Isaac Newton, search for god.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you, old friend. I hope that you and your beloved Maria are both well.

It is neither death nor life we cherish, we bide our time together in mindfulness and love steeped😵

Originally posted by vistesd
The point (and I think Bosse’s point) is that such terms from a polysemous language such as Biblical Hebrew cannot be simply and accurately translated into another language without leaving some of their meanings behind. This is why traditional rabbinical hermeneutics is geared against what rabbi and scholar Marc-Alain Ouaknin called the “idolatry of the one ‘right’ meaning”.

I suspect though that the real problem is that the meaning is not contained in the language but rather in the knowledge and culture of the speaker (writer) and that that may be lost. It is often lost during translation but it is also similarly lost as culture changes over time and as people of different cultures learn the language.
Even people of the same culture and language cannot communicate perfectly because words hold slightly different meanings for them.
These concepts are often quite obvious in this multicultural forum where many words hold vastly different meanings depending on what religion or culture we come from even when we speak very good English or English is our native language.
To often we argue over definitions instead of simply trying to understand what we each mean by a given word or phrase.

I would guess that your knowledge of the word 'shekinah' is based on what you or others are able to determine from is use in Hebrew writing or from native Hebrew speakers, but if those writings or speakers are far removed culturally from the original text in question, even your understanding of it may be different from the original authors intent.

You also appear to be saying that the original authors intent is less important than what you as a reader may choose to gain from reading the text. There could be problems with this view if the readers intent is to understand the authors true meaning - as is usually the case when Christians read the Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suspect though that the real problem is that the meaning is not contained in the language but rather in the knowledge and culture of the speaker (writer) and that that may be lost. It is often lost during translation but it is also similarly lost as culture changes over time and as people of different cultures learn the language.
Even people of the sa o understand the authors true meaning - as is usually the case when Christians read the Bible.

Hi, tw! Hope you are well.

You are of course right about the difficulties in communicating in any language, even within a shared cultural context. And language changes (e.g., the English word “evil” did not necessarily mean in the 16th/17th centuries what it generally does now). Dictionaries give no more than the range of conventional usages.

I think it can be very difficult, sometimes impossible, to get at the original intent of the writer. In a language like ancient Hebrew (just as an example), I would even question an assumption that the original writer could have only intended a single meaning, among the complex of meanings available for one word or phrase. Traditional rabbinical exegesis sometimes seems almost “post-modern” in the fact that it does privilege the reader (the dictum that one must bring one’s own torah to the written torah, and only out of that engagement does “true” Torah emerge).

The kind of literalism that strictly seeks the singular original intent of the authors of ancient literature (which often takes the form of myth and poetry that is, by its very nature, subject to varied interpretation) is, it seems to me, a quite modern phenomenon. I used to think that “rationalist-literalists” (for lack of a better term) were only reacting to the literalism of, say, Biblical fundamentalists—that is, accepting that such fundamentalists are correct in their view that Biblical texts are supposed to be read more or less literally, and then pointing out the absurdities). But I have become more convinced that people have generally become “cook-book” readers, who do not want to deal with metaphor and allegory and paradox unless there is some footnote explaining what the “correct” interpretation is. [The Biblical corpus presents a number of literary genres (compare, e.g., the Psalms to Ecclesiastes to Kings/Chronicles to the Prophets to the Gospels).]

A cookbook is, of course, a cookbook. And it makes sense to read it as such. The Tao Te Ching (for example) is not a cookbook, and it makes little sense to try to decipher it as if it were. Some literatures are aimed at engaging the individual reader interpretively; some are aimed at eliciting some aesthetic response. It’s not totally free-form (or else one would just present a blank page), but it isn’t “cookbook” either. (Then again, when I do use a cookbook, I do not feel personally bound by the recipe as given—I feel free to introduce variations according to taste. Arguing over the one “right” meaning of the Tao Te Ching would be a bit like arguing over the one “right” way to cook paella.)

I don’t know if I’ve explained that very well. Let’s just say that some ancient literatures that include philosophical content (or intentional stimulus toward philosophical inquiry) are nonetheless not amenable some modernistic reading strategies. The Tao Te Ching is certainly one. Some people don’t want to adopt the kind of reading strategies that I think such works actually ask for, and would rather be told "what it means".

[I don’t want to argue over Biblical interpretation at all.]

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t know if I’ve explained that very well.

I think I understand you, or at least I have got meaning out of what I have read, whether that is my own constructed meaning as assisted by your words or whether it is your intended meaning is not that important.
I think the effect can be understood even better when discussing fiction. A good author can lead you to imagine far more than what is contained in his words and thus you create half the story in your own mind, and the more imaginative you are the better the story will be for you. If an author gets too descriptive he can actually spoil the story. A good story about morals does not tell you the answer, but rather leaves you wondering and you are forced to think about what the moral is, and whether you agree with it or not, and you may never get an answer.
Of course this leaves literalists in a difficult position. If you believe the Bible is an important message from God then Gods original intent takes precedence over what meaning you can personally derive from the text. However, having said that, it is quite obvious that the vast majority of people claiming to be literalists, nevertheless start off with an idea and try to find justification for it in the words of the Bible and when challenged will get more and more creative when it comes to determining the authors 'original' intent. It is quite rare to see anyone actually change their opinions after reading the Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suspect though that the real problem is that the meaning is not contained in the language but rather in the knowledge and culture of the speaker (writer) and that that may be lost. It is often lost during translation but it is also similarly lost as culture changes over time and as people of different cultures learn the language.
Even people of the sa ...[text shortened]... o understand the authors true meaning - as is usually the case when Christians read the Bible.

This is a fine argument, and along with vistesd I will try to give it a shot from a different angle; when it boils down to abstract ideas like Shekinah/ Mulaprakirti, which are part of a specific meditative structure and they have to be understood by means of both conceptual and non-conceptual awareness, at a given time we are forced to leave the book behind and to start thinking (building up our position according to our given point of attention, that is) on our own. This means that meditation becomes as practical as, say, chess: you may be well aware of the theory, however many times you have to depend solely on yourself in order to improvise, and there is nothing that you can use in order to get a grip because there is nothing that can work this way due to the fact that it is impossible to know what exactly would be the outcome once you collapse the wavefunction. You are all alone.

At that level of awareness Shekinah/ Mulaprakriti are starting-up symbols; and, as every other symbol, they look like an oasis in an endless desert -the desert known as mind; “oasis” is “understanding the nature of the reality inside and outside of yourself”. In an “oasis” you can take your sweet time and start the construction of your personal theory of reality
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I understand you, or at least I have got meaning out of what I have read, whether that is my own constructed meaning as assisted by your words or whether it is your intended meaning is not that important.
I think the effect can be understood even better when discussing fiction. A good author can lead you to imagine far more than what is contained intent. It is quite rare to see anyone actually change their opinions after reading the Bible.

Well, we have a nice little patchwork quilt of interrelated ideas here! I just want to add two more, the first with regard to your original point about language, culture and communication; the second spinning off your comment about fiction, and bb’s “oasis”.

The first: Most of us, I think, tend to think in language. And our habitual thought patterns (not just what we think, but how) tend to follow the linguistic patterns of our original language. If we simply try to transfer these general thought patterns to another language, the result might be incomprehensible to a person from whose original language we are translating—especially if idiomatic usages are taken into account. [A trivial example: While reading Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset (in English translation), I came upon a comment by the translator that the phrase “to take time” (tomar el tiempo? o tomar las veces?) means what, in conventional English, we would mean by “to waste time”.]

EDIT: Or, how much more pretentious does “the lord Jesus Christ” sound in English than does “el señor Jesucristo” in Spanish? According to Abraham Joshua Heschel, the Hebrew adonai was a “humble” a term of respect, not a grandiose or pretentious one.

The second: There is the question of whether the religious venture can be a cognitively creative one, or must be a cognitively receptive one—or some mixture.

One might use the analogy of a connect-the-dots coloring book. How is one permitted to draw the connecting lines? What colors is one permitted to use in coloring? Is one permitted to ever color outside the lines? Well, there is really only one doctrinal rule in traditional rabbinical hermeneutics (following the oral tradition, some of which became written down in the talmuds—which are intended to further, not freeze, the creative exegetical process; i.e., the continuing oral torah): Shema Yisrael adonai eloheinu adonai ehad. And even that is subject to some interpretation.

The letters of the written Torah are the dots. In a torah scroll, the letters are not yet separated into words—let alone phrases and sentences. There are no capital letters. There is no punctuation. There are no vowels (vowel points were not developed until the early centuries C.E.; some rabbis have claimed that the text should not be vowelized, because that artificially constrains the range of potential meanings). Rabbinical reading has largely emphasized the creative side, since before the time of Christ. Again, though, the “dots” are given, but the possibilities for drawing the lines are so expansive that new possibilities are kept alive.

Now, some people will disagree that such creative approaches can be valid. That’s fine.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, we have a nice little patchwork quilt of interrelated ideas here! I just want to add two more, the first with regard to your original point about language, culture and communication; the second spinning off your comment about fiction, and bb’s “oasis”.

The [b]first: Most of us, I think, tend to think in language. And our habitual thought pat ...[text shortened]... ive.

Now, some people will disagree that such creative approaches can be valid. That’s fine.[/b]

Yes; so I trade your whole post with these four words:

-- "I am the Truth".
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes; so I trade your whole post with these four words:

-- "I am the Truth".
😵

In true modernist spirit, the shekinah anticipated Gertrude Stein's pronouncement on the rose with the serial statement I AM THAT I AM THAT I AM ...

What is the sum of this statement? Is there a limiting value? Does it tend towards a point?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In true modernist spirit, the shekinah anticipated Gertrude Stein's pronouncement on the rose with the serial statement I AM THAT I AM THAT I AM ...

What is the sum of this statement? Is there a limiting value? Does it tend towards a point?

Methinks it tends towards the idea that there are seemingly many ways leading to the Middle Way, however they are in fact solely two: one’s inner truth and one's attitude -and both of these ways are one, because they are solely a product of the evaluation of the mind. Since this oneness is just another notion and it’s empty, it cannot exist outside of my mind; therefore “I am the Truth” and "I am who I am"
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks it tends towards the idea that there are seemingly many ways leading to the Middle Way, however they are in fact solely two: one’s inner truth and one's attitude -and both of these ways are one, because they are solely a product of the evaluation of the mind. Since this oneness is just another notion and it’s empty, it cannot exist outside of my mind; therefore “I am the Truth” and "I am who I am"
😵

A rose is a rose is a rose ...

Not a bad mantra actually.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A rose is a rose is a rose ...

Not a bad mantra actually.

It seems to me it's rather an illustration than a mantra; in my opinion the “inner truth” is clearly related to the idea of one's own Li, of the Li within each one of us. The problem here is that the Chinese philosophers express themselves by means of aphorisms and illustrations and allusions instead of offering a specific clear articulation and a systematic reasoning like the Western philosophers. However I see an inner synthesis between the Eastern and the Western approach during the multileveled cross check regarding the validity/ falsification of every given theory of reality that becomes the agent for my “inner truth”, because with the Eastern method I am enabled to eliminate distinctions and to tell what its object is not, whilst with the Western I can make distinctions and to tell what its object is. So I see no contradiction between these two systems.

Therefore I conclude that my “inner truth” is my ever changing product during my interaction with the Worlds 1, 2 and 3, and this product cannot exist without me, and this is the reason why “I am the Truth” thus “I am who I am”
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A rose is a rose is a rose ...

Not a bad mantra actually.

yes but try saying it continually!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but try saying it continually!

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain although mainly it rains not in the plain of Spain; we could further agree that the Christian concept of Trinity is bonkers😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain although mainly it rains not in the plain of Spain; we could further agree that the Christian concept of Trinity is bonkers😵

Lol yes, its bunkum! (i do not want to detract beetle from your discussion with Bosse and Visted, but indulge me just for a moment for i am having excellent correspondence with Yannis , concerning Najdorf Sicilian, he reckons that you feel ...a6 is wasted tempo, but oh, the black he is waiting and gaining some reconnaissance information, before deciding his plan, even threatening to play ...e5 if the white he permits)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol yes, its bunkum! (i do not want to detract beetle from your discussion with Bosse and Visted, but indulge me just for a moment for i am having excellent correspondence with Yannis , concerning Najdorf Sicilian, he reckons that you feel ...a6 is wasted tempo, but oh, the black he is waiting and gaining some reconnaissance information, before deciding his plan, even threatening to play ...e5 if the white he permits)

Nope! I told Ulysses that in my opinion ...a6 is nesessary for that system -I just explained him that the Najdorf is not exactly my taste and that I prefer the Schevy, therefore I would need exhausting preparation at the Najdorf in order to overcome my antipathy for an early ..a6, an antipathy caused because of my inclination for the Scheveningen and its hybrids.
You see, I do not understand the -full of poison for both colours- Najdorf well enough in order to include it with good results in my Black repertoire 1. ...c5 and, on the other hand, since I always play 1.d4, I don't feel that I have to bother with the Najdorf;
😵