Bereisheet

{Part 1 – 25/10/2016}

Schema:

1. Form of high Will for sake of Name
2. Intend to read by this manner
3. Intend to read by the manner of #1 and the result of #2
4. Intend to realize the balance between kindness and severity of result of #3, whilst reading in the manner of #1, with the result of #2
5. Intend to realize the balance between Left and Right L2, i.e. between those things that are forming/kinding/expanding and those that are conceptualizing/severing/subsuming
6. Intend to read by way of #5, knowing that this is the end of #1

More suggestively:

1. Form in which idiosyncratic content is available to be extracted, for the end of creating in the future the namesake.
2. Read and see what is inspired

– Remind of #1

3. Read whilst reinvoking inspiration

– Remind of #1

4. Read whilst considering the benefits/threats, and balancing them

– Remind of #1

5. Read whilst considering the benefits/threats of the forming/conceptualizing precursors and balancing them

– Remind of #1

6. &c.

Inspired symbology:

– ShamayiM as the beyond the AretZ

– – but also as the Rakia, since is this the prism for viewing it

– but nb. presence of the content of shmyM also beneath (i.e. the myM beneath)

– AretZ as that part of the being whose 1I results in a travelling through 9IV by way of the concepts of the high will (viz. via 8III)

– – nb. initially chaotic, and depths readable only ignorance

– – cf. Adamah

– air as that connecting 1I and the 8III by way of 6I, and this is the means for dispelling ignorance/untruths

– we have times of light and of darkness, and also of evening and morning that are in between

– – and this applies to our perception of light

— of the difference between higher/lower mayiM

– – of the difference between yabashah and yaM, and between types of plants

– – between small/big lights

– re 10I-2I-9III-5I, nb. this is one place where 2I-to-5I can connect via 9III

– – cf. also 5II-8II-8III (nb. e.g. 588 8I-10I-5I)

– we need a separation between the dry aretZ and the yaM, since it is the former that sprouts life

– – know the difference between the different forms of life on aretZ

– the aretZ is enlightened via two means: small and big

– the yaM is populated via 9III-8III-9IV, and the birds are on top of the aretZ and seen against the rakiya and are 7II-6I-8IV that 10I-6I-8III-8IV

Story to my name:

You should know what this place is that was created that you reside in.

It contains transcendental forms that lead to the totality, but don’t only try to reach for these, because you are placed on the expression that leads to metaphor. That is to say, you live in the mundane world which is how the metaphor is enabled, so don’t become obsessed with the form of eternity, even though its waters are available to you.

Regarding those transcendental waters, don’t confuse those which are present in your mundane domain, and those above. And with regards your domain, you can’t live in those waters, you need the place where you can will so as to subsume to formulate for your will, that is to say, the world of your expressing your own form.

That expression that leads to a metaphor (by way of highest concepts) is where you can create things. Some of them will spread by themselves, some will spread by their kin, and some are fruit trees (i.e. the 7II-8IV that gives 8II-8III-10I).

Nb. most of your capacities are via 8, but various routes to 8 can lead to death.

The waters accessible to the mundane are populated by means that are incredible (see above), but note that between the two worlds you can see, imprinted against the place of action (i.e. aretZ), a population of 7II of Aba that birth to a 6I that leads to a new fixing (i.e. 8IV), and these things are linking 10I-6I to result in a new 8 (III), and that is how the 8IV is coming about.

There are different capacities in the time of light and darkness, and both have values. The former is for exposing things already known, and the latter for things unknown, but nb. part of this enlightenment for the latter comes via the 2II-2II-2I that you see as 2I and 10I but that is leading to 4IV, so they are a means to seeing the 4IV.

On your place of work will be lives whose connecting their Ima’s 5II-8II leads to a 8III and thus they can use their 8I to do 10I to result in 5I.

But there are also things for whom you only see the 4II of Aba but are connecting 8III to 9III., and these are described as “creeping”, so maybe barely sighted. Whereas the previous are clearly using their concept of themselves to act so as to will their sternness.

It is our role to rule over the the fish (i.e. those entities in the yaM whose 4I leading to 3I we see, but that result in 10III), and the birds (mentioned above), and the various creatures of the aretZ (who we see as 2’s and 5’s), but also the creepers of the aretZ.

Nb. the 7th day is not described re. morning/evening, it is a unique source of goodness, and in addition, it is segregated by way of subsuming to 1, and the subsumption links 9III-[2I]-10III, i.e. this is what makes it Kadosh (noting that this is a means for connecting the 10II to 9III (by way of 4I, which is counterintuitive in the context of Shabbat).

We ate from the fruit of good and evil, because that which assists us in our mission told us, and that told us because of 5II-8I-9III (which shows a bad way to get to 9III) (it is the 5 of an Ima concept leading to a child concept 8, which presumes to endorse a 9 at the highest level).

Because of this the 5Ii-8I-9III is cursed, and the helper will struggle to do a 1 from 3. And our principal character will have its aretZ produce QoZ and Dardar (which should be good but are obviously not enjoyed by the farmer), and only (grass of the field – uninvestigated).

To get a capacity for 3II that leads to a 8I towards 4IV, we have to work our 1-10(I) by way of a 8III first and which is for our 2IV, and this has to be worked in such a way as going from a 7I to II to get to our 10III. (I.e. investigation of the self upwards through will and judgment to see the will to will, and when we do that we will discover that our 1-10 is connected by a concept which implies that everything is 2IV).

The creator made for us a 6I that leads to 10IV, by at first the 2II and 5II of Ima being connected by 10IV. And the type of this was 7II-6I-8III. I.e. our balancing of 5/7 is done in between our joining our Ima’s 2/5 by way of high will, i.e. the subsuming of the concept vs the severing of the concept is linked for the 10IV. And all of that is for allowing the 2II (i.e. the ability of the concept to be subsumed into everything) to promote our 10III. And the type of that balancing is that the 7 of our Aba births a 6I for the sake of a 8III, i.e. the 7 of a form leads to a rebalancing between our wills that teaches us a new concept.

> All together: we will 6 by connecting our balance of 2-to-5 of ideas (by way of 10) to our final will, and we do this balancing in the way of the balancing of our form’s love to what it reveals in terms of concepts of will.

>> This is for our best in this life I presume.

The gaN (i.e. the 3I that reveals 5IV) of 7II-4I-5IV, i.e. the 4 aspect of our aretZ that is connecting its 7 of its form with the 5IV, is hidden, so that we can’t just take the 7II-9IV of 8I-10I-10I-4IV, which nb. would be another good way of using our 8I for good). This is hidden because the 3II that births 5I-9I of the 8I-8III-2I (i.e. of lower channelling of will’s 8 to 2 by way of 8III) is rotating (which I assume means that the 3-2-9 is mixing us up, and thus we can’t tell how to birth a 9I which we would need to get the dereCH to the tree of life. Nb. dereCh is our will’s domination that ends in 2IV, i.e. is good, but is by way of 8III (i.e. which is normally a hard achievement to not do badly).

Once we’d done this, we combined our primary Aba/Ima to brith a 5-2(I)-3II (cf. the ktonet of leather) and a 10II-10I-5IV, but the latter obviously corrupted, but it’s not clear if the professions are inevitable. Nb. the former governs life on aretZ, whereas the latter a slave to it (cf. respectively 8III-7II-5I and 7II-2I-4I).

Although the kayiN of our being is cursed and killed our hevel, we should know that it should not give up on its ability to get from 8 to 2IV, since all it has to do is do better, and whether or not it does better, sin will be gathering at our 8II-10IV-8I, i.e. at our willing to connect 8II-8I (i.e. 8II-10III-8I), and this gives us an opportunity to rule it (via 4II-9III-3II, i.e. a 4 of Aba that leads to the 3 between A/I by way of a new form, which presumably makes the 8I-1I-9I of the sin be ruled to be a service).

Nb. even though our kayiN is cursed, it also cannot be abrogated, and we’ve settled it in 5II-6I-4I which is to the 10II-4I-4II-10IV of udN. (i.e. in relation to the perfect 3I-5IV, it requires which is already enabling good work, this requires us to dominate, but to do this by way of our 10II beforehand, to result in a domination within our forms to allow our 10IV to express. (cf. ktonet or).

And so we should use our kayiN there. And do what was advised to us.

As we populate the earth, we’ll create many nice houses, but nb. the 5II-8II-3II-10I-4IV will want to merge, and this will create anshei HaShem. Nb. they are ethos for severe that is used to ethos for concept, for ethos, for connect, for purpose of will (10I) for the totality (4IV). All we see is the 10I, so we can describe the first half simply as 5-8-3 logic, which is interesting, but often dangerous. These are Wills that are birthed by taking the severity of a Ima, and elucidating its concept, and then using that concept to promote subsumption. (And that subsumption is what births the 10I that leads to 4IV). This is how to make 1I-5II-9III-10I of 9III-4IV. I.e. actions of will that end up in a purpose of a will, and do so by the action enabling a severity of Ima that enables a form for the high will, and which is what is used for the 10I which results in 4IV (i.e. per the 9III-4IV).

The populations are plethoric, so I’m only mentioning a few:

3II-4II-2IV joins 7II-4I-5I.

From our 7II of Aba that births 4I that leads to 5I, we get a 10I towards a 2I, and that enables a communicability (per 3II).

This 10I-2I-3II is what 10I-[by way of 9III]-2I the 1I that leads to 5I that enables 3II. And which also 4II-10II-5II-5I, i.e. it does 5I, but by way of a 4 of Aba which leads to a 10II between the two, which leads to a 5 of Ima. And that 5 of Ima is what leads to the 5I (which is necessary for living with the animals of the aretZ). And thus we see an image of an ability to 3II, which involves 5’s.

So that is wanted if we want to approach 3II, and also to interact with animals.

Whereas lmCh + zelah is 3II-4II-2IV + 9II-3II-5I

and that results in 10IV-6I-2I-3II 10II-10I-5IV, which presumable remedies the last 3 letters, i.e. the act of high will that ends in a communicability that continues into the form that enables a subsuming that ends in a willed severity. the First 4 acting on these are seen as a 6I leading to a 2I, but this is proceeded by the 10IV, and the 2I leads to the communicability which was presumably needed for the 10II-10I-5IV (i.e. to avoid it being corrupt in its generation of 10I).

This tobal–kayiN does his thing via a 3II-9I-9III to create the 8I-8III-9III from both 5II-8I-9III-10IV and 2I-8III-7I-3II. A,B,C,D. The B is the tool we create to we go from lower to highest 8, and from there generate a high form. And we can do this in C, our being severe in our Ima, and then using the birthed concept to go into high form and then will. Or in D, our willing in subsumption to will a kindness, but we join these by a  form of high will, and we do it to end up in a communicability. And the way all these are remedied, is by using 3II, from which we can get a 9I to create a suitable 9III. These are essentially the tools we use on aretZ.

We’ll create a lot that is bad.

But 5II-8I will be favourable. Note the humbleness of this 5 of Ima, it just wants to be able to be an 8 for the lower will. Cf. all those efforts at raising the fruits of 8.

From n(ch), will be birthed 9III-4IV, 8I-4IV, and 10I-8II-10III, nb. the failures of the middle one. And note that the prophecy of the last one.

Once again:

Every line will be iterated through a form of high will, through pursuits of engagement, interspersed with a balancing of the engagements, and a balancing of the parents of the engagements.

The first paragraph describes the realm of our universe, the light, and the transitional periods.

7 that we have two domains, 5 not to forget either’s significance.

7II to be aware of domains, 5II not to get caught up in segregating them in our thoughts.

The lower domain is where we have fruits of actions (1I), and these define new concepts (8III) by which there is a primordial harmony moving upwards through the metaphorical channels.

The higher domain is where we have new forms to potentiate the endurance of our motivations (that birth wills to action), and thus finally is 4IV.

Nb. we can see our relating to these domains by 1 and 10 specifically.

Ha’or was created to join Malchut to high concepts by way of low harmony, in a way that is implicitly good. It contrasts the default 8I-9III-2IV, which presumably leads to problems since we misunderstand what it means. Perhaps this is why the aretZ has a 2IV, i.e. its ends are 9IV.

Re. tohu va’vohu:

> Nb. the 5I-6I (one preceded by 10IV and one by 2I) and the presence of 5I-6I in 10IV-5-6-4IV. Thus the danger of using 5I-6I to understand our place in the universe. 7I-6I is better I think. Nb. the 10-5-6-4 ibid is not yet segregated but presumably is made up of 4II-10I-4IV.

Those waters are divided. I’m thinking along higher/lower domains, but there’s the need to explain the yibadel (which I see has a way using a will to subsume to endure that enables the communicability, i.e. between the rakia) re. high/low. I think it’s whether the waters are communicating to the division, or are (high) willing the division. mul vs mita(ch)at. This is different from the high/low of day 1. Nb. it is on day 2 that the 8III-10II-10I-7II is given the name from day 1 of 9III-4II-10I-4IV. Before this is was the waters per se given this name.

It would then be the waters that will towards the division that are collected to make the seas. This is needed to reveal the yabashah which the same thing as aretZ. This might be the secret for the difference in using 8III vs 9III for willed ends.

The waters of our universe connect our purpose of will between the endurance of our ethos and the totality. We connect to them via connecting our left/right aspects of ethos, or via our high will. We can only see the way our purpose of will results in a severity of will when the waters are contracted (presumably on the adamah), and this revelation is aka aretZ.

Thus we must know that our interaction with the infinite waters, is to their 7II, and this via direct high will or directly via connectivity, and this only seen as we do it on via adamah (whether qua yabashah or aretZ).

The Endurance of waters that are connected to the beneficence of their concepts by way of willing, (i.e. an unwritten 10III for the 10I of myM) must be contracted to show land. This dryness is how we perceive how the purpose of will has a severity of will. But it is the same thing that the way our 1I ends up in 9IV (via 8III). So presumably that connection by way of willing would hide our efforts on land unless made into the ocean.

The ocean is 10I to 4II-10I-4IV. I.e. it is the lower will for the myM.

Thus we have to know the segregation between our will which is not for myM specifically, and which is how we work the land, compared with that which is, and which is connected do by way of high will (cf. intermediate connectivity, as per the other type of water). Presumably, the connection to the myM via 3II does NOT hide the land.

Cf. our lower domain qua land, and lower domain qua culture (for want of a word).

On the land (after expulsion) we will work in our forms of high will that end in the severity of our low will (9III-4I-5I), and we will eat the 4I-9III-5I, i.e. we need to eat this in order to survive. I.e. we have to high will the latter to survive. (By way of our expressions, which will lead to a subsuming or our Ima, which will lead to a communicability and hence higher will for the u(sh)(b) of our (sh)dh. Before the expulsion, it was just going to be dshh u(sh)(b) that seeds &c and we would have lived off the trees.

Now as we work the land, we will also elicit purposes of ethos’s middle way (10II) that go into 6I, which looks nice, but then 9IV, and the 9IV is metaphorical and so confusing.

Also, will elicit 4I-8III-4I-8III, which is the way the very endurability of our willing will lead to new concepts which result in new endurability and thence new concepts, against confusing our desire for stability. Before it was going to be seeding seeds (i.e. 4II-7I-8III-7II 7/8/7), and presumably we would not have been confused by the 9IV of trees.

When expelled, we try to use our purpose for yichud to create a purpose for lower will, to serve 5IV. But this is depressing, and it will be what kills our using our 5I of lower will to engage communicability by way of 2I of lower will. I don’t think we can use this anymore and instead must replace the latter with ybl.

However neither can we reject the former, and apparently it is appropriate to put it in the part of our aretZ which is nod (5II birthing 6I, whose harmonies result in 4I) since I guess the difficulty faced by Cain won’t be a problem there, since it will temper a counterintuitive aspect of aretZ.

Re. lm(ch). Nb. he gives fruitful offspring. And manages to have a 2IV (like (ch)nu(ch)), but presumably does it better. I note that his 3II results in 4II, and thus presumably already had a lot of 2II, which is why the 2IV doesn’t fall into nihilism (cf. also kayin).

Therefore it might be good to find the character of Ima that has a strong 2II, and nurture the 3II relating to her, thus to endorse a better 4II, whose force can re-enter the central stream, and in the highest ranks, enable the 2IV which was presumably inherent, but unable to be fruitful.

Lessons:

Know your two domains. Know how you can be enlightened. Know how they are engaged. And know the fact of transition of legibility of 1I-6I for 8III.

Once more:

You have a place for action and a place for desire.

The former is Aretz and the later Shamayim.

Originally these both were chaotic and unknowable (i.e. the enlightenment of choshech).

But you have an aor, which is the way the expression of a thing indicates how it balances (6I), and you can use that to move (from a form 9III) into its concepts.

Know these places.

Know that light comes and goes, and has transitional periods too.

Although your place will be land, and that is what you need primarily, and essentially to live,

you can also engage with the link between the crown of yetzer and the Boundless.

You can do this by way of your connectivity (which is a higher way), or by higher will (which is lower).

This lower way overlaps with the place of your work and thus is moved into the ocean, which is exclusively when we use our lower will to will for Mayim.

Everything else is yabashah.

That is where you need for living.

It is the same as adamah, and aretz.

Yab, and Ad are ways in which your crown or Malchut of Yetzer leads to the gevura of your yetzer.

The gevura of yetzer is how we establish the concepts of our high will onto our aretz.

Which we need to, since it is also where the beasts and crawlers are.

The benefits of this dimension are tempered (by our sin).

The link between the land and the gvura of yetzer will require us to create/work fields, which are forms of our highest will, through which we can endurance our lower will, and thereafter be strict.

And we will have to eat the esev, which was supposed to be a gift in the land.

Also, although our work in the land is how we survive, it confuses us, as it births thorns and thistles that defy our ability to comprehend or to perceive in static form, thus our very understanding of the land is in flux.

Also, to get bread (which we see as Bina of lower will but which is preceded by our connectivity, and results in our Totality, we must apply to our aph (Malchut to get to Bina of Ima), which is also a hint of 8IV, and we must do so by way of, first 7I then 7II, then 10III. I.e. knowing our degrees of being (feeling to expression, evaluation of willing, Choosing of knowing).

We should know that our connecting with the waters via connectivity does not overlap with our land,

but with our higher purpose, it does,

and thus we should know that we only do so via the oceans (i.e. explicitly lower willing for them).

On the land, we can grow grassy veges via seeds, and trees of fruit that are of their fruit that they were seeded with.

These can be farmed.

There are also creatures, these can and need be ruled over.

Nefesh Chaya are those purposes of will in our aretz which:

They exemplify a MOA for 8/5 of levels I/II can lead to a 9III. (see note above, and try to diagram).

> Cf. nachash, which connects 5II to 8I to get to 9III, and which is how we got into trouble.

We can employ the same ruling with regards the creatures of the water, whether the fish or those that impress themselves over our land and against the firmament.

The population of the oceans (nb. where we will to engage waters that are related to rakiya by way of high will) are called sheretz, and thus are the highest form that leads to the metaphorical by way of highest concept.

The population of the sky exist in our land, but give silhouettes for the rakiya. Their kind is the lower harmony between the potential for Chessed and secret fixing. They exist in flux since they are 7II-6I-8II-8IV, nb. add a potential concept to lead to secret fixing.

AKA (here) the 7 of Aba that births a 6, that ascends the column to enable an 8 of Ima, which is what is also the secret 8.

Nb. these wills are related to the waters that are the connectivity to their rakiya.

Cf. the wills of the ocean relate to waters that highest-will to the rakiya.

Rakiya can be abbreviated as beneficence of the highest concepts of the waters. Which all waters have, but in two ways.

To rule over the sky and oceans is to fish/hunt/dominate the eternal wills that connect/will the primordial generosity.

We are commanded to 8III-4I-6I over the birds, fish, crawling things.

The crawling things are on our land but are creatures of the ocean (they shartzu the mayim).

These are the myriad tiny 8III that teach us a 9III without our noticing, and which we can use to learn re. rakiya.

(The 7th day is holy because it is allowed to unfold without intervention).

We can understand it in 3 ways re. 2:

It is when will submits to the unfollowing of what was done (i.e. 1I).

This can be called the 2 within 1I.

It is blessed. Thus it’s 2I is linked to 8III, dropping back down into 2IV.

It is Shabat. Thus a 9III to 2I to 10III.

It is Kadosh because nothing is added, that is the 10II to 4I to 8III.

Nb. the 2/4 of are balanced, although can also say that they are acting within the 1.

Nb. their interaction implies a 3. So it is when the 2/4 of our 1 can 3 to birth lower order crowns in their image.

Our original mission was to work and protect the garden.

It is for this mission that we wanted a helper.

A woman was created from the MOA between 9II (and 3II) and 7II of Aba. Once removed, this MOA is 1I-9III-5I.

Clothes are a way for connecting 6I. It can be done naked. It can be done with light. We have garments (that connect by connecting a [high will that connects middle 2 and 5] to 6I to high will.

And it does this by way of 7II to 6I to 8III. Nb. all clothes must give high concepts for their 6I, although naked it goes from 7II to 8III to the joining 6I to join a 4IV (which is more related to 9 than 8).

{Part 2 – 25/10/2017}

Now, said nicer:

Here I’m going to tell the story of creation along with a route whose accuracy must be doubted at every step.

I’m looking at Bereisheet an explanation of our entire phenomenology.

And relating that to naive realty by both literalism and symbolism.

E.g. if the Aretz is the part of our experience that we express ourselves in, then the land that was created on day 1 is how we know this part of the experience in the external world.

The internal dimension and external world will thus be non-intuitive reflections of each other.

Coinciding with the start off of everything that we think and know, was the creation by the Infinite (acting in a way that can be thought of as Stern) the skies and the land (aretz). The land is the land as we know it (although not yet), which is where we act, and it is where our actions give rise to new concepts which in turn create new secret forms.

Regarding this part of the phenomenon. In our mind, there are areas where we know that we are expressing our will, especially when acting, talking, or thinking. The “aretz” is the part of that that connects our expressing our inclinations to our highest will’s concepts. This is how our expressions create new ways of categorizing the phenomenon we relate to. From these new categories also comes new forms, which is the tzadik sofit of aretz.

[I may expound on tzadik sofit later].

Later we will know that this land (yabasha) is also the way we link the purpose of our intentions to the steadfastness of our intentions (i.e. relating to the phenomenon). And also (adama), the way we link the actual products of our intentions to the steadfastness of our intentions. Briefly put, we can say, the land is where our intentions set up boundaries, sometimes because they define new ways of seeing the world, and sometimes because their products have an endurability.

This is different from the sky, which we should discuss in its final form to simplify. This is the part of our experience when we try to connect to the Eternal.

The land is where we work to live, and where we can produce and rule. But the skies offer their own value in our existence.

To better understand the skies, we should know that they are seen as one particular aspect. The aspect of Eternity that reveals the connection between the highest construction (concepts) of our being/world, to the very potential for kindness/love in our being/world. Everything that connects to that aspect of Eternity (aka water), is known in two ways. Whether the Eternity relates to them by way of Will or by way of communication.

This is a difficult concept so let’s take it slowly:

There are aspects of our lives in which all we see is our purpose of intention.

But that purpose was birthed by a particular endurability in our ethos (i.e. that determine what our intentions are). And that purpose of intention leads to a participation in the Eternal, or at least, feeds into the endurability of that which defines our very very essence.

This is called water.

Water is that part of our life that connects the endurance of our value system with the endurance of our core will (or Eternity).

All water reveals our potential for kindness and love.

But there are two types.

The type “above” is water whose central purpose of intention, is linked to that loving potential because the intention is (somehow) communicable with it.

The type “below” is that whose central purpose of intention, is linked to the loving potential because our highest will which preceded that purpose of intention also wills that potential for love.

The type below would be completely overlapped with our land, except for the fact that oceans were created.

These are the waters, which are specifically willed. That is, the lower waters are only part of our experience when we specifically have a purpose of intention for their waters.

Once more:

The Water of the world is that part of the world that connects the endurance of our value system with the endurance of our core being (or Eternal). It always has an aspect which shows that any intention of ours which connects those two, is also connecting to our potential for loving kindness. This means that our core endurance and perennial capacity for love are linked. And we can witness this link in two ways. Depending on whether the particular intention (that is connecting the endurance) relates to the loving capacity because it “communicates” to it or because the intention stems from our essential personality which also leads to insisting upon that capacity.

Regarding the “communication”, this refers to the way our value system talks among itself, to result in a particular intention. When we say the waters communicate to the firmament, we mean that that intention was birthed by a dialogue of values that incorporated the voice of loving kindness.

[More on our ability to flourish in this part of our experience later].

After land and sky were created. And after lower waters and higher waters were segregated. The lower waters were pooled together into the ocean so that we could see the phenomenon in which we need to work to live.

The removal of waters is the dryness part of our land. That is the way our purpose of intention (which is normally how we connect to water) leads to an aspect of our intentions (in the land) which give them a sternness. Thus we have a purpose behind an intention, the intention is what drives our action, and our actions can enforce our will. (This happens via the purpose of intention enhancing the aspect of the intention which is adaptability of intention/expression, and this teaches us a new paradigm for within which to define our highest will, and it is this new paradigm for our will, that leads to the will to the value to the intention’s moulding the landscape).

Remember the two interpretations:

This land is the physical land, where we work and act and talk.

it is also the mental land, where thoughts, sensations, feelings, inclinations, paradigms, are the totality of existence.

From this land comes vegetation and fruit trees. The way we can connect to these change, so I’ll return to them later.

Except for trees.

Trees are a connection between the potential for loving kindness on the land and the paradigm that defines the land in most transcendent terms. More maybe later.

The fruits that the trees give are concepts that epitomize the tree’s paradigm, and whose consumption is our finding intentions present in our landscape. Trees are a way in which we can modify our phenomenal landscape, and in which that landscape displays its dynamic and living character. It is our ability to seed our land with concepts-that-link-intentions (by intending and valuing the loving kindness which that concept offers).

Into the firmament were created sources for light. The firmament is the aspect of our purpose of intentions that link our endurance of values with an endurance of core personality that shows the generosity our purpose of intention. In this space are the light sources. One is big and is the part of our world that we know. And one is small and acts in the part of the world that we don’t know. That latter portion of our life is also illuminated by stars. These are the part of our intentions and values that adapt themselves to the world and thereby express a purpose of intention that links to our core personality. In the dark parts of our life, these are useful lights. In the day we use light to choose the best choice. In the night we need them literally to know what is light and what is darkness because we have no innate sense for truth.

After this was created fish and birds. These are the patterns in our mind which we find in the oceans (i.e. the firmament that the waters connect to by communication), and which exist in our land, but we can see them as impressions in the skies (i.e. firmament connected to by water via a purposeful will).

Within our oceans, that is, intentions we have which add endurance to our core personality and which stem from a potential for loving kindness, are living souls that swarm.

Living souls also appear in our land. These are the severity and concepts of ethos, whose engagement into intentions, potentiate the paradigms we use to navigate our highest will. And these engagements create the intentions that are easier to see, and which display a purpose which is preceded by a concept (i.e. for understanding that which is being intended) and superseded by enforcement (e.g. the way the intention ensures that what is intended is not deflected by other intentions).

Said more briefly: When studying the intentions that come and go in our mind, we might realize that some are birthed by the dictatorial side of our ethos, and go on to act potently. These are the “living souls” of our mind.

In the ocean, living souls are said to swarm, which is to say, their ethos is justified by core paradigms and concepts (for interpreting the core will). On the land, they simply stem from a core will to express ourselves.

In the ocean, it is more complicated, because those core paradigms and concepts support a transcendental paradigm, which can’t be understood, but is the presumed “this is the paradigm that makes sense of the force of momentum under our core will”. When we capture such a creature in our self-awareness, we can study that mysterious logic.

There are living souls that swarm also in the land of our life. On the land, the intention’s premise values are backed up by concepts and paradigms used by the Will, conjoined by the endurability of our values. They are the part of our land which is the same as the ocean, and we need to be dominating since they affect the intentions in the part of our life we need to live.

The birds are the aesthetic part of our intention, and if we study the values that underpin them, they come from our potential for loving kindness and result in a transcendent analytics which would be needed to make sense of our mysterious logic. We can study them by the adaptability and severity of values, which link that mysterious logic, and this trifecta is what defines their species.

Also in our land are living souls generally. Beasts (we recognize these by the way their adaptability of intentions, leads to the strength to enforce their intentions, which leads to adding endurance to the values which they are promoted by and thus yet another level of strengthening their capacity for endorsement).

To simplify, these are dangerous intentions, since they use their ability to adapt to other intentions to finally re-reinforce their determination to enforce.

We have a special category of life.

This is the seventh day.

This is the part of ourselves in which we allow things to unfold without making any effort.

This part is blessed, qua the adaptability of the intentions that unfold lead to a vivification of the aspect of our highest mysterious logic that is adaptable.

This part is resting, qua the paradigm in which our will operates (to evaluate its ethos) that enables an adaptability of intentions in such a way as to reveal the purpose of the will.

This part is holy, qua the purpose which is used to mediate between values leads to a durability within intentions which vivifies the paradigm of our will’s operations so that the interplay of ethos look like they are the origin of the will which is superior to them.

We can remember that we once resided in a garden.

This is the memory of having a balance between our durability and adaptability of intentions that supported a confidence of our inner logic, which made everything easy since we were always being true to ourselves.

But we lost our innocence

and whereas once we acted from our innate loving kindness without knowing that we were being “good”, now we can’t avoid knowing that to do something good is good.

We were naked, insofar as our aesthetics joined our potential for love to the endurability of our inner core, but it did it by joining the words we had for willing with that endurance.

Henceforth we feel naked if we don’t know why we do something. And so the end of our aesthetics is the knowledge.

That is why after we lost our innocence, our nakedness was no longer an aesthetic, it was the way we hitched our capacity for love into a purpose to best serve our will. This made us ashamed since nothing we did was purely good.

Although our creator was kind enough to give us a default intelligence that links that potential love to understanding, which is an aesthetic.

We have this aesthetic in a way that overlaps another balance. It is the balance between our highest will (as an end), and another balance.

This lower balance is between the adaptability of our values and their absolute enforcement, and this lower balance is also mediated by our highest will.

Which is to say: We balance the potential for self-denial in our values, by what serves our will, to delineate the severity of our values. And this calculus we balance against our will, in a way that we experience as harmonious intentions.

We also experience as harmonious intentions that which connects our capacity for love, and the concepts we use to define our will.

After losing our garden of ease, we have to design fields, which sprout thorns and thistles, and whose vegetation we need to survive. And we can only get bread by the sweat of brows until we die, and then we’ll be innocent again.

[TBC, explain the last paragraph, and some of the lineages that follow from expulsion, and maybe also who aspect of woman/man].

{Part 3 – 26/10/2016}

Our being is segregated. There is the father part and the mother part. This is the part which expands the generosity of its paradigm, versus which adapts the severity of its concepts.

At first, there was Adam and Chava.

Adam is the man who exemplifies:

Expression, a durability of intentions, and durability of core personality.

Chava exemplifies:

The concepts that define intentions, aesthetics of intention, the severity of intentions.

These birth the following personas in our populous:

Hevel: severity of intentions, adaptability of intentions, communicability of values.

Kayin: the purpose of values, purpose of intentions, the absolute truthfulness of our inner character.

To understand these we have to understand phenomenological genetics.

This stems from the concepts of Aba/Ima as clothes for the Long Face, that give birth to Zeir Anpin in Kabbalah.

This is why I believe that the mother of Chanoch is Chavah. An alternative is to see each son as trying to self-rectify by splitting off a female persona from their own. A belaboured parthenogenesis.

For Cain x Chava:

Note that Cain is predominated by the central beam from 10II to 10I, which is presumed to suffice to support 5IV. See that Chanoch is mostly a shift to the right along lines of Chava. The mysterious trait goes from 5IV to 2IV. Reason, which was entirely lacking, is taken from Chava, i.e. 8I, the 6I of Ima and the central beam of Aba congeal into a 6I, and finally, there’s a residual of the 5IV into 5II.

Insofar as there’s a moral lesson here. In life we want the honest expression of our values to suffice for defining the limits of our core character. This is Cain. This is also the most vulnerable set-up when disappointed (see text, to be elaborated with reference to divine advice).

(Also cf. Caynn son of Enosh, who rectifies the error by introducing a middle tier 5).

All we can do is re-attempt to engage our concepts and aesthetics, and remember the importance of balancing our left and right. Chanoch is off balance, but Urad is better, who uses the generosity in his values to birth purposes that whose ascension awaken integral concepts which are needed for durability of intention. The rationale is clear, but the design is obtuse. Urad is the first balanced man since Adam.

Next two start with 4II and end with 3II.

Then a linking of endurance of values to their communicability, by a torturous route their psyche of intentions. (Mechyael). Nb. this links 7I-6I-10I-10I-1I

Then ditto on ends, via another route. (Metushael). Nb. this links 7I-6I-10I.

And finally a capacity for integrating values that is the root for their endurance and thence primordial adaptability. It is from this generation (Lamech) that ingenuity is birthed. (Nb. he combines with a woman whose first trait is a masculine intellect).

Lamech exemplifies the prompting value of 3II. This is also obvious in his two preceding generations. And they also anticipate his sons, since the last two generations were aiming for an expression of purpose that would beckon a 3II.

He joins with 7II-8III-5I to create 10I-2I-3II, who is “father of tent and herd dwellers” and 10I-6I-2I-3II father of instruments.

Udah contains a persona like an Aba (7II) but uses this for feminine core (8III) of intellect, to strengthen intentions along that Ima axis.

Tzila also begins with Aba trait (9II) but to 3II-5I. Births 10III-6I-2I-3II–10II-10I-5IV. Thus correcting ancestor. And the father of tools.

It is very hard to determine genetics here. Easier just to characterise psyche.

There are two Lamech’s. One from Metushael and from Metusalech.

{Part 4 – 27/10/2016}

If I could emphasize one point. It is the use of a pysche-cast read in conjunction with traditional hermeneutics. As explained somewhere.

{Part 5 – 24/04/2017}

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, to)

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 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 bridges 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 6 – 25/04/2017}

META:

B/S:

• Technical apology (e.g. how to know what a thing is) is ideal but not necessary
• Narratives are good story-telling
  • “Noticing that there had never been stars until this night”
    • What about a further 5-part story:
      • “Yom Echad” & Day 1
        • The terrible vision of everything being only an evening and morning
        • Marvelling at the new earth and sky brief
      • Day 3
        • Marvel at dryness and trees
      • Day 4 – etc
      • Day 6 and curse
      • Day 7 and Eden
  • “Heart of darkness” – the murky depths of “k-psych” based on first generations
    • Continue into “Losing Eden”
    • Could alt. tell a story in terms of “Zot” re Isha
  • “Looking for birds inside the soul”
• Can re-use the text comparing BG phem with Torah.
  • Btw “If I could emphasize one point. It is the use of a pysche-cast read in conjunction with traditional hermeneutics. As explained somewhere.”
• I feel like a phem-explicit-description should not be extended past day 1… or maybe 3? Think about this.
• I suspect that most (of the original series) of the otiyot previously attempted are low-worth/credibility (viz. presume wrong)
  • Thus exclude genealogy except as “direction worth investigating in general”
  • Aka most of the original series I think is dis-helpful except in general directions of exploration
  • E.g. then I did not know what to think of ayin and mumbled it confidently

RANDOM EFFORT:

[These paragraphs could form a narrative which reveals to the reader a need, to be honest].

Creation stories from the most scientifically incongruent and personally irrelevant capstones of post-modernity’s determination to respect the past*. They are easier read as aesthetic imaginations, alongside art galleries and constellations.

* The wit is a mere cover for the serious: Approaching honest engagement (esp. in the Abrahamic cultures, but similarly in any aspect of any culture which has fossilized intertwined with moral norms and expectations) seems obvious and agreeable, yet has been deluded (unless you feel the barb’s sting).

The intractable mystic is thus left to map a spiritual space that is irrational (but not unreasonable), or to correlate the story’s silhouette to those of some other intangible wisdom (e.g. moral. metaphysical). Both these approaches are taught within the commentator’s tradition.

Here’s more to the point but still obtuse (see b/s for an idea to be direct)

The creation story of Breisheit* …

(it is not the only one in the Torah, only the most literally familiar to other’s within its mythological genre – e.g. Mishkan story)

… describes only literally the genesis of the material world. In the same breath*…

* cf. hei in behibaram

… and with the same vocabulary and narrative, it describes the ordering and unfolding of the internal landscape within each mind or any other vista which (from its own perspective) appears to be a point of reference for all that is. The world can be considered as earth and air, or as thoughts and actions, or as a single day, or so many other things that must be imagined to be known.

In addition to the physical, the mental is compelling to consider. But where is the shamayim of the mind, and what is the strategy for searching their description? By seeking the naked metaphor behind the forms familiar to the eye’s gaze, and thereafter looking for its shape in the new vista.

For example, shamayim can be abstracted into a definition as “that which is beyond aretz“. And aretz as “that which is within reach”. A complete description (per impossible) would be a multifaceted list of all the various abstractions that were imagined (e.g. shamayim, could be argued to say, is like the spaces within the mind that separate the delineated thoughts and processes). I birthed this inspired by original series, but > instead set off from anecdotal exploration that is tangible, esp. walking outside and looking at the sky and wondering how it co-occurs internally and what that even means.