Poh, that link to Steinsaltz Aleph Society has a very nice section on what they call Daf Yomi which is an essay about of each of the Talmud sections. Very nicely assembled. I will be reviewing this as a supplement to my Talmud classes. Thanks for the link.
Renewal for Liberals?
- Thread starter dauer
- Start date
pohaikawahine
Elder Member
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I'm sorry - maybe it was BB - I'm pretty sure it was one of you and the book is a good reference (now I'll have to go back and check my notes when I heard about this book or it will drive me crazy wondering) .... and Avi, you're welcome. he hawai'i au, poh
pohaikawahine
Elder Member
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Yes, it was BB that recommended the book back in 2005 - me ke aloha pumehana, poh
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
well, the interesting thing about both spiral dynamics and the kabbalistic frameworks is that they're holistic rather than strictly hierarchical, in that it isn't seen as a [simple] teleological progression but rather a process of ongoing development requiring all levels, nodes and connections to be in dynamic equilibrium.dauer said:
yes, i meant 2d rather than 5d.
i suppose so, but that's more of a subtle, partzufic tension, the more overt tensions are those between the left, right and middle pillars and within the top, middle and bottom triads, as well as between the five dyads of the Tree, in particular the integrative tension between 6=9 and 1=10.
that sounds far more like the [nested] sefirah of a sefirah within an 'olam approach that you mentioned above and also wilber's idea of a "holarchy", which someone at work compared to a russian doll last week, which i thought was a very useful metaphor.
oh, i see what you mean. that might be a useful way to talk about it, although of course esperanto is probably rather robust. but then again, estis un rano in mi bideo.
that's what i meant.
i'm sure they aren't. remember, the hasidic thinking on this is influenced by the ar"izal, so it's going to be similar from where i'm coming from.
well, it's nothing that complicated. all it is a theory that having systematically analysed the entire corpus of halakhah, rambam had deduced that the only irreducible axioms in it were these thirteen, from which everything else flowed as a logical consequence. consequently, he found it necessary to state them so categorically as "ani ma'amin be-emunah shleimah" precisely to highlight their unique status as axioms. the list itself is so interesting precisely because rambam is so often portrayed (at least in the traditional world) as a rational dogmatist (in a nice way, that is) whereas precisely what dogma may or may not have meant to him, as opposed to his contemporaries and successors, is a matter of some debate, if you read menachem kellner on the subject, which i do strongly recommend ("must a jew believe anything?") as it touches on the larger subject of the barriers to klal yisrael arising from the systematic misinterpretation of rambam. also, this was not the only list in town.
as irreducible axioms, they are more suited to contemplative approaches than to analysis.
dear G!D, that really is shocking stuff. why do they do it? why not just learn the hebrew and come up with a tune that actually fits the scansion, like we do in the sephardi world? besides, ashkenazim miss out several verses of yigdal (and adon 'olam while we're at it).
subjective i understand, but why necessarily dualistic?c0de said:
BB said:
Ahh, okay. I don't think AQAL touches that much at all. Similar problems may be dealt with by looking at different levels, but because they're framed as levels rather than dyads or tryads the approach to them is going to be different and more potential objections to pre/trans fallacy arise.
They do it because a lot of people, even if they can read the Hebrew, don't understand it. And for others who do understand, it's not quite the same as hearing one's native tongue. While I would fully support all people who attend shul learning to both read and understand Hebrew, I know that's not going to happen anytime soon if ever. I like some of the chantable English, like Reb Zalman's Yedid Nefesh, and in every setting where I've seen it used it's been at the same time as the Hebrew. That has a nice effect. But this yigdal reminds me of some of the attempts I've seen to translate liturgy into English poetry that isn't meant to be chanted. I can remember when I was little there was some translation of something that would be recited at pretty much every service and I had to fight with myself every time not to start laughing because the rhyme was so ridiculous.
You know, I didn't even have you in mind when I said that. Are you alluding to that interview with that guy from that show who did that other thing about how a banana proves God's existence?
YouTube - Banana's are Proof God Exists
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
D + BB + poh
Shalom ppl
@ D
The two approaches of tzimtzum are interesting, although they don't appeal to me because they seem to impose limitations on God (what God "has" to do in order to do something else). And its weird but when I read your initial comment of "a finite manifistation..." I read it quite differently then the Chabad hasidism hypothesis. I agree that God could contain Himself in a finite space if He wanted to (He can do anything, as He says) But if wont "have" to do anything. To me, this seems to be the same riddle: can God create a rock big enough that He cannot lift Himself? I would say yes, God can limit His own power, if He wanted.
@ BB
I wanna know more about this "constructive paradox", do you have any sources for further reading about this on the web? I couldnt find anything.
Whenever you separate the material and "spiritual," aren't you basically in Cartesian dualism? While the purely phenomenological approach, while monist, is subjective.
@ poh
thnx for the sources poh
Shalom ppl
@ D
The two approaches of tzimtzum are interesting, although they don't appeal to me because they seem to impose limitations on God (what God "has" to do in order to do something else). And its weird but when I read your initial comment of "a finite manifistation..." I read it quite differently then the Chabad hasidism hypothesis. I agree that God could contain Himself in a finite space if He wanted to (He can do anything, as He says) But if wont "have" to do anything. To me, this seems to be the same riddle: can God create a rock big enough that He cannot lift Himself? I would say yes, God can limit His own power, if He wanted.
@ BB
I wanna know more about this "constructive paradox", do you have any sources for further reading about this on the web? I couldnt find anything.
Whenever you separate the material and "spiritual," aren't you basically in Cartesian dualism? While the purely phenomenological approach, while monist, is subjective.
@ poh
thnx for the sources poh
c0de,
If I'm understanding you correctly, that was more or less my point. I don't agree with Chabad's hypothesis. When I say "a finite manifestation of the infinite" I don't mean it as they suggest (indeed, as adherents to the latter approach to tzimtzum, they would also agree with "finite manifestation of the infinite" as I mean it, as a part of a greater totality.) I meant that the way you had originally phrased what you were trying to say, it struck me as being potentially interpretable as a similar approach to Chabad's.
If I'm understanding you correctly, that was more or less my point. I don't agree with Chabad's hypothesis. When I say "a finite manifestation of the infinite" I don't mean it as they suggest (indeed, as adherents to the latter approach to tzimtzum, they would also agree with "finite manifestation of the infinite" as I mean it, as a part of a greater totality.) I meant that the way you had originally phrased what you were trying to say, it struck me as being potentially interpretable as a similar approach to Chabad's.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
hah. i hear ya.
nope, except it does anyway. in the words of "mr everything-comes-from-india" from "goodness gracious me":
stick "synesthesia" and "Torah" or "sinai" into google and follow your nose. the key verse is the one that contains the phrase "and the people saw the sounds".c0de said:
oh, i see. lucky for me i don't do that, eh?
b'shalom
bananabrain
Code, what is your view of the revelation ?
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
BB + Avi
@ BB
Oh... I know about synesthesia dude. I actually watched a doc once which talked about Moses (pbuh) experience of the burning bush and reduced it down to him eating some wild mushrooms i.e. auditory and visual hallucinations...
But this is a materialist point of view because it reduces everything down to a neurological processes in the brain. So going back to my comment about merging the transcendental with the material, this POV of "synesthesia" actually rejects the transcendental altogether.
Here is a lecture by Ramachandaran on synthesia that might interest you, im listening to this right now in the other tab: Ramachandran: Synesthesia, Metaphor, Language, & Abstraction • videosift.com
@ Avi
That it is not agreeable to "reason". (I used to be a rationalist too, by the way.)
@ BB
Oh... I know about synesthesia dude. I actually watched a doc once which talked about Moses (pbuh) experience of the burning bush and reduced it down to him eating some wild mushrooms i.e. auditory and visual hallucinations...
But this is a materialist point of view because it reduces everything down to a neurological processes in the brain. So going back to my comment about merging the transcendental with the material, this POV of "synesthesia" actually rejects the transcendental altogether.
Here is a lecture by Ramachandaran on synthesia that might interest you, im listening to this right now in the other tab: Ramachandran: Synesthesia, Metaphor, Language, & Abstraction • videosift.com
@ Avi
That it is not agreeable to "reason". (I used to be a rationalist too, by the way.)
pohaikawahine
Elder Member
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
OK - the two of you have lost me completely now .... but today in my daily lessons on the Torah came an answer that I did not expect but is the most exciting thing I have read in a long time. Seems to me (and this is just my opinion) that the issue of whether one follows orthodox, reform, renewal , the teachings of the kaballah or a combination of any of these, the following tells us what we all are looking for and it is connected with the return of the Mashiach . (this is from Lessons in Truth, 27 Av, 5769 ) Hashem has promised the Jewish people that after the coming of the Mashiach, everyone will merit to learn Torah directly from Him, just as we merited to hear the first two of the Ten Commandments directly from Him at Sinai. At that glorious time, all Jews will ascend to the level of prophets, as it is written, "And it will be after this, I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy; your elders shall dream, your young men shall see visions." (Yoel 3:1)
The interpretation of the above is different from mine, but I see a connection to what I have tried to express in words - in the end we will all walk a different path, but when we reach the mountaintop we will see the same moon. The process to achieve this is buried in the Torah and is a strong part of Kaballah - what happens at the regathering. The Hopi Indian have a saying that also relates to the coming times - they say "this is the time in which we will meet ourselves". Edgar Cayce said when the three become one - meaning when the three hemispheres of the brain merge into one we become whole again. It is an internal process and we must connect our heads back to our bodies. OK - I'm getting carried away, but this is the first time I've read this passage in the way I read it today. Liberals, conservatives - doesn't really matter in the end, we all have the potential to get to the same place and to effect the return and the regathering.
Again in Yoel 3:2 - "Before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes, I will set portents in the sky and on earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke; the sun shall turn into darkness And the moon into blood." This is also prophesized in the Hawaiian Chant of Creation, the Kumulipo - but it is done in Hawaiian terminology and legends (which by the way many Hawaiians may not agree with me) one of the sacred or hidden names of the Goddess Pele is Hina-i-ke-ahi which translates as "the-moon-in-flames". There is also an Apache Red Sky Prophecy "the sky suddenly turned back to a liquid and then turned blood red" .
Today is a good day. he hawai'i au, poh
The interpretation of the above is different from mine, but I see a connection to what I have tried to express in words - in the end we will all walk a different path, but when we reach the mountaintop we will see the same moon. The process to achieve this is buried in the Torah and is a strong part of Kaballah - what happens at the regathering. The Hopi Indian have a saying that also relates to the coming times - they say "this is the time in which we will meet ourselves". Edgar Cayce said when the three become one - meaning when the three hemispheres of the brain merge into one we become whole again. It is an internal process and we must connect our heads back to our bodies. OK - I'm getting carried away, but this is the first time I've read this passage in the way I read it today. Liberals, conservatives - doesn't really matter in the end, we all have the potential to get to the same place and to effect the return and the regathering.
Again in Yoel 3:2 - "Before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes, I will set portents in the sky and on earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke; the sun shall turn into darkness And the moon into blood." This is also prophesized in the Hawaiian Chant of Creation, the Kumulipo - but it is done in Hawaiian terminology and legends (which by the way many Hawaiians may not agree with me) one of the sacred or hidden names of the Goddess Pele is Hina-i-ke-ahi which translates as "the-moon-in-flames". There is also an Apache Red Sky Prophecy "the sky suddenly turned back to a liquid and then turned blood red" .
Today is a good day. he hawai'i au, poh
. Don't want to share... Does that imply ownership?
I can’t help but think of a famous line in Casablanca delivered by Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine — “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.” I wonder why that might be.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I miss @dauer and @Avi and @bananabrain .. I keep hoping they will pop back in. The Judiasm forum is sadly silent these days!!
. And RabbiO’s Conservadox nature hasn’t changed 
. What about RabbiO? Has he learned his lesson about Conservadoxy ?
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I just know that I read all the threads but it was usually over my head and just made me feel dumber than rocks. I appreciated very much the tolerance they all had for each other.