<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=windows-1255 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7100.4137"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Usually eilu va'eilu isn't about a question of truth, but of law.
You<BR>could have two valid rulings that contradict, each flowing from
TSBP<BR>following the proper rules of pesaq.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>CM:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>You seem to take solace in the fact that the rules of
TSBP can lead to inconsistent pesak (but not inconsistent truth) under EvE. (BTW
this seems to contradict your previous position vs R'nTK). Shifting the paradox
from ultimate truth to Halacha does not put me any more at ease with the problem
of understanding EvE. Halacha reflects the underlying truth so in principle
nothing has really changed with inconsistent pesak (in cases with no middle
ground such tamei or tahor, mamzer or not etc)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Someone who can only see shadows could see two very different<BR>shadows of
the same object. Both shadows accurately represent a mapping<BR>of G-d's
supernal truth to the limitations of human experience, even<BR>though they
contradict.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>CM:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>This does not help me much in understanding EvE either
(with all due respect to the Maharal). First of all, you have
now introduced a case that DOES have a middle ground, which here is the
whole that neither A or B sees in its entirety. (eg. think f(x,y,z), but A only
sees f(x,y,k) while B sees f(x,k',z)). But more to the point, EvE still leads to
paradox because you now need to explain the reason for different
perspective, why A saw only points "a" while B chose to see only points
"b." If EvE tells us both are right in their choice of perspective, you have not
answered anything.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) writes about how the law of
contradiction<BR>only exists bepo'al. When dealing in machashavah, a thought
always<BR>invites contemplation of its opposite. People believe
contradictory<BR>things all the time. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>CM:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Again, I am left without an answer I can be happy with.
Shifting the discussion to the realm of machashava doesn't help. It still must
be rationally consistent. 2+2=5 isn't OK just because it is in machashava. It is
not just false when bepoal I try to stuff five pigeons into four cubbyholes, but
false even in the abstract thought in my mind. Just because people sometimes
have irrational thoughts doesn't make the thought any more correct. I may
contemplate 2+2=5 but I will conclude (if I am rational) that
2+2=4.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Why invoke arcane physics when we can discuss halakhah in terms of
the<BR>roshem on people?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>CM:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Sorry, it was just a metaphor. I liked R'nTK's
expression "Schrodinger's Mamzer."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>dialectics and antinomies .... Kantian or Hegelian dialectics </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>CM:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Now we are above my pay grade <IMG
style="POSITION: static; MARGIN: 0px; FLOAT: none" title="Smile emoticon"
tabIndex=-1 alt="Smile emoticon"
src="cid:6AC9E676471E4D8F922407D656E8442F@hanksPC"
MSNNonUserImageOrEmoticon="true"> I try to restrict myself to the 10,000
most common words in the dictionary and stay away from Hegel (I once sat in on
the first few lectures in a course on Hegel and understood nothing as I
thought none (very little) of it made any sense to me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>That way, we can blame eilu va'eilu on the human<BR>ability to entertain
conflicting thoughts, to be ambivalent, to hold<BR>dialectics and
antinomies.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>CM:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>So you are saying EvE is not a sublime truth in Torah,
but rather a reflection of human failing?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Kol Tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>