I wanna take a break from all the Navi talk and just hash out something I was thinking about Star Wars.
I was thinking about the sequel trilogy and its various critiques and I think one basic story move could have made the whole thing more entertaining.
Instead of having Kylo be an unabashedly bad guy, present his perspective as someone who has been manipulated into misunderstanding the events of the original trilogy. Let him be a troll. Let him argue that Luke was a rebellious child who murdered the emperor and his own father out of hatred and that the fall of the empire has resulted in chaotic anarchy in the galaxy. Let Kylo have a good argument to follow in his grandfather's footsteps and try to re-conquer the galaxy.
This gives the film a lot of leeway to bring clips from the prior movies in support of Kylo's understanding. We could watch clips of Luke hacking off his father's arm in rage or security footage of his screaming at Vader (rendering security footage of Luke and Vader would be a nice little technical marvel for Disney and its special effects team). Even clips from the prequel trilogy of how the galactic government had stood for centuries in peace. This gives Kylo to be a stand-in for the modern troll distorting facts to suit his world view.
Kylo would believe that he had to re-institute the empire to restore order to the galaxy and he could lead the first order or whoever in a series of terrorist campaigns. I see this version of the character as a kind of anti-villain in which his motivations are pure and justified in the film but that we the viewers know to be wrong and consequently root against him.
This also allows for a better narrative reason that we gather the old gang back. Kylo would believe that Luke, Leia, and Han had duped the galaxy into believing that the fall of the empire was a good thing so our protagonist (Rey or whoever) would need their help in combating Kylo's campaign of terror.
One of the nice things about this approach is that the viewers would naturally oppose or accept Kylo's distortion - few would be undecided. This would incite lots of discussion over Kylo as his argument is particularly against the catharsis of the original trilogy and fans would be inspired to oppose him.
The thing is, there are indications from the movies that this is part of Kylo's motivation but the films needed to really underline this argument so we don't look at Kylo as so obviously wrong.
Just a thought.
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Barometric Pressure
Thought Experiment:
Let's say that there was a man in ancient Israel that had a device which could measure barometric pressure to some degree and perhaps other instruments. Let's also say that doing so allowed him to foretell storms with shocking accuracy considering the methods available in Israel at the time.
Let's further presume that this man was wise and well-known for his kindness and truly only wanted to help his fellow man.
Now let us imagine that this man determined that a horrendous storm was coming and that any crops left in the earth would be destroyed by the imminent storm which his devices indicate will arrive in 24 hours.
Now let us imagine that it was Friday morning and this man knows that given the time of year, the prices of grain and produce from neighboring countries, and the current sociopolitical landscape a devastating crop-destroying storm would be beyond the savings of the nation and result in starvation and strife.
Let's say that the man went to the Sanhedrin Hagadol and/or the King to demand that they order the nation to collect all of their grain immediately.
Is the man able to explain his scientific understanding to the Elders? Will barometric pressure as a concept be something an Elder from 500 BCE can understand before it's too late? Would the man suggest that the nation collect all of their produce even into the evening when collecting produce is prohibited by Torah law?
I don't know. But if the man is right, I hope that the nation listens to him.
Let's say that there was a man in ancient Israel that had a device which could measure barometric pressure to some degree and perhaps other instruments. Let's also say that doing so allowed him to foretell storms with shocking accuracy considering the methods available in Israel at the time.
Let's further presume that this man was wise and well-known for his kindness and truly only wanted to help his fellow man.
Now let us imagine that this man determined that a horrendous storm was coming and that any crops left in the earth would be destroyed by the imminent storm which his devices indicate will arrive in 24 hours.
Now let us imagine that it was Friday morning and this man knows that given the time of year, the prices of grain and produce from neighboring countries, and the current sociopolitical landscape a devastating crop-destroying storm would be beyond the savings of the nation and result in starvation and strife.
Let's say that the man went to the Sanhedrin Hagadol and/or the King to demand that they order the nation to collect all of their grain immediately.
Is the man able to explain his scientific understanding to the Elders? Will barometric pressure as a concept be something an Elder from 500 BCE can understand before it's too late? Would the man suggest that the nation collect all of their produce even into the evening when collecting produce is prohibited by Torah law?
I don't know. But if the man is right, I hope that the nation listens to him.
The Navi Detective
One of the stranger aspects of the Navi persona is the attribute of detection.
Shmuel was apparently well known for finding things such that Shaul (not yet a king) sought him out to find a missing donkey. To some degree, it makes sense to us that a man who regularly communicates with God and can foretell the future would have an easy time of finding lost objects. But why? If nevuah is simply a communication system of reality between man and God, isn't that a little like using 911 to order a pizza? (Shout out to Die Hard.)
The Rambam brings down the detection abilities of the Navi as being an aspect of all neviim so we need not consider Shmuel an outlier. Moshe investigated a lost sheep so perhaps the Rambam is correct and Neviim have a special affinity for finding lost objects. I'm comfortable trusting the Rambam's investigation of the psukim and the words of chazal about them.
But again, the question is why? Why utilize this amazing ability to see the future for trifles such as finding lost objects? And, more to the point, what can we learn about the practice of nevua from its connection to detection?
What's interesting when we consider famous detectives is that we see a pattern. The most famous are fictional detectives such as Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, or Sam Spade which all trace back to real people with biographies. Of the doctor who inspired the Sherlock Holmes character, he utilized an almost encyclopedic knowledge base coupled with a clear mind to infer information about his patients to a disarming degree.
And what of the ability to find things? Today we have procedures and guidelines based upon thousands of years of human investigation and study. We re-trace our steps, we imagine where the object might be. If it is inanimate, we imagine the animate forces which may have moved it. We attempt to narrowly tailor our assumptions to those which most conform with reality as we know it.
And then we go out. We investigate. Each new piece of information refining our understanding of reality and adjusting our prediction for where we will find the object. Much like a fictional detective, we wade into the world with a singular focus and carefully investigate what we find along the way.
I also find it interesting to consider the parallels between the navi persona and the investigative journalist. Uncovering the truth. Shining a light on some ignored or forgotten error of the world. The need to speak out against injustice. To say: "Care for the ger the yasom and the almana! You're errors will cause them harm. Return to the teachings of Hashem - be kind and fair and just."
I can't be sure that the navi persona is connected to the art of detection in any of its manifestations. As it is always possible that God simply allows neviim to utilize this ability to find trifling things such that a man would seek their aid in finding a donkey. But I tend to consider the connections of the psukim as being instructive - I think that art of detection is illustrative when considering the Navi persona.
Shmuel was apparently well known for finding things such that Shaul (not yet a king) sought him out to find a missing donkey. To some degree, it makes sense to us that a man who regularly communicates with God and can foretell the future would have an easy time of finding lost objects. But why? If nevuah is simply a communication system of reality between man and God, isn't that a little like using 911 to order a pizza? (Shout out to Die Hard.)
The Rambam brings down the detection abilities of the Navi as being an aspect of all neviim so we need not consider Shmuel an outlier. Moshe investigated a lost sheep so perhaps the Rambam is correct and Neviim have a special affinity for finding lost objects. I'm comfortable trusting the Rambam's investigation of the psukim and the words of chazal about them.
But again, the question is why? Why utilize this amazing ability to see the future for trifles such as finding lost objects? And, more to the point, what can we learn about the practice of nevua from its connection to detection?
What's interesting when we consider famous detectives is that we see a pattern. The most famous are fictional detectives such as Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, or Sam Spade which all trace back to real people with biographies. Of the doctor who inspired the Sherlock Holmes character, he utilized an almost encyclopedic knowledge base coupled with a clear mind to infer information about his patients to a disarming degree.
And what of the ability to find things? Today we have procedures and guidelines based upon thousands of years of human investigation and study. We re-trace our steps, we imagine where the object might be. If it is inanimate, we imagine the animate forces which may have moved it. We attempt to narrowly tailor our assumptions to those which most conform with reality as we know it.
And then we go out. We investigate. Each new piece of information refining our understanding of reality and adjusting our prediction for where we will find the object. Much like a fictional detective, we wade into the world with a singular focus and carefully investigate what we find along the way.
I also find it interesting to consider the parallels between the navi persona and the investigative journalist. Uncovering the truth. Shining a light on some ignored or forgotten error of the world. The need to speak out against injustice. To say: "Care for the ger the yasom and the almana! You're errors will cause them harm. Return to the teachings of Hashem - be kind and fair and just."
I can't be sure that the navi persona is connected to the art of detection in any of its manifestations. As it is always possible that God simply allows neviim to utilize this ability to find trifling things such that a man would seek their aid in finding a donkey. But I tend to consider the connections of the psukim as being instructive - I think that art of detection is illustrative when considering the Navi persona.
Sunday, February 9, 2020
Reality-Induced Mania
I don't often like to dwell on the "how" of Nevuah as I think that the process by which man attains such a state is very much a "black box." Nobody knows exactly how a mind works when it creates or imagines or thinks. None can say exactly how Einstein's mind worked or how it differed from the minds of other men. Nobody can clearly delineate the precise process of thought, creativity, analysis, etc. went into the theories of a genius. Were one to know the precise measure and mix of such things, genius would be an obviously simple and reproducible phenomenon.
No, I don't think one can classify the mental faculties of Shmuel as compared to Moshe as compared to Yehoshua. The mechanisms of their minds which resulted in prophetic vision/insight/knowledge by understanding the will of reality are eternally unknowable to any humans other than them.
But despite the inherent unknowns surrounding the "how" of prophecy, there are surprisingly many examples of the "habits" of neviim. The Rambam describes shaking, spasming, sleeping, dreaming, etc. Beyond the curious physical actions, the Rambam also describes the Navi as driven - singularly focused upon fulfilling the ratzon hashem (save the notable exception of Jonah).
This behavior is not very dissimilar to the common psychological diagnosis of Mania. I would hardly be the first to suggest that the descriptions of prophecy appear to modern eyes as the acts of madmen. That their visions seem as a psychotic break. There have been numerous papers written, often in attack of the Torah, considering the whole legend of prophecy to be ancient records of mental disorders.
Yet, we have maintained for millennia that there was a method to their "madness." That the apparent psychotic episodes were in fact great instances of communing with the divine. How can we reconcile these two data points?
I wonder how different the singular focus the Rambam describes is from a politician who works late drafting a bill to protect the children of his community. "How does he have the energy?" everyone wonders. "He has worked for days with only 4 hours a night and he is far from young." Such instances make sense to us because the politician is not beyond our conception of what is possible - simply not what we would expect him to be capable of. And we imagine that the politician must care for the children - that that is partly where he gets his strength. That his fear for the safety of the children, his sense of duty to help them in whatever way he can - perhaps that gives him strength.
Prophecy has sometimes been described as a religiously-induced mania. And I think that that definition is proper. But imagine a religion whose sole focus was upon reality. A religion which feared systems of lies. A religion which accepted reality as True and under the direction of One singular Designer.
Could we not say that such men might have focused all of their energy upon accepting the harshest of truths about reality? That such men might have studied the just/merciful/mysterious/unknowable Truth of reality?
What would happen to such men? What would they see? Would they see a beautiful world that God had granted to man? Would they see the marvels of nature and the beautiful design of reality?
What would they see when they narrowed their focus onto the affairs of man? This one creation which is somehow inherently distinctive from the animals which surround it. What would such men think of theft? of murder? of lies?
What if a civilization was making a mistake - an obvious mistake. Why, anyone looking could see that a city like Sdom would have to fall. If we are to believe that the philosophy of Sdom was to be cruel to foreigners, should we be surprised that doing so may enrage neighboring cities? Could such a trait avoid a most obvious war eventually? You don't need to be a navi to know that such a system of justice would lead to destruction eventually.
Is it possible to foresee even better? To know with certainty that reality itself is against such a system? That perhaps a purely astronomical event could be the cause of the destruction which is obvious on its face?
Hard to say.
Records suggest yes. But it's hard for the mind to reckon with predicting such accuracy, yet knowing that the destruction of Sdom must occur is closer than accepting the middos Sdom as "just the way it is."
I wonder if a religion focused upon reality could cause a Reality-Induced Mania. Much like the politician, if a cause is true, it gives us strength. What effect would it have on a man to devote himself completely to the good? How would such a man feel to see imminent destruction which the world could avoid were men to change their ways? Could such a man ignore the call? Could he do nothing?
What kind of compulsion would this man feel to speak, to act? To beg his fellow men to change their ways for their own good? I think that in some measure those who seek to change the world feel this way. That they have a vision for a better world if only they could carefully guide its path. Barack Obama was a man and a politician, but I think that some measure of him sensed the momentousness of guiding the path of America for a short time. He must have felt some need to make the world a better way in his conception of the good. I'd imagine he drew some strength from it.
I think that, at times, such energy is beyond the normal ways of man. I think it could be described as Reality-Induced Mania.
*Special thanks to those three from brunch.
No, I don't think one can classify the mental faculties of Shmuel as compared to Moshe as compared to Yehoshua. The mechanisms of their minds which resulted in prophetic vision/insight/knowledge by understanding the will of reality are eternally unknowable to any humans other than them.
But despite the inherent unknowns surrounding the "how" of prophecy, there are surprisingly many examples of the "habits" of neviim. The Rambam describes shaking, spasming, sleeping, dreaming, etc. Beyond the curious physical actions, the Rambam also describes the Navi as driven - singularly focused upon fulfilling the ratzon hashem (save the notable exception of Jonah).
This behavior is not very dissimilar to the common psychological diagnosis of Mania. I would hardly be the first to suggest that the descriptions of prophecy appear to modern eyes as the acts of madmen. That their visions seem as a psychotic break. There have been numerous papers written, often in attack of the Torah, considering the whole legend of prophecy to be ancient records of mental disorders.
Yet, we have maintained for millennia that there was a method to their "madness." That the apparent psychotic episodes were in fact great instances of communing with the divine. How can we reconcile these two data points?
I wonder how different the singular focus the Rambam describes is from a politician who works late drafting a bill to protect the children of his community. "How does he have the energy?" everyone wonders. "He has worked for days with only 4 hours a night and he is far from young." Such instances make sense to us because the politician is not beyond our conception of what is possible - simply not what we would expect him to be capable of. And we imagine that the politician must care for the children - that that is partly where he gets his strength. That his fear for the safety of the children, his sense of duty to help them in whatever way he can - perhaps that gives him strength.
Prophecy has sometimes been described as a religiously-induced mania. And I think that that definition is proper. But imagine a religion whose sole focus was upon reality. A religion which feared systems of lies. A religion which accepted reality as True and under the direction of One singular Designer.
Could we not say that such men might have focused all of their energy upon accepting the harshest of truths about reality? That such men might have studied the just/merciful/mysterious/unknowable Truth of reality?
What would happen to such men? What would they see? Would they see a beautiful world that God had granted to man? Would they see the marvels of nature and the beautiful design of reality?
What would they see when they narrowed their focus onto the affairs of man? This one creation which is somehow inherently distinctive from the animals which surround it. What would such men think of theft? of murder? of lies?
What if a civilization was making a mistake - an obvious mistake. Why, anyone looking could see that a city like Sdom would have to fall. If we are to believe that the philosophy of Sdom was to be cruel to foreigners, should we be surprised that doing so may enrage neighboring cities? Could such a trait avoid a most obvious war eventually? You don't need to be a navi to know that such a system of justice would lead to destruction eventually.
Is it possible to foresee even better? To know with certainty that reality itself is against such a system? That perhaps a purely astronomical event could be the cause of the destruction which is obvious on its face?
Hard to say.
Records suggest yes. But it's hard for the mind to reckon with predicting such accuracy, yet knowing that the destruction of Sdom must occur is closer than accepting the middos Sdom as "just the way it is."
I wonder if a religion focused upon reality could cause a Reality-Induced Mania. Much like the politician, if a cause is true, it gives us strength. What effect would it have on a man to devote himself completely to the good? How would such a man feel to see imminent destruction which the world could avoid were men to change their ways? Could such a man ignore the call? Could he do nothing?
What kind of compulsion would this man feel to speak, to act? To beg his fellow men to change their ways for their own good? I think that in some measure those who seek to change the world feel this way. That they have a vision for a better world if only they could carefully guide its path. Barack Obama was a man and a politician, but I think that some measure of him sensed the momentousness of guiding the path of America for a short time. He must have felt some need to make the world a better way in his conception of the good. I'd imagine he drew some strength from it.
I think that, at times, such energy is beyond the normal ways of man. I think it could be described as Reality-Induced Mania.
*Special thanks to those three from brunch.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Mark & Joe
MARK: A
materialist maintains all functions of life to be the manifestation of physical
material acting together in a certain way.
JOE: Right.
MARK: Ok, so then the only difference between a
dead body and a live body is that the dead body DOES NOT exhibit the movement
we call life and the live body DOES exhibit the movement we call life.
JOE: Ok.
MARK: So then if I took a dead body, I should be
able to cause the material to make the same movements of life through some
operation.
JOE: What?
MARK: Meaning I can make the body move like it's
alive.
JOE: Like
make it move around – like Weekend at Bernie’s?
MARK: Um,
that too. But also, like, restart him.
JOE: You
mean like, bring him back from the dead?
MARK:
Yes. Resurrect him.
JOE: No.
That’s impossible.
MARK: Why
would it be impossible to move it around? Meaning, if we can move around
Bernie, on a macro level by lifting his arms and moving him a round, if we had even
more precise controls (say to his liver, heart, kidneys, etc.) we would have
even greater control over him.
JOE:
Okay, fine, so we can make him pump his heart and cause his lungs to inflate –
but none of that is resurrection.
MARK:
Okay, so what would be resurrection?
JOE:
Well, he’d have to be able to open his eyes, remember his life, and go on
living.
MARK: Ok,
but according to the materialist, everything is just the movement of our
physical material. So if I can cause the identical movements of the material –
I can trigger the exact same movements which we call life. If the movement
causes the life effect, then control of the movement means control of the life
effect. Basically, I can trigger life.
JOE: But
not if they’re dead.
MARK:
What would be dead?
JOE: How
about dead for 100 years?
MARK: No,
the materialist would argue that a hundred year old body would have degraded
and obviously be beyond recovery.
JOE: Ok,
so how about dead for a year.
MARK:
Again, probably no. I’d say that we would have to study exactly how long a
brain can last and retain its life movements without the ongoing maintenance
the body provides it. But let’s say that a brain can last a few days without
too much erosion.
JOE: So,
basically you’re saying death. You’re making no sense. On the one hand, you’re
saying you can reverse death (which you can’t) and then you’re saying that the
only viable subject is somebody who died like minutes ago – which is what we
currently do. How are you saying anything different than modern medicine?
MARK: I am
saying modern medicine. I’m saying that modern medicine is founded upon the
idea that the body is a machine which can be repaired, upgraded, and healed.
Parts can be removed or augmented, or even replaced. We can replace each of our
parts or improve their performance.
JOE: That’s
not bringing anyone back from the dead, that’s just medicine. Death is
different. Death is when the body breaks down so fully that we can’t replace
anything – like the brain is now just a lump of goo. You can like zap it or
something but it’s never going to “move” the same way again. Because it’s dead
now.
MARK: Ok,
so then we don’t have the ability to trigger life after death.
JOE:
Right. That’s what dead means.
MARK: Right,
okay. So then once the brain degrades to that point, there is no way to revive
the thing and that’s what dead means.
JOE:
Right.
MARK: So
how long can we stretch it out?
JOE: What
do you mean?
MARK:
Like, can we bring back a person a day after they’re dead?
JOE: I
guess, maybe someday, medicine will be able to revive a body even a day after
death like in a hundred years or something. I doubt it, since we’re pretty
advanced in medicine and I think that we know that the limit is basically 8
minutes or whatever.
MARK: Ok,
so 8 minutes is our limit. Functions end. 8 minutes later, revival impossible.
JOE: Yes.
MARK: OK,
so unless medical science figures out how to add to those eight minutes. Better
doctors, better equipment, better techniques. Whatever that number turns out to
be – that’s our death limit.
JOE: Yeah. That’s whatever the final death is of each
society. It used to be death just happened and nobody was revived. Then we
figured out how to revive some people and got better at it so we have the
initial cessation of body functions and then the revival limit.
MARK: So for any given society since the advent of “revival”,
it’s death + revival which varies based upon the medical skill of that society.
JOE: Right. After that, it’s complete death.
MARK: The end.
JOE: But can you restart it?
MARK: We can do the revival, but that’s it.
JOE: So is that revival bringing someone back form the
dead?
MARK: A little bit. But really, that’s just like it
was slipping away and we caught it before it could slip away too far.
JOE: But after that, no more. That’s the end. That’s
death.
MARK: Right.
Monday, October 28, 2019
Avraham, Moshe & Questions
There is an inherent contradiction between the derech of Avraham and the derech of Moshe.
The psukim record Avraham obeying G completely without question in the Akeidah incident. This is particularly strange considering Avraham has received assurance from G that Avraham would have a great nation through Yitzchak. Aside from the obvious objections anyone would raise when tasked to kill their own son, Avraham had blatant contradictions that he presumably could have requested G to resolve. But the psukim give no indication that Avraham responded in any way other than performing exactly the commandment as it was given to him.
Moshe is almost the exact opposite of this. He questions G for days. And he has good questions which G answers. Interestingly, Chazal are very rarely critical of Moshe's continued questioning of G. Even moreso, we say that Moshe's nevua was inherently superior to the nevua of Avraham. So then the obvious question is: who's right?
On the one hand we say that Moshe was the greatest navi who ever lived or would live. It seems that we must say that he was doing something better than Avraham. But the Akeidah is also a pretty fundamental part of our nation as we can see from the psukim as well as our tfillos. So it doesn't sound right to say that the psukim are suggesting that Avraham was doing something wrong when he obeys loyally without question.
I would answer the question by saying that the premise of the question is that either one of them was doing something wrong - I would suggest that they were both implementing different "styles" of b'chira.
Avraham trusted G completely and would do whatever He commanded without question. To him, the basic Truth of G's Existence meant that his own personal understandings were largely irrelevant. G's knowledge is incomparable to our own. If it is clear in one's mind that the commandment is from G, what can one do but follow it?
Moshe had a different style. He questioned G endlessly until he understood. Perhaps this was necessary because of the role he played in history - he had to understand all of the Torah in order to teach it. In some ways, Avraham didn't need to know as much as Moshe. But if Moshe's way is superior, then Avraham missed an opportunity to understand the Ratzon Hashem.
It's possible that Avraham's methods are superior and Moshe simply got further along through his derech than Avraham did with his. Perhaps Avraham's derech can only go so far until one must go further as Moshe apparently did. Or perhaps if Avraham were in the position of Moshe he could have negotiated the release of the Jews without the need for miracles (as most of his troubles were resolved without miracles).
I don't think there's any clear "winner" other than deferring to Moshe's superiority, but the Torah and chazal's treatment of the Akeidah leads me to conclude that they are not at odds, rather different styles of approaching the same goal.
Avraham sought to be in line with the Ratzon Hashem by following it as completely as he understood it.
Moshe sought to be in line with the Ratzon Hashem by questioning it completely until he understood it.
I don't think either are wrong, just different.
The psukim record Avraham obeying G completely without question in the Akeidah incident. This is particularly strange considering Avraham has received assurance from G that Avraham would have a great nation through Yitzchak. Aside from the obvious objections anyone would raise when tasked to kill their own son, Avraham had blatant contradictions that he presumably could have requested G to resolve. But the psukim give no indication that Avraham responded in any way other than performing exactly the commandment as it was given to him.
Moshe is almost the exact opposite of this. He questions G for days. And he has good questions which G answers. Interestingly, Chazal are very rarely critical of Moshe's continued questioning of G. Even moreso, we say that Moshe's nevua was inherently superior to the nevua of Avraham. So then the obvious question is: who's right?
On the one hand we say that Moshe was the greatest navi who ever lived or would live. It seems that we must say that he was doing something better than Avraham. But the Akeidah is also a pretty fundamental part of our nation as we can see from the psukim as well as our tfillos. So it doesn't sound right to say that the psukim are suggesting that Avraham was doing something wrong when he obeys loyally without question.
I would answer the question by saying that the premise of the question is that either one of them was doing something wrong - I would suggest that they were both implementing different "styles" of b'chira.
Avraham trusted G completely and would do whatever He commanded without question. To him, the basic Truth of G's Existence meant that his own personal understandings were largely irrelevant. G's knowledge is incomparable to our own. If it is clear in one's mind that the commandment is from G, what can one do but follow it?
Moshe had a different style. He questioned G endlessly until he understood. Perhaps this was necessary because of the role he played in history - he had to understand all of the Torah in order to teach it. In some ways, Avraham didn't need to know as much as Moshe. But if Moshe's way is superior, then Avraham missed an opportunity to understand the Ratzon Hashem.
It's possible that Avraham's methods are superior and Moshe simply got further along through his derech than Avraham did with his. Perhaps Avraham's derech can only go so far until one must go further as Moshe apparently did. Or perhaps if Avraham were in the position of Moshe he could have negotiated the release of the Jews without the need for miracles (as most of his troubles were resolved without miracles).
I don't think there's any clear "winner" other than deferring to Moshe's superiority, but the Torah and chazal's treatment of the Akeidah leads me to conclude that they are not at odds, rather different styles of approaching the same goal.
Avraham sought to be in line with the Ratzon Hashem by following it as completely as he understood it.
Moshe sought to be in line with the Ratzon Hashem by questioning it completely until he understood it.
I don't think either are wrong, just different.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
The Visionary
Part of my theory on nevuah is that it's not so different from what we mean when we say "visionary." I'm thinking like Steve Jobs or Nikola Tesla. Men who had conceptions of the world of tomorrow that were in line with reality. Obviously these men did their "prophesying" for personal motives to some degree.
Steve Jobs didn't want to move the world toward a better society - he wanted to sell iphones. But he understood the value of computers better than those around him - he understood why people would want them and how to sell them - things his competitors didn't see.
Tesla seemed to revel in the beauty of invention and understanding. But ultimately focused his energies on battling Edison and making money. But his understanding of the world and what inventions we were capable of was far more advanced than those around him.
What if these predictions are what the psukim mean? Dreamers of dreams. If such an ability were focused upon one who had Torah values and saw the innate value of the Torah system - we would have world peace.
What if Shmuel was a navi because he understood the workings of the world better than anyone around him; that he had predicted the outcomes of battles because he knew where to focus his attention; that he understood with clarity certain failings of society and also had insights on methods of improving the world? What if the common practice was to convey these messages to the masses through literature we now call the divrei neviim?
Sometimes the psukim are lyrical, sometimes direct - always focused on the central tenets of Moshe. Would it be so crazy for the Israelites to describe such a person as communicating with G?
What Moshe did would almost have to be different - he created (what has proven to be) and unending system for mankind to maintain. This is either extremely unlikely or obvious. The system lasts because something about it is eternal. There is no other culture which has gone on like the Jews - without a homeland or a government. For millenia we have sustained ourselves in foreign corners of the globe. Everywhere, we survive despite the demise of every other culture we have outlived.
From that time, from that region - we are the only ones still around. What Moshe did was beyond Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs didn't want to move the world toward a better society - he wanted to sell iphones. But he understood the value of computers better than those around him - he understood why people would want them and how to sell them - things his competitors didn't see.
Tesla seemed to revel in the beauty of invention and understanding. But ultimately focused his energies on battling Edison and making money. But his understanding of the world and what inventions we were capable of was far more advanced than those around him.
What if these predictions are what the psukim mean? Dreamers of dreams. If such an ability were focused upon one who had Torah values and saw the innate value of the Torah system - we would have world peace.
What if Shmuel was a navi because he understood the workings of the world better than anyone around him; that he had predicted the outcomes of battles because he knew where to focus his attention; that he understood with clarity certain failings of society and also had insights on methods of improving the world? What if the common practice was to convey these messages to the masses through literature we now call the divrei neviim?
Sometimes the psukim are lyrical, sometimes direct - always focused on the central tenets of Moshe. Would it be so crazy for the Israelites to describe such a person as communicating with G?
What Moshe did would almost have to be different - he created (what has proven to be) and unending system for mankind to maintain. This is either extremely unlikely or obvious. The system lasts because something about it is eternal. There is no other culture which has gone on like the Jews - without a homeland or a government. For millenia we have sustained ourselves in foreign corners of the globe. Everywhere, we survive despite the demise of every other culture we have outlived.
From that time, from that region - we are the only ones still around. What Moshe did was beyond Steve Jobs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)