(click on the image to enlarge)
The picture above (source; courtesy of e) reminded me of a statement by the Rogatchover Gaon: “People say there are seventy faces in Torah. But I see ten faces. And if I was smarter, I would see only one face.” Meaning, the smarter and the more erudite in Torah (not to mention the holier) one is, the more one sees Torah not as a bunch of details, but as a small number of klalim (principles, main ideas).
I thought recently while studying Gemara with my chavrusa that this goal is important to keep in mind not just for the whole Torah but even for a small sugya.
(Also, check out “How the Rebbe saw Torah” to hear how one talmid chochom who would come to discuss nigleh with the Rebbe said that the Rebbe is like Rambam.)
On the other hand, I remember a statement by my local rabbi that if there is an inherent danger in studying deep sugyas of Chassidus, then it is in focusing on the “grand scheme” and losing sight of the everyday, simple things. Like thinking how by giving tzedaka one creates giluim in Atzilus, or achdus of Soveiv and Memalei, or Dira b’tachtoinim, but not thinking about the fact that you are simply helping another Jew.
I know, the immediate answer from most people is: well, the two are connected. Can’t have one without the other. And so on. And, yes, that is how it is supposed to be, but my point is: it is easy to loose sight of this.
There is a famous story with Alter Rebbe and Mitteler Rebbe. The latter’s little son once fell out of his crib and was crying. Mitteler Rebbe, who was sitting nearby, was so engrossed in his learning that he didn’t realize that his son was crying. Alter Rebbe came in from another room, picked up the child and calmed him. Then he told Mitteler Rebbe that “however deeply one is absorbed in study, prayer, or the performance of mitzvos, one must always have an ear open to the cries of a Jewish child”.
There is a similar story of Alter Rebbe being a chazan on Yom Kippur. In the middle of Neila, the holiest prayer of the day, when the essence of one’s soul becomes truly united with the Essence of G-d, he stopped, took off his talles and left the shull. On the outskirts of the town a woman had given birth to a child. Alter Rebbe chopped some wood, lit up fire and cooked a soup for the woman.
42 comments:
Ahh yes, nothing like a Rube Goldberg Machine, eh?
so what's the point behind that picture?
TRS: indeed. I built such machines in HS and used to spend hours with computer games involving them.
e: no idea. It’s possible there isn’t one. (Which would be quite an atheist answer.) Have you, by the way, read Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum?
Wait, I think we had a whole discussion about it on FB.
I don't recall any such discussion.
I read it and disliked it. It took WAY too long to get to the point. But I did like how he gives you glimpse into the world of the crazies. It reminded me why math/science is better than humanities.
Well, someone may agree with you on one of those points but disagree on the other.
I personally liked the scenes from Italian past.
I think Umberto Eco is the type of a writer whom you read for the style and the content, not the point.
Does content not equal point?
I think e meant the supposed point of the circuit diagram, not the point of the cartoon (which is to entertain).
I was referring to your characterization of Umberto Eco.
Me too.
Is Umberto Eco the maker of the cartoon? And is a the maker of a cartoon referred to as an "author"?
That is to say: no, the point of the book (the morale) is that there is no plan. But the point of reading the book is not to get to the point of the book but for the content.
Ahh you mean not for the moral lesson, but for the way in which it is brought out?
This is what DNA meant that good art doesn’t have to be about something. Movie music is about something. Good music is not about something; it’s about itself.
Metziusoi m’atzmusoi.
So then in fact what you are referring to is style.
Well, it doesn’t have to be a moral lesson. It could be just the main nekuda. Some books have that. Some books have several of them. For example, the main nekuda of Veniamin Kaverin’s Two Captains is that life is hard, but if you are a person of integrity and great willpower (and make friends with similar people), you will get ahead and be happy — in the end and in the process.
That's not the point, and you know it.
Style? No. I don’t care much for Rafael Sabatini’s style, but his books are full of cool adventures. Of course, there is no lesson or main idea that he is trying to present (well, except, maybe, that if you are good at fencing, in the end you will win the heart of the woman you love).
What’s not the point? And what is the point then?
Touché
Actually, forget that.
When you wrote "style, content... point" you were trying to differentiate between the former two and the latter one. I disagreed with that characterization.
Point = the main idea of the book.
For example, the main idea of FP is that there is no plan. I don’t care about that. But the stories about fascist-occupied Italy or ravings about the Templars and Shakespeare are entertaining. Style I don’t care much for.
Without content and style there can be no point, to wit without the former two the latter can not exist. Read DNA's essay on PGW (which you kindly shared with me) for more on that point.
Nu, but it doesn’t mean they are the same. Keili and oir.
Also, you can have the style and content without a point, as DNA seems to suggest about PGW’s books (or, at least, that the point is irrelevant).
The point of PGW is that there is no point! The point is his style, his way of expressing the English language. The content makes up the point, just as the style does.
I think we are using the word “point” differently. You’re talking about the point of reading (and writing) the novel. I am talking about the point of the novel itself.
You could make up a point for PGW’s books. At least based on J&W, I’d say it could be that you could be a jobless, not especially bright, not especially strong-willed, and somewhat charismatic individual, but if you have manners and upbringing, you’re already worth something.
No, I refer also to the point of the work itself.
No, the lesson is that when you have inherited a large fortune life is pretty good.
On the other hand, there is a clear point in “Yes, Prime Minister”: the British government is not a single entity, but, “a confederation of warring tribes”. And that the advisers are the real people in power, not the advisees.
Of course, getting this point is not the point of watching the show.
Why do you think this is only regarding only the British Government? It's about any organization with more than one member (and sometimes, even one).
Well, the point of the work cannot be its style. Unless, the work is trying to teach about the style.
I suppose that’s why artists hate Malevitch’s Black Square. It is diametrically opposite of what the art is. It has a clear point, and it has zero art.
Lav davka. Money doesn’t bring happiness by itself. It helps, of course, but only if you already know how to get to the happiness.
The point of a work is not its style, but without style there is no work.
Who mentioned happiness?
My lab is not a confederation of warring tribes. We are cooperating with each other with a clear goal. As a result, there is no politics at all.
I think the Britain as portrayed by the show is modern-day Byzantine Empire in the final centuries of its existence.
Yes, but it does not mean that style = point.
How can life be good if one is unhappy?
Is this what it feels like to be a member of humanities?
Right.
Right.
I never said it did. I said that content=point.
I didn't say it was good.
Possibly, but I wouldn't know.
Content is what expresses the point. Hence the word “point” — a singular idea. Unless the book consists of a single sentence (or a thesis), its content is not its point.
Yes you did. You said that "if you have money, life is pretty good".
I still think the books/movies are not about the money.
How does one learn the point? Through the content. The point is merely the essence of the content.
Pretty good ≠ good.
Correct. They're about Jeeves.
Indeed. But we differentiate between the Essence and its expressions, even when they are one. Which is why what Rambam said is not completely appropriate.
Is pretty good pretty?
Maybe the books are. In the show, I connected to both.
And now you know the value of the humanities.
Not necessarily.
Both what?
Do I?
Oh.
Men.
Presumably.
Well yes, of course. I wasn't entirely serious.
Who's DNA?
Douglas Adams, naturally.
Post a Comment