Constellations in Hebrew

{Part 1 – 26/10/2016}

There are 22 Hebrew letters, plus 5 final variants. They are given numerical values.
I don’t know if this is commonly thought by those who are better studied.
This isn’t a proof, it’s a thought trail, followed by some demonstrations.

Why are there only 4 letters in the 100’s order?
There are 10 sefirot, but how would they fit?

First thought:
The change in orders, i.e. YUD at 10 and KAF at 100 make sense as dual placements.
E.g. YUD is the last number in the series 1-10, or as the first number of 10-100.
This fits with the role of Malchut of a higher Olam being synonymous with the Keter of a lower Olam.

The Partzufim of the Seder only allows us to talk about the first 3 sefirot of the emanating Keter. That is the Atik Yomin, whose lower 7 are enclothed by Arich Panim, whose Tikun happens in a lower Olam, even though their Keter are respectively the Inner (Ta’anug) and Outer aspects (Ratzon).So TAF would be the Keter of Atik.
ALEPH the MALCHUT in Yetzirah.
It makes sense to talk about Keter and not Malchut generally because the latter is known to be compared to the moon, and derives its streams from the internal Partzufim of each Sefirah in the Partzuf in that particular Keter-Malchut, e.g. the Malchut of Chessed radiates the Chessed part of the Malchut.
Thus KUF is Keter in Beriya.
And ALEPH is the only MALCHUT given a letter, and this further makes sense, since this is given particular elaboration in the literature.
It also makes sense of the passive aspect of ALEPH, which is the only “moon” in the letters.

If we are the world of Asiya, then to see the letters we are looking “up”, that is why we see ALEPH first and TAF last.
But the Seder Hishtalshelut is from TAF to ALEPH.
So just like the explanation of the word “et” (ALEPH-TAF) as A-to-Z, here we have a constellation with two stars.
But since we are looking upwards through the worlds, we are looking up from Malchut of Yetzirah through the Seder to the Keter Atik.

This also helps understand the relationship of numbers to our world, but not to be discussed now.

More preparation is needed.
– How to think of “stars” of sefirot.
– How to conceive of their presence in the different worlds/
– How to conceive of their linking.
– And a suggestion for reading the otiyot achronot.

You’ll need to practice to see Hebrew as a song.
But it is.
Some words can be enjoyed as small poems. Haikus written in the ether.

Before given foundational materials, let me try to illustrate.

The word for “dog” is “kelev“, CAF-LAMED-BET. This is HOD in Beriya, YICHUD in Beriya, and Hod in Yetzirah.

FYI there are many ways of “singing” the song, and although they all tell the same story, it’s good to always listen to the song through a few backdrops.

For example as “a thing we find in the world”, or “an aspect of the psyche”, or “some specific illustration”, etc etc etc etc etc.

They all tell the same song, however.

Let’s look at it in the frame of “the psyche we find in the world, viz. in our dog”.

Beriya we’ll formulate as the value system or ethos or motivation of a psyche.
The Beriya is ruled over by Atzilut, which would be the highest will, or core personality etc, but not used here.
The Beriya expresses down into Yetzirah, which is the world of intentions.
Kelev is the constellation that underpins the dog.
It is a submissiveness within a value system.
Then a communicability within a value system.
Then a submissiveness within an intention.
Not very illustrative perhaps, but easy to read.

The dog wants to serve. This precedes its want to be part of our pack (YICHUD). This gives birth (which is what YICHUD does) to specific intentions for submissive action.

When the dog obeys, it is revealing it’s BET, which was birthed by the yichud/LAMED that used the progenitor material of CAF.

For a better understanding, it helps to understand the relationships between the levels, difference between birthing and expression, difference between contracting and enclothing, the role of central beam, the unity of the rope, the difference between up/down motions, and when up/down are implicit, and can be sensed and the degrees to which they can be defined, and also the implication of other sefirot’s actions despite their not being explicit. Over time gain an appreciation for what is unique about being explicitly a star/letter, and also to be interested in the ways for getting from one letter to another, or across groups, and how to read larger words, and also how to link between words, sentences, using principles such as “sof ma’aseh“, etc.

{Part 2 – 27/10/2016}

I defend the plausibility of this system on two merits. Both can be denied.

There is a fascinating genius here. The Jewish people are a historical anomaly. And maybe all of us on this planet are unique and special and all is only good.

The second one sounds jingoistic and fanatic. My intention is not to convince. I don’t know if I’m capable of convictions. I’m a weak-willed person and make no excuses for being so.

I’m not in a position to prove those two ideas, so I’ll try the least empirical of scientific heritage: the aesthetic value criterion.

Will you or will you not discover that Hebrew can read like living streams of notes and moving melodies that shift and jump and juggle in variations that astound but are capable of being heard in the human mind if you are willing to make a fool of yourself and try some things.

[…]

Here you go.

You’re going to have to get used to thinking about other types of thoughts. And of repeating certain complex chains until you are able to shorthand them in your mind, or experience them to various degrees of viscerality or intuition.

That’s the very last note of apology.

First become aware of different areas of your existence.
Esp. starting with physical, active, and by levels of autonomy.
(And eventually variations on that theme).

You will have to work out for yourselves how to practise these. But I’ll give you an example to get started.

During any time you are engaging in continuous not obligation to focus the mind.

I have described a start for this elsewhere.

Watch body, relate using labelling, (e.g. physiological, motive, feelings, imagined actions and actions and textures of experience such as Sati and Samadhi). Not enough to be good at them. But at least to have a little epiphany of a different part of reality as helpful.

“Those are my feet I use them for walking on the ground and standing and they have bones (visualized vaguely) and were a product of morphogenesis…”

“Thought about a worry that I’ve been noticing from…”

“Just watch self in a hazily focused state. I mean by this emphasizing awareness of the myriad micro-transactions our action-body makes every minute. Every gesture thought impulse and eye movement. Watch the physical body as it is an autonomous primate, capable of doing an incredible lot without your evaluation. And thus notice the space in your head the evaluation of which thoughts are liked and which are not.

“I could move my hand left, right, 7, 8, 25, 3 variations on a theme of things you could momentarily and extendedly act”, sporadically actually doing the motion.

Notice where it feels like all the imagined movements are coming from and from where your mind moves. You’re looking for the space where it feels like these thoughts are coming from.

This sounds obvious but is real. If you don’t believe in the momentum of anchor points then don’t use them and turn away now. Because this won’t make more sense at any point. Even a few momentary experiences could be enough to become familiar with noticing dimensions of the mind.

The Buddhists call this, and it is more a labelling scheme than a discovery.

I’m stealing the strategy from mystic Talmudic scholars. If you’ve ever learned Talmud, you’ll know why its defined the way it is. It’s very conceptually maneuverable.

Let’s call the physical space and structure and anything it does that isn’t being evaluated. This can include complex tasks. Like right now. I’m stopping a lot, but it’s being done by a primate, I can watch it for a bit, call this action dimension.

The world of evaluation, call that willing dimension.

If you can learn to spot those, or even create spaces for their frequent observations; you can Buddhist with “mental factors (Citta) re mindfulness” which has instructions. Then look at what makes it possible for those preferences (e.g. not liking pain) to be judged. Call that space of aware experience the creating dimension.

The core impulse that justifies those is the force of desire. You can look at that, emanating dimension.

Learn to think of them in different ways.

E.g.

Call/think of them as worlds of 1 animal, 2 feeling, 3 thought, 4 will.

Call/think of them as aspects of the world. E.g. the potential for the world to transmute its media. More later.

You don’t have to practise these at the outset.

These are to be repeated in a context of daily life and with other specific knowledge attended.

More later.

Plan:
Learn to think in terms of a peculiar 10 inter-relations of meaning (sefirot).
Learn to construct objects in the 4 worlds. And understand how they link.
Use above but re. letters.

You’ll either try or not.
It’s not that hard and is more results-oriented than meditation.

To serve the specific goal here.
Label parts of the body going up and down a few times, just bits, not anatomical, can be innovative. Start to get continuous attendance to a category of semantic reality, makes this more skilled.

{Part 3 – 27/10/2016}

Here are some required concepts:

• Faces
• Garments
• Internal 10 sefirot to any sefira, and iterable process
• Contraction

Now we can start.

Go through a range of common 3 letter words. Can flip through a dictionary. Get used to performing the exercise. Get used to hearing the story fluidly, and so that you can think of it in smooth motions. And to read it. And see it. And feel it from different angles.

I think you’ll soon find it so strangely insightful, that you’ll wonder what it is.
At first, I thought it was like constellations. I was seeing what  I wanted.
But I continue to marvel.

Sober and depressed too.

I don’t know why it doesn’t make me change.

I originally imagined how I must be using the least of their potential.
As I travel, I wonder at how the expansion on their complexities occurs so difficult to explain.

I’ll continue the story.

I started by just hearing the narrative, e.g. “Keter of intention unfolds into hod of emanation”.

Then I added texture, by imagining their experience in my psyche (but without using Partzufim). Then sometimes with. Then y comprehending the logic of their circuitry. Then by looking at as unique features of pulley systems that far exceed the numbers of their letters. Then by further abilities to be interacted on in words and sentences (as Rabbis have explained, core not mine).

By now you may already have become acquainted with psychological implications of the descent of faces.

These can be added to hearing of letters.

But they also imply something about the letters. The way they are constructed in language is the same of how they are the exact same principles that the mind uses to engage with itself.

We can imprint personality vectors that are very complicated. But can be built in stages. The Rabbis have explained this. This is not mine. Mine is just the expressions and hypothetical regarding something I’m clearly deluded about. Can you believe that we would live in a world with so much attention to detail and an affability for the human lgoos? I don’t.

If you want to see simple examples, I recommend days 3 and 5 in the Torah. Do not read more into that sentence as being my advice. I’m just recommending those sources as a fascinating study for perceiving personality vectors, which are not different in architecture from the ones that are already the sum of our programming. Just very contextually sublime.

If you’ve gotten to the stage of reading the stories and using multiple paradigms and trying new schemas for vocabulary, then you have probably noticed a few fascinating patterns or commonalities between letters and meaning, so that you can often sense what the word is overlaying without actually “hearing”.

If you’ve gotten to the stage of realising that (and depending on the time you’re willing to spend on a word) there is a LOT more implied architecture which can be repetitively unpacked and familiarised. Certain combinations may stump you, or require you to cheat on your dedication to not using summaries for unknown mechanisms.

If you’ve gotten to the stage of trying to build something…

I cut back. I’m going to start small. I’m planting a flower. I got the idea from day 3 and fruits (looked at all the options, also considered animals, etc), but the flower is beautiful. It is a very clean “establish a concept in any new impulse”. This one’s one that I hope will eventually do some nifty tricks, but for now, just to think more of people in a given paradigm shifter. It’s not that hard and seems a no-brainer that it works (although that is mostly due to not understanding the experiential claims and phenomenological substrate of contemplation.

I wanted to build a telephone. But I still can’t get fire. It’s a two letter word! I thought I had, but I’d been simplifying what it means to travel upwards, especially between certain world combinations. (But then I found something I was so very proud of but sounds so fantastically delirious).

And it is. I just as that you tell me how far you got testing anything before saying it was all wrong. Are the letters notes, and words poems?

{Part 4 – 27/10/2016}

First week I couldn’t stop doing it. Lol. Then I thought it was blasphemous because it was so beautiful. Then I took it for granted, and now I’m greedy.

I hope it’s true. And I hope we make something beautiful and never before unimaginable (sic).

{Part 5 – 28/10/2016}

I wanted to share this with other nations. Especially with those in this land.

I still hope we will wake up in the banquet, eating and laughing next to each other, and we were like dreamers.

Meanwhile, I will write to support the work of those whose familiarity with the Ein Sof‘s textual receipts are their highest blessings.

{Part 6 – 06/12/2016}

Intention: To adumbrate a constellation of considerations and parameters underlying a thesis of (a) Jewish engagement, and (b) engagement by way of the aleph-bet. It is intended first to pass down through the letters, alluding to (my wondering at) their properties, but focusing on their existential lessons (as pertaining to this thesis); second to pass up through the letters, considering ways in which they can be theoretically read and experientially processed.

Context and examples are needed to describe and communicate abstract thoughts. Here I am inspired by the well Yitzchak’s workers dug before the treaty with Avimelech, and which was named, Shbvuh^[1]; I try to model motivation as the search for excellence allotting a limiting factor.

To illustrate I use: prayer, Shabbat, and limud Torah.

Taf

There are aspects of this exercise which need not, or cannot, be immediately (or aimed to be) experientially witnessed within their own form. This applies to what is the highest goal of this exercise, which is to connect with the Infinite. Which I think of as “dancing” with the Creator.

It is known that part of the dance involves contemplation^[2] of the Infinite. But I believe that part of the dance involves not seeing the Infinite^[3]. I wonder if there is a role for expressing ourselves as individuals, idiosyncratic and unproven, and elevating that aspect of the world for the sake of the general elevation of the world towards the Creator.

Thus the guiding principle of this thesis: Our prime directive is to connect with the infinite, elevate the world as instructed, elevate the world as each one in their limited sense sees fit, and go from faith to doubt and thence to draw the doubt (or lack of certainty) back into faith.

Shin

Here is another theoretical (not experiential) lesson.

The vision (Chochma) that follows from the guiding principle of Taf (qua Keter) is to use the range of possibilities of what is possible, defining them (i.e. that set) as the very mechanism of action which will result in connecting to the Infinite.

For intuition here is an example: I can pray. What are all the different thoughts and feeling I have about praying now? (Don’t need to elaborately list, just get a sense for what’s involved). Isolate two extreme poles within that set – e.g. pray with perfect determination, and pray in a way that is convenient and sympathises with my other worries in life. Now conclude: It is precisely that landscape (between the poles of perfect and negotiated focus) that is the setting for our highest purpose; those two poles and the space between them, just by existing, connect us to the Infinite. This landscape is a field of opportunity for drawing nearer – and if we didn’t have both poles, we could not move away from one area and towards another. This landscape is also self-proving, as moving away from perfection lowers our holiness, and thus makes us an inverted proof of what was being sought.

This thesis will use the following: a form^[4] of our field of engagement^[5] is the landscape of what (i.e. qua plurality) we want to do within that particular moment^[6].

Reish

Here is another theoretical lesson.

The specific speciation^[7] that can occur within that vision (shin) are the mutually exclusive^[8], and independently sufficient cartographies that we can use to manifest that vision. I call it “cartography” because it can be thought of as a map (or perhaps as “standard operating procedures”) for aiming one’s life, but it is more intuitively recognised as “character” (insofar as “characters” are chosen). This is the synthesis (bina) which follows shin.

E.g. Learning Torah and struggling to understand. The field of engagement includes the poles of perfect study and compromised study; the field includes that range. There are different strategies one can use: detail by detail commitment to the effort to understand; understanding what one can, and using the urge to compromise as permission to achieve an imperfect study, which can be used as a platform for perfecting. Both of these strategies serve the vision, but they are different species.

This thesis will use the following: we use characters as vehicles^[9] for our purposes.

Kuf

Where taf was our purest purpose, kuf is our intermediate means. It is simultaneously all the expressions of will (ratzon le ratzon), and also the drive to sanctify and elevate.

I think it is helpful to have a paradigm, even if very rough^[10], for what kedusha is.

I think prostitution is an intuitive example. A zona is kadosh, viz. If a woman has many partners, or if she has many partners and receives money, she is sleeping without regard for wedlock, and/or corrupting those actions by financial desire. However, by segregating the zona, she cuts her actions away from wedlock and into economic service. Thus the thing that is kadosh is something that creates a new logos for itself.

I think of Avraham receiving the blessing of the stars (explained to place him above mazal) as kedushat yisrael^[11]. When something acts kadosh relative to something else, it acts with a logic which is incomprehensible to that else, and yet (profoundly) without contradicting the lower logic.

This thesis will use the following: To aim for the Infinite, we must engage our reality at the highest level possible. (This will be given context with the next two letters).

Tzadik

Interacting with abstractions with the reality that supersede the level of awareness, means conforming and contorting what we do. This means doing things without recognising their efficacy.

For example: To “keep” Shabbat means to obey certain laws, without comprehending why those need by the laws. Less obviously, it is obvious to us that one must use a car in a certain way (physically), but it is less obvious why we would need to host certain thoughts whilst praying (as opposed to the physical pronunciation) – however, the efficacy of tefilla may depend on such factors, even though we can’t see how.

To start thinking about levels of our experience’s abstractions, I’ll start with a simplified model:

Let’s imagine four levels: (1) physical (incl. Physical sense inputs); (2) feelings (by which I mean whether we like, dislike, or have no obvious interest in the subject); (3) beliefs (by which I mean the population and system of thoughts that define what we believe); (4) will (this is not simple to explain – try thinking of “as cause is to effect, will is to preference).

Now let’s use a simple example to explain the purpose of these levels (qua abstractions): (1) person’s skin is burned, eliciting a burning sensation; (2) this correlates with a dislike (feeling); (3) with a belief that one should not feel pain; (4) with a motivation to not be burned more. This is useful for (a) delineating modules of experience which are normally so closely overlapped as to be thought singular (e.g. burning sensation is not-identical to the dislike of burning); (b) it allows us to start thinking of different attributes of a single mode^[12]. Viz.:

Imagine^[13] that if you could “translate” the sensation of burning, from the language of sensation into the language of feeling, belief, and will, it would look/be-experienced as the dislike-of-burning, the belief-in-not-burning, the will-to-not-burn.

Now more complicated: a case (1) at the level of physical sensations, there is the proprioception (of the body’s shape), back pain, and a smell of jasmine; (3) there are thoughts dispersed including plans for some obligation, and these are unfolding, and almost nothing else that is noticeable. This is useful for (a) comprehending how the “things that are happening”, whilst occurring at all levels, are not equally noticeable on all levels; (b) how the “happenings” do not necessarily translate by any logic that is intuitive^[14].

Imagine, that shape of the body translated into thoughts, becomes the the likelihood of domains x and y informing each other (i.e. if there are domains of thoughts, e.g. thoughts for fear, and thoughts for problem-solving, they “inform” each other to the extent that one domain is processing possibilities, the other’s resources and expertise are shared, or seed inspiration, etc). Imagine that the shape of the body correlates to the number of thoughts involving fear, and problem-solving that occur together.

Imagine that the thoughts about plans/obligations, when translated into bodily-sensations, is a very slight tingle between the fingers, and an imperceptible brush on one shoulder, and contributes to sensitivity to back-pain.

This thesis will use^[15] the following: everything that we do occurs at all our levels of being, but sometimes we can only affect or notice actions/reactions on a particular level, even though the logic of that particular level’s engagement is not comprehensible intuitively.

Pei

The population of possibilities for any particular ethos is everything we could ever do or say or think about it.

To appreciate this we can exercise the following: (a) noticing the anchors within a variable perspective; (b) interpreting life as if is a dream. The former lets us hold onto that which is otherwise undefinable (i.e. not definable as a singular-unchanging thing). The latter lets us seek the characteristics of reality, without being constrained by, (and transcending) naive assumptions^[16].

To notice anchors, first generic instructions. Brainstorm one parameter across one/multiple objects, then observe other objects and notice novelty of thoughts.

Now instructions specific to this thesis’ mission. Analyse the sefirot that underlay a mundane thing, seek whether there are more arenas of one’s life that at-all resembles/contains that pattern of sefirot, and then deconstruct what the “waking self” is “dreaming about”.

This thesis will use: the pressure points of reality and choice must be decoded.

Ayin

The vision of a desire (the tzadik of a kuf) can nurture (itself, and its target) by empowering that quality which most epitomises its talents.

In our mission, this can pertain to: (a) our self-nurturing, (b) nurturing our kindness to our Creator, (c) kindness to our Creator.

To improve/help ourselves at this level, is to identify what talent epitomises our vision of ourselves (in general, or in a specific case, to identify what talent of ours most empowers the specific case’s goals), and to act to empower (e.g. educate, assist, exercise, etc) that/those abilities.

To improve the way we do kind acts is to similarly identify which our abilities best serve that act (e.g. ability which makes us to the act, or ability which improves the act’s effect).

To improve our kind acts to the Creator includes what is recognisable in the mitzvot, and involves (per ayin) identifying the powers we can employ within the act, in addition to the actual action, (nb. Whilst not necessary for the act’s qualification, empower to the extent that they make sense of the ethos of the mitzvah).

This thesis will use: a measure of nutritive quality as depending on its effects on powers (cf. As differentiated from nutrition that is based on enrichment via accumulation of experience, knowledge, materials, or states of affairs).

Samech

The balance between the nutritive (ayin) and the ethical results in (a) a logic for finessing purpose, and (b) a foundation for an epistemology that is also an aesthetic<^[17].

To understand how the latter derives from the former: to judge what is fair in a certain case, can result in disciplining the guilty, but one can prevent the wrong from persisting by (instead of restricting its capacities) empowering that talents (ayin) that enable the wrong to self-rectify. The logic which proves that both the pure disciplinary judgement and the sympathetic empowerment, are both precursors to an ideal state – that logic, is aesthetic. It is aesthetic insofar as it reveals different ways of seeing one thing.

We employ samech in its aesthetic character when using metaphors for designing a plan that overlaps levels of being (or even just powers of being at any one level). This should be exemplified and explained in the context of Torah study, but obviously occurs in any tradition involving simanim (e.g. apple dipped in honey, allows us to deconstruct, intentionally^[18] focus, and overlap the former with the experiential engagement).

This thesis will use: communication between nutrition and discipline to strengthen both, and communication based on harmony^[19] of meaning (not on identity of meaning).

Nun

If we take everything we could think about a certain goal (viz. Peh) and then measure a particular act against that (hypothetical) array of thoughts, then some statements would prove the value of the act, and some would prove the cost (or lack of validity) of the act.

To judge an act, means a verdict describing (a) what needs to change for it to be ideal, and/or (b) associating ownership of the pain/cost onto the act itself.

E.g. I touch a muktzah object on Shabbat. To judge this act, involves (a) consideration of what is known that is relevant (e.g. circumstances, and halacha), knowing what one needed to do, to do (e.g. for teshuva, or to build a “fence”), and (b) training the mind that “I can (physically) touch a muktza on and I may derive a benefit; doing so^[20] results in tarnishing my soul, and adding burdens to my spiritual journey, etc”.

Mem

We impose ourselves in the ways that we identify a potential for unlimited (normally incremental) accumulation of efficacy.

Lamed

We finesse generation-ability by balancing our potential to pursue a course ad infinitum, vs to our potential to contort to something (e.g. rules) that lie outside our nature. These two poles can be considered as the limits of our designing ourselves, between what we can do and what we need to do.

Such a balancing results in: (a) a devolved harmony (samech), (b) the efforts of expansion and restriction within any venture, (c) a logos of education of powers, (d) the fulcrum for generating vectors of intention.

E.g.’s: (a) I judge (nun) my prayer to be irreverent, but instead of purely disliking my irreverence, I task myself to improve my general concentration. That creative solution, (b) implies a new balance between efforts to accumulate and efforts to fix. Similarly, the creative solution (c) can be generalised and applied to other contexts, and (d) births a vector^[21] in our mind to do more that is aligned with this balance/lesson.

This thesis will use: We navigate our desires between the reigns of expansion and correction, and we use these to generate autonomous vectors – for the purpose of coordinating the vehicle that is our being.

Caf

We conform to instruction in the ways that we coerce ourselves accordingly, and in doing so imitate (or hone our share in) their expertise.

E.g. in conforming to rules of Shabbat, become vessels for conducting the kedusha of Shabbat. In conforming to yiryat shamayim in limud Torah^[22] we become vessels for understanding the Torah.

Yud

All our motivating desires (kuf) are general and find their specific expression by way of particular opportunities and intentions.

E.g. I want to pray with focus, so when I lose focus, I instantiate a transient purpose “try and increase focus right now and here”. Or, I want to be healthy, and instantiate, “look for (or eat) food”.

Tet

An instantiated intention (yud), employs inspiration to direct its self-planning. We use inspiration qua tet by intuiting the most optimistic approach.

Chet

We use planning qua chet by devising the most self-promoting algorithm. Thus chet is idealised in any intention, to the extent that the expression of the intention (if done so repeatedly) contains allowances for what is needed, and ensures that the unfolding of the intention is self-perpetuating.

Zayin

We employ^[23] kindness qua zayin as (a) a devolution of tet, and (b) a method for nurturing. Tet hopes for what’s best, and zayin acts to give a subject that which sustains it (e.g. that which it needs for vitality, or which an aspect of it needs for its vitality) and/or that which prevents it from being harmed

Vav

When biased towards nurturing or towards disciplining, we simultaneously balance those poles by cross-contextualising their vectors. This is done by responding to the imagined voice of each pole in an alternating fashion.

This thesis will use: We can balance our efforts, and avoid non-dialectical vectors, by cross-contextualising polar powers.

E.g.^[24] Too much growth in Torah study, but no worry about accuracy of study (i.e. too much Chessed not enough Gevura): “the study is flawed and vulnerable to corrupting mistakes”, “it is virtuous to have been bothered by that”, “but not enough, one must reform”, “should do so in best way”, “not enough to want best, must ascertain what should be done”, “should brainstorm”, “do it as a priority”.

Heh

We employ antipathy to define opportunities for correction.

Daled

We overcome obstacles and improve our resilience by engaging each cross-current as (a) an opportunity for overcoming, and (b) thus as a portal that (once, or via, overcoming) reveals new territory for expansion.

Gimel

We merge separate (or in-congruent) things by balancing their influence, in the manner of aa dialectic^[25], that reveals a new, greater, synthesis.

Bet

We need to submit ourselves to a course not only for its function (cf. Caf) but also qua the smaller face of a yin-yang; there are things that are existentially prior, but mechanistically later, and to cooperate with them, means to act for the sake of acting (knowing that if the action could be avoided, or if it was not a challenge, then it would tautologically have no purpose).

E.g.^[26] tefila of korbanot………

Aleph

Our actions are prisms and portals for reaching across the levels of being.

Part two

Because there is so much foundational information for the complete application of this part of the thesis, I will piecemeal general explanations alongside the letters’.

Thesis part two: The letters and words of the aleph bet can be read as constellations across a matrix of existential dimension. Studying the letters in this way can (1) reveal a stunning beauty and sublime suitability re. The letters that combine into a word’s meaning. Also, this type of study, (2) exemplifies, and trains recognition of the phenomenological correlate of the Torah. Also, (3) allows words to be run as algorithms by way of experientially “reading” them, nb. re. Torah.

Necessary background……

[Try to categorise additional aspects and in order of utility and communicability]

Aleph

I wondered^[27] at why there are 22 (plus 5) letters, and attempted to use what I knew about seder histalshelut and the partzufim as a template. I order the letters from aleph as malchut of yetzira, to yud as keter of yetzira, then caf as hod of briya to kuf as keter of briya, then reish-taf as bina-keter at atzilut. Aside from being a fit which makes sense of why the 100’s only go through to 400 (in the “ordinary” letters, viz. re. Partzuf of atik yamim); matches the passive aspect of malchut per aleph; also is conceptually intuitive as-if we are looking “up” from appearances towards the noumenal, and thus we are seeing the metaphysical intermediary dimensions from the bottom up; also solves problem of overlapping high-malchut and low-keter per transition between decimal orders of magnitude^[28].

This generic categorization of the letters lets call, the sefira pattern: malchut of yetzira (for aleph).

In thinking about the sefira pattern of a letter, should contemplate:

1. What is this sefira, and how is it seen in my experiences (or in the world)?
2. What olam is its level, and how is that sefira-in-olam experienced, and what are the effects of increasing/decreasing its power?
3. What partzuf hosts the sefira, and what role does it play in its ontogenesis.

I separate Appendix – Perceiving levels of being.

Note that aleph has some peculiar features: it can be a passive receptacle, it is the only expression (and thus can be further wondered by way of rachel and leah, and bgadim of bina).

Note that familiarity with the sefira pattern and levels of being is sufficient for appreciating the astounding aesthetics of some words. I separate Appendix – Contemplating Caf-Lamed-Beit (kelev).

Bet

Sefira pattern: hod in yetzira.

Nb. when thinking about this sefira-olam in one’s being, there is a difference between imagining an intention that provokes hod, vs the hod within an intention. I understand the latter to be accurately relevant.

This method for beginning one’s intuition for aleph-bet begins with a theoretical framework of each letter, ascribing its character, power, and its place in the matrix/layers of being. The resulting intuition is generic and based on first principles and a technical series of annotations, comparable to a purely theoretical periodic table derived from principles of nuclei and electrons. Thus it lacks the idiosyncrasy and complexity of the actualised elements, whether qua pure sample for physical chemistry, or increasingly surprising variegation for organic chemistry.

Let’s call archetypal character, the characteristics that traditional rabbinical commentaries attribute to a letter, and their archetypal words/referents. E.g.:

1. Duality
   1. Oral and written law
   2. Positive and negative mitzvot
2. An object deriving its meaning from later or external scenarios
   1. Breisheit
   2. Yisrael
3. Dedicated, enclosing structure
   1. Wife for husband
   2. Beit hamikdash

In thinking about the archetypal character of a letter, should contemplate:

1. How does each example (uniquely) illustrate the feature?
2. How does the set of examples illustrate the feature?
3. How does the feature (e.g. duality) exemplify the sefira (e.g. hod) in each example?
4. What is the role of the sefira in the feature (both generally and specifically)?
5. What is the abstract feature, that is learned from a comparison of archetypes (e.g. duality and structure)? And specifically the manifestation of the letter’s sefira across archetypes?
6. (What is the role of the letter (e.g. beit) in the word (e.g. bayit), such that it exemplifies the sefira?)

By now we can start to think of each letter as a being viewable from multiple angles, and by way of its plurality of facets. It is valuable to collect these facets^[29].

Gimel

Sefira pattern: yichud in yetzirah.

Archetypal character: e.g. ripen (e.g. wean), blend (e.g. forefathers), diverting (e.g. kindness by Avraham).

Although the traditional archetypes of letters have been introduced, there are two particular primary sources worth investigation (i.e. a methodology for their use here): Talmud Shabat in its explanation of the aleph-bet, and the Tanach where letters are uniquely sized or displaced.

For a given letter’s description in the Talmud:

1. How does the title (e.g. gemul for gimel) relate to what is known of the letter? And furthermore, the title as part of an association (e.g. gemul in gemul dalim)?^[30]
2. What does the word-name of the letter suggest?^[31]
3. How do the word-name and the title mirror each other?

For a given letter’s unique appearance in the Tanach:

1. Hypothesise that the change to the letter causes a change to meaning, that stems from mutation of the letter’s natural/normal characteristics. What do commentaries explain? And how does the change to meaning relate to the letter?
2. Study commonalities of alteration (e.g. between all enlargements, or vertical displacement).^[32]

Collect facets and contemplate.

Daled

Appendix: How to perceive levels of being

It is helpful to first become acquainted with the objects of the phenomenon (viz. Experienced experience) as separate and by species.

Start by noticing a random thought. For example, planning for x tomorrow, or frustration with not understanding y.

1. Let’s (nb. this is a temporary, transient step) call the ideas relating to the planning (incl. Images, general intentions, and ideas) “thoughts”.
2. Now look for how you “feel” about the thoughts. By “feel” let’s mean<^[33], in what things are we attracted to think those thoughts more, and in what to think less (i.e. don’t want to think on them). For example, I don’t like (viz. Feel negatively) thinking about the things that can go wrong tomorrow, but I feel attracted to thinking about details I can organize.
3. Now let’s look for how those feelings correlate with physical sensations (esp. in chest and neck). These may be unnoticeable, or there may be moments of tension that overlap with negative feelings. Let’s call these the “sensations”.

Thus we’ve^[34] identified thoughts (as occurring in the imagination, and containing ideas, memories, plans, intentions), feelings (as the force of attraction and rejection to phenomenal objects), and sensations.

Now develop (esp. in communication with your own beliefs regarding the relationships between abstractions or levels of our being) perspectives of the levels. It is helpful to use 4 levels, with a physical level or level in which action occurs.

This one is generic and useful^[35].

1. Expressions, as thoughts, speech, and physical action
2. Feelings, that manifest as like and dislike of expressions
3. Judgements, that employ values and beliefs to evaluate that appropriateness of feelings
4. Desire/purpose, that selects how to deploy judgement according to a logic of “this is what I am and this is what I want” (aka will).

As one becomes more abstract:

1. Expressions
2. The design of the expressions
3. The potential of designs
4. The conceivably of potentials

The previous perspective is fairly close to parallel descriptions of the four worlds. However the next are worthwhile for adding texture, and thus these different descriptions serve two purposes: (1) they highlight different aspects of the same four worlds; (2) they allow contemplating different ways in which a person’s attributes of experience are abstracted, and thus in their various practices, teach a wisdom of the spaces between the spaces of being’s abstractions.

And further:

1. Expressions
2. Inclinations
3. Motivations
4. Purpose

And further:

1. Expressions
2. Preference
3. Ethos
4. Ethics and beliefs

All of these are crude, but that should not be reason for disdaining their practice. They are crude, since they suggest that forces of attraction/rejection are limited to one level, etc., when in fact all the levels contain (a) a cognitive element, (b) a moral element (incl. Love vs strife), (c) an element of force. These correspond to (a) daat-chochma-bina, (b) chesed-tiferet-gevura, (c) netzach-yichud-hod.

Appendix – how to see the letters of kelev

….

1By pairs and

triplets and

as chaining across, and

down,

5synchronizing across layers,

by study of shapes,

by study of phonetics,

talmud shabat

creation utterances

“” days

in phen’

in metaphysics

in divine

to divine

9words:

10as static

as unfolding

as algorithm

iterative method

14by reference/definition

?pulley system

?hidden stars

?installing the Torah

?e.g. of difficult words

“sof ma’aseh”

20 ?e.g. of use for “genetics”

debugging/testing

22resolution and resolution-independence

seen vs flattened letters

(animals) unique case re adam

Familiarity can be improved by contemplating each letter as a lens from which to study every other.

{Part 7 – 21/12/2016}

Somewhere in the Mediterranean archipelagos, a man returned from a journey that had taken him years. His name was Pythagoras, and he had studied geometry with the priests of Egypt. The Egyptians lacked the Greek propensity to abstract and generalise, and so hadn’t made the discovery that seemed impossible: the world is made of numbers. The cult that arose proved this astonishing fact by demonstrating that numbers were the compositional parts of music. And wasn’t that enough! How can the pleasure and harmony of music be defined by sheer ideas! The Pythagoreans kept most of their beliefs secret, but some of their ideas spread into the other philosophical community’s during their lifetime and later too. Thus most of those who claimed to love wisdom would come to claim: the source of all reality is the number One, which is by itself the source of the infinite and good.

How can numbers make music? What author would write such an elegant solution? What author would make the numbers which the human can think, also the substrate for all that the human saw? And this wonder continues renewed with the aesthetically wonder that is seen throughout physics and the frontiers of mathematics. And science and engineering too. How is it that the world can be explained so perfectly with numbers! What an unbelievable thing.^[36]

We count in orders of 10, although there are other ways to count. And this is sensible, since we have 10 fingers that are our most ubiquitous calculator, and our original abacus. But 12 is sensible too, since it permits more factors in the natural series, and thus some applications, and times and places, are permeated by 12’s and 60’s.

10 is the number that everyone uses for the orders of counting, although there is no reason to say that it is special. If anything 12 is special since it benefits simple markets and fractions of time. For the order 10 to be special, they would have to reveal something not seen in any other order of numbers produced by any other nations and brotherhoods known.

Numbers are good for measuring, and equations for physics, and the probabilities that forecast economics and disease, and for generating analyses in the data-collection centres. But they are not good for describing the texture of an apple, or the difference between emotions, or the peculiarity of a memory, or many other things.

Those that came after Pythagoras tried to show that all our ideas could be traced to the number One, and the plurality of numbers and shapes that it generated. But they could not do much to explain how they saw these things in the world, and instead focused on admiring perfection.

Before there was arithmetic, there was geometry. So maybe shapes come from numbers. And after arithmetic came algebra and calculus, so maybe from shapes come changes. And after calculus came set theory and linear algebra, so maybe from changes comes logic and possibilities. But where are dogs cast into their strange shapes and tendencies?

Someone said, maybe the One is thinking about dogs. And then those who were called wise were impressed, because if the infinite is not the origin of all ideas, then there is nowhere else for them to originate.

But the problems they had started with refused to dissolve into this vision. Which ideas exist and which don’t? Dogs exist, what about three-quarter dogs, are they an idea too? Plato said they are ideas mixing. And what about the category of dogs, or the category of category and so forth, of dogs. And Parmenides said this, and some said he was the smartest.

And there things stayed for the next 1500 years. However, the gurus along the Indus river had watched the breath and discovered the mind in details unparalleled in its dedication and focus anywhere in the globe.

The mind was bundled learning and pushing, and with a consciousness that was not just the window, but also a lens which could become brittle or still or sway in the wind, and more things that were known to be known when seen but not when told.

Thus was born a distrust for names, which point to thoughts and not to the thing meant. But also a finesse that resulted in massive tomes describing features and mechanisms, and methodologies for exploration.

Numbers may describe what is seen – they said with wisdom, for they had given space to think “zero” – but they are not the mechanism or stuff that results in our experienced life. Numbers can only be known in ideas, and discursive thought. Certainly, the mind had some admirable dhamma for thinking with numbers, but this too was just a part of the mind.

Thus they announced that reality is known by the mind, and the mind is known by frames of reference, and frames of reference experienced according to qualities of the mind, and their objects cannot be named. And, they said for this keen to test, should you see that this is true in your mind too, then you may look for the logic of the unfolding, and you will see that life is ruled by a propensity for ignorance and all changes by conditioning.

What an amazing achievement. That a person could look at his breath to study the cosmos is the paragon proof that this world begat us with the tools for discovery right in front of us. But there is no logic for words, since they are discursive, and that which is discursive is anthropological and unexplainable beyond what is historical.

What an amazing achievement. The world is made of experiences, and though they look complicated with names and textures, they are all formed by a few types of experiences, a few qualities, and the rest is a distraction.

Who would have authored a world that is seen in numbers and appearances too, and in appearances and separable bundles of consciousness too? But why these bundles, and these divisions, and how do they carry the words we name their images?

And when a new morning brought the first crops from new thoughts in the West, they would not have recognized those questions, but they unintentionally addressed them as they best knew: How can the things in the world affect the thoughts in the mind? And this is a mighty question that necessitates large revolutions that reposition what was thought known. Hundreds of years and the epoch that turned all minds in the West inside-out, though many may not have noticed, happened when a book said that what we thought were conditions of reality were conditions of the mind, which transformed the unknowable world into the thinkable world of experiences.

And though he did much more, with this least-violent of great revolutions, was introduced for many the notion that the world was known through a frame of limits, like the way a glass screen can be used to look outside but not at its own form. And that prism that was the nexus for all that was knowable, was called the limits of all that could be said of the self.

And in this way, with various slants and tints, the wise discovered that reality was studied as a prism, so that the mind, and the world presumed to be beyond it, became part of a single imagined great wisdom. But this field remained dark, although many sophisticated advances in description and conception were added.

And it is amazing, that the world can be both the mind and its exterior, seen in the singular. And it is amazing that everything can be explained by either explaining how the parts of the mind conditioned what could be experienced, or by explaining what was seen by the limits of what could ever be sought.

And it is amazing that so many authors and pens and disagreements could result in a vision that brought all these things together. For who amongst us would have imagined this solution? And who amongst us can justify that so much could be known? And how amazing that the simple vision is only the surface of such deep and twisted waters?

[? Interject with the spiel on “All the philosophers and mystics agree…”]

End with a yearning for such a gift, saying that it cannot be made without adding words and tropes without benefit for discovery.

Kabbalah is a great gift that has never been understood by the world not gestated in the homes of its wisdom. For how could they? It has no precedence, which is precisely why similarities in the shapes of its ideas have been presumed as similarity in ideas. And why this should be thought is both obviously tempting and obviously without merit.

Kabbalah is the impossible achievement in description. It is the description whose multiplicity of applicability can be used to study each any facet of the prism that is all. It is the map for all maps, and so explains not only the metaphysics of the external, but also the framework for our experiences, and can similarly be used to study the scripts of our existential-burdened or emotion-tinted day-by-day lived lives. No less does it explain that which some call spiritual and some call transcendental and would have been though undescribable by definition. But Kabbalah even explains what causes the logic of the unknowable origin as they become limited to the knowable, and this is impossible, except that its solutions were never dreamt by any creative genius to have tested their rigour, and that unfathomable revolution of what is knowable, is by itself cause for awe and amazement. And if this list of things unique and without parallel were not enough to give pause for watching the world spin around, as you stand still, as what you thought becomes transparent, and you see the stars as if you had never seen one. If this list were not enough, the primacy of the wisdom of Kabbalah means a new opportunity to understand all theories and paradigms of reality and mind and science too, in terms of a single framework, that explains their strengths, and their limits too. And this would not be conceivable without a wisdom that expands past all others, containing their sparks in the tongues of its flames, and casting a great light for our benefit.

But the gifts of Kabbalah require an admission of utter ignorance and expectation of ideas that match things known but are completely different to all that we know.

First, to protect common errors, here is a warning against what it is not.

The concepts of Kabbalah are not comparable to the categories of logic whether by Kant or Aristotle. Nor to the series of chakras, or the theories of yoga. The only similarities I know is an overlap in a recommendation to conceive of one’s relationship with the unknowable infinite by contemplation, although its theories for the designing of these practices are not found elsewhere.

Further, Kabbalah is not just a theory, although that is great too. It is also tools for perceiving (or attending). And there is a similarity between some methods of the Indians, but in a direction inconceivable by their worldview. Whereas the Indians yoke the mind to frames of the perceivable, the Kabbalist yokes the mind to points of the constellation which underly all perception. And thus combine greatly developed potential for attendance, with a rich lesson that sees the surface whilst looking beneath.

—

The contents of Kabbalah are taught according to two necessities for acquisition: needing to teach the ideas that it uses to know; needing to teach a method for practising its vision. The former has been described by many, but the latter less so. This may be due to the poor appreciation for modes of engagement in the West. But also due to those presumptions which don’t need to say because they are always lived. Thus often only those who return to Judaism can note such peculiarities, as did Levinas who described a unique textual engagement that is wonderous since it resembles the guru’s methods for watching their body’s departments, somehow turned upon the manner of reading. Which is amazing too^[37].

The following methods are instructions which can only benefit by testing their claims.

The first technique is called hitbonenut and is a meta-methodology that explains and advises the acquisition and total integration of new ideas. Its architecture has been sought blindly by cognitive science and theories for learning, but without the unified vision and utility of the hitbonenut’s concise and intuitive framework.

[EXPLAIN HITBONENUT, need to decide on how many examples, how much elaboration does justice without overloading, I reckon good to use the model of the river via Mittler?]

The second technique is not described except in general advice given to Torah scholars, until attempted to be explained to the philosophers by Levinas, who tried to explain how the Jewish tradition used texts with a wisdom that is easy to not recognize by those who don’t know its challenges and capacities. It is the wisdom epitomized by the Talmudic scholar who finds their value in the particulars and not in their abstractions. And this wisdom is difficult to accept since the Hellenistic epistemology became the basis for Western thought, and thus abstractions mistaken as an ideal tool for reason^[38]. And abstractions have value. But there is the knowledge that cannot be made to fit their crude simplicities and data reduced from matrices into classifiers. And perhaps it is only in the recent decade, with the advent of statistically fueled computer analysis, that truths are being sought in these complex variations as the only means for uncovering greatly subtle mechanisms. And in simple contexts, this is the bare reading of a text, that allows ideas to form, but intends to return its trajectory to the literal as often as it knows. And in more complicated contexts, it is the testing of own reason against what is claimed proven, and thus learn to echo some sort of will that underlies the judgments and particular designs of arguments, and that is the will that cannot be written or even said, only learned and engaged^[39].

[EXPLAIN. Think about how to explain concepts like awareness and concentration to an unfamiliar audience.

This may be not necessary for this text but is an incredible exercise to explore.

It adds unneeded complexity, redundant for immediate aims, then move away.]

The greatest revolution of mind’s limits – tzimtzum

Kant was great to realize that some things were beyond investigation, and thus discovered the relativity of the mind which has imprinted itself on all his successors. And there was no path for approaching that non-seen thing, since how could one look beyond a layer defined to be hiding what lies beyond? But Kant did not conceive that there may be an intermediate layer between the unhidden and the source. And furthermore, had to model to imagine a concept that hid but did so in a harmonious fashion. This and more are amazing.

Spinoza was the first in the West to introduces differences in knowing by which the singular thing was seen in two seemingly-incompatible appearances. There are things that occur in both. And there are things that are only seen in one. This truth was too difficult for the tradition to comprehend beyond its novelty and success for explaining.

This concept cannot be done justice here. And so I focus on the most important appreciations and distinctions. Tzitzum is the way information sufficient for recognition of identity is recoded, and with loss of some data and introduction of some new data. The appearance of data before and after tzimtzum cannot be explained, but it can be known as being in harmony with each other.

Very importantly, and also revolutionary, Kabbalah differentiates this form of epistemic transformation and occlusion, from what it calls otiyot (letters) and bgadim (clothes). Thus Kabbalah can look at the transformation of appearance in ways that are known to preserve identity but not in an inexplicable manner (viz. From the logic of the contradicted level) versus that relate internal data points such that the appearance and identity are contained in each other versus that are overlapped with data such that the appearance contains identity but is not identical to it^[40].

[May be more intuitive by assuming a theory of sensations encoding thoughts to help illustrate.]

The two early titans of Western psychology, Freud and Jung, both were fortunate to stumble over new translations of Lurianic texts, which caused both to describe Kabbalah as an astonishing treasure-house. Neither was able to reach far into its depths, and there was no expertise ready to comprehend what was unprecedented and unmeasured.

I don’t explain seder hishtalshelut which explains how the framework underlying the reality originated in the Unlimited. But I do explain an amazing theory I isolate from those ontogenies: partzufim. A partzuf can be simplified as a law of transcendental metaphysics, that enables unity to persist amongst the parts of reality. It thus limits what we can recognize as stemming from the transcendental.

[Our psyche is a unit that is a set unified by dependence for existence. AY, AA, ZA. And bgadim Aba and Ima.]

This combines the capacities of behaviouralism/paccacaya for intuiting mechanism and provides a sense for the unconscious ego of Freud, and a model that explains both CBT and DBT, and improves on all. Further allude to how Kabbalah teaches psychology and offers wisdom that cannot be found elsewhere since no one could think in these terms, let alone develop.

[This is useful not just for psychology, but for here: To sense the phenomenological strata as the model by which everything else is modelled. And thus achieves what no one East and West could: create a phenomenology psychology epistemology metaphysics and mysticism that is domain independent.

And familiarity with strata good for seeing otiyot.]

jhg

how new ideas become familiar and eventually an article for expert intuition. reveals what is half-known but never formalized in one’s sense for how knowledge becomes intuitive. It is claimed that the latter strengthens one’s ability to engage the text with focus and designed intention.

Kabbalah is the master guide to reality. It explains its metaphysics. It explains our experiences. It experiences our existential and emotional lives. It explains the spiritual and the physical both. It is a model which contains the most primary ideas for investigating, and for deconstructing what has been found by others.

A core concept in K is that of otiyot (signs or letters) and bgadim (clothes, henceforth metaphors). A letter is something that looks like what it is. While a metaphor is something which overlaps with the thing but is not the same.

For example, any particular Hebrew letter is an otiyot for itself. Since it is what it is. But an idea that we have in our head is a metaphor, it is the way we enclothe the idea to make it comprehensible and useful.

The shape of a circle is an otiyot for our idea of a circle. But the particular shape and colour makes the image into a metaphor for the pure idea we had in our head.

Metaphors can sprawl much further from their source than these examples have illustrated.

A nation is known as a “tiger” to encompass the overlap between its identity and its prowess in accelerating economic growth.

A thing is called an “emotion” to encompass a set of physical sensations, forces of attention, ideas, and pattern of ideas.

But another person may want to talk about the same sensation but call it a “mula” because they want to overlap those features but also its genre as being a primary law of the mind. And yet another may talk with names that only partially overlap these sets, or which add other particular contexts or imply peculiar associations.

Metaphors can be bidirectional. A lion is a king. A king is a lion. For the first we mean that the lion rules the jungle. In the second that the king is dominant in his kingdom. Metaphors can be crossed to reveal the dominant features of one name where they occur in another. A good metaphor informs by making us aware of the most useful properties of things.

This can become complicated.

How is a house like a bird? The roof of a house protects from rain, so the roof of a bird would be the water-resistance of its feathers, or its ability to hide under branches. The bones of the bird give it a shape that suits its flight, so the bones of a house are its foundations and frames and the intelligence of their material selections. These are not very useful.

To compare complicated pairs we need to decide what the key features and properties are. Let me decide: A house is made up of walls, doors, and all the needs of a family inside. A bird is made up of feathers, a chirp, and an ability to fly. I say that in the house the walls are for resisting elements, the doors to allowing control of security, and the insides to make the family comfortable. And I say that in the bird, the feathers are to maximize its ability to push against air, that its chirp is to find a mate, and it flies to find food and safety.

So how is a house like a bird? A house doesn’t need to push air, but a bird only does that for its flying, which is its means for safety. So the house flies to find food and security by allowing its doors to be controlled and insides furnished by those that live in it.

Still very confusing, but we learn a lesson: The more abstract and monadic a property is, the easier it is to map across metaphors. So let’s redefine a bird to be: intelligence, that is the intelligence within the choice of its materials; beauty, that is the beauty that brings it a family; and expertise, that is its ability to do what it is supposed to achieve in the manner expected.

Thus a house is like a bird because its roof is made water resistance, it is painted to bring comfort to its family, and it has space for belongings and furniture and a door that can be locked.

It is not very helpful to know that the beauty in bird’s call is like the wallpaper of a house.

(And although we could improve the above technique to make it insightful) we would do better to plan our method for abstracting.

So far we’ve thought that things have “most notable properties” and we just chose and named them at whim. But is it right to say that the aesthetic we see in a pattern, is the same as the Feng Shui of a living room? Probably. But what about the colours of the rug, and the utility of the kitchen? Probably. Yes it is, but what made these examples helpful is that they were in a single paradigm. What about the wallpaper, and the balancing of mate-selection and food-acquisition in a bird? And what about the bird’s balancing priorities versus the balance of entertaining space in the house? This example feels clearer than the previous.

We do well to define levels of abstraction, that way we knew what sort of comparisons we were making.

Let me make them up.

Let’s call the first that which is seen or appearances occurring to the senses.

And the second the design of appearances.

And the third the possibility of design.

And the fourth the conceivability of design.

If I said that the eye was a unique optimization of space balanced with function, then I would perhaps say that this is the archetype of what it means to conceive of the perfection of parts. Whereas if an eye’s ability to occur in another way was made apparent in some new species, then I would say that a possibility for eyes had been shown to the notable impression. And if something that was possible for eyes, perhaps to see multiple colours, were done so in a unique manner, for example by the use of some strange protein, then I would say a new protein had been conceived and a new way of seeing designed. And if the iris was very black, I would make reference to its appearance.

But how would we use these levels when thinking about “I wanted ice-cream”. Everything is conceivable and possible and designable and appearing in the mind in the same way. So let’s give them more intuitive labels, because what we’re after are the key paradigms that abstract one from another for something to be.

Let’s call the first, that which is felt.

And the second, that which is inclined.

And the third, that which is judged.

And the third, that which is willed.

I wanted ice-cream means that there is a thing called ice-cream, that reveals itself in my experience at different levels. At the highest level, it is the way I want it, and there is no justification for will, only a sense of it as focused awareness. At the next level is the reason which the will chose, and we can imagine one here, It is right to want ice-cream because we deserve to be gratified. And will chose to fixate via this. And then there was the inclination, which attracted us to the ice-cream. And finally, there was the feeling, which was a sensation of appetite in the stomach and the moisture of a salivating mouth.

Are these really useful?

Let’s see if they help compare, “I want ice-cream” as described, with the object “eye” as described.

An iris in appearances is visual and black, akin to the appearance of a desired ice-cream as a wet tongue.

Still not useful, let’s keep going.

The design of an eye is its protein pathways, while the intention of the desired is the force that makes its experience attractive.

Still not useful, what’s wrong?

We forgot one of our first lessons. It’s good to identify levels. But we also have to situate traits within genres. It’s no good comparing the craftsmanship of a design, with the strength of appetite. Let’s add these for the next.

The inspiration trait of an eye’s possibilities is according to its novelty. The inspiration trait of the judgment of ice-cream is according to an axis of things-deserved.

Hmmm.

The aesthetics of an eye’s conceivability is the balance of its need to benefit and costs of implementation. The aesthetics of the wanted ice-cream’s will is the balance between willing that balances all the thing’s wanted, and all the ways it could want them.

These still don’t seem helpful.

Who said they would be? You’re still starting.

We’ve introduced some very important ideas, no matter that we did so very imperfectly.

Here are two you may not have noticed: (1) ideas, and anything else, has a form, this is like the what-ness in which the thing is given measure. A ball has the form of space, because we weigh its size. And aesthetics has the weight of harmony, and colours have the form of colours and boundaries. Also, (2) ideas and anything else are constructed by using concepts, which are like rules or principles for their manipulation. For example, the eye’s aesthetics in the visual form might be constructed by using the idea of fractal patterns, or a theory of colour temperature.

Sometimes things which look very different, just have different forms. Saying that the house and the road are apart from each other, occurs in the form of space. While saying that the bird is designed with greater finesse, occurs in the form of creativity. But both the distance to the road, and that which makes the bird a greater design, are ideas constructed by using the concept of differential, or difference.

What’s the difference between two planets ten light years apart in distance, and a planet which disappears and another one which is born in 10 years? We intuit they are very different things, because of the way we experience them, but in abstraction, they can be given identical labels when helpful.

So let’s be strict with our forms and concepts and levels. How is a house like a bird?

Let me choose just two properties of the house this time, but be more careful in my descriptions. A house is made up of encircling walls and a door with a lock.

The walls are for keeping out the elements, and they are painted to be attractive, and they are designed to suit the culture, and they protect by being impervious to the presence of elements, and they are prone to decay and peeling and need to be washed and repainted. We have forms of durability, aesthetics, and partnership.

A bird has walls like a house, since it uses skin and feathers to give itself durability against the outside world, and their pattern doesn’t cause discord in its habitat, and any skin and feathers protect it because they are durable in opposition to other biological matter and the free passage of large molecules, and they flake and drop, and depend on the cycles of mitogenesis for replenishment.

What happened to the forms and concepts? I kept them subtle. Here are the analogies again.

Houses and bird are both made with walls which give them power in the form of durability, and this power is aimed against wind and germs, measured according to a form of resistance. And the walls have a power of integration with the council and tree-camouflage. And also a power to depend, with the occupying family, and the life-cycle of the bird (since the family and life-cycle help the walls, and in doing so, ensure their own health).

Does it sense at all right that the way skin uses the surface tension of its cells to repel water and the pattern of its feather’s threads to direct drops downwards is analogous to the way the corrugated iron roof leads the water down a pipe? The angling of feather and positioning of drain-pipes are the same thing, in different contexts.

Metaphors show us how the abilities of different things are not arranged in the same order. And if they were, then we might not have reason to call them different names. The security afforded by a lock is like the shape of a wallet that enables it to fit in a pocket away from other’s reach. The allure of a bird for mateship is ensured by its colours and calls and localization in habitat. The allure of cigarettes is ensured by nicotine and cultural and marketing designs and norms.

A particular set of abstract properties may reveal more about one thing than about another.

Take these properties: Intelligent construction as a theory applied within the form of options, ripening as a mechanism applied within the form of integrating, and leading by telling where to go as mechanism applied within the form of integrating.

How do they suit foot versus dog?

{Part 8 – 29/12/2016}

I’ll go through Breisheit, explaining words, trying to show as many different methods as I can.

Bara, bet reish aleph.

Something is done for something else

by revealing new possibilities

ending in a new expression

Et, aleph taf.

An expression

which implies but doesn’t define

the truth of the thing.

Shamayim, shin mem aleph mem-sofit.

That which draws together everything

to bring out the potential power

whose pointing out

is the pointing out of the total power in reserve.

Aretz, aleph reish tzadik-sofit.

An expression (or prism for reality)

which brings out new possibilities

to end in what was meant to be.

Tohu, taf heh vav.

The truth of a thing (which is also its purpose)

which is symmetrical with

its delineation

and all that is contained within that delineation.

Vohu, bet heh vav.

The power of a thing to be for something else

which is symmetrical with

its delineation, and all that is contained within that delineation.

Ruach, reish vav chet

 

An undescribed possibilities

within which

is its self-perpetuating design

(and only that design is seen).

Pnei, peh, nun yud.

This is a good opportunity for describing a method:

This is the method for looking at letters at bridges.

Here the nun bridges the peh and yud.

Nun acts like a bridge between mem and samech.

Nun is the balance between potential power and the paradigm of the thing.

It is the faithfulness of a thing to itself.

Can look at peh as providing power, and yud (the thing which is pointed at by nun) as the paradigm.

Or peh as the paradigm, and yud as the potential power.

Peh is the ethos of what capacities should be expressed, and which kept in reserve.

The power of this ethos to enforce is balanced by the result (yud) of that which is balancing (nun) that power.

The paradigm of this ethos (peh) to define is balanced by the power of the end result (yud) to manifest.

A power to reveal its nature

is done faithfully

such as is shown.

Mayim, mem yud mem-sofit.

That which expresses its power

and points to itself

thus implying (but not explicitly) its total potential power.

Or, aleph vav reish

A hidden expression

ends in a hidden new possibilities

all that is seen is the balance between them.

Tov, tet vav bet

An inspiration for things to be done given optimistic circumstances

is symmetrical with

its power to be for something else.

Yom, yud vav mem-sofit.

An implicit pointing to something

which is symmetrical with

all the potential power in reserve of the thing.

Choshech, chet shin caf-sofit

The design of a thing which allows it to be self-sustaining

is symmetrical (though this symmetry is unknowable in itself) with

the bringing together of all of it

into the utter submission of the thing such that it contorts itself to become its own power.

Layla, lamed yud lamed heh

That which learns from what came before to teach

the thing pointed at

and which in turn teaches

its delineations.

Erev, ayin reish bet

The power to self-navigate

to pursue possibilities

to achieve the power to submit to something else

Boker, bet kuf reish

This is an opportunity to show a method.

This is a method for iterating.

Bet (with a dagesh) makes the next letter the greater context of the submission/partnership.

The power to submit things

(symmetrical, but not in a way that can be seen on its own, too)

the power to do something for a higher cause which lies outside itself

the implicit (not explicit) new possibilities.

Now iterate.

The power to submit things within the context of things done for a higher cause

(is symmetrical to)

the power for higher causes

implying possibilities.

Al, ayin lamed

The power to self-navigate

implying a greater more informed view-point

Can iterate lamed here.

The power to self-navigate

implies a greater viewpoint which has learned from the power to self-navigate.

Tachat, taf chet taf

The truth and purpose of a thing which commands

its design to be self-sufficient

to imply (but not show) the truth and purpose of the thing.

Mikve, mem kuf vav heh

Bringing out the power of the thing

to do something for a purpose which lies outside that thing

which balances the positive/negative forces acting on it

to delineate it.

Can show methodology of implicit mechanics.

This is based on how the partzufim of the letters operate to engage one another.

It is based on the simplest solution of “how to get from one letter to next”.

Mem can get to kuf by activating lamed according to limits of caf, and thus expressing lamed, chaining up into kuf.

The bringing out of the power of a thing

is balanced by its power to act with that power, due to its obligation to be true to its self-description

this results in a vantage point between the two

which reinvigorates its paradigm which agrees with it

which reinvigorates its higher-purpose which agrees with its paradigm

 

Kuf can get to vav, by chaining into samech, which when expressed, is echoed in vav

The higher purpose

implies a paradigm of operation

thus when the purpose is expressed into a specific design

that design has a balance which is metaphysically identical to the paradigm

viz. the balance of forces ~ the paradigm of operation

Vav can get to heh

This requires going back and understanding how nun was operating when samech was first invoked

which requires seeing how caf was operating.

Thus I’ll skip this.

 

Yabasha, yud bet shin heh

Can show a method for chunking.

This is a type of iterating, based on reading the word in bits

thus taking advantage of techniques which are limited to 3 letters (bridging)

and helps not lose different mechanisms operating over each other.

Look at yud bet shin first.

Can use the bridging method.

Bet bridges aleph to gimel: the nexus of a thing is bridging to its ability to generate by seeing the yin-yang which in the nexus which acts against each other to bring out new possibilities.

Bet bridges gimmel to aleph: the generating of a thing can be seen as a yin-yang (internal duality of itself + generated) which is the whole.

 

And then can use an iterating method based on the function of bet to contextualize the previous letter within the latter letter.

The look at bet shin heh.

Use bridging of shin.

And the function of shin (unifies the multiplicity of the former letter into a singularity of the latter letter).

Then put all together.

Approx:

The thinghood of the thing

is understood within the context

of all of it brought together to define its limits.

Everything here is greatly simplified relative to what can be explored, even relative to what I have wondered with.

{Part 9 – 09/01/2017}

Appendix. Aleph-bet are not our idol.

Some thoughts on the aleph-bet are included here to suggest avenues by which an explorer may search for unfolding wisdom, and in doing so, invigorate their efforts. However here, or in other paths, one may become so inspired by the sun’s light that they may suspect a new law: “I must believe” or “You too”.

Here are some reasons that the aleph-bet prevents self-contained infinite-sublimity:

• Learning makes the previous experience in “seeing letters” appear weak, flawed, and so negates re-measuring their legacy
• All words exist in all others, and the art of “appreciating” (i.e. why one spelling is beautiful) is (possibly) unexpressible/unwritable/experiential
• The “seeing” of a word cannot be expressed, only alluded (because it exists between vistas and across them and through them)
• For every word that is obviously suitable, there are more that perplex or seem random
• In a nutshell: Seeing-letters is experiential, not theoretical (even though it allows theoretical reflection)

Therefore:

• Don’t try and base belief in Infinite on aleph-bet
• Don’t depend on communicating experiences of aleph-bet to others
• Don’t depend on capturing the experience of aleph-bet
• All of these are doomed to failure.

{26/03/2017}

Gader laTorah in Pei. Pei shows what is hidden versus what is revealed (e.g. closed/open mouth, embryo vs unfolded infant), Gader is something which “matures into an opportunity for things to be done in a certain way”, this is like “not saying something” balanced with “saying something ” to create a new possibility for things to be done”. (And this is why a fence looks like it restricts, but it, in fact, unleashes new ways).

This is too easily misunderstood.

It is not that

• I merely don’t tell you something you may misunderstand
• Rather, I avoid talking about things that can be misunderstood so as to allow their organic discovery.

BUT where: the not-telling delineates (like a fence) a range of “secrets”, and this is like the unconscious effect of a cabal.

{Part 10 – 26/03/2017}

Preface:

Looking at the aleph-bet must be like the Torah: an infinite journey requiring infinite progression,

but I am trying for a something that rewards repeated re-readings, and explains itself in whole chunks, enabling bursts of understanding.

The aleph-bet are thought of by way of analogies:

When the Yogi meditates on the candle, they may either be focusing on the candle flame itself, or (2) they may be concentrating on the candle but noticing stray thoughts. This is different to the aleph-bet, but similar insofar as the aleph-bet may involve noticing new types of awareness (but not depending on such “noticing” for experiences, just like may focus without noticing concentration); and similar to second insofar as “looking at one thing” to help “notice another thing”.

Running is a directive activity – running a race is a series of instructions collected together by an urge to win. The aleph-bet are seen like running – the sense of running occurs in the background, but is always unified in the sense of a purpose, namely to see beyond appearances.

Parables inscribe children with a sense of morality and life-navigation without their noticing. It is not necessary for the child to think about ethics, so long as they think about the story.

In writing this, I am hoping to evoke a sense of wonder, an amazement at discovering a city in the centre of the galaxy, food ready on the table, and a welcome mat in front of the door.

There are certain ethos that are both an approach to life, and factors for understanding the aleph-bet, which are beneficial as introductions, and don’t depend on anything further.

The first is saying “I don’t understand/feel this”.

And the first answer you could generously respond to yourself is, “Perhaps there is a way that it makes sense to me and doesn’t contradict the author.”*

The more often one applies this rule, the more effective a la my intent.

Another** is to free intellectual curiosity from moral obligation.

“How much right I have to spirituality” should not hinder this book in any reading by any person.

Another (and in the sense of pathological societal influence can be deduced from the former)

is to allow oneself to have thoughts, and not say “My thoughts are not relevant” nor “My thoughts are true”.

Another, and this is the least comfortable of the list, is to

look for instances/paradigms of ideas (here) in life/world/etc.

(e.g. Aleph is like the sky and earth, so one day, look outside at land and earth and think, this is like aleph).

** Learned from Yaakov and Esav

* After this, could discuss opinion with other.

{Part 11 – 26/03/2017}

Dedication:

To my father who was my castle, my mother its spires, my sister who made the earth rich, my brother who was the unexpected dew, and my little bro who was my comfort lamp shining stars against my bedroom wall.

To my Rabbi Aba Levin, to my little prince who let me dream even when I grew up (Damith), and to my first constellation Rabbi Aryeh (Lion) Goldman 😉

^[1] I have imagined a well to be that aspect of the mind in which an input (e.g. thought, experience) is comprehended within the context of the expression of the very subservience of that input into consequence activity (viz. Contextualized per the extent to which the context is allowed to effect actions), and which reveals a new domain for interaction. We can see this in the desert, wherein wells create new opportunities for action, and to the extent that those opportunities are enacted, reveals new trading routes, etc. To the extent that a dug well reveals new opportunities that are affected and reveal new ways of living, is the extent to which it is fruitful. We can also see this in the shape of a well: an opening whose purpose is the expression of its tunnel that unfolds into a reinvigoration of possibilities per the waters at the well’s end.

^[2] I use the word “contemplation” for hitbonenut, incl. Width, length, depth, tevunah . Nb. Tehilim 16.8.

^[3] I am inspired for this based on taking three steps back (after shmone esre), and when Yitzchak hitzchik Rivka (nb. cf. When Sarah laughed behind Avraham at the tent’s opening). (And brit ben habetarim).

^[4] I use the word “form” inspired by Kant, but also drawing from “attribute” by Spinoza. I mean something like, “a dimension of a thing, which is the substrate for its categorisation”. E.g. two stars are separate, we analyse that separation by way of the form of space. Forms can be translated without alteration of the mode being analysed. E.g. the separate stars can be seen through the form of time – seeing that instead of one existing over here and the other there, seeing that one is before, and the other later. And having seen that conversion, seeing that the concept of “separate” is not affected by form (e.g. time vs space).

^[5] I am inspired to this description by the Indus studies relating to dhamma kshetra, which is the field of action, which is also the place of the internal battle, which is where we actually exercise our will.

^[6] I have wondered about the phenomenology of tevat Noach, and constructing kinym etc. I hope to describe this in detail, but to me, it exemplifies the male/female back-forth of the will which we use to traverse time and the holy rope. I describe here the ark in most general terms, without regard to its wood or coating. The ark is taf bet taf. There is a hint for the back-forth in the dagesh in one of the taf. The organs of speech are a biological metaphor (or “clothing” perhaps) for the sounds that the letters express. Phonetics classifies sounds on the place of articulation and manner. “T” and “TH” are (approx.) alveolar stop and dental fricative respectively. Or, the tongue moving from behind the teeth to over the teeth, and from a burst of exhalation to an elongated exhalation, respectively. So too, the world feeds us input (e.g. “there is noise outside and you need to be distracted by it”) and we react to it (e.g. “I don’t like noise”). Both input and output are constricted by the laws of time, but we move forward in time in the way that we draw a conclusion between the two. That conclusion can then become the new input, or an unrelated input may push into us.

^[7] I use the word “speciation” inspired by evolutionary biology. Where there is a selective force (e.g. there is pressure for insects to detect birds and escape them), there are different solutions, e.g. (I am imagining) echolocation, olfactory, microbiotic, etc. So too there are different “solutions” for the vision (shin).

^[8] Viz. Smell and sight are mutually exclusive, insofar as “each makes sense and is functional by itself”; this is not to exclude the “speciation” which combines sight and smell.

^[9] I have wondered about the phenomenology of be’er (well) and I think useful for thinking about reish. Bet aleph reish. Aleph is like an ot (letter) of malchut, which is (taught by the Mittler Rebbe to be) like the moon (viz. passively receiving light, this is intuitively sensed by analogy with the invisibility of aleph except for the vowels that move through it). This means that to draw be’er requires a bit of back and forth to come to terms. Take input, make subservient to a context, that context is the expression of the subservience, measure how much that context is expressed, check how much the input is subservient to the context, take that measure of power and delineate the expression of that power on its own, and this will reveal a new character qua vehicle. E.g. input “I think I should remember Shabbat”, that thought needs to be understood in terms of an expression which follows, measure how much this thought sparks actions (viz. Thoughts, speech, movements), measure how much the thought is comprehended in terms of “how much it sparks actions”, that is not very much, and its precise expression (e.g. includes) a momentary urge to create an engagement with the Shabbat, and this reveals an ethos for remembering the Shabbat by finding all the different ways that its moments can be commemorated qua moments within Shabbat.

^[10] I have tried to understand Ramban on the word “zot” (re. Chain of dependencies, “zchut”), along with Rashi (re. Brit Noach). I also am inspired by Mishna Shabat 1.1 (re. Moving objects between domains), and Peah (in general, but esp. starting from 1.2) for thinking about what kadosh is, and moving from kadosh to the poor (viz. Not sanctified).

^[11] Nb. Yaakov chevel nachalato.

^[12] Attribute and mode via Spinoza. But for here, e.g. attributes are the levels, and modes are a phenomenon that is recognized in a specific attribute (e.g. an instance of a sensation, feeling, etc) but which transcends attributes (viz. Mode ccurs in all attributes, via different guises in each).

^[13] I am inspired by the concepts in cognitive science of interleaving and cross-modal learning, and from molecular biology and physiology relating to emotions as the sensational correlate of the interoception (sic) of disequilibrium. Similar can be said regarding the mechanism of action of chakra-focused yoga. See also the theory of “paradigm shift’ (Karl Popper). (Nb. This example does not aim for veracity, only for allegorical explanation).

^[14] Question: How can one correlate/study the relationship between modes (viz. Things/phenomenon of an attribute/level)? Answer: By manipulating one level, and observing the effects on the other levels.

^[15] To do: describe steps for perceiving aggregates, and thence for abstractions.

^[16] E.g. it is difficult to imagine a television as a metaphor for the sea, until one extracts features from both and imagines that “the waking self is obsessed with the beauty of the endless sea, and so dreams of something that entertains and which never ceases” (viz. Always has programs airing).

^[17] My understanding of aesthetics is based on Kant’s more than any other: The cognitive sensation of “beauty” is the sensation of a particular interplay of cognitive processes; the aesthetic sense results from an experience that the mind entertains various paradigms of categorization, finding that there is no end to the ways it can impose patterns onto the experience. It is the continuous-interplay-with-concepts that cause the experience to feel aesthetic.

^[18] I use “intention” inspired by Husserl, to mean the stuff of an experience (qua the consciousness that is experienced) as comprising an “I” and a “subject” and a connection between the two, such that the “I” defines its interest in the “subject” (cf. Ego pole, and object pole). In Hebrew this resembles kavana.

^[19] There is harmony between what this sentence means to you vs to me, to the extent that modifying your understanding (requires modification to the sentence, and that) results in parallel modifications to my understanding. There is harmony between the delineation of a thing (called “chair”) that stems from it qua solid object, vs qua utilitarian tool, to the extent that destroying the chair in one paradigm invariably results in the cessation of the object’s existence according to the other paradigm. Nb. We communicate not by identity-between meaning, since we can talk without the same thoughts/associations. We communicate by harmony-between meaning, since (although we might see a different blue in the sky), the objects within our respective interpretations are similarly aligned respectively to each person’s mind.

^[20] Nb. Imposing these nun onto the mind’s filter doesn’t necessarily mean disciplining or averting action, it is sufficient that the person stops seeing “junk food to eat” and start seeing “junk food to eat to enjoy that later causes health challenge”.

^[21] By “vector” I mean a (hypothetical) unit of psychic direction. I imagine them having (per physics definition) directionality and magnitudes of impetus, but also imagine them as a character (“ghost in the machine”) that is a unit of “voice” in the orchestra of self-hood.

^[22] See Mishlei. (Is this work an encoded treasure-house of teachings for learning Torah, and for extracting meaning and functioning wisely in general?)

^[23] For applications see ayin. Etc.

^[24] Nb. do not dismiss on assumption of inanity or redundancy. Cf. What was written at tzadik.

^[25] I use Hegel for “dialectic”, but am not a fan of his philosophy.

^[26] I include the influence of Hofstadter, particularly re. A message is (literally and absolutely, not just partially) meaningless without a context.

^[27]I can’t find my original notes, but the obvious combinations are starting from keter atzilut vs malchut yetzira, how to treat the hidden sefirot of atik yamim, how to deal with a malchut/ratzon duality (i.e. that the higher former is the latter in the lower), and whether to consider gematria, and if so, how to deal with the overlapping ordinals of 10 and 100 (e.g. is it 1 to 9, then 10 to 90, etc, where each set is unified by an olam, etc).

^[28] I do not claim proof, nor to I claim that this is the main solution to interpreting the letters. I only claim that this pattern results in some very aesthetically intuitive “meanings” for words. Furthermore, I do not claim accuracy regarding letter properties, and have focused on developing a means for “thinking through letters”, and thus most of these contents can be regarded merely as tools/brainstorms for conducting hitbonenut. Most of what I know about the letters is from The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphebet by Rabbi Munk, however, I have often recontextualized etc ideas, and thus may have introduced errors.

^[29] Each facet is perhaps an abridgment and also a metaphor for a true (and infinite) conception. However since the facet is a manner of containing and thinking about the letter, viewing a word’s letters with multiple facets results in increased wisdom of the letter/word.

^[30] It is obvious that gemul (channelling) is familiar to the archetypal character exemplified by Avraham. However, in the context of dalim, it might show an aspect that the channelling is directed to what is most useful or appropriate. The sefira of yichud can be considered per balance of communicability, and thus the facet suggested by the role of gimel in gimel dalim, is the balance between what is surplus and what is needed such as to allow their transfer, thus creating a new state of affairs that is superior to that of either party, and that metamorphoses a state (e.g. economic disparity by isolation) into a novel state (e.g. market).

^[31] This Talmud proves that the names may contain meaning.

^[32]I have not attended here, only intending.

^[33] Inspired by vedana in Pali. In this section also using personal philosophy, and inspired by various Indian theories of mind, cf. Khandas, citta, indriya, etc. These are most useful for exemplifying deconstructive phenomenology. Re. “will” I am inspired by Schopenhauer.

^[34] Recommendation: practice dissecting the mind to realise that what is normally considered as a unit, is actually a tangle. For example, one may say that there is only one thing in their mind, “painful memories”, and this would be to ignore its divisibility. Note that this divisibility is not merely theoretical, but educates awareness (similar to how a painter educates their awareness of distinctions between hues), and thus can form volitionally engaged modes of attendance (e.g. meditating by way of feelings, cf. Studies of sammasati). (Besides: it could be argued with analogous vitality, that the distinction between sounds and images is merely theoretical, and that there is no value in learning to separate their appearances).

^[35] To practice: find the contents of mind over a brief span of time. Identify expressions. Now identify feelings that correspond to those. Often there may not be any feelings, these are neutral and weak feelings, e.g. feeling about seeing a door. If there are no obvious feelings, choose another moment to dissect. Identify the judgements that correspond to each feeling. These may not be obvious and may have to be elicited by asking, “What do I think about the rightness of this feeling?” Judgements may not be obvious because they are muted. They are most obvious in a mind that is exercising self-awareness. They might be seen when one changes track in their mental train. To identify desire requires some artifice. Take one judgement (at a time) and concoct sibling judgements that one could have highlighted instead. E.g. instead of “I judge it is right for me not to want to worry” I could have judged, “I judge it is wrong that I am worried about so-and-so since they can’t hurt me”, or “I judge it right that I am interested in ways to avoid so-and-so”. The desire is the force that chose to highlight the first judgement (i.e. that was seen originally) over others.

^[36] Personally I would not be convinced sufficiently by this. Since this doesn’t explore the role of the brain – and this may be only becomes expressible with Kant – in defining a feature that the manifold of reality can be synthesized under, and this thus is the basis for conceiving, and counting. And this would make sense, since numeracy reflects the truth of mathematics both for the principles that enable the brain’s mechanisms, and separately that can describe reality. And the reason that this is both, to reiterate, is that they are both being conceived via forms and concepts that we intuit in abstraction as numbers. What is more wonderful, but less apparent to most, is that our capacity for language and meaning includes a capacity for mathematics, and not all languages enable this sufficiently for what we would presume tautological given an estimation of human cognition a priori.

^[37] I note for those familiar. The 40 subjects of attendance does include reflections which are conceptual, and the frames of reference includes recognition of thoughts, however there is no precedence for a method which can make sense of what is always sought, i.e. yoniso manasikara, for reading text and watching one’s mind too. And it is only from the perspective of what was thought not practical, that one might be sufficiently inspired for amazement in this particular contrast and comparison. The methodology of the instructions, esp. for sati of deportment, is ably explained by hitbonenut, and this may suggest mechanisms.

^[38] Thus alluding to a limit preventing the Occidental mind from making sense of shapes which could not be found by its processes of abstractions, or of imagining that truths could be sought in patterns between patterns of particulars.

^[39] Thus alluding to another unique method and theory: Higher levels of thought which cannot be looked at to see their shapes directly can be manipulated indirectly in order to encourage particular tendencies and patterns in the thoughts that are perceived.

^[40] Nb. bgadim can make many identities appear as a single appearance, for example, “emotion” are bgadim relative to Indian phenomenology since the class overlaps a set of features. nb. The English speaker may have thought that an emotion is composed of a single substrate.