{"id":1263,"date":"2017-01-18T00:11:54","date_gmt":"2017-01-18T00:11:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thetravellerslastjourney.com\/shai\/a-prolegomena-to-a-prolegomena-to-a-study"},"modified":"2019-08-27T08:20:51","modified_gmt":"2019-08-27T08:20:51","slug":"a-prolegomena-to-a-prolegomena-to-a-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thetravellerslastjourney.com\/shai\/2017\/01\/18\/a-prolegomena-to-a-prolegomena-to-a-study\/","title":{"rendered":"A Prolegomena to a Prolegomena to a Study"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

{24\/10\/2016}<\/p>\n

Even approaching the approaching of this thing requires consideration.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

{24\/10\/2016}<\/p>\n

The goal is a proper study.
\nThe means is to know how to study.
\nThe precursor is to wonder how to know how to study.<\/p>\n

More premises:<\/p>\n

The subject of the goal is an Aleph<\/em>. (#Borges)
\nA premise of the means is that the value of a study can vary.
\nA fundamental question within wondering is, how is a personal insight to be characterised?<\/p>\n

Some hypotheticals:<\/p>\n

If the Aleph<\/em> is benevolent, then any approach should approach the ideal.
\nHowever, the mortal coil is limited.
\nBut any benevolent Aleph<\/em> (with more particular premises incorporated here) might include idiosyncratic arches to ideality.
\nHowever free will is presumed to always be endorsed, and surrounding literature describes scarred\/scarring visions.<\/p>\n

A difference could be made between that which is insightful by way of the Aleph<\/em>.
\nAnd that which is insightful to the way to the Aleph<\/em>.
\n“This helps me understand that,” whereas, “That helps me understand this.”
\nI must presume (at this moment) that the second must be tested rigorously.
\nBut in any case the implication:
\nPersonal insight should be classified as “insight by way of the Aleph that applies to an understanding of a form\/concept”.<\/p>\n

I presume:
\nThe study of the form\/concept of the Aleph, should itself be considered separately<\/em>.
\nAnd this is by way of the expression\/reception of the Aleph.<\/p>\n

Thus I tentatively elaborate:<\/p>\n

The study is in two ways:
\nPrimary – \u00a0by way of its expression and reception.
\nSecondary – by way of insight.
\nEach of these is in two ways:
\nA primary that is primary – that explains the substrate.
\nPrimary that is secondary – that explains the approaching to the substrate.
\nSecondary that is primary – that enlightens some matter.
\nSecondary that is secondary – that serves for testing that approach to the substrate.<\/p>\n

A specific example of this elaboration:
\nRe. 7I-1I-4III in Vayikra<\/em> re. Korban<\/em> Kapara<\/em>.
\nE.g. primary – Rashi<\/em> re. Keshet<\/em>.
\nE.g. secondary – Adam<\/em> on Isha<\/em>
\nE.g. primary\/primary – a facet of what Aharon<\/em> can do.
\nE.g. primary\/secondary – set of homologies and logic (nb. both present and absent)
\nE.g. secondary\/primary – on the matter of partnership in the cosmic effort
\nE.g. secondary\/secondary – set of homologies and logic (nb. both present and absent)<\/p>\n

Can add:<\/p>\n

Primary\/primary\/secondary – that enlightens some matter that is part of, but can be considered separately, from a substrate
\nE.g. (re. above) – enlightens the matter of kapara<\/em>, or the matter of keshet<\/em>, etc
\nOne could continue in this way ad nauseam, e.g.
\n1\/2\/1 for primary explicit statements on laws of reception; 1\/2\/2 for those insighted
\n2\/2\/1&2 are rarer and more convoluted, and likely almost identical to instances of 1\/2\/1.
\n1\/2\/1\/1v2 for what is explicit, versus what can be derived from those explications by insight.
\n&c.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

{24\/10\/2016}<\/p>\n

A chapter yet to be written:<\/p>\n

Insights from molecular biology for a hermeneutics of infinite literature.<\/em><\/p>\n

with a sub-chapter:<\/p>\n

Molecular biology as an allegory for Talmudic study.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

{05\/01\/2017}<\/p>\n

Can add a third way, still not understood in details, which is that taught in Zohar<\/em> Bamidbar<\/em> 150a.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

{18\/01\/2017}<\/p>\n

How can one learn kabbala<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Goals:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Familiarity with mapped terrain<\/li>\n
  2. Capacity to explore the terrain<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The difficulty is unique for this level of pardes<\/em>, since the ideas are metaphorical due to metaphysics (and not due to epistemology, cf. drash<\/em>). Thus the possibility of solutions to any conceived constellation may be endless. Like the student whose capacity for proving the pure and impure alluded to his excision from the line to Sinai.<\/p>\n

    There are a few suggestible intermediate steps, but there is only one solution to this problem, without admitting absolute solipsism:<\/p>\n

    Partnering ideas with someone who is Other and more qualified.<\/p>\n

    Until then… I danger myself by the hairs of chochma<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    As for the first goal, want to accumulate the following:<\/p>\n