Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Reason incarnate in existence

Before summarizing our first approach to the word tzelem, I sense, as I always have, a great tension, that needs to be allowed to dissipate. Let us all take a deep breath, as we gently allow our intuition to to move our souls past their initial starting points.

Thank you commentors for your initial salvo. Perhaps we all can benefit from reminding ourselves of Rambam's advice, in approaching translation. In essence, he notes that translation, must be done in the context of thinking about a subject, a real world area, that the word or piece is about.

Let me premise one canon. Whoever wishes to translate, and purposes to render each word literally, and at the same time to adhere slavishly to the order of the words and sentences in the original, will meet with much difficulty; his rendering will be faulty and untrustworthy. This is not the right method. The translator should first try to grasp the sense of the subject thoroughly, and then state the theme with perfect clearness in the other language. This, however, can not be done without changing the order of the words, putting many words for one word, or vice versâ, and adding or taking away words, so that the subject be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates. This method was followed by Honein ben Is'hak with the works of Galen, and his son Is'hak with the works of Aristotle. It is for this reason that all their versions are so peculiarly lucid, and therefore we ought to study them to the exclusion of all other. 

We may not be perfectly aligned in the word we choose as most similar to tzelem. Yehuda and Micha chose "model", Dan -essence I chose "principle" and Hagyan chose the phenomenon which is to be gleaned from craftmanship as in Yirmiyahu.

יח הדבר אשר היה אל-ירמיהו, מאת יהוה לאמר: 2 קום וירדת בית היוצר; ושמה אשמיעך את-דברי: 3 וארד בית היוצר; והנהו (והנה-הוא) עשה מלאכה על-האבנים: 4 ונשחת הכלי, אשר הוא עשה בחמר ביד היוצר; ושב, ויעשהו כלי אחר, כאשר ישר בעיני היוצר לעשות:    פ
5 ויהי דבר-יהוה אלי לאמור: 6 הכיוצר הזה לא-אוכל לעשות לכם בית ישראל נאם-יהוה; הנה כחמר ביד היוצר, כן-אתם בידי בית ישראל:    ס    7 רגע אדבר, על-גוי ועל-ממלכה; לנתוש ולנתוץ ולהאביד:

The common thread of meaning here is, I think, that pointed to by Einstein in his phrase- reason incarnate in existence. This phrase, I think, refers to our foundational intuition that there is in fact an expression of idea in the external things we see around us. It is not just Newton who can apprehend a unifying idea actually expressed in the material apples around us- we all can apprehend a reason incarnate in the things around us.

Model
refers to reason incarnate in existence in the sense of an approximation of our minds, due to our limited apprehension of reason incarnate in existence.

Essence and principle
refer to the underlying idea expressing itself via the core properties of a thing such as the ability to speak and act justly, rather than details such as color in a man. This notion is of the external thing, more so than the limitations of our apprehension.

Hagyan's sense of craftsmanship pointed to by  Yirmiyahu similarly refer to this sense of reason incarnate in existence, in the sense that a craftsman imprints an idea or design, upon his material, producing a product, expressive of the idea in its structure.

15 comments:

Hagyan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Guttmann said...

you probably mean that "reason incarnate in existence" is to actualize the Tzelem in potentia.

I have problems with Hagyan's source.There it would seem to me to indicatye a Tzelem that has decided not to actualize himself. He is therefore left to the vagaries of creation without a goal.

לָכֵן, כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, שַׁאֲלוּ-נָא בַּגּוֹיִם, מִי שָׁמַע כָּאֵלֶּה: שַׁעֲרֻרִת עָשְׂתָה מְאֹד, בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. יד הֲיַעֲזֹב מִצּוּר שָׂדַי, שֶׁלֶג לְבָנוֹן: אִם-יִנָּתְשׁוּ, מַיִם זָרִים קָרִים--נוֹזְלִים. טו כִּי-שְׁכֵחֻנִי עַמִּי, לַשָּׁוְא יְקַטֵּרוּ; וַיַּכְשִׁלוּם בְּדַרְכֵיהֶם, שְׁבִילֵי עוֹלָם, לָלֶכֶת נְתִיבוֹת, דֶּרֶךְ לֹא סְלוּלָה.

Hagyan said...

Rabbi Sacks,

1. No position you have explicitly attributed to me is mine.

2. I withhold my assent insofar as you include me in some consensus (such as several of your invocations of "we", "our", etc.).

3. I can assign no meaning to Einstein's expression "reason incarnate in existence" which is consistent with what I observe. Had he studied Al-Farabi's logical works, I believe Einstein would have understood his own scientific "life" differently.

Hagyan said...

The more time I spend thinking about the expression "reason incarnate in existence" in its originial context, the more queasy I feel, and the more I wonder whether it's "useful background material".

Here's just one of the things that bothers me: Einstein tacitly assumes that his type of person, a leading modern physicist, is the type of person most "in-touch with reality", the highest achievement in the development of Man. A דעה רעה. And we know from the רמב"ם that דעות רעות necessarily "point to" distortions of the intellect's perception.


Question (to all):

Do you find any serious distortions in the article's content or point-of-view? Do they affect the "usefulness" of this "background material"?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Reb David

Could you make explicit the ambiguity in what I said that you are clarifying?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Hagyan

1. I stand corrected. Could you help me by drawing out what you see in Yirmiyahu?

2. I do not feel offended by Einstein.I am far too offended by the courseness of culture as I it all around me to be troubled by a relatively thoughtful statement such as his.

David Guttmann said...

I wanted to make clear that Tzelem Elokim is a quality in potentia that needs to be actualized. The way you present it
"This phrase, I think, refers to our foundational intuition that there is in fact an expression of idea in the external things we see around us" which incidentally is a very good explanation of "Tzurah", puts the Tzelem of man at the same level as that of the rest of existence. I just wanted to clarify that it is different.

Hagyan said...

Rabbi Sacks,

Re: "1. ... Could you help me by drawing out what you see in Yirmiyahu?"

My main interest there was not its essential resemblance, but that it exemplified [1] a "complete phenomenon" and a "causal whole" (as "demarcated" by the wise), unlike [2] ethereal dictionary definitions for 'model', 'principle', etc. Type [1] can be an object, even if a "distant" one, for the intellect's apprehension of simple (alt.: "indivisible") intelligibles, while type [2] cannot.

Re: "2. I do not feel offended by Einstein. I am far too offended by the courseness of culture as I it all around me to be troubled by a relatively thoughtful statement such as his."

I share your sentiments about Einstein, even as I am concerned about "serious distortions" filtering from him into the מורה.

David Guttmann said...

A quality (from Latin qualitas[1]) is an attribute or a property. (wikipedia)

I see Tzelem Elokim in the sense of property of a human being.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Thank you Reb David. By existence do you mean material existence or Created existence? Or true existence?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...

Hagyan

Thank you. Let us be careful to keep Einstein as useful as he can be, but not more so.

Hagyan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagyan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagyan said...

Rabbi Sacks,

I noticed that the two parts of my answer to you above are about the same issue, as seen in either:

(1) the soul's קנין of the subject matter of logic (see Al-Farabi's introduction to his commentary on De Interpretatione); or
(2) "distortions of perception" articulated in the "exterior speech" of the concrete instance 'Einstein', qua 'חכם אומות העולם'.

In my own coming-to-understand, until I grasped intellect-apprehending-its-simple-objects intelligibly, I "viscerally" experienced Einstein as "the type of person most 'in-touch with reality'" and as "the highest achievement in the development of Man" (as I commented earlier.); i.e. I experienced him as a concrete instance of "reason incarnate in [human] existence".