[Avodah] More Philosophy, If Anyone's Up to It

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:08:59PM -0500, Ira Tick wrote:
: I'm sorry, I'm not an expert on Emunos V'Deos, but I read explicitly a
: translation in R J David Bleich's book "With Perfect Faith,"  wherein
: RSG discusses the problems of attributes and characteristics of G-d
: vis-a-vis His role as Creator, namely Life, Power (Ability ?), and
: Knowledge...

You're citing his discussion of Hashem's essence (beginning of 2:4).
See http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/kapah/2a-2.htm#4 The three are
Chai, Yakhol, and Chakham. He then (in 2:5) argues that the Xian trinity
comes from thinking these are separable.

I am prefacing that with a discussion of his theory of attributes (2:1, R
"Kapach"'s translation labels the subsection "Tekhunos haBorei beHigayon")
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/kapah/2-2.htm#1

...
: Sometimes I think that Medieval Jewish Philosophers were so anxious to
: combat the blasphemies of Christianity and Paganism, that they reduced
: G-d to something He is not in the Talmud -- a completely paradoxical,
: unidentifiable, abstract idea that somehow correlates with the
: Personal G-d of Scripture...

It's unlikely, since Jewish Philosophy prospered in Moslem lands. In
Xian countries were were being more Qabbalah oriented. If the motivation
were as you say, the sefiros would have been less popular in Ashkenaz,
not more.

More probable is that the rise of Greek Philosophy among the Moslems
created new questions that the gewmara didn't have to address. They
didn't so much create new concepts of whole cloth, but recast them into
qanqanim chadashos.

I think that's true of us too... Our philosophy is significantly different
from that of the rishonim more because we're asking different questions
than because we have different postulates. Most of us today assume
universal hashgachah peratis not because we contradict the rishonim,
but because we live in an era where popular worldviews tends to share
the influences that brought Kant and the Existentialists to the fore.
They asked ontological questions, we're asking experiential ones.

...
: G-d to the soul of man, making Him more the sort of Soul of the
: Universe, Who's Will sustains and directs the spiritual and physical
: world which we inhabit. If man is holy, then G-d is Holy, in an
: absolute way that transcends us, just as His Will (and its effects)
: and His Machshavos transcend ours.  This is the G-d I believe in.

There is a causal relationship between G-d and the olamos that doesn't
exist for soul and body. Also, because of this, the body restricts the
soul -- free will does not include things the body can't physically
do. G-d, OTOH, is only restricting Himself, since He could have created
the universe otherwise.

:> I'm identifying the
:> higher metaphysical entities with emotion. You asked (roughly) whether
:> qedushah is a metaphysical state or an emotion. I'm answering with the
:> suggestion that they are the same thing. Human emotions are metaphysical
:> entities; the state called qedushah is a real and ontological entity.
:> It's also the feeling of qedushah.

:> This is how the tradition of the Gra and developed by the baalei mussar
:> asserts that repairing one's soul is the same thing as repairing one's
:> middos and desires.

:> Also, REED (MmE vol I pp 304-312) identifies the higher olamos with more
:> noble ways of perceiving reality. (I wrote about this at more length at
:> <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/beshalach.pdf>.) Not quite the same
:> thing, but IMHO part of the same larger picture. The idea that these
:> metaphysical realities and psychological ones aren't quite distinct.

: I still like this part, but its novel to me that kedusha (forgive me,
: but the "q" thing drives me insane)  and the experience of kedusha
: would be one and the same.  I think I can get used to that idea,
: except that when I'm asleep, is my soul no longer holy?  Also, is it
: G-d's perception / feeling of kedusha (presumably associated with
: Himself, a sort of sense of self-worth) that makes Him Holy?  (I know
: you don't believe that G-d has perception or feeling, but humor me
: here, because frankly, your conception of G-d is close to meaningless
: for me, unless you're saying that G-d is just some Spirit of Holiness,
: without any other dimensions, including knowledge of His Creation,
: which would bother me.  And don't try to claim He has knowledge, but
: not experience, because precedent calls for both if any one is
: present, unless G-d has the instinct of a snail--which is greater
: blasphemy to me)

I recommend learning RSShkop's introduction to Shaarei Yosher. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf>, the Hebrew starts at the
end and works backward. It's not a theological peice as much as an
anthropological one. Here's what RSS says about qedushah (translation
mine):
> For everything He created and formed was according to His Will (may it
> be blessed), [that is] only to be good to the creations. So too His Will
> is that we walk in His ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways"
> -- that we, the select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our
> purpose to sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of
> the many, according to our abilities.

> In my opinion, this whole concept is included in Hashem's mitzvah
> "Be holy, [for I am Holy]." The Midrash (Leviticus, Emor, ch. 24) says
> about this verse: "Can it [truly] be 'Like Me?' This is why it continues,
> 'for I am Holy' to teach that My Sanctity is above yours." And about the
> foundation of this mitzvah of sanctity the Toras Kohanim has "'be holy'
> -- be separate". ...

> And so, it appears to my limited thought that this mitzvah includes
> the entire foundation and root of the purpose of our lives. All of
> our work and effort should constantly be sanctified to doing good for
> the community. We should not use any act, movement, or get benefit or
> enjoyment that doesn't have in it some element of helping another. And as
> understood, all holiness is being set apart for an honorable purpose --
> which is that a person straightens his path and strives constantly to
> make his lifestyle dedicated to the community. Then, anything he does
> even for himself, for the health of his body and soul he also associates
> to the mitzvah of being holy, for through this he can also do good for
> the masses. Through the good he does for himself he can do good for
> the many who rely on him. But if he derives benefit from some kind of
> permissible thing that isn't needed for the health of his body and soul,
> that benefit is in opposition to holiness. For in this he is benefiting
> himself (for that moment as it seems to him), but no one else.
...
> HOWEVER, what of a person who decides to submerge his nature, to reach
> a high level so that he has no thought or inclination in his soul for
> his own good, only a desire for the good of others? In this way he would
> have his desire reach the sanctity of the Creator, as His Desire in all
> of the creation and management of the world is only for the good of the
> created, and not for Himself at all. At first glance one might say
> that if a person reached this level, he would reach the epitome of
> being whole. But this is why our Sages of blessed memory teach
> us in this Midrash that it is not so. We cannot try to be
> similar to His Holiness in this respect. His Holiness is greater
> than ours. His Holiness is only for the created and not for Himself
> because nothing was ever added to or could ever be added to the Creator
> through the actions He did or does. Therefore all His Desire could only
> be to be good to the created.

> But what He wants from us is not like this. As Rabbi Aqiva taught us,
> "your life comes first." [Our sages] left us a hint of it when they
> interpret the scripture "Love your neighbor as yourself" in a negative
> sense, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your peers." In terms
> of obligation, it is fitting for a person to place his own good first.
...

Holiness is a commitment, not a mystical property.

: I myself believe that "higher olamos" are an enlightened sense of
: perception or experience, because I have trouble believing in realms
: of angels, etc.  However, I always believed that my emotional
: perception of people and G-d reflected something more about them than
: the fact that they too experience those emotions in association with
: me...

I reiterate my suggestion to study MmE vol I pp 304-312, which is
glaringly Kantian (ie not medieval).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
micha at aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507