Korach

In my heart, the real challenge awakened into quarrel’s inner courtrooms by Korach is the essence of post-theodic^[I] egalitarianism^[II], i.e. if all are facets of the same diamond, and all the centre of the stage, then why arrange ourselves by systems that force us to interact with each other and the world in specified protocols? This is both (1) unfair, why should only royalty enjoy fame’s narcotic pacifying gifts, and (2) how can we claim that it is fair for one soul to become Saul and another David, when surely anyone would prefer the latter despite knowing the equality of all amongst All?

Here is a suggestion:

It is not fair that not everyone is fated to wield the prestige^[1] of public influence, since, qua social species, we ascribe significant existential value to our ability to impact beyond our body’s frail shell. This includes social influence, intellectual, material, localized, historical, etc.

But if it is not fair, then why is the rebel here sent to hell?

Sidebar:

I see the Torah, not as a guidebook akin to road trip novel which inspires a summer adventure, but instead operates as a voodoo constellation mapped upon the Sapien propensity for linguistic wisdom. Thus it’s not enough to say, “Oh, I’d better avoid that part of the parashah from expressing itself in my life,” (although another may say, “I’d better avoid that bad trait, as described in the parashah”). It just happens by itself.

How do I see this in my own life (to allow comparison or inspiration):

I look at the part of me that is Korach this week, and I do not judge the guilty who have accepted their holy verdict (i.e. the characters of the Torah are holy, and thus not so much righteous, as they are beyond good and evil). I see that my own Korach allowed me to test a boundary (he is good at that), and although cast into firey earth, that apotheotic metamorphosis represents an epiphany of a prison which was thought Moshe, but then discovered to be the land (which had become conflated with the sky as though the land could hold the sky without the sky holding the land). Thus I continue to assert the right of the Torah to be learned by my wandering thoughts.

I see Korach against the sparkle of Yitro. Could not predict #1 from #2, but can see why they exist once their relationship is mapped. Korach is the burnish unburned bush that is Yitro that is Moshe etc etc etc. I am probably being an idiot when I commit myself to ongoing rebellion without end, but I learned from Korach how to purify my rebelliousness, I did not learn to ignore it. I can learn from Korach that I rebelled against my internal royal family/priesthood on a basis which was justified (viz. e.g. by Moshe aligning himself with a path that leads to forbidden fruits, aka godhood, that was evidence that Korach could navigate by utilitarian constellations, whose utility were not sufficient grounds for dismissal) but via a legal defence which uses that justification but then uses a contradictory strategy (viz. e.g. the right to be free to choose within my own slave dream/prison; i.e. korach is wrong to pursue this right since it was never granted – mundane freedom is not guaranteed, rather freedom from nature is guaranteed).

I am more impressed by the weaknesses of my Midrashim/inspirations than by their success. The latter represents confidence (merely), whereas the former [represents] shadows wisdom (and truth, which is seen as the inverse of discovering one’s ignorances).

When I ask, “What does this mean to me?”, I allow my gut to talk to me per the following (also learned from this parasha):

1. IFF (if and only if) I speculate privately, then I will avoid the risk of becoming a corrupter of truths (warned by Pirkei Avot).
2. IFF I practice mindful creativity (reading the naked text, and being opened to the thoughts that arrive, without the false expectation that their value is reflected by their truthfulness – their value may be that they lead you to discard ignorances, and thus you were wrong to worry about being correct (since you wanted to be loved and adored by those who admired your learning)
3. IF presume that all questions are good, then the answers may arrive much later.
4. The intellectual effort to communicate one’s ideas may truncate them, but may also allow them to reach greater heights. However one risks becoming like Korach, or the 3 friends of Job, who want to be awarded the medal for freedom without the freedom to make mistakes, and thus the freedom to disagree with one’s own systems.
   1. Thus I recommend caution where possible, patience is key, time is the field of output, and company may be enjoyed like wine (not too much, and not every day, and not if you start needing it).

Thus on one foot: Korach is about ensuring that the individual, alone in the whole cosmos, is never lost, no matter how unified the world becomes through his efforts, and this is why peace comes through individuality^[2]. When we appeal to the masses against any other form of qualification (even hereditary, thus showing that this principle is not moral, and is inverse in its logic: it teaches that democracy is no right by showing that it attempts to thwart tyranny with a foolish similar of the tyrant’s arbitrary decrees) then we are claiming human dignity but declining the offer.

But I ask myself, what have I learned here that I could not have foreseen in Levinas?

Answer: nothing, Torah is voodoo, not logical. Which is to say, the question is meaningless because it tries to limit potential by challenging redundancies (rather than challenging synergies).

What do I call Torah, in non-localized religious jargon?

I call it semiotics of combinatorics that couples existential narrative and momentums, sufficiently variegated to allow all possibilities to be theoretically attainable. Thus it is not logical, because when accessed qua “alphabet for the book of life” then it acts via lights, not via the electrons that crossed the diode stuff, i.e. it acts via the primordial substrate of possibilities, and does not act via the manifested facade of accessibilities.

What about the triple gem, in non-localized jargon?

I see a super-structure designed to strengthen a bridge across generations by the petrification of attainable wisdom (i.e. I allude to the sangha^[III]), alongside that petrified wisdom (into the written canon), by a petrified soul (that has escaped change).

What does the Mesoret look like to the Dhamma^[IV]?

Let’s start the other way. The former sees the other as irrevocably different, and as containing differences which can be mirrored, but never truly crossed (except as the loss of identity). Now let’s assume the same courtesy imagined by the former as though given by the latter to the former (viz. M imagines D other-ising M):

The Mesoret does not speak of nirvana or the tilakkhana^[V], but they are similar in other ways: They also mark themselves upon history, through men that imposed their changes into the world, and through segregation of populations and their capacities for vindicated conservatism, and through academic traditions which act dynamically.

To the fantasy reader?

The walker of long roads recognizes the Torah scholar as brothers within the universal inn through which they both pass, nomads each to their feather’s kind. It is no surprise that the goal of an epic shall transcend the limits of imagined import or reward, and that its path is iterative and methodical, but never forseen (except via risking prophecy, which makes dreams appear more real than a world made of dreams). E.g. if I had been told that in future all world would connect on text displays then I would have been astounded at what limits would be surpassed, but in doing so, delude myself into thinking that I had learned anything about the future more than I already didn’t know. My new ignorance is like the darkness in which the blind see (casting Popperian^[VI] possibilities^[VII] like a sorcerer sweeping up a fog into mirages, or a scientist casting algebra like necromancy, or a foolish elder painting the superior youth with colours and patterns the young one’s had never learned).

Thus I answer the two questions:

(1) The desire for explicit and demonstratable power is a threat, not a seduction.

(2) It must be amongst Saul’s challenge to understand his primacy over David (per Saul’s POV).

(X) It is alright to say with Job, “I can’t see it,” and the faithful would hear blasphemy and we would only hear blasphemy from theirs. So many it’s alright to say more, “I can’t see you,” and agree to walk alone.

I have seen recommendations for exciting appreciation for soothing priestly woes (viz. Specifically, the doubt that I have any direction left, having succeeded beyond my wildest dreams… which is why I don’t bother, instead of saying, “I can’t see myself saved,” so it must be beyond my mind’s eye, except by allusion. So I don’t try and see that which is invisible.

Is it wrong to try to live for the sake of living? I think so…………………. Wrong for me.

For others? Nah, that’s cool.

Just to show how smart I am? Eh, good enough to motivate, but irrelevant for justifying.

Is it wrong to oppose signs and portents? How about, Is it virtuous to ignore them?

^[1] There is nothing aprior lesser about pride, nor better about humility. We learn this from  Torah which advises them as arbitrary mandates serving a higher purpose: IME pride is terrible for magic, or quantum channelling of probabilities (since arrogance thirsts not merely for recognition, but for naked, masturbatory, praise, approaching each probability with its hidden list of silent demands [#1. I want to be loved, #2 I want to be adored… these lead to many opportunities of disintegration] But I never studied humility, nor practised abstaining from pride… learning forces me to face my limits, because every field I have approached, I have left without becoming an expert. HOWEVER being frustrated (by a world which ignores voice) forced me to become calloused to sensitivity against other’s pride (sinat chinam), which is also bad for magic.

If there is a “secret” to humility: [on] one foot: don’t learn by belittling yourself, rather by enlarging your esteem for others. Don’t learn to see self as a great artist, rather learn to see great artistry. Nb. I don’t mean to respect others for the sake of becoming humble. Rather, e.g. I want to be proud of skills, so I pay attention to those types of skills occurring in the world, and notice what is good about them. The more goodness I can find, the less I am plagued by these worries. I struggle here greatly, and the excuse I allow myself is that shame is a similar blemish, albeit one that is lethargic rather than violent, which is an advantage, albeit of quality, not quantity. For myself, too much antipathy for pride could be a sign for the rebalancing of scales that bring constructive self-imaginings, or many many many many other controls on the control panel called Life.

On one foot: Stop looking for the magic SOP [Standard Operating Procedure?]. Only the mitzvot are ordained as necessary steps. The wisdom of the Torah, however, occurs by sheer force of effort to consider. I would guess that a life plan inspired by the Torah to be similar in expectations to one inspired by anything else. The Midrash is not the Torah. Thus I would no more call it foolish, than I would any self-help plan and philosophy. Perhaps holy humans can just be animals once in a while, pause from their quest to reach the moon, and pick lice from their scalps because that is how they are, and in a way, the mundane is holy by way of being excluded from the holy (Korach as an inverse of Yitro)

^[2] The failure of late 20^th C “post-modern” cultural identities and values can be read against this lesson. Once the generation (e.g. the 60’s) discovered that they had been enslaved to past, they thought that all imposition of one will onto another implied a lack of ideal love. Thus love become watered down into a dogmatic pacificism, hippie-ism, whereas once the generation (e.g. the 60’s) discovered that their parents were wrong, they should have been able to insist on being right despite lacking any proof of anyone ever knowing anything. They could respect each other without loving each other, because to disagree with You is a sign that I allow for a universe to exist in which I am not the sole centre.

^[II] “Egalitarianism, or equalitarianism, is a school of thought within political philosophy that prioritizes equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.” For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism.

^[III] “Sangha, is a Buddhist monastic order, traditionally composed of four groups: monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen. The sangha is a part—together with the Buddha and the dharma (teaching)—of the Threefold Refuge, a basic creed of Buddhism”. For further details see https://www.britannica.com/topic/sangha.

^[IV] “dhamma is a key concept with multiple meanings in Indian religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and others. … In Buddhism, dharma means “cosmic law and order”, and is also applied to the teachings of Buddha. In Buddhist philosophy, dhamma/dharma is also the term for “phenomena”.” For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma.

^[V] “In Buddhism, the three marks of existence are three characteristics (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: त्रिलक्षण, trilakṣaṇa) of all existence and beings, namely impermanence (aniccā), unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā)”. For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence.

^[VI] “Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS was an Austrian-born British philosopher and professor. Generally regarded as one of the 20th century’s greatest philosophers of science, Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification”. For further details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper.

^[VII] “Popper has always drawn a clear distinction between the logic of falsifiability and its applied methodology. The logic of his theory is utterly simple: if a single ferrous metal is unaffected by a magnetic field it cannot be the case that all ferrous metals are affected by magnetic fields. Logically speaking, a scientific law is conclusively falsifiable although it is not conclusively verifiable. Methodologically, however, the situation is much more complex: no observation is free from the possibility of error—consequently, we may question whether our experimental result was what it appeared to be”. For further details see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/.