esoterica

the following ideas were posited:
a. fortune telling acc to the torah is probably true, and the law against consulting it is because the fate of Jews comes from a level above that of Mazel (um, astrology maybe?), so using fortune telling that you don't believe is real might not be covered under those laws.
b. however, it could be to consult a fortune teller invites in a level of intervention that breaks yr bond to this higher-than-mazel level of divine providence and should not be risked, even if meant trivially
c. we discussed the scenario of if you went to get your fortune told and were told something horrible, like that you'd die, do you not believe enough that it wouldn't on any level penetrate your consciousness?
d. whether fortune tellers ever actually tell clients that they're going to die bc that sounds very bad for business

interesting! essay i linked relates to c.

"do you not believe enough" is the catch: i.e. do you know very well (it's not true) enough" that you're not on any level thinking "but all the same..."

yeah this is i feel like a very common idk if dialectic is the word but phenomenology in the religious jewish community. the talmud says about the evil eye that it can only bother you if you think about it, but if you don't, it can't. maimonidies goes much further and denies any kind of supernatural reality. i feel like jews split the difference and essentially hold a position of 'i don't believe in it' but also 'it's best not to think too much about it,' which kinda makes sense i feel like in that often you can give power to fictional constructs by devoting your attention to them, ie it is your attentiveness + obsession that ends up eating you alive. it's not the pure kind of disbelief of atheism which proves it doesn't believe by mocking the object of disbelief. it's more like some phenomenon of belief by way of disbelief.

again that is v interesting!

makes me wonder if freud's complex theorizing re different forms of negation/ denial (one of which is disavowal), different relations of denial to the negated (i.e. various failures of repression, return of the repressed) is related to his familiarity with talmudic/ jewish treatments of analogous issue

“phenomenon of belief by way of disbelief” seems very psychoanalytic!

I took a class in undergrad at YU called German Jewish Philosophers which argued that the dialectics that show up with Freud, Benjamin, Marx etc are products of their doubled identities in Western society both insiders and outsiders and experiencing both simultaneously. Interesting to contrast that to Levinas and Derrida who maybe reflect a more French Jewish sensibility?

find that plausible, & promising to think about, have read v little taking that tack

i'm only a few pages in but that Mannoni so far is great

yeah, reread it myself last night

read in passing once long ago, but that schema (‘i know well, but all the same’) really struck & has stuck with me

(after reread, should correct reference above to ‘repression’; thing about many though not all examples is it’s ’conscious’, ambivalent (dis)avowal)

also interesting distinctions of knowledge/ belief / faith, reminds me of some points you made in atheism thread

yr posts yesterday also connect with thinking/ reading of 'the prophets’— which, after interruptions & delays, do plan on finishing soon :) & will report

edit to: relatively 'conscious'

mordy is it yr bday today?

if so, happy birthday!

My dear son,

It was in the seventh year of your age that the spirit of God began to move you to learning. I would say the spirit of God speaketh to you: “Read in My book; there will be opened to thee sources of knowledge and of the intellect.” It is the book of Books; it is the well that wise men have digged and from which lawgivers have drawn the waters of their knowledge.

Though hast seen in this Book the vision of the Almighty, thou hast heard willingly, thou hast done and hast tried to fly high upon the wings of the Holy Spirit. Since then I have preserved the same Bible. Now, on your thirty-fifth birthday I have brought it out from its retirement and I send it to you as a token of love from your old father.

my gregorian birthday is tomorrow - thank you for the well wishes. my hebrew birthday is the 27th of iyar which this year fell on May 16th. i had a farbrengen at synagogue to celebrate. it's traditional at a birthday farbrengen to make a hachlata - essentially a 'resolution.' i resolved to finish tractate yoma by my next birthday (i had already committed to finishing the first half by yud alef nissan in honor of the rebbe's birthday, so this committed me to doing the other half as well). in honor, i will share some of what i learnt Shavuot night (when it is customary for some to stay up all night learning) (i added the bold to emphasize what i think the big takeaway is):

Why was the first Sanctuary destroyed? Because of three [evil] things which prevailed there: idolatry, immorality, bloodshed.

Idolatry, as it is written: For the bed is too short for a man to stretch himself and the covering too narrow when he gathereth himself up. What is the meaning of ‘For the bed is too short for a man to stretch himself’? R. Jonathan said: It is: This bed is too short for two neighbours to stretch themselves. And [what is the meaning of] ‘the covering too narrow when he
gathereth himself up’? — R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: When R. Jonathan [in his reading] came to this passage, he would cry and say: To Him, concerning Whom it is written, He gathereth the waters of the sea together like a heap, the cover became too narrow!

Immorality [prevailed] as it is written: Moreover the Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and make a tinkling with their feet. ‘Because the daughters of Zion are haughty’, i.e., they used to walk with proud carriage. ‘And wanton eyes’ i.e., they filled their eyes with kohl. ‘Walking and mincing as they go’, i.e. , they used to walk with the heel touching the toe. ‘And make a tinkling with their feet’, R. Isaac said: They would take myrrh and balsam and place it in their shoes and when they came near the young men of Israel they would kick, causing the balsam to squirt at them and would thus cause the evil desire to enter them like an adder's poison.

Bloodshed [prevailed] as it is written: Moreover Manaseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another. They were wicked, but they placed their trust in the Holy One, blessed be He. For it is written, The heads thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money; yet will they lean upon the Lord and say ‘Is not the Lord in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us’.

Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them three evil decrees as against the three evils which were their own: Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.

But why was the second Sanctuary destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, [observance of] precepts, and the practice of charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that groundless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed together. And [during the time of] the first Sanctuary did no groundless hatred prevail? Surely it is written: "They are thrust down to the sword with my people; smite therefore upon my thigh," and R' Eleazar said: This refers to people who eat and drink together and then thrust each other through with the daggers of their tongue!

hapy birthday from the future

thank you for sharing that, mordy

what you bolded is something like principle i try to practice myself

love the idea of the farbrengen! please forgive my ignorance— what do you mean by “finish tractate yoma,” does it involve more than reading & studying a text by yourself?

Generally (though not always) Talmud is learnt w a partner ("chavrusa") but otherwise u r right: finishing means reading & studying and upon completion it is customary to make a celebratory completion party (a "siyum") to honor the accomplishment

I. Lit., that which grows forth; esp. of human beings, offspring, progeny, child, descendant; and collect., descendants, race, progeny, posterity (mostly poet.; “but cf.: nec fugerim dicere prolem, aut subolem aut effari, etc.,” Cic. de Or. 3, 38, 153; cf. Quint. 8, 3, 26, and v. in the foll. the passages from Cic.; syn. progenies). —Poet.: “propagando procudere prolem,” to bring forth, produce children, Lucr. 5, 856: “prolem est enixa gemellam,” Ov. M. 9, 452: “laudantur simili prole puerperae,” Hor. C. 4, 5, 23; id. C. S. 19: “di Romulae genti date remque prolemque,” id. ib. 47: “et pulchrā faciat te prole parentem,” Verg. A. 1, 75: “felix prole parens,” Val. Fl. 5, 384: “tua postuma proles,” Verg. A. 6, 763: ferrea proles, the iron race, Poët. ap. Cic. N. D. 2, 63, 159: “aënea,” Ov. M. 1, 125: “argentea,” id. ib. 1, 114: “proles Ausonia,” the Ausonian race, Verg. A. 4, 236: “dic mihi, Teucrorum proles,” Juv. 8, 56.—In prose: “praeclara Brutorum atque Aemiliorum proles,” Sall. H. 1, 41, 2 Dietsch; Cic. Rep. 2, 22, 40: “proles illa futurorum hominum,” race, id. ib. 6, 21, 23.—Of individuals (poet.): “Ulixi,” i. e. Telemachus, Hor. Ep. 1, 7, 40: “proles tertia Phorcus,” Ov. M. 7, 477: “Clymeneïa,” i. e. Phaëton, id. ib. 2, 19: “Apollinea,” i. e. Æsculapius, id. ib. 15, 533: “deūm certissima proles,” Verg. A. 6, 322: “egomet Neptunia proles,” Val. Fl. 4, 213.—Of deities: “Saturni altera proles,” Verg. A. 12, 830: “Bacchi rustica proles,” i. e. Priapus, Tib. 1, 4, 7: “Cyllenia proles,” Verg. A. 4, 268: “fulminis,” i. e. Bacchus, Sen. Med. 24; cf. Verg. A. 6, 25: “Jovis,” Vulg. Act. 19, 35.—Of animals: “hinc nova proles per herbas Ludit,” Lucr. 1, 259: “duellica equorum,” id. 2, 661; Phaedr. 2, 4, 19; Verg. G. 3, 65: “jam maris immensi prolem, genus omne natantum,” id. ib. 3, 541; Col. 7, 6, 7. —Poet., of plants: “et prolem tarde crescentis olivae,” i. e. the fruit, Verg. G. 2, 3; cf.: naturae contenta manu Zephyrique favore Parturit (tellus), et tantā natorum prole superbit, Alan. Anti-Claud. 1, 79.—In plur.: privignasque rogat proles, Col. poët. 10, 163.—

http://40.media.tumblr.com/7a4aae3b53a2692d4096e0383cf1193e/tumblr_mj9bhq6LGG1rzjyi0o1_500.jpg

At once insanely proud and filled with self-hatred, omniscient and doubting everything, cold and violently passionate, contemptuous and self-abasing, tormented and detached, surrounded by an adoring family, by devoted followers, by the admiration of the entire civilised world, and yet almost wholly isolated, he is the most tragic of the great writers, a desperate old man, beyond human aid, wandering self-blinded at Colonus.

http://www.rhapsodes.fll.vt.edu/images/archilochus.gif

The entire comedy of art is neither performed for our betterment or education nor are we the true authors of this art world. On the contrary, we may assume that we are merely pictures and artistic projections for the true author, and that we have our highest dignity in our significance as works of art–for it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified–while of course our consciousness of our own significance hardly differs from that which the soldiers painted on canvas have of the battle represented on it. Thus all our knowledge of art is basically quite illusory, because as knowing beings we are not one and identical with that being which, as the sole author and spectator of this comedy of art, prepares a perpetual entertainment for itself. Only insofar as the genius in the act of artistic creation coalesces with this primordial artist of the world, does he know anything of the eternal essence of art; for in this state he is, in a marvelous manner, like the weird image of the fairy tale which can turn its eyes at will and behold itself; he is at once subject and object, at once poet, actor, and spectator.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Robert_Burton%2C_The_anatomy_of_melancholy..._Wellcome_L0027168.jpg/556px-Robert_Burton%2C_The_anatomy_of_melancholy..._Wellcome_L0027168.jpg
OPE-
NED AND CVT VP.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/valverde_p64.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/Estienne_p236.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/Estienne_p237.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/Berengario_p09v.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/valverde_p94.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/casseri_p69.jpg

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/historicalanatomies/Images/1200_pixels/casseri_p57.jpg

https://twitter.com/BlueBloodRaptor

Blessings from The Sun ★★★★★

http://soul-civilization.com/

АS SОMЕ IПSTITUTIОПS АS GОVЕRПMЕПT ОR ОVЕR GОVЕRПMЕПT АRЕ STОРРIПG MY РОSTS I GIVЕ ЕVЕRYОПЕ ОFУОU THЕ RIGHT TО QUОTЕ MЕ WITH CHАПGIПG SОMЕ LЕTTЕRS FОR BLОG АI FILTЕRS BUT KЕЕР MY ПАMЕ. I DО ПОT HАVЕ CОРY RIGHTS ОR АПY FIПАПCIАL RЕQUIRЕMЕПTS FОR THЕSЕ АПАLYSЕS. USЕ THЕM CАRЕFULLY WITH UBUПTU DD WRT ЕПCRUРTIОП – ОРЕП SОFTWАRЕ TО BЕ CHЕCKЕD BY РUBLIC FОR BАCKDОR.
I CОПTRIBUTЕ IT TО LUDMILА JIVKVА THЕ DАUGHTЕR ОF А BULGАIАП РRЕSIDЕПT , АS LUDMILА MIGHT HАVЕ BЕЕП KILLЕD , АПD ОTHЕR KIDS ОF РRЕSIDЕПTS IП THЕ WОRLD ОR ПОT РRЕSIDЕПTS , SHЕ WОULD HАVЕ SUРРОRTЕD АS I WАSIП HЕR SCHООL .

DЕАR JОUR НАLISTS PLЕАSЕ I НVЕSTIGАTЕ CАRЕFULLY THЕ I НCОMЕS А НD THЕ WЕАLTH АS DЕPОSITS ОF THЕ PЕОPLЕ MЕ НTIО НЕD АBОVЕ А НD FОLLОW THЕIR CАRЕЕR I Н PАRTICULАR FI НD THЕ CОRRЕCT SPЕLLI НG FОR DIMITАR RАDЕV B НB GОVЕR НОR , KАLI Н HRISTОV А НD THЕ ОTHЕR SUB GОVЕR НОRS АS WЕLL АS GRIGОR STОЕVSKY ЕCB ,KRISTI НА KАRАGYОZОVА , RОSЕ Н RОSЕ НОV IMF , А НDЕY VАSSILЕV , STАTTY STTАTЕV , TZVЕTА Н TZАLI НSKY ЕC ЕCB , MАRIЕLLА НЕ НОVА , ОR ЕVЕ Н MЕGLЕ НА KU НЕVА , KRISTАLI НА GЕОRGIЕVА

АS THЕ I НFОRMАTIО Н I RЕVЕАL IS CRITICАL I WILL RЕMI НD TО THЕ ЕURОPЕА Н CОMMISSIО Н А НD ЕCB НОT TО THRЕАTЕ Н MY RЕLАTIVЕS I Н А НY WАY А НD НОT TО HАVЕ А НY ILLЕGАL SURVЕILLА НCЕ АS VISITЕD RОUTЕRS , PАYMЕ НTS АCCОU НTS ОR VIОLАTIО Н ОF А НY PRОPЕRTY RIGHTS ОR CHЕАTI НG I Н А НY FОRM ОF CО НTRАCTS. THЕSЕ АRЕ RЕАL THRЕАTS HАVI НG I Н MI НD THЕIR CАPАBILITIЕS BUT THЕ CОSTS АRЕ HIGH.

НЕTWОRKS АRЕ I НTЕRЕSTI НG АS О НЕ MАY FI НD PАTTЕR НS. SО АSK АS MА НY АS YОU CА Н PUBLICLY А НD SHАRЕ О Н I НTЕR НЕT THЕ RЕSULTS WITH #DА НCЕWITHMЕЕURОPЕ SО ЕVЕRYBОDY WILL FI НD THЕ DАTА.

idk what thread this belongs in

http://i.imgur.com/KEPw7CJ.png

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/29/56867986_29aa1a3973_o.jpg

http://www.huevaluechroma.com/pics/7.22L.jpg

http://www.colorsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/71arc/01arc.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-U0hqo1TtwZo/VTXcLKiik2I/AAAAAAAAAMs/MOhAgMkKBEQ/w960-h679/chakra482616_212840362189536_1245237202_n.jpg

cross-reference to
They caulin' me! Notable people born 'in the caul'
& other threads

cover, covering, veiling, cloak, curtain, hood, mask, mantle, blanket, scarf, screen, disguise, film, blind, shade, canopy, shroud, purdah, chadar, yashmak, kalyptra, wimple, chrismal, lambrequin, mantilla, kiss-me, kiss-me-quick, weeper
old vail, caul, scene, volet; Spenser veale, vele

Only the caul knows his thousandfirst name, Hocus Crocus, Esquilocus, Finnfinn the Faineant, how feel full
foes in furrinarr!

“His fear of the butterfly was in every respect analogous to his fear of the wolf; in both cases it was a fear of castration…. He was also informed that when he himself was three months old he had been seriously ill.. that his winding-sheet had been got ready for him…. The world, he said, was hidden from him by a veil; and our psychoanalytic training forbids our assuming that these words can have been without significance or have been chosen at haphazard. The veil was torn, strange to say, in one situation only; and that was at the moment when, as a result of an enema, he passed a motion through his anus. He then felt well again, and for a very short while he saw the world clearly. The interpretation of this ‘veil’ progressed with as much difficulty as we met with in clearing up his fear of the butterfly. Nor did he keep to the veil. It evaporated into a sense of twilight, into ‘ténèbres,’ and into other impalpable things. It was not until just before taking leave of the treatment that he remembered having been told that he was born with a caul…. Thus the caul was the veil which hid him from the world and hid the world from him. The complaint that he made was in reality a fulfilled wish-phantasy: it exhibited him as back once more in the womb…. But what can have been the meaning of the fact that this veil, which was now symbolic but had once been real, was torn at the moment at which he evacuated his bowels after an enema? … If this birth-veil was torn then he saw the world and was re-born…. The necessary condition of his re-birth was the he should have an enema administered to him by a man…. Here, therefore, the phantasy of rebirth was simply a mutilated and censored version of the homosexual wish-phantasy…. The tearing of the veil was analogous to the opening of this eyes and to the opening of the window…. The wish to be born of his father…, the wish to present him with a child— and all this at the price of his own masculinity—… in them homosexuality has found its furthest and most intimate expression.” And this note: “A possible subsidiary explanation, namely that the veil represented the hymen which is form at the moment of intercourse with a man, does not harmonize completely with the necessary condition of his recovery. Moreover it has no bearing upon the life of the patient, for whom virginity carried no significance.” (A rather strange remark, when we are talking of someone who wanted to “return to the womb,” at least.)

The play on the idea of mask as womb and womb as mask is the primary theme in performances of miracle worker masks (figs. 6.7- 6.1 1), whose form and performance allude simultaneously to a pregnant womb that “gives birth” and to the dress of Muslim women in Purdah.

The pregnant woman in a sense becomes a mask, and indeed when a child is born in the birth caul, it is often taken by Yoruba as a sign that he should perform in a mask, if male, or become a member of a masking society, if female. Phenomenologically speaking, to mask is to conceal something. At the basis of the taboo against women wearing masks may be a tacit understanding of what Christopher Crocker (1977:59) calls the contagious power of metonymic conjunction. That is, there is an analogical relationship between a pregnant woman and a full body mask, This metonymic conjunction may explain the prevalence of African myths that attribute the very origins of masking to women (Cole 1985:15). Metaphorically speaking, woman was the original mask.

FREDS MY BROTHER. HE PROOFED IT BY CRAWLING THRU VADGINA.

― T✧✧@K✧✧.E✧✧ (T✧✧@K✧✧.E✧✧), Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:53 PM (9 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/05/19/geography/

drash i finally read that kachina piece which is fantastic and i thank you for sharing. the author asks:

"Should this not raise the question of the motivation and meaning of all of Hopi religious practices that are associated with kachinas? Does it not seem utterly in opposition to the abundant references which attest to the Hopi belief that the donning of a kachina mask transforms a man into a god?"

i remember a conversation some young people from chabad lubavitch were having on fb a few weeks ago about the meaning of the ideas found in more esoteric/private conversations in chabad regarding who the rebbe is. though only certain chabad groups tend to emphasize it, it is widely held to be true that the rebbe (who passed away in 1994) is the messiah/moshiach. many people will also say that they believe in one way or another that the rebbe is still alive. and there is also an idea that the rebbe represents an incarnation of god into human form. these are all obviously difficult ideas to understand in light of historical jewish iconoclasm - esp regarding jesus. the young ppl though were saying what i've always understood to be true - that to say that the rebbe is these things: moshiach, alive, god in human form, etc is not really to say any of them. for example, to take the claim that he's still alive, chazal says in the talmud that "yaakov avinu lo mes" "jacob our father didn't die" (Taanis 5B). what does it mean? on a simplest level that a righteous person/ Tzadik's force in our world is not diminished by their death. we know this literally to be true in the sense that great + inspiring ppl can continue to impact us long after their death. but also if you believe in a cosmology that says that this world is a facade or construction hiding the truth that everything is G-d and there is nothing but Him it is not so difficult to say also that this person is God (of course not to the exclusion of everything else also being a personification of God). i wonder if this is also true for the kachinas where the revelation is not just the disenchantment brought through the discovery that they aren't truly gods but family members, but also that what is truly godly is more sublime + complex than could originally have been taught. thoughts? hope all is well w/ u. etc. ;)

http://media.smithsonianfolkways.org/liner_notes/folkways/FW06134.pdf

i wonder if this is also true for the kachinas where the revelation is not just the disenchantment brought through the discovery that they aren't truly gods but family members, but also that what is truly godly is more sublime + complex than could originally have been taught.

yes i think that’s otm! maybe the aspect i find most fascinating
(iirc i linked this at the time sort of in response to discussion you were involved in re teaching/ transmitting religion to one's children)
do have all sorts of scattered related thoughts but don’t have capacity to sort out & articular them rn
luckily this thread is open-ended :)

as for all, it goes

(sometimes rendered mute when one feels burdened with too much to say)

Aesthetic transcendence and disenchantment converge in the moment of falling mute: in Beckett’s oeuvre. A language remote from all meaning is not a speaking language and this is its affinity to muteness. Perhaps all expression, which is most akin to transcendence, is as close to falling mute as in great new music nothing is so full of expression as what flickers out—that tone that disengages itself starkly from the dense musical texture—where art by virtue of its own movement converges with its natural element.

Suppose someone were a believer and said: “I believe in a Last Judgment,” and I said: “Well, I’m not so sure. Possibly.” You would say that there is an enormous gulf between us. If he said “There is a German airplane overhead,” and I said “Possibly I’m not so sure,” you’d say we were fairly near.

It isn’t a question of my being anywhere near him, but on an entirely different plane, which you could express by saying: “You mean something altogether different, Wittgenstein.”

The difference might not show up at all in any explanation of the meaning.

Why is it that in this case I seem to be missing the entire point?

Suppose somebody made this guidance for this life: believing in the Last Judgment. Whenever he does anything, this is before his mind. In a way, how are we to know whether to say he believes this will happen or not?

Asking him is not enough. He will probably say he has no proof. But he has what you might call an unshakeable belief. It will show, not by reasoning or by appeal to ordinary grounds for belief, but rather by regulating for in all his life.

...

What we call believing in a Judgment Day or not believing in a Judgment Day—The expression of belief may play an absolutely minor role.

If you ask me whether or not I believe in a Judgment Day, in the sense in which religious people have belief in it, I wouldn’t say: “No. I don’t believe there will be such a thing.” It would seem to me utterly crazy to say this.

And then I give an explanation: “I don’t believe in…”, but then the religious person never believes what I describe.

I can’t say. I can’t contradict that person.

In one sense, I understand all he says—the English words “God”, “separate”, etc. I understand. I could say: “I don’t believe in this,” and this would be true, meaning I haven’t got these thoughts or anything that hangs together with them. But not that I could contradict the thing.