Here’s some craziness

What Heidegger calls Seyn is marked semantically by kabbalists as Ein Sof, the name that names the name that is beyond all names

Talking about what you can’t talk about- that’s the challenge I set for myself at the moment.

“That doesn’t exist!” The category “exist” doesn’t really apply to it so you’re kind of right. Seyn is above both being and beings. There’s no sephira to represent it because it’s above them all.

They often translate Heidegger’s German into “beyng”. It’s neither being or non-being.

“I just want to live my life, leave me alone about all that.” You live your life within it.

This is the kind of stuff you’d think about in a monastery

a double concealment in virtue of which the nonbeing of beyng dissembles as the being of nonbeing

There are different ways of talking about what I call “the top of the brain”. Usually I talk about it politically. This is a way of looking at it ontologically.

Even Heidegger “resorts” to speaking of it mythologically. Remember the other day I showed you how the kabbalah authority of our time, Sholem, says it’s a science of symbols? This is why it’s immature to dismiss Christ for instance as being a “myth”, because even the most advanced mystics need myth of some form in order to understand what is beyond human.

Beyng isn’t the divine precisely. Beyng is the context in which humans experience gods.

Who decides to experience them?

the decision in this case is not made by gods against one another but by humans and gods jointly

The reversal of the withdrawal or flight or death of god is up for god to decide as much as us.

A myth that precedes the myth of genesis

Before all the emanation Ein Sof was alone bemusing himself

Click here if you want to see my thoughts on the puzzle of creation. What, you don’t feel like chilling in a monastery this morning?

the first stirrings of the divine will to be garbed in the sefirotic gradations

For the rabble, the “big bang” is superimposed over the puzzle of creation. This is one of the main ways that science removes the mystery of being. It doesn’t really explain being ultimately, it just gives people the “feeling” that it’s explained. I.e. it’s another myth, one that’s disguised as a non-myth.

Why they historically kept the youth and women away from kabbalah

wherein it was appropriate for all the worlds to be created, he made a garment [levush] from the light of his essence, which is the Torah.

They knew its “mythical” nature. It’s just garb, it’s not god itself. The problem is, unless the naive are told it’s god they will turn to atheism. I honestly find some solidarity with Jews in that we both have to live in this atheistic age. Whoa, your women are a bunch of whores too? It looks like we’re similar in one regard. Seeing myth as fiction rather than as symbolism that expresses higher truth is the main thing that causes all the nihilists in our world. Not everyone can be a “kabbalist”, sorry, and without religion you are doomed. Being woke is the exact opposite of what it purports to be- no, you are living in darkness and hell. Surprise!

Heidegger calls it a “trembling”, this is the kabbalist take

Ein Sof, may he be blessed, quivered in himself, and he shone and sparkled from within himself to himself, and that quivering is called bemusement

“I don’t care what reality was like before reality existed!” Okay, you shouldn’t have stopped by the monastery then.

Reading about this stuff gives me moments where I feel closer to god. That’s the best you can ask for at this nadir of the political cycle.

This is a more down-to-earth way of phrasing it (good luck with that)

They said concerning the secret of wisdom that it is from the light that emanates from the hidden source

What are those “sapphires” anyway?

The glimmerings disclosed through the bemusement of the infinite are the aspect of points. These points and the contraction are identified respectively as mercy and judgment

The cathedral and I are opposing sapphires, both glimmerings of infinity’s bemusement. How does that make you feel? There’s no satire like bringing up the Ein Sof, truly. Parodying being rather than “a” being. People prefer candy, consuming “some” being or another. The irony is that this post itself is “a” being. You talk about this subject only to make clear our limits. The context can be talked about within the context.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: