in turn may imply that the arguments and fruits of this project are exclusive to a similarly inclined audience. That is not the case. The conclusions and benefits of this are intended and applicable to all persons.
First part
I speak of my own experience, and to those whose experiences I can easiest comprehend.
The motives against belief in religion include these:
- The (phenomenon of) self-evidential sufficiency of the material causality, viz. the success of empiricism and science for defining, predicting, and manipulating reality.
- Suspected incongruences within the strictures of belief, esp. apparent moral or factual falsehoods.
- Epistemological delimiters, incl. the antomies of reasons[7], but moreso (in my mind) their application to the differentiability of religious phenomenology (i.e. whether the experience of religious belief and view can be fundamentally differentiated such that one may be known to be segregated[8] and salient to the exclusion of all others).
I say “moreso”, because I would have already said that the knowledge of a transcendental vista would overwhelm any (so-called) empirical[9] observations, and, any premise that includes an unfathomable intelligence would already preclude empirical worries. The only problem, as I said, would be to know how could one know that there existed a transcendental superiority specifically[10]?
Nevertheless.
My intention is not to prove the existence of a (or of a facet of) an Infinity that is de-personal. The Greeks[11] have already done so, and many have reiterated[12].
My intention is to lead to a belief in the Infinity who gave the Torah.
My strategy is to by iteration of considerations, but will lead to the self-same goal listed above, viz. (1a) to establish the causes which pre-empt belief. And then (1b) to disenfranchise their hold. (I will pass through considerations which allude to the second goal [viz. re. the foundation for a specific belief], but only in pre-emptive forms. The main part will be described separately)
In outline, this first part will comprise:
- Stance and rationale for serious theoretical consideration (nb. existential parallel to be elaborated in the second part)
- Non-denominational reflections on expectations
- Widening the possibility of belief by comprehension of wisdom
- Applying the above to Judaism
- Comments on the contrary-motives described above
A few words on each of these chapters.
(1) The unique history and influence of the Torah and the Jewish people. A few details. A few comments on counter-theories. It is intended to inspire hope, not to establish any proof.
(2) Imagine what communication with an infinite or exponentially-advanced source of communication would look like.
(3) Move through degrees of complexity in considerations of what sort of wisdom an infinite communication could contain.
(4) Israel as a palace made of light. A few examples for comprehending what this means, with ties to what was explained in the previous chapter.
(5) Making explicit the implications of the previous chapters for the motives against belief listed above.
1.1 Opening an apeture
This is a praise of the Torah.
Through its Jewish adherents:
An unparalleled history of persecution and survival whose shameful and evil lived and died horrors are told in the annals of a few hundred years of Roman occupation, two millennia of Christian passion, a lesser but substantial humiliation and murder by Muslims, in addition to the histories that preceded these nations, including Egypt and Persia. For those who do not know the countless towns and countries and leaders and victims and dates and laws and bigotries that describe the constellation of this story, it is your duty.
An unparalleled influence on religious domination, namely through the offspring of Christianity and Islam.
An unparalleled birthing of influential thought, whether through communism, psychology, general relativity, etc.
An unparalleled influence on the last three hundred years of Western thought, epitomized by a concentration of the most famous of prizes, viz. Nobel.
Judaism is also the only religion to claim such mass-revelation. It claims this to have occurred to the entire nation, who witnessed both the miracles in Egypt, and the giving of the Torah. Easy comparisons are made to the locality of miracles by Jesus, Mohammed receiving revelation on his own, or the Greek and Hindu hagiographic texts.
I briefly[13] add bare mention of the Talmud’s eponymous focus and sublime peripatetics; the superb psychology[14] and phenomenology (let alone mystical architectonic[15]) of the Kabbalah; and unparalleled textual hermeneutics.
The point of this section is not a logical argument. To my mind, none of these arguments is sufficient, although they may be inspirational for many. I place counter-arguments in an appendix. The point of this section is to have a reason for saying, “Maybe there is something beautiful in this world. Maybe this set of outliers is more than a mere absurdity and proof of possibility. Just maybe.”
1.2 Imagining a space
I step to the side of the hope inspired in the previous section, to imagine what the central claim of Judaism implies, viz. how should one imagine a communication from an infinite source? I begin to address this problem by seeding an appreciation for the complexity of biology, which I develop by way of biochemical signalling transduction as an analogue for linguistic complexity, and from thence imagine what an exponentially advanced semiotic technology could entail.
But first, a reverse engineering of the following:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Any magic may be described by short-hand as an “advanced technology”.
Now the story:
There was an article the other day about new documents uncovered in King’s College. The papers are by Newton, and describe a dream he had. In this dream he discovered the key to the alchemist’s stone, and used the stone to gaze back in time, to see who had built the stone henges near his house.
He saw primitive sapiens, nasty brutish and short[16]. Suddenly a spinning city, covered in lights and spires and towers of every shape and colour came down from the sky. A strange creature came out of the craft and said to a primitive man nearby, (somehow Newton could understand their words),
“I want to give you a gift.” And he gave the primitive man a book.
“You, over there,” the entity pointed to Newton.
“How can you see me? I am looking through a magic portal!” Newton did not know that he was also dreaming.
“No matter. Let me explain what this book is, since you’re so obviously desperate to know.
“It is a/like piece of technology. It creates ideas in those that read it. Its vaults and gears and pipes are semiotic.
“With language one can think of numbers (then sums, then equations, then theorems). With language, one can think of thoughts (then concepts, then relationships, then paradigms). With language, one can think of one’s actions (then intentions, then ethos, then will). This book is a language within a language, and contains the former in the latter.”
“But these apes are too stupid to understand those things!” explained Newton.
“You underestimate me, small ape. This technology unfolds itself.”
The documents end there. Personally, I doubt their legitimacy. After all, if Newton was so smart that he could invent an alchemist’s stone, then why hasn’t it[17] had any effect on the world?
I want to try and imagine what that book could look like, by looking at the most complicated systems of meaning known: biological.
Cells use proteins. There are about 20,000 major variants in humans, and a common type may be present in a million individual instances in a single cell. These talk to each other constantly. This activity is called cell signalling.
I eschew detailing the complexity of proteins in general, but provide a list of some considerations: proteins are words made up of letters that are chemical modules called amino acids, each amino acid and their various combinations impact on the protein’s folding[18], docking[19], movement[20], regulating production[21], auto-inhibition and[22] self-promotion, resilience and availability for breakdown[23], topological changes with modifications and concentration factors and other macro-molecules[24], and of course catalytic[25] function and regulation of the protein whole.
I imagine this by analogy as the effects that the independent letters in a book exert on twisting words into different shapes, associating with distant words, directing meaning to other locations, defining boundaries of relevance[26], variegating comprehension according to locality of other particular words or letters or sounds[27], and of course to the meaning of the word itself in the sentence.
I succinctly[28] add this consideration: there is a fascinating layering of the appearance of the meaning of protein activity: although the net activity of some protein may be meaningful to the researcher[29] (insofar as correlating/predicting some phenotype), there may be other layers of meaning that are contracted within the pattern of the patterns[30] of the activity.
In the analogy of language this resembles: a word has many meanings relative to the reader’s perspective, and then perhaps there is some deeper meaning, which is incomputable within the framework of all the previous meanings, yet which lies as an interpretation of the pattern of all meanings, and yet all are simultaneously true. It would be as if a superficial meaning of word were also a necessary facet of a deeper perspective from which another layer of meaning is seen.
The possibility of coherent meaning across orders of signalling[31] is awesome.
Semantics can be described as the interplay of units of unspecified meaning: semantics qua the effect that words have on each other’s interpretation. So too in biology: understanding a protein includes understanding the effect that it has on any other given biological factor, which can occur in all the ranges of combinations.
But while the combination of letters and proteins may be infinite, their capacity for generating meaning is probably not unlimited. Or, even if it is, their force in generating meaning may not be equal.
To illustrate, the corn genome is larger than the human, but the human is more complex[32]. Similar points can be made about the role of non-neuronal brain matter for the capacity to generate complex data structures[33].
Furthermore regarding inherent force to generate meaning: although it has been hypothesized[34] that all languages are translatable one into another[35], not all languages can accessibly generate[36] similarly complex structures. Thus whereas most languages can count in ordinal form, some languages preclude the accessibility of this skill and hence capacity in their speakers[37].
This significance is illustrated by way of mathematics, for which the invention of the zero, algebra, limits, and so forth, increased their potential[38] to enable discoveries which although previously logically possible, had not been realistically attainable. Upon the introduction of these mathematical technologies, those ‘discoveries’ could be unlocked.
Now we have an appreciation for how complex we should aim to imagine a most complex network of meaning.
And also we have some appreciation that semiotic networks not merely represent data, but are the substrate for the capacity to generate degrees of complexity.
The language which lacks fixed numbers will struggle to ever invent the concept of variable, let alone asymptotes, etc.
By contrast: the semiotic network that can refer to its own content, and enable particular narratives of interpretation, and their development, would enable an ever-increasing ‘discovery’ of dimensions of meaning.
Language is a technology. An ordered network made of language is a technology within a technology.
What would an infinitely advanced race gift us if not language?
I don’t say this as proof. Only a fresh appreciation for what religious claims of revelation by an Infinite entity are fully claiming, and more so regarding the Torah, which is taught to be the blueprint for reality, refracted back into this very reality.
1.3 Technology of the mind
In imagining the substrate of experience which enables knowledge, and especially the fruits of semiotic technology (esp. mathematics and texts) many will presume[39] that theoretical knowledge encompasses (or overlaps) the majority of what is amenable for use in discovering reality’s truths.
By contrast, traditions including the Indus civilizations have long developed additional modalities of awareness, and have studied their principles. The most famous is often called experiential knowledge. See appendix 1.3 for comments on these.
A mundane example: the difference between knowing the mathematical premises of a circle versus seeing one[40]; being told about the behavioural[41] impact of feelings[42] versus feeling[43].
In order to add appreciation of what this means[44]: One knows how to refer to self-awareness within their own mental landscape. But until one has practised meditation[45], there is little appreciation for the nature of that self-awareness[46]. Similarly regarding concentration, which in its named[47] form appears to be such a familiar term, and yet without its experiential study, one is incapable of knowing its inner structures, attributes, and mechanisms[48] (both as sequences, and as textures in their own right).
The conclusion to be drawn is this: There are certain forms of knowledge which require certain forms of acquisition. Theory is good for knowing logic. Awareness is good for knowing what-is concentration, and many other things too. I don’t know if one could acquire logic by bare awareness[49], but doubt that concentration could be appreciated on the basis of descriptions.
Let’s[50] call this landscape of “ways of knowing” to be the landscape that is wisdoms.
Not all wisdom is esoteric. Wisdom occurs in the moral intuition that accompanies cultures. Wisdom can be carried in texts, as when they propagate and imprint moral intuition.
Thus when I think of what it would be to invent a semiotic technology, I imagine a book which when read, imprints wisdom.
1.4 Wisdom in Judaism
This is not a proof. Rather a continuation of a mere acceptance that hope may exist.
Perhaps the Torah is a semiotic artefact placed here not by an alien race, but by the creator of reality. Perhaps we are sort of living in a computer program, or a dream, or world that even bigger than we had already imagined.
Everyone has been thinking about the end of the world. What if this is the beginning? (I’m not meaning to imply about anything other than this – in your own individual life – except by way of inspiring great hope in the possibility of redeeming so much that is wrong).
In that case, the Torah would be our greatest prize. Not a light. But a light of lights. Not an answer, but an answer that births answers. Not something to be known, but something to be forever explored and enjoyed?
1.5 Embarking
How would one find belief?
Boats travel from island to island. If you find one that leads you to stars, it’s the right one[52].
{Part 2 – TBC}
second part
This section can be read on its own. It begins with a synopsis, by which one can orient and temper both their (a) willingness to proceed with the text, and (b) comprehension of what an investigation of Jewish faith entails. Thus it will also serve as an elliptic reference for those will to undertake this investigation.
Appendix 1.5 fulfils what I had promised for that section 1.5. But there should be no need to revisit the question of “how could any religion be true”. Remember the peculiar and superb history of the Torah and its descendants and offspring. Remember what an ‘Infinite communication’ could look like. Remember what is never impossible: hope.
And so, regarding this investigation…
It will continue with an iterative set of guidelines for achieving a test of Judaism. These will consist of 10 paths. Each one will begin at a mundane level, and iterate into higher states of comprehension, until one has tested Judaism at the highest possible levels that I know to delineate. My intention is that the text can be read by following a single level at a time, or reading the entire text as it flows. Nonetheless, accurate comprehension may depend on an iterated reading.
The first level is intended to be secular, mundane, and universally beneficial. It is written to be beneficial without requiring any dependent belief.
The trail will comprise of the following paths:
- Right expression – regarding their construction and direction
- Right dedication – to this effort
- Right integration – regarding partnership within reality
- Right &c
I pause this list since the following will already be apparent. This requires a minimal appreciation of what a test of faith will look like.
An inspiration to hope to believe would be to have known the experiential recollection of a worldview that harmonizes with, and synergizes with reality; and that generates forms within the mind previously unknown nor believed knowable.
I emphasize the word “experiential” since a test of such magnitude requires first accepting the variegated forms of comprehension, and second, a minimal appreciation of the nature of experience. The first is explained in part one and will not be repeated other that to give these two examples: an understanding of what concentration is, is fundamentally different from a comprehension that stems from sammadhi meditation; an understanding of what a circle is, is fundamentally different from a comprehension that stems from a first-hand experience of circles in the world of experience.
In order to expand upon the second point made, I need to kindle the entire endevour by adumbration of the final path, which even presented at a low resolution can serve the necessary mental calibrations.
We exist inside a body, inside a mind, inside the experience of the mind, inside the controls of the mind… or somewhere in that vicinity. It is enough to acknowledge that we qua mind, is in some way inside a body, and that there is communication between the two. Thus to modulate ourselves we may need to modulate our body. This will be elaborated in a categorically different manner in its full exposition.
I now present the synopsis in its final form:
To test reality we must modulate our interaction with that reality at whatever level of control we have within the seat of experience. We need to do this by modulating the chain of conditioning that flows through our levels of being. This chain will need to be correctly oriented, and devolved from the highest chain of thought-based consciousness.
The presentation of this orientation and exercise of their cross-currents will (I posit) reveal the following: Judaism has (1) an ability to deconstruct and engage reality at a level not achieved nor comprehensible by any other culture, (2) a propensity for revealing an unlimited number of unknown states of wisdom, (3) an ability to orient the entirety of reality around each and every single individual (nb. without losing its universal and intersubjective fulcrum), and (4) an unparalleled ability to acknowledge, explain, and engage the crisis of faith that is being experienced by the world as a whole, and every individual in their own monadic existence.
The trail will comprise of the following paths, each of which invokes a mundane, spiritual, religious, and transcending level. These approximate to (1) mundane and psychological, (2) existential and self-meaningful, (3) faithful and denominational, and (4) mystical.
The first path will be compatible and sustainable within a completely materialistic belief system, but recommends that you don’t forget the hope. It sets off from this perennial dream: a happier life. Insofar as it is succesful, it is designed to teach skills that will benefit in themselves and provide depth to the practices of the other paths; install an ability to modify one’s propensities; prove a non-accumulative attitude to life which identifies with the nature of self, and not with any momentary accumulation of experiences. The last of these may move one to desire a deeper engagement, which is the second path, viz. a need not merely to be happier, but to fulfil that happiness with its own meaning.
I. RIGHT ACTION
Synopsis: This will include (1) a basic explanation of a form of Jewish engagement as it relates to day-to-day problems; (2) exercises for seeding a vantage point for extracting personal meaning from your life; (3) an introduction to the Jewish life as taught for the sake of its inherent benificience, not merely reward; and (5) an introduction to exercises for living in harmony with a noumenal landscape impossible to see.
Action is the foundation for all change, whether material or phenomenological. Action includes not only what we do with our body, but also our expressions and words, and thoughts.
I-1: PRACTICAL KABBALAH. NO THEORY. (MUNDANE)
The beginning of right action for happiness has been known since records: It is toxic to hurt others. And the extension: It is good for oneself to be good to others.
This includes not hurting oneself. This includes being good to oneself.
Because this value is integral and synergistic with else that is desired, these examples will lead to that purpose. But in addition to the examples given, one should ask, “What do I want to change?” and after considering answers for this, “What trait (whether/both in general and specific terms) would enable me to change such?”
If I want to do more acts of kindness, then I might want to be more considerate, attentive, empathetic, etc.
I don’t know exactly what your state of mind looks like. But that doesn’t matter. Aim for the star that you want. You can fix your course tomorrow. And again every day after that.
Now for the Kabbalah. It won’t sound like a mystical truth. It might not impress you. But remember the hope. And ignore any voice that reminds you of past disappointments, or the foolishness of such small risks. And try this:
Three times a day. A few minutes. Each for one minute, or two, or maybe five minutes the first few times..? For a week? Less? More? Here try:
Imagine a setting or aspect of what you want. Maybe the setting is “Things I’ve done to financially hurt”, or “To embarrass”, or “That I can notice for my brother,” or “That I can appreciate in my sister”? If you struggle, you can try and grow a list. The more you try the better.
Now imagine a manifestation within that setting or topic. Maybe, “I can do so and so in this way”, and imagine doing it. Now imagine another manifestation, within that same topic. “I can do this other thing”. And now a third, imagining doing it each time.
That’s all. (Kabbalah teaches that the movement between general thoughts and specific thoughts is the fastest way to nurture the perspective that can reach into both, but the theory doesn’t matter).
I-2: Annotating and cultivating meaning. (Existential)
The second path is intended to enhance awareness and engagement of meaning in day to day life.
What do you want to mean and why does that meaning inspire you?
Perhaps you want the tidying of your room to reflect your ordering of a chaotic world? Because you think that to bring order is a noble task for our kind?
Simple: A few times whilst engaging in that task, think the thoughts as elaborately as dignified, “I am doing this for that”, and then watch yourself do it, then think about how you feel about “that”. This activity does not presume any specialized focus. It is sufficient to be distracted, to repeat, to flow back and forth as you go about your task.
So simple. Not profound nor grand, but enough to add a small portion of meaning to your life, and thence after to inspire you to proceed with what has been suggested here for exploration.
************ 2,3,4
II. RIGHT DEDICATION
Dedication is sometimes imagined as a denial of something (often oneself, or one’s desires) in subserviance to something else (often another, or some other desire or purpose). But such a description ignores the meanings and mechanisms of dedication which can inspire and align and correct its utility – especially avoiding the stubborn adherence to a dedication which is (even when impossible to discern) consequentially self-destructive.
II-1: FLEXIBILITY AS DISCIPLINE. (MUNDANE)
— commitment for its own sake, but the place and value of flexibility and adaptability, and differentiating adaptability from compromise of values
II-2: GIVING MEANING TO SACRIFICE. (EXISTENTIAL)
sdf
II-3: BECOMING A VESSEL FOR THE UNFATHOMABLE. (FAITHFUL)
sdf
II-4: ABNEGATION BEFORE THE AWFUL. (MYSTICAL)
sdf
III. RIGHT INTEGRATION
Synopsis: Need to integrate our dedications within our life and environment to benefit both our purpose, and all that we encounter. Including, (1) learning to see of opportunity; (2) integrating perceptions of self, with developing values and desires; (3) appreciating the mutual fruition between us and our Creator; (4) seeking opportunities to step forward in the dance.
IV. RIGHT DETERMINATION
Synopsis: Need to know how to be determined, and how far, and what it means to be determined. Including, (1) Self-talk in the face of doubt and small challenges to our efforts; (2) knowing how to perceive our identity and efforts to know their unconquerable essence; (3) knowing what it means to dedicate and integrate more, and what it doesn’t mean; (4) seeing the eternal tune that never moves.
V. RIGHT JUDGMENT
Synopsis: What is judgment and how to think about it’s role and necessity. Including, (1) how to invoke firmness and recognizing inviolate values; (2) knowing the boundaries of integrity and the kindness in judgment; (3) understanding what it means to “fear” the Creator; (4) Seeing the line that never moved.
VI. RIGHT HARMONY
Synopsis: What is the synergy of balance, and what is the beautification of purpose. Including, (1) sympathy; (2) making a window in our criticisms; (3) introducing the concept of beautification; (4) Seeing our place ***Gopher trees
VII. RIGHT CHARITY
Synopsis: What is kindness, to ourselves, to others, to the world to its Source. Includes, (1) reminding us to care, not just help; (2) gifts to the future; (3) learning to love all that is; (4) the tent of Abraham.
VIII. RIGHT THINKING
Synopsis: Here begins more Kabbalah in its theory. But only what is helpful. Includes, (1) a very intuitive way of thinking about what the mind is and how our efforts link here; (2) recognizing the lower levels of the mind and how we can be kind to our “higher” selves; (3) starting to think about the phenomenal aspect of reality; (4) fixing the dream.
IX. RIGHT VISION
Synopsis includes: (1) recognizing the difference between our thoughts and the visions/inspirations that spark them; (2) introducing a new paradigm of the self; (3) starting to think about the prism of reality; (4) the limits of the conceivable.
X. RIGHT CROWN
Synopsis includes: (1) the difference between our primal wishes and their manifestations; (2) introducing the chain of being; (3) introducing the chain of elevation; (4) unity.
INTERMISSION: WHAT IS A WORLD NURTURED BY HOPE?
sdf
STRAIGHT LINES AND CIRCLES
For those wishing a deeper appreciation, I recommend the following, which repeats the above, but places the context of presentation in reverse order. I then (hope) to present a reinvigorated and more substantially perceived description of the first “right action”.
**A map to print**
{Part 3 – 12/12/2016}
third part
3.1 Call for idiosyncratic methodology, and considerations
3.2 Apology – for lack of credentials, and explanation of the extent of the intersubjective value
3.3 Summary and specific values
3.4 General principles
- Aleph bet
- Frames and abstractions of awareness
- Phenomenological cast
- Songlines
- Ladders
- Yoniso manasikara
- Prisms
- Contexts and general in specific (cf Levinas)
- Mishna as spark of unwritable
- Mishlei as code
- Shir as relationship of individual to divine
- Tehlim as relationship of vector to divine and world
- Talmud as epitmozing various attributes, incl. Aligning a will, learning how to think, learning how to think about Mishna, learning about editorship, space between spaces.
- Tefila as meditation
- Korbanot (cf. Bhakti)
- Hallel
- Shma
- Brachot
- Shmone Esre
{Part 4 – 12/12/2016}
fourth part
4.1 Recap
4.2 Problem and approaches
- Search for wisdom of wisdom
- Personal meaning
- Unique wisdom and ability to comprehend other wisdoms
- Footprints of the sheep
4.3 Elaboration
4.4 Coda
Appendices
Appendix 1.1
To my mind, the arguments of the unique impact of the Torah and its descendants, of their fate, and the order of their claims in comparison to other revelation-based religions are insufficient as pure proof. I present the following to assist the sceptical that they be able, on the one hand, have their worries recognized, and on the other hand, be able to continue with the text in the spirit that it is intended.
Counter-points: (1) Combining the cargo-cult history, with an appreciation of human gullibility, of fact-distortion across time, of fact-distortion in pre-mass-media civilization, with an appreciation of iterative change (e.g. evolution) regarding claims of revelation; (2) arguing that it is precisely the anti-Semitism which created the Jewish contribution; (3) arguing that it is Jewish literacy exclusively that is responsible for the religion’s impact; (4) mass-revelation (although less dramatic) occurs in other traditions, most famously the Aztec; (5) the unique gifts offered by each culture.
I would have said that all are viable foundations for doubt. But they are not sufficient for complete and utter exclusion. It is for this reason that I only ask this, “Consider that the Torah’s descendants – both living and ideas – are astounding.” Now without giving an explanation for this astonishment, carry this spark as you would a hope, and read on. This spark will not be the kindle that lights the fire, only the light that the pushes back for a short time the utter gloom which prevents all hope of the very possibility of finding meaning in this world.
I make no claims about revelation at this point; nor about the mechanistic root of the Jewish contribution; nor comment on any other cultures. Only that there are a number of outliers, that prove nothing, but give space for hope (not faith).
Appendix 1.3
I have great respect for the meditation that is based on bare awareness and concentration that has been developed most highly (that I know) along the Indus river.
Judaism teaches a number of yogas (which can be described seperate from its value in integrating with reality at a noumenal level). These include: employing a form of bare attending applied to the act of reading, that doesn’t anchor by way of sati (smriti) nor sammadhi; a form of epistemology that founds itself on something comparable to a bhakti yoga; an explanation of (analogues to) khandas (skandha) and something that resembles the entropy of avijja (avidya), but with discovery of additional levels of interaction that supersede those implying a need to dissolve one’s existence to halt suffering; the Kabbalistic deconstruction of (something comparable to) “bojjhanga” informs additional levels of engagement; and more spaces that I don’t know if they have been given names.
Both our cultures value jnana yoga, and our sages have taught (and perhaps yours say it better) that the wise learn from everyone.
Appendix 1.5
Making explicit what was implicit:
If the Creator of the universe is real and manifested the gift of life in the form of the Torah, then maybe everything is true in the dream, and it doesn’t matter, and is true in the Torah, and does matter, and the proof of the Torah’s transcendental nature is in its manifesting wisdom as might be expected in an infinite document designed for us.
Regarding evolution, etc., this does not contradict the Torah. Nor do dates. The Torah is an Infinite document, and we are currently in the midst of a very complicated manifestation that is itself unfolding. Or at least, what if. What if life has meaning even though everything inside proves that it doesn’t.
Regarding the limits of reason, these do not preclude hope, which is all I have asked for. And in any case, what is being wondered is whether there is a wellspring from which reason springs, and from which we can drink.
Regarding the (possibility of) indistinguishably between the experience of faith (especially between Judaism and the other descendants of Abraham and Mosaic prophecy), this is precisely what is being questioned here, and it is being suggested (but not yet stated) that the success of some religions may be precisely their acquisition of Torah-originated wisdom; and furthermore, I am merely asking you to acknowledge hope in a semiotic technology, sufficiently so as to follow my advice for another section of reading, but moreso a practise of testing and proof.
[1] This is a thought to be thought, i.e. the reader asks themselves, “How do I imagine that a person who does not believe in something, can yet be convinced in that thing?” This is meant (a) in general, (b) within the generic scope of religious and traditional claims, and (c) specifically with regards to the Jewish heritage and the transcendental origins of the Torah. The answer which follows applies to all cases, viz. identify and ameliorate any absolutely pre-emptively discrediting beliefs, and then found a capacity to investigate the claim for oneself.
[2] I will explain allusions where helpful for detailed reception of this text. Here, complexed, alludes to Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, made portmanteau with Freud’s psychological complex as (by way of further hint) introduced in The Interpretation of Dreams. The implication being that the modern ego and life has accumulated sophisticated ideologies, often without a capacity for explicit awareness, and in conjunction, is capable of defending and restricting its beliefs by using an amorphously stratified, and hence seemingly impenetrable, resistance to change. This text is written with a first-hand appreciation for the “modern” disinclination to religious belief, and does not stoop to any a priori discrediting of the sceptical standpoint, rather issuing from that stance. (The further hint relates this “complex” (a la sophistication) to the king’s verse (paraphrased), We will be amazed that all that we thought was a dream).
[3] This text subverts the expected structure (e.g. Euclidean) for a proof. Whereas the traditional argument for the existence of an Infinite creator begins from first principles of reality or epistemology, here the text assumes the existential aspect of epistemology. That is, that an individual’s beliefs (as manifested by their capacity to defend or argue) derives its form from the need to derive ad hoc reasons for an emotionally/pre-reasoned belief, cf. The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail. This last point should not be dismissed, nor presumed to not apply to the reader or author.
[4] Nb. Plural causes. The point being that modern “reason” may assume that the “cause” of something is singular, unless divided (i.e. into the mechanisms which combine into the singularly considered cause), or if considered from different vantages (i.e. a single cause may be described in terms of one paradigm, or given a different description in term of another paradigm). The latter resembles a pre-modern expectation of cause, which allows for multiple attribute-specific modalities (cf. Spinoza) of causality (e.g. Aristotle’s four causes). Which is to implicate: If a person wishes to address the factors (aka causes) which prevent a certain belief, they need to ascertain the different factors (e.g. within rational and existential scopes) and not assume that disbelief stems from a singular and reasoned thesis (e.g. exclusively derived from a set of premises and logical functions).
[5] This text adopts the spiral architectonic, in which a sparked thesis enlightens one’s life, and thence becomes thence a constantly re-evaluated, reinvigorated, and fractally (sic) elaborated worldview.
[6] One cannot force a rose to unfurl.
[7] Cf. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The problem is whether there is any epistemologically feasible method for making claims pertaining to the (literal) limits of reason’s concepts (i.e. the concepts employed by reason, e.g. whether there is anything beyond space, or whether there is a cause preceding all causes). The problem is not (intended) as logical (e.g. is it logical to discuss boundaries of space) nor traditionally epistemological (e.g. which of reason’s tools can be employed in these considerations), but rather meta-epistemological (or phenomenological or transcendentally idealistic, viz. what the relationship between the experiences of reality and the experiencing of reality, and how does that relationship affect the capacity of the experiencing entity’s capacity for knowledge).
[8] Nb. Concept of kadosh, to be invoked explicitly in part 2.
[9] Cf. Popper, F. Bacon. [References lacking elaboration are for the benefit of specifying the text’s intention, but without being necessary for its comprehension. E.g. here Popper and Bacon are benchmarks for what is meant by empiricism, nb. The former emphasizes hypotheses and falsifiability, whereas the latter emphasizes book-keeping and pattern recognition].
[10] In case unclear I elaborate this problem, which to my mind was the majority hurdle to the possibility of religious belief, e.g. how could I know that my experience of Judaism was transcendentally different from my experience of any other mystical or religious worldview? The problem can be stated in a mundane setting, for example: Given that I am able to perceive the world through two different political affiliations – perhaps by specifically designing the range of my experiences, or by perusing reasons sufficient for one system’s feasibility – how can I differentiate the belief in one affiliation over another?
[11] Cf. Speusippus, Aristotle, Stoics.
[12] Cf. Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Augustine, Aquinas.
[13] Nb. This section should be recognized and respected as elliptic.
[14] Cf. Freud’s reading of Chayyim Vital. [By the way, nb. The relationship between epistemology and metaphysics, suggestive in Newton, but cf. Kant on Swedenborg, and Wittgenstein on The Golden Bough. The links here are suggestive, and their explication beyond the intentions of this text].
[15] Yet to be recognized in the West, which has lacked the reference points for its assimilation. Thus (to my mind) Kabbalastic principles have been reduced to purely theoretical concepts (i.e. as opposed to experiential concepts) or have been aligned via mistaken parallels (e.g. to alchemistic tokens or yogi chakras).
[17] I emphasize this rhetorical point, If the Torah is an infinite communication, then why hasn’t it had any effect on the world? Cf. part 1.1.
[18] The amino acid sequence can be envisioned as a string made of beads. The beads (in this case) limit and endorse different possibilities for twisting and folding, such that the string folds into a single, stable, and functional shape out of an unlimited conceivable number of conformations. Nb. My intention is not to argue for religion by design, but specifically to impress that there has been a lack of appreciation for what it means to consider an infinite communication, i.e. that the communication’s complexity and superb design be not less than that witnessed in the study of biological systems.
[19] A protein may have specific propensities and abilities to dock to specific sits along DNA, other proteins, or cellular domains (e.g. lipid rafts).
[20] Cf. protein targeting.
[21] Cf. regulation of gene expression.
[22] E.g. include ubiquitin E3 ligase, G-alpha protein, trypsinogen.
[23] Cf. proteolysis.
[24] A protein’s shape and properties and functions may be determined by the chemistry in its environment.
[25] Cf. enzyme. A protein may be capable of enabling specific chemical reactions.
[26] Cf. Braita of R. Yishmael.
[27] Cf. Allophonics, alliteration, and codon degeneration.
[28] This point is not necessary for comprehending the general point of this section.
[29] Cf. Signal processing by the HOG MAP kinase pathway (2008) Hersen et al.
[30] Cf. Fourier analysis.
[31] For this paradigm: Cf. Discrete vectors of evolution of speech; phylotypic stage of embryonic development (regarding cohesion and holistic dependency of signalling integration).
[32] i.e. the human genome has a greater capacity to generate meaning (viz. Complexity resulting from the interplay of chemical datum and context). Cf. Regulatory elements and non-coding sequences.
[33] Cf. the role of glia in the capacity of the human brain to generate complex encodings. This example illustrates the difference between substrate for encoding information (epitomized by neuronal synapses) and substrates that add capacity for complexity of information (exemplified here by glia). Thus an appreciation for what is meant by the power of a network to generate complexity, as a value which involves more than the size or speciation of the network.
[34] Cf. Universal grammar
[35] Suggesting that any network is theoretically mappable into another “language”, and hence arguing against an infinite media-specific communication.
[36] Cf. Weak-Sapir-Worf hypothesis.
[37] Cf. Piraha. This is a potent example for illustrating the role of language as a technology for thought.
[38] Or, decreased their inherent resistance to particular thoughts and extrapolations.
[39] Due to historical philosophies. Cf. Scholasticism and 17th century philosophy. Nb. The implication of Kant’s What is Enlightenment?
[40] Cf. Molyneux’s problem.
[41] Cf. Behaviourism.
[44] Cf. Sattipatthana Sutta.
[49] Cf. Yoniso manasikara.
[50] Aesthetically chosen name: taking wisdom to be the target of philosophy, and (etymologically) paraphrasing philosophy to be the love of cognitively-focused exploration of reality. Thus I define wisdom as the most beloved of the dimensions of cognitive reality for exploration, and further describe it as that which is expanded, when something which was not even conceivable, becomes a tool and place for thought.
[51] Cf. Life.
[52] I.e. belief systems can be evaluated by their abilities to engage reality. This will be expanded upon (hopefully) in part 4 of this text.
