paragraph 2-3

If Emes were obvious in all the inyanim, man, in seeking wisdom, would have no need for anything beyond observation. The more one would observe real world inyanim, the wiser one would become. Yet, we see this is not the case, neither in terms of the apprehender or the apprehended. Indeed, all real world things have many bechinot -principle characteristics - some intrinsic some extrinsic, all of which are Emes. For example, a table's structure, its measure of length or width are intrinsic principles of the table itself. Its use, its value, the time of its construction- are extrinsic principles.

These principle characteristics are not equally obvious however. Some principles are revealed easily through the immediate use of the senses. Other principles are more remote and require real effort to be revealed. The relative remoteness of a given kind of principle also varies from one real thing to another. Principles that may be relatively proximate and immediately obvious to our senses in one thing may be remote in another. For example the use of table is obvious to everyone- i.e. for placement of food and utensils; the use of bread is similarly obvious- food for man. In the case of plants however, the use can be revealed only after great effort- if it is to be revealed at all. The conclusion to be drawn is that not all real world objects are proximate enough that their principle characteristics can be revealed through observation.

Shifting the Souls thinking strategy from that of the "observer" to that of the Emes apprehender

Questions:

1. After establishing the need for an observation based methodology Ramchal identifies and refutes the hypothesis that Emes is obvious in all inyanim. Why is the hypothesis that Emes is obvious natural to the Ramchal's student?

2. What is the difference between inyanim and bechinot?

3. Ramchal shifts the relationship he is referring to from the observer (mashkif) of inyanim to the apprehender (masig) of apprehended (musag). What is the significance of this transition?

Answer:

Once Ramchal liberates his student from thinking of Emes , as an instrument of dominion, establishing it instead as an end in its own right, he begins to develop the orientation of the students Soul to to the means or the thinking strategy by which this Emes is revealed. The student, utilizing his intuitive strategy, would naturally gravitate toward Emes as he is accustomed to seeing it in the world. For example the fan observes plays and reveals the coaches strategy, the politico observes international events and reveals political strategies. The intuitive thinker is predisposed to thinking of Emes with a strategy limited to finding Emes as it appears in the characteristics evident in the world as seen by the senses. The mature mind realizes that rather being the totality of Emes, the Emes as seen in the model of the world as seen through the senses is merely the form of intellectual apprehension (hasaga) that is most proximate to us. The Soul must realize that so long as it is locked into the thinking strategy of the observer,one that is useful only in understanding the world of the senses, it cannot order its thought to excellence. Specifically the Soul must be awakened to two things:

1) there are more advanced thinking strategies beyond the ones we are used to utilizing in the world as seen by the senses.

2) there are more advanced models of the world which allow focus on characteristics of things that are not evident in the world as seen through the senses .

It is this point that Ramchal brings out through his first statement. Indeed, if every expression of Emes were obvious, then the strategy of seeking Emes that is developmentally most obvious to us -ie being mashkif upon inyanim- would be the only one that we would ever need. However, once we realize that observation limits us to Emes as expressed in the obvious principle characteristics of things only, we understand that we need other tools as well. Specifically we must realize that our concept of principle characteristics needs to be expanded. This is the meaning of bechinot. So long as we were observers only, all we could seek was the emes as revealed in the world as framed by sense perception. The fan wondered about the obvious sports principles as seen in the world of sports and the politico wondered about the obvious political principles as seen in th eworld of politics. Neither considered other frameworks or models of the world, in which to research than the one most immediately apparent to them. To expand in ones sense of principles, ones strategy of seeking Emes has to shift from the original one of the observer limited to models of the world such as politics and sports, worlds of obvious principles of emes in inyanim, to a masig who seeks all possible principle characteristics in the musag in worlds beyond that as seen by the senses.

As an example of the limitation of thinking stratgey of the intuitive thinker and the opportunity of the trained one let us take the example of Newton and the falling apple. Newton had a Eureka moment when he saw the principle of gravity in the world of material objects via the example of an apple. Why is it that Newton saw gravity while everyone else did not? The reason is that everyone else was locked into the obvious Emes as seen through in the world as seen by the senses. In this world of obvious principles apples are foods to be enjoyed or perhaps missiles to be thrown. They are assuredly not a system of natural material bodies. To be seen as a system of natural material bodies, a mind would have to be framing apples in a world of physics ie other than the one of the senses

The same limitation can be seen in the reader of the 10 dibros as explained by the Ralbag on Chumash. The intuitive reader might notice that the Ralbag spends a tremendous amount of time on formulating these 10 dibros as the foundations of mitzvot.Very few however, if any, will spend the time needed to incorporate these foundational principles into his own study of Mitzvot-though this is the stated essential point of the Ralbag. Why is this? The reason is that foundational principles have no meaning in the world of the intuitive thinker. For this thinker the impoverished world of torah to which he is accustomed is the only one that can exist. In this world there is no meaning to general principles such as the dibros. For the trained thinker however, the first principle of research is that the habitual observation based framework to which we are accustomed is by definition a gateway to a superior framework based upon hasaga of the principles of a field. Subsequently the trained thinker appreciates the Ralbag as a founder of paradigm seeking to provide the soul with the intellectual bridge from observation of torah to hasaga of the field of Torah.

This realization about the hierarchy of principle characteristics in which Emes can be musag and the accompanying worlds of things in which they are framed is the heart and soul of Ramchals new strategy of thinking. It foreshadows the core instrument of logic: the statement. It is the role of the statement to select the principle framework - the subject - in which we are seeking the Emes of the observable inyan.