Seeing some clues about the Scholem/Tishby conflict

350 years they’ve been having this dispute- could it explain their present psychology at all?

I don’t how your memory is so I’ll repeat that Tishby was Scholem’s first student, and they ended up disagreeing about what secrets were meant for initiates only.

Tishby, are you able to top Bjerknes? I’d like to see that.

This seems to in part be about that idea of “hastening the end”, redemption through sin, actively striving to bring about the Moshiach. Scholem described it as practical mysticism.

There does seem to be something true about this- he’s a sort of Imam Khomeini equivalent

So I just want to know more about the differing views some of his initiates have, in this case specifically Tishby’s. Apparently he wrote a disparaging review of his book Sabbatai Sevi, which runs to over 1000 pages, and I don’t get paid enough for this shit, oh wait I get paid abundantly if you count being scapegoated as a form of currency.

You see what this is about though? The Moshiach vs. the Hidden Imam vs. the Übermensch. And then what would you call the eschatological goal of the sordid fusion of Judaism, Calvinism, and secularism that is the state-religion of the US? What I’ve determined is out of this trident of Judaism, Calvinism, and secularism, it is Judaism that is dominant, thus I’m interested in the following sort of thing

Not much Tishby is in English so hopefully we luck out with this review-essay. Ehhh not looking good so far. I think it’s a substantial point to bring up again that their secrecy regarding Kabbalah has continued into the postmodern age through sheer lack of translation. How many Nazis really care about any of this for instance? They can say whatever they want in Hebrew and the dumbgoyworld will never know anything about it. Definitely DO NOT trust Idel at his word. The ones with lots of books in English should be regarded as suspect. Okay I’ll reason with you- maybe lots of things he says are true. What is in question is what he DOES NOT say.

Oh yeah, I saw this picture of Corbin and Scholem the other day, kinda neat if you ask me

Two of the main representatives of esotericism in the 20th century just having a grand old time even though they’re dire enemies in the clouds. “Your Imam is a bunch of bullshit ya know?” See, I don’t know if talking like that would be allowed in Iran.

Ah a secondary text that mentions Tishby over a hundred times

Isaiah Tishby, one of Scholem’s most important disciples, declares that the divine/demonic relationship is the “cornerstone of the conflict that opposes the mythological tendency and the theological imperative” in kabbalah.

This is NOT something you see very often in English

The Zoharic understanding of the first divine command to Hosea, that he must descend to the demonic, is thus one that will be followed seven centuries later by Scholem and his followers as they established the academic field.

On the contrary I almost exclusively find rabbi-types dismissing the qliphoth as inventions of goyim occultists.

Remember Crowley’s symbols for the different demons?

Something tells me that this will help us refine that provisional attempt of his

Remember that for Scholem Kabbalah is a science of symbols.

the knowledge of the Work of Creation – a term for esoteric study of divine acts dating to at least Talmudic times – can only be superficial unless achieved through engagement with the demonic, whose ultimate personification is the Great Dragon. Allusion, some kind of tropic evocation, by means of the demonic Dragon is necessary for a full knowledge of the Work of Creation.

So, not to get too “out there” for you (not like you mind at this point I’m sure), I speculate that over the centuries they began to take on characteristics of some of these demons they prayed to.

This isn’t all just occultist “woo”, they attempted in a serious manner to capture these phenomena scientifically as possible. Scholem saw it as a dialectic between Platonism and Gnosis in the heart of the Kabbalist, rationalism and mysticism in other words. That’s why when I read that qabalistic witch the other day I recurrently got the sense she knew what she was talking about on a rational level. You want to invoke the devil? There are methods for that. You TURN INTO the demons you invoke.

This writer says generations of Kabbalists have sought to decipher all this before Tishby’s time

the theological scandals they imply (scandals only magnified by the paltriness of the attempts to rationalize them). Rather than mitigating such scandals, portrayals of intimate relationships between the two realms point to a more primordial, more enduring, and hence more unsettling link than splitting.

Apparently for them the demonic emerges from the divine. He calls Tishby’s the most detailed account of the demonic in the tradition of Scholem.

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 )

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: