[Avodah] dinosaurs

[hankman]

R'  Micha, for the most part, I hear what you are saying, and it is as good an attempt at explaining EvE as I have seen (though I have not seen much on this).  Nevertheless I still have to profess a residual unease even though I am willing to accept much of what you write (as I have had thoughts along some of those lines myself).

Let me try and paint a picture that includes (and perhaps elaborates) I think much of what you wrote. correct me if I am wrong or you disagree with my summary.

1) There is but one reality, it is the existence of G-d and his "boundless self-knowledge" which is one and inseparable from him. (If I knew him, I would be him). Since "ain od milvado" then in a real sense there is no other knowledge, it is all a reflection of some truth about G-d.

2) Some how thru "Tsimtsum" He allows the "limited reality" of the universe to be and the resulting finite beings in this universe due to their intrinsic limitations can only grasp some limited understanding of the total "boundless self-knowledge" of G-d.

3) I may be on shaky ground here in my assumptions: In a real sense (G-d's perspective), Torah is the "boundless self-knowledge" (I suspect that this is the meaning of "Yisroel ve'Auraysa ve'Kudsha Brich Hu chad hu" but I am not clear on how Yisroel fits in here. I am also not sure if the KBH here is actually G-d, or some tsimtsum based semblance of G-d in the Sefirot???). Torah given to mankind, is a subset ( a man-size abridgement designed by G-d) of the total superset that only G-d can realize. I presume this is in some way expressed in a finite TSBK and a limitless TSBP? (I feel on shaky ground mostly in this last statements about the nature of Torah, so if anyone understands this differently let me know). It is in this sense that the malachim wanted Torah as some meforshim explain, they wanted a malachim-sized (appropriate) abridgement of the supraset of Torah designed for them.  (Actually, I do not understand why they can not have their version even while we have our version - why are the two mutually exclusive, so that if we get our mankind appropriate Torah, they can not have their version too).

4) Olam Haba, the ultimate gemul, is greater attachment to G-d through more understanding of greater (but still limited) parts of the supraset of our Torah, that we could not grasp within the more limiting structure of olam hazeh.

5) Now the metaphor of shadows (and what I meant by my mathematical expressions f(x,y,k), a lower dimensional slice of a higher dimension) for EvE that you use fits well within this overall picture. 

6) My issues begin here. If men are fungibly equal, then our appropriate and correct view should be the same (we should all see the same shadow) for every individual and if we do not, it is only due to error. Thus we are not all fungible, and this fits well with the notion that the shoresh of our neshama for each individual comes from a different part of the overall whole, so they are not fungible and therefore might logically and naturally view a different shadow. This also sits well with the notion that each shevet had its own nusach for tefila (I can not recall where I saw this idea). If this is correct, then there should be a whole spectrum of pesak (and EvE) appropriate to each individual, why are we all shoehorned into the views of only BH and BS as there should be as many perspectives as there are individuals? I then thought, that in fact this seems to be what we are getting as we march through time - there are more and more shitos, and different minhagim. Yet we view this as a deteriorating march away from the ideal at Sinai, rather than a march toward the ideal spectrum of pesak to better match each individual's different perspective (shadow or choice of k).

7) Along the same lines of thought, I would imagine from mathematical analogy, just as in mathematical analysis in a well behaved function, a small change in x will produce a small change in y, why are we getting diametrically opposed results (eg., tamei or tahor)? Why are the shadows we see so different? Furthermore, if the picture I paint is correct, the the ideal would be "tisgodedu" yet we are commanded "lo tisgodedu." Clearly my thinking runs into a ditch somewhere - where?


I have allowed myself the luxury of thinking aloud here, these are not conclusive opinions just where my wandering  (and wondering) mind led me for now.

RMB wrote: In the world of thought, contradiction is NOT a show stopper. 

CM: I do find this problematic. In what world of thought is 2+2=5 admissible? Avoiding contradiction is always required. In my world of thought it is always a show stopper.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091106/2102a995/attachment-0001.htm>