Far Out

What follows is written without qualification.

I lack familiarity with all primary texts and have barely any measure of the traits which are the precursor to the former’s proper study.

I would describe my measure of traits as “Poorly observant, and poorly committed,” which I state only for the epistemic impact on these documents.

B/s:

• Don’t explain the mode of empiricism I seek in the reader’s receptivity and reflection
  • They may not see the same, and it may pollute rather than clarify the intent
• Outcomes:
  • Commentary on Shema that exemplifies Otiyot and that includes a smattering of core philosophical characters of Jewish reality and life-engagement (“religion”) [that I choose for illustrating “What does the Shema mean – as a legacy of survival and martyrdom + metaphysically constructed existentialism?”
    • I think that in the modern era the ship should be steered away from “exile” and towards “becoming”.
    • Controversy: Bittul vs planting trees & Hevel Havalim: is there any room to say that Bittul is like enlightenment to the guru – viz. To most yogis, it is the distant goal that is known in not-being-opposed, since it could not be acted except in simulation? (Alternatively: the wealth accumulated by fathers I wonder is justified because it is used to support family and projects, thus is it similar that one may produce wealth since it is a form of creation (nb. True adding of value to the system, cf. Wealth is normally measured as a financial balance).
  • If the first readers don’t “see” Otiyot, then I am left presuming that they have not spent months practising and thus am left only with the emotional content of their appraisal, which may have to suffice. If I make it too scientific, then the subjects are unqualified. At best could apply “seeing” to translitation of English translation of each Hebrew word that is shown, which in theory should be closer to noise than the Hebrew.

Idea for narrative of elements:

• From Echad qua “Same one despite different perspectives” introduce challenging vista (esp. exotic), then backtrack to show how it is a different way of reaching a traditional study (e.g. Indus avatars vs Torah Kabbalistic vectors), and from there start talking about the possibility of new ideas being used (can quote Zevulun going on waters). Then introduce Otiyot, then go back to explain Echad With this new understanding, segue into the question of “Same despite differences, but what happens when new reconciliations are discovered”. Then go to 4-letter name regarding Ein Sof (viz. That Judaism is traditional, but not restricted to be finite, and therefore is capable of expansion alongside its restrictions). Why this is needed today (atheism; can no longer rely on the power of tradition or of the crown of religion which Judaism has never wanted cf. Conversion), and thence explain Otiyot of word Shema. This segues into the method for the post-modern (discovery and thinking for oneself), and this is argued to be traditional (cf. Teshuva as a continual process, not a phase). Jump into the theory of partners in the creation/universal redemption, and from there into the reading of Ayin-Daled in Shema, (nb. Ending on Echad).
• The above is enough for a framework, don’t need to get clever, but here are some smaller threads since may want them for specific readers:
  • Sota, a humanistic approach to get to Torah, then argue from Kook on Mispatim (et al. As needed) that can discover tools for studying Torah beyond those already known (give examples, and also argue with parasha Yitro re Midyan), as well as emphasizing the difference between the traditional hermeneutics of Torah vs the personal reading/hearing, and express the free form of the latter (and emphasize that this can add intersubjectively to fertilize the hermeneutics).
  • The humanistic/rediscovering something one-of-a-kind illustration. This uses the above stuff but reorders it. E.g. Go from the question “Can we know?” to elaborate empiricism, to answer “But why do we need this?”, answering plainly (“to take advantage of the metaphysical and transcendent architecture of reality”) and with the difference between 4-letter name and 6-letter, and thus to Shema.