Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
C
chris
Guest
In analysing the Book of Creation, the Sefer Yetzirah, or more so Rabbi Kaplan's interpretation, I have used my neurocognitive template perspective which includes the notions of transcendence and transformation as being fundamental goals of the species. This perspective (covered at http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting) works on the principle that our unconscious processing of information has not changed much in the species - over the thousands of years it has been same qualities, different words.
With this is my assertion that the spiritual, as manifest in idealism, stems from the material but in that process, the precision possible leads to a bias to idealism becoming the source of social development and from there stems religious and secular fundamentalism.
Elsewhere I have emphasised that the use of spiritual terms to describe reality etc reflects a distortion where the intense single context focus of precision forces context to be treated as a universal in that the increase in precision requires the aid of universals and as such contents of the universal are used in descriptions of the local such that these descriptions require translation to local context concepts.
Today in our descriptions we recruit and emphasis the use of universal constants etc - number rules - but in the past the rich anthropomorphism and lack of knowledge of how we work ment all was expressed from the perspective of 'God' and the aides of God, the angels.
For those immersed in a religous life these ancient concepts have been perpetuated through tradition and as such many of the concepts, of 'God', 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Angels', 'Demons' etc etc are taken literally.
The terms all reflect QUALITIES which we all share as a species - different perspectives will give us different words but the general meanings the words represent are the same.
With all of this in Mind, consider the following text extracted from some of Rabbi Kaplan's comments in the Book of Creation (ref details below) dealing with the material/spiritual worlds and of special interest are his comments re the properties and methods of Angels (this is lengthy but I think worth it re my eventual point made at the end):
=============Begin of Kaplan extract =============
"What is the difference between the material and the spiritual?
We speak of the material and the spiritual as two different concepts. We know the spiritual as not material. But precisely what is the difference? The answer should be obvious. The main difference between the material and the physical involves space. Physical space only exists in the physical world, In the spiritual, there is no space as we know it.
Although concepts of distance and closeness exist in the spiritual realm, they do not have the same meaning as they do in the physical world. In a spiritual sense, closeness involves resemblence. Two things that resemble each other are said to be spritually close. Two things that differ, on the other hand, are far apart in a spiritual sense.
This has very important implications. In the spiritual world, it is utterly impossible to bring two opposites together. Because they are opposite, they are by definition, poles apart.
Thus, for example, God and man are worlds apart - "as the heavens are higher than the earth." On a purely spiritual plane, it would be totally impossible for the two ever to be brought together. It was for this reason that God created the concept of space. Spiritual things can be bound to the material, just as, for example, the soul is bound to the body.
Two opposites can be brought together by being bound to physical objects. In the physical world, space exists, and two opposites can literally be pushed together. Furthermore, two spiritual opposites can even be bound to the same material object.
Thus, for example, man has both an urge for good and an urge for evil, the Yetzer Tov, and the Yetzer HaRa. In a purely spiritual sense, these are poles apart. Without a physical world, they could never be brought together in a single entity.
The archetype of the spiritual world is the angel. Since an angel has no body, it can never contain both good and evil in its being. Our sages therefore teach us that angels have no Yetzer HaRa.
It is only in a physical being that both good and evil can exist together. Although they are opposite poles spiritually, they can come together in the physical man. One reason why God created man in a physical world was to allow him to have full freedom of choice, with both good and evil as part of his makeup. Without a physical world, these two concepts could never exist in the same being.
The fact that good and evil can exist in the same physical space also allows good to overcome evil in this world. Here again, this is only possible in a physical world. In a purely spiritual arena, good could never come close enough to evil to have any influence over it. In the physical world, however, good and evil can exist together, and good can therefore overcome evil. Our sages teach us that one of the main reasons why man was placed in the physical world was to overcome the forces of evil, The Zohar expresses it by stating that we are here "to turn darkness into light."
The entire concept of the non-physical is very difficult to comprehend, and may be clarified by a remarkable teaching of the sages. The Midrash tells us, "One angel cannot have two missions. Neither can two angels share the same mission."
This teaching brings our entire discussion into focus. The angel in the archetype of the nonphysical being. When speaking of an angel, we are speaking of an entity that exists purely on a spiritual plane. Angels can be differentiated only by their mission, that is, by their involvement and attachement to some physical thing.
Two angels therefore cannot share the same mission. It is only their different missions that make the two angels different entities. They cannot be seperated by space like physical objects. Therefore if they both had the same mission, there would be nothing to differentiate them, and they would be one. Similarly, one angel cannot have two missions. On a purely spiritual plane, two different concepts cannot exist in a single entitity. If an angel had two missions, then it would be two angels.
We can also understand this in the terms of the human mind. In a sense, the mind is pure spiritual entity, bound to man's physical brain. Many thoughts and memories may be bound together by man's physical brain, but the mind can only focus on one of them at a time. In simple terms, a person can only think of one thing at a time. A thought is a spiritual entity, and as such, can only contain a single concept. Since both a thought and an angel are basic spiritual entities, this is very closely related to the fact that an angel can only have a single mission.
For a similar reason, angels have no way of knowing anything that does not pertain to their particular mission. An angel may be created initially with a vast storehouse of knowledge, but it has no way of increasing it, at least, not beyond its own sphere of activity. Thus for example, we find one angel asking another a question: "And one [angel] said to the Man dressed in linen...'How long shall it be until the end of these wonders'" (Daniel 12:6)? One angel had to ask the other, because he himself could no know something outside of his own domain.
In the physical world, we can learn things through our five senses. We can hear, feel, smell and taste. {{NOTE : there is a text error - leaves out seeing}} Our knowledge of things comes from our physical proximity to them. In the spiritual worlds, however, this does not exist. The only way that one can learn about a thing is to come into spiritual proximity to it. An angel cannot do this outside of his own realm.
Man therefore has an advantage over an angel. The very fact that he exists in the lower world enables him to reach up ever higher.
There are concepts of good decreed by God, and as His decrees, that are intimately bound to Him. When a man physically involves himself with good concepts, he literally binds himself to God. He thus achieves a closeness that no angel could ever hope to reach.
This is the major difference between a man and an angel. An angel is assigned to one spiritual station, and has no way to rise any higher. Thus when the prophet speaks of angels, he says "Around Him, the seraphim stood" (Isaiah 6:2). Angels are described as standing and stationary. But when God speaks to man, He tells him "If you walk in My ways ... then I will give you a place to move among those who stand here" (Zechariah 3:7). God was showing the prophet a vision of stationary angels, and telling him that he would be able to move among them. Man can move from level to level, but angels are bound to their particular plane." pp 59-62
Kaplan, A., (1990) "Sefer Yetzirah : The Book of Creation" WEISER
========End Kaplan quote ================
I have used this extensive quote to hopefully get across the 'feel' of the prose and the outlook in general. The ancient texts, combined with interpretations passed down through the ages, are supposed to reflect the words of God etc etc IOW Religion maintains the terminology of the ancients.
My point is that the terms originated in a time of total and utter ignorance as to our nature etc other than we being 'in the image of God' etc
Analysis of the above comments from Kaplan, infused with his learning and that which went before him, comes across to the non-specialist as 'strange' UNLESS it is treated as metaphor, unknowingly created by the ancients; the same brain structures as we have created the information and as such that structure is reflected in that information. Then comes the issue, metaphor for what? What are 'angels'?
My work with my template, based on analysis of how we find 'meaning', identifies objects and relationships as the main 'focus' of the neurocognitive processes combined with two 'goals', that of transcendence (aka mutation, allows for creation of novelty and so 'new' insights) and that of transformation. The latter reflects the creation and maintainence of habits where instincts (hard-coded habits) and habits allow the lifeform to the PUSHED by the context.
Now imagine 5000+ years ago where there is no notion of habits etc and so no explanation of being placed in an unusual context and out pops behaviours that the individual has never experienced before - as such they will ask 'what is happening with me! how/why am I behaving this way!?'
The anthropomorphism of the times will 'project' onto this world of instincts/habits a set of personas and interpret these events as one being 'manipulated' by these 'people' which can be linked to being aids of 'God'. As such we can identify the term 'God' as Nature and the concept of 'Angels' as a term to describe habits. (note in the latter parts of the text how Man can transcend, Angels cannot and as such are related to transforming).
If you go back and read the Kaplan text, replacing references to angels with reference to habits there is a strong correlation and as such the 'spirit' world is the ancient expression of the world of instincts/habits etc IOW intentional behaviour that the individual concerned is not aware of 'intending' and as such feels 'pushed' by the 'spirits'.
Overall the texts of thousands of years ago are rich metaphors used to describe the knowledge/beliefs of the times the SAME patterns we try to describe today - the QUALITIES have not changed - the words have as has the precision. However, this giving of life to the 'spirit' world has been perpetuated for thousands of years such that it has taken-on a life of its own regardless of 'reality'.
Science as such is the particularisation of Religion - it is more 'precise' in that the explicit anthropomorphism has been replaced with 'modern' terms and more precise, numeric, values. (and more 'gods' a la Darwin, Einstein etc) Religion reflects the keeping of the scrolls but as a mindless tradition; the faith involved was enough. As such Science reflects a lack of faith ;-)
Only with understanding of the neurocognitive/affective processes of the species are we in a position to re-analyse these texts and so identify their meanings or what they where *trying* to say. As such there are no (?) past 'mysteries', just history repeating itself - same qualities, same quests, different words.
Best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus
With this is my assertion that the spiritual, as manifest in idealism, stems from the material but in that process, the precision possible leads to a bias to idealism becoming the source of social development and from there stems religious and secular fundamentalism.
Elsewhere I have emphasised that the use of spiritual terms to describe reality etc reflects a distortion where the intense single context focus of precision forces context to be treated as a universal in that the increase in precision requires the aid of universals and as such contents of the universal are used in descriptions of the local such that these descriptions require translation to local context concepts.
Today in our descriptions we recruit and emphasis the use of universal constants etc - number rules - but in the past the rich anthropomorphism and lack of knowledge of how we work ment all was expressed from the perspective of 'God' and the aides of God, the angels.
For those immersed in a religous life these ancient concepts have been perpetuated through tradition and as such many of the concepts, of 'God', 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Angels', 'Demons' etc etc are taken literally.
The terms all reflect QUALITIES which we all share as a species - different perspectives will give us different words but the general meanings the words represent are the same.
With all of this in Mind, consider the following text extracted from some of Rabbi Kaplan's comments in the Book of Creation (ref details below) dealing with the material/spiritual worlds and of special interest are his comments re the properties and methods of Angels (this is lengthy but I think worth it re my eventual point made at the end):
=============Begin of Kaplan extract =============
"What is the difference between the material and the spiritual?
We speak of the material and the spiritual as two different concepts. We know the spiritual as not material. But precisely what is the difference? The answer should be obvious. The main difference between the material and the physical involves space. Physical space only exists in the physical world, In the spiritual, there is no space as we know it.
Although concepts of distance and closeness exist in the spiritual realm, they do not have the same meaning as they do in the physical world. In a spiritual sense, closeness involves resemblence. Two things that resemble each other are said to be spritually close. Two things that differ, on the other hand, are far apart in a spiritual sense.
This has very important implications. In the spiritual world, it is utterly impossible to bring two opposites together. Because they are opposite, they are by definition, poles apart.
Thus, for example, God and man are worlds apart - "as the heavens are higher than the earth." On a purely spiritual plane, it would be totally impossible for the two ever to be brought together. It was for this reason that God created the concept of space. Spiritual things can be bound to the material, just as, for example, the soul is bound to the body.
Two opposites can be brought together by being bound to physical objects. In the physical world, space exists, and two opposites can literally be pushed together. Furthermore, two spiritual opposites can even be bound to the same material object.
Thus, for example, man has both an urge for good and an urge for evil, the Yetzer Tov, and the Yetzer HaRa. In a purely spiritual sense, these are poles apart. Without a physical world, they could never be brought together in a single entity.
The archetype of the spiritual world is the angel. Since an angel has no body, it can never contain both good and evil in its being. Our sages therefore teach us that angels have no Yetzer HaRa.
It is only in a physical being that both good and evil can exist together. Although they are opposite poles spiritually, they can come together in the physical man. One reason why God created man in a physical world was to allow him to have full freedom of choice, with both good and evil as part of his makeup. Without a physical world, these two concepts could never exist in the same being.
The fact that good and evil can exist in the same physical space also allows good to overcome evil in this world. Here again, this is only possible in a physical world. In a purely spiritual arena, good could never come close enough to evil to have any influence over it. In the physical world, however, good and evil can exist together, and good can therefore overcome evil. Our sages teach us that one of the main reasons why man was placed in the physical world was to overcome the forces of evil, The Zohar expresses it by stating that we are here "to turn darkness into light."
The entire concept of the non-physical is very difficult to comprehend, and may be clarified by a remarkable teaching of the sages. The Midrash tells us, "One angel cannot have two missions. Neither can two angels share the same mission."
This teaching brings our entire discussion into focus. The angel in the archetype of the nonphysical being. When speaking of an angel, we are speaking of an entity that exists purely on a spiritual plane. Angels can be differentiated only by their mission, that is, by their involvement and attachement to some physical thing.
Two angels therefore cannot share the same mission. It is only their different missions that make the two angels different entities. They cannot be seperated by space like physical objects. Therefore if they both had the same mission, there would be nothing to differentiate them, and they would be one. Similarly, one angel cannot have two missions. On a purely spiritual plane, two different concepts cannot exist in a single entitity. If an angel had two missions, then it would be two angels.
We can also understand this in the terms of the human mind. In a sense, the mind is pure spiritual entity, bound to man's physical brain. Many thoughts and memories may be bound together by man's physical brain, but the mind can only focus on one of them at a time. In simple terms, a person can only think of one thing at a time. A thought is a spiritual entity, and as such, can only contain a single concept. Since both a thought and an angel are basic spiritual entities, this is very closely related to the fact that an angel can only have a single mission.
For a similar reason, angels have no way of knowing anything that does not pertain to their particular mission. An angel may be created initially with a vast storehouse of knowledge, but it has no way of increasing it, at least, not beyond its own sphere of activity. Thus for example, we find one angel asking another a question: "And one [angel] said to the Man dressed in linen...'How long shall it be until the end of these wonders'" (Daniel 12:6)? One angel had to ask the other, because he himself could no know something outside of his own domain.
In the physical world, we can learn things through our five senses. We can hear, feel, smell and taste. {{NOTE : there is a text error - leaves out seeing}} Our knowledge of things comes from our physical proximity to them. In the spiritual worlds, however, this does not exist. The only way that one can learn about a thing is to come into spiritual proximity to it. An angel cannot do this outside of his own realm.
Man therefore has an advantage over an angel. The very fact that he exists in the lower world enables him to reach up ever higher.
There are concepts of good decreed by God, and as His decrees, that are intimately bound to Him. When a man physically involves himself with good concepts, he literally binds himself to God. He thus achieves a closeness that no angel could ever hope to reach.
This is the major difference between a man and an angel. An angel is assigned to one spiritual station, and has no way to rise any higher. Thus when the prophet speaks of angels, he says "Around Him, the seraphim stood" (Isaiah 6:2). Angels are described as standing and stationary. But when God speaks to man, He tells him "If you walk in My ways ... then I will give you a place to move among those who stand here" (Zechariah 3:7). God was showing the prophet a vision of stationary angels, and telling him that he would be able to move among them. Man can move from level to level, but angels are bound to their particular plane." pp 59-62
Kaplan, A., (1990) "Sefer Yetzirah : The Book of Creation" WEISER
========End Kaplan quote ================
I have used this extensive quote to hopefully get across the 'feel' of the prose and the outlook in general. The ancient texts, combined with interpretations passed down through the ages, are supposed to reflect the words of God etc etc IOW Religion maintains the terminology of the ancients.
My point is that the terms originated in a time of total and utter ignorance as to our nature etc other than we being 'in the image of God' etc
Analysis of the above comments from Kaplan, infused with his learning and that which went before him, comes across to the non-specialist as 'strange' UNLESS it is treated as metaphor, unknowingly created by the ancients; the same brain structures as we have created the information and as such that structure is reflected in that information. Then comes the issue, metaphor for what? What are 'angels'?
My work with my template, based on analysis of how we find 'meaning', identifies objects and relationships as the main 'focus' of the neurocognitive processes combined with two 'goals', that of transcendence (aka mutation, allows for creation of novelty and so 'new' insights) and that of transformation. The latter reflects the creation and maintainence of habits where instincts (hard-coded habits) and habits allow the lifeform to the PUSHED by the context.
Now imagine 5000+ years ago where there is no notion of habits etc and so no explanation of being placed in an unusual context and out pops behaviours that the individual has never experienced before - as such they will ask 'what is happening with me! how/why am I behaving this way!?'
The anthropomorphism of the times will 'project' onto this world of instincts/habits a set of personas and interpret these events as one being 'manipulated' by these 'people' which can be linked to being aids of 'God'. As such we can identify the term 'God' as Nature and the concept of 'Angels' as a term to describe habits. (note in the latter parts of the text how Man can transcend, Angels cannot and as such are related to transforming).
If you go back and read the Kaplan text, replacing references to angels with reference to habits there is a strong correlation and as such the 'spirit' world is the ancient expression of the world of instincts/habits etc IOW intentional behaviour that the individual concerned is not aware of 'intending' and as such feels 'pushed' by the 'spirits'.
Overall the texts of thousands of years ago are rich metaphors used to describe the knowledge/beliefs of the times the SAME patterns we try to describe today - the QUALITIES have not changed - the words have as has the precision. However, this giving of life to the 'spirit' world has been perpetuated for thousands of years such that it has taken-on a life of its own regardless of 'reality'.
Science as such is the particularisation of Religion - it is more 'precise' in that the explicit anthropomorphism has been replaced with 'modern' terms and more precise, numeric, values. (and more 'gods' a la Darwin, Einstein etc) Religion reflects the keeping of the scrolls but as a mindless tradition; the faith involved was enough. As such Science reflects a lack of faith ;-)
Only with understanding of the neurocognitive/affective processes of the species are we in a position to re-analyse these texts and so identify their meanings or what they where *trying* to say. As such there are no (?) past 'mysteries', just history repeating itself - same qualities, same quests, different words.
Best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
Lists:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/semiosis
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus