{"id":1514,"date":"2017-03-26T02:42:48","date_gmt":"2017-03-26T02:42:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thetravellerslastjourney.com\/shai\/?p=1514"},"modified":"2019-08-25T06:23:50","modified_gmt":"2019-08-25T06:23:50","slug":"yitro","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thetravellerslastjourney.com\/shai\/2017\/03\/26\/yitro\/","title":{"rendered":"Yitro"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\n{Part 1 – 15\/02\/2017}<\/p>\n

This is a pilot-trial to discuss avatar vectors, letter exemplification (and otiyot based synthetic apriori etymology), and an ethos [a doubt-plagued strategy]<\/em><\/p>\n

“Vayishma Yitro kohen midyan<\/em>…”<\/p>\n

Vayishma<\/em> contains the letters “shema<\/em>” of shema yisrael<\/em>‘. Letters inform their words, and words inform each other. Shema<\/em> plus yud<\/em> is like Shilo<\/em>h becoming Shyloh<\/em> [and Sarei<\/em> before Sarah<\/em>, but this is similar to imagining Mosheh<\/em> was Moshy<\/em>], to become Vayishma<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The individuals of the Torah are not partzufim<\/em>, but they do parallel significant orientations of vector strengths, for example, Esav<\/em> is like the Yetzer Hara<\/em> (i.e. the Yetzer Hara<\/em> is a design within reality, but not a fabric of reality).<\/p>\n

Yitro<\/em> at pshat<\/em> is a priest of all idols – nb. although “pshat<\/em> = simple”, this is true at all levels; differences\u00a0 in apparency – including how-apparent within a person’s own reality – relate to the pattern of<\/u> the layers\/olamim<\/em> which creates a further perspective, but also because each individual is a separate unfolding of a unique perspective within the letters of the Torah<\/em>, and thus different parts are apparent to each soul (nb. despite the only difference between each unfolding\/soul is the way that a singular flaw occurs in each one, viz. the flaw fixes itself in different ways; the flaw is the inability to see infinitely)*.<\/p>\n

*Btw there is a further no-point in trying to imagine a way to rank souls since souls as we recognize their shape combine into larger entities; but that does not make the bigger shapes “better” since we are the level of the Torah being given.<\/p>\n

Yitro<\/em> is taught to be like [gilgul<\/em>] Cain<\/em> (cf. Moshe<\/em> like Hevel<\/em>) [btw. cf. the descendent from Adam<\/em> named Cay<\/u>in<\/em>].<\/p>\n

Can also look at letters. Here is an example of looking at word “cohen<\/em>“, to illustrate how words can reflect existing understandings, but also suggest further depths.<\/p>\n

An easy word is a jug<\/em>, viz. “cud” – caf + daled<\/em>. Caf<\/em> is the power to submit one’s form in order to acquire a power which exists beyond it, in the way this form (e.g. spatial topology of a jug) relates to dimensions (e.g. transportation of liquids) not intrinsic to the thing (e.g. the physical atoms or conglomerate material that is the substrate and substance of a cup). Daled<\/em> is a space created by an opportunity which was opened (nb. I have thought that often daled at the end of the word emphasizes the finite<\/u> quality of the space). So jug is something which is contorted to gain the power of a certain space.<\/p>\n

And to further contrast, cup<\/em>, viz. “cos<\/em>” caf + vav + samech<\/em>. Same caf<\/em> in basic presentation. Ends in a balance (between the power to permit\/restrict [ayin<\/em>] & its flexibility\/conformity [nun<\/em>]) which describe a circumference to possibilities which are effectively a context<\/u>) that is samech<\/em>. Can write without the vav<\/em>, so can also see that the samech<\/em> is created by the caf<\/em> contorting itself for the sake of the following letters<\/u> (since its contortion creates the power of the following letter\/s). But the vav<\/em> shows that the contortion<\/u> (caf<\/em>) and the context<\/u> (samech<\/em>) are inseparable (aka symmetrical). Also, the vav<\/em> in the middle echoes hei-vav-zayin<\/em>, so too the caf<\/em>\/contortion-for-function acts as the limitation (hei<\/em>), while the samech<\/em>\/context acts as the tool-that-benefits (zayin<\/em>). A cup is a something which is contorted to become a context which defines the limits of its boundary’s use.<\/p>\n

This is also helpful for seeing another method I’ve thought about, for understanding “cohen”. Because we are looking up through the letters from our sky, even though they’re unfolding to become earth, we are in a sense looking up through a line. Thus can see words going upwards within their axis-channel (viz. of the three left\/middle\/right). So caf-hei-nun<\/em> go up along caf-nun-pei<\/em>. {Here I’m skipping a lot}<\/span>. Also Aleph<\/em> was sort of the ratzon<\/em> kadmon<\/em> of taf<\/em>, etc sort of like the 4 worlds are circular, and so the nun-sofit<\/em> of cohen can in this way be seen as leading to the caf<\/em> at the start of the word (this is just making explicit what was implicit in any simpler method depending on “sof maase<\/em>” for contextualizing the first letter of a word). Nun<\/em> is like mem-nun-samech<\/em>. This is clear insofar<\/u> as a caf acting within a space related to samech<\/em> (viz. the contortion -aspect of being a priest is effectively the context of being a priest if it is done purely), but reveals that the hei<\/em> (of cohen) is acting in this way (re mem<\/em>) [which in itself is also understandable, as the potential energy which reveals itself – i.e. mem<\/em> – insofar as the priest is being priestly, occurs in the way that the priest delimits themselves, ie. hei<\/em>, but this depends on the final purpose of the priest, ie. mem-nun-samech<\/em> is being invoked to connect the nun-sofit<\/em> with the first letter, and only then<\/em> is the samech\/hei<\/em> relation pertinent). Add re hei-nun<\/em> of cohen: hei<\/em> empowers up-chain into space of chet<\/em> where the nun<\/em> is written [cf. tzur chevli<\/em> or Yaakov<\/em> chevel<\/em> regarding a chet\/nun<\/em>] by analogy this is like the way that a priest walks in their ways in order to walk towards divinity. [From this can, Midrash<\/em>-as-if-discussion, ask what if Ima<\/em> and Aba<\/em> of this word Yichud<\/em>, regarding the daled<\/em>, since it would be taught at conception like mem<\/em>, cf. hei-mem<\/em> as above. But Whereas cup\/cos, cf. the samech<\/em> to hei-nun<\/em> [of cohen], and in that space’s differential, understand the aspect of growth that is potential inside word cohen, and this is like cups overflowing on Pesach<\/em> during exodus].<\/p>\n

So what’s the moral?<\/p>\n

Yitro<\/em> is the parashah<\/em> of the mortal contribution to the divine unfolding towards chessed<\/em> and the infinite. The following is a written with the intention of being a Midrash<\/em> written as Pshat<\/em>, which sounds problematic.<\/p>\n

Each person has reasons to doubt optimism. This world reveals itself in so many cruel chapters and scenes that the common belief called nihilism, is so well<\/u> received, that it has been dressed via social contract, into a dress built within materialism, and justified within a framework only a fool would disprove, aka realism. So why hope? Why hope, when given the threat of utter disappointment, made all the more dangerous by the subterranean wells dug and then sealed by the great common-property cabal – the conspiracy-of-all that knows that “life is not satisfactory [in truth]*” (but we don’t have to be aware of this)**.<\/p>\n

* I add the brackets since we are so accustomed to constricting truths, that this has to be added despite its redundancy.<\/p>\n

** Cf. the practice of hiring “greeters” to stand in openings of stores.<\/p>\n

Let’s think of ourselves\u00a0like we would be by an algorithm designing advertising on a search engine: lists of hobbies and interests\/concerns, and identifying factors (such as age and affiliations) which are useful for suggesting further details and categories within our lists of hobbies and interests\/concerns. We can imagine each hobby or interest as something which we move towards. In a basic sense, this is the way we become “more” of a fan of sport the more years we ingrain sport into our character. In a more complicated sense, by learning and practising (viz. experiencing more times, and in varied times) something, we make ourselves more developed (since those parts inside our brain which encode information regarding the “thing” have become more nuanced, just like a search engine develops a model of the consumer which becomes more complicated with each exposure provided by the user, and thus the search engine itself is becoming more developed).<\/p>\n

So in this sense, we are the priest of midyan<\/em>, since we are complex individuals, following varied constellations of interests, and pre-occupied by further differences according to our life’s passage.<\/p>\n

“Shema Yisrael<\/em>“… we are taught by Mosheh<\/em> to unite all our potential to focus on the meaning of this declaration [I have written elsewhere].<\/p>\n

Here is a Torah<\/em>-imprinted man-made description of a pattern along this contraction: “Vayishma<\/em> Yitro<\/em>“. We are priests of strife; each one is expert of their own variegation and inner-contrasts.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/em> explains, What did Yitro<\/em> hear? He heard of Yam Suf,<\/em> the Manna<\/em> [or was it the well?], and Amalek<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Some explain that Yitro<\/em> heard these things after Yam Suf<\/em>, and some say after the Luchot HaBrit<\/em>. There is a paradox here, but it is also an opportunity.<\/p>\n

We hear about these three things while priests of strife.<\/p>\n

To convert the part of ourselves that occupies most of our life (and the majority of what the world and advertisers think of us) can occur* within our own unique expertise. Just pay attention to these three things, listen out for: what you understand of the unfolding of reality (yam suf<\/em>, “Judaism”), look at the relationship between what you need, you get, and your time-spent-worrying-if-not-enough-need-more (manna or well in different ways), the way doubt occurs and way it can be interacted\/interactable with [sic].<\/p>\n

* Not as the “whole”; as a part of a whole, that is wholly within itself.<\/p>\n

Yitro heard about what is awesome, what is satisfying, and what is hopeless*. Vayishma Yitro (the priest of strife).<\/p>\n

In one sense, this is a thing that occurs at-once, like at Yam Suf, but in another sense, this is a long endeavour (and this journey begins with Anochi; it doesn’t finish there).<\/p>\n

* Letters don’t just reflect what is known, they suggest consideration too. Moshe told Yitro about the hardships of slavery, and Rashi<\/em> explains that the word for hardships relates to the word “no”, lamed-aleph<\/em>. Nihilism is, therefore, apt name: a depressive existentialism predicated on a vacuous metaphysics: nothing is real and thus all is doomed to be worth nothing. Lamed-aleph<\/em>, the aleph<\/em> is a vista-of-reality (eg. an expression within reality, or reality as seen from a perspective) which was taught (by lamed<\/em>), and yet that teaching (lamed<\/em>) is indiscernible from the perspective. This is why Kant was so correct in describing the metaphysics of appearances as “reality is inseparable from the perspective of it”, but was limited (unlike the Cohen Gadol who is tied by a rope on Yom Kippur<\/em> to enter Kodesh Hakodashim<\/em>).<\/p>\n

I don’t deny that life looks to me like a prison barred by futility and locked by entropy. I just hope there’s something outside. Haazinu hashamyim, vetishma haaretz<\/em>. Listen and hear.<\/p>\n

\"\"{Part 2 – 17\/02\/2017}<\/p>\n

Nb mistake re Cain\/cYin. Was thinking of tubal Cain and caynin and the genealogy in general.<\/p>\n

\"\"{Part 3 – 26\/03\/2017}<\/p>\n

“This is also helpful for seeing another method I’ve thought about, for understanding “cohen”. Because we are looking up through the letters from our sky, even though they’re unfolding to become earth, we are in a sense looking up through a line. Thus can see words going upwards within their axis-channel (viz. of the three left\/middle\/right). So caf-hei-nun<\/em> go up along caf-nun-pei<\/em>. {Here I’m skipping a lot}. Also Aleph<\/em> was sort of the ratzon kadmon<\/em> of taf<\/em>, etc sort of like the 4 worlds are circular, and so the nun-sofit<\/em> of cohen<\/em> can in this way be seen as leading to the caf at the start of the word (this is just making explicit what was implicit in any simpler method depending on “sof maase<\/em>” for contextualizing the first letter of a word). Nun<\/em> is like mem-nun-samech<\/em>. This is clear insofar<\/u> as a caf acting within a space related to samech (viz. the contortion -aspect of being a priest is effectively the context of being a priest if it is done purely), but reveals that the hei<\/em> (of cohen<\/em>) is acting in this way (re mem<\/em>) [which in itself is also understandable, as the potential energy which reveals itself – i.e. mem<\/em> – insofar as the priest is being priestly, occurs in the way that the priest delimits themself, ie. hei<\/em>, but this depends on the final purpose of the priest, ie. mem-nun-samech<\/em> is being invoked to connect the nun-sofit<\/em> with the first letter, and only then<\/em> is the samech\/hei relation pertinent). Add re hei-nun<\/em> of cohen: hei<\/em> empowers up-chain into space of chet<\/em> where the nun is written [cf. tzur chevli, or yaakov chevel regarding a chet<\/em>\/nun<\/em>] by analogy this is like the way that a priest walks in their ways in order to walk towards divinity. [From this can, Midrash<\/em>-as-if-discussion, ask what if Ima<\/em> and Aba<\/em> of this word Yichud<\/em>, regarding the daled<\/strong><\/em>*, since it would be taught at conception like mem<\/em>, cf. hei-mem<\/em> as above. But Whereas cup\/cos<\/em>, cf. the samech<\/strong> <\/em>to hei-nun<\/em> [of cohen<\/em>], and in that space’s differential, understand the aspect of growth that is potential inside word cohen<\/em>, and this is like cups overflowing on Pesach<\/em> during exodus].”<\/p>\n