Kaballah and the Zohar?
- Thread starter bigal
- Start date
Gendanken,
I see emotions of solemnity.
I don't think that you've read too much into it, attributed too much to it or villified it by calling it a disease. You presented your idea of it.
It is not just the faith we place on a name. Those men of name -- are dead, or far apart.
We are left to ourselves when reading their work, studying it: we are left to ourselves in the sense that we can't ask them anything. This makes us both helpless and self-sufficient at the same time.
But with living people, those who are right here with us, even if it is just online, this helplessness and self-sufficiency cannot take place the same it does when reading a book. Here, we know that we can ask, and we know that we will most likely receive an answer. Unfortunately, this makes us greedy sometimes, and we forget both common courtesy and respect in our sometimes madness to understand.
This is why such times of contemplation are needed, to re-think and rebuild our ways of communicating to *living* people.
Oh, but how intellectual that influence actually is! It takes place through words, words, words. But few things can compare to the profound influence a person of flesh and blood has on us! We may not intellectualize it, we may belittle it. We may think it is not visceral enough, not real enough.
But, with time passing, we see that it is only that through the influence of those of flesh and blood that the influence of those of paper can take place, and could took place.
Poe remains silent, unless you meet someone who *did* a certain something to you -- and then, and only then, do Poe's words begin to make their influence, be it in advance or in return.
I see emotions of solemnity.
I don't think that you've read too much into it, attributed too much to it or villified it by calling it a disease. You presented your idea of it.
It is not just the faith we place on a name. Those men of name -- are dead, or far apart.
We are left to ourselves when reading their work, studying it: we are left to ourselves in the sense that we can't ask them anything. This makes us both helpless and self-sufficient at the same time.
But with living people, those who are right here with us, even if it is just online, this helplessness and self-sufficiency cannot take place the same it does when reading a book. Here, we know that we can ask, and we know that we will most likely receive an answer. Unfortunately, this makes us greedy sometimes, and we forget both common courtesy and respect in our sometimes madness to understand.
This is why such times of contemplation are needed, to re-think and rebuild our ways of communicating to *living* people.
Oh, but how intellectual that influence actually is! It takes place through words, words, words. But few things can compare to the profound influence a person of flesh and blood has on us! We may not intellectualize it, we may belittle it. We may think it is not visceral enough, not real enough.
But, with time passing, we see that it is only that through the influence of those of flesh and blood that the influence of those of paper can take place, and could took place.
Poe remains silent, unless you meet someone who *did* a certain something to you -- and then, and only then, do Poe's words begin to make their influence, be it in advance or in return.
Invert Nexus,
I agree with you.
So, what are the plans for this thread? Should we try to make some conclusions? In which direction?
*****
At this point, I would like to present some of the guidelines I strongly believe in:
1. When dealing with a phenomenon, we must always distinguish between the phenomenon and our understanding of it.
In terms of language this means that we must distinguish between LANGUAGE USE and LANGUAGE DESCRIPTION. While language use is so simple, we can talk and think all the time, language description is something incredibly hard to do, and there are many many ways of describing it.
2. A theory is only a model, and it is not in place to ask whether this theory is adequate to reality or not. We can only ask whether the predictions this theory makes are in accordance with later observations.
3. We don't "understand" and "know" the world and ourselves in the strict meaning of the words "to understand", "to know". We are only acquainted with the world and ourselves and are able to live with them.
I agree with you.
So, what are the plans for this thread? Should we try to make some conclusions? In which direction?
*****
At this point, I would like to present some of the guidelines I strongly believe in:
1. When dealing with a phenomenon, we must always distinguish between the phenomenon and our understanding of it.
In terms of language this means that we must distinguish between LANGUAGE USE and LANGUAGE DESCRIPTION. While language use is so simple, we can talk and think all the time, language description is something incredibly hard to do, and there are many many ways of describing it.
2. A theory is only a model, and it is not in place to ask whether this theory is adequate to reality or not. We can only ask whether the predictions this theory makes are in accordance with later observations.
3. We don't "understand" and "know" the world and ourselves in the strict meaning of the words "to understand", "to know". We are only acquainted with the world and ourselves and are able to live with them.
Rosa:
It was joy in seeing that in the throngs of thousands (forum pukes), the triumvirate here was open enough to receive the other despite status.
Concerning our helplessness when reading the masters, true, but there is also preformatted respect we approach them with on account of their name.
People write thesis on Kant.
"Ah, God, how the mind boggles when it turns to moral or ethical considerations! Better not think too much! Rely more on the body- the body is more dependable. It shows up for meetings, its looks good in sports jackets, and where it really comes in handy is when you want to get a rubdown"- From Allen's "Side Effects"
One would love to hunt these zombies down anyway (in the real life with real flesh), but that would be Socratic.
There seems no way around it, to study his language, his gods and his superstitions, his mind without divorcing ourselves from him completely.
Sayz Allen again:
"Authentic Being, reasoned Needlemean, is not a "thing" apart from Nature, but is involved in nature, and he could not obeserve his own existence without first pretending to be indifferent and then running around to the opposite end of the room quickly in the hopes of glimpsing himself."
Funny- we get whiffs and glimpses here and there, but never the whole thing. Hume wanted it. It an impossible Holy Grail.
You've misread.
It was joy in seeing that in the throngs of thousands (forum pukes), the triumvirate here was open enough to receive the other despite status.
Concerning our helplessness when reading the masters, true, but there is also preformatted respect we approach them with on account of their name.
People write thesis on Kant.
And how fucking sad that the living flesh is usually a zombie- a walking corpse intimidated by the slippery concepts of theory and philosophy.
"Ah, God, how the mind boggles when it turns to moral or ethical considerations! Better not think too much! Rely more on the body- the body is more dependable. It shows up for meetings, its looks good in sports jackets, and where it really comes in handy is when you want to get a rubdown"- From Allen's "Side Effects"
One would love to hunt these zombies down anyway (in the real life with real flesh), but that would be Socratic.
Its tired now to say it, even annoys and makes the skin crawl with bumps when its said but: alas, the human mind is doomed to subjectivity.
There seems no way around it, to study his language, his gods and his superstitions, his mind without divorcing ourselves from him completely.
Sayz Allen again:
"Authentic Being, reasoned Needlemean, is not a "thing" apart from Nature, but is involved in nature, and he could not obeserve his own existence without first pretending to be indifferent and then running around to the opposite end of the room quickly in the hopes of glimpsing himself."
Funny- we get whiffs and glimpses here and there, but never the whole thing. Hume wanted it. It an impossible Holy Grail.
Rosa said:
Smooth Operator wearing thin?
Plans... Conclusions... Direction... That's the thing. I don't know. I am a rambler by nature and such organization is beyond me in most instances. I am waiting for inspiration.
Basically, the way I see it: We have the base theory of Language-> Animism-> Magic-> Religion. We have several brain structures which compose the language axis in the left hemisphere of the brain. In the right is the melodic axis, which encompasses nature sounds and music among other things. We have the limbic system which fuels our emotional drives. Our social instincts. What I'm seeking for right now is the spiritual center. The part of the brain where this nebulous feeling comes from. From what circumstances does it arise? What functions does it interact with? I have no source yet.
We also have the lingual knowledge that you have brought to the table, Rosa. I am unsure what to do with this as of yet. Gendanken, do you have any thoughts? I know that there is something in it that is important, but I can't put my finger on it yet.
I think more time is needed. I have a stack of books to work through. Several of them on symbols and language dealing with the brain. Also, I believe a couple deal with spirituality and the brain.
It's funny, it was easier to go on about these things when my knowledge vague yet well-worn like an old shoe. Now, I am being stuffed with newer, more specific knowledge that doesn't all fit yet. I need to wear it around awhile and make it comfortable.
Well, we're dealing with several phenomena. Language, religion, magic, animism, brain structure, evolution, social structure... Anything I'm missing? I'm sure there is. And, of course all these seperate phenomena can be further subdivided.
Yup, and in the absence of relevant archeological and anthropological data on the subject, our theory cannot be fully tested for some time. If ever. Maybe in AI. I wonder if we couldn't adapt this theory to computer technology in order to create AI? Nah, storage capacity and processor speed would be the limiting factor. And consciousness comes before religion. IMO.
Agreed. Again, the concept of the limit in calculus. We can always get closer to the limit. The limit being full knowledge. Full understanding. We can always draw closer and yet never reach it. Personally, I find this gratifying. Imagine the horror of reaching complete understanding. What would be the point of continuing afterwards? There would be nothing to strive for.
Gendanken said:
Again, I repeat. It is maddening to never be able to reach the end, but at the same time it is what make life worthwhile. The thought of ultimate achievement curdles my blood. But, we are a long ways from being even relatively close to a semblance of this understanding. But, we can always strive to reach higher.
gendanken said:
invert nexus said:
Why *doomed*? Why *maddening to never be able to reach the end*?
I find subjectivity to be a matter of course. Neither doom, nor bliss - but it *can* *become* doom, or bliss.
Surely it is an impossible Holy Grail, or so it seems, in the way we humans have organized our thinking.
But, just for the sake of the argument -- I think around and I think around -- and I think that maybe this whole mess comes from the way we have organized our thinking. That the real problem is not in the mere ability to think -- but in the contents of thinking. And these contents are *not* obligatory. The ability to think is obligatory, but the content of this ability is arbitrary. So, here's the rub then.
***
Gendanken,
Then I've misread.
But I have always considered being open enough to receive the other despite status to be a prerequisite for entering any conversation here.
Probably because Gendanken and I seem to enjoy the macabre and depressing turns of phrase. Doomed to subjectivity. Maddening to never reach the limit. One could just as easily say blessed by subjectivity and satisfying to never reach the end. But, it kinda loses something when said this way. Don't you agree? It doesn't grab you by the short hairs. It doesn't take you home.
Space is big. Really, really big. You've heard it before. I know you've read the book.
The more we learn, the more there is to learn. The carrot is always out of reach. And should we ever grasp it? Then, then there would be doom, I fear. An end to striving. An end to learning. The carrot was not meant to be eaten. Merely savored from a respectable distance.I wonder how one would go about getting a copy of a scientific paper? I've been looking around for gould and spandrels and came up with this paper he wrote in 1987: "The limits of adaptation: Is language a spandrel of the human brain?" I've done some searching for it, but only find it in the references to other works. I wonder how to get the original?
By the way, Gendanken, did you know what a spandrel was when you posted that little bit from The Mind's Past? I'd never heard of it before. I was picturing some type of architectural construction. A spandrel is a trait that evolves in the absence of selection. It makes me think even more of that computer loop thing you mentioned. If it's not being selected for, then it's being neglected. Programming gone awry. Very interesting stuff. I bet it annoyed you somewhat that right after that passage in the book Gazzaniga goes on to say that he doesn't believe language is a spandrel. I think that maybe it was a spandrel, but once it emerged it certainly had enough survival benefit to be selected for. I suppose that might be something we need to consider. At what point would it go from spandrel to selected trait?
By the way, found something else out shocking. I'm sure you all were already aware and will think me a fool for not knowing it myself. But, here goes anyway. Gould is dead. That's shocking to me. I thought he was still going strong. Hell, I thought he was a younger man. He was 61 when he died in 2002. Learn something new every day, I suppose.
By the way, Gendanken, did you know what a spandrel was when you posted that little bit from The Mind's Past? I'd never heard of it before. I was picturing some type of architectural construction. A spandrel is a trait that evolves in the absence of selection. It makes me think even more of that computer loop thing you mentioned. If it's not being selected for, then it's being neglected. Programming gone awry. Very interesting stuff. I bet it annoyed you somewhat that right after that passage in the book Gazzaniga goes on to say that he doesn't believe language is a spandrel. I think that maybe it was a spandrel, but once it emerged it certainly had enough survival benefit to be selected for. I suppose that might be something we need to consider. At what point would it go from spandrel to selected trait?
By the way, found something else out shocking. I'm sure you all were already aware and will think me a fool for not knowing it myself. But, here goes anyway. Gould is dead. That's shocking to me. I thought he was still going strong. Hell, I thought he was a younger man. He was 61 when he died in 2002. Learn something new every day, I suppose.
I had no clue what a spandrel was becuase I pounced on what Gould said in there and assumed a defintion.
Was it not beautiful? Probably not as much for you as it was for me since I am in fact the one with an incentive to think so- that illusive angle I told you about is analgous to the concept of soul. He's equated his analouge to the concept to language.
And I'm tremendously giddy that you remember the program analogy
*and here I was rudely interrupted *gahhh*
Where was I? ....trememdously giddy that you remember the programming analogy of a nested loop gone neglected.
"If it's not being selected for, then it's being neglected"
Now if I had looked the word 'spandrel' up I can't imagine the tons of bricks that would have figuratively hit me on making that connection.
And then Rosa here gave it a nice finishing touch, something I never thought of before. From John 1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The transition of concrete made abstract, what I've been saying all along.
Therefore, imagine those fingers now coming together. There before you is the story of John being told as you move them together to make that angle on top: God *is* Word now, but you pull them apart and he disappears.
You pull language apart and he disappears.
and yes, it did it annoy me how the little bitch (Gazzaniga) went on to completely dismiss what I was building up to. I wake up to read :
and then deflate when he goes:
He spends way too much time arguing the theories of others, what this camp says as opposed to this one, so and so says this, Sejnowkis says that but on the other hand the La Jolla group disagrees.....like I fucking care.
And not only this, he places too much emphasis on the brain's only function being that of sex:
I don't think so.
And you mention wanting to get to the spiritual center in the cortex- have you *not* noticed I already pitted that on the left temporal lobe?
Joan of Arc, Paul, Milton, even Savoranola who burned books blasphemous to the Christian faith- all are thought to have been epileptic:
http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/trascendent_experiences.htm
*and yes, Gould died. Rememer the astronomy teacher? He knew of my budding passion for evolution and by then I was a Saganite and a Darwanite and Dawkinite (pathetic). Naturally, I would know who Gould was. So astronomy teacher was reading a journal one day and showed me a picture and asked me if I knew who it was (probally testing me). I looked, didn't recognize him, squinted and read the name in the caption.
I go "Yes! Gould! He's ....." and I go showing off in my immaturity what I know. He lets me finish and points out that he was showing me the article was announcing Gould's death.
Amazingly, Gould's death made it to the newspaper. I have the clipping.
Last edited:
I would never forget that, draga moja. That was an integral part of the whole thing, was it not?
A friend rudely interrupt you? An unwelcome visitor at the door? Hate it when that happens.
In fact, in hebrew mythos, names and words are a powerful force. God was a word, and in speaking the word, creation. Very powerful juju. I'm sure you know about jews writing G-d. Don't you?
What's interesting about Judaism is that it was an oral tradition for so long. It wasn't written down until long after the time of Moses. Which was long after the time of Abraham. So we have two aspects of language that are central to Judaism. But, the thing is that Judaism is a relatively late religion in the scheme of things. They took ideas that were there before them and merely shifted them around. Reversed the goddess myth to validate a patriarchal society.
Interesting tangent on the Jewish creation myth. "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The earth was without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Now, according to Campbell, the word for waters (edit: the deep, rather. God on the the face of the deep.) is remarkably similar to the Babylonian word for Tiamat. In the Babylonian creation epic, Marduk defeats Tiamat and hovers over her. He creates the earth out of her body. I think that Tiamat also had water connections as well. Anyway, that's just an interesting sidenote.
Good for analogy, but we must remember God is a latecomer to the religion game.
Yeah, I noticed both those things. Plus the book is so small and the print so widely spaced, that you wonder just what this guy really knows. Why couldn't he produce a book with his own ideas and of a decent size.
I don't know if I'd go that far. The brain (our whole body for that matter) is devoted to sex. But, there's more to sex than sex. There's living to get to sex. Raising the young. Feeding. Pattern solving. Etc. Sex is important, but hardly the only consideration.
Yeah, I did forget. Apologies. I was wanting to find something in these books perhaps. But, I checked out the site and it speaks of epileptics and burning visions and the like. I'm thinking more along the lines of the small things. The little spirituality. Perhaps it comes from the same place as well? I don't know though. It's almost got to be in the limbic system, I think. Pleasure, contentment, rapture.
Hmm. That's weird. For some reason, while reading left temporal I was thinking left frontal. The temporal lobe is a strange place to be having visions. Many religious experiences involve the voice of god. That makes sense. Perhaps if the seizure extends into the occipital then visions occur?
This from the site: "Magnetic resonance imaging of Strieber’s brain has revealed "occasional punctate foci of high signal intensity" in his left temporoparietal region, which is suggestive of scarring that could lead to TLE." Temporoparietal. Angular Gyrus? Just south of the Angular gyrus? (Funny aside. I've read that book this guy wrote, Communion. My neighbor had it a long time ago. The author, Strieber I guess, says that alien abductions are often "masked" by an animal memory. He says that the "abductee" does not recall the abduction but rather remembers seeing an owl or a wolf or something similar. Hmm. Maybe this isn't an aside. Animism?)
More from the site: "found that people with frequent bursts of electrical activity in their temporal lobes report sensations of flying, floating, or leaving the body, as well as other mystical experiences. By applying magnetic fields to the brain, he can also induce odd mental experiences — possibly caused by bursts of neuron firing in the temporal lobes. For example, he has made people feel as if two alien hands grabbed their shoulders and distorted their legs when he applied magnetic fields to their brains." This sounds like parietal phenomena to me. Why would the temporal lobe have this effect. Did I miss something?
Yet more: "Dostoevsky, another famous epileptic whose works are filled with ecstatic visions of universal love (and terrible nightmares of uncanny fear and radical evil), thought it was obvious that Mohammad’s visions of God were triggered by epilepsy. "Mohammad assures us in this Koran that he had seen Paradise," Doestevsky notes. "He did not lie. He had indeed been in Paradise — during an attack of epilepsy, from which he suffered, as I do." I posted about Dostoevskly earlier. I don't think it said what kind of epilepsy he had. It was too long ago, I think. Before this stuff was well understood.
More: "Note that the overriding emotion experienced by Mohammed, Moses and St. Paul during their religious visions was not one of rapture and joy but rather of fear. When Moses heard the voice of God from a burning bush, he hid his face and was frightened. ... Other psychologists have noted that likely TLE sufferers such as Moses, Flaubert, Saint Paul, and Dostevesky were also famous for their rages." Interesting. Fear rather than joy. But what of the ordinary religious experience. The experience of the common man. Perhaps this explains the reason for the hellfire and brimstone of YHWH.
More: "For example, one former nun "apprehended" God in TLE seizures and described the experience:
"Suddenly everything comes together in a moment — everything adds up, and you’re flooded with a sense of joy, and you’re just about to grasp it, and then you lose it and you crawl into an attack. It’s easy to see how, in a prescientific age, an epileptic or any temporal lobe fringe experience like that could be thought to be God Himself." Joy? What happened to fear?
Hmm. Interesting stuff, but perplexing. If the seizure affected the angular gyrus then it would make perfect sense why such a wide range of symptoms would occur. The angular gyrus mediates the different areas of the brain. They overlap there. But, the temporal lobe is dedicated more to hearing than anything else. It also has to do with some temporal order if I recall right, but the angular gyrus seems to supersede this.
I'm going to have to go back over some of what I've read with TLE in mind. It would be nice to know specifically which portion of the temporal lobe is affected. And, it seems strange that not one mention of an auditory hallucination in the article. I mean we know that the temporal lobe contains the primary and secondary auditory centers. And we also know that these religious figures were spoken to by the angels and whatnot. But why doesn't the article mention it? Do you have another source for this?
Just had a thought. The amygdalla is buried within the temporal lobe. Don't see how that would apply though. Other than a tap into the emotional system. What else in the limbic system is there?
Last edited:
Just a quick observation.
"Kabbalah is to Jewish religion what prostitution is to love".
John 1:1 : In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John wasn't talking about language as a dead thing, or a "human killer that kills without remorse remains the animal that he rightly is" - something sinister and destructive. He was saying it was a living thing - no, life itself. Sacrosanct life. I have often said that morality is itself a language. Yes, it seems lethal and inhibitive. It besieges the conscience. But to destroy that language... that's dangerous to life. We can't live without it. And yes, language besieges meaning, but it scatters in front of the Word (think "Babel"). What is life without the Word? Death."Kabbalah is to Jewish religion what prostitution is to love".
....went the wily Christian interjecting in a thread he has not read if only to give us some Christianology.
Pardon, I'm moody and can't sleep so I'm only here for this short one (Vert, get to you later)
No one is abusing John, and for that matter using him for that metaphor. Its a bloody theory, mine, and it describes it quite nicely.
A lesson in irony- your little bible has served the needs of an atheist. Moi.
And Christianity is to religion what an aging hag is to her beautiful daughter.
Last edited:
Invert Nexus,
It usually works so:
1. Some papers can be found online. Few old ones though.
2. The paper must say where it was published -- in which magazine, journal, revue, ... -- the number and the year. Then, you go and get that journal (it will have to be a larger library though, like a university library), and copy the paper.
3. If a paper is quoted in other works or papers, these must have info on where to find the paper. Take step 2 from here.
It usually works so:
1. Some papers can be found online. Few old ones though.
2. The paper must say where it was published -- in which magazine, journal, revue, ... -- the number and the year. Then, you go and get that journal (it will have to be a larger library though, like a university library), and copy the paper.
3. If a paper is quoted in other works or papers, these must have info on where to find the paper. Take step 2 from here.
I though it was rather apt. On the subject of language being under siege, or itself besieging the freedom of thought. And its relationship with conscience and a morality that engenders guilt, and how it enables the necessary capture of meaning.gendanken said:
Meaning is the golden mean between free life and slavery to ideas.
Last edited:
According to some, kabbalah is the Tree of Life. It is the reason man was driven from the garden of Eden. So that we would not eat of it's luscious fruit.
Gendanken said:
Cheer up, dammit. Can't have any moodiness on my watch. Why so glum, chum? Someone upset you? I hope you got in their face about it. Don't take no shit, draga zmaj (Proper usage, Rosa?) And, I know you'll get to me later. Never doubted it for an instant.
Rosa,
Hmm. Sounds like a pain. There's a community college up the street, but the university is downtown (towards downtown anyway. Actually the university district if you can believe it.
) Too bad gendanken is not a good typer. She owes me a typing favor. And, she works near a college I believe. But, the question is would it have the paper either. It is old, but it's also Gould. Oh well, I'll probably have to be satisfied with what I can find online. Unless I make it down to the UW one of these days.