Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Paragraph 2 redone (part a)

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.

Biur D'varim

The mature Soul shifts from being an intuitive observer whose thought strategies are only useful for the obvious models of the world to an 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 this hypothesis assumed to be 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:

I will offer a hatzaa that will constitute the basis for answering these questions. As we mentioned earlier, all people yearn for Emes that is proximate and real to them. This beginning approach to knowledge, while natural, limits the intuitive thinker to finding Emes as it appears in obvious principles that apply to the characteristics evident in the world as seen by the senses. 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. 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.

As an example of transcending the limitations of the world of sensation let us reconsider 9/11 once again. To this day, there are many who cannot grasp the notion of a mortal idealogical enemy willing to use all means, such as Al -Qaeda- why is this? The reason is that our experience of politics and religion precludes us from considering the notion of a mortal enemy as real. Our experience is filled with secular nations for whom the pursuit of happiness- ie physical pleasure and honor of the individual- is the only value. Subsequently society is an instrument of this pursuit of happiness. Westerners do not take Religion very seriously, in their mind it is not instrumental to the pursuit of happiness. As such the reality of an idealogical enemy, so bent on religious dominion that he will sacrifice his pursuit of happiness and actually employ all means is unthinkable. How could anyone seriously believe a society exists for anything but the pursuit of happiness? To conceive of a world of politics in which there actually exists an idealogical enemy who does not conform to our experience of the pursuit of happiness is simply unimaginable.

An example of this limitation of the intutive thinker, this tme in in the world of Torah is 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. The intuitive reader is accustomed to a torah world composed of an endless list of discrete topics, with no apparent higher synthesis. In this world there is no meaning to general principles such as the dibros underlying the discrete topics. 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.

As an example of the opportunity of the trained trained thinker 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


No comments: